Stop With The CPAC Hand-wringing, Already

Not to single out Patterico, he's simply the latest and now in Hot Air headlines commenting on some of the humor flowing at CPAC.

Which gets laughter and plenty of clapping. This is great, because this is how we want Republicans portrayed to the country at large. I think it’s all very productive and will help in 2010.

I really don't get all the hand-wringing I am seeing on some Righty blogs over this topic. Get over it. If I wanted to be told what I can and cannot laugh at, I'd be a liberal.

Talk about being self-conscious because one is conservative. This is a convention, not a Sunday school meet up. And we hear similar outlandish silliness from the Dems when they hook up for something like this.

Conservatives need to get beyond this too frequent We're sorry! mode and if the media picks it up, Steele should tell them to get a life, too. I think the discomfort I see among conservatives for fear people are going to make more of it than it is actually hurts conservatives more in the eyes of the public than any of the rhetoric itself.

A more honest and realistic response as I suggested Steele make if asked could do more to start re-building a more modern Republican brand than apologizing for it ever will.

Most people "get" the joke. Start trusting them more and relying on one's own ingrained defensiveness less because you've swallowed one too many liberal talking points yourself.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

I hear the real path to electoral success is to nuke Chicago.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/26/bolton-nukes-chicago/

If that doesn't win you votes among True Americans, I don't know what will.

[Brian L.]

Amen to that, Dan. ENOUGH of the limp-wristedness from the Right. We're *supposed* to be tougher than liberals.

:)

Regards,
Brian

[Neo]

After all the partisan thumping in Williamsburg, CPAC look calm by comparison.

[Jana]

THANK YOU. I've had just about enough of this nonsense.

[mark l.]

oh no...think progress busted the gop.

wow, 100 people who are dems and who wlll always vote democrat, have seen cpac utterly disgraced.
wait...olbermann and garafolo were adding to the 'embarassment'-now 150k of dems, who will always vote for a dem, have seen cpac 'embarass' itself.

the only thing more convoluted than the cpac jabs, are the dems trying score political points off of the jabs.

seriously lama-
would you rather go to an average american with cpac excerpts, or a copy of moveon taking out an add in the nyt, titled David Betray-us? Harry Reid-the war is lost? schumer-porky ammendments? kos' rant about being glad american 'mercenaries' were killed and burned in fallujah?

to be honest, it is ALL minutiae. the web just allows for an indulgence in it, like monitoring waves in a fishbowl on an oil tanker in the middle of the ocean. shaking the fishbowl, does nor have any effect on the sea. believing that it does change an ocean, suggests one does not have a knowledge of life outside of the fishbowl.

[BlackRedneck]

It is this reflexive, apologetic, defensive crap that convinces minorities and others that Republicans and Conservatives are racists (or whatever insult du jour). Cause if you're not a racist and someone calls you a racist, the natural response is ANGER. Not only does bellycrawling add legitimacy to the charge but it makes you look weak and cowardly. And we all know that weakness invites attack...

[mark l.]

if the gop fails to produce in this current climate, it is deader than dead...

every gop speech should open up with a commitment to returning to small govt, saving 401ks, and improving conditions for business to grow.

I look at the rassmussen numbers that support these ideas, and see a huge majority of americans waiting to find a politcal party that speaks to these beliefs.
"73% Trust Judgment of People More Than Politicians"
"59% Still Believe Government Is the Problem"
"62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.
Just 14% would like to move in the opposite direction with more government spending and fewer tax cuts, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."
"Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that tax cuts generally help the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that only 17% disagree and believe that tax cuts will hurt the economy.
By a 56% to 23% margin, most voters also believe they pay more than their fair share of taxes."

The clear message is that americans have more faith in themselves, tax cuts, smaller govt. So long as the gop straddles their support for business, and fails to call out the democrats, AS A PARTY, for the damage they are going to do to our system of growth and fails to call on every american to assess their own finanical situation, they'll be stuck fighting a very popular president.

