GOProud at CPAC creates controversy, calls for boycotts

posted at 1:30 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Conservative Political Action Conference is the pinnacle of events for conservative activists.  Held annually in Washington DC in the winter, it aggregates hundreds of conservative activist groups and thousands of attendees, and attracts high-profile figures on the Right, including national and regional politicians hoping to tap CPAC’s energy.  Not all of these groups agree with each other on all issues, and sometimes the close quarters results in some entertaining debates (and sometimes just silly displays, such as the porpoise that followed Mitt Romney throughout the Omni in 2007).  But the inclusion of a conservative coalition of gays, GOProud, has created calls for the ACU and CPAC to cut off GOProud’s sponsorship and attendance at CPAC as well as a few rumblings of a boycott among social conservatives.

This is justified in e-mails circulating among conservatives based on allegations that GOProud is a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies.  However, that doesn’t match up with the group’s stated legislative priorities, which do not go any further than most of the conservative and libertarian groups that regularly attend and sponsor the conference.  I’ll post their list in its entirety:

1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

Social conservatives will have a problem with numbers 4 and possibly 7, although the latter relates to a Constitutional amendment making marriage a federal issue, which conservatives should be wary of doing anyway.  Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud, and would receive rousing support from the floor at CPAC coming from any other entity.  It’s not a far-Left or crypto-Left agenda at all, but a good, solid recitation of conservative principles and fiscal responsibility.

In other words, we have at least an 80% agreement on the major issues facing our country between mainstream conservatives and this sponsor of CPAC.  That seems like a pretty good fit.  I asked Lisa De Pasquale, the director of CPAC, for a response to the controversy:

CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues.  But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles.  As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles.  GOProud’s website states “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.  If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation’s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.  That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached — namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.  We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.  We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Update: I misspelled Lisa’s name; I’ve corrected it above. My apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort. We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Hear hear.

Repurblican on December 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM

GOProud should be included at CPAC.

Our tent should be big enough for all Conservatives.

If they love our country the way it was, support free market economies, support the war on terror, love our troops and despise socialism, let ‘em in.

The gay Palin supporters at Hillbuzz take punches for their support. Can any of US say that?

BlueStateBilly on December 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM

There are a whole bunch of different types of people that end up going to CPAC…

The Objectivists send a booth every year and they’re pretty much atheists by definition…

Quite honestly, I think CPAC is stupid and should be gotten rid of…

ninjapirate on December 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM

GOProud’s position would make for a better litmus test than we saw last month.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Quite honestly, I think CPAC is stupid and should be gotten rid of…

ninjapirate on December 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM

It’s gone downhill since McCain bussed his posse in.

Fletch54 on December 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM

I have no objection to their inclusion at CPAC, although I won’t help them with #4.

myrenovations on December 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Not to mention that Bruce at Gay Patriot is on the GOProud Board, I believe.

It's Vintage, Duh on December 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM

…allegations that GOProud is a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies.

ROFL. Some people are stupid.

ReformedAndDangerous on December 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort. We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Street con..

What’s that Alinsky rule about talking to your audience in their language?

Tell’m what they want to hear, and stab them in the bank when they are no longer useful.

Skandia Recluse on December 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Try scoring Barney Frank on this platform — my rough estimate is 20%.

GnuBreed on December 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Quite honestly, I think CPAC is stupid and should be gotten rid of…

ninjapirate on December 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM

It’s gone downhill since McCain bussed his posse in.

Fletch54 on December 16, 2009 at 1:38 PM

The whole thing is rotten… and the guy in charge got caught with that Fed-Ex thing… and the decision to have Rubio keynote is stupid…

ninjapirate on December 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I want smaller government, which includes keeping government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

rbj on December 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM

I don’t like this from either side… The GOP doesn’t exist to enforce religious policies… and I’m a little weary of political groups that form around a sexual preference.

But, if they stick with economic and other basic issues, welcome aboard.

mankai on December 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Most definitely GOProud should be included, however it is their responsibility to understand that social conservatives will not work to support gay agenda items.

