CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:

Now you're agreeing with me. Well done. It all goes back to Hobbes through Locke, et al. American politics takes place in that stream.

Click to expand...

No, your argument is that there were literally no conservatives in 1828. Consequentially, 'conservatism' simply arrived out of the blue one day, and for no particular reason.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:

No, your argument is that there were literally no conservatives in 1828. Consequentially, 'conservatism' simply arrived out of the blue one day, and for no particular reason.

Click to expand...

I apologize. I misled you by giving you too much credit. What we today call conservatism is really just liberalism closer to its 19th century classic American form. It evolved, like American politics generally, from the early 19th century framework from which European conservatism had been excised.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:

I apologize. I misled you by giving you too much credit. What we today call conservatism is really just liberalism closer to its 19th century classic American form. It evolved, like American politics generally, from the early 19th century framework from which European conservatism had been excised.

Click to expand...

Except this isn't accurate, either. As much as, for instance, American libertarians want to claim direct descent from what they call 'classical liberalism', they're quite far removed. The Liberal Party under Gladstone, for example, instituted the first Poor Laws in Great Britain, spending federal monies to construct workhouses and other elements of a prototypical social safety net. And even going back further, Adam Smith called for an activist government.

There are elements of influence in classical liberalism on modern conservatism, but they are by no means directly correlated.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Einzige said:

Except this isn't accurate, either. As much as, for instance, American libertarians want to claim direct descent from what they call 'classical liberalism', they're quite far removed. The Liberal Party under Gladstone, for example, instituted the first Poor Laws in Great Britain, spending federal monies to construct workhouses and other elements of a prototypical social safety net. And even going back further, Adam Smith called for an activist government.

There are elements of influence in classical liberalism on modern conservatism, but they are by no means directly correlated.

Click to expand...

I have made no claims as to the ideological descent of modern libertarians, and that's irrelevant to our discussion. Gladstone's Liberal Party is relevant to a discussion of British politics, not American. Disraeli's Conservatives expanded the franchise, but that has no bearing on American conservatives either. My claim is that modern American conservatives are descended from 19th century liberals. This does not mean, of course, that modern liberals are not descended from 19th century liberals too. Of course they are.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:

Small government is not a "true" conservative principle. It is a conservative principle. Big government has quite the lengthy history in conservatism. Americans since influenced by southerners interested in such small government policies (well, that is, until big government benefited the planter class..then big government was okay) , have largely forgotten that.

Click to expand...

That's one of the problems, the idiots in power currently pretending they are conservatives are not for a small government, they are for the biggest government money can buy, just like the Democrats. They are not for personal responsibility, another core conservative value, they want to buy as many votes through entitlement spending as they can, just like the Democrats. They don't want to keep government out of people's lives, hell, in that, they're even worse than the Democrats. There is nothing whatsoever about the Republican Party that is conservative. They're religious wingnut liberals.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

rocket88 said:

Christie is a Conservative. He may not be ideologically "pure" in the eyes of some. Frankly, I don't get it. He said something nice about President Obama. I suppose he could have punched Obama in the face, but it would seem he's not an asshole.

Click to expand...

It seems they are looking in the wrong direction aren't they? I mean recently you have Dr. Carson and Rand Paul, blast Obama and now they are seen as the front runners in the election. I like Carson, and hate Paul, but if they become President. I can't say what will become of the country. I think at this point we don't need a partisan or a Republican Obama if you will. We all know how Obama turned out. He says things we like to hear and then doesn't follow through or shall i say flip flops? We need someone like Rubio or Christie that can bring people together and not talk about which belief is better than the other one.

Hmmm, looking around it seems to be only non-republicans that have any sort of issue with Christie not being invited to CPAC. Pretty much par for the course.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:

You do realize that CPAC stands for Conservative Political Action Conference? It is not LPAC for Liberal Political Action Conference, or RPAC for Rino Political Action Conference.

Click to expand...

Exactly Christie is a RINO. No big loss there.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

I think Christie's shunning from the CPAC will serve him well in his future endeavors.

Many people relate the CPAC to the recent neo-con brand of Republican (ie: wingnuts, teabaggers, Limbaughnauts, etc.,) which is pretty much looked down upon by the majority of Americans.

His "non-endorsement" from this wing of whackos is a feather in his hat he could not have bought and paid for.

The CPAC seems to have cut it's own nose off to spite it's face.

The G.O.P. would be wise to distance themselves from this "brand" of conservatism.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Captain America said:

I think Christie's shunning from the CPAC will serve him well in his future endeavors.

Many people relate the CPAC to the recent neo-con brand of Republican (ie: wingnuts, teabaggers, Limbaughnauts, etc.,) which is pretty much looked down upon by the majority of Americans.

His "non-endorsement" from this wing of whackos is a feather in his hat he could not have bought and paid for.

The CPAC seems to have cut it's own nose off to spite it's face.

The G.O.P. would be wise to distance themselves from this "brand" of conservatism.

Click to expand...

