John McCain

Live from CPAC

|

I'm at the Conservative Political Action Conference in DC right now; here are a few of the more entertaining snapshots.

Yes—the Libertarian Party is seated next to the fun-loving American Protectionist.

The Romney Flipper! A man in a dolphin suit with a T-shirt reading "Mitt Romney: Just Another Flip-Flopper from Massachusetts" danced through the exhibit hall dispensing high-fives. The ire directed at Romney and John McCain (who stiffed the conference) is palpable, and there's no sign of anti-Giuliani animus except for:

These "No Rudy McRomney" stickers, modeled by a conservative wearing a "I'm a Right Wing Nut Job" shirt.

Yes, it's Jeff Gannon, who's getting far less flak than..

These beleagured ACLU volunteers, getting lectured on how the Constitution protects the lives of babies but not athiests.

Advertisement

NEXT: Investors vs. Entrepreneurs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “…there is no sin of anti-Guiliani animus…”

    is the greatest typo since

    “…Republicans want to amen the law.”

  2. Poor Romney.

  3. My, what the Scaife-ites would have done with a Clinton-era Jeff Gannon. That would have been wicked awesome to watch.

    Oops, I meant to type Jeff “bullet-headed man-cock” Gannon. It is the law, afterall.

  4. Will this be the worst Presidential election, in terms of major candidates’ lack of respect for individual liberty, since, I dunno, 2004? In 2000, we at least had a major candidate who was willing to lie about his intention to defend the rights of citizens to assemble and speak freely. Is it better for them to simply acknowledge their thuggishness, or to pretend that they aren’t thugs?

  5. Third photo from the top…….nice rack…..awful green jacket!

  6. I’d like to do a conservative nut job on what’s under her shirt… sorry.

  7. how the Constitution protects the lives of babies but not athiests

    Why do so many people misspell atheist? ‘Tis odd.
    Especially when atheists do it.

  8. The bloggers in the rightwingosphere are so busy going after Greenwald/HuffPo/dirty words today I guess they all forgot about CPAC. Last year there were reports all over the place.

  9. “lives of babies but not atheists”

    My guess is that most CPACers couldn’t give a shit about the lives of actual babies, but rather what they would call “womb babies.”

    Real, live babies without umbilical cords? Meh.

  10. The ACLU set up shop at CPAC??? They probably had to draw straws at the office to figure out who got that suicide mission.

    After looking at those pictures, I have advice for the CPAC planners for next year: More Booze.

  11. I had no idea that Grimace was a white woman.

  12. If only Dante were alive so that he could add a new ring to the inferno.

  13. You’ve gotta love this sign, though:

    “What does Net Neutrality have in common with Seinfeld? Both Net Neutrality and Seinfeld are Shows About Nothing.”

  14. Yeah, if Gannon had been visiting the Clinton White House that would have been the story of the decade.

    I still haven’t quite figured out why it sank like a stone. It involves dicks, so it’s something the great and good american people can understand (unlike say Scooter Libby, whatever the hell that’s about). I guess the media can’t shoehorn gay prostitutes into the usual narratives they have for Republicans: fatcats in Thomas Nast tophats, churchy types (pre-Ted Haggard), etc.

  15. Dear Mr. Weigel:

    Spellcheck. Please.

  16. Weigel,
    Aren’t you concerned for your safety?

  17. Warren –

    nah – he’s got his Shill Shield. (+5 against socially-conservative white papers – does better than rock or scissors, even!)

    🙂

  18. From the picture, there appears to be two American Protectionists, not just The American Protectionist.

  19. “The American Protectionist and Bob” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

  20. Weigel – Sounds like everyone is hatin’. Who are they lovin’ besides Rudy? Any Ron Paul love in the hiz?

  21. Are there any LaRouche guys? Also, the dolphin doesn’t have any pupils.

  22. “The ACLU set up shop at CPAC??? They probably had to draw straws at the office to figure out who got that suicide mission.”

    Actually, they just sent out a friendly office-wide e-mail and people signed up to take time slots.

    I passed on the opportunity.

