Palin defends GOProud participation at CPAC

posted at 10:12 am on February 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

No great surprise here, really; Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees:

Well, I’ve never attended a CPAC conference ever so I was a little taken aback this go around when I couldn’t make it to this one either and then there was a speculation well I either agree or disagree with some of the groups or issues that CPAC is discussing. It really is a matter of time for me. But when it comes to and David, perhaps what it is that you’re suggesting in the question is should the GOP, should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

I look at participation in an event like CPAC or any other event, along, or kind of in that same vein as the more information that people have, the better.

I’m not sure we’ve polled on this question at all, so this seems like a good time to do so. Should conservatives welcome GOProud, or should they skip CPAC if GOProud participates?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 10

Cindy:
Meet Deroy Murdock.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Gone hard core lefty on us.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM

If you aren’t against GOProud being at CPAC, you’re a “hard core lefty”.

Like…um…Sarah Palin.

*facepalm*

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:39 AM

So I see nothing AT ALL defensible about GOProud’s behavior as also the Libertarian/Liberal organizers of CPAC. What this has to say about the GOP at this hour, I can’t say but they are going to lose in 2012 if they join in with GOProud’s cowardly denigration of social conservatives and socially conservative issues.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Wow! I rest my case. Go get a rabies shot, you’re foaming at the mouth.

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM

The difference is that I derive my notion of conservatism from the fundamental principles of our nation. The words and actions of our founders and the understanding of those words by the people who ratified the Constitution. IOW, I define it in terms of original intent.

You prefer a “living” definition of that word.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Noting you have not defined just what you MEAN by “the fundamental principles of our nation”.

The “words and actions of our founders” did not include their reckoning nor coming to terms with abortion on demand, eugenics, public funding of both of those/all of that, “homosexual activism” and so much more that we have to contend with today

I don’t believe the Constitution is “a living document” and I do believe that the Constitution as written does address the liberties and rights of the individual citizen.

But CPAC isn’t the Constitution nor is it government, directly. I never heard nor read the Founding Fathers, though, shying away from discussing “socially conservative” issues nor afraid to promote them.

Our issues, they are all mixed up here. Conservatives and Conservativism — and no where in the Constitution nor writings by the Founding Fathers — ever included the promotion of homosexuality nor creating “rights” based upon those behaviors. People who DO believe the Constitution can be rewritten DO tend to think that these “rights” exist but somehow didn’t get into the Constitution because it’s antiquated and the Founding Fathers were “old White guys” or something…

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Why do the gays have to place all their political chips on their sexual identity? Do the heteros do that?
No one has answered this question for me in 20 years….
rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Gays don’t place ALL their chips in their sexual identity. As much as Lourdes may like to present GOProud as ONLY caring about the social issues, they do talk a great deal about fiscal conservatism.

As for why gays put their sexual identity into politics AT ALL, well, they’re a minority that has, traditionally, experienced prejudice or inequality, and any such group will often band together, as they are allowed to do in democratic republics such as ours, to protect themselves and push for policies that will eliminate the prejudice or inequality.

Gay political groups are naturally going to continue to exist so long as there are large, influential blocs of people who lose their minds over the very CONCEPT of granting gays some of the same rights as heterosexuals (such as marriage).

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Yes. If they compliment me on my looks, I don’t want ambiguity. I want to be able to comfortably say “I’m straight, but thanks for letting me know I have a nice ass.”

Wow, Self absorbed, and way too much info.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:38 AM

I have no idea but I just don’t see that playing well on the world stage. The thought of him visiting any leader in the Mid East is just too much for my imagination.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Wow! I rest my case. Go get a rabies shot, you’re foaming at the mouth.

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Wow, go wash with lysol because you’re crawling with parasites.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I think you’re looking for these folks.

Conservatism is not libertarianism.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

the Libertarian/Liberal organizers of CPAC.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I love watching a maniac explode.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

So, a pro-abortion group should be welcomed, so long as they want women to pay out of their own pockets to murder their children?
Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 10:31 AM

How does the conservative ideal of protecting constitutionally derived civil rights protections for ALL Americans no matter where they sleep, whether in their biological mother’s womb or their same-sex partner’s bed, equate to endorsing self-financed abortions?

