Social conservative group: Palin should clarify her remarks about GOProud and CPAC

posted at 6:14 pm on February 7, 2011 by Allahpundit

She’s in a bind here, so I figured social con orgs that are otherwise favorably disposed to her might ignore what she said and give her a pass, especially with primary fever starting to pick up. Nope:

Her remarks did not sit well with American Principles Project president Frank Cannon. His group was one of the first to call on supporters to boycott this year’s CPAC conference, one of the largest annual gatherings of conservatives in the country, over GOProud’s involvement.

“The concern of conservatives is over the participation of a group whose stated goals run at odds with that of core conservative principles, not over debate over those issues,” said Cannon said in a statement on Monday. “Governor Palin should clarify her comments by letting us know whether in her definition, traditional marriage is a core component of conservatism.”

Certainly Governor Palin would not be in favor of allowing a socialist group to be a participating organization (i.e. co-sponsor of CPAC) in the name of healthy debate,” he added.

That’s a clever move rhetorically, but it conflates a phony debate with a real one. When you’ve got conservatives as prominent as Dick Cheney and Ted Olson in favor of gay marriage, when you’ve got even a majority of Republicans in favor of letting gay troops serve openly, then you’ve got a difference of opinion within the conservative tent that’s worth exploring. That’s really all Palin was saying to Brody, I take it. “Traditional marriage” advocates want to play the “no true Scotsman” game in order to rule this issue out of bounds, but it’s too late for that. The gay-marriage debate is here and it’s happening, even within the conservative tent, which I assume is why Palin’s okay with GOProud’s CPAC sponsorship notwithstanding her own support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s a shame that she’s being pressured simply for recognizing a basic political fact on the ground.

Incidentally, are GOProud’s goals “at odds with … core conservative principles?” Here’s their list of legislative priorities. They’re not calling for a constitutional right to gay marriage. They’re calling for federalism:

DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states.

Question for our Palinista readers especially: How do you want her to play this now that she’s being asked to “clarify”? I tend to think that she’s invulnerable among social conservatives no matter what, but if she and Huck both run, he’ll use this against her in the primaries. Unless, of course, he supports GOProud’s participation too. Has any reporter asked him? (Can’t find anything on Google.)


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 7 8 9

Ah, adopting a strategy of political hostage-taking. Accept our anti-gay politics, conservatives, or else we stay home and concede to the libtards.

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Fixed.

Dark-Star on February 8, 2011 at 12:39 PM

I love Sarah more each day.

molonlabe28 on February 8, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Hey World, What A Steel Fist in a Velvet Glove Looks Like

“Liberals, Islamists and Globalists take note: She’ll always look this good, even when ruining your plans. So enjoy having a Dumb Bastard in the White House while you can, because the Mayans were right–your world is coming to an end in 2012. Have a Happy Sunday, I certainly am ;)”

http://tammybruce.com/2011/02/hey-world-what-a-steel-fist-in-a-velvet-glove-looks-like.html

Viator on February 8, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Akzed on February 8, 2011 at 12:23 PM

All I’m saying is that you’re shooting yourselves in the foot. Remember how in 2008, Obama won the vast majority of voters under 30? About 66% of the vote? Well now all those college kids and post-grads are entering the worst job market in recent history. This is when the GOP should be explaining how their policies are superior to Obama and can turn around the economy. But instead, we have social conservatives ranting about “sodomy booths” and school prayer. This is not how you win an election and gain future conservatives. But you’re right, compromise is truly terrible, that’s why Christine O’Donnell won big, right? Your preoccupation with homosexuality is not a winning issue and only helps the media paint conservatives as homophobes and crazies.

HeroesforGhosts on February 8, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Yep. Just the way some say “accept out no new taxes position” or else. Every conservative has certain bedrock positions they will not compromise on. This is one of those positions for Christians. And that is a reality you can’t change. So make your choices carefully.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Thanks for speaking for a group of people with the attitude of children.