The mistake the gop is making is that they are pursuing identity politics, when the substance of being a conservative is being ignored. judging by the excerpts of cpac, it would appear the the gop is still just as lost, bitter, and clueless.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- would you rather go to an average american with cpac excerpts, or a copy of moveon taking out an add in the nyt, titled David Betray-us? Harry Reid-the war is lost? schumer-porky ammendments? kos' rant about being glad american 'mercenaries' were killed and burned in fallujah? --"

I don't know. Let's ask the voters. Hmm... voters seem to be siding with MoveOn, the Goreacle, the Great Orange Satan, and Michael Moore's fat ass on this one.

"-- every gop speech should open up with a commitment to returning to small govt, saving 401ks, and improving conditions for business to grow. --"

There's a bit of a trust gap after 20 years of this rhetoric. Regan saw a roller coaster market that rose and crashed from '80 to '82, then rose and crashed again from '83 to '87. Bush presided over similar dismal numbers. Clinton managed solid gains for 8 full years, and then it was back to the Bush bubble-and-crash marketplace.

The GOP redistributes wealth, but they have been historically bad at promoting actual economic growth. And all the while they've overseen spending glut after spending glut. Carter and Clinton ran the budget like paupers compared to the Republican Regimes - http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif Why would anyone support a political party with such a poor track record of delivering on its promises?

[Ad rem]

Enough with the all the hand-wringing and the gnashing of teeth everytime some democrat launches a salvo! We're being perceived as being week and disorganized because we are behaving that way. Do we think Reagan stayed up nights worrying about what the media was going to say next? As a conservative, I'm desperate to see leadership and confidence from those in my party, people with a little fight in them. I want to see someone who can get under their skin and hit a nerve. "BlackRedneck" said it all!

[mark l.]

"The GOP redistributes wealth"

whose wealth is it?

the whole redistribution argument is built on the premise that the govt OWNS the money and they are charged with its disbursement. you can make the argument that the gop failed to take money from rich individuals and give it to the 'poor', but you cannot make the argument that the gop gave anything to taxpayers that was not already theirs.

your argument should, in a semantically correct form, is the gop failed to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor. The rich did not get anyhting that wasn't already theirs.

Your fixation on 'income' representing the rich is also ludicrous.

Consider the people who are actually wealthy, independent of their employment income.

Does Theresae Heinz Kerry pay income tax?
Ditto Paul Krugman, Katrina Vanden Heuvel?

Their wealth accumulation is independent of actual work. Targetting those making more than 250k in employment income and believing that you are redistrubuting wealth from the very rich is delusional.

The 'real wealth' is immune to obama's policies, as they sit and cheer him along. Advocating a system that taxes those who work on production and provide employment, while ignoring the 'filthy rich' suggest a significant failure in understanding the nature of america. Be patient, this will all come to fruition.

When inflation hits, those who have wealth that can no longer be taxed as income will reap the benefits while those who have little or no money suffer. The actual rich in this country will be reaping the rewards of 15% return from their banks and bonds, the poor will be borrowing money from the rich at 15% interest.

your argument about gop spending?
your president is about to eclipse the entire 8 years bush deficit in his first year.

also worth noting that the senate under bush, was controlled for 4 of the eight years, by democrats. if spending was an issue, you really should examine the facts.

[mark l.]

islama-
you want my personal plan of wealth accumulation under the dems?

I have enough cash to sustain me. I don't have to work, I don't have to employ anyone, and I don't have to invest in the market. I'm laughing at the idea that aggressively taxing employment income is going to provide a more equitable america.

obama is going to fight to keep mortgage rates low. While I am content with my house, the thought of upsizing is starting to enter consideration. He's going to provide me with a mortgage loan at around 4%. The housing market is ridiculously low, so the price will be optimum. Inflation, in the rosiest of scenarios, is going drive the home price upwards. While I am sitting back watching the real estate appreciate 30-40% over the next four years, on a loan that has to be repaid at 4%, the wave of inflation is also going to increase my personal holdings faster than the outflow of cash to make the mortgage payments.

obama's policies?
they don't matter if you don't work and have money. On a very personal level, no recent policies by any republican or democrat is going to do more for me and my drive for wealth accumulation. The greedy side of me is dancing in the street.

the losers?
anyone who doesn't have money. Obama's policies are going to ravage the poor. The humanitarian side of me feels bad. You have no idea about the changes that are going to occur, countering the best of liberal intentions. Obama is going to create social structure similar to the 1920's. No middle class, 5% wealthy, 95% serfs.