Connie on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

OT: Why can’t I click “back” anymore?

alexwest on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort. We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

I agree.

txag92 on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.

Respectfully, I disagree with the context of this paragraph and the assumption that the ONLY alternative IS “a mission of absolute purity”. Nothing like putting two distinct choices in a box and calling for a resolution. What’s next? ABORT-PAC?

Rovin on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I have no objection to their inclusion at CPAC, although I won’t help them with #4.

Ditto.

mcassill on December 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Great post Ed.

We need to espouse conservative principles of smaller and fiscally sound government, as well as strong national defense and security.

We need all conservatives, not just some.

cubachi on December 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort. We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

I fundamentally agree with the above comments but I’d also remind you that some of this “purity campaign” nonsense rises from those of you that insisted on pushing McCain as the only electable candidate. Social conservatives were not so nicely told to put aside their fundamental values and vote for John McCain- a man who openly hates social and Christian conservatives.

Put simply, the McCain wing of the GOP brought any purity movement on the party by their intolerance of the GOP base. The social and Christian consservatives are not going to abide with the same set of circumstances that led to McCain’s getting the nomination.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Which group is going to look out for the hot lesbians? Who, I ask, who!?

jacrews on December 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM

We need to espouse conservative principles of smaller and fiscally sound government, as well as strong national defense and security.

We need all conservatives, not just some.

cubachi on December 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Then the party needs to stop trashing social and Christian conservatives as fringe nutjobs.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM

Anyone (yes, even a conservative) can have a horrifically pestilent sexual fetish. Or be intolerant of others’ beliefs. Or suffer from an unhealthy eating disorder.

But anyone who publically DEFINES himself in those terms — as a “homosexual”, or an “Atheist”, or a “Vegan”, etc., is a sociopath. And anyone who does so as a political statement is also (with all due respect) a hard-core liberal.

And just because someone claims he once paid taxes, that doesn’t magically it true.

logis on December 16, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Skandia Recluse on December 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM
—–
Trust but verify applies.

I believe it’s possible to be homosexual and in agreement on a number of points on the conservative agenda. Not all points, of course.

If this were a group of, for instance, Ron Paul supporters, we may find some common points to work toward.

The two things to watch for are knives in the back (as you point out) and providing cover, that is, that GOProud will use their inclusion at CPAC as a club to thump more religious-driven conservatives. That’s not a knife, but it is a problem.

Mew

acat on December 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Hey, the more the merrier.

darwin on December 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Which group is going to look out for the hot lesbians? Who, I ask, who!?

jacrews on December 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM

I personally volunteer for that mission.

rbj on December 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM

This is dumb. GOProud is the real conservative gay group. The log cabin Republicans have been funded by a liberal Democrat. They wouldn’t even endorse Bush in 04. You can be gay and conservative, as some of this board have proven. And if the GOP can allow pro-abortion groups to have a voice, at the very least let conservative gays have a voice.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM

In general, I think that GOProud should be included despite the fact I will never support a candidate calling for either #4 or #7. There should be a robust debate within the GOP to include getting rid of the McCain wing that openly despises social and Christian conservatives. Not everybody wants to see the party as Democrat-lite and the voices standing up against this movement to the left are often shouted down by people who don’t reflect the values of traditional conservatives. Let’s have that debate over social issues.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

As a right leaning libertarian who longs to return to the GOP… GOProud seems like the kind of organization the GOP should be trying to bring in to the Big Tent. Forget the RINOs like Scozzafava and Specter… if these folks buy into their basic statement of goals, they are REAL Republicans and should be welcomed at CPAC.
Personal freedom should extend to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

therambler on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Do we want to exclude excellent conservatives such as Tammy Bruce and Bruce from Gay Patriot? I don’t think so.

cubachi on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

And if the GOP can allow pro-abortion groups to have a voice, at the very least let conservative gays have a voice.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Thanks for illustrating the real problem.

Fletch54 on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I’ll post their list in its entirety:

4 out of the 10 deal with gay matters which seems rather excessive.

