Jim DeMint to join boycott of CPAC by some socially conservative groups

posted at 7:09 pm on January 21, 2011 by Allahpundit

His spokesman doesn’t offer a specific reason, but it’s not hard to figure out why a guy who famously insisted that “you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative” might skip an event that now seems primed to test that theory.

Assuming that this makes attendance at CPAC the new RINO litmus test, what conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Ed will be there whereas I will not? Hmmmm.

“With leading conservatives organizations not participating this year, Senator DeMint will not be attending. He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said in an email.

If you missed Ed’s chat with David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union (which runs CPAC), about this year’s boycott, read it now. More than one justification has been offered by boycotters for staying away, but chiefly it’s a protest of the gay conservative group GOProud being included as a participating organization. What’s intriguing about this particular intraparty split is that it doesn’t fall neatly along traditional “true conservative”/RINO lines. For instance, not only is grassroots rock star Andrew Breitbart promising to throw a party for gay conservatives (“The first annual Roy Cohn CPAC Breitbart Homocon Welcoming 80′s Extravaganza”), he’s just joined GOProud’s advisory council. And plenty of big-name social cons are still planning to intend, among them Rick Santorum(!). So essentially, it looks like three things will come out of this: (1) More pointed jokes at DeMint’s expense by GOProud’s founder; (2) a campily fun theme party with DJ Breitbart at the turntable; and (3) some indirect hype for the Values Voter Summit (which, coincidentally, is organized by one of the boycotting groups, the Family Research Council) as the only conference that truly represents social conservatives. Good enough?

Update: A belated exit question. DeMint’s spokesman says he hopes for a “unified CPAC” next year. If GOProud wants to participate again and is excluded in order to please boycotting social cons, is CPAC “unified” under those circumstances?

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 5

Assuming that this makes attendance at CPAC the new RINO litmus test, what conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Ed will be there whereas I will not? Hmmmm.

Allahpundit hates gays!

rbj on January 21, 2011 at 7:13 PM

So, let’s kick this off right. True or false: Andrew Breitbart… RINO?

Patrick Ishmael on January 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM

When does Westboro Baptist Church announce they’re picketing CPAC?

It's Vintage, Duh on January 21, 2011 at 7:15 PM

So, let’s kick this off right. True or false: Andrew Breitbart… RINO?

Patrick Ishmael on January 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM

I thought maybe he was a little lite in his loafers.

Knucklehead on January 21, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Allah I think CPC has become irrelevant anyhow. That was proven last year by the scandals and the Birchers.

Boycotting CPAC over Teh Gheys though is as stupid as it gets. There is a significant number of gays who also consider themselves Conservatives.

Of course, most of em support Palin, so maybe these boycotters don’t care. Who knows.

Lot of reasons to blow CPAC off, but this ain’t one of them.

gary4205 on January 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I don’t care… about anybody in this story…

ninjapirate on January 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I’m a social con but I see no need to boycott CPAC over this. CPAC is a political convention not a religious one.

terryannonline on January 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM

priorities people

rob verdi on January 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM

priorities people

rob verdi on January 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I happen to think social issues are a priority….I just don’t this is the way to go about it.

terryannonline on January 21, 2011 at 7:22 PM

I’m a social con but I see no need to boycott CPAC over this. CPAC is a political convention not a religious one.

terryannonline on January 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Bingo.

The Ugly American on January 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Stupid.

I oppose gay marriage as much as the next guy. But what’s the point of this? DeMint’s absence will be drowned out by the presence of social cons like Santorum and Rubio.

Like I said, I oppose gay marriage — and you guys know I opposed DADT repeal. But boycotting CPAC because one of the many, many groups there consists of teh gays is dumb.

amerpundit on January 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM

It is one thing to have a traditionalist stance on gay issues, but a boycott of gay people? That’s not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Raisedbywolves on January 21, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Stupid.

I oppose gay marriage as much as the next guy. But what’s the point of this? DeMint’s absence will be drowned out by the presence of social cons like Santorum and Rubio.

