Oh boy: Tony Perkins calls on social cons to stop donating to the RNC

posted at 7:56 pm on March 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

In theory, this isn’t a problem — the money that would have gone to the RNC will go to the NRSC or NRCC or individual candidates — but let’s be realistic. Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

Turns out that “Voyeur” reimbursement is the most expensive bar tab evah:

This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support.

Earlier this month the RNC made a big deal about hiring “renowned Supreme Court lawyer” Ted Olson to represent the RNC in a campaign finance case that is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California. The outcome of Olson’s challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I’ve hinted at this before, but now I am saying it–don’t give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom!

Follow the link and check out the graphic. This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer, but Perkins clearly was looking for an excuse to flex some muscle. He’s unhappy that social con money is being funneled by the RNC to people who aren’t, shall we say, robustly socially conservative themselves, so he’s going to try to nudge the GOP to the right on social issues by limiting his base’s dollars to only like-minded Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, but two can play at that game — and should. If you’re of a more libertarian bent, why not skip the GOP groups and give directly to like-minded candidates yourself? And if it turns out that some socially conservative candidate is in trouble in the fall and needs a cash influx, and the RNC simply doesn’t have the money — too bad, so sad. We could potentially lose winnable seats this way, but obviously Perkins isn’t worried about that. Why should you?

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for major party committees, at least as far as the base is concerned. They’re a useful tool for people who don’t have the time or inclination to research individual candidates, but for grassroots conservatives, that’s not a problem. The Internet is a wonderful thing; avail yourself of it!

Update: More Perkins heart-ache: Pete Sessions once held a fundraiser at a burlesque club or something.


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

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Ahh…The JFK argument… Well, I am Catholic also. I’m afraid it isn’t something I can put on and take off depending on the circumstance, though. I’m also a bit freaked out about the being lukewarm and vomited out of God’s mouth, but he gave us free will, right?

I do wonder if you judge that others should not have sex with their children? Is it wrong to impose that upon those who think it is a perfectly wonderful thing? Do you advocate allowing NAMBLA to practice their desires… How do you argue that a person should be allowed to kill their child, but not abuse them in other ways? There is a serious disconnect there; you do realize that, don’t you?

Judging the state of someones soul and condemning them is different from judging actions that are clearly stated by the Church to be sins. Matthew 18:15-17.

And how is it a specific church creating the laws when they were already created by our government, which you already admitted was not an established theocracy? These aren’t new laws we are talking about. *sigh*

pannw on March 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM

And I’d like to add and clarify that I, and the vast majority of social cons I know don’t even want to take it back to the way it actually was for the majority of our existence, regarding homosexual issues. No one is asking to make it illegal again. I don’t care what they do in the privacy of their homes (aside from the fact that I care about all who live in persistent sin against God’s laws). I just don’t want acceptance of it forced on me and on my children. I don’t want the Church to be silenced for the Truth. Why do you not object to having that lack of morality forced on us? Why is it only a problem when you perceive morality being forced, but not immorality? And that is what they are doing, and I think you know it.

But my family just got home from a ball game and I’m going to tuck my kids in and go to bed.

Have a blessed Holy Thursday.

pannw on March 31, 2010 at 11:43 PM

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 11:29 PM

The Briggs Initiative was on the path to becoming California Law (it was something like 60 percent support) until Reagan spoke against it. It was defeated by something a 10 or 15 percent margin. By all accounts he defeated it and it was his most courageous political stand up to that time.

Holger on March 31, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Surrender 1 leg of the stool to the Left & the Democrats at your own peril, but don’t be surprised when the other 2 legs follow.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Or defer all social issues to the states where they belong and bring in some Regean Dems and call it a chair.

Socmodfiscon on March 31, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Once the Dems take all your money you will have none left with which to fight your pet social issue.

Socmodfiscon on March 31, 2010 at 11:49 PM

Why would the RNC want to diss so-cons?
Increasing majorities favor restrictions on abortion, & vast majorities oppose homosexual marriage.
Winning issues.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 11:54 PM

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/31/rnc-chairman-meets-immigration-group-sides-differ-on-outcome/

Ah yes, why shouldn’t we all trust the RNC?

What could go wrong?

