Billionaire to bankroll pro-gay GOP PAC

posted at 8:01 pm on June 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It seems to me that there was once a very basic, black and white picture being painted in the media when it comes to super PACs. Two armies of very wealthy, highly motivated partisans would set up opposing groups of slush funds marching in lockstep. On one side would be Karl Rove with Crossroads and on the other, George Soros with American Bridge or whatever it’s called.

But as time went on it’s become obvious that the picture is a lot more complicated than that. Different groups have their own agendas and aren’t always interested in toeing the line for either party as a whole. That may be the case with this news from Politico about billionaire investment banking mogul Paul Singer, who is setting up a brand new super PAC to support Republicans… with a twist.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage. Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators in the direction of supporting same-sex unions, giving an incentive for them to buck the party line where the political down side might otherwise be too great.

And now, Singer tells the New York Times’s Frank Bruni that he’s going to bankroll a super PAC that could accomplish the same goal on the federal level

It’s apparently called American Unity PAC, and Singer is kicking it off with $1M to primarily support Republican candidates in congressional races. He’s quoted as saying that he feels there are GOP candidates out there who are either “on the fence” about gay marriage or are hiding their support for it, and part of his goal is, “helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

Here’s another clip from Singer’s interview with the Times which seems to summarize this “third way” approach to opening up the tent a bit.

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

This will probably attract at least some attention, primarily in the Northeast where we regularly produce politicians along the lines of Bloomberg. How much appeal will it have in the rest of the country, particularly in the more “traditional” conservative strongholds? I wouldn’t be betting the ranch on it, but there’s no denying that it’s cheaper and easier to impact a congressional race than a national contest. And a few million dollars can go a long way in one campaign season.


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 6

Pro-gay marriage.

Both sides are wrong – marriage shouldn’t be a political issue period and no type of marriage should be recognized by the government – so I welcome this to balance the playing field in monetary terms.

joana on June 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

No. Homosexuality is not acceptable, and the more acceptable it is made to be in society, the more likely it is that those who uphold traditionally morality will be gulaged for doing do.

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Breitbart would approve

commodore on June 9, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I’ve got nothing.

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The Maine Witches would probably go for it…

OmahaConservative on June 9, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Ah yes, another instance of a de facto Democrat trying to pick Republican candidates.

There’s a party for homosexual activists Mr. Singer. It’s the Democratic party.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Isn’t that special.

davidk on June 9, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Good for you, sir! Unafraid of GOP bullies!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways.

This is the same old ‘broaden the base’ nonsense. If Republicans go pro gay marriage now, they’ll alienate way more people in the base than they’ll attract. Some politicians seem to think they can make everyone happy by being on both sides of an issue, but they just end up alienating everybody.

imasoulman on June 9, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I wonder ….can we assume it will be pro-choice when it comes to abortion?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Good for you, sir! Unafraid of GOP bullies!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Yes how dare they have a difference of opinion.

/

Really?

Pathetic.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 8:20 PM

A HA blogger (who shall go nameless) just got a little stiffy.

Blake on June 9, 2012 at 8:21 PM

GOP candidates out there who are either “on the fence” about gay marriage or are hiding their support for it

Hiding their support? No wonder Obama felt so comfortable with his stance for so long. Frankly it’s insulting that so many in the Republican party feel so comfortable lying about a basic issue which is very clearly at odds with how the majority of Americans have voted.

Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

Anyone who thinks a politician can be liberal on these issues and still be fiscally conservative is deluding themselves. Being liberal costs lots of money.

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Well isn’t that just fabulous…..

Would it be too much to ask that everyone just put their di*k back where it belongs for a while and concentrate on the world wide financial meltdown for a few minutes?

Tim Zank on June 9, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

Then where are people to go who embrace limited government and do not approve of murdering the unborn, government supplied contraception, illegal immigration, and the gay activist attempt to overturn millenia of the definition of marriage?

Obama’s gay marriage stance has the potential of driving voters to the Republican party. Now, this yo-yo, if he’s successful will succeed in ensuring not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.

I’m sure that another billionaire could set up another PAC for GOP that embrace big government, massive intrusive regulations, and green energy. Just to go after those voters too you know. Why, we could have a tent that encompasses everybody’s viewpoint. Wouldn’t that just be dandy?

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Good for you, sir! Unafraid of GOP bullies!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:18 PM

You mean like GOProud, Log Cabin Republicans and the boyz at Hillbuzz?

