I was at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for only part of the first day, but I think Politico.com writer Jonathan Martin's characterization of CPAC attendees as gloomy about the crop of 2008 hopefuls to be a little over-dramatic.
Caroline Daniel of the Financial Times, on the other hand, had a less dramatic view in her March 3 article, "Conservatives search for presidential candidate."*
Daniel reported that many attendees feel no one candidate captures all that they are looking, but noted in closing "some conservatives are willing to overlook" socially liberal stances from candidates like Giuliani if they are solid on the War on Terror.
That sounds about right given the results of the CPAC straw poll available for download at CPAC.org. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) were the top three vote-getters at CPAC for first choice for president, with 21, 17, and 15 percents respectively. Giuliani and Romney were also in the top three vote-getters for the who-is-your-second-choice-for-president question on the poll.
* The print-edition headline was cheekier: "Conservative activists ask: 'Dude, where's my candidate?"
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is why Fred Thompson nee
March 3, 2007 - 19:49 ET by bigtimerThis is why Fred Thompson needs to step in!
Go Fred Go!
cheer up! already...election
March 3, 2007 - 20:06 ET by CarpareusI'd vote for Fred just because he sounds good. Stow all frangibles warning applies for aforelisted link.
Carp
'Gun control means using two hands and whispering (8D) "Halt 3 (three) times" before firing.'
I am not real optimistic ab
March 3, 2007 - 19:56 ET by cowan9999I am not real optimistic about the Republican candidates either. I feel that Romney and Giuliani are liberal on their social issues and this bothers me greatly about both of them.
CPAC Thoughts
March 3, 2007 - 20:03 ET by acumenI hope the CPAC attendees realize that they have two opponents. Their primary opponent being the liberal media. The secondary the Democrats. The Democrats would be nothing without the media championing their every move while bashing Republicans on everything from manufacturing hurricanes to violating the civil rights of terrorists (ahem..insurgents).
The point being CPAC needs to understand that at this particular time a Republican candidate has to know how to work their primary opponent - the media. As Ann stated, a Reagan only comes along every 100 years (although it had to be providence we had W when 911 happened). Short of another Reagan that could pull so-called moderates (I prefer the term pop-culturists) over to the Republican side, Republicans will need someone that is media-savvy to bring star-gazers over to the Republican side. Personally, I think that person is Rudy. I would like to see CPAC'ers give Rudy a fair shake. As an example I think it is unfair to state Rudy is pro-abortion. Rudy is not pro-abortion. He is pro-states rights (i.e.-let the states decide). Saying that he does not think we should put young women in jail for having an abortion is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.
Until another Reagan steps forward, CPAC should remember that enemy number one is the liberal media. I hope they will support a candidate that know's his/her way around the liberal media to pull in the star-struck vote or CPAC will really have a reason to feel gloomy come '08.
I am waiting for Newt Gingric
March 3, 2007 - 20:06 ET by usinkoreaI am waiting for Newt Gingrich to get in. I honestly can't stomach the news much any more, but I have been catching a whiff here and there about how the parties and PACs and such are worried about "electability" --
I think we, as a society, need something very different.
I think we need a catharsis.
It is ugly out there. It has been for some time, and it has gotten worse.
We need to bring it to a head: we need an open, honest, full-throttle debate about what we Americans believe the United States represents, and what it should do, in the world. We have let things slide and slide and slide for over a decade since the Cold War came to an end.
And we have been letting others define us (including those within) with little opposition or resistance.
If Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich are front runners - it will be very ugly, but it is ugly right now, why should we avoid showing it?
We should be forced to look at ourselves, look at how others see us, how others want to depict us, and we should bring things to a fight for what we believe in.
Whatever happens in this next election ---- we have in play right now things that are set in motion that will define the next 2 decades for the US. Sucess or failure in Iraq is fundamental to this picture. The War on Terror. Global Warming. The great Multi-Polar World Order all our "friends" and "allies" keep saying they want to see rise up in the ashes of the Cold War. So many things....are already at work for some time and will set the future for us - if we don't get around to deciding as a nation what we believe ourselves.
As the famous boxing announcer says, "Let's get ready to rumble!" or the old referee "Let's get it on!"
If you're so sick of the li
March 3, 2007 - 20:13 ET by bushwickbillIf you're so sick of the liberal media, why don't you get your own...oh, wait a minute, you already did. So why are you complaining, again?
"Do it like a G.O.!"
bwb...Cute.
March 3, 2007 - 20:23 ET by bigtimerbwb...
Cute.
6 (six) of one, .5 dozen of another.
March 3, 2007 - 20:52 ET by CarpareusAssuming non- implementation of the decimation concept- I'M ABSOLUTELY IN NO WAY ADVOCATING DECIMATION IT'S JUST THAT HISTORICALLY IT IS HAS OCCURRED- in either the MSM or Congress- and I SAY AGAIN FOR ALL READING THAT I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING DECIMATION IT'S JUST THAT HISTORICALLY IT IS HAS OCCURRED if we think it's bad in 2008 (yah I know but I'll be switched before I switch over to Greek right now for the added tenses 8D), should the Lord Yehoshua bar Joseph [FOLEY: wine glasses being dropped and shattering] tarry in His return, Wait 'Till the Sun Shines Nelly (link requires Quicktime or Quicktime plugin within Real) in 2012.
