Posted on 01/13/2010 9:10:37 AM PST by nutmeg
"CPAC is my kind of people...I'm truly honored and flattered to be able to speak at CPAC as their keynote speaker on February 20th" -- Glenn Beck, 1/13/10
Glenn Beck will be Closing Keynote Speaker at CPAC 2010!
Glenn Beck is the Keynote Speaker at CPAC 2010 (YouTube video runs 2:41 minutes)
Also...
I attended CPAC in 2008. Some of the attendees may have been of moderate persuasion--for example, when John McCain arrived, he was greeted with shouts of "Mac is back!" However, the vast majority of attendees and presenters were mainstream conservatives, and Ann Coulter was the biggest draw.
It will be interesting to see how they handle Rubio showing up. Or not, I’m sure they’ll be hypocritically selective in who they attack for speaking at CPAC.
LOL, I guess I did miss that memo!
What the heck is going on on FR lately? FReepers used to be interested in FACTS. There is so much misinformation on FR about CPAC. Most on FR who bash CPAC have never even attended it, or maybe did once years ago. I assure you, it is overall a gathering of CONSERVATIVES - at least it has been for the past 7 years that I've attended the conference.
Palin his big on ethics, and the sponsors of CPAC did a bad thing with the Fed Express issue. I think she makes a mistake to skip the meeting, given that it is a big conservative gathering (whatever you think of the sponsors), but she is being principled and I certainly wouldn’t hold it against her.
I also won’t attack others for showing up and speaking to the conservatives. And if conservatives here dislike CPAC, they should put together a better conference for conservatives, because we NEED these gatherings.
And I’m not even a big fan of Glenn Beck. I just think it’s stupid for conservatives to shoot ourselves in the head over stuff like this.
Nope. But I have streamed speeches in past years and I watched Rush's last year on Fox.
However, I had some doubts recently about the organization just from picking up some negative comments on a few threads. After your comment, I did a FR keyword search on CPAC and found there is lots of controversy at or just beneath the surface. So I repeat my comment that Sarah is smart to stay away as she is under the magnifying glass more than Romney, Pawlenty, or any other potential presidential candidate. Why step into it when there are other forums that will serve to advance conservative issues and values?
Eh...some Freepers are not being too discriminating in their denouncements.
I have issues with people like Keene. To go from that point to suggesting it’s a conference entirely composed of “RINO’s” is a bit ridiculous. There are some people attending I have no issues with. I just will not support an event Keene and current leadership is responsible for.
In Sarah’s case she has a valid reason not to attend aside from the questionable practices of CPAC leadership these days. Keene has taken shots at her time and again (on behalf of Mitt). Loss for her? No, loss for him. As you say, she’d bring the house down. Outside of Rush who can do that in conservative circles? Glenn’s fine but not in the same league as her.
I won’t denounce people like Rubio who attend though. There are conservatives there and he can use the high profile slot.
Great post in #43, Charles. I certainly don’t hold it against Sarah Palin (whom I love) that she won’t attend CPAC, but it’s a lose-lose situation for both, IMO. CPAC conservatives would LOVE to see/hear Sarah in person and I know Sarah would love the thousands of adoring conservatives in the CPAC crowd. It’s really too bad, but I plan on enjoying the conference - as I always do - anyway.
So because FR is boycotting CPAC, I guess it is verboten that I attend CPAC? I posted the full list of CPAC cosponsors and exhibitors in #29. Tell me that the groups on those lists aren't overwhelmiingly conservative.
Along with his negative attributes, you included the word "Mormon." Is that also a negative attribute?
Not all conservatives, to be sure. But it would sure be funny to watch tea-party folks picketing Doug Hoffman for speaking at CPAC.
- Hon. John Ashcroft*,
- Glenn Beck*,
- Amb. John Bolton*,
- Andrew Breitbart*,
- Herman Cain*,
- Tucker Carlson*,
- Ann Coulter*,
- Hon. Newt Gingrich*,
- Doug Hoffman*,
- David Keene*,
- Wayne LaPierre*,
- Rep. Ron Paul*,
- Gov. Tim Pawlenty*,
- Hon. Mitt Romney*,
- Hon. Marco Rubio*,
- Hon. Rick Santorum*
Actually, no it wouldn't, it would be sad.
The funny thing is we “birthers” are right. Everyone knows there is something very fishy about Obama’s birth circumstances. Whether he is an NBC remains to be seen. My guess is that he is not related to Obama Sr.
I'm not a big fan of Keene, either, but until CPAC morphs into a full-blown RINOFest, I plan to be there. My husband and I and our conservative friends have enjoyed CPAC since 2003 immensely.
IN 2008, facts did not keep Barack Obama from winning an election.
Some conservatives seem to have taken from that the lesson that facts and truth don’t matter anymore, that the important thing is to pick one candidate, trash all the other candidates, and be as down, dirty, and loose with the truth as the opposition.
One day, I expect to see the “Reagan Man Party”, consisting of one person.
Yeah, those darn RINOs that always show up at CPAC each year... ;-)
Which article is this?
No, they are. And thanks for posting these lists.
I am agnostic on the issue. I do not believe I have seen proof of where Obama was born. Of course, I have not seen proof of where ANY of the Presidents in my lifetime were born, or virtually any of the other people I’ve voted for that had to meet residency or other requirements.
I’ve always just taken it on faith that someone responsible for this sort of thing would actually raise the flag if there was a problem. Not the media, but if I were running an actual political campaign and raising millions of dollars for it I think I’d have a really good lawyer look into whether my opponent met the qualifications.
At this point, I’d consider it a real issue only if there was a piece of evidence that showed Obama was born someone else. And since I’ve always been of the opinion (non-legal-opinion, as I am not a lawyer) that a child born to an American mother giving birth on American soil is a natural-born citizen, I’ve never been on board with the argument that both parents had to be citizens.
But again, I’ll let the lawyers fight that out. And the fact that there appears to be no credible legal challenges suggests that by and large the conservative legal community feels there is no case to be had.
I would understand why some politicians might find it prudent to ignore the issue, so I wouldn’t find the lack of political fight to be persuasive, but there is no real negative side to a high-powered conservative legal team following up, if they thought there was something there there.
Sure, it’s more of a technical, logical argument, but I find such arguments generally yield good results when discussing well-known conspiracy theories.
Still, so long as those who are fighting the birth issue don’t use it as a discriminator to divide the movement, I will also argue that those of us who don’t “care”, and those who are anti-birth-movement, should not attack the birth-movement folks.
You can attend anything that you like. But JimRob won’t compromise by attending a “conservative” event co-sponsored by a gay group. Your choices are yours. I was only informing those that may not know what the boss has said.
Mitt appeared at CPAC twice since CPAC was founded in 1973.
So you state that CPAC is a "Mitt-celebration" and "is no longer is focused on conservative movement."
Tell me about your experiences over the past few years of actually attending CPAC. (I've attended CPAC every year since 2003)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.