Those GOP bullies?

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM

it would not matter if 90% of the American people were pro gay, the end result of the relationships between two gays is not the creation of life and a future for this nation. It will never be a conservative activity nor even a libertarian one to promote special privileges for gay couples. For conservatism, it is is destructive to the culture of life that sustains this nation and for libertarians, they cannot honestly argue that special privileges for gays, even at the state level is libertarian. So having a billionaire come out in favor of special privileges for gays does not sway my thought at all.

astonerii on June 9, 2012 at 8:25 PM

It’s part of a divide and conquer strategy. Rubio has taken immigration away from the Dems with his diluted DREAM act, now we’re taking gay marriage off the table — at least for appearance’s sake — so the Dems can’t campaign on it.

John the Libertarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Maybe these super PACs aren’t so bad after all.

God bless Citizens United! Talk about unintended consequences! I love it!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Since I’ve always been a butch lesbian … imprisoned in a male body, I’ve been in a “gay” marriage or two, before it was cool. /

TXUS on June 9, 2012 at 8:27 PM

i think that the SSM is has become a totem for the shamans of the left. Few people are gay/lezzer (maybe 2 percent at tops)

Honestly, with barry pounding the drums for ever larger public sectors and the wind and suns of the leftist fever swamps, i just think that there is a time to choose to fight to the death…and SSM isn’t it

r keller on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Ah yes, another instance of a de facto Democrat trying to pick Republican candidates.

There’s a party for homosexual activists Mr. Singer. It’s the Democratic party.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM

That’s not the issue. The issue is that money is overwhelming the political system. Any billionaire can dominate the message around any social issue by commandeering our public airwaves. The ultimate impact on the electorate and level of corruption that result are very hard to measure. But as Mitt Romney proved in the primaries, it works.

bayam on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

It’s part of a divide and conquer strategy. Rubio has taken immigration away from the Dems with his diluted DREAM act, now we’re taking gay marriage off the table — at least for appearance’s sake — so the Dems can’t campaign on it.

John the Libertarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:25 PM

That’s just it. Everyone knows it’s for “appearance’s sake” and thus no one is buying it.

Thanks for being honest, though.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I wonder ….can we assume it will be pro-choice when it comes to abortion?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Exactly. But they have no problem taking away my freedom of choice when it comes to opposing gay marriage.

And how great will it look for true conservatives to distance themselves from a big money PAC. We don’t need their stinking money.

mike_NC9 on June 9, 2012 at 8:29 PM

No. Homosexuality is not acceptable, and the more acceptable it is made to be in society, the more likely it is that those who uphold traditionally morality will be gulaged for doing do.

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 8:05 PM

In your eyes “homosexuality is not acceptable.” Luckily our Constitution protects Americans from your acceptable bigotry. It’s too bad that more Republicans are afraid to stand up to you anti-gay bigots.

Ah yes, another instance of a de facto Democrat trying to pick Republican candidates.

There’s a party for homosexual activists Mr. Singer. It’s the Democratic party.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Republicans led America to its civil-rights legislative victories. The case for gay marriage is part of that legacy.

Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Just what the GOP needs to do…sell their principals!

rich8450 on June 9, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for America.

tom daschle concerned on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Good for him. The sooner we get past this gay stuff, the better. I’m pretty sure there was marriage back in the days of our founding fathers; If they wanted the federal government to protect marriage they would have written it in the Constitution, they didn’t.

rndmusrnm on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Republicans led America to its civil-rights legislative victories. The case for gay marriage is part of that legacy.

Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Except that marriage then no longer serves the purpose of raising children. Rather than help an institution that already suffers from numerous problems, chiefly infiedlity and abandonment, you’ve decided to try to put the final nail in the coffin. And for what? For catering to a set of people that think putting their penises in the rectums of other men for the sake of carnal pleasure is a noble cause that must be fought for? Dumb.

Gay marriage as an equal rights cause is a perversion of the legacy of natural rights. Rather than formulating an intellectual basis for it, you’ve basically declared anything that’s an object of want to be a right. I’ll have no part of that.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Just what the GOP needs to do…sell their principals!

rich8450 on June 9, 2012 at 8:32 PM

But who will run the schools if they’re all sold off?!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Both sides are wrong – marriage shouldn’t be a political issue period and no type of marriage should be recognized by the government – so I welcome this to balance the playing field in monetary terms.

joana on June 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

What she said

steel guy on June 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Nifty. The filter seems to be blocking my posts. Must be conservophobic. =P

I’ll try breaking it into pieces with a couple of minor edits (this is part 2):

Gay marriage as an equal rights cause is a perversion of the legacy of natural rights. Rather than formulating an intellectual basis for it, you’ve basically declared anything that’s an object of want to be a right. I’ll have no part of that.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Oh, so you’re ok with this billionaire, just as long as he supports one of your pet causes?

