GOP: The Gay Old Party?

posted at 2:15 pm on February 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

With CPAC 2011 almost upon us, plenty of discussion has taken place over who will or won’t be attending. CPAC is something of a litmus test in the conservative community, particularly when we are gearing up for a presidential election. Since one bone of contention – at least for some – has been the inclusion of GOProud as a sponsor, Liz Mair composed a rather thoughtful analysis of the best fit for gays and lesbians in the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general.

The entire essay is worthwhile, but it boils down to a couple of key points. The first deals with the fallacy that gay voters are some sort of homogenous group which only cares about – as Liz terms it – “the gay stuff.”

Let’s just get it out there: A lot of people think gays and lesbians are naturally and should be liberal/Democrats because—wait for it—gay people only or mainly care about what I shorthand term “gay stuff.” You know, gay marriage, gay adoption, and so on and so forth. And then, just as you have within the straight population, there are people who think marriage is nice, and want gay relationships recognized but also think hey, you know what’s equally or more important? Killing terrorists, stopping ill-conceived policy like Obamacare, and not being spent-and-taxed to death.

Yes, it’s true: A lot of gays and lesbians do have concerns about the continued existence of the estate tax; concerns about the threat and potential spread of Islamic fundamentalism; concerns about the negative effects of Obamacare; concerns about our screwed up tax system, which takes too much money out of people’s pockets. You know what you typically call people with those kinds of concerns, no matter whether they are attracted to guys or girls and have boobies or not? You call them Republicans, conservatives, center-right, right-leaning libertarians, or some variation thereof.

The second part is a bit more tricky, and raises the question of whether or not the Democrats truly are more supportive of “the gay stuff” aforementioned, and precisely how out of line the GOP is. Liz points out that the positions of Barack Obama and George W. Bush on the gay marriage question were virtually identical. She also provides some background on the voting records of some big bad conservatives – along with several prominent Democrats – where votes on “the gay stuff” are concerned and delivers more than a few facts which may come as a surprise to some readers.

For me, trying to lump any group into one party or the other seems a futile effort. I’m reminded of a woman who contacted me during our last election, and still stays in touch with me to this day. She had seen my candidate at a press conference and though she was a Democrat, being very concerned over skyrocketing unemployment and debt, was impressed. But she closed her initial note to me with a disturbing comment.

Please, please, please tell me he’s pro-choice.”

It wasn’t an unreasonable question since we have a lot of pro-choice Republicans in the Northeast, but it was not the case with my guy. Being in New York, I kept my pro-life Republican candidate from discussing abortion any more than was absolutely necessary. But I was forced to admit to her that he opposed the procedure. This led to a lengthy discussion where I explained that the vote of a single member of the House on such matters probably wouldn’t be a significant factor in the long term since any legislation proposed along those lines would probably wind up being tossed to the judicial branch anyway.

In the end, she informed me that she had indeed voted for my candidate, but noted that our discussion would prompt her to keep voting for Democratic presidents in the future so they nominate Supreme Court justices. I considered it a win, since she had previously voted a straight Democratic ticket anyway.

The point here, similar to what Liz Mair has demonstrated, is that there is certainly room in the conservative movement – and the Republican Party – for voters who agree with a broad swath of other principles even if they disagree with what we might assume are their “single voter” key issues.

Welcome to CPAC. The tent is looking a little bit bigger, and it’s hard to argue that this is a bad thing.


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

That’s right. Those who are splitting us apart need to leave.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:10 PM

don’t worry, we’ve left cpac…didn’t you notice?

and we won’t be voting for your kind of candidates either..people like castle for example.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Polynath on February 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM

OK, if I had my way, the rainbow would be all yours :-)

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:14 PM

No,just you.And clean up after your hgh horse on the way out.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM

why don’t you leave? we win just fine without you, as the last election showed…as reagan showed.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

So what you’re saying is, Jazz, that “teh gheyz” are…..pretty much just like anyone else (except of course, more fabulous)? That they too are concerned with the fiscal direction of this country?