[mark l.]

"The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, primarily from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued at $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress."

nancy pelosi's employment income?
167,000.

according to obama, since her income is less than 250k, she will not see her taxes increase.

so this 'glorious plan' of 'redistribution' has zero effect on one of the wealthiest representatives. No wonder she likes the plan so much.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

The GOP elites are embarrassed by any outpouring of righteous indignation. The people, on the other hand, are angry and they want, strike that, NEED, to vent and vent loudly. The elites need to sit down and shut up, their time is over. We like Sarah Palin, we like Joe the Plumber and we want to show up and cheer and rally and make as much noise as we can. We're sick of pretending like we are at some chamber music concert. These elites know they are losing control, so they are denigrating those who are the new leaders and really p.o.-ing the grassroots in the process. They are no better than their dem counterparts. And most of all, we are sick to death at the way these GOP elites let the dem/liberal press define them, always scared they might get some negative press or not be invited to the next A-list party.

We don't want fancy pants Ivy Leaguers who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground. We are proud of our degrees from State schools and small unknown universities. We are proud of the fact that we started at the bottom and worked our way up. We are proud and independent and sick, sick, sick of having our lifestyles and our values degraded because they don't meet some Ivy League criteria or because we don't belong to the best clubs. We are military, we are the clerks, the salesmen, the waitresses, the blue collar workers, the heartbeat of America and we're damn mad that we're treated like dummies unable to speak or think cogently. We enjoy a good joke and we enjoy rock'n'roll and country music, we like to eat BBQ and hang out watching our kids play Little League or Pop Warner football. We like NASCAR and having beer parties when our favorite pro-football team is playing. We stand and salute our flag and when the National Anthem is played and we have picnics on the 4th of July where we get down in the dirt with 3-legged races or softball games. We are the People and the people are angry. And it makes us even angrier when our so-called stick-up-their-butt leaders start undermining those we've chosen to be our true leaders.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- the whole redistribution argument is built on the premise that the govt OWNS the money and they are charged with its disbursement. you can make the argument that the gop failed to take money from rich individuals and give it to the 'poor', but you cannot make the argument that the gop gave anything to taxpayers that was not already theirs. --"

Let us assume I am a multi-millionaire running a shipping company out of Dallas. I have a fleet of trucks, several dozen employees, and a large collection of property.

Now let us assume you work as a cafeteria lunch lady making just over $30k / year.

My business requires that we have a functional highway system. My job and livelyhood is predicated on the fact that this infrastructure is in place. You just use the roads to get to work - driving an hour or two five times a week - but I have an entire business that uses this system every second of every day.

When the check comes due for the federal highway system, I've made an awful lot more use out of it than you have. But, being a GOoPer drone, I insist that I shouldn't have to pay any more in taxes than you do.

That means that for every dime you get in tax cuts, you're adding it to my tab. Tax cuts are income redistribution.

You can play this game with virtually any government good or service. The courts, the EPA, the military, the education system, the national parks, the FAA, you name it. Rich people use more of it than poor people. This means rich people pick up more of the tab.

You wouldn't tell your mortgage lender to lower your interest rates because it was your money first and they have no right to take it from you. The same argument would fall on deaf ears when dealing with your energy bill or your groceries. Things don't just magically come to you for free.