So what exactly happened when the chairman of the Republican National Committee met with immigration activists Wednesday? According to a news release put out by the activists, he said he would try and recruit Republican support for comprehensive immigration legislation.

The RNC says he made no such commitment. The immigration activist who led the meeting said he did, but then backpedaled after being signaled by a staffer that he may have gone too far.

Everyone agrees that Michael Steele, RNC chairman, met with a group of activists from the Fair Immigration Reform Movement. Afterwards, FIRM put out a statement implying that Steele was firmly in their camp. The statement said that the activists “walked away with a commitment from Steele to work with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the party’s leadership to enlist another Republican senator’s support for comprehensive and bipartisan immigration reform.”

sharrukin on April 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Why would the RNC want to diss so-cons?
Increasing majorities favor restrictions on abortion, & vast majorities oppose homosexual marriage.
Winning issues.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Excellent point!

Jenfidel on April 1, 2010 at 1:37 AM

Or defer all social issues to the states where they belong and bring in some Regean Dems and call it a chair.

Socmodfiscon on March 31, 2010 at 11:48 PM

NObama isn’t giving us that luxury: he began overturning Bush anti-abortion policy as soon as he was sworn in and is making repeal of DADT one of his policy issues, too.

Reagan Dems, joined by Stupak Dems, have morphed into Tea Party Members and Palin Democrats.

Jenfidel on April 1, 2010 at 1:40 AM

His WHOLE focus has been to get more minorities and younger people into the party. Not by creating a better conservative message but by trying to market it like it was a new version of a old product.

Your basic crappy marketing think.

William Amos on March 31, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Micheal Steele has the right idea but he’s going about it the wrong way.

Like it or not, the demographics of America is changing before your eyes. Minority groups will no longer becoming a minority groups in America. There will come a time when whites will be a minority in this country.

This country is diverse racially, socially, religiously, and economically. And the GOP needs to find a way to gets its core message to the group.

Great. Here we are on the eve of achieving a great flushing of leftist cancer from the body politic, and we’re back to arguing about the Bible and strict Judeo-Christian morality because some people went to strip bars.

Good Lt on March 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

I am in partial agreement with you. You’re right that SoCons are engaging in a petty complaint while the country is on the bring of financial meltdown.

Glenn Beck has been telling people that now is the time to fall on our knees and pray to God for guidance and seek forgiveness from God.

I think Glenn Beck’s point is that to save us from financial collapse, we can’t expect to be saved from Government either through financial or moral legislation, we can only save ourselves.

We will only be saved as every individual seeks forgiveness from God and promises to become the best and righteous Jew, Mormon, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, they can be. If everybody lived up to their religious principles as advocated by their own faith, we wouldn’t be in the financial clusterfark we’re in today.

That’s Glenn Beck’s point and I think it s a valid one. We’re in the mess we are because we, as a people, have stopped being a religious people and its not the government’s, the media’s, or the school’s fault. Its our fault.

P.S. Strip clubs are overrated.

Conservative Samizdat on April 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM

P.S. Strip clubs are overrated.

Agreed. I myself take pride in never having patronized one because I think they’re just smarmy and dirty, and I don’t hold myself as a social conservative. But they shouldn’t cause an entire segment of the American right to lose their sh*t, take their ball and go home.

We’re in the mess we are because we, as a people, have stopped being a religious people and its not the government’s, the media’s, or the school’s fault. Its our fault.

America is still a religious nation. That’s fine and dandy, but it’s not EVERYTHING. For some, it is. For the rest of us, our bank accounts, paychecks, families, freedoms and lives outside church have meaning.

And they’re all being infringed upon by this leftist administration and its grand designs. So use your righteous anger to throw them out.

There is no other viable option. Fracturing the party along pseudo-religious lines is not a winning strategy. The SoCons will say, “winning elections isn’t everything.” Sorry, but it’s about 90% of saving the country right now.

We don’t have the luxury of time to be dithering with this nonsense. The horse has been out of the barn for a long time on strip clubs, SoCons. They’re legal, common and stupid, and have been for ages. But that’s life in 2010.

Evolve or be assimilated into the Obama-Borg. Your choice.

Good Lt on April 1, 2010 at 7:47 AM

God, I hate typos, ’specially my own.