Heresy. We all know that queers only care about pushing their neo-Marxist liberal agenda, when not engaging in gay orgies in the troop barracks shower rooms of course.

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Okay, here’s a palate cleanser.
A story, if you will.

CPAC 2008.

I went to DC with my fellow College Republicans. We arrived at night. The second evening, I went out of my room, only to meet a group of girls in the elevator. They asked me to go to the hotel bar with them.

I said “hey, why not?” Turned out, they weren’t 21. Ugh. So we went across the street to the Irish pub.

This one girl I was speaking to sat down and asked “Can you get me a drink?”

Being the young, stupid, wimpy 21 year old I was, I replied “sure.”

Upon arriving at the bar, I realized the error of my ways. I said to myself, “Holy shi’ite, I’ve known this girl for all of 5 minutes and shes asking me for drinks.” I got a pint, walked outside, finished it, and left.

I was living with three other guys in the room for the duration of the event (two guys to a small azz bed). So around 1 AM, I come back to my room, and lo and behold, there is the girl I met earlier, sitting on my side of the bed, with the guy I was living with!

They left, and came back later hammered. I said I wanted them to go ’cause I had to get up for events in the AM. She hit the bathroom, and then they left.

The next morning, I go to shower (I’m the only person to enter the bathroom since she did), and my jaw dropped. VOMIT EVERYWHERE.

In the sink, behind the toilet, on top of the toilet, in the shower, all over the towels, on the floor.

On the mirror, on the door. Everywhere.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Heresy. We all know that queers only care about pushing their neo-Marxist liberal agenda, when not engaging in gay orgies in the troop barracks shower rooms of course.

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Plus, they eat puppies and hate apple pie.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Is that a royal WE?

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:17 PM

On the mirror, on the door. Everywhere.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM

It was then that you realized it was true love :-)

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Turned out, they weren’t 21

20, to be exact. No one get the wrong idea, aight?

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Plus, they eat puppies and hate apple pie.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM

You should see what they do to kittens! Shudder…

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:17 PM

its not the we as in the voices in your head…

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

If it wasn’t about the gay agenda then they’d leave their perversions at home where they belong. I don’t care what consenting adults do at home. The name GoProud itself is proof that the driving force behind gays hijacking CPAC and the Republican Party is the gay agenda.

The author of the article is deceived.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Hey Slick, Reagan used you religious types or didn’t you notice Sure he made happy speeches which included the kind of stuff you like to hear but he didn’t push any of your agenda. Part of his genius was in not giving in to the divisive social agenda. He knew that when you dine with devil you should being a long spoon. If only his successors in the GOP were as wise.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

But I was forced to admit to her that he opposed the procedure.

I’d much rather bring all the gays and lesbians in the country into the GOP tent than have even one person who calls abortion a “procedure.” Or how is reluctant to admit a candidate’s record of protecting the 14th Amendment rights of unborn citizens.

Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Hey Slick, Reagan used you religious types or didn’t you notice Sure he made happy speeches which included the kind of stuff you like to hear but he didn’t push any of your agenda. Part of his genius was in not giving in to the divisive social agenda. He knew that when you dine with devil you should being a long spoon. If only his successors in the GOP were as wise.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

hey gomer, he was one of us, a dreaded social conservative…I’d tell you to get a clue, but you don’t seem capable.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

It was then that you realized it was true love :-)

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM

I was soooo mad. SO MAD.
EVER USE A TOWEL WITH PUKE ON IT?

lolool

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I strongly doubt the existance of gay activist conservatives.
katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Hi.

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Heresy. We all know that queers only care about pushing their neo-Marxist liberal agenda, when not engaging in gay orgies in the troop barracks shower rooms of course.

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Jon Stewart already spilled the beans on what this gay agenda is (I think my copy is still in the mail somewhere because this is news to me):

On an episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart defined the gay agenda as “gay marriage, civil rights protection, Fleet Week expanded to Fleet Year, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance for when it’s raining men, Kathy Griffin to host everything and a nationwide ban on pleated pants.”

mmnowakjr85 on February 3, 2011 at 3:22 PM

“Hi.”

