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 4 5 7

Deeming morality impossible without your religious values being enforced by law seems to be a theocratic concept. The fact that your very premise is flawed means no answer is necessary.

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that people are morons.” – Thomas Jefferson

I think that’s how that quote goes.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM

What laws are you talking about in particular? All I see are laws that seek to change societal mores that have existed since Jefferson made the statement you quoted.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Wow, I don’t know what happened up there. LOL

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM

You should learn to think logically.

Akzed on December 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Maybe you should.

I was replying to the posted quote of George Washington saying a moral society was impossible without religion as it’s groundwork. A concept I find to be as dated as the horse-drawn cart.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM

“Grand Old Proud”?

KS Rex on December 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM

I was replying to the posted quote of George Washington saying a moral society was impossible without religion as it’s groundwork. A concept I find to be as dated as the horse-drawn cart.

Thank you, I agree completely.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Thanks for your answers. I still don’t understand how a friend could call another friend by a known demeaning term. Just seems disingenous to me.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Ahahahaha. I understand. Have you never called a friend “you @r$ehole” and then respectfully tipped a beer at him? Perhaps not. I know all men are not so rough or vulgar with each other but I’m sure you’ve seen it in movies.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM

You should learn to think logically.

Akzed

hmm and this from the person trying to coin the term ‘sodomy lobby” I just want you to know that we are accepting straights that like to do it up the poop chute too.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Nope. Don’t call female friends “b”s or “c”s either and don’t tolerate being called either by friend or foe. If you believe something in principle, you should apply it across your life. At least, that makes sense to me.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM

If you believe something in principle, you should apply it across your life. At least, that makes sense to me.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Oh I agree! Very much so. The principle here, for me, is that words have the power we choose to invest in them and I must choose to never invest those words with hatred or a desire to harm. That would be wrong indeed. I can choose to invest them with humor when he drinks my last bottle though. =)

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM

This country was founded on the pluralistic ideal that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” Our pluralism is what is most exceptional about us.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM

No so fast. I agree that our country was created on the ideal that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” The problem is that “ALL BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL”.

sinsing on December 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM

No so fast. I agree that our country was created on the ideal that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” The problem is that “ALL BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL”.

sinsing

you’d be shocked at the similarity between straight and gay relations…

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Oh I agree! Very much so. The principle here, for me, is that words have the power we choose to invest in them and I must choose to never invest those words with hatred or a desire to harm. That would be wrong indeed. I can choose to invest them with humor when he drinks my last bottle though. =)

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Oh, so as long as “your heart is in the right place” it’s all good. Interesting.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Oh, so as long as “your heart is in the right place” it’s all good. Interesting.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM

In matters of friendship – why not judge our friends by the love in their hearts? In matters of state policy & football this is definitely not enough.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM

actually, you said that the jbs is racist and antisemitic. that is a lie. you sourced this lie to a stalinist. which makes you an abettor and amplifier of stalinism.

and you’re a douchebag.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Hey douche nozzle, you have a reading comprehension problem. Like a typical rightwing nutter, you think I purposely hide my source? LOL! Nothing could be further from the truth. Secondly, because of your poor reading skills you must have missed this sentence: “The Society always struggled against what it saw as objectionable forms of prejudice against Jews, but it can still be criticized for having continuously promoted mild antisemitic stereotyping.” Read that again “objectionable forms of prejudice”. Know what that means? Blatant neo-nazi or kkk type prejudice, not the subtle WASPish type anti-semitism as portrayed in the brilliant movie “Gentleman’s Agreement”. Thirdly, what you call “inferences of racism” is a smear itself. Of course, you provide no context or any quotes. In summary, you are an apologist for anti-semites (the subtle kind, just in case you didn’t get it the first few times) and a d-ckhead.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

No so fast. I agree that our country was created on the ideal that “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” The problem is that “ALL BEHAVIORS ARE NOT EQUAL”.