LOL – I first read that as “GOD HATES TYPOS.”

I smell a mock protest movement to counter the cockroaches in the Westboro BC forming :-D

Good Lt on April 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM

This country is diverse racially, socially, religiously, and economically. And the GOP needs to find a way to gets its core message to the group.

What core message? You must be thinking of another GOP than I know.

The real GOP/RNC mindset is evident in the fundraising memo scandal. Contempt for their voters and suckers (donors). Both existing parties are Washington DC based statists. The Repubs are already back-pedaling on repeal of HRC. They’ll morph totally into amending the bill so they can keep the Federal power.

If America wishes to return to a Constitutional Republic of States as it was founded it will need a new conservative party or the GOP will have to be burned down and rebuilt.

rcl on April 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM

If America wishes to return to a Constitutional Republic of States as it was founded it will need a new conservative party or the GOP will have to be burned down and rebuilt.

Nice in theory.

Unfortunately, the country is being burnt down by the left. Rapidly. We’re the worst off we’ve been in decades – after just 15 months.

So what are you doing about that? Burning down the GOP? Yeah. That’s going to stem the tide of rampant statism.

Good Lt on April 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM

I haven’t even heard of Tony Perkins. I presume he is one of the social conservatives many performance artists. If he plays his part in this script, we’ll find he has been snorting coke with transgendered prostitutes. Social con leadership seems to require large amounts of hypocrisy.

thuja on April 1, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Is the right to abortion to be publicly funded? Does that right include forcing doctors, who object, to perform abortions?

You are correct about gays, in only they would keep in the bedroom – who cares and who would know. However, they want to shove it in our faces and try to tell our children that it is ok to be gay/lesbian/bisexual and they trying to teach them at younger and younger ages.

I think you CAN be socially liberal as long as you don’t promote those views for government enforcement.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 9:00 PM

a little late I know…

First…do you really believe that a child can be taught to be gay? Come on. I don’t like the idea of kids being taught anything but how to read and write in school. But if they read “Johnny Has Tow Daddies” in school, I won’t lose much sleep over it. I’m actually more upset with the enviro crap that is pushed in schools more than the “gay agenda”. Cap N Tax will cost me money. Gay marriage won’t cost me a dime.

Second…whether the govt funds liberal causes or not is irrelevant to the discussion. I will be no less or no more conservative if the govt funds abortion or if the govt doesn’t fund abortion. My views don’t change because the govt pays for things.

angryed on April 1, 2010 at 9:08 AM

“This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer, but Perkins clearly was looking for an excuse to flex some muscle. He’s unhappy that social con money is being funneled by the RNC to people who aren’t, shall we say, robustly socially conservative themselves…”

Allah

I disagree. Perkins is clearly stating to faithful Christians what most of them know already: the money you send to Washington is being spent by people who do not share your values. If you find a candidate that you believe does share your values, give the money to that candidate.

Politics is a rough, dirty business, and Inside the Beltway politics is played by a bunch of whoring atheists to a much greater degree than out in flyover country.

Perkins is simply reminding them of what we already know. You send them a dollar, and it will end up as a tip in a bar, a bribe to a Senator, or inside some stripper’s g-string.

Jaibones on April 1, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Gay marriage won’t cost me a dime.

Sure it will, especially if same sex marriage passes at the federal level (all those government workers with new spouses?) and if DADT is repealed, “spouses” of military will all want benefits to.
Prepare to open your wallet.

Second…whether the govt funds liberal causes or not is irrelevant to the discussion. I will be no less or no more conservative if the govt funds abortion or if the govt doesn’t fund abortion. My views don’t change because the govt pays for things.

angryed on April 1, 2010 at 9:08 AM

So, it doesn’t bother you one bit if you’re pro-Life that your tax dollars are funding baby murders?

Jenfidel on April 1, 2010 at 9:47 AM

In…SarahPAC
Out…RNC, NRCC

james23 on April 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM

I am a right leaning libertarian… and I totally agree with Mr. Perkins. I choose to give my hard earned money directly to candidates I KNOW buy into why I believe.
Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Gary Johnson, Allen West, Ron Paul, etc…

Every now and again I choose to donate to more conservative members like Phil Gingrey and Marco Rubio.