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Proves my point.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Jeeeeez. Forgettaboutit. Maybe there should be a post about pro-religious Conservatives and not-so-religious Conservatives being able to get along (and that doesn’t mean agreeing on everything). I see the religious Cons are always picked on. Forgettaboutit.

Same difference.

Gob on February 3, 2011 at 3:22 PM

its not the we as in the voices in your head…

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Tsk, tsk. There you go again.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Tsk, tsk. There you go again.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM

is that you sybil?

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

It is this sort of timidity that has gotten us into the mess we’re in. Telling “your candidate” that they should refrain from discussing their pro-life principles is candy-assed and shameful. Some things are more important than winning in the short term and short term compromise nets long term disappointment. Sorry Jazz, but people like you are the problem.

And your candidate should have told you to kiss off.

pugwriter on February 3, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Indeed.

It’s called leadership.

Leadership is unfortunately as rare among Republicans as it is among Democrats.

Leaders lead. They lead on principle.

Period.

I’m not even sure what you call someone like the candidate described here – or his adviser that cringes at the thought of standing on principle.

But it sure ain’t leadership. I think its called politics. And now you know why most Americans don’t bother to vote.

People vote for leaders. Not politicians.

Barf.

You know, I’ve given Palinistas a lot of crap for their cult of personality worship of Sarah. But I will say one thing in her defense, and it makes up for a lot of her flaws: she is a leader. Period.

Jesus wept.

Professor Blather on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Hi.

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Thekey word was conservative.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM

hey gomer, he was one of us, a dreaded social conservative…I’d tell you to get a clue, but you don’t seem capable.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

LOL! You really think so? Name one of your precious social causes that he championed? Did he push for any laws regarding “that medical procedure?” Nope. Did he push for any laws regarding prayer in school or gay marriage or any of the other social issues you keep wanking on about? Nope. He worked on improving our economy, keeping us safe and mouthing platitudes to you religious types to keep you satisfied. You’re too stupid to know when you’ve been played, even decades after the fact.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I’ll stand side by side with 100 Homosexual Fiscal Conservatives over ONE Heterosexual RINO Big Budget Republican.

portlandon on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

LOL! You really think so? Name one of your precious social causes that he championed? Did he push for any laws regarding “that medical procedure?” Nope. Did he push for any laws regarding prayer in school or gay marriage or any of the other social issues you keep wanking on about? Nope. He worked on improving our economy, keeping us safe and mouthing platitudes to you religious types to keep you satisfied. You’re too stupid to know when you’ve been played, even decades after the fact.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Reagan would be considered a RINO candyass if he were in the running today.

Pro-amnesty, pro-coalition-building, a pragmatist, crossed the aisle from time to time to get what he wanted, wanted to make the tent bigger, no “purity tests,” etc.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:28 PM

pugwriter on February 3, 2011 at 2:27 PM

So let me get this straight…conservatives would be better served by this pro-life Republican candidate losing, so long as he went down shouting about being pro-life to a bunch of pro-choicers? As opposed to being in a position of power and voting on things as a pro-life Republican votes?
Winning campaigns have a message. There are things Jim DeMint avoids talking about. There are things Sarah Palin avoids talking about. There are things Steve King avoids talking about. They avoid talking about them because those things fall into the “off-message” category and candidates who spend a lot of time talking about the off-message stuff lose.
If you’ve got an issue with that, take it up with the electorate.

galenrox on February 3, 2011 at 3:29 PM

GOProud knows that if they can beat down conservatives and force them to accept their perverted lifestyles, they’ve got it made. That’s what its involvement with CPAC is all about…nothing more.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I’ll stand side by side with 100 Homosexual Fiscal Conservatives over ONE Heterosexual RINO Big Budget Republican.

portlandon on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I’ll be right there with ya.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:31 PM

I’ll stand side by side with 100 Homosexual Fiscal Conservatives over ONE Heterosexual RINO Big Budget Republican.

portlandon on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I doubt there are a handful of Republicans who wouldn’t. But the article is deceiving in that it tries to paint GOProud as not wanting to further it’s gay agenda. The whole point of them hi-jacking CPAC is the gay agenda.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:28 PM

In fact you can look at the ’76 convention for evidence that the same was true even then:

Reagan had promised, if nominated, to name Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his running mate, in a bid to attract liberals and centrists in the party. This move backfired, however, as many conservatives (such as Senator Jesse Helms) were infuriated by Reagan’s choice of the “liberal” Schweiker, while few moderate delegates switched to Reagan. Helms promptly began a movement to draft Conservative Senator James L. Buckley of New York as the presidential nominee.