Believe it or not, some very conservative conservatives believe that guaranteeing equal protection under the law for every citizen, no matter how reviled they may be by certain segments of society as both the unborn and gay americans often are, is actually the more genuinely conservative position.

Some conservatives believe that it’s not the place of federal bureaucrats and career politicians to make the decision as to who gets to be treated to the full panoply of civil rights guaranteed by the constitution & who gets to be deprived of them, and furthermore that such an important building block of a healthy civilization as heterosexual marriage inarguably is should not be left up to those bozos to protect & defend at all!

I’m as pro-life as they come. I’ve never understood how seeking to perpetuate the legal marginalization of one group of citizens is at all helpful to the agenda of ensuring that the full rights of citizenship of another group are fully protected.

leilani on February 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Wow, Self absorbed, and way too much info.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Don’t be jealous, honey.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I have no idea but I just don’t see that playing well on the world stage. The thought of him visiting any leader in the Mid East is just too much for my imagination.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Richard Simmons, president of the United States, sits across the table from Dinner Jacket.

IMAGINE.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Gay political groups are naturally going to continue to exist so long as there are large, influential blocs of people who lose their minds over the very CONCEPT of granting gays some of the same rights as heterosexuals (such as marriage).

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

No such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. Guy on guy is whatever you want to call it, but it ain’t marriage.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:44 AM

And a fabulous feather-boa wearing, top hat sporting pig at that. I tell ya, for someone who whines about being called names…

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM

You aren’t allowed to wear hats. Only eat them.

=)

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT

Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC

Well, nobody’s perfect.

Emperor Norton on February 7, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I don’t care about GOProud – I care about the ACU and it’s scandal with Fedex.

That is the reason CPAC should be avoided like the plague.

HondaV65 on February 7, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Gays don’t place ALL their chips in their sexual identity.
Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

On the liberal side some of them do.
I had friend who basically defined himself through his groin.
He’d post things like ‘I’m gay-what do you think of that?’.
EVERYTHING was through that prism-and when I refused to play along, he defriended me.
If he was like Jetboy there would have been no problem.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Oh, thanks. I’ve read his stuff but had zero information about him. He would probably be easier to vote for than Ms. Bruce.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Don’t be jealous, honey.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Sissy.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

So I see nothing AT ALL defensible about GOProud’s behavior as also the Libertarian/Liberal organizers of CPAC. What this has to say about the GOP at this hour, I can’t say but they are going to lose in 2012 if they join in with GOProud’s cowardly denigration of social conservatives and socially conservative issues.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Wow! I rest my case. Go get a rabies shot, you’re foaming at the mouth.

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

After your anti-parasite wash, tell me, where’s that “foam” you think you “see”? Where in what I wrote there?

Chasing your tale won’t cure your infestation.

By the way, Palin endorsing GOProud and all their plate of activism in doing so will not gain her much popularity except among the Left, who want her to run anyway. She’s their pinata; CPAC has become the pinata of GOProud; Conservatives will remember this and though will remain polite about both, will be no more eager to support Palin in 2012 than they were to vote for McCain. So that’s her problem as of this morning, let’s see how she deals with it.

Unless she confronts the deception involved with GOProud having become organizing influence with CPAC, Palin’s not going to manage this well.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Marriage is a man and a woman.

So is divorce.

Which is a choice. And a sin. And legal. And both parties are afforded the right to do it and the protections that go along with it.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Yes. If they compliment me on my looks, I don’t want ambiguity. I want to be able to comfortably say “I’m straight, but thanks for letting me know I have a nice ass.”

So, can heterosexual men walk up to women and say “Hey baby, nice titz.”???

Just wondering. For the sake of not getting slapped in the face by the women, or my wife.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:48 AM

This is the worst thing I’ve heard about Palin.
I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.
Sad state of affairs when the conservatives in the USA begin to recognize abominable behavior as somehow OK.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM

So, can heterosexual men walk up to women and say “Hey baby, nice titz.”???

