CPAC 2007: Ann Shines, McFeign Stays Away

The big story among conservatives at CPAC 2007 was not the work of the annoying squad of lackeys for first and second-tier Republican candidates, nor was it the speeches of the candidates pretending to be conservatives themselves. It wasn’t even the inspiring words of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the only man in or out of the presidential race with any positive ideas for the future of the Republican Party and the country. Nor was it the performance of Ann Coulter this weekend, who was her old, controversial, vitriolic, inflammatory, hatemongering self that conservatives like me have grown to love. The story conservatives were talking about at the Omni in Washington this weekend was the cold shoulder they received from phony conservative John McCain.

About the same time the conference began on Thursday, McCain released a statement refusing CPAC’s invitation to speak to what he called "Washington insiders." Apparently three trips to the DC area makes me a Washington insider. Go figure. All this while other candidates and explorers like Sam Brownback and Jim Gilmore had practically bent over backwards to get in long ago. McCain’s “diss,” as American Conservative Union’s executive vice president William Lauderback put it, was not well-received on the convention floor with delegates booing his fifth place straw poll finish. Quite frankly, one has to wonder who McCain hopes will support him after telling the conservative base of the Republican Party- the one responsible for winning three out of the four elections this decade- to screw off. This is especially true with McCain trailing Rudy Giuliani by double digits.

As for the rest of CPAC, the usual activities, speakers, and groups were there, whether they were expected or even wanted by other attendees. Personally, I’m as much at a loss to explain the presence of the Catholic Crusaders as most were to explain the ACLU’s. The purpose of CPAC should not be merely to point fingers at who was to blame for November’s loss, especially since there was plenty of blame to go around. Nor should it be to endorse and impose one form of conservatism over another. The presence of groups from the Libertarian Party to Muslims for America should show how diverse a movement American conservatism really is, and is an asset rather than a liability to that movement in showing the many ideas present on the right side of the spectrum.

CPAC also showed conservatives how much work we have to do to prepare for 2008. The fact of the matter is if the election were held tomorrow, the Republican candidate- whoever it may be- would lose. Badly. Democrats have all the momentum of November’s victory, all the name recognition, and it would seem all the charisma. The current crop is one without a visible front-runner, or at the very least a conservative front-runner. Rudy’s speech largely avoided the domestic issues for which he has drawn criticism from those in attendance. The party needs a serious candidate with leadership experience on the national level; an unquestioned conservative, but one who doesn’t make opposing gay marriage and abortion the cornerstone of his campaign; someone with bold solutions to face our nation’s problems; someone who can show America that conservatism can do for Americans what liberalism was supposed to. In short, the Republican Party and the conservative movement need Newt Gingrich.