Wikipedia

The religious righteous vote hated RR!

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM

So what if they disagree with you on a social issue. You’re not going to grow the tent with 100% purity.
That’s a great way to narrow the party and thin its ranks, though, and if that’s your goal, then carry on.
Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:03 PM

To paraphrase someone here, I’m beginning to think that’s the plan…

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:35 PM

It’s interesting to see which posters have decided that conservatives should only worry about fiscal issues and shut up about social issues either because they want to attract those oh-so-desirerable Independents who might be turned off by all the abortion/gay marriage/illegal immigration issues or because they personally don’t care about those issues. I thought that was Libertarian thinking rather than Conservative. I wonder who gets to decide when it is acceptable for those social conservatives to restart caring about those issues?
Why don’t people who feel that that only fiscal issues matter tell the GOP PROUD group to shut up about gay issues – stop nagging about DADT, gay marriage vice civil unions, etc? If GOP PROUD only cares about fiscal restraint – why do they even need to attend the CPAC as a gay identified group? They are a special interest group no different from AA/Hispanic or any ethnic group whose primary reason to exist is to advance the wishes of their clique.

katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Here’s a point to make. Most gays have higher incomes, generally have far fewer expenses (in terms of families) and average far higher disposable income. Believe me, they SHOULD be ‘tax the rich’ opponents.

michaelo on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

GOProud knows that if they can beat down conservatives and force them to accept their perverted lifestyles, they’ve got it made. That’s what its involvement with CPAC is all about…nothing more.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:30 PM

K.

Got it.

Gays are destroying America and the GOP by doing things in the privacy of their homes you don’t do yourself.

Thanks.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM

To paraphrase someone here, I’m beginning to think that’s the plan…

Vyce on February 3, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Then they may get that third party.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM

See what you did here, Jazz?

Abby Adams on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

It’s a question of priorities on both sides, the key difference is being seen as tolerant helps the GOP and being seen as intolerant hurts the GOP.
If gay marriage and abortion or whatever social issues are important to you matter more to you than fiscal issues, then by all means speak up. If fiscal issues matter more to you than these issues, then you have to think about the impact focus on social issues has on the advancement of fiscally conservative issues. I’m not telling you to shut up about anything, but I am telling you to be thoughtful and deliberate.

galenrox on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Why don’t people who feel that that only fiscal issues matter tell the GOP PROUD group to shut up about gay issues – stop nagging about DADT, gay marriage vice civil unions, etc? If GOP PROUD only cares about fiscal restraint – why do they even need to attend the CPAC as a gay identified group?

Because bigotry towards gays has come from the social conservative wing of the party for time immemorial. And any political efforts to broaden into this sector of American voters has to reject that bigotry.

And that’s got to stop.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

CPAC has outlived its usefulness. It meant something before the internet. It was a place for Conservatives to get together and exchange ideas. But we do that every day online with blogs & podcasts.

CPAC is dead.

portlandon on February 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM

This. Jazz loves pulling our chains.

d1carter on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

The new “Gay” Conservative is now the “Religious” Conservative.

I see them attacked in more threads than Gay Cons.

I don’t always agree with them, but due to their religious standings I know where they are coming from. It’s not their views that bother me…it’s if they mistreat the Gays…and that is rarely seen!

Gob on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM

And they want to fluoridate our water to pollute our precious bodily fluids as well.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

And that’s got to stop.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

The bigotry, that is. Not the broadening.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

And they want to fluoridate our water to pollute our precious bodily fluids as well.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Mmmm.