It all depends on how they jive with my worldview. I agree with a lot of social cons on their beliefs of what is wrong and what is right… I just don’t think it’s the governments place to legislate those matters (except for abortion…which is murder and should be legislated)… so I let my money do the talking.
The Republican Party has done or said the exact opposite of what I want so many different times that I finally stopped sending them my h ard earned $. (Though they keep sending me mailings asking me to give them money…)

therambler on April 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM

best news I’ve heard in a decade! Maybe social cons will wither and die funding the tea party!

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 10:01 AM

I resolved to not donate to the RNC when they supported Arlen Specter. It was then that I realized they are not aligned with conservatives. Maybe they’ve changed, or maybe they will someday, but until I see evidence…

robm on April 1, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Do NOT give money to the RNC, NRCC, or NRSC!!! Give instead to individual conservative candidates!

DCJeff on April 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

The controversy is that if everyone gives to, say, Marco Rubio instead of the RNC, Rubio could end up with $50 million in the bank while the RNC has nothing.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

And I don’t see a problem with that. In fact, I would prefer it.

I would much rather have the approach that conservative bloggers highlight races where conservative candidates need some help defeating progressives… and encouraging people to donate individually.

The RNC has squandered its integrity by backing many candidates that CLEARLY do not advocate conservative ideals. It can no longer be trusted to route money to conservative candidates who support conservative ideals.

If the party wants Republicans to win, then they will back conservative candidates. Its that simple.

I worry about the future that we’re leaving to my children and grandchildren. Why should I celebrate that its the GOP destroying my children’s future… at a slower rate?

dominigan on April 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM

We don’t have the luxury of time to be dithering with this nonsense. The horse has been out of the barn for a long time on strip clubs, SoCons. They’re legal, common and stupid, and have been for ages. But that’s life in 2010.

Evolve or be assimilated into the Obama-Borg. Your choice.

Good Lt on April 1, 2010 at 7:47 AM

The problem I have with the RNC and GOP is perfectly demonstrated by Good Lt’s comments.

Why the hell do you think the RNC is ENTITLED to my donation money? That’s the exact same point that liberal progressives make! Only the names are changed!

If you want my money, then support candidates that agree with my worldview. If you DON’T want my money, then support whoever the hell you think will win. But don’t you DARE think that you are ENTITLED to the money I’ve earned.

dominigan on April 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM

best news I’ve heard in a decade! Maybe social cons will wither and die funding the tea party!

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 10:01 AM

If only…I’ll give the socons one thing – they’re a tenacious bunch!

Dark-Star on April 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

TYou don’t have to be a religious nut case to find the RNC and those who have installed Steele and propped him up as the most arrogant unresponsive pukes to ever destroy a party .

borntoraisehogs on April 1, 2010 at 1:57 PM

@dark-star so true, I guess a withering schedule of poking their nose in everyone’s business creates a toxic environment that that preserves them like pickles. That or they feed of the suppressed life energy of gays in denial.

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

@borntoraisehogs true however I just dislike social cons and their incomplete understanding of both history and science. Spouting words like “traditional marriage” but than not offering dowries, or acknowledging that women were chattel. enough to make a historian puke. Lets not even get started on “founded as a christian nation”

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

@borntoraisehogs true however I just dislike social cons and their incomplete understanding of both history and science. Spouting words like “traditional marriage” but than not offering dowries, or acknowledging that women were chattel. enough to make a historian puke. Lets not even get started on “founded as a christian nation” – Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

The downward spiral began when women were given the right to vote. sarc/

We need to get back to financial basics in this country. The growth of government is like a cancer upon the economy.

SC.Charlie on April 1, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Pete Sessions made clear on Hugh Hewitt’s show the other day that the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC are separate legal entities, and donating to the NRCC and NRSC will directly help candidates. He also said that the NRCC won’t take sides in primary contests, except in cases where there is a clear leader in the polls.

Ward Cleaver on April 1, 2010 at 2:36 PM

@borntoraisehogs true however I just dislike social cons and their incomplete understanding of both history and science. Spouting words like “traditional marriage” but than not offering dowries, or acknowledging that women were chattel. enough to make a historian puke. Lets not even get started on “founded as a christian nation”

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 2:02 PM

First of all, you’re not on Twitter so please stop with the ampersands!
Secondly, you’re the one who doesn’t understand history and science.
Traditional marriage in Western Civilization hasn’t involved dowries and women classified as “chattel” for hundreds of years!
You must be from Pakistan, India or some other cultural backwater!