“What??? I can get a 12-scoop ice cream sundae with 12 different flavors, six different sauces, bananas, nuts, cherries…but NO SPRINKLES?? If I can’t have sprinkles, I’m taking my ball and going home. This is unreasonable.”

That’s the essence of this stupid f**king debate. A bunch of children who get a conference together of the people who will best represent them…and they get pissed off because one group is there who disagrees with them on one issue, despite the fact that there will certainly be other groups there who disagree with them on other issues. Grow up.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil

For Pete’s sake…..*facepalm*

toliver on February 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM

They’re not calling for a constitutional right to gay marriage. They’re calling for federalism

I’m not so sure. I think they believe the courts will declare a constitutional “right” to gay marriage. What they oppose is an amendment that would head them off at the pass.

littleguy on February 8, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil

For Pete’s sake…..*facepalm*

toliver on February 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM
I’m with you.
What’s next-autism being ‘intrinsically evil’?
If it is-I’m in trouble.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM

What’s next-autism being ‘intrinsically evil’?
If it is-I’m in trouble.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Excellent drivers are intrinsically evil.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM

I’m not so sure. I think they believe the courts will declare a constitutional “right” to gay marriage. What they oppose is an amendment that would head them off at the pass.

littleguy on February 8, 2011 at 12:45 PM

That does seem to be where they are going with it.

Count to 10 on February 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I’m with you.
What’s next-autism being ‘intrinsically evil’?
If it is-I’m in trouble.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 8, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Lets not forget that his bible actually says that male homosexuality specifically is punishable by death, without mentioning female homosexuality at all.
In fact, it goes so far as to prohibit women from engaging in relations with animals, so it’s lack of mention of what two women can do together would seem to be significant.

Count to 10 on February 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Just to get back to what Sarah said:

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.

To me Sarah says that some participants have ideas or goals we might not agree with but let them in to make their case so that we can determine what exactly it is they want (when they state it) and then we can make decisions based on that information. I can do that.

CCRWM on February 8, 2011 at 1:18 PM

No, they said they were gay. They didn’t say anything about their level of sexual activity, or what actual acts they do. blah, blah, blah

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM

[snip lots of irrelevant dribble]

ANYONE who identifies themselves first based upon their sex life is MENTALLY UNSTABLE. Period.

They have an unhealthy fixation upon an element that is completely irrelevant to the issues being addressed at the conference.

This is CPAC, not a Vegas sex convention. GOProud is a trojan horse trying to derail the conversation. This convention is not about sex preferences, but about conservative ideals, many of which are at odds with the goals of GOProud.

GOProud has the right to endorse CPAC, but they do not have the right to change it to fit their group. Either support it or don’t.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM

[snip lots of irrelevant dribble]

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Oh look, that’s what I just did, too! :)

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Thanks for speaking for a group of people with the attitude of children.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM

And RINOs think we are joking about going third party? Shouldn’t we be content being treated like children while the elites tell us how to vote for them?

Conservatives form the base of the Republicans. You have a Republican party BECAUSE OF US, not in spite of us.

It was the Christian abolitionist movement that created the Republican party from the bones of the establishment Whigs. When the base left to form a third party, the old party died off.

RINOs like you seem determined to flirt with disaster because you refuse to learn from history. Ignore it at your peril.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Oh look, that’s what I just did, too! :)

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Thanks for speaking for a group of people with the attitude of children.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM

:)

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I tend to think that anyone who identifies themselves first as a member of any group has some kind of mental issue.

Count to 10 on February 8, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Thanks for speaking for a group of people with the attitude of children.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM

So when you condescendingly dismiss part of a person’s argument, it’s what? Mature and learned? Try again, muppet.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM

And RINOs think we are joking about going third party?

Then by all means, please do. We can finally see who winds up with more votes in the end, the theocrats or everyone else.