Just wondering. For the sake of not getting slapped in the face by the women, or my wife.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Only if you post under the name “blatantblue”.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Which is a choice. And a sin. And legal. And both parties are afforded the right to do it and the protections that go along with it.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:46 AM

So let’s not make it any worse, since we are already in bad shape.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM

leilani on February 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

“Protecting” a group based on voluntary behavior (and yes, being gay is a choice – which Palin has also stated), is part of the progressive agenda, and has no place in the conservative movement.

Just as you cannot honestly call yourself “conservative” if you are pro-abortion, you cannot do so while pushing the homosexual agenda.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Not a Palin fan but I applaud her position on this issue.

Hilts on February 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC

I don’t know who wrote that originally, having just read it up-stream here as reprinted by someone else…but…

GOProud ATTENDING CPAC has never been anyone’s issue, to my knowledge. No one’s been asked to provide a “sexuality” passkey to enter/attend CPAC in the past.

The ISSUE is, again, that that organization has become one of the elements involved in actually forming the CPAC annual event, in selecting or discounting who will speak, influence, represent, etc. Their involvement on that level is contrary to the CPAC formative reason to even exist in the first place.

It’s interesting that CPAC (Grover Norquist, in other words) would be keen on including GOProud as they have/he has. Untrustworthy action.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Unless she confronts the deception involved with GOProud having become organizing influence with CPAC, Palin’s not going to manage this well.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

All they want to do is attend and be recognized – and some of the social cons here are trying to make it out to be the Reich’s Invasion of Poland.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Lotta so called righties in here, totally cool with the foundational moral arguments of the left.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

So Palin comes out for free speech and open debate and Ed tries to make hay out of it. Wow I’m shocked.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Palin’s tolerance of GOProud is no big deal. Look at the bright side. It could make her less hated by gays in the mainstream media (that’s at least 25% of the staffs) and improve her chances at nomination and election.

Emperor Norton on February 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

The ISSUE is, again, that that organization has become one of the elements involved in actually forming the CPAC annual event, in selecting or discounting who will speak, influence, represent, etc. Their involvement on that level is contrary to the CPAC formative reason to even exist in the first place.

Says who?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

By the way, Palin endorsing GOProud and all their plate of activism in doing so will not gain her much popularity

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

You mean Sarah Palin doesn’t make decisions based on what is popular or who pressures her?

Wow. Sounds like a principled leader.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Hey, some men can make a boa & sequins look great. And apparently without steroids. Excellent music helps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLF1yIT5J-M&playnext=1&list=PL2924CC1F16EED7E1

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

And a fabulous feather-boa wearing, top hat sporting pig at that.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM

It’s called putting lipstick on a pig, GrownUpManCallingHimselfBoy.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Only if you post under the name “blatantblue”.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM

LOL. Or Lorien1973. Has anyone heard from Lorien1973 in awhile?

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

By the way, Palin endorsing GOProud and all their plate of activism in doing so will not gain her much popularity

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

You mean Sarah Palin doesn’t make decisions based on what is popular or who pressures her?

Wow. Sounds like a principled leader.

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Any politician can, obviously, say or do whatever he or she wants to. The issue is who supports what they say and do and who doesn’t, as represented in who votes for them or not.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Our issues, they are all mixed up here. Conservatives and Conservativism — and no where in the Constitution nor writings by the Founding Fathers — ever included the promotion of homosexuality nor creating “rights” based upon those behaviors. People who DO believe the Constitution can be rewritten DO tend to think that these “rights” exist but somehow didn’t get into the Constitution because it’s antiquated and the Founding Fathers were “old White guys” or something…

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Well, I too am a pretty strict Constitutionalist, but this argument rings very hollow with me. I can use your logic against your argument all day long.

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Says who?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM

You don’t read much, do you?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Well, I too am a pretty strict Constitutionalist, but this argument rings very hollow with me. I can use your logic against your argument all day long.

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM

And yet you haven’t done that.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Lotta so called righties in here, totally cool with the foundational moral arguments of the left.

rightwingyahooo on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Yes, because big government spending, socialized medicine, open borders, submission to terrorism, gun control, environmental extremism, government takeover of private companies, affirmative action, welfare, assimilation, high taxes, speech codes, and reducing military strength are all founded on…being gay.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You don’t read much, do you?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Name names.