MB4 on December 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM

CPAC should include GOProud just to demonstrate most conservatives aren’t homophobes. Too bad this “controversy” highlights the fact many conservatives apparently are still homophobes.

If you’re a limited government conservative, you shouldn’t have any objection to homosexuals marrying or serving in the military. If you’re a “conservative” who believes the government exists to enforce your religious preferences, you’re pathetic.

Enrique on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Hey, the more the merriMary-er.

darwin on December 16, 2009 at 1:54 PM

FIFY

;-)

As a true conservative (who happens to be a homo), I think this group is pretty solid. I’m not down with #7, but given the huge number of guys I know who have served (and who are actively serving) in our armed forces, I’d say #4 could use another look; perhaps not an outright repeal… but another look.

D2Boston on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Time to recognize that there are elements in the GOP who use the SoCon label and God to hide their homophobia. Time to weed these people out. I don’t agree with #4 but the rest of the list is 100% in line with most Republicans.

Chekote on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

If you’re a “conservative” who believes the government exists to enforce your religious preferences, you’re pathetic.

Spot on! The reality is that there is a group of SoCons who would be more than happy to have Big Government as long as it was enforcing their moral code.

Chekote on December 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

I agree with everything except for:
#1-you can still leave your stuff to anyone you want when you die, but a marriage tax advantage is for supporting the family unit: man+ woman + children-the healthiest way to raise kids.
#7 is fine, so long as states can vote on & pass their own version. But the feds should still only give tax incentives to man+woman unions,IMHO, in support of the Family Unit.

Badger40 on December 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

We need to get back to the United States as a melting pot, and conservatives should lead the way by joining with others who have different beliefs on some issues but whose thinking is generally conservative.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

4 out of the 10 deal with gay matters which seems rather excessive.

MB4 on December 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM

In a specifically gay group? Shocker.

Regardless, ya gotta take help from anyone willing to go along with fiscal sanity. Honestly it’s sad that the group needs to exist. Conservatives should be beyond identity politics garbage like this.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Lisa knows her stuff and I don’t think if they were a threat she would them sponsor.

DCJeff on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

If the Republicans embrace an agenda to homosexualize the military, they are history. That they would even invite people who are pushing such an agenda shows you just how subverted the GOP is now. I don’t know how you get labeled a “social conservative” just by opposing things like homosexualizing the military. Is opposing pedophile teachers in public schools, for instance, a purely social conservative trait as well? It makes it sound like only bible thumpers can oppose things that are obviously destructive to society.

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Any org claiming to bring together conservatives, ought to be welcoming to any group that both preaches, and practices conservative principles.

Since there is broad disagreement of what all entails “conservative principles,” CPAC does need to ‘test’ that the groups it allows are acting in concert on a majority of the issues.

Say this were a Hispanic PAC, and replace gay with hispanic in their goals. Only #4 and #7 don’t make any sense from that angle. Otherwise, their other goals should be allow their inclusion.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I’m not down with #7, but given the huge number of guys I know who have served (and who are actively serving) in our armed forces, I’d say #4 could use another look; perhaps not an outright repeal… but another look.

D2Boston on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Really? Why not 7?

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Who cares who their doin I just want the RINO’s out!

dhunter on December 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

If their goals are truly what is stated above then I say let them in.

DerKrieger on December 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

4 out of the 10 deal with gay matters which seems rather excessive.

MB4 on December 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM

In a specifically gay group? Shocker.

Regardless, ya gotta take help from anyone willing to go along with fiscal sanity. Honestly it’s sad that the group needs to exist. Conservatives should be beyond identity politics garbage like this.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

I would also think that 4 out of 10 dealing with religion would seem rather excessive.

MB4 on December 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM

I agree with everything except for:
#1-you can still leave your stuff to anyone you want when you die, but a marriage tax advantage is for supporting the family unit: man+ woman + children-the healthiest way to raise kids.
#7 is fine, so long as states can vote on & pass their own version. But the feds should still only give tax incentives to man+woman unions,IMHO, in support of the Family Unit.