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Then by all means, please do. We can finally see who winds up with more votes in the end, the theocrats or everyone else.

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

newsflash: gay marriage LOSES EVERY VOTE…and who were the people who won in the last election…oh yeah social conservatives.

you need us, we don’t need you…get a clue.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

and why would someone like me ever vote for a condescending jerk like you who hates social conservatives?

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Your preoccupation with homosexuality is not a winning issue and only helps the media paint conservatives as homophobes and crazies.

HeroesforGhosts on February 8, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Excuse me?? Conservatives’ preoccupation with homosexuality?! You haven’t been in a public school lately, or watched a movie or the tv, have you?! Don’t demonize conservatives just because they would rather not have their 1st grader learn that “fisting” is appropriate social behavior.

GOProud has the right to endorse CPAC, but they do not have the right to change it to fit their group. Either support it or don’t.

dominigan on February 8, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Spot on!

Sterling Holobyte on February 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

newsflash: gay marriage LOSES EVERY VOTE…and who were the people who won in the last election…oh yeah social conservatives.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Oh yeah, not social conservatives. Oh yeah, the Tea Party.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

who were the people who won in the last election…

Independents.

Who sided with conservatives on FISCAL policy. I know you like to imagine it was the social cons, but the GOP wisely cut quiet, for the most part, about social issues, and with good reason.

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM
and why would someone like me ever vote for a condescending jerk like you who hates social conservatives?
right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I didn’t realize I was running for office…

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Oh yeah, not social conservatives. Oh yeah, the Tea Party.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

really now? and how many of them were your ‘fiscal only con-jobs’ hmmmmm??

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Who sided with conservatives on FISCAL policy. I know you like to imagine it was the social cons, but the GOP wisely cut quiet, for the most part, about social issues, and with good reason.

Vyce on February 8, 2011 at 2:04 PM

uh yeah they should just become pro-gay marriage it wins every time…right….hell even obama won’t come out for gay marriage.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Oh yeah, the Tea Party.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM

and who are some of these tea party leaders in the congress…oh yeah michelle Bachmann…big pro-gay marriage…sure…pro-choice too!! right…same for rand paul…rolleyes…

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:10 PM

really now? and how many of them were your ‘fiscal only con-jobs’ hmmmmm??

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Why don’t you tell us what the “TEA” in Tea Party stood for?

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Why don’t you tell us what the “TEA” in Tea Party stood for?

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM

why don’t you get a clue…but that would be a miracle…

and of course you fiscal-only con-jobs stabbed people like o’donnell in the back..but we’re supposed to just vote for you…right.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM

So what you’re saying is you don’t know.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM

So what you’re saying is you don’t know.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM

oh yes according to you its fiscal only policy…not according to the voters though…

list the tea party members who were not social conservatives…should be easy for you.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM

oh yes according to you its fiscal only policy…not according to the voters though…

list the tea party members who were not social conservatives…should be easy for you.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I never said it was fiscal only policy. I said the votes were based on fiscal policy, not social policy. Now, of course, most fiscal conservatives are moderate or social conservatives. And who was pushing the primary momentum of the Tea Party wave for the 2010 elections?

Oh yeah…Sarah Palin.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Oh yeah…Sarah Palin.

MadisonConservative on February 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM

who will lose that momentum if she turns on social conservatives.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM

“Thanks for speaking for a group of people with the attitude of children.”

Blah, blah, blah. I really couldn’t care less what you think of Christian attitudes. You can’t change them. Go with the Homos and the Christians bolt. End of story. That’s reality. You can either accept it and make your choice and you can continue to whine and cry and name call. The choice is yours.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:25 PM

who will lose that momentum if she turns on social conservatives.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Please. Palin could use kittens for target practice and the SoCons wouldn’t leave her. They know she’s the ONLY candidate (so far) who’d give a fart in a bucket about them if elected.

Dark-Star on February 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM

“Palin could use kittens for target practice and the SoCons wouldn’t leave her.”