Hypocrite, thy name is liberal democrat

Which reminds me, you never answered my challenge yesterday to prove your claim that Mitt Romney is a “billionaire who buys Nascar teams in his spare time.”

Until you do, your opinion on this, or any other matter, is of no significance.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I’m pretty sure there was marriage back in the days of our founding fathers; If they wanted the federal government to protect marriage they would have written it in the Constitution, they didn’t.

rndmusrnm on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Yes, right next to the anti-human cloning clause. Who in their right minds would have imagined calling a couple of homosexuals marriage 40 years ago let alone 240?

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Interesting. Part 1 continues to get blocked. I’m replying to Capitalist Hog’s quote:

Except that marriage then no longer serves the purpose of raising children. Rather than help an institution that already suffers from numerous problems, chiefly infiedlity and abandonment, you’ve decided to try to put the final nail in the coffin. And for what? For catering to a set of people that think putting their you-know-whats in the you-know-wheres (I’m guessing this is where the filter goes bonkers) of other men for the sake of carnal pleasure is a noble cause that must be fought for? Dumb.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Gay marriage as an equal rights cause is a perversion of the legacy of natural rights. Rather than formulating an intellectual basis for it, you’ve basically declared anything that’s an object of want to be a right. I’ll have no part of that.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Exactly. Just like that “object of want” for African Americans to ride in the front of a public bus. The gall of them thinking that was a right!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I hate that gay rights/marriage is a political issue. It will be decided by the courts and in the meantime everyone is trying to score points off of it.

LawnGnomeFanFirst on June 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Yup! I guessed right about the filter. Appparently genital references cause it conniptions.

Has HotAir’s admins ever thought about stealing some source code from Townhall and just point out what words are considered “bad” so we can go back and edit posts rather than watch them never appear?

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Yes, right next to the anti-human cloning clause. Who in their right minds would have imagined calling a couple of homosexuals marriage 40 years ago let alone 240?

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Well, they did all wear powdered wigs and tights…so they were a bit Fabulousss themselves.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

That’s not the issue. The issue is that money is overwhelming the political system. Any billionaire can dominate the message around any social issue by commandeering our public airwaves. The ultimate impact on the electorate and level of corruption that result are very hard to measure. But as Mitt Romney proved in the primaries, it works.

bayam on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

You are absolutely right, why should just any billionaire get to fund ads that promote a political position? By golly! That’s the job of the liberal mainstream media! We can’t have opposing viewpoints over-riding the liberal media mantras now can we? That just forces people to have to reason through the implications of the various viewpoints and reach a conclusion and we can’t have that. We need to return the monopoly on thought that CBS, NBC, ABC, and the NYT had before all of this unfettered advertising became possible.

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Exactly. Just like that “object of want” for African Americans to ride in the front of a public bus. The gall of them thinking that was a right!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

And here’s where the perversion begins. The reason to get rid of the “front of the bus” regulation is that it served no purpose or function. Marriage serves the purpose of providing intact family environments for children to be raised in by their creators.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

! inthemiddle

Whoooooo buddy! Huge logic fail!

4/10 for attempting to apply alinsky tactics and be clowning yourself in the process.

tom daschle concerned on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Uh, you do understand that gay people are not fighting for the right to have sex with each other (they already received that from the conservative Supreme Court) but to have their relationship legally recognized.

Please try to keep up.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality…

Singer is a narcissist zillionaire whose apparent goal is to redefine marriage so his “married” sodomist son can be redefined as normal.

The goal is not “marriage equality.” The goal is to seize the authority to redefine marriage and the family, and therefore, to redefine humanity.

I don’t have that right, you don’t have that right, but this jaggazz and every other moral imbecile who uses the term “marriage equality” in any but a derisive context wants that right.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Well, they did all wear powdered wigs and tights…so they were a bit Fabulousss themselves.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Oh I’m sure there were plenty of gays around. They were mostly happy I guess and it didn’t occur to them to hijack a word in an effort to get the government to force everyone else to call what they were doing good.