Like I said, I oppose gay marriage — and you guys know I opposed DADT repeal. But boycotting CPAC because one of the many, many groups there consists of teh gays is dumb.

amerpundit on January 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Cheers. Obviously I support gay marriage and DADT repeal, as GOProud does, but you are absolutely correct.

Not to mention those are only two issue in which most conservatives would argue with GOProud over. They’re not at odds with almost any other issue.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Boycotting CPAC like this is pure foolishness. I’m disappointed in DeMint – I expect better from him than this.

Inkblots on January 21, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Screaming for relevance or something? Virtually everything Demint does assures he will never be POTUS. I could do without a group having to be recognized by their sexual orientation, however I do support anybody’s right to live as they choose as long as it is not harming others.

Southernblogger on January 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I hope Palin shows up. This would keep everybody guessing about her, especially if she happens to crash Breitbarts party. She would secure every GOP gay vote in the country.
heh.

Amadeus on January 21, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Inkblots on January 21, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I agree!..

Dire Straits on January 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Assuming that this makes attendance at CPAC the new RINO litmus test, what conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Ed will be there whereas I will not? Hmmmm.

The Kos Convention is held the same day?

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Get Christianity out of politics and into private life.

Between Reverend Al Sharpton and the right wingnut Christian nanny state born agains, it’s Crazy Town.

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Relevance. You don’t have it, DeMint.

Free Constitution on January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

The Kos Convention is held the same day?

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM

AP will actually be attending “SquishyPAC”

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Stupid.

I oppose gay marriage as much as the next guy. But what’s the point of this? DeMint’s absence will be drowned out by the presence of social cons like Santorum and Rubio.

Like I said, I oppose gay marriage — and you guys know I opposed DADT repeal. But boycotting CPAC because one of the many, many groups there consists of teh gays is dumb.

amerpundit on January 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM

I’d like to add to that, but I can’t. You nailed it.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Boycotting CPAC over Teh Gheys though is as stupid as it gets. There is a significant number of gays who also consider themselves Conservatives.

Of course, most of em support Palin, so maybe these boycotters don’t care. Who knows.

Lot of reasons to blow CPAC off, but this ain’t one of them.

gary4205 on January 21, 2011 at 7:17 PM

There are many gay conservatives working hard to defeat the Dems.

This is really stupid since there are many gay Conservatives working hard to defeat the Dems. I love Tammy Bruce & Rush gave another shout-out to Hillbuzz.org. which is a great website, run by some gay guys that are working hard to defeat the Dems.

Hillbuzz & Andrew Breitbart have been doing some great reporting on the Pigford farmer scandal.

redridinghood on January 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM

OMG Jim DeMint is not attending???!!!!!?????

(whatever)

HawaiiLwyr on January 21, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I believe in blowing up the party because we need to ensure Obamas re-election so he can nominate another ultra leftist who would put another nail in the coffin iin the effort over turn Roe V Wade?

is that how this logic works?

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 7:40 PM

This makes me like DeMint more.

JannyMae on January 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Senator DeMint will not be attending. He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said in an email

Like that’s going to happen. I don’t suppose he’ll be missed terribly but it’s still very childish behavior.

jeanie on January 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Mitch Daniels should rip him a new one, and then announce his run.

/wishful thinking

Free Constitution on January 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM

I don’t care… about anybody in this story…

Actually, as time goes on I’m starting to agree more with the ‘boycotters’…

ninjapirate on January 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM

“you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative”

I used to like JD, and then he said that. Dopey. Not going to CPAC is also dopey. I wish he’s pull his head out of his —.

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Get Christianity out of politics and into private life.

Between Reverend Al Sharpton and the right wingnut Christian nanny state born agains, it’s Crazy Town.

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM

You misunderstand. They’re trying to keep incompatible politics out of their Christianity. Politics is not their most important association. They’re just choosing to not go where they won’t fit in.

RBMN on January 21, 2011 at 7:45 PM

I used to like JD, and then he said that. Dopey. Not going to CPAC is also dopey. I wish he’s pull his head out of his —.

He’s right, if you’re not social conservative then you’re not conservative period…

ninjapirate on January 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Relevance. You don’t have it, DeMint.

Free Constitution on January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Less & less so, it would seem. And oddly enough by his own design.