Guaranteed you are wrong. If Palin cozys up to the homo crowd she’s toast with Christian conservatives. They would drop her in a flash.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Guaranteed you are wrong.

Wow, an Internet prophet! I’m impressed…not.

If Palin cozys up to the homo crowd she’s toast with Christian conservatives. They would drop her in a flash.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM

And just who is their go-to candidate? Not even Huckabee is fooling the fundies for crying out loud.

Or do you think they’ll really make good on their pouty-lipped threats and stay home?

Dark-Star on February 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Or do you think they’ll really make good on their pouty-lipped threats and stay home?
Dark-Star on February 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Absolutely they will as they have in the past. We will retreat into our Christian communities and Churhes and circle the wagons. Retrench and wait for the next opportunity. No doubt.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Absolutely they will as they have in the past. We will retreat into our Christian communities and Churhes and circle the wagons. Retrench and wait for the next opportunity. No doubt.

tommyboy

Does that mean we’ll get to elect someone that has a college education and knows where other countries are? *crosses fingers*

Zekecorlain on February 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Does that mean we’ll get to elect someone that has a college education
Zekecorlain on February 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Only if you increase your reading ability to the point where you can make out the typical ballot. It’s the public school secularites who are the illiterates. I would also note the every Ivy League college started as a Christian seminary. And they have gone downhill ever since.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Does that mean we’ll get to elect someone that has a college education and knows where other countries are? *crosses fingers*

Zekecorlain on February 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

your savior doesn’t know the number of states in the union…college didn’t help him.

right4life on February 8, 2011 at 3:52 PM

I would also note the every Ivy League college started as a Christian seminary. And they have gone downhill ever since.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:51 PM


Reprobate corlain will not stand for this!

Inanemergencydial on February 8, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Does that mean we’ll get to elect someone that has a college education and knows where other countries are? *crosses fingers*

Zekecorlain on February 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Hey, Palin knew where Russia was. Unfortunately that’s more than some high-school students know! (the stories my siblings tell me…)

Dark-Star on February 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Campaign ’12 mantras should stick to the SPENDING, STUPID.

Don’t drag out the carcass of more laws against immorality beyond what’s on the books, as if given the vote from ALL contingencies any social-con issue won’t suck all the energy from the conservative movement AGAIN.

ELIMINATE TAX FUNDS FROM ANY INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING ANY RELATIONS WITH ABORTION.

Don’t legislate details regarding what is or isn’t a marriage. Let things stand as state legal issues to be determined locally by sovereign states.

Constitutional conservancy means less federal authoritarianism. That limits federal authorities abusive opportunism to mandate a programmed agenda issuing rules that limit public modes of religious expression by Christians, etc.

But if America doesn’t get its fiscal house in order now, there won’t be any social stability to either maintain or to refine within utter economic chaos.

maverick muse on February 8, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Lets not forget that his bible actually says that male homosexuality specifically is punishable by death, without mentioning female homosexuality at all.

Oh really? Hmmm, maybe I can get behind this anti-gay thing after all… *ducks*

In fact, it goes so far as to prohibit women from engaging in relations with animals,

Count to 10 on February 8, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think men are supposed to do that either.

RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Don’t legislate details regarding what is or isn’t a marriage. Let things stand as state legal issues to be determined locally by sovereign states.

Unfortunately the libs won’t give us that luxury. They have already federalized it by taking it to Federal Court which chose to impose gay marriage on an entire State that had already “determined locally” what the will of the people was. In fact every time a State has voted on the issue they have “determined locally” to ban it. That’s why the libs and homos won’t let the matter be “determined locally”.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 5:24 PM

“Lets not forget that his bible actually says that male homosexuality specifically is punishable by death, without mentioning female homosexuality at all.”

Paul specifically condemns lesbianism in the NT. It is definitely mentioned in the Bible.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 5:26 PM

“Palin could use kittens for target practice and the SoCons wouldn’t leave her.”

