February 10, 2011

CPAC. Live feed + live blog.

At WaPo.

18 comments:

edutcher said...

I don't doubt that Cilizza and all the other Lefties are praying somebody shows up with a rope and wants to lynch somebody from GOProud.

The irony is that the debate (argument, fight, whatever you want to call it) says more that's good about the Right than the Left.

The Right can fight about something like this without resorting to police (or DHS) state tactics and everybody gets a hearing. Anybody remember when Robert Casey Sr wanted to address the Democrat Convention about 20 years ago?

lucid said...

I love it. The Washed-Up Post manages to get the birthers and Christine O'Donnell into their first two comments.

What a joke they are. But not long for this world. Even Warren Buffet is bailing on them.

Coketown said...

It's abundantly clear that Cilizza is narrating CPAC with the bitter taste of November's defeat still lingering on his palate. Why make such a thorough deconstruction of Labrador's one-line joke? And bring O'Donnell up when talking about Noem? The country has moved on, WaPo. With courage and a sincere desire to change, you can, too!

1jpb said...

Lucid,

Blame the messenger much?

I'm not sure that WaPo is responsible for the content, as it's rolled out, at CPAC.

P.S.
Noem is much hotter than Palin.

Is that sexist?

MadisonMan said...

Johnson said he would never cast a vote in order to get reelected.

That's a poor strategy. I don't think a Senator who never votes will be re-elected.

Hoosier Daddy said...

P.S.
Noem is much hotter than Palin.

Is that sexist?


It was never conservatives that believed remarks on a woman's beauty, even comparing it to others was ever sexist or grounds for an EEOC hearing.

Sofa King said...

That's a poor strategy. I don't think a Senator who never votes will be re-elected.

Hah! I love ambiguous sentences like that.

MadisonMan said...

And I'm not sure that banning the EPA would be a winning move.

It would be better to narrow its focus (and its workforce) so that it deals with harmful pollutants. Harmful as in breathe it in (or touch it) and die harmful. Like all bureacracies, it needs to be smaller.

A visual of polluted rivers, or birds draped in goo, however, is hard to run from and if you ban the EPA, that's what you're going to get.

Paddy O said...

Speaking of watching live, aljazeera is covering a soon to happen speech by Mubarak in Cairo.

They're saying he's going to step down. A military council made a statement a little bit ago that suggests this is what is happening.

Lem said...

Mubarak resigns..

Lincolntf said...

Lem, I didn't hear him say that. I think he said he's staying until September? The translator sucks.

Lem said...

I'm confused.

Drudge says hes not resigning.

Lem said...

He's not stepping down.. but hes transferring power to the VP?

That doesnt make any sense.

madawaskan said...

The BBC is reporting that the protesters are marching towards the presidential palace.

Fred4Pres said...

Why Obama really can't stay President anymore.

Yeah, a Obama Administration official states the Muslim Brotherhood is secular. Yeah, if you think its stated goal of reestablishment of an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law is "mostly secular." Beyond the oxymoron issue of the name of that organization and calling it secular, the fact that most of al Qaeda's leadership were either members of or have said they were greatly influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, how do you respond to stuff like this? Any party appointing people this stupid need to be voted out of office. The world is too dangerous for these people to be in charge.

Fred4Pres said...

Yeah Lem, Mubarak is staying in now. At least for the next few minutes. Apparently, like Obama, he is going to take every possible position so he cannot be wrong.

Thorley Winston said...

And I'm not sure that banning the EPA would be a winning move.


Apparently what Newt Gingrich actually said was:


“Former House speaker Newt Gingrich called for replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with an "environmental solutions agency" as part of a broader re-assessment of American energy policy in his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference today in Washington.”

I haven’t followed the issue that closely but Gingrich has laid out on his website why, based on past experience, he believes that trying to reform the EPA is unlikely to be successful, examples where other agencies with similar problems have been successfully replaced with new agencies with updated missions, and a draft proposal for an Environmental Solutions Agency.

knox said...

It would be better to narrow its focus (and its workforce) so that it deals with harmful pollutants. Harmful as in breathe it in (or touch it) and die harmful.

I agree completely. However, the way environmentalists are nowadays, they'll redefine the crisis from "Global Warming" to "Global Poisoning." The bar will be raised as high as necessary to reach the desired result: regulation that hurts/kills businesses.