This Week in Stoopid: CPAC

Audrey Hepburn. Because this note is so dull & pointless, I'm starting with Holly Golightly washing a car.

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) just finished their big party in Washington, with their ever-popular Presidential Straw Poll that always seems to say more than what anyone at CPAC really intends.  Clocking in at thirty percent of the vote, and with the gold, was the hip hop happening groovy cat from Nowsville: Ron Paul, the 75 year old Texas congressman and iconic pop star.  Second place, with twenty-three percent, went to Mitt Romney.  Former Governor Romney would like everyone to believe the he is on your side.  Really.  No matter what side that is.  Mitt Romney: Change You Can Believe In (because if you don’t, he’ll be happy to change again).

            To the extent there was a bronze medalist—and there wasn’t—the winner probably would have to be former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, with six percent.  Heard of him?  Me neither.  Also with six percent was new New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who keeps insisting he’s not running for President (some people think he’s just a big liar).  Rounding up the also-rans were Newt Gingrich, Private Citizen Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and (presumably) Rick Santorum—all polling less than five percent each.

So—what’s the problem, and more to the point, why should anyone care?  Here’s why: the results of the straw poll shows that CPAC’s professed unity lies somewhere just beyond theLost Horizon.  And there’s no spinning that straw into a precious metal.

As Rick Santorum and his stool (an expression that sounds dirty, but isn’t really) so eloquently put it, the CPAC people would have you believe that the American conservative movement are three legs on that stool: the deficit hawks, the social conservatives, and “national security” people.  By braiding those three strands together, conservatives will create a rope so strong, no liberal could possible break it.  Too bad conservatives just go on to use that self-same rope to hang themselves.

Ann Sheridan. Ms. Sheridan will demonstrate the three branches of conservatism. Here, she is a social conservative.

Why?  Because those three positions (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives) are largely mutually exclusive.  The only point they have in common are amorphous yet meaningless platitudes about “freedom,” and a shared hagiography for a Ronald Reagan that never existed.

For example, look at the “freedom” promised by the social conservatives: government restrictions on abortion, government restrictions on same-sex marriage, government restrictions medical marijuana…oh, and less government.  But you get the idea: for the social conservative, “freedom” means that you get to believe what THEY believe.  The counter-argument, that “liberals” are forcing their views on the social conservative, is specious.  You don’t believe in abortion?  Fine—no one’s forcing you to have one.  You don’t want to marry someone who shares a gender with you?  No problem!  But there is no principled reason for you to deny that option to someone else.  And if you prefer the medical effects of cherry brandy to marijuana, go for it.  No one’s making you to listen to Workingman’s Dead.

Ann Sheridan, as fiscal conservative (the "zero" is for spending goals).

But how well do the sentiments of the social conservatives fly with the libertarian wing, the most vocal of the deficit hawks?  How well? Not well! (to coin a phrase).  The deficit hawks who want a smaller federal government get upset (understandably) about the federalization of petty crime, and the growth of the police state.  Why?  In part, because they know how to count: the thirty plus years of the War on Drugs is still waiting for its first even small success.  And talk about a ballooning federal government, just look at Department of Homeland Security: the last thing we need are more federal officials, telling us what to do and how to live our lives.  But when you’re talking about real dollar amounts going right down the rat hole, look at thatthree trillion dollar (USD) war in Iraq, and its cousin in Afghanistan.

Anne Sheridan as national security conservative. Trust me--she's a real hard ass.

That’s when the third strand jumps up and yells “no, don’t look there!”  John Boehner’s House Republicans insist they want to cut $100 billion USD from President Obama’s budget—while raising Defense (a brand, not unlike the “fruit” in Froot Loops) spending by two percent.  To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: the government that cuts domestic programs at the expense of Peter to benefit Paul can always count on the support of Paul.  Which accounts for the popularity of such noted fiscal conservatives as Ted Stevens and Mitch McConnell: when it came to Alaska and Kentucky (respectively), they spent like the proverbial drunken sailors.  Maybe people in Red States think all those cuts will only hurt the communists inhabiting Blue soviet strongholds, like California, Oregon, New York, parts of New England—but that’s not the way it works.  Just like you can’t have your cake etc, you can’t have idiotic missile defense programs all over the planet, and balance your budget.

