CPAC Registration

The registration procedure at CPAC has been streamlined this year. Those of us who had preregistered were sent an email with a QR code. All I had to do was display that email on my iPhone to the camera on an iPad at the registration desk, my credentials were printed, and they were issued to me along with a swag bag with a few freebies.

So far I’ve run into Pete Ingemi (DaTechGuy), Jim Geraghty (NRO), Mickey White (@biasedgirl), Jeff Dunetz (Yid with Lid), and Grizzly Joe (@OccupyBawlStree). I’ll have more to report astroturfing the weekend goes on.

img_7096UPDATE—Before supper, I spent some time with a group of bloggers in the lobby bar of the convention center, including Kurt Schlichter, who received the good news that his client Ben Shaprio was awarded attorney’s fees in the Clock Boy defamation lawsuit today. Supper was over at the Public House where the RINOCON party was held.

40 thoughts on “CPAC Registration

  1. But will it be streamlined for burka wearing midgets hanging around outside “protesting.”

    Asking for someone who will never be a friend….

  2. Lost some respect for it due to the Milo contretemps.

    CPACer 1:”Hey! Let’s invite that guy who gets disinvited because he says outrageous and controversial things.”
    CPACer 2: “Great idea!”
    CPACer 1: “Wait! Somebody put together an out of context cut/paste hit hit job making it look like he said something outrageous and controversial.”
    CPACer 2: “No need to consider carefully. Let’s make a decision now while everyone is filled with outragey outrageousness.”
    CPACer 1: “Yeah! We gotta disinvite him.”

        • Black bloc didn’t disinvite him from CPAC. A prominent invited speaking slot at CPAC is at least a semi-endorsement of the speaker by CPAC, and there are good reasons why CPAC would not want that at this time. Milo has essentially declared himself a witness to sexual abuse of a number of minors other than himself…but reluctant to name names as to who the prominent figures are who committed said abuse. So even though the accusation that Milo supported pedophilia isn’t really accurate, the passivity in the cases I mentioned above is quite damning.

    • As much as I would like that to be true, it simply isn’t. While Milo may be correct in noting that pederasty is a part of homosexual culture, he was totally wrong to cite homosexual cultural norms as a complete defense. There is no excuse for adults sodomizing teens. In the age of HIV, this would seem to be self-evident. Those lacking the age and experience to consent to contracting a car, also, lack the age and experience to consent to contracting sexually transmitted diseases including HIV.

      • One can have as reasoned discussion on age of consent, its not as if the states have developed a singular standard, besides which he explicitly said he thinks age of consent is about right.

        All CPAC had done is validate the censors on the left. A gutless move.

  3. If Lee is there you should get a picture with him and post it here. I’m sure someone who is a failed journalist will appreciate a picture of you with a real successful working journalist.

  4. Those who preferenced Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, those who preferenced Garland, or worse, over Gorsuch, those who preferenced refusing to deport convicted child molesters over deporting criminal illegal aliens who no business being attending a conservative conference. The failure to expel the National Review from the list of attendees just goes to show what a fraud CPAC is to those whom are actually conservative.

    • It’s totally a conservative position to ban those who objected to a New York Democrat as the GOP POTUS candidate. Yup. These days conservative is spelled T-R-U-M-P. Unfortunately, nobody knows what that means anymore.

      • It may, or may not, be a “conservative position to ban those who objected the nomination of Donald J. Trump of New York to be the GOP Nominee from CPAC,” but, what we know for sure is that your position is disgraceful. We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton is spelled L-I-B-E-R-A-L, and, we know for a fact you acted to see her elected President. I cannot stress how disgraceful that was.

        In 1988 George Herbert Walker Bush ran for President on a slogan of “Read my lips, no new taxes!” After being elected, he raised taxes. That didn’t seem to phase the folks at the National Review who supported his reelection over Mr Clinton nevertheless. In 2016 we saw Donald Trump run well to the right of George Herbert Walker Bush, and Hillary Clinton run well to the left of her husband [repeatedly labeling herself “progressive” in her acceptance speech,] yet the National Review characterized his election as a moral imperative.

        Those who deliberate acted to see that the liberal New York Democrat rose to power in a walkover, and, then, when realizing that wasn’t enough began actively campaigning for that same liberal Democrat are in no position to lecture anyone about who is, and is not, “conservative.” That is exactly what the National Review did.