sinsing

lets see all behaviors are not equal…should logical but even at face value your leaving yourself little ground beyond saying that it’s the perception of the behavior that makes it more or less equal in the eyes of the community, from there you have to appoint judges that say which perceptions are more important and than you have to decide what to do when the behaviors are not normal. In the case of crime this is fairly easy, you find the injured party, you access the damage and you create a punishment. What are you going to say about a relationship in which neither party is harmed, civil society is strengthened, and people are more productive. Are you going to say that despite all evidence you are sure it is harmful and ban it?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

lets see all behaviors are not equal…should logical but even at face value your leaving yourself little ground beyond saying that it’s the perception of the behavior that makes it more or less equal in the eyes of the community, from there you have to appoint judges that say which perceptions are more important and than you have to decide what to do when the behaviors are not normal. In the case of crime this is fairly easy, you find the injured party, you access the damage and you create a punishment. What are you going to say about a relationship in which neither party is harmed, civil society is strengthened, and people are more productive. Are you going to say that despite all evidence you are sure it is harmful and ban it?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM

sodomy used to be a crime, and that was ended by judges.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM

What are you going to say about a relationship in which neither party is harmed, civil society is strengthened, and people are more productive. Are you going to say that despite all evidence you are sure it is harmful and ban it?

But his premise is that civil society is NOT strengthened and (possibly) also that the parties to a gay relationship are, in fact, harmed even if only in some spiritual or Judgment of God sense. You’ll have to try a new road or change his mind on those matters.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM

In matters of friendship – why not judge our friends by the love in their hearts? In matters of state policy & football this is definitely not enough.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Sure, if you believe that all people should not be treated equally based on their position in your “inner circle”, I completely understand that relevatism makes sense.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM

ahhh!

i know what Andy in Agoura Hills is on…

John Birch Society to Cosponsor CPAC 2010

charles knows what serious business this is:

Nobody will boycott this event. Right wing blogs will completely ignore the story. This is the modern conservative movement.

better…

re: #51 Spare O’Lake

This is very, very, bad.
Would they also allow the Nazi Party to cosponsor?

It’s only one short step away from that.

ROFL!!!

so who is “andy”? kilgore? allouette?

eh on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Maybe you should.

I was replying to the posted quote of George Washington saying a moral society was impossible without religion as it’s groundwork. A concept I find to be as dated as the horse-drawn cart.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Do you consider the United States to be improving, morally? How about Eastern Europe?

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

@sodomy used to be a crime, and that was ended by judges.

Chris_Balsz

yes they did, they over turned all the sodomy laws because they said it was a violation of civil rights and privacy between two consenting adults.

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Do you consider the United States to be improving, morally? How about Eastern Europe?

Chris_Balsz

well our crime rate has been going down, however divorce is really high cause you straights can’t handle marriage ;-)

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM

but on the other hand is divorce even a moral issue?

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Do you consider the United States to be improving, morally? How about Eastern Europe?

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Since the time of George Washington we have overturned slavery. Something he was apparently willing to compromise on. That’s a HUGE step right there. We’ve also eliminated small pox and rolled out massive vaccination programs to reduce disease. Something that later 19th century thinkers accused of subverting the will of God. I can definitely see huge moral strides. I see some slipping as well but I’m not sure we would agree on what was slipping.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM

sodomy used to be a crime, and that was ended by judges.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Handgun prohibition in DC used to legal, until it was by ended judges. Damn judges.

Any position but missionary was and is technically illegal in lots of jurisdictions for straight people. Is that a necessary and rational use of taxpayer money and government time.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Any position but missionary was and is technically illegal in lots of jurisdictions for straight people. Is that a necessary and rational use of taxpayer money and government time.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Nope.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Republicans are getting sick of this behavior.

I’m a CONSERVATIVE, not a Republican, especially not today’s GOP run by RINOs. And I’m sick of having religious crap shoved down my throat at the expense of true conservative beliefs in limited government and strong defense.
Common Sense on December 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM

What a baby!……should we get a bib for your “over-spill” of religious crap. Can’t wait to see the shackles holding folks like “Common Sense” down and shoving it down their throats.

Rovin on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

eh on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Stop linking to LGF and just let the echo chamber eat itself up. Eventually it will be just him and sharamuta.

Boxy_Brown on December 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Any position but missionary was and is technically illegal in lots of jurisdictions for straight people. Is that a necessary and rational use of taxpayer money and government time.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM

RINO!