Fluoride.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM

katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

You tailor the message to the times, my friend.

Why is this hard to understand?

In a time of great economic malaise, you unite under economy.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Honestly, I support a pro-life agenda, and I don’t want a candidate to hide their support for that. However, when the economy is very POOR, make the THRUST of your campaign economy-based.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Hey Slick, Reagan used you religious types or didn’t you notice Sure he made happy speeches which included the kind of stuff you like to hear but he didn’t push any of your agenda. Part of his genius was in not giving in to the divisive social agenda. He knew that when you dine with devil you should being a long spoon. If only his successors in the GOP were as wise.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Ronald Reagan’s 1983-84 book “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” is still well worth reading.

He pointed out, among other truths, that “the abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all of its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.”

KyMouse on February 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM

If including the infinitesimally small “gay conservatives” means losing the evangelical vote – then the tent just got a lot, lot smaller.

Some more cynical people might say, as according to plan.

Rebar on February 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM

IMHO, if I had a choice between gay activists evangelical activists; I will choose a real small tent by telling them both to go pound sand.
I have no patience for a group that feels the need to force upon the people a federal law allowing gay marriage or a group that feels the need to use the federal government to regulate a person’s behavior.

mizflame98 on February 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM

This HYPERVENTILATING by some so-cons over the appearance of homo-cons at CPAC is really distressing. They need to relax.

There are plenty of socially conservative groups attending. However, people won’t put the time in to look. I’ve posted the groups here over and over. People would prefer to proclaim that the sky is falling over at CPAC.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM

“Got it”

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM

No, you don’t. And it should embarrass you that you don’t.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Why don’t people who feel that that only fiscal issues matter tell the GOP PROUD group to shut up about gay issues – stop nagging about DADT, gay marriage vice civil unions, etc? If GOP PROUD only cares about fiscal restraint – why do they even need to attend the CPAC as a gay identified group?
katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Brava, Madame. The thing itself.

warbaby on February 3, 2011 at 3:50 PM

mizflame98 on February 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM

If we did that, at least in the short term, Dems would have 75 seats in the senate at least.

galenrox on February 3, 2011 at 3:51 PM

– why do they even need to attend the CPAC as a gay identified group?
katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

http://www.conservative.org/cpac/participatingorganizations/

People are coming from all different identities.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:52 PM

I wonder how “big tent” those advocating including “GoProud” would be if we starting inviting “more tax” and “higher spending” groups? After all, they agree with us on all the other issues except that one….

nanderson on February 3, 2011 at 3:52 PM

No, you don’t. And it should embarrass you that you don’t.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Yes. I’m deeply ashamed that I don’t care what gays do behind closed doors any more than I care what heteros do. Nor do I care that they band together for political and cultural support.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:53 PM

LOL! You really think so? Name one of your precious social causes that he championed? Did he push for any laws regarding “that medical procedure?” Nope. Did he push for any laws regarding prayer in school or gay marriage or any of the other social issues you keep wanking on about? Nope. He worked on improving our economy, keeping us safe and mouthing platitudes to you religious types to keep you satisfied. You’re too stupid to know when you’ve been played, even decades after the fact.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

talk about stupid….you take the cake…damn you’re dumb..

Obama Overturns ‘Mexico City Policy’ Implemented by ReaganU.S. Can Now Give Federal Funding to International Family Planning Groups That Provide Abortion Services

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM

why do they even need to attend the CPAC as a gay identified group?
katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Why do evangelical Christians need ther own group?

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM

I’m not telling you to shut up about anything, but I am telling you to be thoughtful and deliberate.

galenrox on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

You might not be but consistently on these threads posters are faulting the social conservatives for caring about issues they consider important. People accuse the soc cons for supposedly shrinking the tent but it sure reads like some posters only want the social conservatives to stay if they allow the issues they believe in to be ignored. Sort of what the GOP has done to conservatives in general – send your money & your vote but STFU because we know what is important.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:41 PM

And this is why gays shouldn’t be told to STFU about gay issues? Because their issues involve bigotry and are more important than murdering unborn children?

katiejane on February 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM

CPAC has evolved into little more than a couple of days of partying for Young Republicans, many of whom aren’t that conservative.

