CPAC source: Christie wasn’t invited this year because he has a “limited future” in the GOP; Update: Sandy relief and Medicaid?

posted at 8:41 pm on February 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

Hard to argue with that assessment today of all days, but … Mitt Romney’s also been invited this year. The future doesn’t get any more limited than that.

Also, since when is one’s prospects in the GOP a litmus test for whether you’re CPAC-worthy or not? Every time someone objects to GOProud’s exclusion, the rejoinder inevitably comes that it’s the “Conservative Political Action Conference,” not the “Republican Political Action Conference.” Okay, in that case, who cares about Christie’s future in the GOP? Either his ideas are conservative enough or they aren’t.

Verdict: They aren’t. Or rather, one isn’t.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie was not invited to address the Conservative Political Action Conference because he has a “limited future” in the national Republican party given his position on gun control, according to a source familiar with the internal deliberations related to the event who was not authorized to speak publicly. As a result, the focus of this year’s conference, “the future of conservatism,” made Christie a bad fit, the source tells National Review Online.

The New Jersey governor, who has expressed concern about “an abundance of guns out there,” has said he backs the gun-control legislation currently on the books in his state, some of the nation’s most restrictive. Carrying a concealed weapon, for example, is permitted only when a citizen can demonstrate “the urgent necessity for self-protection.” Christie has not been afraid to speak out against the National Rifle Association, either, calling an ad the group ran in the wake of the Newtown shooting “reprehensible” and “awful.”

Gun-control is an instant dealbreaker for appearing at CPAC, but developing the universal health care framework on which ObamaCare was based and then refusing to apologize for it isn’t? I’m not a fan of O-Care or of new gun regulations, but I know which one I’m more worried about long-term. Also, how many of this year’s speakers are okay with, if not outright sponsoring, the disastrous plan floating around Congress to grant illegals instant probationary legal status as part of a comprehensive immigration reform deal? There’s Rubio, of course, and probably Paul Ryan, maybe Rand Paul. If you want to exclude Christie, you have lots of reasons; it’s strange to settle on just one when virtually everyone has a heresy or two to his/her record. (Ryan famously voted for TARP too, of course.) Besides, if you really want to hurt him, why not invite him and let him get booed? Being rejected by rank-and-file conservatives would be more damaging to his brand than being rejected by the organizers of the conference. He can demagogue the latter as part of a close-minded ideological power structure that “fears” him or whatever. It’s harder to do that with the average joe, especially when Christie’s big asset is supposed to be his ability to win over audiences.

Speaking of CPAC absences, via the Corner, here’s S.E. Cupp announcing that she won’t speak there this year because GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are being sidelined. They were sidelined last year too and she spoke then. Did it take lefty Chris Hayes to blaze the trail for MSNBC hosts on this? Exit question: Who wants to tell the RGA that their next chairman has a limited future in the GOP?

Update: This is a more robust critique of Christie than the gun-control reasoning. But, er…

“CPAC is like the all-star game for professional athletes; you get invited when you have had an outstanding year,” Cardenas said. “Hopefully he will have another all-star year in the future, at which time we will be happy to extend an invitation. This is a conservative conference, not a Republican Party event.”

Cardenas cited Christie’s decision to expand Medicaid under President Obama’s health care law and his support of a $60 billion aid package for Hurricane Sandy victims, which he argued was filled with wasteful spending.

Okay, but the decision not to invite him leaked last night, before he announced his plans on Medicaid. And Medicaid expansion, in and of itself, is evidently no bar to speaking: As far as I know, Susana Martinez is still invited even though she ended up expanding Medicaid for New Mexico in early January. As for Sandy relief, it’s true — Christie’s cheap, demagogic triangulation with the House GOP over that is probably his lowest moment as a so-called fiscal conservative. (Or was, until today.) But by making Sandy aid the big peg for excluding him, you’re doing him an incredible political favor. Sandy relief is the biggest reason why his approval rating in Jersey is upwards of 75 percent; it’s likely also the biggest reason he polls well nationally even with Democrats at the moment. His whole post-Sandy nonpartisan brand is built on the idea that he’s less ideological and just more goshdarned caring than those heartless conservatives in the GOP congressional caucus. And now here’s CPAC proclaiming that, indeed, his Sandy relief support is cause for (temporary) banishment from conservatism. He’ll be crowing about it for weeks. It’s practically an in-kind contribution to his gubernatorial campaign.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

ddrintn on February 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM

My thinking is he ought never had one to begin with…Sure, IN THE BEGINNING, he was “cute.” His shtick was winning. He was endearing, and open and honest…loved how he talked about his family and how they “discussed” issues loudly…He brought NJ’s budget under control, relatively….and for about 180 days so far so good.