Boxy_Brown on December 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM

so who is “andy”? kilgore? allouette?

eh on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

You’re just a f-ckin’ genuis. Yep, that’s the ONLY way I could have found out who the co-sponsors were at CPAC. Of course, I might have actually visited the CPAC website, but what’s the odds of that, right? Hey Sherlock, you’re too stupid to have heard about the Birch Society and W.F.Buckley’s campaign to rid them from the conservative movement. But then again, if you went to college, you would not have learned about that. BTW, I’m not any of Chuckles sockpuppets KT or allouette or Sharmuta. You are the perfect defender of JBS because this is just another CONSPIRACY. In short, you’re a poncey git.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

What a baby!……should we get a bib for your “over-spill” of religious crap. Can’t wait to see the shackles holding folks like “Common Sense” down and shoving it down their throats.

Rovin on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

The same could be said of social-cons constantly whining about those horrible individual rights offending their delicate religio-cultural sensibilities, or atheist bus ads, or the “war on christmas”.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Must run. It’s been a pleasure. Hope this turns out well…

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

andy, everybody knows about buckley and the jbs, buckley and the objectivists, buckley and etc.

there are legitimate reasons why the jbs is marginal.

but since you’re an apologist for stalinism, i see no reason to discuss it with a foul, totalitarian pig like you.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM

welcome them as neighbors but would not endorse domestic party tax equity any more than heterosexual shack ups. That way they don’t get the marital tax penalty, that the truely married, as defined by true religion, will get unless the marriage penalty is addressed. So don’t so say, that traditionalists and true religion conservatives aren’t looking out for their homosexual neighbors, or that they are inconsistent, marriage and society deserves that delineanation. Don’t become bigoted against the married folks out there, we didn’t write the rule book, we just follow it. Society, including its kids would be healthier if homosexuals had a new birth into the heterosexual lifestyle.

mdetlh on December 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM

“Conservatives” still can’t get the hell out of the bedroom.

This GOP group has tactfully and calmly asked for the removal of don’t ask don’t tell and has rationally and tactfully included FMA opposition in it’s platform.

I disagree with them but it is don’t without “forcing their lifestyle” on me and present their platform for debate….

Many gays are conservative and not flamboyant media stereotypes.

We need their conservative support for fiscal sanity and responsible government as much as anyone else.

Get.over.the homophobia. folks.

rickyricardo on December 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM

But his premise is that civil society is NOT strengthened and (possibly) also that the parties to a gay relationship are, in fact, harmed even if only in some spiritual or Judgment of God sense. You’ll have to try a new road or change his mind on those matters.

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM

I think you are projecting a bit. Gay relationship do not strengthen society. Divorce does not strengthen society. But the spiritual effects of parties to either relationship has never been the focus of any laws I have ever been aware of. That, is the personal problem of the individuals.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 5:56 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

A bit strongly worded perhaps, but essentially correct. And I’m as conservative as anyone here, more than a few in fact.

I believe that outside the fervor of a gut reaction against that which is different, most conservatives are NOT Homophobes, but they do sometimes let them selves be dragged into discussions that make them appear to be so. Breathe… this does NOT affect you and I, but it does affect our gay friends. I may not agree with everything they want, but I welcome their debate and energy. I also welcome them by my side while we fight together to bring this monstrous government back under control of the people.

FYI: To young voters, a hullabaloo over this looks like old fashioned thinking — and they are right.

TCJ on December 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Looks like GOProud and I are about 80% copesetic – legislative-wise. That better than a lot of GOP congresscritters. They seem OK to me.

DamnCat on December 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM

andy, everybody knows about buckley and the jbs, buckley and the objectivists, buckley and etc.

there are legitimate reasons why the jbs is marginal.

but since you’re an apologist for stalinism, i see no reason to discuss it with a foul, totalitarian pig like you.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM

So your original ignorant statement about the JBS not being “anti-semitic” and “racist” is wrong. Glad to see that you actually have more than two neurons firing in your think skull. Thanks for agreeing with me too. A$$hole.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that people are morons.” – Thomas Jefferson

I think that’s how that quote goes.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Actually….

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Two consenting adults having a same sex relationship harms no one. It may offend some and certain faiths may think that their respective god will punish the country for it, but then there are faiths that practice female circumcision.

We all agree (I hope) that Republic is made up of many people whose differences are respected and who all agree that each individual has the right to be free of the tyranny of the majority. Attacking gays just for being gay is the right co-opting Marxist social engineering. ALA and Matt Barber and the rest of these tools are using the same arguments Chavez uses now.

