Dr. Ben Carson: I don’t think Chris Christie and GOProud should be excluded from CPAC

posted at 6:41 pm on March 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via the Andrea Tantaros Show, I assume his point here about the urgency of economic renewal will form the core of his CPAC speech so consider this a sneak preview. Interesting little exchange between him and Tantaros: She seizes on his message about opposing political correctness to steer him towards criticizing Christie’s and GOProud’s exclusion on those grounds, that it’s a form of conservative PC. But that’s not really where he takes it. He comes back at her, essentially, with something similar to Mitch Daniels’s idea of a “truce” on social issues. We need a big tent right now because rescuing the country from fiscal unsustainability takes precedence over all other disagreements. There’ll be time later to decide which cultural ideas are “barnicles” on the ship of state after it’s been turned around.

National Review’s a bit more absolute than that:

CPAC’s inviting GOProud to participate again would not now, as it did not at earlier conferences, imply its endorsement of any particular policies regarding gays, just as CPAC’s invitation to Chris Hayes to speak on a panel does not imply its endorsement of MSNBC. Speaking of Hayes, his rebuff of CPAC’s invitation — lodged as a protest against GOProud’s exclusion — has probably had a greater downside for CPAC than its past inclusion of GOProud ever did. Conservatives rightly lament that pro-life Democrats are regularly marginalized in the various organs of the Left. This marginalization rarely breaks through into the mainstream narrative about the Left. But conservatives are not so lucky, and the present case perhaps unjustly, but nevertheless needlessly, fuels a narrative of marginalization on the Right.

The matter of Chris Christie is somewhat different. CPAC’s exclusion of Christie was not an act of commission but rather one of omission. And while the New Jersey governor is certainly not entitled to speak at the conference, we fear the decision not to invite him to do so is illustrative of a potentially unhealthy trend. Organizers told National Review Online they were displeased with Christie’s restrictionist views on gun control and felt he had a limited future in the national party. We, too, have concerns about the governor’s views on guns — and on other issues — but those concerns are tempered by our respect for his handling of New Jersey’s finances and his reining in of the public-sector unions, which for decades had a vice-like grip on Trenton. Our approach has been to praise those of Christie’s policies that we think judicious and wise, and to criticize those that we think provocative and unwise. We do not think the latter requires reading him out of the conservatism movement or the Republican party.

Jonah Goldberg seems to want a more permanent accommodation, too:

Heck, I’d like to hear debates on pretty much any and every issue dividing factions on the right, including gay rights. But CPAC has declared that gay groups can’t even set up a booth this year. It’s one thing to hold firm to your principles on traditional marriage; it’s quite another to say that dissenting gay groups — that is, conservative gay groups — can’t officially hand out fliers on the premises (as they were allowed to in the past).

Some will no doubt see this as CPAC bravely holding the line. But it reads to many in the public as a knee-jerk and insecure retreat at precisely the moment conservatives should be sending the opposite message. Maybe the near third of young Republicans who support gay marriage are wrong, but CPAC won’t convince them — never mind other young voters — of that by fueling the storyline that conservatives are scared of gays.

One thought on Christie, in keeping with my general line that excluding him this year inadvertently does him more good than harm: It sets him up perfectly for a big “return to conservatism” narrative next year or the year after when he starts to shift right again. Once he’s safely reelected governor, he’ll have to make amends to conservatives somehow ahead of 2016. Just as importantly, he’ll need some showy way to get their attention so that they know he’s trying to make amends. A return to CPAC would be just the ticket. He’ll pick a fight with New Jersey Democrats over union pensions or abortion or something, then have his staff cut a few viral vids of him yelling at left-wing old ladies in the audience at a townhall, and before you know it, wham — he’s keynoting CPAC 2015 and enjoying tons of buzz for doing so. That’s one scenario. The other scenario is that I’m right about him teaming up with Bloomberg to form some sort of national No Labels movement for 2016, in which case he’ll actually shift a tiny bit left and end up keynoting the first annual RINOcon or whatever instead.

Update: Uh oh. We have a new candidate for exclusion from CPAC.


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

Rino!

/s

EnglishRogue on March 1, 2013 at 6:42 PM

And *POOF* goes the HotAir love for Dr. Carson. I`m guessing.

ThePrez on March 1, 2013 at 6:43 PM

“You need to make the tent as big as you possibly can.”

…especially if Christie is going to be in that tent……

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM

He’s misinformed that they are excluded. They just have not been allowed to sponsor or speak. If Carson is so bothered by it, he should set up his own shindig and invite them.