Who’s “issue” is this?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM

LOL. Or Lorien1973. Has anyone heard from Lorien1973 in awhile?

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I’ve noticed his absence, as well. Perhaps he hit it one too many times.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM

LOL. Or Lorien1973. Has anyone heard from Lorien1973 in awhile?

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

He’d hit that.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I think you’re looking for these folks.

Conservatism is not libertarianism.

Rebar on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Nope.

For example, while a libertarian would say that we should not have an EPA, I would assert that our Constitution says we should (although the current agency has over-stepped its bounds egregiously).

Furthermore, while I think that it is just fine for a state to define marriage as either excluding or including same sex partners I say that it is illegal for the Feds to do so. That is far from a Libertarian stance, it is a Federalist stance.

To use another example, abortion, I think that the SCOTUS screwed up Roe v Wade. I think that the justification for permitting it is to be found under the 5th’s clause stating, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I know, you’ll argue that a newly-fertilized egg has the protection of the 5th but nothing that our founders or their contemporaries wrote backs that up. The rights of the woman though are clearly protected.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

the Libertarian/Liberal organizers of CPAC.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I love watching a maniac explode.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Poor pitiful terrorist.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

So, candidate I’ll never support defends group I could care less about from being barred from conference that supported that sh*twad McCain in 2008? That’s 3 strikes there; file this under who gives a f**k. But, by all means, argue about this for a few years, then turn around, nominate another worthless turd and lose again. Spend more time arguing about what happened. Love the GOP.
Personally, could care less about Gayproud, or whatever they’re called; all I know is turn them loose on nominating a candidate and we’ll end up with Charlie Crist. Of course, given the choices made in 2008, we could end up with Charlie Crist anyway. So, it doesn’t matter. We’re going to end up with a bad candidate, one way or another. Let them speak. Not like the morons that want to shut them out had clean hands in ‘picking a conservative’ in 2008. Want to exclude people? How about excluding anyone that voted for John McCain? That, I could get behind.

austinnelly on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

portlandon on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I’ve seen him in the headlines a few times. I’m hoping his business is going to gangbusters that he doesn’t have time for us. I’d hate to think we’ve bored him.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I’ve noticed his absence, as well. Perhaps he hit it one too many times.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Dang you!
Beat me to it.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I love watching a maniac explode.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

And, you are not referred to as “Mad Con” by dozens of people in Hot Air comments for, oh, no reason. Poor, pitiful Leftwinger posing as Conservative.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So long as they completely deny everything about their sexual identity, they will be tolerated. Never really trusted, but tolerated.

Vyce on February 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM

According to their platform, they seem to be conservative, and I hope we can all come together on common issues, like taxes, the debt, national defense…etc. But if they start hijacking events for gay marriage, and the GOP just goes along with it, I’m done with the GOP. Not that it’s happened yet. I’m getting the impression that GOProud isn’t expected to compromise in the slightest on gay issues, and that conservatives are the ones who are supposed to.

Dongemaharu on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

austinnelly on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Is there anyone that has peaked your interest? Not a snark question, truly interested.

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I’m not sure what the big deal is, all Palin said is just because one doesn’t agree with someone or some group doesn’t mean that group doesn’t have the right to paticipate at a convention like this where many groups come to discuss ideas about conservatism.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:01 PM

So Palin comes out for free speech and open debate and Ed tries to make hay out of it. Wow I’m shocked.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 11:51 AM

And his title is completely bogus. She isn’t defending GOProud in this clip. She’s defending conservatives who are willing to sit down at the table with people we don’t personally agree with. Ed is putting words in Sarah’s mouth that are deceptive. I’m disappointed.

pannw on February 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I love watching a maniac explode.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Poor pitiful terrorist.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

As I was saying…

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Hey,good news re:Texas move.You’ll love it!

katy the mean old lady on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

To use another example, abortion, I think that the SCOTUS screwed up Roe v Wade. I think that the justification for permitting it is to be found under the 5th’s clause stating, “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I know, you’ll argue that a newly-fertilized egg has the protection of the 5th but nothing that our founders or their contemporaries wrote backs that up. The rights of the woman though are clearly protected.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

The “newly-fertilized egg” is either human life or it is not human life. Therein lies the wiggle room for the abortionists.

