The 37th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which
took place in D.C. last week, came at a happy time for conservatives,
what with the recent election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the
increased visibility of the Tea Party movement due to their own recent convention, and a wave of bad press for
Democrats.
So rightbloggers -- a large number of whom were credentialed for the event -- were juiced.
"CPAC2010: An Event to really irritate the Libs," decreed RedState, was "on its way to ensuring many
Conservative victories in November of 2010."
They had another reason to lay claim to the future: A lot of very young
attendees.
"There are 10,000 people at CPAC,"
rightblogger Melissa Clouthier told the Austin Capital
Times.
"Probably half of them are under age 25." (Organizers said nearly half the crowd was under 22.) "So there's a
LOT of young people, and a lot of energy. And there's more hope."
Along
with hope, there was also -- perhaps partly in consequence of the
younger crowd -- a little trouble with message control. This year's CPAC
straw poll of Presidential contenders was topped by Ron Paul, which endorsement of
Paul's
libertarianism was a large change for the event (Mitt Romney, who
had
won the previous three years' straw polls, come in second).
Children
being the future, CPAC pandered to its younger attendees with a
"XPAC Lounge" featuring hiphop, video games and even comedians. "You see kids kicking back," said
XPAC organizer Stephen Baldwin, "eating popcorn, checking email
on their
Wifi with blazing speed."
One of the kids decided to try a
little standup of his own at the CPAC
lectern. In his routine, Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation
called liberal women ugly, identified a "feminist new black man" as "a
cross-over between RuPaul and Barney Frank," and made fun
of Obama using
cocaine.
A tonic for the troops, no doubt, and like the Nancy Pelosi Pinata, par for the partisan
course at
such gatherings. Rightbloggers endeavored to get some extra mileage out
of it by shaming folks who found Mattera's jokes in poor taste. There
were plenty of these, but it's always better when they
can get after the New York Times. The Times report
appeared under the title, "CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, in Racial Tones," and
reporter Kate Zernike said Mattera used "a Chris Rock
voice" in his act.
This mild rebuke provoked a deluge of rightblogger rage. "Surprise: NY
Times Finds Racial Stereotyping at Conservative Convention," said NewsBusters. "NYT: Brooklyn Accent = RAAAACIST!"
said The Jawa Report. Hot Air's Ed Morrissey defended Mattera: "He's been calling
me his 'brothah' in his pronounced Brooklyn accent since the day I met
him."
Dan Riehl accused Zernike of "smearing" Mattera and
added: Look, I know a black guy.
"Some on the Left continue to toss [the word 'racism'] about
irresponsibly and unfairly for political purposes," said Guy Benson at National Review. "It's
disgraceful, and it must stop." At Big Journalism, Benson demanded an apology, ironically enough, for
Zernike's oversensitivity (as did Riehl), and Andrew Breitbart did his usual berserker routine
("Kate Zernike of the New York Times, are you in the room? Are
you in the room? You're despicable. You're a despicable human being.
You're the New York Times").
(You have to wonder where these guys were when Wanda Sykes was taking grief for her comedy routine
at last year's White House Correspondents' Dinner, which NewsBusters, among others, judged an attack on
white people. But let's be hopeful; maybe the next time someone makes
fun of Sarah Palin, they'll all rush to defend the muse of comedy.)
Along with the young people, there were also of a lot of Birchers at
CPAC: The John Birch Society, the far-right conspiracy theorists who had
supposedly been read out of the movement by William F. Buckley back in
the '60s, were among the sponsors of the event.
It was suggested that the JBS presence was what kept Sarah Palin from
the convention (along with its lack of speakers' fees). Dan Riehl found that hypocritical; "She is said to
have problems with CPAC for their allowing the John Birch Society to
have a booth," wrote Riehl, "but then she turns around and backs Rand
Paul, who is about as aligned with the Birchers as any politician, save
for his Father, right now." (When Ron Paul took the straw poll, Riehl
was silent.)
Perhaps sensing that the Birchers did not offer good PR for their cause,
few rightbloggers defended the Birchers' inclusion, and some like Power Line denounced it. Wizbang was an unfortunate exception: "CPAC letting
the John Birch Society buy a table at their gathering is one thing,"
wrote Jay Tea. "Barack Obama building the foundation of his political
career under the auspices of unrepentant domestic terrorist William
Ayers ... is quite another." We assume he meant the comparison to favor
CPAC, though admittedly it's hard to tell.
But the Ron Paul win had to be addressed quickly and en masse,
lest it dampen the convention buzz.
Some leaned on the angle that Paul's people had organized effectively,
thereby rendering his victory invalid.
"Well, Ron Paul has managed to rally his supporters again, but it looks
good for Mitt Romney," said Right Wing News. "This is dismaying, to the extent
one takes it seriously," said Power Line. "The Ron Paul people are a cult, and are
more likely to vote in that straw poll," said Race 4 2012. (Cultism seems to have advanced greatly
since Romney's victory last year.)
"He had a massive following there, and Paul supporters are so connected
that they can manipulate events such as CPAC," said Cosmopolitan Conservative. For example, "They had
volunteers distributing flyers at every single entrance, and this hotel
was huge," which is clearly cheating.
Others noted that only about a quarter of the conventioneers voted.
(That's even worse than ordinary Americans!)
Avid Editor's Insights went for the traditional rightblogger response to unfavorable
election results: Accusations of fraud. "I think he cheated," said AEI.
"Just wondering how. ... I guess a Ron Paul nut or two made some fake
ballots. Anyone have an inside story on this?"
And some blamed those darned kids who had energized their convention.
"48% of the votes cast were from students," said Right Coast Girl. "...2% for the actual 2012 GOP
nominee, Mitch Daniels." "Of course about half of the voters were
students, his mainstay of support," said The Moderate Republican. "...the results mean
almost nothing." "Students comprised 48 percent of the sample -- how
else could Paul have won?" said Hot Air's Allahpundit, who was also flabbergasted that only
one percent of CPAC poll respondents considered stopping gay marriage
important.
"48% of the voters were students... Grow up," said Gateway Pundit.
But some took Paul's victory seriously. "It shows he could be a force in
the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination Race if he decides to run," said Freedom's Lighthouse.
"Perhaps there is hope yet
for this country," said Conservative Scalawag. "The Paul straw vote, which
will be widely derided come tomorrow," said Wizbang, "is the canary in the coal mine moment for
many, many Democrats and not a few Republicans."
The American Spectator tried to drop the news
without comment, but it has a comments section, one user of which told
doubters, "It is people like you who are responsible for Obama, only Ron
Paul has the appeal among Independents and Democrats, of all the 2008
crowd, to have beaten Obama, and you pukes black-balled. This is our
party now."
Showing 1-2 of 2
This is whey we need five or six viable political parties in America. The democrats and republicans have a duopoly on politics, and if you don't like one or the other you're out of luck.
Also, I'll bet that there were more Ron Paul supporters at CPAC than there were total attendees at the Tea Bagger's national convention....so I'd say that the teabaggers are a smaller cult than the Paulbots.
like
dislike