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Lots of things exist without society’s blessing. The homosexual community is demanding the community celebrate their lifestyle. It seems to me something so deeply emotional as marriage would not be the same under duress. Even heterosexual couples (generally) ask for society’s blessing. “Speak now or forever hold your peace”

mike_NC9 on June 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Uh, you do understand that gay people are not fighting for the right to have sex with each other (they already received that from the conservative Supreme Court) but to have their relationship legally recognized.

Please try to keep up.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Yes, and you do realize that what I’m talking about is that you’re fundamentally changing something without then even bothering to consider what its purpose then even is because you’ve gone discrimination-bonkers, right?

Please try to keep up.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

So you’re going to completely ignore my 8:38 PM comment to you – proving that not only are you liar – you’re also a coward.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

And here’s where the perversion begins. The reason to get rid of the “front of the bus” regulation is that it served no purpose or function. Marriage serves the purpose of providing intact family environments for children to be raised in by their creators.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals. Denying foster kids the right to have two loving parents through legislation because it makes you personally uncomfortable is far from the small government, conservative mindset. Also, using your definition, infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry since they can’t “create” someone else.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

“Waaaah! It’s not fair! We’re supposed to have a total monopoly on the GOP’s platform because we’re special!” – social “conservatives”

Armin Tamzarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Marriage needs blessed by the state Just like lords of old doing Primae Noctis (law of the first night). So how about the state need not bless it by giving allowing them to pay less taxes to the state no matter who the union is. Lets hope that tack is taken. Less government over more.

Could not find the Braveheart one but this is a parody of it.
http://youtu.be/nu26mV8dWW8

tjexcite on June 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

part of his goal is, “helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.”

Yeah because the gay lobby is sooo unorganized and poor//

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

In your eyes “homosexuality is not acceptable.” Luckily our Constitution protects Americans from your acceptable bigotry.

Huh. So the 32 states that rejected buggery marriage are full of bigots? Ok!

It’s too bad that more Republicans are afraid to stand up to you anti-gay bigots.

You’re very adept at Alinsky agitprop tactics for one with such a right wing moniker.

Republicans led America to its civil-rights legislative victories. The case for gay marriage is part of that legacy. Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

So what about polygamy you fraud?

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Uh, you do understand that gay people are not fighting for the right to have sex with each other (they already received that from the conservative Supreme Court) but to have their relationship legally recognized.

Please try to keep up.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Yeah, and funny thing, back when those activists were “fighting” for that “right”, they would always exclaim, “No, we are absolutely not advocating that gays should be ‘married’, oh my no, we are only wanting to be allowed to practice our alternate lifestyle!” Just shows that activists lie. They got their first win, then moved to civil unions where again, everyone was assured, that was the goal and marriage was a different thing entirely. Now we approach endgame with the perversion of the institution of marriage to include two men, two women, next it will be man & dog, man & horse, etc. … and no, I don’t believe you when you say the latter is demeaning and no one would ever advocate for that. As demonstrated above, activists lie.

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I pray for this country… If we don’t stop this homosexual agenda, which is evil perverted and wrong, America be heading to hell in a gay handbasket…

CCRWM on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Denying foster kids the right to have two loving parents through legislation because it makes you personally uncomfortable is far from the small government, conservative mindset. Also, using your definition, infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry since they can’t “create” someone else.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

And what does “gay marriage” have to do with foster kids having 2 parents? If you are fostering a child you aren’t the parent legally anyway.

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals. Denying foster kids the right to have two loving parents through legislation because it makes you personally uncomfortable is far from the small government, conservative mindset. Also, using your definition, infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry since they can’t “create” someone else.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Evidently you missed it when I said this:

Rather than help an institution that already suffers from numerous problems, chiefly infiedlity and abandonment, you’ve decided to try to put the final nail in the coffin.

As for foster parents, that’s a band-aid to a problem. What marriage is supposed to be doing is striving for an ideal society, in which the child’s creators (i.e. parents) raise them. Foster homes are something we set up when reality skewers that ideal. The point of marriage isn’t to be plan B, it’s to be plan A.

Finally, as many other people have criticized me for, and I have openly admitted to, I’m not part of the “small government” mindset. Leave that for the libertarians. Thanks.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

The ultimate impact on the electorate and level of corruption that result are very hard to measure. But as Mitt Romney obama proved in the primaries 2008, it works.

bayam on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

There we go…

BallisticBob on June 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Who are these “gays” and where do they come from?