        Nor, is this the first time the National Review has betrayed the conservative movement. In 2008, the National Review’s assistant editor, and son of the founder no less, endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain simulating orgasms over how Barack Obama attended Harvard as opposed to the lowly John McCain who attended Annapolis. The publisher of the National Review, also, endorsed Obama that year.

        When you have a political movement in which its leaders throw in with the opposition at very critical times, you have a movement destined for failure. I never said Donald Trump was the next coming of Ronald Reagan, but, on the critical issues he is. Further, he actually values winning, which the National Review does not. If you want to win you must aspire to win.

        We also know that the previous accusation against Donald J. Trump was that he was another “New York liberal.” After Neil Gorsuch, border enforcement, repeal of Obama-era liberal legislation by fiat, etc., that dog won’t hunt, so you change it to “New York Democrat,.” implying that he is an extreme liberal. If what was written before was really your position, why didn’t you repeat it? And, why don’t you close the circle by labeling Hillary Clinton an “Arkansas Democrat” to imply that she is much more conservative than she actually is?

        • It may, or may not, be a “conservative position to ban those who objected the nomination of Donald J. Trump of New York to be the GOP Nominee from CPAC,” but, what we know for sure is that your position is disgraceful. We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton is spelled L-I-B-E-R-A-L, and, we know for a fact you acted to see her elected President. I cannot stress how disgraceful that was.

          No, you don’t know that for a fact, and that where I decided to stop reading your screed. I can’t express how ignorant that is.

          I voted 3rd party, as did our Gracious Host.

          • You can feign indignation, preen, posture and attack ad hominem all you want, but that doesn’t change the plain truth that everything I said was completely true.

            Our gracious host was very clear in stating that folks in swing states ought to vote for Donald Trump. You did not state the same. In voting third party while advocating the election of Donald J. Trump our gracious host forfeited his moral authority. What you did was orders of magnitude worse, so as to be different in kind. You can deny it, but, that is the truth.

          • No, because the first thing you said was bullshit. That would be the opposite of true. I realize the disdain that Trumpkins have for objective reality, but I’
            m not going to entertain it.

            Your opinion will be given the credit it is due, which is to say not much. If I’m looking for moral authority, John’s a credible source. Trump Uber Alles bots? Not so much.

          • John Hoge may very well be a “credible source,” but, you simply aren’t citing him as him as a source. What you are doing is offering the children’s playground excuse that, “Johnny did it too!” As I noted above, that isn’t really true. John Hoge advocated those in states such as Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio vote for Donald J. Trump because he was preferable to Hillary Clinton as President. You did not. Therein lies a distinction that makes a difference. Now, John Hoge did play a very dangerous game insomuch as readers in the states that put John Hoge over the top. namely, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania might not have realized that they needed to vote for now President Trump.

            Now, you may wish to lash out ad hominem about how I reject “objective reality,” but, that doesn’t alter the fact that what I stated was objective reality.

          • No, Bob. I’m just admiring your situational “ethics” and circular logic. Oh, and i’m declaring that you wouldn’t know moral authority if it walked up to you and introduced itself.

            Sorry that my TRUMP is insufficiently TRUMP for you, but I’m TRUMP that you’ll get TRUMP it. I just don’t do Cults of Personality.

          • Ad hominem sophistries.

            No matter how much you attack ad hominem, John Hoge recommended people living in swing states to vote for Donald J. Trump for president, and, you did not.

          • So, your measure of Trump purity dictates that telling other people to do what you yourself refuse to do makes you a superior person morally and less of a traitor in the eyes of Trumpkin Nation.

            That’s Schmalfeldtesque idiocy, Bob. You’d have to be a certifiable crackpot to believe such a thing.

          • Yeah, in Trump Natiojn, whatever that is, it is preferable to act to elect Trump over acting to elect Hillary Clinton president, which is what you did. You can spin in an attempt to be flippant and sarcastic, but, in the last analysis yes.

          • When you can’t wrap your brain around as simple a concept as “acting,” you’ve lost the plot…at the bare minimum.

          • Posting on your website that you prefer the election of Donald Trump over the election of Hillary Clinton and encouraging people in swing states to vote Trump is an action. In contrast, your postings, your words, your action were simply disgraceful.

          • That’s almost as un-American as is idiotic. If you find adhering to principle disgusting, you should seek psychological help. You know, before you hold your next Trump parade.

