Should There Be A Liberal Version of CPAC?

[Dirty Socialist]

Maybe it would get some attention to liberal causes.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Don't think the DNC needs thr CPAC to bring out the speeches like the GOP does.

It was a convention of see who could tell the biggest tale and say dumb things on order to play to the TP side. We do not need to follow suit.

[appalachiablue]

2. I wondered that too. It's apparently Netroots Nation. Saw their annual conference on CSPAN

summer 2102 in Colorado. Very good panel; Joan Walsh of Salon, Ben Jealous of NAACP, Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR), and environmental leader Bill McKibben. The audience was pretty sparse though. So there's nothing like CPAC which started in 1973 I read today, for the left or liberals. Same with no Left Media. Both not good at all, over the last 30 years as is evident. I absolutely think there should be both, why there isn't is the question.

[Journeyman]

3. Can't see how we could -- We don't have enough dimwits in the ranks to fill a 3-Day Program. . .

[Scootaloo]

5. We could rent an auditorium for three days and just lock Joe Lieberman in there

We win, he wins, everyone wins.

[jaysunb]

4. There is. It's called: Netroots Nation. n/t

[Dirty Socialist]

6. Typical Lack of Media Coverage

The "LIB-rul" media mostly ignores Netroots Nation. Typical.

[MADem]

7. That's because people don't say stupid things at that event. If they did, they'd get the coverage.

I mean, really--when the wingers get together, everyone's waiting for Palin to fall off her red, white and blue high heels while telling a story about how Betsy Ross sewed a receiving blanket for the Baby Jesus and delivered it to him on a dinosaur, or for Chris Christie to spit at someone in the front row, or for Ted Cruz to threaten to behead an IRS agent, or something.

It's like waiting for a train wreck.

[blkmusclmachine]

10. Well, of course they do. The "lib'rul" media is too busy keeping up with the Palins.

[JHB]

12. Netroots Nation isn't designed to be Washington- and media-centric

CPAC is held in the DC metro area every year, which makes it easy for lazy busy Washington politicians and political media to get off their asses and show up fit it into their busy schedules.

Also, CPAC has been going on since the early 70s (read: during the entire career of the reporters and their editors), and from the late 70s to the mid- to late-90s it was considered a "heavy hitters" conference, part of what forged the conservative coalition. It didn't start turning into its current 3-ring loon circus until their "impeach Clinton" frenzy failed. You can see it in the attendance numbers:


So part of the coverage of CPAC is a legacy of its former seriousness.


Netroots Nation bounces around to various locations around the country. Whatever their criteria for choosing a location, "make it ridiculously easy for politicians and media" are not at the top.

[brooklynite]

16. The last time the Democrats had a Presidential cattle call was in 2007...

...point to any coverage of CPAC other than of the Presidential prospects.

[silverweb]

8. Yes! But it would have to be done right.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]It couldn't just be speeches.

It couldn't be run by the Democrats or Greens or Socialists, but would have to be organized independently to focus on liberal ideas and policies, not (just) liberal-leaning political parties.

Make it like a trade show, with informational booths about liberal topics.

Make it interesting and fun, not just seriously ideological, to attract all ages; i.e., include some liberal ComiCon and SciFi themes and characters!

Make it so that people can see the real effects of liberal ideas in practice. Have displays and presentations that compare/contrast specific places that follow conservative versus liberal policies.

Planned well, maybe a couple of our liberal 1-percenters would help kick off a CrowdRise-type fund for the flagship effort, with the goal of making it self-financing after that.

(Are you interested, Mr. Buffet, Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Bloomberg, Ms. Streisand... others? Please steal the idea and run with it!)

Done right, it could be sensational!

[Half-Century Man]

11. I like it

I second this motion

[silverweb]

14. Thanks.

[TheKentuckian]

18. The fact that you are even suggesting the possibility of Bloomberg wanting to advance the liberal

agenda is reaching desperation. Probably wouldn't hold my breath on the others but Bloomberg is a conservative and an authoritarian not a liberal.

[silverweb]

19. Whatever.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Bloomberg likes supporting (some) liberal/progressive causes and that's why I included him.

[font face="Arial" font color="black"]In the off-year campaigns of 2013, liberal and Democratic interests have enjoyed a decisive advantage in the billionaire spending bracket. Indeed, groups tied to just three billionaires — New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, California investor Tom Steyer and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — have spent well more than $25 million this year pushing progressive candidates and causes.
Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/liberal-billionaires-fundraising-2013-elections-tom-steyer-mark-zuckerberg-michael-bloomberg-99207.html

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I wasn't commenting on his political bona fides and am not otherwise interested in engaging, so enough said.

[Lochloosa]

9. No. Look how well it works for them

[m-lekktor]

13. exactly. I agree. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Who would fund it?

Conservative causes are financed by organizations who profit from tax cuts etc.

[FSogol]

17. Then every liberal, progessive, and special interest group could protest it.

It would be a frigging mess. We don't seem to fall in line like the GOP does.