However, upon further examination, the best you could have said, as many did, was that for NJ Christie was fine, but nationally he was very problematic. His views on guns, his views on SSM, IIRC, his generally left –of-GOP Social positions….so why the love/man-crush? The guy does ONE thing well, berate NJ teachers and the costs associated with NJ state/local government….beyond that he was a TOTAL non-starter.

And now, there’s even LESS to love….Like I said yesterday, Allah/Ace/King Gold can keep hoping to find a socially liberal/moderate Fiscal Conservative, just like I hoped for a date with Anna Nicole Smith. All of us hoped in vain. Generally, to repeat, squishes in one area end up as squishes in most if not all areas.

Bottom-Line: I can’t conceive of why any NATIONAL pundit, had a man-crush on Christie for anything more than a powerful NJ politician, because he was never going to be anything nationally…for specific policy reasons and for the larger general reason about the failure of “moderates” to remain very moderate.

JFKY on February 27, 2013 at 10:04 AM

I get so tired of these annual “who didn’t get invited to CPAC and why?” debates. Christie pissed off the right with his chumminess towards Obama after Hurricane Sandy and then going hard against the House GOP for not passing the Sandy relief bill quickly enough. Republicans know the drill: turn your back on the party, you get pats on the head from the media for being one of the good ones, but the bad news is your party hates you. The end.

jas88 on February 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM

You can’t blame Christie; he’s just doing what all Obama-cultists do: denying sound principle, taking the bucks and selling his soul.
Nothing new here. I’d give a million bananas to see the GOP toss him out before he get the power of pulling the string and giving them the Obamafinger! But the GOP is too busy soliciting RINOs like McCain and his boy wonder, Lindsey Graham to do their dirty work.

Don L on February 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Christy screwed the pooch. Now, he gets to sleep in the dog house. Bye, Fatso.

SurferDoc on February 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM

And Christie should have been invited. Hes good, for a place like New Jersey. Thats just the lay of the land.

tommy71 on February 26, 2013 at 9:14 PM

Yeah, the CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference needs a clown who just accepted obama’s medicare expansion in NJ, never even signed the lawsuit against commie care in the first place, calls the NRA reprehensible while his state says YOU need to demonstrate an URGENET need to carry a CONCEALED firearm in NJ, loves illegals,and is a global warming nut.

Yeah, we just all need to bend over and take it to become liberals.

Good point!! Why have any principles at all right??

LevinFan on February 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I’m sick of Chris Christie, I’m sick of people pushing Chris Christie. He’s full of crap, open your eyes and it is glaring. Good luck pushing this guy as the man in 2016.

saus on February 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

CPAC source: Christie wasn’t invited this year because he has a “limited future” in the GOP

Well then there’s the limited future of the GOP.

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Well then there’s the limited future of the GOP.

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Because the only way to win an election is by nominating a thin-skinned bully who endorsed Obama for his own purposes.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Sandy relief is the biggest reason why his approval rating in Jersey is upwards of 75 percent; it’s likely also the biggest reason he polls well nationally even with Democrats at the moment. His whole post-Sandy nonpartisan brand is built on the idea that he’s less ideological and just more goshdarned caring than those heartless conservatives in the GOP congressional caucus.

Last time I checked, BUYING public approval with taxpayer dollars was the hallmark of a good Democrat.

I liked Christie. I really did. But it turns out that he had me buffaloed, just like a lot of other people. In the end, he stuck a knife in the back of the Republican candidate just before election day, has rejected fiscal responsibility, and has embraced Obamacare. Seems to me that there’s no point in splitting hairs as to whether he should be regarded as a Republican or a Conservative. He’s neither.