More attendees go to CPAC looking for sex than politics.

Anyone who believes it’s anything more is a fool.

bw222 on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

galenrox on February 3, 2011 at 3:51 PM

You might have more libertarian/Tea Partiers in the GOP

mizflame98 on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

CPAC has evolved into little more than a couple of days of partying for Young Republicans, many of whom aren’t that conservative.

More attendees go to CPAC looking for sex than politics.

Anyone who believes it’s anything more is a fool.

bw222 on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

You’re so full of sh!t, it is almost irritating.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:58 PM

The bigotry, that is. Not the broadening.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

the only bigotry I see is from you anti-christian bigots…no surprise you are fine supporting an agenda (gay marraige) that seeks to extinguish the freedom of religion and speech of christian (we all know you don’t have the guts to go after muslims) who disagree with your agenda.

no surprise to see you supporting fascism.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

bw222 on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Have you even BEEN to a CPAC?

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Anybody who wants to seriously discuss what it means to be a conservative should be welcome at CPAC.

Angry Dumbo on February 3, 2011 at 4:00 PM

“Yes. I’m deeply ashamed that I don’t care what gays do behind closed doors any more than I care what heteros do. Nor do I care that they band together for political and cultural support.”

Gay LT on Feb 3 2011

You SHOULD care that perverts are trying to hijack the Republican Party.

But I suspect that your aganda is the gay one rather than the conservative one.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Perverts?
Ugh.

How long did it take you to climb up to your moral pedestal?

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM

“pearls before swine” –> judge not, motes & beams…

jodetoad on February 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Which has been my point all along.

I DON’T give a rat’s A$$ what a f@g does at home. It’s when they bring their perversions with them on their sleeve I get pissed!

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

But I suspect that your aganda is the gay one rather than the conservative one.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Leave his AGANDA alone. What’s the matter with you?

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

How long did it take you to climb up to your moral pedestal?

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM

The homosexual act is the definition of perversion, dipshiite.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I DON’T give a rat’s A$$ what a f@g does at home. It’s when they bring their perversions with them on their sleeve I get pissed!

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Goin’ for broke, are we?

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

The homosexual act is the definition of perversion, dipshiite.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I’d like to know your private perversions!

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Leave his AGANDA alone. What’s the matter with you?

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM

I have seldom encountered a conservative grammar Nazi. Your post says more about you than you realize, Katy.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM

“pearls before swine” –> judge not, motes & beams…

jodetoad on February 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

oh so we shouldn’t judge murders huh? judge not, right?

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I DON’T give a rat’s A$$ what a f@g does at home. It’s when they bring their perversions with them on their sleeve I get pissed!

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Find different bars.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Find different bars.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:07 PM

SO OWNED!!!!

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:07 PM

I’d like to know your private perversions!

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Pervert! LOL!

I’ll keep them to myself, thank you.

Which…again…has been my point all along.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:08 PM

The problem is the attempt to Balkinize the GOP the same way that the Democrat party is. You really don’t need your own group unless you are pushing an agenda centered around that which distinguishes the group.
Count to 10 on February 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Exactly…

I’m glad Palin doesn’t attend this convention. It’s become a RINO infested mess. Keene ain’t no prize either, wonder who he tried to cash in on this year..

CCRWM on February 3, 2011 at 4:09 PM

The gay agenda REVEALED!

beancounter on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

SO OWNED!!!!

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Huh?

God help this nation if the Republican Party is taken over by “libertarians”.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

the only bigotry I see is from you anti-christian bigots…no surprise you are fine supporting an agenda (gay marraige) that seeks to extinguish the freedom of religion and speech of christian (we all know you don’t have the guts to go after muslims) who disagree with your agenda.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I’m curious, would you still be opposed to gay marriage if laws that allowed for civil gay marriages also prohibited any legal action against churches that refused to perform religious marriage ceremonies for any reason?