'Course if the decimation concept, and I SAY AGAIN FOR ALL READING THAT I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING DECIMATION IT'S JUST THAT HISTORICALLY IT HAS OCCURRED, IS applied it'll only get that much worse; 6 (six) of one, .5 dozen of another. I'm guessing I'm not the only one whose thoughts the "d" word has popped up in of late though.
Assuming the above post gener
March 3, 2007 - 21:14 ET by CarpareusAssuming the above post generates some traffic may I at this time say a few more things before I get back to cleaning fish (not "acting" [aka lying}- I actually have fish left to clean}?
1. I'm still here but the last fish comes first.
2. These comments were designed to stimulate conversation only.
3. How ticked off does the electorate need to become before our elected representatives quit j*cking themselves off to sleep in "somebody's unilateral idea of a wet dream?" (nearly accurate quote from 'Enemy of the State') and actually overhaul and fix things?
Carp
These have been stupid posts
March 3, 2007 - 21:45 ET by CarpareusThese have been stupid posts from being way too tired and hungry.
to reiterate
March 3, 2007 - 23:28 ET by CarpareusStupid posts as I worked too long today and was too tired and hungry and vented here. Goodnight.
Thank you for explaining; I c
March 4, 2007 - 09:01 ET by dahliatraversThank you for explaining; I couldn't figure out what I was missing from your posts.
Hope you've caught up on food and sleep.
Newt
March 3, 2007 - 23:27 ET by pbthinkerPersonally, I would love to see Newt run. With Newt running, I would expect the MSM to go into high gear, even more so than the last election, and drag out all the trash they can find. If Newt gave his Kindergarten teacher a dirty look it would be fair game for the turkeys in the MSM.
I would also love to see the first debate with either Obama or Hillary. There is little doubt, in my mind, that he would make both of them look so foolish they would want to cancel any further debates. In fact, since they both probably realize it, they probably wouldn't agree to debates with Newt.
I thought, before the last election, that the MSM had lost most of it's power. I'll admit I was wrong, there are still a lot of people that read and watch the MSM and do not get any alternative news. Will this change before 2008? I don't believe enough change is possible so the only hope of defeating a Hillary or Obama is to field the best candidate you can find and I'll go along with Newt. Aside from that Rudy is probably #2, although he'd have to pick up a lot of votes from Conservative Democrats to win.
I also said Hillary because s
March 4, 2007 - 00:14 ET by usinkoreaI also said Hillary because she will bring out the other side full tilt as well. It will be a "clash of the titans" - but the titans I'm referring to are the media and different active sides in American politics.
I still don't know how the media can walk the streets without bags covering their heads once people began pointing out how DIFFERENT Nacy Pelosi's press coverage was to Gingrich's back in 1994. How much more freaking obvious does it have to get?
With a Hillary and Gingrich showdown -- both sides will be so utterly engaged, there won't be room to hide. It will be like turing on a huge spotlight and watching the bugs scatter. It will make everybody put on their true faces.
It will be ugly ---- but I believe it is time we had it.
The last few elections, politicans have tried to avoid making policy statements as much as possible in order not to offend some voters. With such lightenrods as top candidates - and both being competent - we should end up with a serious (if bloody) debate about the nature of our society and its place in the world.
That is what I want to see....
Newt runs
March 5, 2007 - 00:23 ET by CarpareusMe too.
I've said it before and wil
March 3, 2007 - 20:09 ET by motherbeltI've said it before and will say it again: Republicans need to operate like the Democrats; they can't afford to fracture and not support a candidate because of his stance on one issue (e.g. abortion).
Blacks, for example, may divide between Hillary and Obama; however, they will ALL line up behind whichever one ends up being the candidate. Same with Edwards supporters; they will go in, holding their noses, if necessary, and vote for the D candidate.
I read somewhere that one of the evangelical ministers said that Evangelical Christians will not support a Mormon for President, and if that means President Hillary Clinton, then so be it. That is just the attitude that will make that come true.
Conservatives and Republicans have got to wake up to the fact that there is NO perfect candidate. If the dissenters think that Hillary is better than an imperfect Republican, then they will get their wish.
I totally agree. No matter w
March 3, 2007 - 21:27 ET by mostlymoderateI totally agree. No matter what your stance on abortion is, you really need to leave that out of the analysis when selecting a President. There isn't much the President can do about abortion anyway.
For me abortion is a deal br
March 5, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Dan The Man 2For me abortion is a deal breaker. I would rather the Republicans get a message about who they pick rather than vote for someone who will be a RINO trying to outdo a democrat. In the past I might not have done that but I have "matured" and am willing to stand behind some objects that are immoveable.
Even God sent the Isrealites were sent into the wilderness til they got their minds right. In the words of Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke "What we got here is a failure to communicate"
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
A lot of people I know seem
March 3, 2007 - 22:30 ET by Right2thePointA lot of people I know seem to have the view that the choices we are being presented with have all the same potential as a supreme court decision that looked good but then went so wrong.
I haven't read the CPAC revie
March 4, 2007 - 08:42 ET by ucI haven't read the CPAC review but I have read yours. At two years out I hope their focus is on grassroots widening of their base and not so much on specific candidates.
As it is in both parties it is still not too late for a smart and unencumbered woman to also enter this race.
Build the base while candidates should just be out there listening.