Hooking & Jabbing, Mr Robert Luke Capehert

CONSERVATIVES CADDELL-ED AT CPAC!

Image

By Robert Capehert

If you’ve been watching the Conservative Political Action (CPAC) speeches, then you’ve witnessed a rare treat. It’s been interesting watching the future of the conservative movement in the midst of needed refocus, and redefinition.

Hopefully, you didn’t miss apologetic former Democratic Party campaign adviser, Pat Caddell. When the man loses his temper it’s some of the best television there is. I once saw Pat Caddell get so worked up during an interview he had a nosebleed on-air.

Wonderfully dramatic! Cadell is vastly superior to any reality television. And, sad to say, I have to agree with Caddell’s political mojo over my employer.

David Beilstein, my boss at Crede, ut intelligas, has done his able best in defense of Mitt Romney’s tepid 2012 campaign—an over-reach I must say, and an embarrassing Romney apologetic. Mr Beilstein blames the GOP overall for Romney’s choke-up. Some of that’s true. Republicans have communicated as good as decomposing corpses.

But according to adviser Caddell, Beilstein’s evaluation of the Romney presidential campaign is stirringly myopic. Romney, says Caddell, should have won.

From the keyboard of Michael Patrick Leahy, of Brietbart.com.,

Caddell left no doubt he is not an admirer of Mitt Romney’s campaign management skills. He called Romney “the worst executive I’ve seen” when it comes to leading a political campaign. Romney’s failure to attack Obama’s Benghazi debacle during the foreign policy debate was “cravenness” that came about because his consultants told him “we don’t want to look warlike.”

Caddell also said Romney failed to back his campaign with his own money when it was most needed. “My question for Romney is, you spent $45 million [of your own money] in your 2008 campaign where you didn’t have a chance. Why didn’t you give your campaign a loan in the spring instead of letting Obama define you?”

Romney, Caddell said, was not on top of his game when he failed to anticipate attacks based on his business career. “You didn’t know Bain was coming? Ted Kennedy used it against you.” Romney lost to Ted Kennedy in the 1994 Senate election in Massachusetts.

It was said here, ladies and gentlemen. It was a sound, logical, prediction—based on polls, historical realities, and other political minutia. It was true before David Beilstein, busy-as-a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest, wheedled me aboard this pleasure cruise of a blog.

But Romney still lost. And Caddell thinks—half-crazed with venom—it never should have happened.

Caddell also said Romney failed to back his campaign with his own money when it was most needed. “My question for Romney is, you spent $45 million [of your own money] in your 2008 campaign where you didn’t have a chance. Why didn’t you give your campaign a loan in the spring instead of letting Obama define you?”

Romney, Caddell said, was not on top of his game when he failed to anticipate attacks based on his business career. “You didn’t know Bain was coming? Ted Kennedy used it against you.”

Romney lost to Ted Kennedy in the 1994 Senate election in Massachusetts.

It was more than a tough break even if Mitt Romney couldn’t carry Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley’s Edmund Burke embroidered jock straps. The depression the oppositional faithful of progressivism run amok in these formerly free United States felt on that brutal Wednesday morning—packs of men and women eager to see Barack Obama flat on his ass, reaching for his proverbial mouthpiece, on election night—were feeling more than a little suicidal.

Republicans should have won. But didn’t. And, this year’s CPAC beat down with engorged Caddell raging in tow, went a good deal forward explaining why.

More from Mr Leahy, quoting Caddell,

Caddell was equally caustic in his evaluation of the Republican consultants who managed Romney’s campaign. “Of course this election could have been won. It should have been won,” he said. “The Romney campaign was the worst campaign in my lifetime except for ninety minutes [in the first debate] thanks to Barack Obama.”

“There was a failure of strategy, a failure of tactics, a massive failure of messaging. Most of all there was a total failure of imagination.” Caddell singled out Stuart Stevens, a key figure in Romney’s campaign, in a particularly withering critique. “Stevens had as much business running a campaign as I do sprouting wings and flying out of this room,” he said to an audience that applauded.

Caddell said that Romney inexplicably allowed Obama to define him without fighting back. If Obama had a 50% favorable rating on election day, he had an 80% chance of winning. If he had a 45% favorable rating on election day, he had a 90% chance of losing. On election day, Obama’s favorable rating was 51% because, Caddell said, “Republicans failed to hold him down.”

Some might think the problem with Crede, ut intelligas is that while it’s blog written from the cocktail of paleo-conservative, consequentialist libertarian mixture, it fails to do much critical analysis of statist progressivism.

We do. Lots. President Obama and progressivism, generally, catch a lot of invective firepower on here.

But it is important to understand, as I’ve noted, conservatism is in need of top to bottom reform—a re-animation! Part of that process is healthy, critical eyes toward our own backyard—where problems fester and counterfeit “classical liberals” pull Benedict Arnold impersonations on the regular.

Let us comprehend something. If given a chance to lead this great republic forward, we will only be successful if solid classical liberal principals are at the behest of public policy. And this means sticking to classical liberal principals, both foreign and domestic. It is a shameful, slothful reality that while conservatism—and libertarianism, somewhat, enjoys more mainstream media airplay than ever before, yet government has grown bigger and more intrusive during its popular ascendance.

What that portends should be obvious: it means were blowing a lot of ideological hot gas, but when we shuttle into government—we’re not governing by liberty-of-the-individual principals. We’re not being classical liberals when were sitting in government offices with phones growing out of our ears and our legs up on our desks.

I think this year’s CPAC conference pertains, possibly, to real change. Forward motion, as motion creates emotion! Failure can only go so far, so we pray.

Hopeful signs emerge; the ones begetting worry are less apparent.

Advertisements
Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s