Tax cuts don't come from nothing, particularly when your country is waging a multi-trillion dollar two-front land war in Asia. When we're running deficits, tax cuts come by borrowing money from China. Like running out to an ATM and maxing out your credit card, then insisting, "Hey, it's my money, I don't owe anyone anything", the logic only works till the repo men come to kick down your front door.

The nation has an outstanding debt of roughly $10 trillion dollars. For every dollar you don't pay, I'm required to pay it for you. That's called income redistribution. And its been a GOP policy since Regan. Don't try to hide from it now.

[IslamoLlama]

"--
nancy pelosi's employment income?
167,000.

according to obama, since her income is less than 250k, she will not see her taxes increase.

so this 'glorious plan' of 'redistribution' has zero effect on one of the wealthiest representatives. No wonder she likes the plan so much. --"

ZOMG, Steve Jobs only pays himself a salary of $1 / year and collects the rest of his income from stock rewards. Steve Jobs won't be affected by one of the wealthest businessmen in America! Warren Buffett's secretary makes salary. Warren Buffett lives entirely off of capital gains from sold assets. Damn you, Barack Obama! You're tax increase won't work at all!

Oh wait...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPqpdkuwfD7w&refer=home

"-- Before Bush (41), dividends were taxed as ordinary income, at rates as high as 39.6 percent in the 1990s. Obama would increase the tax rate on most capital gains to 20 percent, the level set by Clinton in 1997. --"

So if Pelosi sells any of her assets, she'll be hit with a 5% tax hike. As will Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett.

Please learn how taxes work before you go into a mega-bitch about them. You wouldn't survive a week in a decent business school with that kind of education.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The humanitarian side of me feels bad. You have no idea about the changes that are going to occur, countering the best of liberal intentions. Obama is going to create social structure similar to the 1920's. No middle class, 5% wealthy, 95% serfs. --"

It'll be all the horrors of the FDR Administration all over again.

[mark l.]

i'll make the argument simple:

there are two conditions to be in during inflation.

if you have money/assets, your money/assets inflates.
if you need debt to function, your debt will inflate.

Increasing taxes to actually pay for things is not inherently evil. Increasing taxes to pay for the debt for the money you are borrowing is evil.

currently Obama's 'path to sustainability' is getting the year deficit to 550 billion dollars by 2013.
I find no sutainability to be found.

"The nation has an outstanding debt of roughly $10 trillion dollars."
when obama took office...

1.7 trillion dollar deficit on the budget, projected.
800 billion, stimulus.
410 billion ominbus.

our debt is now 12.9 trillion.

pending:
tarp II-
800 billion.
mortgage bailouts-
300 billion.

14 trillion in debt, by year's end.

Even if the debt is only 2 trillion for 2010 spending, we are talking about increasing the deficit by 60% in a two year window. If there is someone out there who thinks it will prove successful, they don't work on wall street. You should be running to your broker right now, with all your pennies rolled up.

[mark l.]

knock yourself out lama-
I have money and obama can't get it.

That is wealth.

This democratic ploy of taxing the people who are 'trying to accumulate' wealth...
if you want to wipe out my competition, knock yourself out. You improve my circumstances immensely.

You are utterly confused on who holds the money in the country. This is like sitting in a invisible castle, watching the peasants burn down the houses of their foremen, outside the walls.

Knock yourself out on the class warfare thing, just don't look up...

[13yankeebravo]

To Islamolama, the road inferastucture is soppose to be paid for and maintained by fuel taxes, the lunch lady in your statement drives a car getting 25 mpg, the truck fleet owner has multi trucks getting 5-7 mpg, so who the hell is paying their fair share of the road tax?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Increasing taxes to actually pay for things is not inherently evil. Increasing taxes to pay for the debt for the money you are borrowing is evil. --"

That's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Buying things puts you in debt until you've paid for them. If Obama raises taxes to build infrastructure, he's fine. But if he sells treasuries to buy infrastructure and raises taxes to pay for the treasuries he's evil? That's ridiculous.