He’s perfectly free to bite off his nose to spite his face, of course. No law against that.

He should know, however, that politicians without noses really don’t poll very well.

leilani on January 21, 2011 at 7:49 PM

This argument is perpetual. Politics is by definition a set of moral arguments. Economics, defense, education, law, etc., are all moral arguments. It’s just that some folks don’t want us arguing over their homosexual behavior for some reason.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Assuming that this makes attendance at CPAC the new RINO litmus test, what conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Ed will be there whereas I will not? Hmmmm.

Because Ed’s a “Basket Case Conservative” and you’re just a basket case.

I keed. I keed.

Heart both of you. Most of the time.

I keed. I keed.

Branch Rickey on January 21, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Good for Andrew Breitbart. I guess I am more RINOey than I thought. What the hell is there to gain by boycotting this. I just found out that Huck is against contraception and now this. My head is spinning.

amerpundit on January 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM

BINGO.

redridinghood on January 21, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Yes Rush gave two HUGE shouts out to HillBuzz today. And that wasn’t the first time he has done that. Those guys are kickin some LeftWing azz on a daily basis. They know how to do it cause they were Dems at one time so they know all the tricks.

Geochelone on January 21, 2011 at 7:56 PM

The groups boycotting CPAC are interesting. Why would MRC boycott? The Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America, etc. are great allies in the conservative movement. If it’s just about teh gays and it’s only because of religion why not realize that teh gays that are conservative are not going to work against conservatives? Maybe they just need to find God? For some reason this whole boycott thing hurts my heart. The stupid hurts. Let’s work together to stop the strategic ruin of our country, even if we don’t have the same favorite color or march in lock-step on every issue. The stakes are high, people.

NTWR on January 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

It is one thing to have a traditionalist stance on gay issues, but a boycott of gay people? That’s not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Raisedbywolves on January 21, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Walking the walk on “free association” isn’t conservative? That’s new.

Branch Rickey on January 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Get Christianity out of politics and into private life.

Between Reverend Al Sharpton and the right wingnut Christian nanny state born agains, it’s Crazy Town.

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Absolutely. I’m at mass every Sunday, say my prayers, etc. But I do not need the govt, or any representative thereof, using religion…any religion…as a means of “governing”. Religion is for your soul. Politics is for your mind.

“We the People…” doesn’t say “We the Christians…”

He’s right, if you’re not social conservative then you’re not conservative period…

ninjapirate on January 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM

So even tho I’m Christian, am pro-life, anti-fetal stem cell research, for limited welfare…but hey, I’m pro-gay marriage OH NOES I’m not a conservative…?

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM

I hope Palin shows up. This would keep everybody guessing about her, especially if she happens to crash Breitbarts party. She would secure every GOP gay vote in the country.
heh.

Amadeus on January 21, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Hooray! Pick up 1,500 votes and lose 9 states – grrrrrrrrrrrreat strategy.

Pffffffft.

Branch Rickey on January 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

And I’m still a bit shocked about the Heritage Foundation boycott of CPAC this year. That’s a head-scratcher.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

BREAKING
everyday conservatives don’t give two sh*ts about CPAC.

james23 on January 21, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I hope more people boycott the gay festivities.

As for social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, DeMint is right on that as far a societal issue. When society is allowed to be progressive socially, there is no chance that the Majority of that society will remain capable of being fiscally conservative. Individuals can accomplish this, society cannot.

Just look at how our society is today compared to the 1950s. Less socially conservative, more fiscally progressive. 1960s, 70s, only in the 80′s did the direction get turned around for a bit, but then we went into the 90s and the 00s. Anyone think that the country today, being socially more progressive than at any point in the last 70 years is even remotely more fiscally conservative than any point in the last 70 years?

astonerii on January 21, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Good for Jim DeMint. Keep this up, and he’ll get my vote if he runs for president in the primaries (if he runs)

jamarkennedy on January 21, 2011 at 8:03 PM

I hope Palin shows up. This would keep everybody guessing about her, especially if she happens to crash Breitbarts party. She would secure every GOP gay vote in the country.
heh.