Blake on March 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Calls for him to be frogmarched out as a RINO are likely forthcoming.

Capitalist Hog on March 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM

…especially if Christie is going to be in that tent……

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Ba-dump-bump.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I can respectfully disagree with Dr Carson.

portlandon on March 1, 2013 at 6:47 PM

SODOMITE DEGENERATES HAVE NO PLACE AMONG THE VIRTUOUS PEOPLES AT CPAC!!!!11 Anus tearing, buttsex, marijuana, etc. etc. etc

/astonerii

Armin Tamzarian on March 1, 2013 at 6:47 PM

We need a big tent right now

what’s holding up this tent?

newrouter on March 1, 2013 at 6:48 PM

He’s misinformed that they are excluded. They just have not been allowed to sponsor or speak. If Carson is so bothered by it, he should set up his own shindig and invite them.

Blake on March 1, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Or alternatively, he could simply state his opinion on the matter. Oh yeah, that’s what he did.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM

And *POOF* goes the HotAir love for Dr. Carson. I`m guessing.

ThePrez on March 1, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Still like and respect him, just disagree. How many times does Christie get to poke Conservatives before they decided he might not fit in at CPAC?

arnold ziffel on March 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Sorry, I’m not enthralled by Carson.It takes more than one speech in front of a yawning President to make me think he’s anything more than a softer version of Allen West.

And by the way…….tell me these people should NOT BE IMPEACHED AND FORCED TO RESIGN?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/01/v-fullstory/3261547/documents-us-released-more-than.html

WASHINGTON — The Homeland Security Department released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in recent weeks due to looming budget cuts and planned to release 3,000 more during March, The Associated Press has learned.

The newly disclosed figures, cited in internal budget documents reviewed by the AP, are significantly higher than the “few hundred” illegal immigrants the Obama administration acknowledged this week had been released under the budget-savings process.

PappyD61 on March 1, 2013 at 6:49 PM

I’m fine with Christie being excluded because it is basically for political reasons. CPAC won’t say it but it is because of the Barry hug. I’m not okay with GOProud being excluded because it solely because it is a gay group.

Illinidiva on March 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM

One man stood up to Obama the other one propped him up.

MontanaMmmm on March 1, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Republican party? Yes.

CPAC? Probably not.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Are there going to be donuts in this tent?

forest on March 1, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Carson’s wrong. Principles come first.

He comes back at her, essentially, with something similar to Mitch Daniels’s idea of a “truce” on social issues. We need a big tent right now because rescuing the country from fiscal unsustainability takes precedence over all other disagreements.

No deal.

Morality > National security > Fiscal issues. That’s my issue priority list. Without national security, it’s impossible to have a country for worrying about fiscal issues, and without morality, your country doesn’t deserve to be secure.

Stoic Patriot on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Republican party? Yes.

CPAC? Probably not.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 6:51 PM

I probably said that backwards.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Morality > National security > Fiscal issues. That’s my issue priority list. Without national security, it’s impossible to have a country for worrying about fiscal issues, and without morality, your country doesn’t deserve to be secure.

Stoic Patriot on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Well said.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Thank you, Dr. Carson.

dpduq on March 1, 2013 at 6:53 PM

We need a big tent right now

what’s holding up this tent?

newrouter on March 1, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Hot air?

trigon on March 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Why does everyone keep acting as if CPAC is the GOP? CPAC is NOT the “big tent” group.

Warner Todd Huston on March 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM

This has gotten plain silly.

CPAC is (supposed to be) a conservative event, it is not a GOP event – it is operated by a private foundation – they set their own rules, and invite the speakers and choose the exhibitors and sponsors that they want.

Christie and GOProud have not been “excluded” – they have just not been offered a speaking slot. No one is stopping Christie or anyone from GOProud from attending CPAC and being involved in the event – if they want to go, all they have to do is register and purchase tickets.

Pork-Chop on March 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Morality > National security > Fiscal issues. That’s my issue priority list. Without national security, it’s impossible to have a country for worrying about fiscal issues, and without morality, your country doesn’t deserve to be secure.

Stoic Patriot on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM

I think Fred Phelps would agree.

I say that not to compare you to him, but to illustrate the problem with defining “morality”. If for you Gay=Immoral, I can’t agree. If for the R party Gay=Immoral, the R party is done.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

I still don’t see what the big deal is about Carson. He seems to have some decent ideas and instincts on the fiscal front, but we know next to nothing about his views on foreign policy, national security, social issues, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc.

Can we at least put the kibosh on calls for him to run for president in 2016?