Bishop on June 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Apparently Akzed is fine with billionaires as long as they fund conservative causes.

They become “narcissistic” and evil whenever he disagrees with them. How anti-capitalist!

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Strong families create a strong nation. The problems with marriage in our county have little to do with whether it is “broad” enough. The best thing we can do for marriage is not to broaden the definition, but takes steps as a nation to strengthen the institution of marriage in order to create healthy families where children grow up with mother and a father modeling a strong marriage.

Gay marriage fails as civil rights issues, is unhealthy, and works contrary to building healthy families. The GOP should find another donor.

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Nonissue. This guy can spend what he likes, but a smart pol will always have the opinion that his/her constituents do and act appropriately. Can have all the money in the world, but if you can’t get the votes because your agenda isn’t what the voter wants…

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

False

spinach.chin on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

If they wanted the federal government to protect marriage they would have written it in the Constitution, they didn’t. rndmusrnm on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

So by your lights they were pro-abortion too eh? Because I can’t find abortion in the constitution neither.

Was the US bigoted by forcing Mormons to renounce polygamy for Utah to be inducted into the union?

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I love it when we are talking social conservative-they must toe the line and focus on the economy only. When it comes to progressive Republicans though, they can focus all they want on social issues. This is why a truce never works. The Progressives don’t ever stop. It is like Israel and Palestine. Israel may stop fighting but Palestine never will…

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

how’s the romney campaign going to swallow this?

renalin on June 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Nonissue. This guy can spend what he likes, but a smart pol will always have the opinion that his/her constituents do and act appropriately. Can have all the money in the world, but if you can’t get the votes because your agenda isn’t what the voter wants…

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

+1000

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

And what does “gay marriage” have to do with foster kids having 2 parents? If you are fostering a child you aren’t the parent legally anyway.

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Fair enough. Many gay couples these days are having children through help of in-vitro and friends. Others are choosing to adopt. How do you feel about those? GOP Presidential nominee Romney is on record as supporting gay adoption.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

how’s the romney campaign going to swallow this?

renalin on June 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I dub thee pun-winner.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals. Denying foster kids the right to have two loving parents through legislation because it makes you personally uncomfortable is far from the small government, conservative mindset. Also, using your definition, infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry since they can’t “create” someone else.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Umm no, you know who caused it.. The same kind of progressive pushing for gay marriage who pushed for no-fault divorce and sexual “freedom.’

As far as foster parents go. Stop letting children sit in the system for years. Take away parental rights much sooner, so adoption is possible at a young age.

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

That’s just it. Everyone knows it’s for “appearance’s sake” and thus no one is buying it.

Thanks for being honest, though.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Because our President “evolving” on the issue is so honest. All politics is appearance until law is signed. What, are you 12?

John the Libertarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Why would you want to get married, so your special person can hector you 24/7? Stay single, get a motorcycle, and live the gypsy lifestyle; you’ll be happier in the long run.

Bishop on June 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

False

spinach.chin on June 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Wait. Are you saying gays caused this?

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Good.

AshleyTKing on June 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Whatever Republican takes a dime of that money should face a primary.

Axion on June 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Uh, you do understand that gay people are not fighting for the right to have sex with each other (they already received that from the conservative Supreme Court) but to have their relationship legally recognized.

Please try to keep up.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

What is wrong with “civil unions”, then? Why not go for the legal protections and ignore the word “marriage” itself?

It seems that this could all be resolved fairly quickly by enacting laws for civil unions/common law relationships.

No, it’s a matter of win at all costs and not respecting the majority (yes, sorry it is still a majority) of people who would like the word marriage to remain a male/female union.

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Honestly, what is with the whole “gay marriage” thing? Why is it so friggin important for gay people to get married? What’s the point? I mean, other than more cultural warfare from the Left. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage anyway.

Having said that, you gotta hand it to those homos – they’re all rich!

WhatSlushfund on June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

What, are you 12?

John the Libertarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

That’s my guess.

Using the computer while sitting inthemiddle of mommy’s basement.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Fair enough. Many gay couples these days are having children through help of in-vitro and friends. Others are choosing to adopt. How do you feel about those? GOP Presidential nominee Romney is on record as supporting gay adoption.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

It is a free country, but one of the reasons I am not on the “gay” side is the fact they can’t get real. Children do better with opposite sex parents granting that it is a functional home. Men and Women -mommies and daddies balance each other out.