Amadeus on January 21, 2011 at 7:32 PM

I don’t know about EVERY gay vote…GOProud has defended her, and when that nonsense came out a little while back about Willow (?) and some supposed anti-gay stuff on Facebook, they dismissed it (as did I) as what it was…simple nonsense not to get riled about.

And I for one know that Palin is not anti-gay. It would be awesome if she came to Breitbart’s bash. Coulter was awesome at GOProud’s confab. And to just think what the lefty pundits and MSM would have to say about it…the possibilities!

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM

And I’m still a bit shocked about the Heritage Foundation boycott of CPAC this year. That’s a head-scratcher.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

And celebrations of gay sex are what part of our American Heritage? We’re not all ready to throw the Bible out yet.

RBMN on January 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

And I’m still a bit shocked about the Heritage Foundation boycott of CPAC this year. That’s a head-scratcher.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

And celebrations of gay sex are what part of our American Heritage? We’re not all ready to throw the Bible out yet.

RBMN on January 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

+1000

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

(1) More pointed jokes at DeMint’s expense by GOProud’s founder

And for the record, Pizzaria Paradiso is the best pie in DC. Ate there many a times…always at least a 45 minute wait for a table, but worth it!

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Since politics lead to laws and laws affect our lives telling religious people to keep their beliefs out of politics is ridiculous.

Rose on January 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM

And celebrations of gay sex are what part of our American Heritage? We’re not all ready to throw the Bible out yet.

RBMN on January 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Dingbats like you are the ones always bringing up “gay sex” simply reading or hearing the word “gay”.

And btw my Bible is right on my nightstand. Haven’t tossed it out.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Assuming that this makes attendance at CPAC the new RINO litmus test, what conclusion are we to draw from the fact that Ed will be there whereas I will not? Hmmmm.

Maybe you should get out of Manhattan once or twice to experience some of those toothless, Palin supporting ‘necks in flyover country.You know, just for research.Kind of like Margaret Mead.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Claiming you are a Christian and for gay marriage means you are lying to yourself and God. To accept that homosexuality is okay in any form or fashion is to deny God’s word.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I hope more people boycott the gay festivities.

As for social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, DeMint is right on that as far a societal issue. When society is allowed to be progressive socially, there is no chance that the Majority of that society will remain capable of being fiscally conservative. Individuals can accomplish this, society cannot.

Just look at how our society is today compared to the 1950s. Less socially conservative, more fiscally progressive. 1960s, 70s, only in the 80′s did the direction get turned around for a bit, but then we went into the 90s and the 00s. Anyone think that the country today, being socially more progressive than at any point in the last 70 years is even remotely more fiscally conservative than any point in the last 70 years?

astonerii on January 21, 2011 at 8:02 PM

CPAC 2011 is a “gay festivity” because a small minority of gay Republicans will attend? Huh?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM

And celebrations of gay sex are what part of our American Heritage? We’re not all ready to throw the Bible out yet.

RBMN on January 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Dingbats like you are the ones always bringing up “gay sex” simply reading or hearing the word “gay”.

And btw my Bible is right on my nightstand. Haven’t tossed it out.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Explain Romans 1.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM

AP will actually be attending “SquishyPAC”

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

LOL…..

The Ugly American on January 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And btw my Bible is right on my nightstand. Haven’t tossed it out.
JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Probably in the fashion of W.C. Fields on why he was seen reading the Bible one time:
“Looking for loopholes.”

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Claiming you are a Christian and for gay marriage means you are lying to yourself and God. To accept that homosexuality is okay in any form or fashion is to deny God’s word.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I am not talking of gay marriage within the Church. Only the State. And I’ll let God decide if I am “lying” or not, OK?

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Since Palin is not a speaker, why go?

huckleberryfriend on January 21, 2011 at 8:14 PM

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I am not talking of gay marriage within the Church. Only the State. And I’ll let God decide if I am “lying” or not, OK?

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:14 PM

So murder within the church is bad, but for the public at large, it’s okay?