A word on conservative typology. "Neoconservatives" have nothing to do with either the Tea Party or Rush Limbaugh. They are evolved former liberals (or radicals) or, often, the sons of liberals or radicals who have moved right because of loss of faith in the post-McGovern Dems, or because of firm support for Israel. Indeed, there is a noticeable although not exclusive Jewish representation among neocons. They tend to be urban, eastern and sophisticated.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Captain America said:

I think Christie's shunning from the CPAC will serve him well in his future endeavors.

Many people relate the CPAC to the recent neo-con brand of Republican (ie: wingnuts, teabaggers, Limbaughnauts, etc.,) which is pretty much looked down upon by the majority of Americans.

His "non-endorsement" from this wing of whackos is a feather in his hat he could not have bought and paid for.

The CPAC seems to have cut it's own nose off to spite it's face.

The G.O.P. would be wise to distance themselves from this "brand" of conservatism.

Click to expand...

Nationally speaking, no, I don't believe so. Christie has only lost support from his party, he hasn't gained anything. Do you really think the liberals who are making a mountain out of this molehill to divide republicans are going to vote for him when he's running on a national stage against a democrat?

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Captain America said:

I think Christie's shunning from the CPAC will serve him well in his future endeavors.

Many people relate the CPAC to the recent neo-con brand of Republican (ie: wingnuts, teabaggers, Limbaughnauts, etc.,) which is pretty much looked down upon by the majority of Americans.

His "non-endorsement" from this wing of whackos is a feather in his hat he could not have bought and paid for.

The CPAC seems to have cut it's own nose off to spite it's face.

The G.O.P. would be wise to distance themselves from this "brand" of conservatism.

Click to expand...

Agreed, even I'm beginning to appreciate the candor and hard work of Christie. I don't to agree with everything he does or has done to see that he's trying to make his state run well for its citizens -- unlike the nihilistic tea partiers who are so mired in their own knownothing ideology that they cheer catastrophes and hardship.

Einzige said:

CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year - First Read



The bit in bold particularly bothers me. Everyone needs to "live by the parameters of the movement"? Does that include individuals who are not conservative and who do not desire to live like a conservative lives? I thought individualism was a conservative trait (not that our conservatives would know authentic individualism if it punched them in the nose)? How far is Cardenas willing to go to force others to "live by the parameters of the movement"?

At any rate, demanding ideological purity certainly is not convincing. I'm one of those rarities who do not believe that any ideology actually correlates to reality one-to-one, and that the mark of a successful ideology is how well it adapts itself to the conditions of material reality, what it can trade off and where it can hold firm. An insistence on purity makes me less convinced, not more.

Click to expand...

There wouldn't be a speaker in the place if they were worried about keeping the parameters of the movement (conservative movement) secure.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

head of joaquin said:

Agreed, even I'm beginning to appreciate the candor and hard work of Christie. I don't to agree with everything he does or has done to see that he's trying to make his state run well for its citizens -- unlike the nihilistic tea partiers who are so mired in their own knownothing ideology that they cheer catastrophes and hardship.

Click to expand...

So, come 2016, Christie vs Clinton - you'd vote for a republican?

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

clownboy said:

Nationally speaking, no, I don't believe so. Christie has only lost support from his party, he hasn't gained anything. Do you really think the liberals who are making a mountain out of this molehill to divide republicans are going to vote for him when he's running on a national stage against a democrat?

Click to expand...

I think the partisan left will vote democrat even if they ran Pee-Wee Herman. On the other hand, I think the partisan right would vote Republican even if they ran Captain Kangaroo.

I am of the opinion that the moderates, independants, and the undecided's determine the winners of elections because they tip the scales one way or another.

Bill Christie is the only Republican on the scene right now that I can see winning an election for the G.O.P. as he can draw enough of the moderates/independants to tip the scale. But that is just my opinion. I have been wrong once or twice before. Well, maybe once. LOL!

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

tererun said:

i totally agree. Which leads to the question of why conservatives backed him when they had some true conservatives in the GOP primary last year? If it was all about purity you could have had perry, bachman, or Santorum. Hell, even ron paul was a better choice. One might note that they knew conservative purity was a fail for a presidential election. The country does not want conservative purity, and embracing it is embracing failure. Romney was put in the election because his relative liberal attitude was a better opposition to Obama. then he completely flip flopped on that wisdom and went ultracon. Why go for the electable middle ground in the primaries and then throw it all away in the election? I just don't understand why the guy is not completely under the bus at this point.

Click to expand...

The media picked Romney and the frontrunner.Die hard republican party-tards wanted more than anything to win. So they propped up Romney despite the fact that propping up a RINO in 08 cost them to lose the presidency.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:

Certainly, but you have to have a strong, vibrant...perceived, middle ground in the party in order to gain more influence at the negotiating table and in the White House. In the quest for mythology, we forget many of the complexities of the Reagan years, which certainly were more complicated than the post-Goldwaterites are leading us to believe.

Click to expand...