Guaranteed you are wrong. If Palin cozys up to the homo crowd she’s toast with Christian conservatives. They would drop her in a flash.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Meh. They seemed alright with her being cozy with her gay best friend last election.

As for the kittens, that will in fact increase her standing with right-thinking people of all faiths. Puppies, on the other hand – that’s a deal-breaker (and no, shooting wolves from helicopters does not count, and is in fact freaking awesome.)

RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2011 at 5:27 PM

“Meh. They seemed alright with her being cozy with her gay best friend last election.

I doubt one in a million have a clue what “gay best friend” you are talking about. And having a friend is a whole lot different than supporting an agenda. Her already low poll numbers would drop like a rock leaving only the hard core libertarians. And a reality show.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM

If conservatives were ever going to win an election on the merits of a Fiscal Conservative and defense hawk that was weak on social issues, that year would have been 2008. Need I say more? Go ahead, push for your progressive social agenda this run by, see where it gets you in 2012, cause I know who I will be voting for is Republicans cannot field a pure complete conservative.

I am not looking for a social conservative activist here, I am looking for a social conservative the line is not going to hold, so it is time shore up the defenses so we can guard the rest of our resources. Without a socially conservative population, we will never be able to have a fiscally conservative government and without a fiscally conservative government, defense will never have the money to defend us.

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I doubt one in a million have a clue what “gay best friend” you are talking about. And having a friend is a whole lot different than supporting an agenda. Her already low poll numbers would drop like a rock leaving only the hard core libertarians. And a reality show.

tommyboy on February 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Allowing someone to speak at a convention is hardly “supporting their agenda”. If it were, then every person who ever hosts a debate between two sides is simultaneously supporting two opposing views.

Palin made her statement in the Couric interview, which was a huge source of her low approval numbers, so I don’t know why you would think less than one in a million knew about it. And she said nothing then to indicate any condemnation of that choice.

Her support among So-Cons is for walking the walk on abortion – it’s very hard to imagine very many Christians putting the gay issues anywhere near abortion on their list of priorities.

RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM

“it’s very hard to imagine very many Christians putting the gay issues anywhere near abortion on their list of priorities.
RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2011 at 7:12 PM”

Funny, because the abortion is already out of the bag and is going to be far harder to put back in. In fact, only a supreme court decision overturning roe v wade can do that, and any conservative can nominate marginally productive justices for that. I really do not see any person running for republican nomination of president to be pro-abortion or even below the paygrade to even have a position on the matter.

On the other hand, the prevention of the perversion of our social moral fabric of this nation lies in stopping the new roe v wade from becoming the law of the land, and thus far harder to eradicate once let loose on the population. I can see an ambiguous on gay issues person running for the republican nomination of president.

I think of the two evils, I would vote against the gays and let Abortion play out the way it is going to any how.

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Funny, because the abortion is already out of the bag

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I’d say the gay issue is just about there too, and I’d wager most Christians know that deep down. Which would make the “in or out of the bag” question somewhat of a wash, thereby putting abortion as the main priority again.

But who knows, only time will tell, I guess. But one thing is certain, Palin has been soft on this issue from the beginning. I have never heard a word from her about gay marriage or the gay rights movement posing a threat to our society. So whatever one makes of her stance now, it’s hardly news.

RINO in Name Only on February 8, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Until it is out of the bag, my vote will be for limiting the intrusion of perversion into the society. After that, low hanging fruit. Which ever seems easiest to roll back.

I fervently believe that only a morally good society can vote for representatives that will be fiscally conservative and security hawks. The more depraved the society, the less likely we will have have any hope.

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Lets not forget that his bible actually says that male homosexuality specifically is punishable by death,

Only Old Testament Christians are bound by that. New Testament Christians are not bound by that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

MSimon on February 8, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Why can’t gays ACCEPT that marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman.