So, given largely mutually exclusive positions, what happened at CPAC?  They played the old Arab game of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  The Patient Protection and Affordability Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (together aka ObamaCare) was roundly demonized.  Left unmentioned was any kind of alternative, viable or otherwise.  Also denounced was President Obama’s terrible record on foreign policy and the fact he’s Soft on Islamofascism (well, maybe not in so many words—but you knew that’s what they meant). 

Interestingly, the only person who talked about the Egyptian Revolution (happening at the same time as the CPAC conference) was troublemaker Ron Paul.  Congressman Paul excoriated thirty years of American foreign policy, for propping up and preserving the incompetent rule of Hosni Mubarak, condemning same as immoral, bad politics, and really just a plain waste of money.  Everyone else either avoided the topic altogether, or followed the lead of Mitch McConnell, who on January 26 told MSNBC “All I can say this morning is that Egypt has been an extremely important ally of ours, since Anwar Sadat, and we’re all watching these developments in Cairo very carefully.  Beyond that, I think I will not comment.”  Sure—because maybe MAYBE Mubarak was right, all those years, how he was the only thing holding back a Sunni nationalist Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist Islamic al Qaida inspired Arab Egyptian Shiite Ayatollah Khomeini, who would drive Israel into the sea, then invade…I don’t know…Florida!  You never know… Those brown people are notorious for voting for the wrong people.  And that’s EXACTLY the kind of government President Obama would install in Egypt, as Michelle Bachman would be happy to tell you…if she were commenting on the Egypt thing—which she’s not.

Barbara Nichols. Ms. Nichols is here, only to catch those whose attention is starting to wander.

But clearly—the high point (or low point, if you’re not brimming with schadenfreude) had to have been when the “Defenders of the Constitution” award was given to Donald Rumsfeld.  What had former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld done to defend the Constitution, at least lately?  Well—he did write that book of his.  That’s kind of First Amendmenty.  Other than that, Secretary Rumsfeld did plow new ground—Constitutionally speaking—by introducing torture, “extraordinary rendition,” detention without trial in a system of gulags around the world, obstruct justice by covering up the murder of civilians, new levels of lying to Congress, invasion of member states of the United Nations (both in violation of the Charter, and the Nuremberg and Tokyo precedents condemning waging aggressive war).  He also so mismanaged both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the point he almost lost them—but I’m not sure what impact that has on the Constitution; it just really pisses me off, though.  Congressman Ron Paul’s people roundly booed both the Donald (No--the Secretary, not that other guy), and the award’s presenter: former Vice President Dick Cheney (what—Ted Kaczynski and Eric Robert Rudolph weren’t available to present the award to each other?), because both Cheney and Rumsfeld wasted lots of money.

But here’s my point: Senator DeMint, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Private Citizen Palin opted not to attend CPAC, because while all three constantly squawk about freedom like deranged parrots, the “libertarian bent” to CPAC just plain goes too far.  For example, what was the big controversy at CPAC?  The gay Republican group, GOProud were just not self-hating enough.  And you remember New Mexico’s ex-Governor Gary Johnson, the man of bronze in the straw poll?  The primary theme of his CPAC speech was legalization of marijuana, no doubt sweeping the Rastapublican vote.

Barbara Eden. I recently got into a quibble over who was the hottest sitcom babe, from back in the day.

So, what’s a principled conservative to do?  How about stop pretending that social conservatives, libertarian budget cutters, and national security stooges are all brothers (even the women) under the skin, and want the same thing.  They don’t.  Mike Huckabee is not Ron Paul is not John Bolton, and they never will be.  Conservatives, IMHO, will be better served to pick one of Rick Santorum’s stools, and run with it.  Otherwise, if you try to embrace all three, you’ll just sound confused and wind up not standing for anything.  In other words, you’ll be like Democrats.