Freedom is just for people you like and just as liberty isn’t a gift from the state it isn’t given to us by consensus. The very foundation of all rightism, whether conservative, libertarian or Republicanism, is personal freedom. These attacks are attacks on every Americans right to live their own life sans interference.

If they don’t like gays they should boycott CPAC, not call on the rest of the right to attack gays conservatives.

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM

We need their conservative support for fiscal sanity and responsible government as much as anyone else.

Get.over.the homophobia. folks.

rickyricardo on December 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Get over the homophobia. Get over the racism. You’re labeling of people because they disagree with you is a classic indication of a person losing an argument. If gay conservatives, straight conservatives, any kind of conservatives want true conservatism, they need to drop the group-centric agenda and focus on smaller government, constitutional adherance and low tax/low spending policies. Putting gay-centric concepts in their platform, GOProud proves that conservatism is not their real purpose. But you can call me a homophobe if it makes you feel better.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that people are morons.” – Thomas Jefferson

I think that’s how that quote goes.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Actually….

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

No, really? Get out of town! /s

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Two consenting adults having a same sex relationship harms no one. It may offend some and certain faiths may think that their respective god will punish the country for it, but then there are faiths that practice female circumcision.

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM

So your original ignorant statement about the JBS not being “anti-semitic” and “racist” is wrong. Glad to see that you actually have more than two neurons firing in your think skull. Thanks for agreeing with me too. A$$hole.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM

no, you stalinist moron. read my post.

you claimed that the jbs are racist and antisemitic. these are lies you told. your sole source for this is chip berlet, who is a literal stalinist. even he was unable to directly claim that the jbs are racist or antisemitic, and instead had to infer these things from “code” he claims the jbs uses, and this in spite of overt disclaiming of racism and antisemitism by the jbs which berlet had to admit was “earnest”.

in fact, if you were educated at all on the matter, you’d know that the jbs consistently portrayed white supremacist and antisemitic groups as part of the same conspiracy that communists are a part of, and against which they stand, if quixotically.

buckley sought to marginalize the jbs because their risible belief in a singular elite conspiracy.

so, these things are demonstrated:

you are a liar
you are a smear merchant
you’re cool with stalinists

eh on December 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM

well judging by those 10 priorities I would say the GOProud share my views to a T! Where can I sign up?

Ampersand on December 16, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Any group the Left hates more than us deserves some sympathy.

Speedwagon82 on December 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party

there’s ed the squishy, showing himself again. Everything in their platform is identity politics. gay this and gay that. That has nothing to do with conservatism. Conservatives believe in equality for everyone, not supra-rights based on what people do with their genitals.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:31 PM

there’s ed the squishy, showing himself again. Everything in their platform is identity politics. gay this and gay that. That has nothing to do with conservatism. Conservatives believe in equality for everyone, not supra-rights based on what people do with their genitals.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:31 PM

RIGHT ON!!!!!

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM

not call on the rest of the right to attack gays conservatives.

That is how they choose to view and identify themselves. Identity politics. Next time you go to a business meeting open the conversation with, “By the way, I sleep with people of the opposite sex, does anyone have a problem with that?” and see where that meeting goes and see how much credibility you’ll be given.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM

If a Theocon doesn’t want to attend just because a gay person is there, well please don’t let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM

theocons, neocons, black conservatives, gay conservatives. Even the conservative movement is diseased with the lefts tribalism.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM

The entire world has become ludicrous and people who claim to be conservatives just accept that it’s supposed to be that way. They’ve surrendered and they don’t even know it..

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:43 PM

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

Non sequitur.
Marriage and military service are two vastly different topics. The vast, vast majority of people who would rather address the legal problems of gays thru civil unions have no problem with gays serving in the military.

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM

If a Theocon doesn’t want to attend just because a gay person is there, well please don’t let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM

Attend what?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:49 PM

No, really? Get out of town! /s

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Yeah…I was surprised!
A good quote is always worth posting.

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM

I was replying to the posted quote of George Washington saying a moral society was impossible without religion as it’s groundwork. A concept I find to be as dated as the horse-drawn cart. SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM

The father of our country should know a thing or two about the values on which he and his brothers founded it.
Being a conservative means trying to conserve something. Those trying to graft the sodomy lobby’s agenda onto a concept like liberty show that they have no idea what liberty is.