Badger40 on December 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Except your definition of “Family Unit” isn’t fitting with reality. There are gay couples, where one of the couple has adopted a child. All three of them make up a “Family Unit,” it just doesn’t fit your definition.

I think it would be to the benefit of all if the Federal government gave absolutely NO preference or privilege to individuals, or groups.

If you need assistance, you are means tested for that assistance. That would be the fair way of setting up regulations.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM

And if the GOP can allow pro-abortion groups to have a voice, at the very least let conservative gays have a voice.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 16, 2009 at 1:55 PM

I will try not to trash these two ideologies/miscreations, but also, I will not support either. Again, what is up with these assumptions?

Then the party needs to stop trashing social and Christian conservatives as fringe nutjobs.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM

+1

Rovin on December 16, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Opps #7 might be a problem I believe marriage is between a man and woman not man man, woman woman, man dog, woman pig, etc.

Now if they want to have civil unions OK

dhunter on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

4 out of the 10 deal with gay matters which seems rather excessive.

MB4 on December 16, 2009 at 1:59 PM

And two of those had to really reach to include gays (#1 and #6). Not sure what the agenda was here to include gays in those items, other than the fact someone specifically had to include them in a completely unrelated item.

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

In general, I think that GOProud should be included despite the fact I will never support a candidate calling for either #4 or #7. There should be a robust debate within the GOP to include getting rid of the McCain wing that openly despises social and Christian conservatives. Not everybody wants to see the party as Democrat-lite and the voices standing up against this movement to the left are often shouted down by people who don’t reflect the values of traditional conservatives. Let’s have that debate over social issues.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

So, assuming that the contest was with a candidate who fully embraced a the GOPRoud platform as presented above, and a Blue dog who was less purist on the economic planks — say he supported the inheritance tax and Democratic Wall Street reform — which would you vote for?

Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Proposal: Get rid of DADT and pass a catch-all rule: no member of any branch of the military may be allowed to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with a member of the same branch.

Companies ban interdepartmental romance all the time, no reason the military can’t do the same.

fusionaddict on December 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Is opposing pedophile teachers in public schools, for instance, a purely social conservative trait as well?

So now you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Whether you like it or not consenting adults are free to do whatever they want in bed. Children cannot consent so your comparison just highlights your homophobia.

Chekote on December 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Do we want to exclude excellent conservatives such as Tammy Bruce and Bruce from Gay Patriot? I don’t think so.

cubachi on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Tammy Bruce is not a Republican yet, is she? I think she prides herself on being a Democrat in the “classic liberal” sense. I think she supports gay marriage legislation and abortion.

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM

And two of those had to really reach to include gays (#1 and #6). Not sure what the agenda was here to include gays in those items, other than the fact someone specifically had to include them in a completely unrelated item.

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

#6 is good because it really tweaks the left. They are all for “gay rights” but are a bit squishy when it comes to fighting the Taliban & AQ (& Iran) that actually kill gays.

rbj on December 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM

OT: Why can’t I click “back” anymore?

alexwest on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Me too. Why?
I first thought it was an issue with my computer.

maynila on December 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.

When did commitment to conservative principles divorce you from the Right? Is this Frumspeak? Is there some “conservative” agenda to the Left of the Right?

Like it or not, the fundamental principles of the conservative ideology are set. If you concede DADT and DOMA to the Left, you’re not kicking the “Right” out of the “conservative movement”, you’re betraying the conservative movement.

It’s at that point more honest Americans historically come up with a new moniker for a new movement, instead of sailing under false colors to attempt to corral brand loyalty. That scam doesn’t work in commerce very long, and it fails even faster in politics.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I want smaller government, which includes keeping government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

rbj on December 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM

Other than some antiquated, but still on the books laws, how is the government “in the bedroom of consenting adults”?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

My vote would go the GOProud person in a heart beat. I can agree with gays and lesbians on many federal issues if just agree not impose my way or their way of morals at the federal level. If need be, we can fight our battle at the state level.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM

If the Republicans embrace an agenda to homosexualize the military, they are history. That they would even invite people who are pushing such an agenda shows you just how subverted the GOP is now. I don’t know how you get labeled a “social conservative” just by opposing things like homosexualizing the military. Is opposing pedophile teachers in public schools, for instance, a purely social conservative trait as well? It makes it sound like only bible thumpers can oppose things that are obviously destructive to society.