Why not start out by challenging Mikulski in Maryland?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Why does everyone keep acting as if CPAC is the GOP? CPAC is NOT the “big tent” group.

Warner Todd Huston on March 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM

It’s all part of the continuing attack on conservatism. The eventual goal is a left and a middle. No right. That will be the ultimate triumph of the left.

trigon on March 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I also don’t understand why the Republican Party supposedly needing a bigger tent has anything do with conservatives or CPAC.

Conservatism ≠ CPAC ≠ The GOP

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I would bet he consulted with Colin Powell and/or Condi Rice.

Mr. Arrogant on March 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

It is amazing to me how desperate we are for conservative leadership that we are so quick to hitch our wagon to a star we know so little about.Granted we reveled in the idea that Carson had the courage to take on Obama right in front of him on the economy.But what about his positions on a host of other issues critical to our cause.Who knows,maybe he agrees with 98% of what both Christie and Cuomo believe!

redware on March 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Why does everyone keep acting as if CPAC is the GOP? CPAC is NOT the “big tent” group.

Warner Todd Huston on March 1, 2013 at 6:58 PM

That’s what I meant to say.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I still don’t see what the big deal is about Carson. He seems to have some decent ideas and instincts on the fiscal front, but we know next to nothing about his views on foreign policy, national security, social issues, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc.

Can we at least put the kibosh on calls for him to run for president in 2016?

Why not start out by challenging Mikulski in Maryland?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I agree. It’s just too easy to get amped up over a new,articulate conservative who says what we’d want to say to Obama, or some other lefty’s, face.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Who cares what a club wants to do at its meetings. All these people and their dang opinions about who needs to let who do what. CPAC needs a transgendered ventriloquist too I suppose. Make the tent a little bigger.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM

It is amazing to me how desperate we are for conservative leadership that we are so quick to hitch our wagon to a star we know so little about.Granted we reveled in the idea that Carson had the courage to take on Obama right in front of him on the economy.But what about his positions on a host of other issues critical to our cause.Who knows,maybe he agrees with 98% of what both Christie and Cuomo believe!

redware on March 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

We know more about Carson than you apparently do: https://www.google.com/search?q=ben+carson&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:05 PM

But I do agree with this:

Can we at least put the kibosh on calls for him to run for president in 2016?

Why not start out by challenging Mikulski in Maryland?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Update: Uh oh. We have a new candidate for exclusion from CPAC.

well, that took even less time than i’d thought.

sesquipedalian on March 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

It just be me, but Dr. Carson is for free speech and not p/c from his numerous interviews. He seems to me, everyone has a ‘right’ under their 1st to give their views?

I dearly love Dr. Carson and he is a breath of fresh air with but a precious few we have! To get the truth from people is almost foreign since bho was elected?
L

letget on March 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

You urban dudes are on your own. If you think that you should not have a semi-auto pistol, while the gangs and criminals do, that’s on you. You can always call 911 while you are being jacked.

I live over 4 hours from the nearest town over 200k. I have to drive 40 miles to see graffiti and have not heard a siren in over a year. I have what I need, and I’m good. Good luck to all y’all living in the urban.

WestTexasBirdDog on March 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

The difference between Carson and a RINO. Carson disagreed with a private organization and their invites. RINOs CONSISTENTLY vote against their constituients and their party.. and the Republican party platform. Not hard to tell the difference.

Christie= RINO

Carson= private party disagreeing with a policy.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Dr. Carson is right about the tent and wrong about the guns!!

Momma on March 1, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I didn’t mean Ann Coulter, that’s just rude.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM

I think Fred Phelps would agree.

I say that not to compare you to him, but to illustrate the problem with defining “morality”. If for you Gay=Immoral, I can’t agree. If for the R party Gay=Immoral, the R party is done.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Wow aren’t you an enlightened. You do realize that Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat and actually ran for office under the Democrat banner.

And yeah, you did try to compare Fred Phelps hence the whole gay/ Fred Phelps things. You just did it in a passive agressive way..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Dr. Ben Carson: I don’t think Chris Christie and GOProud should be excluded from CPAC

Wrong. And wrong-headed.

I’m not sure why a guy who’s known for just one speech – saying things that have been said by many people (though not in the GOP leadership) time and time again for the past 4 years, at least – got an invite.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Who cares what a club wants to do at its meetings. All these people and their dang opinions about who needs to let who do what. CPAC needs a transgendered ventriloquist too I suppose. Make the tent a little bigger.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM

This^^^^ Why they he!! is there such a big deal if they want to exclude anyone? It is their organization. Repubs if ANYBODY should be FOR freedom of association, but I have never seen so many people get up an arms when one organization actually practices it.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I still don’t see what the big deal is about Carson. He seems to have some decent ideas and instincts on the fiscal front, but we know next to nothing about his views on foreign policy, national security, social issues, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, etc.