And yes, America was founded by Christians on Judeo-Christian principles.
While we are not a “secular” country like post-Revolutionary France, we are a pluralistic society and our Founding Documents allow for Freedom of Religion.

Jenfidel on April 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM

This is so shortsighted. It really is. The guy was fired for heavens sakes. Stuff like this is going to happen. I just do not get it. The Democrats are pro life, pro gay marriage, pro gays in the military, the whole nine yards..and a lot of social conservatives do react to that as if these people were just beyond the pale…but they are willing to overlook all that and cut off the RNC over this? Obviously, they can’t be too bothered by Pelosi, Reid and Obama, if they would cut off their opposition over something like this.

Terrye on April 1, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I have got to use preview…I should have said the Democrats are

not

pro life.

Terrye on April 1, 2010 at 5:01 PM

@Jenfidel …no i like ampersands
second, dowries and the like were still quite common up until the early 1900′s though the tradition faded as the middle class no longer felt that they had to “sell” their daughters to get rid of them. Plus given that the majority of humans still stand by arranged marriages I wonder if you count the rest of the world as “human.”
Third I don’t see the founders fighting for christian principals as much as land and property rights, specially since christ taught pacifism and obedience to your government unless they were telling you to do something against god, which I don’t think the tea tax qualified as.
As for our political system it was modeled on the roman style of a republic, not a theocracy. While our morals and their morals are very different, I suspect you would be amazed how misogynistic they were and that money and suspicion were their primary motivators, not love of your lord (which was out of favor at the time for Deism anyway)

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 5:31 PM

If only…I’ll give the socons one thing – they’re a tenacious bunch!

Dark-Star on April 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

You mean conservatives.

And what bunch do you hang with? Are you a useful idiot to the left?

b1jetmech on April 1, 2010 at 5:34 PM

First of all, you’re not on Twitter so please stop with the ampersands!

Jenfidel on April 1, 2010 at 3:42 PM

@Jenfidel …no i like ampersands

Zekecorlain on April 1, 2010 at 5:31 PM

@ is not an ampersand — it’s an at sign.

& is an ampersand (shift-7 on most keyboards).

Mary in LA on April 1, 2010 at 8:52 PM

I haven’t read the comments around here for ages. Nice to see it really hasn’t changed too much.
I know some of you who aren’t social conservatives have a decided lack of respect for us, and that’s fine.
I refuse to give my vote or my money to candidates who don’t have the same values I do. I’m not going to vote for the lesser of two evils any more just because they have an R by their name.
Seeing some of your attitudes toward social conservatives has only served to strengthen my resolve not to compromise my values. :)

Jodella on April 1, 2010 at 10:34 PM

I have to say, the level of hatred by some “libertarians” in this thread towards conservatives (“fascists”, “loonie fundies”, etc.)make me a little suspicious that we might have some trolls from Daily Kos trying to saw as much discord as possible within the GOP.

neuquenguy on April 1, 2010 at 11:08 PM

Fracturing the party along pseudo-religious lines is not a winning strategy. The SoCons will say, “winning elections isn’t everything.” Sorry, but it’s about 90% of saving the country right now.
Good Lt on April 1, 2010 at 7:47 AM

I agree. Religion is important. I understand the SoCon’s desire to uphold and promote judeo-Christian values that made this country great.

But they do a poor job of selling that concept. One of my major beefs with SoCons is their intolerance of other religions. A good example is the way Mike Huckabee treated Mitt Romney and the many, not all, SoCons who refused to vote for a candidate because he was Mormon.

Major turn off. I suspect that there are many good Republican/conservative people who are Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, or some other faith and feel like the SoCons make it difficult for others to participate in the conservative movement.

Do NOT give money to the RNC, NRCC, or NRSC!!! Give instead to individual conservative candidates!

DCJeff on April 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

That’s why I donate money to individual politicians such as Meg Whitman or Mitt Romney’s PAC and Chuck DeVore.

Conservative Samizdat on April 2, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4