January 27, 2007

Liveblogging the 'Conservative Summit' (UPDATED, BUMPED)

UPDATES 1, 2, 3, 4 below the fold.

I'm spending this weekend in D.C. at the National Review Institute's Conservative Summit. They've managed to pull together a 'who's who' of the conservative political scene, and I'm looking forward to the show.

The opening event was a reception yesterday afternoon in honor of John Bolton. Unfortunately, the fates conspired against me getting to that one. I did get to D.C. in time to catch the evening panel discussion featuring Kate O'Beirne, Mona Charen, Kathryn Lopez, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham. Despite some pretty strong differences of opinion, I think it's fair to say that there was broad agreement that the Republican Party is "in the wilderness" philosophically and may be for some time yet. Laura Ingraham was, as always, unabashed in her criticism of the White House and the GOP leadership in general. She was getting a lot of applause from the crowd. I think it's fair to say that Laura was the most aggressive critic and got the most applause in support. Of course, Michelle wasn't pulling any punches either. Laura returned several times to the theme that unless and until the Republican Party leadership sheds the image of being the Party of Wall Street and the country club, and returns to being the party of the regular guy, the Party is going to be spending many years in the wilderness. On this point, Laura is right on.

In the course of the discussion, it was clear that there was quite a bit of disagreement as to whether the November elections were a referendum on the war. Laura was confident that the November elections weren't a referendum on the war, while Michelle was fairly confident that they were. Although these women's opinions on the issues are fairly well-known to most of us, the interaction was definitely worth watching.

After the panel discussion, I had a chance to speak with Michelle, Mary Katherine Ham and Mark Steyn, all of whom were the charming and entertaining people we've all come to know and love.

It's now Saturday morning. I just finished a delicious breakfast of scrambled eggs, bacon and pork sausage. Newt Gingrich just took the podium to speak to a packed house. Stay tuned.

Paul at PowerLine had this to say on last's night's panel:

There was a strong sense of resentment against the party congresssional establishment and leadership among both the panelists and those who asked questions. The prevailing sentiment, as one might expect at a conservative summit, is that Republicans need to be more conservative, and that conservatives need to be more aggressive. There was some tension, I thought, between Ingraham's praise for the Dems for finally learning to present themselves as less avowedly liberal, and her call for Republicans to present themselves as more avowedly conservative. One can view this as the difference between a party that's been in the wilderness for a while and a party that may (or may not) be entering the wilderness.

But Ingraham argued that Republicans can regain their appeal without compromising their conservatism if, following the Reagan example, they keep their focus on "the little guy" and avoid a "gloom and doom" message. The "conservative mantle," she said, is there to be had by the person who figures out and executes this.

Joe Budzinski has pictures of last night's events.

Michelle blogs the event:

If you're not at the National Review Institute in Washington, D.C., you're missing out. . . . Laura was the most energetic and emphatic about the need for grass-roots conservatives to take action against the effete GOP leadership. I'd vote for her in a nanosecond. ;)

Joe Budzinski has more pics.

It was a kick being a part of the panel, but the best part was meeting folks after the event. And there were lots of bloggers on scene: MKH, Ace of Spades, Ragnar, and Rand Simberg. Didn't get to see them, but Paul Mirengoff and the blogger at My Man Mitt were also in attendance. Much more in store today.

While massive anti-war forces push for retreat at protests on the Capitol and across the country, NRI summiteers are hitting the reset button and leading a conservative revival.

Whether Republican leaders will listen...

Thanks to Kathryn Lopez for the link. Kathryn quotes Congressman Paul Ryan on what went wrong in November: "We didn't really have any big ideas."

