More HuckaBS, But He's Half Correct

Mike Huckabee is being self-serving, as usual. Huckabee is worried about any perceived decline in the importance of social conservatism in the movement as a whole. So, he's simply trying to mark his turf. His tax raising, diet dictating style of governing has nothing to do with conservatism. We can only hope he goes away, as he'll always be nothing more than a divisive force in American politics.

MIKE HUCKABEE BLASTS CPAC: ““CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.”

He's wrong on the less Republican issue. However, he does expose the myth of the so-called conservative movement as defined by events such as CPAC. Don't get me wrong, it was a terrific event. But later today I'll post more on my decision to move beyond the conservative movement we think we know. It's always been half myth and half term of art, so I have been considering it. CPAC convinced me it was the right decision for now. It's a necessary one if we're to take the country back for the center-Right.

If CPAC were actually a conservative event, Huckabee would be right to criticize it for shading too libertarian this year. But CPAC itself is not the conservative movement. Many of the attendees are, sure. But what CPAC represents is a conservative establishment without much movement, grown old and bloated - and as much a part of Washington and Republican electoral politics, as anything else.

It entertains the movement, but it is not the movement. That's the people in attendance and even more people scattered across America. But the split between the conservative establishment and the actual movement has grown too wide to sustain. If we follow their lead too closely, we will only end up with more Republican progressivism after helping them dispatch the Democrats and Obama in 2010 and 2012, respectively.

It's time for a new movement in America. The Tea Party movement is more emblematic of that, than is the conservative establishment. I don't want to burn bridges, or unnecessarily antagonize them. We do share common cause in many ways. But just as with the Republican party, if we don't soon see new blood and new leadership in what is commonly called the conservative movement, I fear we will only do more to elect Republicans and not take America back for the people.

I'm all for electing Republicans. Don't read that as a third party move. I'm vehemently against that. But which Republicans we elect matters. And the conservative establishment cares far less about that than do the people because they've become more invested in Republican politics, than the movement over the years. They'd prefer it not be pointed out. But the stakes are too high and the divide has become to large and dangerous to ignore.

Comments

[templar knight]

Here's my take on it, Dan. We conservatives need to target the primaries, and get the most conservative candidate possible for the general election. But, we should also be prepared to vote for the Republican candidate, even if that candidate is not as conservative as one might want.

Just think Nancy Polosi. As long as Democrats are in charge, she is Speaker of the House. I would vote for a RINO any day to get this woman and her agenda out of the speaker's seat. Then we can continue to work the primaries to get the RINO's defeated. That would be my strategy.

[Dan Riehl]

I agree TK. I'm not for going nuclear here. But we do want more change, than does the conservative establishment. While they are our friends and allies, they are also a part of the problem. They're too invested in their own power in DC to serve the movement the way it should be served. That doesn't mean I believe in running a far right candidate no matter what. I have quite a large libertarian streak myself. So, I'm open to a big tent. That isn't my issue.

[unseen]

so Dan what you are saying is that Palin was ahead of your thinking on this. she has been moving this way for months now. with her distancing herself form CPac, her embracing the Tea party movement, her not harping on social issues except for the beauty of life. her pounding the "elites in both the GOp and Dem circles" her fiscal conservatism talking points.

If im off base here, explain to me what you just wrote above is any different that what Palin has been doing?

[Sissy Willis]

In response to this tweet of mine citing you:

"CPAC represents a conservative estab w/out much movement, grown old & bloated" writes @DanRiehl, ready 2 "move beyond"...

Twitterer Stephen Alman asks:

Isn't that essentially what Sarah P said as reasons for skipping?

Well, yah.

[Dan Riehl]

"Well, yah."

Well, no. Unfortunately, the rhetoric associated with Palin was far more critical, alleged corruption, and was divisive in the end. I am very much trying to avoid that very thing. It was ultimately unproductive. If she believes she's ready for higher office, as much as I like Palin, she needs to mature and refine her rhetoric - not to appease the elites, but to avoid negativity. Negative was teh last thing Reagan was, to date, Palin has not shared that trait in her approach.

[mariner]

When Sarah Palin said that you had a fit.

[Sissy Willis]

Point well taken. Thanks. Sending along link to said twitterer.

[Mikey NTH]

There are three 'sections' - broad issue areas to the conservatives. In not any order, (1) social conservative, (2) fiscal conservative, and (3) foreign policy/defense conservative. Me, I am a foreign policy/defense conservative first, fiscal con second and social con way third. Other people vary as to what is important to them.

At the same time, the conservative movement varies regarding which of these three broad issue areas gets more consideration than the others, which is to be top dog. Right now, it is the fiscal cons who are getting the consideration.

And that is fine with me. That is the issue that is before the country right now. Not defense so much, not social policy so much. I think people have to take a little self-examination and place themselves with these broad issue areas and ask themselves if the reason why they are mad about not getting much of their way isn't due to some grand conspiracy, but rather that their issue area is not the issue area that has the country's attention right now.

My 2 cents.

[jimr3]

This is interesting.
Mark Levin’s take on CPAC and why he didn’t attend.
Via his Facebook, in part:
“I was invited to be the opening speaker at Saturday's CPAC session. I had accepted but then, to my amazement, I learned that the John Birch Society would be one of many co-sponsors. This takes the big-tent idea many steps too far for me. So, I withdrew. Apparently, others were not so moved. That's fine. But it wasn't for me. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater, among others, chased the Birchers from the movement decades ago. And they're not a part of the movement. So, to give them a booth at CPAC was boneheaded.”
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/marks-new-note-feb-21-2010/322101900945

[Thomas]

I don't care for Huckabee at all, but to call him tax-raising is absolutely false. The man is an advocate of The Fair Tax, and I believe the only candidate on the GOP side who ran on it in '08.

