Final thoughts on CPAC
posted at 1:17 pm on March 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
After my flight back yesterday evening from a long but productive week at CPAC, I’m going to rest today, getting a few things done around the house and preparing for a big week on the blog. Mostly, I need to rest my voice. After doing more than two dozen interviews and speaking to a lot of Hot Air fans, I’ve gotten a good case of laryngitis and a little bit of jet lag on top of it.
I’ve been to three CPACs in a row and each has been significantly different. In 2007, we had spirited debate between the various nascent campaigns in the beginning of the 2008 marathon. Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback turned out platoons of volunteers, while anti-Romney campaigners had the guy in the dolphin suit making the flip-flop argument. John McCain angered and galvanized the conservative activists he’d later hope to recruit by snubbing CPAC for the Tonight Show. Military supporters roamed the halls attempting to build support for better engagement in Iraq, a policy pushed by George Bush that eventually succeeded. In short, it seemed that momentous debate was everywhere one turned.
Last year, though, the mood was positively funereal. Mitt Romney withdrew from the presidential campaign on the first day, and the conference never really recovered. McCain made amends, but the majority of the conservative base only reluctantly accepted him, and some never did at all. The speakers did a fine job, but there was a sense of going through the motions that left the feeling of an anti-climax — and a harbinger of a bad year to come.
This year felt more active but less certain. CPAC’s organizers, the American Conservative Union, reported that attendance hit an all-time high, a good indicator that no one’s quitting the fight. We saw tremendous energy, but not necessarily optimism. Each of the activist organizations have their goals in sight, but as a movement, they appear bereft of political leaders to follow into battle. Rush Limbaugh did a great job in rallying them with the finale yesterday, but the conservative movement needs to gain ground in the political/electoral arena in order to succeed in implementing better policies.
In that sense, I’m not a bit surprised to see Romney win the straw poll this year, followed closely by Bobby Jindal. Jindal is succeeding at that very task in Louisiana, where such a thing would have been seen as impossible two or three years ago. Romney speaks the language of economy, where Republicans and conservatives seemed tongue-tied for most of 2008. More than a few people wondered aloud whether Romney would have beaten Barack Obama had he headed the GOP ticket when the economy crashed; he certainly could have explained conservative economic principles better than McCain, who seemed incapable of doing so at the debate.
Romney also appeared at CPAC, which helped; Jindal did not, and still scored high. However, others who faded to the background also appeared, such as Mark Sanford, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty, who delivered an excellent, detailed speech exhorting conservatives and Republicans not to concede ground on health care and other supposed “Democratic” issues. In fact, I flew back to Minnesota with Governor and Mrs. Pawlenty and had a couple of brief conversations with him. I didn’t ask him whether he will run for a third term here as governor, but he seems ready to work on the national stage and did a big appearance for Rebuild the Party on Friday night, to a great deal of enthusiasm.
Of course, it’s still far too early for presidential races. A lot of people at CPAC seemed focused on 2012 with a sense of desperation, but more realize that the focus has to be 2010. That makes the straw poll irrelevant in two different ways; it’s too early to start a presidential campaign anyway, and conservatives and Republicans need to focus on taking control of Congress, especially the House. Eric Singer said in yesterday’s interview that the economy grows best in divided government; since 1965, there’s a 15-point swing in market expansion between one-party and two-party governance. We can block a lot of mischief by gaining control of the House, restoring a realistic filibuster potential in the Senate, or both.
I spent a lot of money on CPAC, but it was worth it. Our friends at CRC Public Relations did a masterful job managing Bloggers Row, providing us with a great support team and keeping us fed and hydrated. We had more bloggers than ever this time, who did a great job of covering the event. There were too many highlights to pick just one, but meeting all of the fans of this blog has to be among the best of them. I’ll talk more about the highlights with Kevin McCullough, who also attended CPAC with his BMX Radio partner Stephen Baldwin and came on Friday’s show, on tomorrow’s TEMS episode at 3 pm ET.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Good to see those spare Gitmo feeding tubes and IV drips being put to use.
Thanks, Cap’n. Yeoman’s work.
Rhinoboy on March 1, 2009 at 1:25 PM
So Ed, you think the 2012 ticket is Romney/Palin or Romney/Jindal…I honestly think after Obama gets done with his vision for America, we won’t elect another post baby boomer for awhile. The apologist will blame Obama’s soon to be “stunning” mistakes, to his inexperience, never mind this was hammered over and over and over again. No the American Idol candidate was gonna bring hope and change, whatever the American Voter wanted to project onto those words. I see the change he is TRYING to BRING ABOUT but I don’t have any hope for a soft landing for this Country’s Economy. That is how he got elected because of the Financial Crisis last September. That is probably also why he is set up to fail, you can’t spend your way out of a recession it has been tried. The International Bankers must really be leaning on him.