Buddahpundit

oh dear buddah…I’m not even sure what homosexualizing the army means..but I would probably be for it. after all what could be gayer than the army? cept maybe frats and segregated church camps. (man did I get some homosexual tail there!)
Maybe before you start making judgments you should finish junior high school and brush up on conversational english. Also you can learn that gays fit in just fine in the military.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM

OT: Why can’t I click “back” anymore?

alexwest on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Me too. Why?
I first thought it was an issue with my computer.

maynila on December 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I’m still getting glitches too. Probably only happening to the computers the gubmint is monitoring. :)

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM

The GOP is right to allow GOProud… It is not the GOP who says yes or no… they must be inclusive!!! I am getting pissed that some Tea Party fools, ACU and religous groups are hold the GOP hostage.! Gays need to be included!!!

charmingtail on December 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM

OT: Why can’t I click “back” anymore?

alexwest on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Me too. Why?
I first thought it was an issue with my computer.

maynila on December 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM

I have noticed that some ad page thing is getting downloaded when we click into something. In IE it shows up in the current tab history with page name “clip”. Probably something to track our usage. The boys need to get paid.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM

…some of this “purity campaign” nonsense rises from those of you that insisted on pushing McCain as the only electable candidate. Social conservatives were not so nicely told to put aside their fundamental values and vote for John McCain- a man who openly hates social and Christian conservatives.

highhopes on December 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM

substantiate this.

seriously.

i’ll give you a couple of examples where not to look:

1) his voting record,
2) his public statements.

you won’t find this “open hatred of social and christian conservatives” there.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Please tell me why you can’t just support conservative ideals without having to also identify who you like having freakin’ sex with!!?

The Zoo Keeper on December 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM

D2Boston on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Please explain why you support an amendment to the Constitution. I am sure there are sound arguments being made; I just have not heard one.

Also, what’s up with you calling yourself “a homo?” Are there controversies over slurs like “homo” or “fag” being used by gays self-referentially. The n-word and its derivatives seem to cause some consternation among and between many Blacks. Just curious.

Thank you kind sir.

Opps #7 might be a problem I believe marriage is between a man and woman not man man, woman woman, man dog, woman pig, etc.

Now if they want to have civil unions OK

dhunter on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

DOMA is not about what you believe. It’s about whether or not you would amend the Constitution. You need to come up wit a better justification for drafting an amendment to the US Constitution than snarky, insulting innuendo.

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Is opposing pedophile teachers in public schools, for instance, a purely social conservative trait as well?

So now you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Whether you like it or not consenting adults are free to do whatever they want in bed. Children cannot consent so your comparison just highlights your homophobia.

Chekote on December 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Just answer the question. Are there any “social conservative” beliefs that you subscribe to? If so, which ones? If prohibiting pedophiles from teaching in schools isn’t a “social conservative” trait, then I’m not exactly sure which traits are considered “social conservative” or who drew up the list. Educate me about that.

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Wouldn’t a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mean things would revert to the way it was before DADT? Isn’t that a big step backwards for “Gay Rights”?

Nethicus on December 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM

As a right leaning libertarian who longs to return to the GOP… GOProud seems like the kind of organization the GOP should be trying to bring in to the Big Tent. Forget the RINOs like Scozzafava and Specter… if these folks buy into their basic statement of goals, they are REAL Republicans and should be welcomed at CPAC.
Personal freedom should extend to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

therambler on December 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

WORD!

If the Republicans embrace an agenda to homosexualize the military, they are history. That they would even invite people who are pushing such an agenda shows you just how subverted the GOP is now. I don’t know how you get labeled a “social conservative” just by opposing things like homosexualizing the military. Is opposing pedophile teachers in public schools, for instance, a purely social conservative trait as well? It makes it sound like only bible thumpers can oppose things that are obviously destructive to society.