[Thomas]

"Alleged corruption"???? "Alleged"????

You have your head in the sand, Dan. There is nothing "alleged" about Keene's pay-for-play scheme with FedEx and UPS.

[Tom Lamb]

What was the demographics in age there? There were a lot of college kids there which do not represent the establishment.

The college republican network and xpac via Baldwin..... On one hand you had the Paul results being booed by ????? and then the "bring it" - "I love it" guy getting booed by some of the Paul supporters - and then you had Campaign Liberty (Ron and Rand) co-sponsors along side the JBS ---

No one is going to harness the Tea Party movement-- It is what it is -- It is a movement that finds its own candidate.

You had the Rand/Ron Paul movement at CPAC along with more conventional conservatives who are opposite to the Rand/Ron Paul stance on the war in Iraq, but you will find Tea Party members supporting a candidate like Hayworth who is more the traditional conservative in the foreign policy area, i.e waterbaording and the war in Iraq and others who will support a candidate like Rand Paul or his dad.

"...If CPAC were actually a conservative event, Huckabee would be right to criticize it for shading too libertarian this year. But CPAC itself is not the conservative movement. Many of the attendees are, sure. But what CPAC represents is a conservative establishment without much movement, grown old and bloated - and as much a part of Washington and Republican electoral politics, as anything else."

What are you saying here when you consider the dynamics of those who attended, the sponsors and those who voted in the straw poll. From all of the fuss about Beck, Ron Paul and the booing, I would not say it hasn't grown old or bloated.

Sounds more like it is going through growing pains...

[David R. Graham]

Concur with Dan on this.

Transcend previous assumptions and don't go negative.

Work with people.

[Live Free Or Die]

The JBS has been sounding the alarm, for what, 50+ years, against communism, international/global governance, creeping socialism, and fiat money. Now that America's economy/culture is being destoyed by the policies that the JBS have been warning about forever, people still want to trash them? The Tea Party people are just the 'frogs' that have jumped out of the pot because the water's getting real hot.

[mark l.]

give the libertarians credit. they haven't screwed anything up-unless we are going to mention perot, although it was bush's weakness that cost him his election.

I don't read much into straw polls, but the media was kind enough to point out that the attendees at cpac were skewed towards youth.

something to be said for the oldest candidate, winning the youngest voters. This is definitely a sign of things to come. The youth vote is passionate, and strongly anti-socialist.

[Huey]

You "work with people" when doing so gets you what YOU want. You don't when doing so gets them what THEY want.

[unseen]

'and was divisive in the end"

negative?

Oh that is rich. The only people being divisive about Palin's approach to CPAC were you and eric among a couple others. You were the one that went negative, you were the one that was divisive and tried to drive a wedge between Palin and the Tea party and Palin and the conservatives. you were the one that went negative on the TPN. you were the one that tried to paint Palin as a money seeking dive and you have the gonads to say Palin was negative and divise because she pointed out some unplesant facts about the ;leadership of CPAC and who they choose to embrace.

Look in the mirror Dan for negative and divisive.

[astonerii]

"But what CPAC represents is a conservative establishment without much movement, grown old and bloated "

Yup, and Erick Erickson is so totally happy to be in the in crowd over there. I have moved him down past you. As for CPAC, the only thing I followed were Beck, Newt (because I wanted to see him show himself a progressive), and Ann Coulter (who was way too friendly).

I remember being upset with you for something a while back, cannot recall what it was, but your direction the last two weeks has been solidly within my world view of things, so probably going to move you back upwards on my need to read list. Erick's banning of me and all the 'birthers' has certainly ticked me off, but even reading his site now, there is nothing really going on, there is one set of views there in comments now, and thus there is nothing to learn. In the last week there has been one post that I was interested in, and when I checked it out, it was not an Erick post ( http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2010/02/21/cpac-2010-1994-is-in-the-air/ ).

Anyways, you had another quote I liked in your post above this about being open to different groups, such as the Ron Paul supporters, and that made me think of you as much more adult than many of these other people in the conservative blog-sphere who think that people who have what they consider extreme views have nothing to offer. Ron Paul may be way out there when it comes to national security, but for everything that we need, we can pretty much always count on his vote for conservative legislation.

[astonerii]

my own "I remember being upset with you for something a while back, cannot recall what it was..."

Ah, yeah, reading the comments here. It was the Palin/CPAC issue. Both you and Palin are correct on CPAC. The corruption she noted you may call it negative, but as everyone says, you cannot fix a problem unless you can identify it. Just like McCain, you cannot fix the problem that McCain causes the conservative movement unless you go negative against him and point out what he is doing wrong. Do you think McCain did himself or the conservatives any favors when he spent his time telling Americans that a President Obama would make a good president? To use the 11th commandment in cases of corruption seems disingenuous and individually self serving.

Palin did the right thing when she said Keene was corrupt and that she would not support endeavors he was in charge of.

You are doing the right thing by coming to the negative conclusion that the people at CPAC and in the Republican Party headquarters are no longer willing to be movement conservatives and are going to be blocking our way to the promised land. Your statement most assuredly is going to be viewed as divisive and negative in the eyes of those who are as you you say they are.

It seems to me, that negative and divisive just depends on the person doing the looking. Just like you can look at the republicans blocking ObamaCare as either obstruction by the party of NO or upholding the will of the people as the party of smaller government ideals.