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM
The only “good thing” about the legacy of how the Left treated President Bush is that they (the Left) have absolutely no standing to criticize the form that conservative criticism of President Obama takes. Obviously, we hope criticism of Obama stays on a much higher plane than we saw from the angry Left, but one thing is clear. The Left has absolutely nothing to complain about when it happens, on issue after issue most likely.
RBMN on March 1, 2009 at 1:29 PM
ed were there tons of Palin people there?
ousoonerfan15 on March 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Eric Cantor went from Hero to Zero in two weeks – if I ever see that guy again, it will be too soon. Rush Limbaugh made many fine statements during CPAC – all of them should be carved in stone – but especially that “we do not support the Messiah, and we want to see him fail” – duh? Who wouldn’t – except maybe Putin and the a few folks in Iran? For Eric Cantor to give us that song and dance again about “…we need the Republican tent to be bigger and more inclusive…” – grab the air sickness bags, your wallets and run. How could this jerk, after appearing so brilliant in the House to hold the Republican together in voting down Pelosi’s PORK sandwich – how could he today, on national TV say that Rush is wrong and “…we actually don’t want Obama to fail……” Did he forget to put his spine in this morning or did Blaggo sell him some of Homeboy Obama’s crack?
Cinday Blackburn on March 1, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Good work Ed.
forest on March 1, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Thanks for your coverage of CPAC Mr. Morrissey; I appreciated reading and listening to the play-by-play…
The take away legacy from CPAC seems we have to choose between Newt Gingrich’s thoughts of abandoning the Reagan Vision or adopting Rush Limbaugh’s thoughs of re-embracing it. If that’s the case then welcome to the 2012 race Mr. Reagan!
IntheNet on March 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Oh Ed, you are so right about Romney if he had headed the ticket. But, I’m not so certain about 2012.
jeanie on March 1, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into this Mr. Morrissey. Hope you get lots of rest!!!
deidre on March 1, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Though I am intrigued by the poll results, Ed is really right in blowing off 2012 at this point. It is far too early. Even less than two years ago it seemed as if the Hillary vs. Rudy scenarios were all but inevitable.
okonkolo on March 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Appreciate your
goodawesome coverage Ed. Made those of us who couldn’t attend feel part of it in a way.OmahaConservative on March 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM
No argument with the sentiments expressed about Obama, but I want to quibble about the definition of baby boomer. For as long as I’ve heard the term, it’s been used to describe anyone born from 1946 to 1964 inclusive. Obama was born in 1961. Is he a baby boomer or not? If not, what’s the name that’s been coined for his generation?
BuckeyeSam on March 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I totally oogled over Hot Economist Girl from afar a bunch of times
blatantblue on March 1, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Patrick Poole says:
Capt. Ed says:
You are a class act, Ed.
KelliD on March 1, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Thanks Ed! Your work is so valuable and perhaps a bit under appreciated in the heat of things.
katy on March 1, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Jet lag from a one hour time change? C’mon…toughen up, Ed! What are you gonna do if they host CPAC in Hawaii?
Great job covering CPAC!
flipflop on March 1, 2009 at 2:18 PM
How about formulating and articulating better policies? They’re in no position to implement anything right now.
flipflop on March 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Nah, Romney would not have won the election either. Face it, there are just some years that are Democrat years and some that are for the Republicans. The anger towards Bush and the GOP was too large to overcome; it didn’t help that the media beat that drum incessantly for 4 years. It was clear to me that whoever won the Democratic primary would be our next President.
Romney or Guiliani would have put up a better fight than McCain, but the Democrats and the media would have lampooned Romney as a CEO, therefore, part of the problem that created the financial collapse. Guiliani’s personal life and corruption scandals would have damaged him as well, but at least these 2 guys would have fought until the bitter end.
The part that galls me is that McCain stood up there and kept telling us to fight, yet he wasn’t willing to lead the fight. Sarah was and did the best that she could have, but the bottom of the ticket candidate has rarely won the election for the top guy.
The anger towards the GOP was real and palpable. Obama’s victory was a vote against the incumbent party and not FOR Obama. This will become crystal clear this year, in 2010 and 2012 when the GOP wins again in landslides.
yogi41 on March 1, 2009 at 2:28 PM
As David Keene said in his intro, Mitt Romney is more important to the Republican Party than ever before. After four years of this administration, the country will hopefully be looking for a true grown-up to take the reins. Romney 2012.
JA on March 1, 2009 at 2:30 PM
You know, that’s a good question, because there is a gap between the baby boomers and the Generation X (and now Y and Millenials). I really think counting folks born in the 60s as baby boomers to stretching it too far, because they don’t become adults until the end of the 70s and early 80s. If you graduate from high school in the early 80s, it seems like you can’t be a baby boomer.
okonkolo on March 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM
hot economist girl is curiously strong.
alas I would become as guileless as a cruising Martin Short in her midst.
pc on March 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM
BuckeyeSam on March 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Obama would have been a teenager in the 70s, I am a baby boomer but the tail end so a “late boomer”
This, then, defines the 70s.