Patriot, from pater, father. Disagree with George about the country he helped to found and your conservatism, as well as your patriotism, may be called into question.

Akzed on December 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM

the legal problems of gays thru civil unions

There is a lie that everyone accepts as fact. Two gay people can go to an attorney and draw up power of attorney that covers nearly everything except social security survivor status. gay marriage is not about rights, it is about forcing acceptance. The government cannot force acceptance, that is thought control. They can only force tolerance, that is a restriction on behavior.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

“Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud”

Actually I joined and got banned at the Tea Party Nation website because of what I thought was a patriotic avatar and am now going to put them in the extremist republican category. Sad because I was really hoping for more from them.

JeffinSac on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

GoProud is the only gay organization to repeatedly call out Obama on many issues mainstream liberal gay organizations ignore such as the Uganda law that punishes gays with the death penalty and for Iranian atrocities.

They seem to be a real conservative alternative to the Log Cabin which became nothing but a tool to liberals (which most gay organizations morph toward) when they hired a new liberal director the year they supported Kerry.

LifeTrek on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Attend CPAC of course.

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.

The theocons are talking about not attending, supposedly, because gays will be there.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM

We all agree (I hope) that Republic is made up of many people whose differences are respected and who all agree that each individual has the right to be free of the tyranny of the majority.

I agree, and let me add to that. We also have the right to be free of the tyranny of the minority, who wield their power through legal abstractions and a stacked SCOTUS.

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 6:59 PM

I HATE PAGE 2+ COMMENTS

Apologetic California on December 16, 2009 at 7:01 PM

I HATE PAGE 2+ COMMENTS

Apologetic California on December 16, 2009 at 7:01 PM

page 2+ comments are awesome.

and 5150 was an awesome album.

now help me make blockquote pyramids…

eh on December 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM

What’s your proof of harm coming to children of gay parents just because their parents are gay?

You allude to speaking with children of homosexuals but offer no real proof. Even if gay marriage was not good for children.. SO EFFING WHAT?

Smoking isn’t good kids, neither is soda or 6 hour Playstation-sessions. But I don’t want the government limiting my access to these products or their use within my own home.

This “for the children” mantra is BS. Americans have every right to live in a crappy environment and expose their kids to it.

Notice I said, “crappy” and not “dangerous.” I get that there are laws about neglect and putting kids in harm’s way. But non of the strident, anti-gay loudmouths in here can ever provide any proof that gay families are inherently deleterious to kids or a family.

JeffinSac on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Let’s see the avatar.

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM

.

.

.

.

.

.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 7:06 PM

the lgf troll hasn’t been back.

incidentally, the whole, “ZOMG!! THE BIRCHERS ARE CPAC SPONSORS” outrage of the day is flying around the leftoverse and, stepping the clock back, one finds that indeed it did originate with charles.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 7:09 PM

The theocons are talking about not attending, supposedly, because gays will be there.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM

Really? How did you arrive at that?

Itchee Dryback on December 16, 2009 at 7:19 PM

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.

From the article. There are “rumblings” of a boycott.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 7:22 PM

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

And you would have government enforce your religious (moral/philosophical) preferences?

No government, including that of a 200 year-old country, has the authority to overturn something that is inherent to human civilization across all cultures and times. Even cultures like the ancient Greeks which tolerated a great deal of homosexual activity never confused it with marriage. Inviting the government in to impose a new definition on something so basic to human survival, with all the civil bureaucratic crap that that will entail (cf. no-fault divorce and child support laws), sounds like a small-government position to you? Think again.

evergreen on December 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM

The opposite of a knee-jerk theocracy is an open democracy where religious values can be debated before enacted or voted down, NOT a knee-jerk secular humanist archonate where a republican form of government is subverted whenever the judiciary smells incense behind the Law.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Spathi, the Republicans could nominate Bill Clinton–he’s almost old enough– and you would still vote Democrat twice, so spare us.

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM

What’s your proof of harm coming to children of gay parents just because their parents are gay?

You allude to speaking with children of homosexuals but offer no real proof. Even if gay marriage was not good for children.. SO EFFING WHAT?

Smoking isn’t good kids, neither is soda or 6 hour Playstation-sessions. But I don’t want the government limiting my access to these products or their use within my own home.

This “for the children” mantra is BS. Americans have every right to live in a crappy environment and expose their kids to it.

