For insights on CPAC, the future of the Republican Party and the rest of the week's news,

we turn to the analysis of Brooks and K-PART, that is, New York Times, columnist David

Brooks and Jonathan K-PART, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Welcome to you both.

Let's pick up where Laura left off there.

David, it used to seem for a few years the road to the Republican nomination ran through

CPAC.

That does not seem to be true this year.

When you look at who chose to go and who chose to stay away, what do you see?

What does it say about the party?

It's sort of the history of the party over the last 40 years.

Like Reagan went to, used to go to CPAC, but it was like a faint to the, to the populist.

Like he would go, but he was not really of it.

And then it became the party under Donald Trump.

And now CPAC, partly because of match-lapse problems.

But partly it's gone from centrist populism, which was pretty right, to wacky populism.

And so it's moved even further than, I would say, the mainstream of the party is, thus rendering

it irrelevant.

What's new is that a candidate used to be able to go to club for growth, or CPAC, or

American enterprise institute, and these were all different wings of the party.

But now you got to go to one of the other.

And so if you go to one, you're seen as an opponent of the other wing of the party.

...