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Claiming you are a Christian and for gay marriage means you are lying to yourself and God. To accept that homosexuality is okay in any form or fashion is to deny God’s word.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Since God’s views radically evolved from a bad-ass kill the women and children Old Testament demeanor to the “love your enemy”/”turn the other” cheek pacifist attitude, whose to say the big guy doesn’t give a rat’s — if two consenting adults would like the same legal status as hetros?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Explain Romans 1.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM

I assume you’re talking of Romans 1:26 specifically here…for whatever reason, as this has little to do with the topic.

It describes sinful acts of “lustful sex”…sex for sex’s and lust’s sake, it’s not any condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself. I take it you are not Catholic (I could be wrong) and no offense to Protestantism’s many sects, but I go by my Church on matters of faith and biblical interpretation (as any Catholic does) and none other.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Since God’s views radically evolved from a bad-ass kill the women and children Old Testament demeanor to the “love your enemy”/”turn the other” cheek pacifist attitude, whose to say the big guy doesn’t give a rat’s — if two consenting adults would like the same legal status as hetros?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:17 PM

- The Bible. Doubt He would be for a union based on having sex the wrong way if He is against that practice in of itself.

jamarkennedy on January 21, 2011 at 8:21 PM

As a gay South Carolinian, I have to wonder if Senators Jim DeMint, the gay-hater, and Linday, Gay-rumor, Graham even talk to each other. DeMint doesn’t even believe that gay teachers should be allowed to teach in public schools.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Claiming you are a Christian and for gay marriage means you are lying to yourself and God. To accept that homosexuality is okay in any form or fashion is to deny God’s word.

Which is why “true Christians” will continue to lose the culture wars.

When one group (Christians) feels they are so superior to the immoral riff raff non-Christians (who are all going to burn in hell in any case) that they refuse to associate with them, how is that compatible in the political arena? How does that translate into effective coalition building?

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Since God’s views radically evolved from a bad-ass kill the women and children Old Testament demeanor to the “love your enemy”/”turn the other” cheek pacifist attitude, whose to say the big guy doesn’t give a rat’s — if two consenting adults would like the same legal status as hetros?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:17 PM

God’s views did not change. He is still very much bad-ass when necessary. The New Testament records his striking down a husband and wife who claimed to give more for needy brethren than they actually did. And the old testament is loaded with accounts of God’s mercy. All you have to do is read it. It’s all there.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

is to deny God’s word.

Which is why “true Christians” will continue to lose the culture wars.

When one group (Christians) feels they are so superior to the immoral riff raff non-Christians (who are all going to burn in hell in any case) that they refuse to associate with them, how is that compatible in the political arena? How does that translate into effective coalition building?

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Hey, Christians have to live in this world, too. Might as well try to make it a better one. Besides, fiscal conservatism, free markets, and the bible are perfectly compatible.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:26 PM

For the posters, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint are both South Carolina Senators.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

- The Bible. Doubt He would be for a union based on having sex the wrong way if He is against that practice in of itself.

jamarkennedy on January 21, 2011 at 8:21 PM

God was for hacking to pieces innocent women and children with swords before he was against it. That seems more of a departure than acceptance or ambivalence on gay marriage.

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Hey, Christians have to live in this world, too. Might as well try to make it a better one. Besides, fiscal conservatism, free markets, and the bible are perfectly compatible.

Sure, but winning elections requires associating with groups you may not be in total sync with. by DeMint not showing up because teh Gheys are around is politically suicidal stuff.

No win. No advance of conservative politics.

rickyricardo on January 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

God’s views did not change. He is still very much bad-ass when necessary. The New Testament records his striking down a husband and wife who claimed to give more for needy brethren than they actually did. And the old testament is loaded with accounts of God’s mercy. All you have to do is read it. It’s all there.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Jesus thought it would be cool to stab women and children and plunder their cities?

The Romans were cruel conquerors and Judea was under their bloody boot. You’d think if Jesus was a bad-ass, he’d tell his followers to fight, but instead, he told them to love the Romans and turn the other cheek. The OT and NT don’t mix well.

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:31 PM

God was for hacking to pieces innocent women and children with swords before he was against it. That seems more of a departure than acceptance or ambivalence on gay marriage.

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

And your interpretation pertains to why He does not support incorrect sex-based marriage … how?

jamarkennedy on January 21, 2011 at 8:32 PM

I guess Jim DeMint saw the news today about Bachmann and realized that he wasn’t attention whoring enough himself.