Can we at least put the kibosh on calls for him to run for president in 2016?

Why not start out by challenging Mikulski in Maryland?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM

I don’t see the big deal either. Actually, it’s rather tacky and cheap; but this comes to no surprise since it’s Conservative Inc. heralding him since he, uh, gave a speech (sounds like someone we know, huh?)

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I wonder if Dr. Carson will actually say “Barack Obama” during his speech (unlike Chris Christie who did not..at the GOP convention, no less). I’ll withold judgement until then.

SouthernGent on March 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

ALlahpundit people aren’t being excluded because they want a big tent and you dmnm well know it.

GOProud has been disruptive in the past and why does CPAC need troublemakers. Same for Christie. He isn’t being excluded for his beliefs no matter what CPAC says. He is out because he stabbed Conservatives in the back both with the Obama hug and then squealing about the delay in the Sandy bill. BTW AP why wasn’t he yelling louder during OBAMA’s MONTH where he did nothing?

Is it important to you Allahpundit to see everyone upset that Christie is at their gathering? Same for GOProud.

Do we really need the conflict and the ensuing bad press if anyone dares confront him?

Conan on March 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Thought experiment:

If there were a Progressive Political Action Conference (“PPAC”), do you think they would be open to having someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson speak, or to inviting a group of Democrats for Traditional Marriage?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

It is amazing to me how desperate we are for conservative leadership that we are so quick to hitch our wagon to a star we know so little about.Granted we reveled in the idea that Carson had the courage to take on Obama right in front of him on the economy.But what about his positions on a host of other issues critical to our cause.Who knows,maybe he agrees with 98% of what both Christie and Cuomo believe!

redware on March 1, 2013 at 7:02 PM

It takes little to become a conservative star. All you need to do is take on Barry. Woodward seems to playing the same game.

Remember when Christie was the conservative darling? Then Rubio came along until he became the poster boy for amnesty. Now Dr Carson is the new crush. Wonder how long his 15 mins would last.

celticdefender on March 1, 2013 at 7:19 PM

CPAC needs a transgendered ventriloquist too I suppose. Make the tent a little bigger.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Amen, this isn’t the RNC.

Conan on March 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Let Christie speak.

Then someone can politely interrupt and suggest he’s apparently missing the Obama press conference / old media pep rally over on Pennsylvania Avenue.

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Thought experiment:

If there were a Progressive Political Action Conference (“PPAC”), do you think they would be open to having someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson speak, or to inviting a group of Democrats for Traditional Marriage?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

They’d have Christie giving the keynote address against a backdrop of his beach strolls with Barky.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 1, 2013 at 7:20 PM

“You need to make the tent as big as you possibly can.”

…especially if Christie is going to be in that tent……

viking01 on March 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I bet that black dude democrat in Connecticut has a big tent under his desk.

SouthernGent on March 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I don’t see the big deal either. Actually, it’s rather tacky and cheap; but this comes to no surprise since it’s Conservative Inc. heralding him since he, uh, gave a speech (sounds like someone we know, huh?)

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Its because he actually had some gumption to go after Obama directly. We don’t see that from many of our side. We need some real Repubs candidates who have a little fight in them when they campaign..

If there were a Progressive Political Action Conference (“PPAC”), do you think they would be open to having someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson speak, or to inviting a group of Democrats for Traditional Marriage?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

LOL— Never happen. I don’t think they have pro-life Democrats either. And weren’t the Boy Scouts booed or disinvited to their Convention?

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM

If for the R party Gay=Immoral, the R party is done.

peski on March 1, 2013 at 6:59 PM

The R party is just fine, peski. The big problem for the R party is reaching middle class voters in the Rustbelt and the Plains states.

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Geez. This guy is flavor-of-the-month (or savior-of-the-month). He’ll be more or less forgotten (in political circles) within a month of CPAC, and will be relegated to “red meat” and/or “heart-ache” videos on HotAir. The orgasmic response to his excellent prayer breakfast speech is utterly typical of the Repub’s “grasping at straws” approach to picking messiahs candidates (e.g., Palin, Cain, Christie, etc.).

One would think y’all would recognize that pattern by now.

Splashman on March 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Update: Uh oh. We have a new candidate for exclusion from CPAC.