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

So you’re going to completely ignore my 8:38 PM comment to you – proving that not only are you liar – you’re also a coward.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Looks like it…

OmahaConservative on June 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

rndmusrnm on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

It would never have occurred to our Founders that it would ever be an issue.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

“Waaaah! It’s not fair! We’re supposed to have a total monopoly on the GOP’s platform because we’re special!” – social “conservatives”

Armin Tamzarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Sorry. I’d like to know what their positions are on other important issues. I already know that we disagree on SSM. Where do they stand on, say, economics, healthcare, and SCOTUS nominations. Let’s see whether they’re actually conservatives.

Besides, gays who are all-gay, all-the-time and have one conservative impulse are probably better characterized as pink dog Democrats.

BuckeyeSam on June 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

What is wrong with “civil unions”, then? Why not go for the legal protections and ignore the word “marriage” itself?

It seems that this could all be resolved fairly quickly by enacting laws for civil unions/common law relationships.

No, it’s a matter of win at all costs and not respecting the majority (yes, sorry it is still a majority) of people who would like the word marriage to remain a male/female union.

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Because it really isn’t about the marriage. It is about the ability to use the “marriage’ as a bludgeon for all the people who say gay isn’t equal to heterosexual. What they don’t get is that you can’t legally make someone accept something. Tolerate it maybe.. Acceptance-never!

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Most children are raised in either unmarried or single parent homes now. You know who caused that? Heterosexuals.

Yes. By no-fault divorce, in other words, govt meddling in marriage has helped weaken the institution.

Denying foster kids the right to have two loving parents through legislation because it makes you personally uncomfortable is far from the small government, conservative mindset.

Sodomy isn’t love. And redefining marriage and the family isn’t conservative. Defending marriage and the family is.

Also, using your definition, infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry since they can’t “create” someone else. myheadissofarupinthemiddleofmyarseyoucan’tseeit on June 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

The principle reason for marriage is an exclusive covenant of intimacy between a man and a woman. 90% of marriages produce children, but I don’t recall their being any fertility tests required to issue a marriage license.

You would redefine marriage and the family so that 2.8% of those who enjoy oral-genital contact with same-sex partners (many of them only temporarily so defined) can overturn marriage as understood since time immemorial.

Like all liberals, you would destroy the world for a notion.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Umm no, you know who caused it.. The same kind of progressive pushing for gay marriage who pushed for no-fault divorce and sexual “freedom.’

As far as foster parents go. Stop letting children sit in the system for years. Take away parental rights much sooner, so adoption is possible at a young age.

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Would add to that the Lyndon Johnson War on Poverty from the mid-60′s. That effort of providing welfare and food stamps was the final step in breaking up the black family unit. It was more lucrative to be a single mother on welfare than a married mother with a husband working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. The middle troll can say that LBJ wasn’t gay, but that was hardly the basis for the welfare state.

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Got rain?

davidk on June 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Think individual rights. Right and wrong government. Freedom. My mother paid the big inheritance tax for her dear sister after she died, a check bigger than anything she had ever written before. She took care of her thru her infirmity. It meant staying home, because the dear sister couldn’t come everywhere. There is no reason we should not be looking at making laws that are fair to single people. And couples with no children. AND big families with children. The flat tax. Taxes so low it doesn’t matter if you are gay or straight or rich or poor. Stop trying to gouge the money out of this group or that group. Everyone knows a single who gets a promotion, with no dependents PAYS thru the nose.

There should be nothing for gay people to be jealous of in the law. Then we can have honesty, and see that gay marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. There are no natural children as issue in gay marriage. It is a fact of nature. And we are not obligated to provide them with an approximation, with surrogacy or anything else. Honesty and truth need to be the goal. And, if gays want to be moms and dads, my suggestion if they are not parents already when the come together. One Mom and one dad, like nature gives. If not, please say, custodial parent, or step parent. That is the words we use in divorce. No natural born child has two mommies.