Or, as some attempt, it’s human life but it isn’t A PERSON until it’s born or until you feel “it’s” foot or whatever.

If you’re Obama, it’s never a person until it’s two years old or something and can therefore be put to death if “the woman” is inconvenienced or feels “punished”…

Seriously, the Founding Fathers did not even approach the issue of abortion on demand because, so I have assumed from reading quite a bit of what most wrote (in the Constitution and out of it) that they did, indeed, believe human life began at conception. The idea that a pregnant woman would abort a human life from her womb was not something most if not any of them even began to consider.

The concept of “citizen” or individual as to having “rights” endowed by the Creator, to the Founding Fathers, was, I am sure from reading a lot of their writing, applied to all individuals, including those in the womb.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

And, you are not referred to as “Mad Con” by dozens of people in Hot Air comments for, oh, no reason. Poor, pitiful Leftwinger posing as Conservative.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

And people refer to Hot Air as “HA” because…they laugh at it?

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM

And yet you haven’t done that.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Sigh, if you insist:
I can’t find ANY writings of the founders on pinball! Cu-rap, that must mean they felt it was immoral! If they were pro-pinball, surely they would have put the right to play arcade and video games in the constitution! Shall I continue?

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I love watching a maniac explode.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Poor pitiful terrorist.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM

As I was saying…

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

No, that was you being insane yet again in public commenting. Poor, pitiful terrorist.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Because divorce is immoral.

Does the GOP have that as part of their “traditional marriage” plank? I couldn’t find it.

If not, why aren’t they crusading to get rid of divorce? It’s immoral, it creates lots of problems, it’s legal and it’s utilized by millions of heterosexual married couples as a mechanism by which they can get out of their commitments to each other and their promises before God.

Right? So what gives?

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Divorce is not automatically a sin. Even Jesus allowed for divorces specifically in the case of adultery. Other religions and even sects of Christianity allow for divorce for any reason.

I’m taking it you don’t know much about religion here.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:07 PM

And, you are not referred to as “Mad Con” by dozens of people in Hot Air comments for, oh, no reason. Poor, pitiful Leftwinger posing as Conservative.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Crap… I thought we called him that out of the need for a shorthand nickname.

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

And yet you haven’t done that.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Sigh, if you insist:
I can’t find ANY writings of the founders on pinball! Cu-rap, that must mean they felt it was immoral! If they were pro-pinball, surely they would have put the right to play arcade and video games in the constitution! Shall I continue?

Chewy the Lab on February 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM

And yet you still have not done what you earlier boasted you could do, “all day”.

Referring to the ridiculous, fantastical and nonsensical is not making any point, nor is it doing what you boast you can do as to “using (my) positions” in contradiction of my points of view, or whatever your earlier boast was.

You CAN be silly and nonsensical and also, earlier, cruelly insulting, disrespectful and irresponsible socially, yes, but other than that, what “can” you accomplish?

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

If you can show me some reference which supports your opinion that such was our founders’ intent I will consider it. Lacking such evidence I will continue to side with the clear intent for a woman to own the rights to her body.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM

And, you are not referred to as “Mad Con” by dozens of people in Hot Air comments for, oh, no reason. Poor, pitiful Leftwinger posing as Conservative.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Crap… I thought we called him that out of the need for a shorthand nickname.

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Nahh, Mad Con has been well pegged as a Leftwinger in comments over the years on numerous occasions. He or she just likes to deceive people that he or she is “Conservative” but actual Conservatives can tell the difference. Mad Con just maintains the ruse, or tries to.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I know – I was being facetious :-)

There was a claim by one commenter who was “sure” that many CPAC attendees vote Democrat.

I was just reiterating that interesting assertion for effect.