Why can’t they ACCEPT that it takes a man and a woman to procreate. (That’s how most people create a family.)

I will tolerate gays but I won’t accept their choice of lifestyle.

There are three pillars: Social, Fiscal, and National Defense which must be strong in order to keep our country great. All three are of equal importance and must not be neglected or ignored. If Americans can’t walk and chew gum at the same time then they’d better learn.(Don’t wait for the gov’t to teach you.)

RedRobin145 on February 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Erick Erickson, of all possible people, hit the nail on the head on this issue.

Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Tuesday, February 8th at 6:27PM EST
14 Comments

In fact, GOProud has largely said the same thing. It just wants a seat at the table as a team player. The cool kids on twitter and GOProud are upset…

In any event, your mileage can vary on where you stand on whether they should be or should not be at CPAC (I’d rather GOProud than the Muslim Brotherhood), but on the issue of GOProud and Tim Pawlenty, your mileage can’t really vary if we’re going to uphold one standard and some basic reciprocity.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has endorsed the long standing and conservative position of Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell — a position long advocated at CPAC no less. In response, Chris Barron of GOProud is attacking Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty, by the way, is not “boycotting” CPAC because of GOProud’s presence. He’ll be there.

GOProud is against traditional marriage while pushing for pro-gay marriage laws at state level. See, for example, its 2011 Agenda.

GOProud Opposes any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

GOProud is for repeal of DADT:

GOProud joined the AFL-CIO and Human Rights Campaign in endorsing liberal Democrat legislation to give health benefits to gay couples

Lets look at issues where GOP and conservatives have taken different approaches on fiscal and national security issues. Did GOProud weigh in on the side of conservatives?

Earmarks: silent.

START Renewal: silent.

Unions: silent.

In other words, before GOProud starts declaring itself the standard bearer for conservatism able to then write people out of the movement or demand they shut up instead of advocating long held conservative positions, perhaps GOProud needs to actually get into the conservative movement.

Yup, super conservative GOProud. And here all I thought they wanted was to push the gay agenda.

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Why can’t they ACCEPT that it takes a man and a woman to procreate. (That’s how most people create a family.)

RedRobin145 on February 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Hahahhahahahahah what.

Jeddite on February 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Here’s more on the item:

GOProud joined the AFL-CIO and Human Rights Campaign in endorsing liberal Democrat legislation to give health benefits to gay couples

GOProud joined with other 15 other national organizations in signing a letter of support of H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act….

Sincerely,

AIDS Action Council

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Family Equality Council

Federal GLOBE

GOProud

Human Rights Campaign

National Air Traffic Controllers Association

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Coalition for LGBT Health

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National

Pride at Work, AFL-CIO

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

INC on February 8, 2011 at 9:57 PM

I think CPAC is going to be a long time recovering its conservative bonafides after this. The problem with conservatism is that it is always ripe for infiltration by the enemy in sheeps clothing. Conservatives are way to trusting, we really need to work on our ability to see through the lies. By we, I mean CPAC.

astonerii on February 8, 2011 at 10:12 PM

INC on February 8, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Absolute GOLD, INC. I especially love the fact that GOProud is in with the SEIU and conservatives here (and SP) want them at CPAC! ROTFLOL! I just love it when fools are shown to be fools. We are to be “gentle as doves and wise as serpents”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on February 9, 2011 at 5:30 AM

Allowing someone to speak at a convention is hardly “supporting their agenda”. If it were, then every person who ever hosts a debate between two sides is simultaneously supporting two opposing views.

There is a BIG difference between a debate and a convention. The analogy doesn’t hold at all.

tommyboy on February 9, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I think she should just ignore. She said what she thinks. Period. I hate when groups “call for clarification” People say what they think, now you decided how you deal with that. i had no problem with what she said, or GOProud at CPAC. And I’m against the repeal of DADT and for traditional marriage and civil unions.

Minorcan Maven on February 9, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9