It is highly unlikely that ACU will un-invite Carson over this, but if they want to, that’s up to them.

The NRA is a big sponsor of CPAC, and both David Keene and Wayne LaPierre are featured speakers this year. This year, perhaps more than ever before, it is vital that there be a strong, cohesive, uniform, conservative message regarding gun rights. Strengthening and protecting gun rights will be one of the main issues at CPAC 2013.

http://conservative.org/cpac/2013/

Pork-Chop on March 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Or Pro-Life Democrats.

I enjoy going to the dhimmicRAT booth at the local fairs and asking them if they have any “Democrats for Life” bumper stickers.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

One would think y’all would recognize that pattern by now.

Splashman on March 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM [et al]

We are just not as wise as you all are.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I listened to the interview. Don’t have a bit of a problem with what he said or the way he said it. Many had the same take before the last Presidential election. Get the election won first then worry about the party second. Now that the election has been lost the infighting between varying factions has continued. What am I missing here?

Bmore on March 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

So all those folks signing onto that amicus brief are now going to send in a new one asking SCOTUS to hold off on it until we get the bigger priorities taken care of first? Is that what everyone is talking about when they say Big Tent?

No? Yeah, I thought so. It’s always a one-way street.

Big Press Conference Coming: Christie announces he’s not going to accept the Sandy funding because there was too much pork attached and we have much bigger priorities to solve than mere localism. He’s sending it back with the demand for a clean Sandy bill.

Wait, my bad. I was dreaming of a Big Tent.

Dusty on March 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

I don’t see the big deal either. Actually, it’s rather tacky and cheap; but this comes to no surprise since it’s Conservative Inc. heralding him since he, uh, gave a speech (sounds like someone we know, huh?)

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Its because he actually had some gumption to go after Obama directly. We don’t see that from many of our side. We need some real Repubs candidates who have a little fight in them when they campaign..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:21 PM

It’s tacky and it’s at a prayer breakfast. You’re attacking a guy who is just sitting there who happens to the be the president, who can’t respond, and it just doesn’t sit well.

See, if Carson ran for office in Maryland, was out on the stump, and made the case against Obama and the Democrats; then that would have been something. But he didn’t. What he did do was give a speech and now he is paraded about like some hero. Gumption is running for office, facing down the media, the Democrats, winning, and doing something worthwhile in office — especially if its unpopular — like making a compelling case against amnesty or the expansion of government and getting something done about it.

I’m personally tired of celebrating people who deliver speeches. I’m also tired of Conservative Inc’s talk, talk, talk and no action.

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

I enjoy going to the dhimmicRAT booth at the local fairs and asking them if they have any “Democrats for Life” bumper stickers.

davidk on March 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

That sounds like a lot of fun.

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Morality > National security > Fiscal issues. That’s my issue priority list. Without national security, it’s impossible to have a country for worrying about fiscal issues, and without morality, your country doesn’t deserve to be secure.

Stoic Patriot on March 1, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Describe “morality” when you are talking about Caesar, as opposed to talking about God. Should the two be identical? Can they be identical?

I’d cede to the gays a right to civil marriage immediately if they didn’t pull things like the Methodist Pavilion — expect that MY church or some portion of its hallowed ground should be the venue for their wedding at the risk of losing its 1st Amendment rights if it doesn’t.

I and my co-religionists should have the freedom not to associate with them or to associate with them as I and they mutually please.

I fear that what will happen here is what happened as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — there will be the equivalent of “Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States” in which freedom of association is quashed.

It’s one thing for the government to discriminate, and quite another for a private party to discriminate. Tolerance does not mean forcing Mr. Dog and Mr. Cat to play with each other. It means assuring that Mr. Dog and Mr. Cat have the right to play with those who want to play with them, and that Mr. Eagle doesn’t ever play favorites.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2013 at 7:36 PM

No Anti-Gun Doctors for me thanks.

TX-96 on March 1, 2013 at 7:36 PM

In so far as the update goes. Dr. Carson seems to have an ill understanding of the second amendment and will give many pause on considering him for high office. Hey, can’t be an expert at everything. A Senator he’s not. Kinda refreshing to see an honest and unprepared answer from someone. He is after all not in political office, yet. Hedging his bets or being intentional naive will not wear well however.

Bmore on March 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Geez. This guy is flavor-of-the-month (or savior-of-the-month). He’ll be more or less forgotten (in political circles) within a month of CPAC, and will be relegated to “red meat” and/or “heart-ache” videos on HotAir. The orgasmic response to his excellent prayer breakfast speech is utterly typical of the Repub’s “grasping at straws” approach to picking messiahs candidates (e.g., Palin, Cain, Christie, etc.).