Notice I said, “crappy” and not “dangerous.” I get that there are laws about neglect and putting kids in harm’s way. But non of the strident, anti-gay loudmouths in here can ever provide any proof that gay families are inherently deleterious to kids or a family.

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM

I have yet to see one “anti-gay” poster. Once again, the inability to stop projecting and read what has been written efeats any opportunity to discuss the issue. Have you ever spoken to children with gay “families”? I have and can see beyond the “it makes me happy so it doesn’t hurt anyone and if it does, so what” attitude to see some real pain and struggle suffered my those kids. YEah, it’s really crappy, but so what….right?

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 7:44 PM

I voted for Chuck Baldwin. I’ve never voted for a single Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I vote republicans always though.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 7:45 PM

Chuck Baldwin was who Ron Paul endorsed for the presidential election. He was the best candidate running.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 7:45 PM

The father of our country should know a thing or two about the values on which he and his brothers founded it.
Being a conservative means trying to conserve something. Those trying to graft the sodomy lobby’s agenda onto a concept like liberty show that they have no idea what liberty is.

Patriot, from pater, father. Disagree with George about the country he helped to found and your conservatism, as well as your patriotism, may be called into question.

Akzed on December 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Oh noes! He brought out the patriot hammer!

The founding fathers were very intelligent men, who established the freest country in the world, and did many brave things.

However, they were not demigods or prophets. They disagreed on a lot of key issues. And, gasp, they might have been wrong about some things.

Patriotism can be a good thing, or it can be an insipid form of societal coercion.

I don’t fear disagreeing with George Washington, and if a freer country than the US popped up I’d try to get my family there as quick as I could.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 7:47 PM

This is just disgusting.

So now gay people can’t be for small government? Oh right, social cons think conservatism has something to do with Christianity.

jhffmn on December 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Stop attacking Social Conservatives like myself. I support GOProud showing up at the conference, we are not a hive mind. By singling out and attacking Social conservatives you are just as bad as those attacking GoProud and sound much like that wretch Charles Johnson who does nothing but moan about how Socons wants to purge moderates from the party yet all he does is attack himself.

Social Conservatives are a powerful backbone to the Conservative movement and are much more likely to stick to Fiscal conervatism than a social liberal. I think GoProud should be at CPAC and those who disagree do not have to accept the redefinition of marriage but can cheer on the majority of issues they do agree with.

The John Birch Society should NOT be involved. I can’t believe these guys are still around.

Daemonocracy on December 16, 2009 at 7:47 PM

The opposite of a knee-jerk theocracy is an open democracy where religious values can be debated before enacted or voted down,

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM

Debating religious values is great, but not in houses of government. Enacting them into law is totally ridiculous.

I’ve yet to meet a value arbitrarily given by a deity that is objectively better than one arrived at by reason.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM

I personally have no issues with GOProud, I welcome them. I may not agree with them 100%, so what, who am I to judge them, I don’t want them to judge me.
Stop letting the left pigeon hole us into certain beliefs, and pitting us against ourselves. They win every time we let them label us. If you’re gay, so what, I live my life as I see fit, as should you. I know a few gay people, they are not unlike me, there are no issues. The stereotypical gay is alive, the are Pelosi’s pets, they’re commies like her, but that is not the rule in the gay community, stop treating them all as such, they are not lepers.
If you are Conservative, I care not how you carry out your personal life, as long as you live within the law, treat your fellow Americans with respect, and return it. A civil society is the dream our founders sought for us, we have strayed away from that in a big way.
I’m a flaming heterosexual, I’m quite comfortable as such, I will not force that lifestyle on anyone, nor do I wish to have an alternative lifestyle forced on me. Never should we dismiss anyone who agrees with the tenants of our Constitution and enjoys it’s freedoms, though they seek a different path in life, they are free to do so. We are Americans, we are free men and women.
What personal choices we make in life, as long as we break no laws, will be judged by our creator, not by man.

M-14 2go on December 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Debating religious values is great, but not in houses of government. Enacting them into law is totally ridiculous.

I’ve yet to meet a value arbitrarily given by a deity that is objectively better than one arrived at by reason.

SCBradley on December 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM

What is cheaper and more efficient: deporting the poor and sick, or feeding and curing the poor and sick?

Chris_Balsz on December 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM

The John Birch Society should NOT be involved. I can’t believe these guys are still around.