  23. When did we start crossbreeding humans with horses?

  24. I should be there right now! 🙁
    Be on the look out for UCF’s College Republican club.

    ” “What does Net Neutrality have in common with Seinfeld? Both Net Neutrality and Seinfeld are Shows About Nothing.”
    You’ll have to explain that to me. How is Net Neutrality a show?

  25. This is cute and all, but if I were there and had the same access as Weigel I would try to get into a Socratic dialogue of sorts with candidates vis-a-vis their ImmigrationPolicies. As long as I had several minutes, it wouldn’t be difficult at all for me to point out the extremely serious flaws in their plans.

    Perhaps Weigel or one of the other “credentialed bloggers” will do that. Uh huh.

    P.S. Legislation has been introduced in the CA legislature that would start a $500 DepositAccount for each ChildBorn there starting in 2008. I’m a little disappointed that Reason hasn’t gotten around to discussing that plan yet. Details at the link.

  26. Putting aside the sheer entertainment value of the imbeded crazies, this has got to be the most boring assemblage of white people south of the 49th parallel.

  27. Having read a number of different definitions of net neutrality I gotta ask, what the heck is it?

  28. It’s the Net! And it’s Neutral! What’s not to get?

  29. A handsome lot, those conservatives.

  30. This is cute and all, but if I were there and had the same access as Weigel I would try to get into a Socratic dialogue of sorts with candidates vis-a-vis their ImmigrationPolicies.

    Me, too. I would try to talk them into opening the borders. What would you say?

  31. If only Dante were alive so that he could add a new ring to the inferno.

    That’s a quotable quote.

    Are there any LaRouche guys? Also, the dolphin doesn’t have any pupils.

    That’s a rare specimen of Tursiops microanniadoptus, the “Little Orphan Annie” dolphin.

  32. These “No Rudy McRomney” stickers, modeled by a conservative wearing a “I’m a Right Wing Nut Job” shirt.

    I wonder if I could talk her into opening up her borders.

  33. Couldn’t they have gotten ol’Bob Barr to man the ACLU table? That would have caused a few heads to explode.

    Other than the asian chick at the ACLU table that looks like an awfully white group there.

  34. These beleagured ACLU volunteers, getting lectured on how the Constitution protects the lives of babies but not athiests.

    I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

  35. a conservative wearing a “I’m a Right Wing Nut Job” shirt.

    Nice rack.

  36. Having read a number of different definitions of net neutrality I gotta ask, what the heck is it?

    As it’s commonly used — it’s a requirement that internet backbone providers (NOT your ISP — the people that run the backbones) not privalege packets based on origin.

    It’s fine to, say, privalege streaming data over static content (that’s types of data), but not privilege Yahoo over Google.

    I’ll leave aside the pros and cons of net neutrality, and mention only that some arguing “against” neutratilty try to conflate the notion of bandwidth usuage with net neutrality. So you occasionally hear odd arguments that net neutrality is “bad” because Google uses so much bandwidth and is taking advantage of AT&T by not paying their fair share.

    Google, like everyone else, pays for their bandwidth. 🙂

    Another common one is conflating types of packets with source (streaming versus static, for instance) — arguments like “AT&T would love to offer streaming surgical video to allow remote experts to offer advice, but can’t because of net neutrality”.

    In practical terms, “net neutrality” is how the internet has been since the beginning. The argument is over whether to change it (allow backbone holders to charge in whatever way they want), or to keep it the same (you are charged by bandwidth usuage alone).

  37. highnumber asks me: “What would you say?”

    If Weigel wants to get in a Socratic dialogue in an attempt to open the borders, I’d fully support that. Just do *something* other than acting as a transcription service or, in the case of the bloggers, acting as fanboys.

    Maybe Weigel could take a lesson from Mike Stark, who, sleazy as it was, was at trying to ask a question.

    As for the questions I’d ask, there are a few of them at the link, and a question for BarackObama I would like asked is in this video:

    youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A

  38. joe,

    I just curious, because Google gave me the following

    Did you mean: “Republicans want to amend the law”

    No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

    Your search – “Republicans want to amen the law” – did not match any documents.

    Is that typo for real?

  39. That typo is just from today — I forget which thread, but I think mediageek gets the credit. At least that’s when I saw it. It’s probably way too recent to show up via Google yet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.