One would think y’all would recognize that pattern by now.

Splashman on March 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Remember that creepy kid Jonathan Krohn? He was a messiah, too, until he came out and said he was more liberal now (he turned 18, you see.)

It’s just tacky. WFB Jr. and Reagan are both turning in their graves at what a circus the Right has become. We need more gravitas, more ideas, more action, and less prayer breakfast smackdowns, please.

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Thought experiment:

If there were a Progressive Political Action Conference (“PPAC”), do you think they would be open to having someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Matheson speak, or to inviting a group of Democrats for Traditional Marriage?

steebo77 on March 1, 2013 at 7:18 PM

I would go you even further. Did they pi$$ their pants when even their own President wouldn’t come out for gay marriage from 2008-2012? Did they worry about the signal they sent?

Did Joe Lieberman ever become part of the mainstream Democrat party for even straying on the Iraq war?

Meanwhile Christie can give the big middle finger to the right and he HAS to be allowed a prominent speaking turn to put salt in the wound. I guess CPAC member should clap like seals so they don’t look “intolerant”

and for those who like his approval rating. He got to 70% by sucker-punching Conservatives on Sandy. Not that we should care about that kind of character in a leader.

Hey AP! When is Obama going to sucker-punch his own party for approval ratings?

Conan on March 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

One would think y’all would recognize that pattern by now.

Splashman on March 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You mean a pattern of reward for when someone is right and being dissed when they are wrong?

Bmore on March 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

It’s tacky and it’s at a prayer breakfast. You’re attacking a guy who is just sitting there who happens to the be the president, who can’t respond, and it just doesn’t sit well.

….

I’m personally tired of celebrating people who deliver speeches. I’m also tired of Conservative Inc’s talk, talk, talk and no action.

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Dr. Carson has a very Christian outlook on a lot of things — and Christianity is neither liberal nor conservative — it is what it is. Nothing Dr. Carson said runs counter to anything I have been taught by my Church (I’m a Catholic). Your property is private property, and when someone uses the power of Government to take it from you — without taking a like (proportionate) amount from themselves — they have stolen from you. When you give away free healthcare, you enable people to abuse said healthcare, thus denying to others who may need it more access to this scarce resource; giving the person a stake in holding down their use by making such use cost is a time-honored way of metering scarce resources.

As for your first paragraph I have cited above, and the second, well, Dr. Carson took action — for words are acts. You would castigate him for that.

With that thought, you are part of the problem you just outlined, not part of the solution.

unclesmrgol on March 1, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Remember that creepy kid Jonathan Krohn?

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I flagged that as a bad idea from the moment it happened. I didn’t see the liberal conversion coming but like many child actors kids who can play grown up convincingly end up in a weird place. Second I just saw some black mother who sent her kid to the city council meeting to speak with the “From the mouths of babes” crap. Sorry children are children and if you are behind a child in wisdom to the point you have to look to them then I feel sorry for you. Not to mention the only thing going on is that people like using children as a one-way debate tool. Picture a Barack Obama Photo-op.

Conan on March 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

It’s tacky and it’s at a prayer breakfast. You’re attacking a guy who is just sitting there who happens to the be the president, who can’t respond, and it just doesn’t sit well.

See, if Carson ran for office in Maryland, was out on the stump, and made the case against Obama and the Democrats; then that would have been something. But he didn’t. What he did do was give a speech and now he is paraded about like some hero. Gumption is running for office, facing down the media, the Democrats, winning, and doing something worthwhile in office — especially if its unpopular — like making a compelling case against amnesty or the expansion of government and getting something done about it.

I’m personally tired of celebrating people who deliver speeches. I’m also tired of Conservative Inc’s talk, talk, talk and no action.

Punchenko on March 1, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Frankly, it didn’t bother me. Their side does it all the time. Remember what Obama did to Paul Ryan when he invited him on budget talks? I just thought that is why our side is enamoured with him. I am not ready to see him as a GOP saviour. I think though that is the kind of candidate we need-ready to do battle. We have been fighting a gentlemen’s war while they have been fighting street fighter style and it has to stop. Do we need action to back it up? Obviously as our GOP house is a disaster, but that is why this guy is selling so well. We have no one good in the field..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Always count on the Rs to be stupid.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

WestTexasBirdDog on March 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I’m also in west Texas. Whereabouts-generally-are you?

annoyinglittletwerp on March 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

This is so irritating. No one is being *EXCLUDED*. GoProud and Christie can walk in like everyone else.