Good Lt on February 7, 2011 at 11:32 AM

To rather poor effect. All those Blue Dogs got elected without even one conservative vote I suppose.
Even if every CPAC attendee voted 100% Republican every time it would not mean CPAC is a GOP event or should be concerned with what the GOP wants which is contrary to the goals of CPAC. CPAC was formed to change the GOP’s goals, not to be effected by them.

Rocks on February 7, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Crap… I thought we called him that out of the need for a shorthand nickname.

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Nah, it’s because I’m clearly a liberal. Like Sarah Palin.

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Two of my most conservative young friend 25 year olds from Alabama and the midwest are gay. What do we tell them. We dont want you…go be tax and spend liberals. What is everyone so afraid of?

Ricki on February 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM

This is the worst thing I’ve heard about Palin.
I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.
Sad state of affairs when the conservatives in the USA begin to recognize abominable behavior as somehow OK.

As far as CPAC as a whole goes, Grover Norquist appears to be pro-Mohammedan.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:05 PM

If you can show me some reference which supports your opinion that such was our founders’ intent I will consider it. Lacking such evidence I will continue to side with the clear intent for a woman to own the rights to her body.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I can merely read their books, letters and other papers and the Constitution and understand their statements from history as referring to life, “the individual” or human being, as being alive (obviously) and therefore, in being human and being “endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

If one is alive, is human, then one is endowed with such rights by the Creator (not by man, not by governments, not by politician). A “fertilized egg” as you call “it” is human life in the womb of a human female and until or unless it is either born or suffers demise in the womb beforehand, it is living, it is alive, and is human.

Therefore, it is “endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights…”

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

By the way, Palin endorsing GOProud and all their plate of activism in doing so will not gain her much popularity

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

when did she endorse GOPround and all their activism?

when are people going to understand Palin is a consititutional conservative. she is a chrisitan in her private life, her faith sustains her, but she will govern within the confines of the consititutional limits. she will defend free speech even if she doesn’t like the speech see Juan williams, she will defend a free press even when the press uses the right to lie and smear her. She will defedn the gays right to assemble even if she doesn’t agree with their lifestyle. She will protect a right to a free and fair trial even if that person broke into her email. Do you people get it yet?

She has principles and those principles flow from the consittitution.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Well I can’t make a decision on this until Jenfidel weighs in with her opinion.

Knucklehead on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

This is the worst thing I’ve heard about Palin.
I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.
Sad state of affairs when the conservatives in the USA begin to recognize abominable behavior as somehow OK.

As far as CPAC as a whole goes, Grover Norquist appears to be pro-Mohammedan.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yes, exactly (emphasis added).

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

As an individual, any person/group that supports conservative principles should be welcomed.

Groups or organizations have to make decisions based upon their principles/members. If GoProud is a bridge too far for them, so be it. If they did attend, they all might find more common ground then differences, which would better for all.

EliTheBean on February 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

It’s called putting lipstick on a pig, GrownUpManCallingHimselfBoy.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Well, if you must know…I turned 30 last November. And I’ve been on HotAir since almost it’s inception, what is that, 4 or 5 years now? And JetBoy has been my interweb moniker longer than that…for 3 reasons.

1) I’m a die hard Jets fan

2) Relates to the song “Jetboy Jetgirl” by The Damned (if you know the song, you know why)

3) Jetoy was a comic book character I like

So I’m not sure why you’re name-calling (ironic) at me, but if that’s all you have, go for it.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM

No, that was you being insane yet again in public commenting. Poor, pitiful terrorist.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:06 PM

So … are we to assume that such ad hominem attacks give you the moral high ground? Nah, usually ad hominem attacks are employed by the left to weed out all potential debaters. Good job there, Lourdes.

JSGreg3 on February 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.
Sad state of affairs when the conservatives in the USA begin to recognize abominable behavior as somehow OK.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

yes she would “allow” those groups. She does not agree with them but she will die for their right to assemble and speak and debate.