Will CPAC ever decide to be principled, and do more than just mouth platitudes and spit insults, all in the name of a non-existent “Party Unity”?

No.  They are just stoopid.

To find full size versions of pics illustrating this note (which is the only reason why anyone comes here), you can go to This Week in Stoopid: CPAC

I Hate These People.

Faking Left
A NY Times Editorial by Ross Douthat, May 11, 2009

Mr. Huey Freeman. He may be short. He may hate everything. But he is the voice of socialism for the 21st century.

"Among their many aspirations for his presidency, Barack Obama’s admirers nurse a persistent hope that he might be able to end the culture wars. And by end, they generally mean win. The real hope is a final victory for cultural liberalism, and social conservatism’s permanent eclipse."
Mr. Ross Douthat

Mr. Ross Douthat. Would you buy a used
car from this man?

My god, I hate those people. I really do. I am sick half unto death of listening to "conservatives" arguing about the so-called "cultural wars." 

Right now--look me in the eyeball, and tell me if I am a proponent of "cultural liberalism" or "social conservatism," based on the following criteria:

1) I will never, ever enter a same sex marriage;
2) I will never, ever have an abortion;
3) I would never, ever prohibit a kid from praying to Baal--even if the kid is in a public school;
4) Right now, I can't imagine ever using illegal street drugs.

Give up? Well, here you go: I am a monster, hawk conservative in the culture wars. How so? Just because while I wouldn't buy weed off the street, pray to Baal, have an abortion, or marry my fellow man (sic), I do not want the STATE telling me that I can't do any of those things--just in case I change my mind.

Maybe I am kidding, just a little. But how on earth can the Mr. Douthats of the world--in good conscience--claim that believers in "cultural liberalism" are forcing their values on anyone? Has any proponent of same-sex marriage ever insisted that the power of the state should be used to keep people who want to marry someone of the opposite sex from getting married? Is Mr. Douthat truly afraid that if he moves to Maine, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, or Connecticut, some burly policeman in ass-less chaps is going to make him marry a guy? Just who, Mr. Douthat, is advocating for Big Government's use of the police power to regulate personal behavior?

Ms. Anita Ekburg. When you're as preachy
and annoying as I am, you really need
the big guns......

So--you don't want to belong to a church that "marries" same sex couples? Then find a church that won't marry gay and lesbian couples. But why do you insist on telling all churches--even the churches you would never go to--they can't marry gay and lesbian couples?

As a "liberal," what is the "prayer in public schools" that gets me crazy? The kid in the back of the class who whispers "Oh holy sweet baby jesus mary mother of god, I know I spent all night playing 'Grand Theft Auto--Iowa City' instead of studying, but PLEASE let at least enough answers be 'c' for me to pass........"? Absolutely not--not studying a lick and hoping for a miracle is protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment. No, what gets me crazy is when the State in the form of the the school administration announces that *everyone* will pray to the Cowboy Buddha, regardless of personal feelings or belief. That is a violation of the first amendment's establishment clause.

Why do "conservatives" still advocate for prayer in public schools? Either the prayer is some idiot like me trying to explain why THERE IS NO GOD BUT TELEVISION--AND GILLIGAN IS HER MESSENGER!....or the most bland, mealy mouthed, innocuous, barely a tribute to some vague form of a supreme being, all in a futile effort not to offend Christians, Jews, Latter Day Saints, Sunni and Shiites, Buddhists, Animists, Flying Spaghetti Monsterites--you get the idea. But what about atheists and the Jehovah Witness folks? Too late; they're already off to federal court.

Ms. Mae West. Only line in her first movie:
Coat check girl: Goodness! What
diamonds!
West: 'Goodness' didn't have anything to do
with it......
The rest is history.......

Back in the day--and I mean Eisenhower's day--the issue of prayer in the public school was important, because 'MERICA was fighting the godless (sic) Soviet Union on all fronts, and being "...one nation under God (read: Baby Jesus)..." was just one more front in a running fake war. 