CPAC should be allowed to make the business decisions it wishes, which means who it wants to speak and take sponsorship money from.

kim roy on March 1, 2013 at 8:02 PM

One thing is certain, social conservatism (at least when it comes to public policy) will ensure that the GOP never retakes the White House. It’ll probably cost them the House as well. Time for the libertarian wing of the party to take control.

hatecraft on March 1, 2013 at 8:04 PM

No one is representing what Carson really said and how he couched his comments. He made a rather thoughtful prefatory statement around the idea of saving the nation. My own view is that an invitation to Christie represents an opportunity — to engage him, debate him, clarify the differences and offer an interesting colloquy. That’s what confident people and organizations do. What are we afraid of?

Have people also considered that the Christie’s appearance could serve to reduce his influence?

rrpjr on March 1, 2013 at 8:07 PM

No worries, Dr. Carson, CPAC made the tent a little bigger today by inviting 5 amnesty shill/open borders advocates to promote Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform” policy while inviting no one to speak on behalf of Conservatives who are against amnesty.

Seriously, I think we can drop the “CPAC isn’t the GOP” charade.

xblade on March 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM

This is what happens when everyone (media included) starts pushing some private conservative action committee as a litmus test for republicans. Newsflash:

CPAC is not Republican
GOP is not conservative

If the GOP wants to hold it’s only annual conference and push itself as a litmus test for running as a republican, then have at it and set your own terms.

Unless there is a willingness to start an actual conservative party, or for the GOP to actually be conservative, the two are on different paths and should not be linked.

can_con on March 1, 2013 at 8:14 PM

One thing is certain, social conservatism (at least when it comes to public policy) will ensure that the GOP never retakes the White House. It’ll probably cost them the House as well. Time for the libertarian wing of the party to take control.

hatecraft on March 1, 2013 at 8:04 PM

How about the Libertarians take control after they break that 2% ceiling in votes? The Greens or the Pirate Party taking over makes as much sense.

sharrukin on March 1, 2013 at 8:14 PM

*only = own

can_con on March 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM

One thing is certain, social conservatism (at least when it comes to public policy) will ensure that the GOP never retakes the White House.
hatecraft

You mean like the way being against gay marriage kept Obama out of the White House?

xblade on March 1, 2013 at 8:17 PM

How about the Libertarians take control after they break that 2% ceiling in votes? The Greens or the Pirate Party taking over makes as much sense.

sharrukin on March 1, 2013 at 8:14 PM

LOL– I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how gay marriage which actually grows the government is libertarian. I laugh how libertarians go so far out of their way to make sure that conservatives are dinosaurs because they are against gay marriage, but I thought that libertarianism was against big government but yet gay marriage support is advocating EVEN MORE government intervention in private relationships.

Libertarian support for gay marriage is such and oxymoron..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM

LOL– I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how gay marriage which actually grows the government is libertarian. I laugh how libertarians go so far out of their way to make sure that conservatives are dinosaurs because they are against gay marriage, but I thought that libertarianism was against big government but yet gay marriage support is advocating EVEN MORE government intervention in private relationships.

Libertarian support for gay marriage is such and oxymoron..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Libertarians talk more about social issues than anyone else. They largely ignore economic issues and zero in on gay marriage, pot and war. They are liberals who aren’t honest enough to face the price tag of their liberalism.

sharrukin on March 1, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Obama also had the full support of the mainstream media and the entertainment industry. Obama could walk out to the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow and scream at the top of his lungs that all gays are degenerate monsters and it wouldn’t even make the news.

hatecraft on March 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Excluded? Are they prevented from purchasing tickets? If such a prohibition were possible, I’d have thought they would have excluded Ron Paul supporters long ago. But, I don’t think they are “excluded.” Perhaps they were “not invited?”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Wow. This is why I always wait and see when someone new enters the arena and people start talking about how awesome they are.

His coming out speech argument for the creation of a health saving account at the birth of every child pretty much gave the truth about the man.

Basically the guy has no clue why our nation is in the fiscal mess it is in. It is in the mess it is in because of the celebration of degenerate behavior and the subsidizing of that behavior through government confiscation of the virtuous to be given to the degenerate. Embracing and therefore legitimizing further their cause can only end with additional celebration and subsidization of the people we cannot convince to vote for conservatives.

We need a big tent, so we have to support those who will later oppose us, being good useful idiots!

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Standards? Why do we need any stinking standards? The Quisling GOP “Leadership” sure doesn’t think we need any.