          • To the extent you adhere to “principles”” that led you to prefer the election of Hillary Clinton in a walkover so be it. You claim that in principle the good can be the enemy of the perfect. My principle is that the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. You can protest at length about how you are a man of principle, but, somehow you find it in your heart to accuse me of being motivated by everything other than principle.

            If you really have principles then why don’t you actually state what they are, and, why they led you to prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump rather than to abuse ad hominem, question motives, engage in amateur psychology, etc.? That is, unless you adhere to the principle of winning at all costs. But, the latter is academic. We know you valued losing last November.

          • I explicitly rejected both Trump and Clinton. I’d tell you (once again) to get your facts straight, but it’s clear that such things don’t matter to you, because TRUMP!!!!!!

          • The last statement is disingenuous and you know it. I know, and, everyone else here knows it. You mischaracterize Donald Trump systematically, always to his detriment. You systematically mischaracterize Hillary Clinton in order to make her appear more honest than she was, more sane than she was, and far more towards the Right than she actually was. You can swear on a stack of Bibles you didn’t have an agenda, but, no one looking objectively at the evidence will ever believe you.

          • Ah. “Everybody here” and “knows” are two more simple concepts you don’t understand. But let’s pretend for a moment that you have some sort of interest in facts.

            You systematically mischaracterize Hillary Clinton in order to make her appear more honest than she was, more sane than she was, and far more towards the Right than she actually was.

            Give everybody here three examples of that. One will show that it’s ever happened, three will show that it was systematic.

            Otherwise, we’re going to have to ask the Schmalfeldt question: Are you stupid, delusional or lying? I fear we might have to embrace the power of “and.” But not TRUMP!!!!

        • In response to another poster noting that Hillary Clinton had illegally set up a server, willfully deleted emails under subpoena, ran a pay to play operation that netted her hundreds of millions of dollars personally, armed Libyan terrorists who killed 8 Americans with those weapons, ran two foundations as personal slush fund, paid Chelsea Clinton $1.2 million dollars for a foundation “job,” accepted fifty million dollars from the Saudi’s, you responded by claiming,

          “Trump hasn’t done these things because he hasn’t had the opportunity.”

          You wrote,

          “Hillary Clinton is going to crush Trump because she’s only the second worst candidate ever to get a major party nomination.”

          Just in this thread you again characterized Donald Trump as a New York Democrat. Once again you create a false equivalence between Clinton and Trump.

          You claimed that Donald Trump was a “white trash Obama.”

          When an overwhelming case about dishonest was stated to you about Hillary Clinton your response was to speculate in absence of any evidence that Donald Trump is just as dishonest. That was minimizing her dishonest. When you claimed that Trump was a worse candidate than Clinton, you implied Clinton was the better candidate than Trump. You can falsely claim your position was there were equally bad, but, that simply isn’t the truth. Your words speak for themselves. Can you please explain about how Clinton could be possibly be as bad as a “white trash Obama?”

          • None of this excuses or moderates Clinton. She’s a disaster. I did not speculate that Trump is dishonest, that’s a simple fact. Another fact is that these were the two candidates with the highest unfavorables in American history, Trump’s being worse than Clinton’s. That is not my opinion.

            That you don’t like facts is your problem, not mine.

            Can you please explain about how Clinton could be possibly be as bad as a “white trash Obama?”

            She’s a criminal who would have sold America down to the studs if given the chance.

          • You are now equivocating on the meaning of the word “worse.” Your claim was that Clinton was going to win in a landslide because she was the second worst nominee ever nominated by a major party. It simply wasn’t that he had higher unfavorable ratings. Own what you wrote. Don’t revise history.

            Since you want to issue challenges, would you care to cite a single invective you hurled at Hillary Clinton that was anywhere as vile as “white trash Obama?”

            Furthermore, if it was truly your position that Hillary Clinton would have sold America down to the studs, wouldn’t it have behooved you to inform the people considering not voting for Donald Trump that one possible consequence is that America would be looted?

          • I see you to double down on your attacks on Donald Trump’s veracity. Couching an assertion in the rhetoric of stating a fact doesn’t make your assertion any less arbitrary. Donald J. Trump has governed just as he stated he was. Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman. People in business who don’t keep their word, who don’t follow through on their promises, eventually fail. The evidence indicates he is an honest person. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof. You have not offered it.

  5. Pingback: Voices at CPAC 2017 Yvonne (from almost #NeverTrump to Evangelical Coordinator) & Michael – Da Tech Guy Blog

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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