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

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

American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas spoke briefly with reporters ahead of the beginning of the CPAC conference -- explaining why he didn't invite New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and insisting that the GOP is "not a home for everybody."

As the conference opens, the GOP's identity crisis -- expand the tent, or try to convince more people to crowd under what's already built -- is on sharp display.

"I'm a firm believer that if the Republican Party's going to have success, it's going to do so by being a conservative party and not a home for ah, for everybody," Cardenas said. "And that's how you grow. I mean, look, you grow your tent by convincing others, and persuading others, that yours is the way, and you build your tent by reaching out to the new demographics of America not with a watered down version of who we ought to be but with a true, real, solid version of who we are."

Cardenas also repeated explanations for why the conference hadn't invited New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to speak at the event.

"This year, for better or for worse, we felt like, ah, like he didn't deserve to be on the all-star selection, ah, and, for decisions that he made. And so hopefully next year he's back on the right track and being a conservative," Cardenas said. "He's a popular figure, but everyone needs to live by the parameters of the movement."

Click to expand...

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.

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

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...

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.

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

jamesrage said:

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

Click to expand...

I deny, first of all, that the flavor of conservatism promoted by CPAC is the only kind of conservatism possible (it isn't), that Christie isn't a conservative (he'd be a firm conservative anywhere else in the world), or that the conservatism of CPAC is even a particularly useful kind of 'conservatism'.

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

Einzige said:

I deny, first of all, that the flavor of conservatism promoted by CPAC is the only kind of conservatism possible (it isn't), that Christie isn't a conservative (he'd be a firm conservative anywhere else in the world), or that the conservatism of CPAC is even a particularly useful kind of 'conservatism'.

Click to expand...

Or that the neo-conservatism proposed by the Republican Party is even remotely conservative, it's fundamentalist Christian liberalism. I like Chris Christie to some degree, I think being declared not to be RINO quality is a good thing.

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...

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.

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

I'm looking forward to CPAC for the comedy factor. It'll be a hoot!. Youbetcha!

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

Einzige said:

I deny, first of all, that the flavor of conservatism promoted by CPAC is the only kind of conservatism possible (it isn't), that Christie isn't a conservative (he'd be a firm conservative anywhere else in the world), or that the conservatism of CPAC is even a particularly useful kind of 'conservatism'.

Click to expand...

I am sure that to a lefty like you any righter than you is a conservative. But the fact is its CPAC,not LPAC or RPAC.

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

Einzige said:

I deny, first of all, that the flavor of conservatism promoted by CPAC is the only kind of conservatism possible (it isn't), that Christie isn't a conservative (he'd be a firm conservative anywhere else in the world), or that the conservatism of CPAC is even a particularly useful kind of 'conservatism'.

Click to expand...

CPAC is able to define itself however it wishes. While it espouses Thomas Jefferson, I'll just smirk at them believing that is the only conservatism.

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

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"?

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea individualism is a conservative trait? Conservatives tend to go with the status quo and avoid excess, which would rule out things like individualism.

Einzige said:

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...

yes, but they are circling the wagons. people were hoping they might evolve and join the rest of the world, but that requires a desire to exist with the rest of the world. that is something we can clearly see is not true within the narrative of the conservative world. They live in an isolated media conglomerate which is tightly controlled. They desire to rewrite history and force their ignorant and false views to be taught in school so there is no exposure outside of their own narrative. They are overwhelmingly xenophobic. It all leads to an isolationist fantasy world. there seems to be a few of them who are not this way who want to evolve the party, but that evolution is dangerous to the bubble so many of them wish to live in. So they circle their wagons and start tossing out the so called traitors. It is an idea that will only speed their destruction along. It will still take some time, but they are helping the world through actions like this. When you live in a bubble you also close yourself off to exposing the youth to your ideas. Without that exposure the only future for your movement is in the collapsing bubble.

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...

Seeing how he is one of the biggest RINOs he should have never been invited.

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

Enzige wrote: "how well it adapts itself to the conditions of material reality"

Exactly. You have got to deal with reality. Nothing less.

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

Once again, Christie should run for the Democratic nomination for President. Clearly he would win a landslide of Democratic primary voters for all the praises they lavish on him.

And then turned around and attacked 100% of Republican in Congress. ALL Republicans as a collective.

What Christie did to Romney, after being who agreed to actually formally introduce and nominate Romney, was as lowlife backstabbing sleezy as it gets. Christie cares about only one person on earth - himself - and his ethics are singularly to that goal.

No one Republican can trust backstabbing opportunistic and knee-jerk reaction Christie. He's the ultimate loose cannon on the deck.

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

joko104 said:

What Christie did to Romney, after being who agreed to actually formally introduce and nominate Romney, was as lowlife backstabbing sleezy as it gets. Christie cares about only one person on earth - himself - and his ethics are singularly to that goal.

Click to expand...

Please. He did what any Governor has done. My Governor sucked up to the President, why can't he?

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

jamesrage said:

I am sure that to a lefty like you any righter than you is a conservative. But the fact is its CPAC,not LPAC or RPAC.

Click to expand...

Fun fact: I'd vote Tory in England, because the Conservative Party there appeals to me.

I go in for conservatism that is decentralist and open to being pro-labor in a decentralist way. I oppose Christian Democracy, neo-conservatism, and anything tinged with right-wing collectivism.

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

There are no Conservatives, just another wing of the Republican party. Like the Liberals are a wing of the Democratic party. The so called Conservative's don't have the intestinal fortitude to brake off and create their own party.

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

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...

In my view, it wouldn't hurt a bit if the Republican Party actually got back to being representatives of conservatism in its true sense - small government, both fiscally and socially. If they did that, they would actually attract a large number of people who are tired of having the government grow, extending it's tentacles into all aspects of individual lives and wealth.

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

Einzige said:

Fun fact: I'd vote Tory in England, because the Conservative Party there appeals to me.

I go in for conservatism that is decentralist and open to being pro-labor in a decentralist way. I oppose Christian Democracy, neo-conservatism, and anything tinged with right-wing collectivism.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure conservationism in the UK is not the same thing as conservationism in the US. At least that's what people in the UK told me.

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

jamesrage said:

Seeing how he is one of the biggest RINOs he should have never been invited.

Click to expand...

I hate it when people toss around terms like "RINO." What's going on with the TP and the GOP would be akin to a bunch of socialists coming in and defining what a "real Democrat" was.

Americans are, by and large, center-right. When the Republican party espoused center-right ideas, they did well (see how that works?). Now you want to abandon the center? Given the choice between center-left (despite the desperate attempts to paint Obama as a Communist) and the far right, centrists are choosing center-left. They'd like to choose center-right, but it seems that the Republican party isn't interested in giving that to them anymore. Which seems odd considering how they're supposedly the "free market" party. In a free market economy, smart businessmen identify what people want and seek to sell it to them. You're trying to tell people that they really want what you're selling, and they ain't buying it!

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

CanadaJohn said:

In my view, it wouldn't hurt a bit if the Republican Party actually got back to being representatives of conservatism in its true sense - small government, both fiscally and socially. If they did that, they would actually attract a large number of people who are tired of having the government grow, extending it's tentacles into all aspects of individual lives and wealth.

Click to expand...

There's no reason a "social liberal" couldn't be conservative. When we look at the broad history of the modern West, and of America in particular, we see a series of liberations - of small landholders in the Jacksonian era to the ballot; of slaves in the age of Lincoln; of women during the progressive era; of black voters during the Civil Rights Movement. There's no reason a conservative couldn't take in this past history as a guideline for future activity. Progress is, or can be, at any rate, a traditional value.

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

jamesrage said:

I am pretty sure conservationism in the UK is not the same thing as conservationism in the US. At least that's what people in the UK told me.

Click to expand...

To the extent that the Conservative Party is not full of kneejerk reactionaries or right-wing class agitators, this is correct.

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

jamesrage said:

I am pretty sure conservationism in the UK is not the same thing as conservationism in the US. At least that's what people in the UK told me.

Click to expand...

It's not. There's plenty of cultural and political differences. Take hunting, for example. In America, it is a common-man thing, something to appeal to the populists (your folk). In the UK, it's got the tinge of aristocracy (not your folk).

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

rocket88 said:

I hate it when people toss around terms like "RINO." What's going on with the TP and the GOP would be akin to a bunch of socialists coming in and defining what a "real Democrat" was.

Click to expand...

His actions says he is a RINO.



The Mitt Romney Deception
Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal - and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.


The Mitt Romney Deception
Socialized medicine.

The Mitt Romney Deception
Severe gun control

The Mitt Romney Deception
Abortion Issues

The Mitt Romney Deception
Pro-gay marriage

The Mitt Romney Deception
Appointed gay and liberal judges to positions.


Lawn work at Romney's home still done by illegal immigrants - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe
Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.

Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck.

In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney's use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company -- until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.


Why We Hate Mitt Romney So Much :: :: FITSNewsFITSNews
Seriously, if this guy isn’t struck by lightning at some point during the 2008 campaign there’s no justice in the world. After all, it’s one thing to flip-flop on every issue under the sun in an effort to fool people into thinking you’re something you’re not, but Romney is now taking the art of bull***** to a whole new level - attacking people for doing the same stuff he did.

Romney’s latest swipe alleges that Hizzoner Giuliani is “soft on immigration” because he turned New York into a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants.

Of course what Romney failed to mention was that three cities in Massachusetts formally declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” (i.e. cities that promise to provide government services to illegal immigrants) during his term as governor, and Romney did absolutely nothing about it.



Page 2: Giuliani Vows to End Illegal Immigration - ABC News

Sanctuary Cities Under Romney

But Giuliani's campaign said that Romney's aggressive charge on this issue is inconsistent with Romney's record. While governor of Massachusetts from 2003 until 2007, three cities in Romney's home state – Somerville, Cambridge, and Orleans -- either declared or reissued declarations stating that they are in essence sanctuary cities.

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

CanadaJohn said:

In my view, it wouldn't hurt a bit if the Republican Party actually got back to being representatives of conservatism in its true sense - small government, both fiscally and socially. If they did that, they would actually attract a large number of people who are tired of having the government grow, extending it's tentacles into all aspects of individual lives and wealth.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Einzige said:

There's no reason a "social liberal" couldn't be conservative. When we look at the broad history of the modern West, and of America in particular, we see a series of liberations - of small landholders in the Jacksonian era to the ballot; of slaves in the age of Lincoln; of women during the progressive era; of black voters during the Civil Rights Movement. There's no reason a conservative couldn't take in this past history as a guideline for future activity. Progress is, or can be, at any rate, a traditional value.

Click to expand...

If you had a social liberal who actually believed in true conservatism, you'd likely be talking to a Canadian, not an American. American liberals are too busy trying to get government into every crevice of every person's life, trying to have government codify every possible personal right they can dream of instead of leaving government to the tasks they are best able to manage. But I appreciate your thoughts - I wish you luck and much success in that regard.

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...

This can't be emphasized enough.

There was a time, in the early 19th century, when the policies of those social classes that considered themselves "conservative" - Northeastern industrialists, Anglican clergymen, Anglophiles, etc. - were in favor of a stronger central government, because that was the model that had been established in England prior to, during and after the American Revolutionary War, and consequentially that was what they knew and favored. That was their tradition. These Federalists were Statists - and they were also conservative.