CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Committee. From Ryan Sager's description (click title link, and Sager's no leftist), there's something missing from CPAC. Actually, a lot of things were missing: (1) Big-Tent Reaganism; (2) stressing the importance of opportunity; (3) tolerance of competing and dissenting views.
In other words, the CPAC meeting was dominated by paleocon nutters on the far right. When Manhattan Institute scholars are getting booed in panels, the result is not good.
Personally, I accept the Buchananite/Schafly/Coulter wing of the party because some of those wackos are necessary to defeat the stealth-liberal candidates that the Democrats have wanted to dress up as moderates in the past two presidential elections. But if the day comes that the CPACers are the dominant wing, I'd be hard-pressed to do more than write in my votes for a "none of the above" candidate every quadrennium.
HT: Billy A.