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM

But it’s this kind of garbage that has me seriously thinking about going Libertarian. Oh, and strawman arguments don’t go over well here either.

BlueStateBilly on December 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Please tell me why you can’t just support conservative ideals without having to also identify who you like having freakin’ sex with!!?

The Zoo Keeper on December 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Because, for some libertarian types, the laws about whom you can do it with are ripe for repeal.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Is there some “conservative” agenda to the Left of the Right?

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM

actually, yes. conservatism is to the left of most of the right. the ideology of our founding is liberalism. you can look it up.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 2:28 PM

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

barnone on December 16, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Opps #7 might be a problem I believe marriage is between a man and woman not man man, woman woman, man dog, woman pig, etc.

Now if they want to have civil unions OK

dhunter on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

It just seems needlessly demeaning to refer to a gay relationship in the same breath as a man-dog or a woman-pig relationship. Two human beings in a consensual, supportive and loving relationship bear NO comparison with somebody deciding to screw a non-sentient non-sapient pig.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Wouldn’t a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mean things would revert to the way it was before DADT? Isn’t that a big step backwards for “Gay Rights”?

Nethicus on December 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I think what everyone is asking for in a poorly worded way is not a repeal of DADT, but a repeal of the entire ban on gays openly serving in the military. Not sure how that would work myself, but I think that is what they are asking. You would also have to get congress to repeal a few articles from the UCMJ before you could do that.

Johnnyreb on December 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Gays need to be included!!!

charmingtail on December 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Gays are excluded?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM

So now you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Whether you like it or not consenting adults are free to do whatever they want in bed. Children cannot consent so your comparison just highlights your homophobia.

Chekote on December 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM

An examination of the sexual characteristics of Catholic priests associated with pedophilia would be instructive here.

An examination of the vectors associated with the spread of AIDs would be instructive here too.

I have murderphobia too.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Enrique on December 16, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Given that the military is one of the few things that, based on the Constitution, the Federal government is supposed to be responsible for, I don’t think it’s a violation of conservative principles if you think the Federal government has the right to make rules regarding military service. Though, I also don’t think you should automatically be booted from the category of ‘conservative’ simply for thinking that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military. Given that lives are literally on the line regarding much of the military, I think it’s something that shouldn’t be up for a popular vote one way or another. If the military has good reasons for why they want to restrict openly gay people from serving, I’m not going to second guess them. On the other hand, if they believe it would have no effect on combat readiness and they want to expand the pool of people eligible to serve, that is a-ok with me too. It’s not my life on the line.

JadeNYU on December 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM

actually, yes. conservatism is to the left of most of the right. the ideology of our founding is liberalism. you can look it up.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Wrong. Conservatism is the ideology of our founding. Individual rights (not group rights) underlay the Constitution.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM

the laws about whom you can do it with are ripe for repeal.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Where are these laws being enforced?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM

I agree with most of what they’re selling. GOProud seems to be a solidly conservative group.

matthew26 on December 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM

If I hear or read the word “purity” used with disdain to disparage pro-life, pro-traditional-family people one more time I am going to throw up.

I cannot support open gayness in the military, or gay marriage, but I do think committed adult gay couples have some valid complaints concerning the legal restraints they face on a number of issues, including hospital visitation/medical decisions, taxes, and inheritance. One would think these could be addressed in a logical way.

DaydreamBeliever on December 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM

An examination of the sexual characteristics of Catholic priests associated with pedophilia would be instructive here.

Not really. Unless you think the wider gay community is accurately reflected by the sort of persons who pursues the path to priesthood, betrays the trust of the community, and violates children. By all means – if you think that is the character of the average homosexual come out and say so. But even the choice to pursue the path to priesthood suggests that these are individuals that are more than a little out of step with the rest of the gay community.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM

So, assuming that the contest was with a candidate who fully embraced a the GOPRoud platform as presented above, and a Blue dog who was less purist on the economic planks — say he supported the inheritance tax and Democratic Wall Street reform — which would you vote for?