Is there are talk of banning them? That would be bad if so.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM

The John Birch Society should NOT be involved. I can’t believe these guys are still around.

Daemonocracy on December 16, 2009 at 7:47 PM

i don’t think it’s that big a deal.

for $1500 bucks you too could be one of the hundred or so “sponsors” of cpac.

but beyond that, the jbs’s only “crime” was to claim that the world is being controlled by a vast conspiratorial network. danny ortega marched a half a million indians to their deaths during “red christmas” in nicaragua, but he got reelected there with the u.s. left’s approval.

don’t believe the hype. progressives have a way of smearing conservatives and getting other conservatives to treat them as if they were radioactive nazis.

as it is with the jbl, so it is with the “moonies”. a bunch of earnest crackpots who’s only “crime” is opposing communism. but mention moonies around a conservative and he’ll act as if you just mentioned the klan – because that’s how the left has framed them.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 8:13 PM

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

Think of the children!!! Lol.

John9400 on December 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM

You’re just a f-ckin’ genuis. Yep, that’s the ONLY way I could have found out who the co-sponsors were at CPAC. Of course, I might have actually visited the CPAC website, but what’s the odds of that, right? Hey Sherlock, you’re too stupid to have heard about the Birch Society and W.F.Buckley’s campaign to rid them from the conservative movement. But then again, if you went to college, you would not have learned about that. BTW, I’m not any of Chuckles sockpuppets KT or allouette or Sharmuta. You are the perfect defender of JBS because this is just another CONSPIRACY. In short, you’re a poncey git.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Andy – I have brought this up many times – to be called a RINO-troll-Obama-voter. They have no idea who William F Buckley was or what he stood for.

The John Birch Society is a Far Right hate group that should not be anywhere near CPAC. Buckley got rid of them in the early 60s and that should have been the end of them.

And Sarah Palin should not have their silly magazine on her desk in her photo-op.

Disgraceful.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Oppose to 4 and 7, but now is the time to unite on the things we do agree on, instead of throwing stones at each other on items that we disagree on.

Conservative Voice on December 16, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Bill Buckley realized the Iraq occupation was a bad decision on his death bed.

I think he regrets attacking the John Birch Society, but his magazine was may have been funded by the CIA just as Irvin Kristol’s journal, the Encounter magazine, was funded by the CIA.

They had a big government agenda.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Boycott, please, and good riddance.

RightOFLeft on December 16, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Think of the children!!! Lol.

John9400 on December 16, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Just saying. The idea that “the actions of consenting adults” doesn’t affect anyone else, is delusional thinking. My experience with kids is just one example. And the same goes for children of divorce.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 8:33 PM

From looking at the list, it is definitely identity politics.
That bothers me. Them being gay? I could give a rat’s patootie
Perhaps they are leftists trying to work the issue from both sides and improve their chances? I could be wrong, and hope I am. We have enough infiltrators…or is that infilTRAITORS?

Hard Right on December 16, 2009 at 8:33 PM

No government, including that of a 200 year-old country, has the authority to overturn something that is inherent to human civilization across all cultures and times. Even cultures like the ancient Greeks which tolerated a great deal of homosexual activity never confused it with marriage. Inviting the government in to impose a new definition on something so basic to human survival, with all the civil bureaucratic crap that that will entail (cf. no-fault divorce and child support laws), sounds like a small-government position to you? Think again.

evergreen on December 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM

It’s quite comical you use that as an argument against gay marriage. It is the most idiotic and ignorant argument out there. The social conservative argument against gay marriage is largely devoid of logic and sanity. Let’s see a list of things that have “existed across all cultures for many years”:
1. Slavery
2. The practice of having a noble class throughout much of European history
3. The subjugation of women
4. Intermarriage of closely related royal classes in European history, and still present today
5. The entire idea of absolute monarchy, monarchy, and centralized/autocratic rule
6. Racism
7. The European view of children as economic assets and nothing more for much of the 16th-19th centuries
8. Religion – whether it is peaceful or violent. But most of Christianity and Islam’s history is rather violent.

… would you like me to continue? That same argument can be used for ANY of the above topics.

There was a time monarchists said the only way society would stabilize was through a monarch with absolute authority and if that did not exist, society would collapse. Sound familiar?