I love how people speak of free speech until someone they don’t agree with speaks.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

By the way, Palin endorsing GOProud and all their plate of activism in doing so will not gain her much popularity

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM

when did she endorse GOPround and all their activism?

when are people going to understand Palin is a consititutional conservative. she is a chrisitan in her private life, her faith sustains her, but she will govern within the confines of the consititutional limits. she will defend free speech even if she doesn’t like the speech see Juan williams, she will defend a free press even when the press uses the right to lie and smear her. She will defedn the gays right to assemble even if she doesn’t agree with their lifestyle. She will protect a right to a free and fair trial even if that person broke into her email. Do you people get it yet?

She has principles and those principles flow from the consittitution.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I was responding to someone else having written that Palin had endorsed GOProud, etc.

I distinguished, earlier, the difference between “endorsing” the ATTENDANCE OF GOProud to CPAC versus endorsing the Group as formative member of the organizational effort of CPAC.

Having only read the headlined story here, and not any tangents related to or about this issue on other sites, at this point, I can’t say that I know WHAT Palin’s position is specifically, except that i was addressing the possibility of one or the other (endorsing the group as an aspect of CPAC or simply as “free to attend” CPAC).

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Do you suppose that if our founders meant to include the “unborn” they would have been more explicit about it? I mean these were highly intelligent, legalistic men who seemed perfectly capable of expressing their intent rather plainly. For them to omit such a significant category of “person” except by the tenuous inference as you claim does not pass the smell test with me.

MJBrutus on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Because being gay is the same as being a crack addict or a drunk.

*facepalm*

I can’t imagine who would agr-

Yes, exactly (emphasis added).

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

*doublefacepalm*

Wait…what was emphasized?

As far as CPAC as a whole goes, Grover Norquist appears to be pro-Mohammedan.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yes. Because Mohammed was totally pro-gay.

*nowords*

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

She has principles and those principles flow from the consittitution.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Here comments were spot-on and politically astute here.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Well, if you must know…I turned 30 last November. And I’ve been on HotAir since almost it’s inception, what is that, 4 or 5 years now? And JetBoy has been my interweb moniker longer than that…for 3 reasons.

1) I’m a die hard Jets fan

2) Relates to the song “Jetboy Jetgirl” by The Damned (if you know the song, you know why)

3) Jetoy was a comic book character I like

So I’m not sure why you’re name-calling (ironic) at me, but if that’s all you have, go for it.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM

It’s far too late for you, in your particular case, to be trying to be indignant about me or anyone else “namecalling” as to you — so that’s pitiful you’d even try.

About the rest: too much information.

A thirty-year old man referring to himself as a “boy” and making the do out of being homosexual as you do in many of your comments strikes me as strange if not twisted.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Good for Palin. It’s the right call: Be inclusive. Build a bigger tent. Show the country that Republicans and Conservatives can be open-minded and don’t reflexively hate gay people. We know these things aren’t true but casual observers believe them. So prove ‘em wrong.

She’s not the ultracon boogeyman she’s reputed to be. Go western conservatism!

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Absolutely! I question why any group would form around a platform historically opposed by the group they plan to “support”.

If they truly claim to support conservative ideals, why do they feel it necessary to support the GOP from under the shield of an activist gay rights group? Why do they not support the GOP directly? To whom do they owe their first allegiance?

I’m reminded of the Star Trek Voyager story of the scorpion and the fox? I believe they are a trojan horse group, and should be watched carefully…

dominigan on February 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I don’t see anything in her statement that says she supports gay marriage. I don’t know whether she does or not. People will have to decide whether or not that issue is the thing they can’t yield on.

katiejane on February 7, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Palin can’t support “gay marriage” for the same reason any Christian can’t, it’s not bliblical. We don’t get to make up or change the rules, we have to obey them.

CCRWM on February 7, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Nobody’s saying that Homosexuals can’t attend CPAC or can’t be conservative. What true conservatives believe is that a group can’t proclaim what is an abominable perversion in many people’s minds (and the Bible) as what it represents.
NO: Proud adulterer’s for the GOP.
NO: Proud alcoholics for the GOP.
NO: Proud drug addicts for the GOP.
ETC.
Of course there are all these types of people within the conservative movement anyway and that’s alright.
IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

As an individual, any person/group that supports conservative principles should be welcomed.