Murf76 on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM

It ain’t necessarily all over for CPAC.
I mean where else might you get to see Phyllis Schlafly rockin’ out to Ted Nugent?

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Ann Coulter hardest hit.

AH_C on February 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

It ain’t necessarily all over for CPAC.
I mean where else might you get to see Phyllis Schlafly rockin’ out to Ted Nugent?

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM

And a fifty year old governor with three chins and an affinity for Bruce Springsteen is totally hip and with it.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I get so tired of these annual “who didn’t get invited to CPAC and why?” debates. Christie pissed off the right with his chumminess towards Obama after Hurricane Sandy and then going hard against the House GOP for not passing the Sandy relief bill quickly enough. Republicans know the drill: turn your back on the party, you get pats on the head from the media for being one of the good ones, but the bad news is your party hates you. The end.

jas88 on February 27, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Yep.

I don’t know why everyone is getting so wee-wee’d up. It benefits the CPAC brand not to have anything to do with Christie, and it benefits the Christie brand not to have anything to do with CPAC. So no matter which side you’re on, you win. What is the problem?

Missy on February 27, 2013 at 11:06 AM

What’s up with all the Christie bandwidth on this blog the last week or so? You’d think HotAir was in the tank for him.

ButterflyDragon on February 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Now if the GOP were to fund a massive RINO sweep using Rove, I’d consider embracing them…

Why Rove? Even anti-venom is made using rattlesnake poison.

Don L on February 27, 2013 at 7:18 AM

I wouldn’t. Rove is a proven loser. I sort of like like Dick Morris, but I wouldn’t trust him to advise me on how to clean my own room let alone win an election. Same goes with Rove.

I’d have a lot more confidence in these guys’ predictions that conservatives couldn’t win if they knew how to actually win themselves, but they don’t. 2012 was going to be about them “showing us how it was done” but instead they just ended up making fools of themselves and handing the country to the Democrats and possibly splintering the Republican Party permanently.

Doomberg on February 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Romney was the nominee. He’s a nice guy. Conservative past, not really. But he’s not out trying to mock conservatives like Christie. Chris Christie is in love with the president. He wants to be just like him and he loves flaunting it.

Rusty Allen on February 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM

What’s up with all the Christie bandwidth on this blog the last week or so? You’d think HotAir was in the tank for him.

ButterflyDragon on February 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Because it drives traffic.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Because it drives traffic.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Good point – now that Palin has become less visible HA must be missing all those 1000 comment threads about her.

katiejane on February 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM

My fundamental issue with Christie is thus- what are his principles exactly?

My conclusion is that Christie makes a mockery of a principled approach because his considerations are political and not philosophical

To wit, do we say that Christie espouses fiscal discipline spending except with respect to Medicare? Perhaps Sandy spending?

That’s opportunistic and dishonest, not principled.

This conversation can be repeated across several issues.

It is an absolute joke that anyone makes the third party argument using Christie as a prime candidate. People looking for a third party candidate want someone who iument s not only principled, but actually practices what they espouse. Christie is the antithesis of that modus operandi. So I would call anyone espousing him as exhibit number one in the third party argument an interloper or sophist.

Marcus Traianus on February 27, 2013 at 12:06 PM

It ain’t necessarily all over for CPAC.
I mean where else might you get to see Phyllis Schlafly rockin’ out to Ted Nugent?

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM

And a fifty year old governor with three chins and an affinity for Bruce Springsteen is totally hip and with it.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Right..he is a governor….of a state.
But for you, Ted Nugent not having a weight problem makes him more qualified.
Ha.

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 12:27 PM

We have a problem here on the right, and i know i’m going to hear a lot of criticism over saying this, but i don’t understand how people cannot grasp the simple logic. The Left has been moving this country to the left for the last 100 years. (Yes i know that’s not 100% accurate but damn close enough.)Listen to us, “I can’t support him because he’s just Obama light” well damn it all he’s a lot more to the right than bambi is, we just need to start taking the long view back…

American Patriot1980 on February 27, 2013 at 12:59 AM

My only criticism is–where have you been? We’ve been trying this for the past decade and it’s not working. When the TEA Party gave the R’s back the house in 2010 to STOP Obama, what did the R’s do? They made a deal, a crappy deal, with Obama. Don’t blame conservatives if they walk away from a party they can’t recognize anymore, a party that pisses on them every chance it gets.

txhsmom on February 27, 2013 at 12:55 PM

There is no need for all this confusion. The folks at CPAC know that Christie is planning to run for President as a Democrat in 2016; that is what they mean when they say that Christie has a limited future in the GOP. He will switch after getting reelected governor. Obama gave Christie the go over the week end.