Bleeds Blue on December 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM

I’d vote for the dog that tree’d you for attempting to shape your twisted idea that the GOP would “fully support” either. “Democratic Wall Street reform”???? Is that a joke?

Rovin on December 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Just answer the question. Are there any “social conservative” beliefs that you subscribe to? If so, which ones? If prohibiting pedophiles from teaching in schools isn’t a “social conservative” trait, then I’m not exactly sure which traits are considered “social conservative” or who drew up the list. Educate me about that.

Buddahpundit

Just answer the question if priests are molesting children shouldn’t you be opposed to churches? just answer the question buddah!
If the majority of pedophiles are straight shouldn’t ALL straights be banned from raising children? Isn’t that logical? I mean if you really love the children??

I’m assuming of course that your an old school ‘social conservative’ prays five times a day, stones adulterer’s, marry’s his brothers wife if he dies, stones your children for talking back…of course your polygamous…cause your ‘old school’ like that. Things change but the gays have always been here, since the beginning of recorded history. It’s about time people start accepting that they’re as natural as any other birthing issue.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Points well made on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the federal marriage amendment. (I too quibble with GOProud on the former, but agree with their stance on the latter for State sovereignty reasons.)

But what’s up with #8? Since when do we need a push for gay entrepreneurship, specifically? I’m sorry, I didn’t realize straight folks had cornered the market on this, so to speak.

Of course, this just goes to prove a larger point–it’s far from conservative to create separate groups based on demographics rather than ideals. The last thing we need is gay conservatives, old conservatives, teenage conservatives, black vs. white conservatives, poly-amorous conservatives….

cackcon on December 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2009 at 2:06 PM

It’s more on principle. I can see making the argument from a technical or theoretical standpoint, i.e. the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of defining social institutions through legislation, etc., but I fundamentally believe that traditional marriage is important and not the same as the union of two gay people. Gay people can have perfectly fine relationships, and if you want to legally codify them, that’s fine — just don’t tell me it’s the same thing as traditional marriage. Just my opinion…

D2Boston on December 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Wrong. Conservatism is the ideology of our founding. Individual rights (not group rights) underlay the Constitution.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM

You seem to have conflated individual rights and conservatism. Just because conservatives are currently standing up for individual rights doesn’t mean that there haven’t been or won’t liberals that do the same. The founding fathers were definitely liberal. They were overthrowing the existing power-structure, overturning centuries of legal and social tradition, pushing hard to expand the liberties available to all men, and they did all this through violent revolution and social contracts – Sounds fairly liberal in any classical sense of the word.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Wasn’t GOProud formed because the Log Cabin Republicans were the real “crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies”?

SouthernGent on December 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM

What I’ve learned from this thread:

- Are you an atheist or homosexual who believes in free markets, limited government, and individual liberty? Sorry, you’re at best a RINO, but you’re probably a “hardcore liberal” and a sociopath.

- Are you a fundamentalist Christian who wouldn’t mind a Jesus-centric nanny-state? Fight on patriot.

Did I miss anything?

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Other than some antiquated, but still on the books laws, how is the government “in the bedroom of consenting adults”?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM

For one, IIRC there are still some states where gays can’t adopt. Now I do think that kids are best served growing up with one good male role model and one good female role model in the home, but that isn’t always the case (heck, look no further than Tiger Woods). I would rather a gay couple adopt a kid than have that kid grow up in an orphanage or be shuttled from foster home to foster home.

Now there aren’t many sex laws still on the books, that is correct. I just do not want us to return to those old days.

FWIW, I would be happy to vote to redefine marriage to include gay couples, but it is a redefinition from a long standing, multiple culture definition. If gays want marriage they should convince the electorate or our representatives, not go to court.

rbj on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I’m social Conservative who is against the redefining of traditional marriage, a supporter of DOMA and strongly opposed to activist judges but I also am not a fan of the Federal Gay Marriage amendment (I don’t like messing with the constitution) and believe GOPAC should be included in CPAC as long as they are not some crypto leftist infiltrator. I have no idea who they are but when we show bigotry as a people it has proven to be the the fuel progressivism relies on to push it’s agenda.