Groups or organizations have to make decisions based upon their principles/members. If GoProud is a bridge too far for them, so be it. If they did attend, they all might find more common ground then differences, which would better for all.

EliTheBean on February 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Once again, it’s not about “attending” CPAC, it’s about the formative involvement of the homosexual activist group in the process and annual meet of CPAC.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

except that i was addressing the possibility of one or the other (endorsing the group as an aspect of CPAC or simply as “free to attend” CPAC).

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

from her statement:

should conservatives not reach out to others, not participate in events or forums that perhaps are rising within those forums are issues that maybe we don’t personally agree with? And I say no, it’s like you being on a panel shoot, with a bunch of the liberal folks whom you have been on and you provide good information and balance, and you allow for healthy debate, which is needed in order for people to gather information and make up their own minds about issues.

You can endorse a groups right to debate without endorsing the group. what Palin believes on the homosexual issue? She has friends that are gay. Palin is not a busybody and does not judge people. As a chrisitian she understands that’s God’s job. As an American she also understands that people have the freedom to be what they want.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Do you follow politics, culture, the NEWS?
You’ll find most lefties support the Mohammedan side genius, or should I say Fake Conservative. Lourdes got you pegged.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

You have made your point. Or are you under the impression you are changing minds?

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I wonder if she would allow a group such as ‘Proud adulterers for the GOP’ or ‘Proud alcoholics for the GOP’ or maybe ‘Proud drug addicts for the GOP’.
Sad state of affairs when the conservatives in the USA begin to recognize abominable behavior as somehow OK.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

The GOP has sent many adulterers to DC. What the elected leaders do with taxpayer money has the greater impact.

dedalus on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

This has become absolute farce.

myrenovations on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

As far as CPAC as a whole goes, Grover Norquist appears to be pro-Mohammedan.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yes. Because Mohammed was totally pro-gay.

*nowords*

MadisonConservative on February 7, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Well, first off, your logic, yet again, utterly fails toward any reasonable conclusion or point but you do, yet again, avoid the issue by trying to change the issue into something ridiculous and nonsensical.

Yes, Grover Norquist is “pro-Mohammedan.” On that point, “cjk” is correct. Norquist will rant about anyone who identifies his involvements as such, that they’re “racist” (his words, read Daniel Pipes blog from years ago about that very thing), but he is, indeed, “pro-Mohammedan.”

It’s an intereseting strategy, to undermine and weaken Christian Conservatives and Conservativism by “rewriting” what both mean in the public discourse. Or, say, in insulting them to a point of public effrontery done in the most covert fashion possible.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Well I can’t make a decision on this until Jenfidel weighs in with her opinion.

Knucklehead on February 7, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Heh.

UltimateBob on February 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Then they should and eventually will lose the support of those of us who still espouse morals and standards.
No it is not immoral to oppose a practice which is described by a book many of us believe to be the basis of Western civilization as abominable.

cjk on February 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

A thirty-year old man referring to himself as a “boy” and making the do out of being homosexual as you do in many of your comments strikes me as strange if not twisted.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I tell you what…email Allah and Ed and demand I be able to change my screen name to “JetMan”…or “JetHomo-agenda”

Not to mention your name “Lourdes”…where St. Bernadette saw the visions of the Holy Mother and the miracle of the spring…What nerve you have associating yourself with that.

But if all you have is arguing about a friggin’ screen name, because you have no basis for anything else you’re saying on the topic at hand, is pretty much waving that white flag of surrender.

JetBoy on February 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

She’s not the ultracon boogeyman she’s reputed to be. Go western conservatism!

alwaysfiredup on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

yeap a real book burner isn’t she?

One of the things I love about GOv Palin is she is able to seperate her private life and private beliefs from her public duty and public life.

unseen on February 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

You have made your point. Or are you under the impression you are changing minds?

Cindy Munford on February 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM

It’s tough, isn’t it, for some of you when Social Conservatives have opinions and write them out in public.

I’m under no impressions about “changing minds” — to try to reply to that — but I am responding to some ongoing comments here as I read them.

You’ll just have to allow me to have “rights” like you do homosexual activists.

Lourdes on February 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 10