Fleuries on June 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

If Paul Singer wants bring homosexuals into the GOP tent then he should forget about gay marriage and focus on the fact that Obama has been helping to overthrow Mideast dictators with an Islamic Caliphate that imposes Sharia law. The dictators did not persecute homosexuals. Islamic Caliphate supporters have been ripping the skin off the faces of living homosexuals in Gaza and the Iranians have been hanging homosexuals by slow strangulation. The Republicans have been opposing Obama’s foreign policy and passing anti-Sharia laws.

scrubjay on June 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Wait. Are you saying gays caused this?

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Your conclusion doesn’t even make a half-a** attempt to follow what the commenter wrote.

Feel free to try again.

BuckeyeSam on June 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Who IS this fool?

Gordy on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

“Broaden the party’s base”? Uh, no, because it would certainly dampen the enthusiasm of people who don’t believe that fundamental cultural change ought to be instituted by activist courts. Same-sex marriage has been ordered by high courts and legalized by legislatures, but when put to a pure democratic vote, it’s gone down to defeat every single time.

“Soften the party’s image”? It is to laugh. As far to the left as George W. Bush took immigration policy, nobody expects that the Dems will fail to one-up whatever pandering the GOP will do in an attempt to grab a greater share of the Hispanic vote. Not until ObamaCare did it matter that women who attend Jesuit colleges couldn’t get their birth control for free. There are only two parties that matter (for now), and the Democrats will ALWAYS be the softer of the two when it comes to these types of issues. You don’t get into a pissing contest with a skunk, and you don’t get into a giveaway contest with Democrats.

L.N. Smithee on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Fair enough. Many gay couples these days are having children through help of in-vitro and friends. Others are choosing to adopt. How do you feel about those? GOP Presidential nominee Romney is on record as supporting gay adoption.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:55 PM

How do I feel? I feel like talking about the actual issue presented in the post instead of having every thread on this hijacked by appeals based on irreverent points. What does in vitro or adoption have to do with fostering a child? Or even marriage? Single people can do both. I’m tired of this lane arguments based on pity. We shouldn’t be writing laws because we feel sorry for someone.

Rocks on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

“Waaaah! It’s not fair! We’re supposed to have a total monopoly on the GOP’s platform because we’re special!” – social “conservatives”

Armin Tamzarian on June 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Well, when a group of folks defines its participation in the party by a set of issues, be prepared to find them no longer supporting you if you no longer support them on those issues.

But hey, if social conservatives aren’t supposed to fight tooth-and-nail, then I suppose the economic conservatives should find tax hikes, spending increases, and unionization just peachy. After all, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the GOP platform, right?

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Because it really isn’t about the marriage. It is about the ability to use the “marriage’ as a bludgeon for all the people who say gay isn’t equal to heterosexual. What they don’t get is that you can’t legally make someone accept something. Tolerate it maybe.. Acceptance-never!

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Yes. It is nothing but a temper tantrum.

So I want the word “black” to be changed to include people who have black hair. Maybe we should all attempt to change the meanings of words even though we can get legal remedies enacted without bickering over what the meaning of “is” is.

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Apparently Akzed is fine with billionaires as long as they fund conservative causes. They become “narcissistic” and evil whenever he disagrees with them. How anti-capitalist! myheadissofarupinthemiddleofmyarseyoucan’tseeit on June 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Anyone sacrificing his treasure to preserve western culture is fine with me. Anyone endeavoring to destroy it should be opposed at every turn. Since you are one of the latter, I don’t expect you to understand.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

It would never have occurred to our Founders that it would ever be an issue.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Exactly. Why would the men who believed that our rights are endowed by our Creator, include the “right” to purposely violate the Word of our Creator?

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

WTF is wrong with some of you. Being gay does not work for me BUT I am not about to dictate any sense of morality onto others.

We claim to be the party desiring the least government then GTF out of marriage. It is not the business of government.

If your religion or mine has a problem with that.. great, OK etc.. but it should be confined to that arena, religion NOT the business of government.

In the end I’ll let the big guy decide but I’m not here to judge. others nor impose my beliefs on them.

Either believe in limited government or don’t .. you can’t pick and choose

theblacksheepwasright on June 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Who IS this fool? Gordy on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

His son enjoys putting penises in his mouth, so the institution of marriage must be redefined to accommodate him.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Either believe in limited government or don’t .. you can’t pick and choose theblacksheepwasright on June 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

How is ceding to govt the power to redefine marriage an example of limited govt?

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

WhatSlushfund on June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Is that acceptable at Hot Air? That’s an anti-gay slur.

You’re obvious comfortable using that language. What other slurs do you toss around freely?

Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6