And your statement that straight marriage is “something so basic to human survival” is soooo DOUBTFUL. People have sex and reproduce REGARDLESS of a social “definition” of their relationship. The problem we have today is the benefits that are associated with this social institution. You can not deny a portion of the population these benefits because of their genital’s of their partner. This in NO way leads to polygamy, people marrying their pets (last time I checked, dogs don’t have legal standing and can not sign a marriage contract), etc.

There is a lack of maturity and logic when it comes to social/religious conservatives’ opposition to same-sex marriage, and that is what is detrimental to society – not the fact that gay people actually have love for their spouse. Love doesn’t see genders. Only bigoted people do.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 8:33 PM

JeffinSac on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Let’s see the avatar.

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 7:05 PM


The Tea Party Nation idea of an offensive avatar

which is the one I use when posting at Sacbee.com

Again sad to see the extremist are running the national Tea Party and it looks like I will just be participating at the local level.

JeffinSac on December 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Love doesn’t see genders. Only bigoted people do.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 8:33 PM

REally, so my gynocologist is a bigot? That is just about the most sanctimonious bit of BS I have seen in a looooong time. Thanks for the chuckle.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 8:43 PM

the lgf troll hasn’t been back.

incidentally, the whole, “ZOMG!! THE BIRCHERS ARE CPAC SPONSORS” outrage of the day is flying around the leftoverse and, stepping the clock back, one finds that indeed it did originate with charles.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Who cares who it originated with? Your website shows you have a hard-on for LGF, which indicates your bias. JBS is and was an anti-semitic and racist organization. Yes or no, do you deny that? If so, you’re in the same company as Patrick Buchanan and Ron Paul. Two stellar champions of racism.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM

REally, so my gynocologist is a bigot? That is just about the most sanctimonious bit of BS I have seen in a looooong time. Thanks for the chuckle.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you provide an argument, putting aside religious beliefs, against gay marriage and why it is okay to deny a portion of the population the same rights that others receive because it’s “normal”.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 8:46 PM

There is a lie that everyone accepts as fact. Two gay people can go to an attorney and draw up power of attorney that covers nearly everything except social security survivor status. gay marriage is not about rights, it is about forcing acceptance. The government cannot force acceptance, that is thought control. They can only force tolerance, that is a restriction on behavior.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM

+1000000000

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:47 PM

JeffinSac on December 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM

pretty sweet

The Race Card on December 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM

And Sarah Palin should not have their silly magazine on her desk in her photo-op.

Disgraceful.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 8:20 PM

You know, I’ve always thought highly of Sarah Palin, even if she wasn’t the brightest bulb, but because she had good morals and common sense. I am very disappointed to read that she apparently reads their magazine. I’ll have to rethink my support of her. But in the big picture, I’d take Sarah Palin over the Marxist any day.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Bill Buckley realized the Iraq occupation was a bad decision on his death bed.

I think he regrets attacking the John Birch Society, but his magazine was may have been funded by the CIA just as Irvin Kristol’s journal, the Encounter magazine, was funded by the CIA.

They had a big government agenda.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 8:27 PM

You think. Uh huh. His magazine may have been funded. You’re a schmuck. Do you have any facts to state or are you just gonna pull random statements out of your ass?

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:54 PM

OT: Why can’t I click “back” anymore?

alexwest on December 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Thank God, I thought it was just my putor……sigh…

clinker46 on December 16, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you provide an argument, putting aside religious beliefs, against gay marriage and why it is okay to deny a portion of the population the same rights that others receive because it’s “normal”.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 8:46 PM

You’re the one that wrote the line, I just commented on it. Why must one put aside religious beliefs when arguing this issue? I have never understood what reasoning requires one deny an important fact that goes into the argument. No one denies a portion of the population anything other than the “universal acceptance” of deviant behavior that every recognized faith in the world does not recognize as “normal”. I cannot marry someone of the same sex and gay people are not prohibited from marrying people of the opposite sex. Therefore, no one is prohibited from anything others people are “allowed” to do. Further, gay individuals are not forbidden to live together, work where they choose (with legal protection), receive domestic partner benefits in may sectors of society, etc. So this “civil rights” issue is bogus. You can call a cat a dog, but it’s still a cat. You can try and force people into thinking that “gay marriage” and “marriage” are the same thing, but they are not. Sorry.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7