Posted under Conservatism & Election 2012 & Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich & Political Philosophy & Politics & Republican Party & Ron Paul & Sarah Palin
For the last two years at least, when Ron Paul supporters were showing up in droves to help him win the straw poll, CPAC appeared to be becoming a more hospitable place for libertarians, constitutionalists, paleocons and other outside the mainstream rightists. I wonder if the CPAC Powers That Be got spooked by this, because CPAC (which started today) certainly appears to be reverting to mainstream interventionist movement “conservative” form.
Check out the list of speakers. It would be hard to imagine a more cookie-cutter selection of interventionist movement “cons” if you tried. I don’t see an easily identifiable non-interventionist in the whole lot. Grover Norquist and Phyllis Schlafly have nodded toward non-interventionism at times, but neither is identifiably such as far as I am concerned.
Romney, Gingrich and Santorum will be there. Ron Paul will not. At first there was some consternation among Ron Paul supporters who assumed he had not been invited, but he was invited and declined saying that he had campaigning to do. I don’t know this, but I suspect he and his team knew it wouldn’t necessarily be a friendly environment this year since he wasn’t making an all out effort to get his supporters there to vote in the straw poll.
On the bright side, The American Conservative magazine will be there and the non-interventionist Committee for the Republic will host some sessions.
Woden on 10 Feb 2012 at 10:23 am #
It is odd that Paul would turn down an invitation.
A speech at CPAC generates massive free publicity and gives him a chance to speak to tens of thousands of conservatives there, and watching from home — most likely all primary voters.
Woden on 10 Feb 2012 at 10:31 am #
BTW, this was also at CPAC yesterday:
The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity
– Wilson C
Sponsored by: ProEnglish
Speakers: Robert Vandervoort, Executive Director, ProEnglish; John Derbyshire, contributing editor at National Review and author of We Are Doomed; Peter Brimelow, author of The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities and founder of VDARE.com; Dr. Serge Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor for Chronicles magazine; & Dr. Rosalie Porter, author of American Immigrant: My Life In Three Languages, chairwoman of the board, ProEnglish.
DanPhillips on 10 Feb 2012 at 6:37 pm #
Savrola, do you have links?
roho on 11 Feb 2012 at 2:16 am #
Conservatives?……..Ha-Ha!…….When the last real paleoconservative exits the building, turn the light off.
roho on 11 Feb 2012 at 2:18 am #
All other feel free to stay and worship Israel.
RonL on 12 Feb 2012 at 7:09 am #
There is no conspiracy here. Ron Paul chose not to attend or to waste resources busing in supporters to rig the vote as he did in the past. Paul got 15% of attendees and 8% in the phone poll. He over performed at CPAC. Romney got respectively 38% and 27%. The real story should be how well Rick Santorum did. While Santorum only got 31% at CPAC, he got 25% in the national poll.
http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/02/11/cpac-2012-announces-straw-poll-results-mitt-romney-wins-rick-santorum-places-second-video-21112/
Ron Paul spent his money and time in Maine and lost there conclusively. There is no conspiracy, simply the fact that Republicans don’t like Paul.
DanPhillips on 12 Feb 2012 at 6:36 pm #
Ron, throwing out the word conspiracy muddles the discussion. No one is suggesting some multifaceted conspiracy. They are suggesting that the CPAC Powers That Be (the Pres., the Board of Directors, the major donors and major sponsors, etc.) deliberately attempted to rein things in this year compared to the last few years. For years CPAC wouldn’t allow the John Birch Society to have a booth. Was that a conspiracy or was it just CPAC being squeamish?
Also, Paul lost to Romney in Maine 39% to 36%. That is hardly “conclusively.”
roho on 15 Feb 2012 at 1:14 am #
CPAC is now a compromised joke………..Sad.