Mr. Arkadin on February 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Why on earth, given Allah’s clear summary, would Christie want to speak at CPAC? What policy does he share with conservatives? His state is a tax and spend freakshow, he embraces the worst aspects of Obamacare and hugs the Devil himself, and he’s a Democrat on the 2nd amendment.

Move along, fat boy. We will not be a marketing poster for your liberal campaign.

Jaibones on February 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Right..he is a governor….of a state.
But for you, Ted Nugent not having a weight problem makes him more qualified.
Ha.

verbaluce on February 27, 2013 at 12:27 PM

And there are more than enough actually hip elected officials who are going to be there.

Illinidiva on February 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM

CPAC source: Christie wasn’t invited this year because he has a “limited future” in the GOP

…Crispass has a “lousy future” with me!

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM

My only criticism is–where have you been? We’ve been trying this for the past decade and it’s not working. When the TEA Party gave the R’s back the house in 2010 to STOP Obama, what did the R’s do? They made a deal, a crappy deal, with Obama. Don’t blame conservatives if they walk away from a party they can’t recognize anymore, a party that pisses on them every chance it gets.

txhsmom on February 27, 2013 at 12:55 PM

As a “young” veteran i’ve been pretty apolitical for most of my life (Always knew what i believed) but have been getting pushed past the tipping point!

American Patriot1980 on February 27, 2013 at 4:27 PM

It’s a joke to exclude Christie and include Romney. There is no future for conservatives if they can’t win the senate or the white house. That will mean being inclusive to republicans from new england and the midwest. Nobody is perfect including CPAC organizers!

philrat on February 27, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I think CPAC should invite Christie and Obama,What a sight to see the threesome of Christie,Coulter,and Obama.Would put the antics of GoProud to shame.Ewww!Politics surely does make strange bedfellows.

redware on February 27, 2013 at 4:41 PM

oh let the fatas@ speak. Like it will matter. Palin’s and possibly Dr. Carson’s speeches will be the talk of CPAC the rest will be quickly forgotten. Like anyone cares what Mitt or christie has to say at a conservative conference. Maybe if it was MPAC or RINOPAC conference people would care

unseen on February 27, 2013 at 4:46 PM

it is amazing to see all the moderates get their panties in a wad over this when Mitt froze out all conservatives from speaking at the RNC convention not a word was said by those same moderates…

unseen on February 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I liked Christie. I really did. But it turns out that he had me buffaloed, just like a lot of other people.

Murf76 on February 27, 2013 at 10:43 AM

That seems to happen a lot to you moderate “pragmatic” types. And you usually still sit and sneer at those who told you so.

ddrintn on February 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM

unseen on February 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Yeah, but that’s different./ I wonder how many “moderates” besides the famous ones who admitted it right out loud, didn’t vote for Sen. McCain because of Sarah Palin?

Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Rusty Allen on February 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Anyone who cries because Springsteen calls them, can’t be president. Period.

Cindy Munford on February 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I think sugar Cupps is suffering from MSNBC/Stockholm syndrome.

Jaibones on February 27, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I think sugar Cupps is suffering from MSNBC/Stockholm syndrome.

Jaibones on February 27, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Good for S. E. there though. One woman against a bunch of hypocritical male lib shitheads. And she pretty much owned them; when asked why no one protested Bush’s actions, she could’ve said “A lot of us did, actually”.

ddrintn on February 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Good riddance to another RINO piece of trash….

Doomsday on February 28, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Gov. Fatass’s two-week tour practically endorsing Obama for re-election doomed him with CPAC. And yes, polling data backs up the assertion that the New Jersey Blimp helped Obama get re-elected.

pdigaudio on February 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3