But he didn't try to play the middle ground.He did a 180 claiming to be a conservative.Liberal republicans right now have a snowball's chance in hell at winning the presidency so lied and said he was against abortion,said he was for the 2nd amendment and said many other things to try to pretend to be a conservative.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:

The media picked Romney and the frontrunner.Die hard republican party-tards wanted more than anything to win. So they propped up Romney despite the fact that propping up a RINO in 08 cost them to lose the presidency.

Click to expand...

You mean the media who is putting out a lot of money to make CPAC? Isn't there a point where the reps recognize they fund the people they claim are screwing them, or is the Obama hate that blinding?

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Jack Hays said:

Looks like a content-free post.:roll:

Click to expand...

Says the man who accused one poster of acting ahistorically, while committing the crime himself?

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Moderator's Warning:

Fiddy, Jack...take the off topic comments elsewhere(ie, the basement) or expect thread bans or more.

Einzige said:

CPAC chair: Christie didn't 'deserve' an invite this year - First Read



The bit in bold particularly bothers me. Everyone needs to "live by the parameters of the movement"? Does that include individuals who are not conservative and who do not desire to live like a conservative lives? I thought individualism was a conservative trait (not that our conservatives would know authentic individualism if it punched them in the nose)? How far is Cardenas willing to go to force others to "live by the parameters of the movement"?

At any rate, demanding ideological purity certainly is not convincing. I'm one of those rarities who do not believe that any ideology actually correlates to reality one-to-one, and that the mark of a successful ideology is how well it adapts itself to the conditions of material reality, what it can trade off and where it can hold firm. An insistence on purity makes me less convinced, not more.

Click to expand...

CPAC is a private entity. It can invite or refrain from inviting whomever it chooses.

Having said that, CPAC is not the Republican Party. CPAC has a voice, but Governor Christie is free to build a coalition that he believes would secure him the nomination if he chooses to run for President.

My guess is that CPAC's lack of invitation and Cardenas's subsequent explanation gives Governor Christie another fresh opportunity to build upon his emerging message of a stark contrast between doers (like him) who achieve results in governance/can appeal to a broad slice of the electorate and ideologues/purists who offer doctrinaire messages but show few results and possess only narrow political appeal. He will then translate that contrast into public policy outcomes. He will point to his fiscal results in NJ and then the lack of credible fiscal consolidation program in Washington. Of course, there is some risk in such a strategy, too, as following the nominating process, he would need to gain a decent share of support from those who backed alternative candidates. However, if he can build a strong case that he would represent the kind of problem-solver Washington has lacked in recent years, he could have a potent message.

Exogenous factors will also be important in determining the outcome. His rival will be a key factor. The state of the economy and the nation's fiscal situation will be important. International developments could also have an impact. For now, it remains to be seen whether he will, in fact, seek the Presidency. His near-term focus will be on the NJ race and an effort to win by a large landslide.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

rocket88 said:

Christie is a Conservative. He may not be ideologically "pure" in the eyes of some. Frankly, I don't get it. He said something nice about President Obama. I suppose he could have punched Obama in the face, but it would seem he's not an asshole.

Romney got an invite. Are you telling me that Romney is "pure?" (Romneycare....)

This quest for ideological purity is not going to help the Republican party. They need to get back to the "big tent" that they used to have, but there seems to be this Quixotic quest to make it smaller.

Click to expand...

There is an easy explanation for why Republicans are kicking other Republicans to the curb. They are musicians, and have all bought on to a new effect.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

clownboy said:

So, come 2016, Christie vs Clinton - you'd vote for a republican?

Click to expand...

That would be a difficult choice, but I don't think it'll end up being that hard.

You've got to remember that if you want to win an election, putting up a guy who represents a hard right fringe is going to turn off voters who might consider it. If you're in the business of winning elections it seems an odd way to go. I'm pretty sure the Republican party is in the business of winning elections. It's one thing to have solid Conservative principles, and it's another thing to be angry or making stupid comments about "legitimate rape." Everybody likes principles, but most of all what people want is someone who's willing to accept that it's not their way or the highway.

You want another Reagan, and I don't blame you, but Reagan was not one to go around punching people in the nuts because he disagreed with them. He was also smart enough to realize that he wasn't going to get everything he wanted, so he took a little here and gave a little there. That's governing, that's leadership, and that's something that's in short supply these days on both sides. Christie realized that metaphorically punching Obama in the nuts was not going to help the people of New Jersey. According to some TP activists, that makes him a "horrible RINO." I think it makes him an effective governor.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

Fiddytree said:

Says the man who accused one poster of acting ahistorically, while committing the crime himself?

Click to expand...

The poster made an ahistorical argument. If you believe I did the same, please point out the error.

Re: CPAC head: Christie "doesn't deserve" to be a Republican

jamesrage said:

The media picked Romney and the frontrunner.Die hard republican party-tards wanted more than anything to win. So they propped up Romney despite the fact that propping up a RINO in 08 cost them to lose the presidency.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. CPAC invited Romney last year. What did CPAC stand for again you say? :lamo