DarkCurrent on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I have seldom encountered a conservative grammar Nazi.Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:06 PM

That’s your definition of a grammar Nazi?
It wasn’t your grammar.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM

CPAC has evolved into little more than a couple of days of partying for Young Republicans, many of whom aren’t that conservative.

More attendees go to CPAC looking for sex than politics.

Anyone who believes it’s anything more is a fool.

bw222 on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

So true! The only reason Ed Morrissey goes to CPAC is to pick up college girls.

thuja on February 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM

beancounter on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

A challenger appears!

mmnowakjr85 on February 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

That’s your definition of a grammar Nazi?
It wasn’t your grammar.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM

What are you…10 years old, KatyLady?

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

A challenger appears!

mmnowakjr85 on February 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Dude. Can’t you read? The whole point of my commenting on this article was to point out that GOProud does NOT keep their perversions to themselves.

Get a clue, amateur.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

God help this nation if the Republican Party is taken over by “libertarians”.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Oh please.

I have no problem with most social conservatives, who care about the unborn babies and what Teh Gays do.

It’s the folks like you, who walk around with your big, rhetorical condemning stick.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Dude. Can’t you read? The whole point of my commenting on this article was to point out that GOProud does NOT keep their perversions to themselves.

Get a clue, amateur.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

They’re gay, and want to be part of the conservative movement to thwart the ills of government.

However, to you, they’re a bunch of perverse faglords who shouldn’t be at CPAC period.

If a black conservative group came to CPAC, everyone would be jumping for joy, despite the “identity.”

Folks like Katiejane have a problem with the identity group GOProud at CPAC, but if there were a, say, BlackGOP at CPAC, she’d be tearin’ up at the beauty of it all.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM

It’s the folks like you, who walk around with your big, rhetorical condemning stick.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Condemning stick? I’ve said at least five times on this thread that I don’t CARE what consenting adult perverts do at home. That doesn’t change the fact that they are perverts.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I’m curious, would you still be opposed to gay marriage if laws that allowed for civil gay marriages also prohibited any legal action against churches that refused to perform religious marriage ceremonies for any reason?

DarkCurrent on February 3, 2011 at 4:10 PM

that would be fine…as long as you include individuals and businesses like the photographer in AZ who don’t want to photograph gay marriages…

the gays would never accept that though…its all about forcing people to accept their lifestyle.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM

They’re f@gs, too! Don’t forget your labels!

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM

“However, to you, they’re a bunch of perverse faglords who shouldn’t be at CPAC period.”

blatantblue

No, amateur…I don’t care where they are as long as they are not attempting to force others to accept their perverted lifestyle.

Which has been my point all along!

(Sigh!)

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM

So true! The only reason Ed Morrissey goes to CPAC is to pick up college girls.

thuja on February 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM

My statement above is sarcasm. I sometimes forget about the oversupply of stupid people.

thuja on February 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM

the gays would never accept that though…its all about forcing people to accept their lifestyle.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM

and as proof of that, see the catholic charities in MA. they were forced out of the adoption business because they would not give children to gays…no exemption was allowed for them.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Why must gays call it marriage? Why can’t they just accept civil-unions? Because they want to FORCE others to accept their perversions as normal human behavior. It isn’t.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM

No gay groups They wouldnt call themselves GOProud if they were only about “gay stuff”.
The break the first tenet of conservatism….NO IDENTITY POLITICS

LeeSeneca on February 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM

No, amateur…I don’t care where they are as long as they are not attempting to force others to accept their perverted lifestyle.

Which has been my point all along!

(Sigh!)

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM

You, being so smart and all, that no one is FORCED to do anything at CPAC.

People have booths and events. You are free to attend, and free not to attend.

blatantblue on February 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Dude. Can’t you read? The whole point of my commenting on this article was to point out that GOProud does NOT keep their perversions to themselves.

Get a clue, amateur.

Al-Ozarka on February 3, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Oh, seewhat you mean.

GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. 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.

Those dastardly pervs!

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4