UPDATE 1: Newt Gingrich

Newt was, of course, nothing less than outstanding. Newt amply demonstrated why he is considered the brain and the conscience of conservatism. The general tenor of Newt's speech was that the current conservative movement is not ready for prime time. In other words, conservatves have gotten off their game in the years since 1994, and there's a need for a serious effort toward getting back to the philosophical and intellectual underpinnings that first drew groups like the Reagan Democrats into the fold. Newt emphasized that conservatism needs to be about "shaping a future based on freedom" and working for those who have been "left out of the American dream." Newt also emphasized that conservatism needs to be focused on "individuals, families and communities." As expected, Newt was not at all shy about criticizing the current Republican leadership, including the White House, particularly on the execution of the conflict in Iraq. He expressed the opinion that, when it comes to rebuilding Iraq, the U.S. federal bureaucracy is "a bigger problem than Iraq's bureaucracy."

UPDATE 2: Small Government : A Big Joke? In the 2nd event, we heard from Dr. Marvin Olasky, Congressman Pat Toomey and Congressman Paul Ryan on the question "Is 'Small Government' a Big Joke?" Dr. Olasky had strong criticism for the Bush Administration's implementation of "compassionate conservatism." Given that Dr. Olasky is the father of compassionate conservatism, that'll leave a mark. Congressman Ryan and Congressman Toomey made a very strong case for restraining the federal government soon.

Religious Conservatives : Critical to a Republican Majority?

The third event featured a debate between Ralph Reed and Ryan Sager on the question of whether "Religious Conservatives are Critical to Building a Republican Majority." Personally, I think the debate focused on the wrong question. Religious conservatives are unquestionably critical to a Republican majority in the short term. In the longer term, religious conservatives are unquestionably not critical to a Republican majority--that is, the Republican Party could, years from now, become libertarian in fiscal and personal behavior. So, the answer to the debate is "yes and no." In practice, the debate focused mostly on the question of gay marriage.

Charmaine Yoest posts her thoughts here.

UPDATE 3: Foreign Policy

Paul at PowerLine has an excellent write-up of the foreign policy panel.

UPDATE 4: Social Issues

We've just finished up the "Social Issues" panel featuring Maggie Gallagher, Robert P. George and Ed Whelan. The panel was moderated by Robert Bork. It started with a discussion on the social issues themselves, but then moved on to a discussion on judges, judicial philosophy and judicial confirmation. It was generally interesting.

The Troop Surge : Ill-Advised?

After the social issues discussion, the program moved to a debate on whether the President's current "troop surge" proposal for Iraq is well-advised or ill-advised. William Kristol argued in favor of the surge, and the war in general. His opponent, Lawrence Korb, argued against both. Kristol focused particularly on the present resolution before the Senate in opposition to the surge. As Kristol correctly emphasized, the Senate resolution will have no tangible effect on the conduct of the war itself. The resolution will, in fact, have little effect other than to demoralize our troops and allies while emboldening our enemies. Korb claims that the surge is a purely political move that will have no positive effect on the ground.

Unfortunately, Kristol did not speak with passion. If you've heard Bill Kristol speak, you know what I mean. Kristol is very intelligent, but he's primarily a policy wonk. He's not a gifted orator. I believe he speaks from conviction, and he raises good points, but he's not as persuasive as he could be with better rhetorical skills.

On the issue of Maliki, Kristol asserts that Maliki has never been in a position of strength as regards the Shia militias. He says that Maliki is now in a stronger position and that there are good reasons to believe that Maliki deserves more of a chance to succeed. The moderator asks: would handing Iraq over to the Iraqi government and leaving be equivalent to handing it over to al Qaeda? Korb rejects the assertion. He claims that if we get out, Iraq will become "al Qaeda's Vietnam"--a surprising proposition, IMHO.

Kristol, in response, says "Now I'm actually annoyed." "If we get out, there will be one of two things: one, a terrorist haven or two, genocide. . . . The honorable, and I think the intelligent thing to do, is to push through." Korb responds: "Genocide is a terrible thing... but it is not a direct threat [to us]. . . . When we send the last brigade of the 82nd over there, we have nothing left."

There were a number of questions from the crowd. Here's a good example: "Is there something inherently different about this conflict that makes it unwillable?" Kristol responds that the conflict is not unwinnable, and asserts that Bush's problems derive more from pulling back and having an uncertain and weak foreign policy over the last two years than from being too assertive. Korb doesn't comment.

Thanks for Relapsed Catholic for the link.