Jumping from Ike to today's hip hop happening groovy cats from Nowsville, unless you are Sarah Palin or have an IQ that's barely in the upper two digits (there may be some overlap there), the American public school system is not going to be a forum for advocating the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth, explicitly or implicitly. That is just not going to happen--and not because of those commie atheistic homos over at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but because the Jehovah Witness lawyers all have "Been There. Done That. Got the T-Shirt" bumper stickers on their cars. The J.W. attorneys--they don't even say "Bring it" any more, because they'll hand you your ass back before you even know it's missing.

But then...there is abortion. As Mr. Douthat says "The pro-life movement is arguably more comfortable with the language of rights and liberties than its opponents. Abortion foes are defending a right to life grounded in the Declaration of Independence, after all, whereas pro-choicers are defending more nebulous rights (privacy, autonomy, etc.) supposedly grounded in “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution. And a moron says 'What?'" 

Okay. I made up that last part. But since when is the "right to life" grounded in the Declaration of Independence? Back to school, Douthat. First, the Declaration of Independence is a great piece of work--really groovy--but it is NOT a governing document. Second, maybe you COULD argue that "all men (sic) are created equal" is extended to fetuses (fetusi?) if you're a complete ahistorical idiot, but even said idiot could not argue that back in the day, "all men" included women, slaves, and men who did not own property. So...'splain it to me, Ricky: how are pro-life people arguably more comfortable defending the right and liberty of a fetus--and yet that same right and liberty expressly did not include women or people of color? (if you're thinking "Because pro-life people are stupid?", that was my guess as well...but I don't think that's the answer Mr. Douthat is looking for).

Ms. Jean Harlow. When you're desperate,
always go for Ms. Harlow; you won't be
sorry. That's a tip, kids.

"Penumbras"? "Emanations"? When was the last time Mr. Douthat read Roe v. Wade? Here's a clue for you: the majority opinion was NOT WRITTEN BY WILLIAM DOUGLAS! Justice Blackmun's opinion may not be a real prize winner, but he is clear what right is being protected: an individual's (cough cough) right to have a relationship with that individual's (ahem) doctor, free of state intervention, absent a compelling interest by the state. What's a compelling interest of the state? If my doctor and I decide that I should use heroin, because kicks just keep getting harder to find--too bad for me. But if my doctor and I decide that I should have an abortion in the first trimester of my pregnancy, then you can get the hell out of my face Ross Douthat. In the immortal words of Gene Autry (and my doctor): "Ain't nobody's business but my own."

In a word, I don't know anyone in the pro-choice movement who is in the least bit uncomfortable with the language of rights and liberties. Just ask them.

Let me be blunt (fine--"blunter"): abortion will always be legal in an industrial society with any semblance of a free press. How do I know this? Wait till about a dozen young, skinny white girls (with the emphasis on white, skinny, young, and white) bleed to death after a back ally abortion, and then see how long your abortion ban lasts. Anyone who talks about abortion as a political issue is either a religious partisan or a greasy opportunist (there may also be some overlap in those groups).

Representative Ron Paul. See? It doesn't
only suck to be me...it sucks to be lots of 
people!

So, in these "culture wars," where are all the libertarians, who are always screaming about how the government that governs best governs least? I'll tell you where: in back of the hall, sitting next to the poor socialists. Republican opportunists dust off the libertarians for economic issues, then dump 'em in the ally when they're through--just like the Democrats do with the environmental radicals, labor partisans, and misc. bleeding hearts..............

So for all you libertarians out there, you Ron Paul Revolution cadres--you may start to take heart when you hear the Olympia Snowes of the world start talking about "maximum individual liberty." But you know they're just lying to you; this is still the Republican Party of the people who complain bitterly about "big government"--and in the same breath demand more on the war on drugs, Department of Fatherla...OOPS! Homeland Security, and a bazillion different laws regulating personal behavior.

But to address Mr. Douthat's larger point--when the Democratic Party starts talking about single payer universal health care.....Now, you KNOW they're not lying about that. No, not now....Not to my face....Never!