I don’t really care about Don’t ask, don’t tell when the current ROE are more destructive to our military.

Daemonocracy on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Things change but the gays have always been here, since the beginning of recorded history. It’s about time people start accepting that they’re as natural as any other birthing issue.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Really? There were homosexuals cohabitating in rental housing for a few years before separating and finding new partners for brief periods of romantic love, all through history?

Oh wait, those things are cultural, aren’t they? Say, most of what we consider “sexuality” is cultural, isn’t it? The whole idea of romantic love, that’s just something we inherited based on our national background, isn’t it? Kind of knocks the idea of “gender” as biological quite a distance, don’t it?

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Which group is going to look out for the hot lesbians? Who, I ask, who!?

jacrews on December 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM

The group that always does – the Screen Actors Guild. Because you only find hot lesbians in movies and on TV shows.

misterpeasea on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

What I’ve learned from this thread:

- Are you an atheist or homosexual who believes in free markets, limited government, and individual liberty? Sorry, you’re at best a RINO, but you’re probably a “hardcore liberal” and a sociopath.

- Are you a fundamentalist Christian who wouldn’t mind a Jesus-centric nanny-state? Fight on patriot.

Did I miss anything?

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM

No, you nailed our POLITICAL opposition to atheists, homosexuals and libertarians quite well. Maybe those outsiders should form a political movement? Then we conservatives can consider working with them on a case by case basis.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Ed, why didn’t you mention that the anti-semitic, racist JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY is a co-sponsor? Hmmm? Or or you trying to hide that?

Buckley purged these a–holes from the conservative movement decades ago, and CPAC is welcoming them back? That is bullsh!t Ed. You ought to be ashamed for ignoring this.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM

The GOP is right to allow GOProud…
charmingtail on December 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Would they also be “right” to allow a Spanking Fetishist society to set up a giant placard at the Republican convention?

Oh, no of course not. That’d be stupid. First, they’d have to fax over a piece of paper saying they didn’t like big government. Then it would make PERFECT sense.

OK, I suppose we could demand that it be signed by all six members of the “Society of Really Really Conservative Butt Bangers.” But, hey, why be a Nazi about it?

Then it’s (pardon the expression) balls-to-the-wall: “Go for it you ever-so-very serious conservatives, you! Slap them posters up anywhere and everywhere you want. And hey, while you’re at it, feel free to take the microphone whenever you feel you have something that’s relevant to add to the discussion. After all, you are OBVIOUSLY here for the exact same reason as everyone else!”

logis on December 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM

You seem to have conflated individual rights and conservatism. Just because conservatives are currently standing up for individual rights doesn’t mean that there haven’t been or won’t liberals that do the same. The founding fathers were definitely liberal. They were overthrowing the existing power-structure, overturning centuries of legal and social tradition, pushing hard to expand the liberties available to all men, and they did all this through violent revolution and social contracts – Sounds fairly liberal in any classical sense of the word.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Claissical Liberalism is modern Conservativism. Both are centered around the indiviual over the collective.

Too many people associate Liberalism with “change” and conservatism with the status quo. That may be the literal definition of Conservatism as a word, but not as an ideology. Conservatism is small government, fiscal restraint, strong national defense and Judeo-Christian values; all of these tenets which are under assault by current people in power which makes the Conservatives the agents of change.

Daemonocracy on December 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM

there’s no such thing as a “social conservative”.

these are TED HAGGARD “conservatives”.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM

You fail at answering the question “are there any social conservative positions you support?”.

How about this: Is it a social conservative position to favor laws prohibiting people with AIDS from having unprotected sex with non-infected people?

Is it a social conservative position to prohibit blood donations by gay men?

I know that things like gay marriage and gays in the military were not considered purely “social conservative” concerns at one time. They weren’t even on the table. The social conservative issue list is a pit stop between “unthinkable” and “acceptability”. They can’t move it from unthinkable straight to the front burner because it needs to ferment on the so-con list for a few years first.

Buddahpundit on December 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7