Another stupid move by a man who’s increasingly buying into his own (overinflated) hype.

Vyce on January 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Someone tell me when DeMint condemns divorce, adultery and abortion to the same degree. Divorce, adultery and abortion are choices, being gay is not a choice.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Update: A belated exit question. DeMint’s spokesman says he hopes for a “unified CPAC” next year. If GOProud wants to participate again and is excluded in order to please boycotting social cons, is CPAC “unified” under those circumstances?

Rhetorical question, I know, but OF COURSE NOT.

I really do believe DeMint is an absolute bigot towards homosexuals. And no one give me that cutesy horsesh!t about how the pro-gay-rights folks, like me, accuse anyone who doesn’t embrace the queer nation with open arms as a bigot, because that isn’t even remotely true (the far-left does that, but the socially moderate wing of the conservative party does not, and neither does groups like GOProud).

For DeMint, I believe, the charge is appropriate and justified. Way too much crap in his background where he’s just blatantly insensitive or downright discriminatory towards homosexuals. Add this as one more example to the evidence file.

Vyce on January 21, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Disappointing.

Murf76 on January 21, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Absolutely. I’m at mass every Sunday, say my prayers, etc. But I do not need the govt, or any representative thereof, using religion…any religion…as a means of “governing”. Religion is for your soul. Politics is for your mind. …

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Oh, JetBoy, why are you still embracing your heresy? :( You can not ‘do’ religion just at Mass and embrace anti-Catholic politics and still claim to be in communion with Christ’s Church. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Please, JetBoy. We all have our crosses, and we are all sinners, but to deny that your sin is a sin is heresy and really dangerous for your soul, and for those who might be swayed by the scandal.

Please watch this video. It is a beautiful statement on the cross of homosexual attraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

pannw on January 21, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Someone tell me when DeMint condemns divorce, adultery and abortion to the same degree. Divorce, adultery and abortion are choices, being gay is not a choice.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Good luck convincing the social cons of THAT one. That would force them to contemplate the possibility that – gasp! – God MADE homosexuals the way that they are. Which would only prove one of two things: God isn’t infallible (impossible under the Christian faith), or that discriminating against gays isn’t moral or acceptable (which would mean, the social cons got a lot of explaining to do).

Vyce on January 21, 2011 at 8:41 PM

She would secure every GOP gay vote in the country.
heh.

Amadeus

And still lose in a landslide.

xblade on January 21, 2011 at 8:41 PM

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Jesus thought it would be cool to stab women and children and plunder their cities?

The Romans were cruel conquerors and Judea was under their bloody boot. You’d think if Jesus was a bad-ass, he’d tell his followers to fight, but instead, he told them to love the Romans and turn the other cheek. The OT and NT don’t mix well.

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:31 PM

And the first time Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he told them to take their swords with them. God is a God of mercy and justice. It makes no sense to be all one or the other. Kinda like I am a parent of mercy and justice. The OT and NT mix perfectly. Read Galations. The OT is the schoolmaster that leads to the NT (Christianity)

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:42 PM

being gay is not a choice.

SC.Charlie

You should release your scientific evidence proving this. You could become a multi-millionaire.

xblade on January 21, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Vyce, their response is to say that if you have are have a homosexual orientation you are supposed to stay celibate and in the closet. In short, shut up. We don’t really care about you.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Vyce, their response is to say that if you have are have a homosexual orientation you are supposed to stay celibate and in the closet. In short, shut up. We don’t really care about you.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:47 PM

No. We care, we just aren’t going to excuse your sin. Just like I’m sure you don’t excuse the sin of taxing the public until they can no longer prosper.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:50 PM

You should release your scientific evidence proving this. You could become a multi-millionaire. – xblade on January 21, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Oh, yes, I chose to be gay. Just to be different. And, to be the target of idiots like DeMint./sarc

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:52 PM

No. We care, we just aren’t going to excuse your sin. Just like I’m sure you don’t excuse the sin of taxing the public until they can no longer prosper. – pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Wrong. The sin of overspending by governments is a choice being homosexual, whether celibate or not, is not a choice.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

You should release your scientific evidence proving this. You could become a multi-millionaire.

xblade on January 21, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Do you choose to become aroused by hot chicks? Now let’s turn that coin around. It’s the same way with gays, and there are plenty of studies that agree with this, but since people are so complicated, it’s kinda hard to definitively prove.