"-- 14 trillion in debt, by year's end. --"

TARP I received bipartisan approval in Congress and was passed under President Bush. After Obama came into office and proposed his stimulus, the GOP put forward a stimulus counter-proposal consisting of $3.1 Trillion in tax cuts over ten years that they were willing to pass instead of Obama's $800 billion stimulus plan. TARP II was in the works from the day TARP I went out the door.

The deficit will be going up over the next two years no matter who is in office. Even in the face of spending cuts, we'd be running an increasingly large deficit as our GDP and corresponding tax receipts declined. You're not going to win any arguments by claiming Obama will have spent more than John McCain.

"-- If there is someone out there who thinks it will prove successful, they don't work on wall street. You should be running to your broker right now, with all your pennies rolled up. --"

If you are suggesting that I should be investing heavily in the market right now, on the assumption that recovery is forthcoming, I assure you I'm dropping every dime I can spare into my retirement account. Prices are red hot right now and the market is vastly oversold. I'm shoving every penny I can scrounge into the market at the moment.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- To Islamolama, the road inferastucture is soppose to be paid for and maintained by fuel taxes, the lunch lady in your statement drives a car getting 25 mpg, the truck fleet owner has multi trucks getting 5-7 mpg, so who the hell is paying their fair share of the road tax? --"

Infrastructure has a fund that is filled by fuel taxes. Congress also regularly passes appropriations bills for the Department of Transportation. In the case of the stimulus package, several billion dollars was specifically set aside for highway repair and improvements. Another $8 billion was set aside for high speed rail. These infrastructure projects are funded out of income tax receipts, not gas tax receipts.

That said, you make an excellent point. The gas tax is a great example of a fairer taxing system. Certainly, its superior to the current income / capital gains tax split system.

[Dennis D]

Bravo to CPAC. Democrats did not pass up one chance to attack and bash Bush and the GOP over the last 8 years. Result? They now control House, Senate and the White House. Why argue with success. Let the attacks begin.

[:]

"Democrats did not pass up one chance to attack and bash Bush and the GOP over the last 8 years. Result? They now control House, Senate and the White House." - Dennis D

Um, no. They won because Bush screwed up and Obama has better ideas that more people agree with. They didn't win by throwing temper tantrums.

But if you were at CPAC they'd tell you it was ACORN and trial lawyers or some such thing. And fake birth certificates. Can't forget those!

[buzz]

"Um, no. They won because Bush screwed up and Obama has better ideas that more people agree with. They didn't win by throwing temper tantrums."

Can you name one of those better ideas he ran on? Other than "Change" and "Not Bush"? And they threw a eight year temper tantrum.

"Let us assume I am a multi-millionaire running a shipping company out of Dallas. I have a fleet of trucks, several dozen employees, and a large collection of property."

So you provide direct employment for several dozen employees. Then there are the people that have to provide maintenance for your trucks. That build your trucks. The companies that depend on your getting their goods to market. The companies that use those goods you deliver. So what do you suppose his impact on the economy is? Compared for instance to the 30K lunch lady? So despite his providing indirect and direct jobs and his participation in keeping the economy going, you describe him as "being a GOoPer drone."

As others have pointed out, he is already paying far more in taxes than the 30K lunch lady.
But you see him as a cash cow and would tax him to death, completely oblivious of all the other people you impact as you slowly drive him out of business. How many fewer people will him employ that would otherwise also pay taxes due to his higher tax burden?

"So if Pelosi sells any of her assets, she'll be hit with a 5% tax hike. As will Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett.

Please learn how taxes work before you go into a mega-bitch about them. You wouldn't survive a week in a decent business school with that kind of education."

I'm curious. What business school did you go to that says people don't change their habits in selling assets based on changing taxes? What business school did you go to that says the government can force people to sell their assets so that the government can collect that extra 5% tax? What business school did you go to that was able to ignore the increase in investing that comes with a lower capital gains tax rate? I'm guessing you survived considerably less than a week in whatever business school you claim to attend?