The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Another Controversial CPAC Scandal!™

Posted on | February 17, 2013 | 18 Comments

How long have I been covering the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)? Forever, it seems, and every year the liberal media find some reason to denounce CPAC as extreme, fringe, controversial.

From my perspective, the biggest CPAC controversy this year is that they moved it from the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in northwest D.C. — near the Adams-Morgan district and a short taxi ride from downtown — to the new Gaylord National Harbor resort, eight miles south of town in Prince George’s County, Md.

I could think of a dozen arguments against this move, and have heard only one argument in favor of it: They got a great rate.

Well, so much for my CPAC controversy. The really big controversy according to liberal Sarah Reese Jones is this:

CPAC: White Supremacists and Wayne LaPierre
are Welcome, but GOProud is Banned

Students of propaganda techniques should ponder how Jones manages to suggest that Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association is somehow as controversial as “white supremacists.”

But wait a minute: Who are these “white supremacists” being welcomed at CPAC? Looking over the announced schedule, I don’t see any, unless Sarah Reese Jones is using the liberal definition of “white supremacist” as “someone who didn’t vote for Obama.”

What the headline seems to refer to is a panel at last year’s CPAC that included Peter Brimelow of and John Derbyshire, formerly of National Review. While I didn’t attend that panel, I did run into Peter Brimelow between sessions at CPAC and he was, as always, entirely civil. To describe Brimelow as a “white supremacist” requires a distortion of the term that very nearly strips it of all useful meaning, but when a liberal propagandist wants to portray a CPAC controvery, truth is the first casualty. Readers will also note that Sarah Reese Jones labels editor Ben Shapiro a “conspiracy theorist.”

So . . . yeah. Shapiro is Willis Carto, Peter Brimelow is Julius Streicher and you have yourself Another Controversial CPAC Scandal!™

The real motivating purpose of Sarah Reese Jones’s article, as far as I can tell, is to air the grievance of GOProud that they were not invited or, as I’m sure Jimmy LaSalvia would say, GOProud quite specifically un-invited, as in not welcome, persona non grata.

Could I comment on that dispute? Yes, I could.

Do I want to have that argument in public? No, I do not.

Meanwhile — since it’s apparently now the annual season for Another Controversial CPAC Scandal™ — let me point out that the CPAC agenda includes M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies. Here is a guy who did years of research to prove that Joe McCarthy was right, and liberals don’t think that’s controversial?

You commie pinko stooges dissapoint me . . .



18 Responses to “Another Controversial CPAC Scandal!™”

  1. RalphWeber68
    February 17th, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

    RT @smitty_one_each: TOM Another Controversial CPAC Scandal!™ #TCOT

  2. smitty
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:01 pm

    Also, there is an awful lot more room at the Gaylord.

  3. Victor Morton
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

    But no gaylords

  4. valerie rhodes
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:15 pm

    So my head is spinning from the GoProud controversy brewing on Twitter..if rational and informed people could explain the good,bad,and ugly, I would appreciate facts. Knowing that Evans is speaking is a real treat !@@@

  5. robertstacymccain
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

    Stan Evans is a living legend, and he’s not getting any younger. I see that this year’s CPAC has a special focus on young conservatives, and I hope all the college kids at CPAC will make an especial point of seeing Stan.

  6. Homeschool Mama
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

    While they no longer welcome GoProud, they still welcome Islamists like Suhail Khan and Grover but won’t allow Pamela Geller or Frank Gaffney even a panel. Pro-Lifers are also condemned to a panel and not allowed the platform they deserve.

  7. robertstacymccain
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

    That’s what I mean: If you want to find a controversy about CPAC, they’re never hard to find, but I just don’t like having these arguments in public.

  8. DaveO
    February 17th, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

    Seems that the only actual controversy is how progressive CPAC became with its consistent marginalization of Socons. Maybe they should renominate Romney and McCain.

  9. Kevin Trainor Jr.
    February 17th, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

    Kevin Trainor Jr. liked this on Facebook.

  10. Why I Support #CPAC UPDATE | Nathan Martin
    February 17th, 2013 @ 3:53 pm

    […] is a rather big uproar (mostly fabricated) regarding CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) and their decision to not accept GOProud […]

  11. Adjoran
    February 17th, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

    CPAC is essentially an ACU fundraiser. It has never accomplished anything positive for the conservative movement that I am aware of. In fact, the reverse is usually true.

    Derb is a jerk, but he’s not a white supremacist. Susan Reese Jones is a bitter, ugly old crone. Nobody except leftist loonies give a rat’s patootie what she says.

  12. Bob Belvedere
    February 17th, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

    There’s a lot of knowledge and wisdom that wonderful man has to offer – they should, if they’re smart.

  13. Bob Belvedere
    February 17th, 2013 @ 6:04 pm

    Nathan Martin explains my opposition to GOProud better than I could have:

  14. JDP
    February 17th, 2013 @ 11:25 pm

    Brimelow isn’t a white supremacist, however the site he runs is radically alienated from America in general, one of those examples of the paleo right mutating into the mirror of the anti-American left post-Iraq.

    if he doesn’t want these types of charges thrown around, maybe he shouldn’t’ve adopted this “no enemies to the right” mentality that includes anti-Israeli/foreign policy conspiracists, Darwinist HBD racial reductionists, white nationalists, etc. etc…the paleosphere’s done a pretty good job of alienating itself through its associations, and then turning around and bitching when people don’t treat them seriously.

  15. K-Bob
    February 17th, 2013 @ 11:38 pm

    Well, gosh, some party has to have these internal disputes. I guess that means Republicans, since the Dems never step up to the plate.

  16. K-Bob
    February 17th, 2013 @ 11:41 pm

    They ought to have it at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center, in Nashville. Having it in DC means it’s always too focused on beltway types.

    You’d think conservatives could get out into the great, wild yonder and stretch out a bit.

  17. JDP is a hater
    February 18th, 2013 @ 5:07 am

    as far as GOProud, it doesn’t make sense to include them so long as the Republican Party’s opposed to their cause.

    i realize people wanna make this a nonpartisan cause — “the new civil rights movement” ‘n all — but unless the GOP shifts it makes as much sense as “Republicans for Ultra-Keynesian Stimulus.” or “Republicans for Unsustainable Immigration Levels”

    they’ve always got Red Eye to go on for their (not really) funny libertarian snarking in any case

  18. Eric Ashley
    February 18th, 2013 @ 7:31 pm

    Its not exactly a cage match, such supposes some sort of almost equality of power. And the Socons are to the Gay Marriage Nuts as Godzilla is to a single convenience store.

    But the GAN are proxies for the RINO Losercons, and like writing laws in Texas to embrace the beauty of guns so that NEtern libs fleeing from their own mess don’t immigrate and impose their values on you, and instead run shrieking in fear from your borders, slamming GAN serves to drive away Losercons (There are Socons and their are Losercons).