I think CPAC encouraged a bit more speculation on the shape of the GOP primaries than is warranted at this point. No major prospective candidate has announced yet, although Herman Cain is making some headway among grassroots activists. There's a new poll out of the Granite State, and the subtitle's most telling: "Romney Holds Big Lead In Primary Poll: Survey Shows Most Likely Voters Still Undecided" (via Memeorandum). But don't tell that to the conservative base, according to Jennifer Rubin, for example: "Romney was big CPAC loser." And there's also this, from Frank Gaffney, "Conservative Crossroads: Return to Reagan Coalition Roots or Lose in 2012": To all outward appearances, the just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was a huge success. It was attended by a large, boisterous crowd, a substantial part of which was student-age – a promising indicator of the movement’s appeal to the coming generation. A number of luminaries, including several prospective presidential candidates, addressed enthusiastic audiences clearly invigorated by last November’s successes at the polls.
CPAC’s apparent vigor, however, obscured the fact that the conservative movement is at a crossroads: Will it continue to be comprised of, and appeal to, all three elements of Ronald Reagan’s winning coalition – fiscal discipline, traditional family and other social values and a national security approach rooted in the philosophy of “peace through strength”? Or will it be reduced to a libertarian-dominated, small-government agenda which ignores or repudiates Reagan’s conservative values and robust defense platforms?
Upon the answer rests not only the future of this vital movement, but of America. For, if conservatives get this strategic question wrong, they not only are unlikely to enjoy the support of the electorate come 2012. They will not deserve that support.
Unfortunately, the evidence that libertarian impulses were ascendant at CPAC was not only to be found in the straw poll victory of their exemplar, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. It was also apparent in who was, and who was not, participating as sponsors of the conference and/or some of its events.
The former included GOProud, Muslims for America and the so-called “Conservative Inclusion Coalition” – organizations that, in the name of “inclusiveness,” are insinuating into the conservative movement individuals and initiatives that are divisive and anathema to many who hew to Ronald Reagan’s beliefs and policies. Such sponsors include: aggressive promoters of the anti-family and pro-homosexual agenda; advocates for gambling, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens and legalization of addictive drugs; champions of gutting the defense budget and immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq; and people associated with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and agendas. For example, at a panel sponsored by said Conservative Inclusion Coalition, a panelist even expressed enthusiasm for reaching out to the Nation of Islam, Louis Farakhan’s notoriously anti-semitic and increasingly radical Islamist organization.
I'd bet folks can see where Gaffney's going with this, but RTWT in any case. It's not likely Ron Paul will do any better this time around than he did in 2008, but if the larger libertarian isolationist agenda gains traction in the primaries Mitt Romney's support could tail off. So too for Sarah Palin. She's definitely in the Reagan mold, and she's destined to win a few primary contests, although not necessarily Iowa or New Hampshire. More on that at Politico, "Key 2012 early states cool to Palin."
And after that, who knows? Mitch Daniels or Haley Barbour --- or Chris Christie? Maybe Ann Coulter's got some inside game, but I'm not betting on Christie either. It's like I said above: It's way early still. Let's see some candidates throw their hats in the ring. Stuff will start to sort out a bit more by then.