As I look back on it, it appears to me that 76 million teenagers coming of age was too strong a force to resist. We represented 40% of the population, and we were used to getting what we wanted. So our parents saw that they could not keep things as they were. There were just too many of us. And television spread the word too quickly. Life and society would not stay as it had been. We had too much leisure time, too much money, and there were simply too many of us. So we did what we wanted. The result… was the 70s.
But, as Paul Harvey likes to say, excesses are usually their own undoing. Thirty years later, we are still undoing.
http://www.bbhq.com/sevente2.htm
I identify a lot more with being among the huge teenage population of the 70s then I do my earlier Baby Boomer conterparts from the 60s my older sister is a teenager from the 60s…and a proud flaming liberal LOL!
Imagine this demographic as the marketers must view us…we are a huge segment of the population. I am an Imus Fan, I identify with Imus satire, he was really big back then 70s and 80s, and he can’t remember most of it because of excess:) We are not the PC crowd from the 60s- for example “Hillary Clinton” and Geraldine Ferraro who used the actual words on Hannity and Colmes, that they condemned what Imus said because it wasn’t Politically Correct…so much for them being for Free Speech and Freedom of Expression…and just last week Michelle Malkin was blogging about DeMint’s move to stop any Fairness Doctrine bill Passing. Can you measure the appeal to the Fairness Doctrine by Generation?
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Good job, ED. First time I followed on of these CPAC thingies gavel to gavel…this one had some pretty great Kodak moments. Now the real work has to be done.
coldwarrior on March 1, 2009 at 2:37 PM
BuckeyeSam on March 1, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Obama would have been a teenager in the 70s, I am a baby boomer but the tail end so a “late boomer”
This, then, defines the 70s.
As I look back on it, it appears to me that 76 million teenagers coming of age was too strong a force to resist. We represented 40% of the population, and we were used to getting what we wanted. So our parents saw that they could not keep things as they were. There were just too many of us. And television spread the word too quickly. Life and society would not stay as it had been. We had too much leisure time, too much money, and there were simply too many of us. So we did what we wanted. The result… was the 70s.
But, as Paul Harvey likes to say, excesses are usually their own undoing. Thirty years later, we are still undoing.
I identify a lot more with being among the huge teenage population of the 70s then I do my earlier Baby Boomer counterparts from the 60s my older sister is a teenager from the 60s…and a proud flaming liberal LOL!
Imagine this demographic as the marketers must view us…we are a huge segment of the population. I am an Imus Fan, I identify with Imus satire, he was really big back then 70s and 80s, and he can’t remember most of it because of excess:) We are not the PC crowd from the 60s- for example “Hillary Clinton” and Geraldine Ferraro who used the actual words on Hannity and Colmes, that they condemned what Imus said because it wasn’t Politically Correct…so much for them being for Free Speech and Freedom of Expression…and just last week Michelle Malkin was blogging about DeMint’s move to stop any Fairness Doctrine bill Passing. Can you measure the appeal to the Fairness Doctrine by Generation?
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM
testing my comments not coming through.
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Sorry Ed, I didn’t mean to post twice.
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Thanks to people like Steele and Cantor, I’m beginning to think the days of conservatives in the GOP have come to a close.
Let the Republican Party die like the Whigs, and let’s try for a genuine Conservative Party, one that panders to none and offers solid, sensible and equal policies for all.
As it stands, CPAC was nothing more than an exercise in, well, mutual arousal. The energy will quickly be dissipated when people like Romney and *uckabee and Gingrich try to harness it for their own gain.
MrScribbler on March 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Jet lag from a one hour time change? C’mon…toughen up, Ed! What are you gonna do if they host CPAC in Hawaii?
Er, try to find reasons to stay inside a hotel and listen to politicians? ;-)
Ed Morrissey on March 1, 2009 at 2:44 PM
If you are basing your response on Stephonopolois (sp?) article on not the show transcript, your criticism of Cantor may be off target. Please read this RedState article for more insight.
After reading Steph I thought the same as you.
WashJeff on March 1, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I wish I could have attended. It sounds like a lot of fun. Too much work, though. :(
Frivolous on March 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Was he rooting for the Democrats in 2006?
radiofreevillage on March 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Terrible CPAC.
At a time when you needed to discuss new ideas and find ways to turn your arguments for conservatism into real policies you just shouted that conservatism exists.