Carson is welcome to his opinion, but is not a conservative and has made that quite clear in his actions on gun control and other matters. GOProud is rightly excluded from CPAC. Their life style is disordered at its heart, and perverted, and disgusts most people. Parading a mental illness like it’s just peachy is not a conservative act.

Not to mention, homosexuality is immoral. If you think that’s a problem, I really don’t much care. If the GOP gives in on morality, then it has lost most of its reason for existence and will go the way of the Whigs.

Quartermaster on March 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Libertarian support for gay marriage is such and oxymoron..

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Well, I see nothing wrong with libertarian support for gay marriage. Unless you mean involving the government in it. Which is a totally different issue.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM

WRONG WRONG WRONG

The American CONSERVATIVE Union is putting on an event called the “Conservative Political Action Conference”

It’s not for people who aren’t conservative. If Dr. Ben had said you need to have a big tent for the Republican party I might agree with that. Here he is wrong.

reddevil on March 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Might as well invite Cuomo, Bloomburg and Obama, too!

FloatingRock on March 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I’m going to give Dr. Carson a benefit of the doubt on this. Because he used the term “big tent”, perhaps he was thinking of the Republican Party. Whether he is familiar with or understands what CPAC is, I’m not sure. I listened to the tape and the interviewer when asking the question, used the term CPAC and maybe Dr. Carson was thinking GOP.

bluefox on March 1, 2013 at 8:53 PM

They are liberals who aren’t honest enough to face the price tag of their liberalism.

sharrukin on March 1, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Social conservatives are just like nanny-stater liberals.

John the Libertarian on March 1, 2013 at 8:55 PM

All this talk about Chris Christie not being invited to CPAC this year. My opinion is that CPAC stands
for Conservative Political Action Conference attended by Conservatives. It’s not the Republican Political Action
Conference. Just because a person has an R beside their name doesn’t make them a Conservative. Perhaps if CPAC
would stop inviting those that are not Conservative, they wouldn’t be criticized. Defining what a Conservative
stands for would be helpful. It certainly wouldn’t include support of or policies of the Democrat Party.

bluefox on March 1, 2013 at 9:03 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Too funny!

It’s hard out here for a Purity Policeman!

After everybody is thrown under the bus, who drives?

Maybe if they held 100 different CPACs in 100 different cities with 100 different line-ups, then even the absolutin’est absolutists might be able to find ONE they could attend without blowing a blood vessel.

Of course, with 100 different checklists of 100 items each, failure to conform exactly with any one of which disqualifies the speaker or group from participating, the programs will be short and sweet.

Or just forget the speechifyin’ and have an open bar . . .

Adjoran on March 1, 2013 at 9:03 PM

The Republican Party is a coalition of some of the members of some identifiable groups having over-lapping interests but different priorities and agendas. One of those groups is the ACU, another is GOProud, another is the NRA; and so forth.
None of these groups is a subset of any of the others, although they might have members in common. The Party is not a union of the entirety of the groups.
Venn diagrams kind of help with this sort of analysis.

Anyway:

It is their organization. Repubs if ANYBODY should be FOR freedom of association, but I have never seen so many people get up an arms when one organization actually practices it.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

AesopFan on March 1, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Social conservatives are just like nanny-stater liberals.

John the Libertarian on March 1, 2013 at 8:55 PM

As long as my labor is the insurance underwriting risky behavior, it is in my freedom’s interest to prevent as much of that risky behavior as possible.

Obviously you are a partaker of that risky behavior, so you are perfectly happy to support it. I am not, and I do not see any reason for me to SUBSIDIZE you scuzzy lifestyle. Get rid of that which demands I insure your lifestyle and I would be perfectly happy to show my disdain for you through private activity rather than government activity.

Liberty, freedom and only exist so far as there is personal responsibility and that those who act are those who are ultimately the ones expected to pay the consequences for those actions. You of all people should know this considering your commenter name. But you, like so many like you have no desire to actually be personally responsible. That is why, when there is a thread to talk about fiscal sanity, your not present. You are present on the social issues to attack conservatives, Christians and anyone else who has more virtue than you are willing to live by.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 9:05 PM

It is their organization. Repubs if ANYBODY should be FOR freedom of association, but I have never seen so many people get up an arms when one organization actually practices it.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I will not complain about that. When they invited GOProud I was up in arms. I knew it was a mistake that would have lasting effects. Here we are, DADT repealed, soon to start seeing brave gay soldiers coming home from war to ask their states to recognize their marriages…

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2