Do you have any gay family or friends? Have you ever talked about sexuality with them?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Wrong. The sin of overspending by governments is a choice being homosexual, whether celibate or not, is not a choice.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

then neither is pedophilia. shouldn’t they have the same special rights as gays?

right4life on January 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Sigh.

Fail.

Good Lt on January 21, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Good luck convincing the social cons of THAT one. That would force them to contemplate the possibility that – gasp! – God MADE homosexuals the way that they are. Which would only prove one of two things: God isn’t infallible (impossible under the Christian faith), or that discriminating against gays isn’t moral or acceptable (which would mean, the social cons got a lot of explaining to do).

Vyce on January 21, 2011 at 8:41 PM

do you think God made pedophiles too? oh and gays aren’t discriminated against…they are far more equal than heterosexuals.

right4life on January 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Any group that’s agaenda is to get rid of marriage as a union between one man one woman does not have my support. Good for those that will not go to cpac.

Bullhead on January 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Sigh.

Fail.

Good Lt on January 21, 2011 at 8:57 PM

uh huh well lets hear your reasoning then. or is that beyond you?

right4life on January 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Please, JetBoy. We all have our crosses, and we are all sinners, but to deny that your sin is a sin is heresy and really dangerous for your soul, and for those who might be swayed by the scandal.

Please watch this video. It is a beautiful statement on the cross of homosexual attraction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

pannw on January 21, 2011 at 8:40 PM

If you’re not a gimmick, you might be the biggest @sshole concern troll I’ve seen here yet.

Vyce on January 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM

oh and the heritage foundation and the media research center aren’t coming to CPAC either….more proof CPAC is a bunch of rinos.

oh the wackos at lgf call heritage a ‘the far-right creationist climate change denial organization’

they gotta be doing something right.

right4life on January 21, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Any group that’s agaenda is to get rid of marriage as a union between one man one woman does not have my support. Good for those that will not go to cpac. – Bullhead on January 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I guess that you support Al Queda? I am gay and don’t support any change in the marriage laws.

SC.Charlie on January 21, 2011 at 9:02 PM

So who is the bigger sinner the guy that cheats on his wife and commits adultery, the couple that is having sex, but not married or the gay person living a gay lifestyle?

redridinghood on January 21, 2011 at 9:02 PM

You should release your scientific evidence proving this. You could become a multi-millionaire.

xblade on January 21, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Do you choose to become aroused by hot chicks? Now let’s turn that coin around. It’s the same way with gays, and there are plenty of studies that agree with this, but since people are so complicated, it’s kinda hard to definitively prove.

Do you have any gay family or friends? Have you ever talked about sexuality with them?

toliver on January 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

To easy. Is it possible that some folks are born with a predisposition to a bad temper? Do they not need to control their temper? As to the gay friend, question, I watched one die of AIDS in the late Nineties. I never excused his sin and nearing the end of his life, neither did he.

Being Christian is the exact opposite of hating homosexuals. It’s just that we don’t gloss over our own sin (shouldn’t anyway) why gloss over any sin?

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 9:03 PM

It describes sinful acts of “lustful sex”…sex for sex’s and lust’s sake, it’s not any condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself. I take it you are not Catholic (I could be wrong) and no offense to Protestantism’s many sects, but I go by my Church on matters of faith and biblical interpretation (as any Catholic does) and none other.

JetBoy on January 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

*blink*

Okay, I can’t let that stand unchallenged. You are implying that you accept what the Church teaches and then claim you can support and engage in Homosexual practice? Really, JetBoy, that is too much. …woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. Please stop.

To be very clear for anyone who may be scandalized by JetBoy’s posts, this is what the Church teaches.

Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

pannw on January 21, 2011 at 9:03 PM

All three are the same. None of those behaviors should be approved or supported.

Rose on January 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM

errr Too easy.

pugwriter on January 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5