Having Rush close the event says it all. Higher turnout but no direction. Same arguments that people heard already.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM
This “hope he fails” attitude will fall flat. You don’t win elections by hoping the other guy screws up. Even Obama didn’t win because of Bush, he had to offer a lot of different things.
ckoeber on March 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Thanks, Ed for the coverage and the above quote. Many of us commented the same way. Now is not the time to be infighting on who is the 2012 nominee. But it is the time for us all to stand together against the socialist threat and the class warfare threat being perpetrated on us by the left.
Christian Conservative on March 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Earlier today, I was seated on my flight to Cincinnati after CPAC next to a Catholic priest. We talked about several subjects including politics. I told him I was with TeamSarah. He admitted he liked to listen to Talk Radio and that he was giving it up for Lent. He said he was a Laura Ingram fan. He mentioned something to me I did not know: Gingrich’s wife is Catholic. I never knew that before. It got me thinking.
When Newt was signing books at CPAC, I got in the line and presented to him my poster of Sarah Palin to sign. I really really like Newt Gingrich. Expecting only books I suppose, he paused momentarily, and we made eye contact. I thought inside he might be offended by me presenting to him a poster of a possible competitor for 2012 (I did not know at this time that items other than books would normally not be signed – I later heard the rule when I went to see Ann Coutler). In fact, I was honored that Newt would sign my poster of Sarah. I like to think that maybe he saw in my eyes my sincerity, humbleness, slight smile but with absolutely no snark at all, and my genuine devotion to Sarah, but also to him as a man who I still think is a conservative. He might have speculated when he looked in my eyes, that I had not forgotten the way he came to Sarah’s defense at the GOP convention when he criticized that ridiculous press guy who did his normal leftist MSM bs.
I didn’t tell him what to sign, so he just put his quick signature. I said sincerely, “Thanks Newt”.
I wish I knew that his wife was Catholic. I got to attend the Ash Wednesday ashes and Mass with CPAC volunteers on Wednesday. I could have briefly had a few kind words for his wife and wished her a moving and rewarding Lenten season.
I just read earlier that Newt intends to convert to Catholicism.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM
It’s time for an update Ed,
James Hansen Expert on Hot Air?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/hottest-october-on-record-was-really-a-september/
Largest Global Warming Protest Set To Be Held Tomorrow March 2nd 2009
Snow Storm expected to Hit D.C. Tomorrow March 2nd 2009
Dr Evil on March 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Obama is part of the baby boom generation. So is Sarah Palin, born in 1964. I’m not sure about Pawlenty.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Focus on 2009 elections in New York (District 20) and the governor’s race in Virginia.
We MUST win these contests. Taking the governorship in New Jersey would be great too.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 6:32 PM
I was VERY pleased to read this. There is increasing talk about this is my little neck of the woods.
I don’t care who will be the ticket in 2012–at least not yet.
Conservatism needs to re-root itself in principle. Then leaders can emerge. But I expect it to get ugly because many people thrive off the controversy that exists today. They relish the mud.
And many people who disrespect things like judgment, convictions, and principles are leery of a return to Reaganism (i.e. the Founding Fathers beliefs) and thus seek to tear down the Jindals, the Palin’s, the Limbaughs or anyone who demonstrates those values, and in so doing, reveal the small stature of the would-be destroyer.
Montana on March 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM
It was a blast from Wednesday through getting home here in Cincinnati. And I had the flu/cold and possibly bronchitis the whole time. I’m healing up hopefully before work tomorrow. I’m watching “The Two Towers” on TV. This memorable speech in the movie is so appropriate of the times and my experience at my first CPAC:
Sam: I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo… and it’s worth fighting for.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Question:
Is it time for David Keene to retire from the head of ACU?
Maybe it would be a good time for someone else to carry the flame of the conference for now.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Yeah right. Romney was a 1 term governor who “discovered his principles” right when he was leaving office. We don’t need him. Sanford is 10x better.
TTheoLogan on March 1, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I never saw so many attractive women in such a compressed area. Impressive.
I was briefly talking to the delicious Ainsley of FoxNews at one of the banquets telling her that Team Sarah had some tables right near her and to mention that Sarah’s People were there even if Sarah couldn’t make it. I almost had to wipe the drool off before talking to her. She has those devastating good looks you don’t see to often.
Of course, Megyn was my first choice if I had to have a media women there. :)
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I talked to David Keene on Wednesday’s reception briefly. I asked about Sarah not showing up. He said he was disappointed Sarah could not make it. I don’t know his opinion of Sarah, but he wanted her to be there I think.
Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Ed,
Thanks for an excellent job covering this event. You did the best blog work I saw anywhere on the net.
-Dave
Dave R. on March 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM
It was great to finally meet you, Ed and you are absolutely correct about the CRC folks. They did a great job on Bloggers’ Row.
Jimmie on March 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Look out Michelle, here comes that expense report!
conservnut on March 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM