« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far

Maybe had the libertarians done a better job of preventing their party from being overrun with libertines — a group of people who couldn’t care less about the size and scope of government as long as their desires for one night stands with a bag of weed and a tranny from 7th and Broadway are unimpeded by government — we wouldn’t be having these issues within the conservative movement.

The conservative movement, of course, is that part of the center-right coalition that joins libertarians in the desire for smaller government, but actually believes there must be some bit of morality in government. It is, despite the preference of some, separate and distinct from both libertarians and, more so, Republicans.

Nonetheless, we are having these debates over what it means to be a conservative. The cool kids on twitter, the ones who think as long as they proclaim their openmindedness to ideas that have never had a place within conservatism they won’t be considered troglodytes, are all a twitter (pun intended) over GOProud going to CPAC. Most are willing to admit the group is Republican and intellectually libertarian — not conservative. But they want them to have a seat at the table. That’s all well and fine.

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 and horrified that any conservative could look at the conservative political action conference and wonder how an organization like GOProud got to be a participating organization. Yes Virginia, there remains a difference between Republican and conservative.

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.

I understand that Pawlenty is trying hard to get people to pay attention to his campaign. Its certainly a challenge for someone with such little stature in the conservative movement to compete with high profile conservative leaders like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, etc. Unfortunately for Pawlenty, comments like this simply show how totally out-of-touch he is with the issues that rank and file conservatives care about. If he wants to show he is a committed social conservative he would be much better served talking about the need to defund Planned Parenthood, end federal funding for abortion, reign in an out of control judiciary and support for a parents rigths amendment to protect home-schoolers.

Interestingly enough, GOProud’s statement got its traction at the far left Americablog. This is much in the same way Chris Barron went on MSNBC to attack conservative Jim DeMint for not going to CPAC. He went so far as to claim DeMint was joining “birthers” in a boycott, which is a lot of hooey.

If Chris Barron wants GOProud to be taken seriously as a right-of-center group, perhaps he should be willing to extend the same courtesy to those on the right who disagree with him and, oddly enough, maintain extremely long standing conservative positions GOProud works in opposition to.

As my friend Drew Ryun noted yesterday, GOProud doesn’t have as much to show for its conservative bona fides as either Tim Pawlenty or Jim DeMint do — both of whom have been attacked by GOProud.

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. According to GOProud, marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states. They endorsed DC Gay Marriage and oppose Rep. Chaffetz’s efforts to overturn it.

“Look, marriage is important to me,” says Barron, 36, chairman of GOProud, an advocacy group for gay conservatives. “I support marriage equality. But it’s a state issue, and states ought to be able to work through this process. And we’re winning. The left seems hellbent on pulling defeat from the jaws of victory by focusing on this courts-only strategy. It’s a complete and total turnoff to a huge segment of the voting population.” (source)

GOProud is for repeal of DADT: “GOProud is thankful to every Senator, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for repeal,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s Executive Director. “GOProud is particularly thankful and proud of the votes of Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). GOProud was the only gay organization who endorsed and supported both Senator Brown and Senator Kirk in their respective elections.” (source)

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

We can also put GOProud to the test in another way. While they have spoken up forcefully in favor of a liberal social agenda and against traditional values, they say they are serious fiscal and national security conservatives (not just Republican, but deeply conservative on these issues) — and nevermind that the word “libertarian” might just be more apt.

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.

Or, maybe it should just go on and admit it is Republican with a libertarian worldview.

I’m fine with that. But let’s not soil the word “conservative” the way the libertines did to “libertarian”.

COMMENTS

  • chihank

    I have no problem with GOP Proud at CPAC as long as the group doesn’t push the Gay Agenda. I don’t think gov’t should pass anti-sodomy laws. However I don’t like public schools teaching kids that its okay to be gay and small business owners being forced into paying for domestic partnerships for gay employees.

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    Erik substantiates that in his post.

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    & thanks!

  • Otto Neubauer

    “Libertarianism is a philosophy of government, but conservatism is a philosophy of life.”

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    Erick. My apologies–I can’t believe I did that.

  • newagegop

    they don’t get to dictate what’s being served. My view that all “government run” marriage should be banned isn’t held by all that many, so I’m not about to demand everyone agree with me. If GOProud wants a seat at the table they should make their case without dumping on social conservatives or whining to the lefties.

    My view on the whole marriage thing is to separate it totally from government. Civil contracts for all. Marriage according to the church of your choice. I fear government forcing clergy to perform gay marriages or polygamist marriages unless marriage is stripped away from government oversight.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    During and after the 2010 CPAC, GOProud attacked Liberty University and a number of social conservative groups. Andrew Breitbart and his Big Government site gave a forum to the attacks and refused to check the accuracy of GOProud when questioned.

    Yet, GOProud consistently portrays itself as the victim?

  • chihank

    This is a question the conservative movement will need to grapple with.

    For example, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair from 2004 to 2006, came out of the closet last year. What should conservatives react to them?

  • streiff

    keep it up and your career here will fairly Hobbesian.

  • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

    You can’t have your cream puff and eat it too!

    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.

    [snip]

    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)

    In bed with Progs.

  • Duke

    but I can’t support an organization that believes in freedom without responsibility or accountablility; government without morals or ethics.

    I keep going back to the thoughts of Buckley and Reagan. Freedom, common sense and responsibility.

  • LisaDe

    In a recent diary I wrote about tolerance to them and stated:
    “If his positions stray and he is not loyal, he will be found out and cast aside.”

    That was just last night. Wow.

  • LisaDe

    In a recent diary I wrote about tolerance to them and stated:
    “If his positions stray and he is not loyal, he will be found out and cast aside.”

    That was just last night. Wow.

  • bobmontgomery

    …in my HE mailing today, wherein he pleaded “Come on, people! It’s just two guys in a booth at a very big convention!” I am no longer able to log on at HE with their new system. Will try again later, but…I know there are interlocking directorates here and at HE and I know this is a tricky situation for all, so I don’t want to pour gas on a fire, if there is a fire. But it is stated that GoProud just wants a seat at the table. Why do they need to be seated at the table under their ‘banner’? And even if it’s just ‘two guys in a booth’ what is the theme of the booth? Pretty soon, a lot of conflicted people are going to start demanding just what is going on. In case you hadn’t noticed, some nerves are beginning to fray here at RedState, even among the’oldtimers’. This is all going to play out to somebody’s advantage and I don’t think it’s going to be to the advantage of conservatives.

  • Finrod

    .

  • powertothepeople

    issue such as our opposition to gay marriage, trashes a candidate for the same, yet turns around and tells everyone we should all focus in on another social issue, abortion. While I agree 100%, do they not care that they are doing to the pro abortion side of the republican party what we are “doing” to them? Can anyone say hypocrisy?

    The fact is they do not need to have a voice at CPAC. CPAC is not the republican party, it is a conservative group who used to be socially conservative as well. That was and is supposed to be their platform. GOProud should have a voice in their own group and in the party, but not in a supposed socially conservative group.

  • proudmarinemom

    was destined to be short-lived. Kind of like when your karma runs over their dogma. We did try to be nice . . .

    They seem to be doing a good job furthering their agenda with or without CPAC.

    Blech.

  • billollib

    The folk who believe that “real” conservatism started in the 1980s with the Moral Majoritarian takeover might want to look a little farther back. It’s laughable. I’ve been a conservative for longer than most of the people reading this blog have been alive, and now people are telling me that I’m not a “real” conservatism because I don’t think the government should dictate morality. Heh.

    I guess Barry Goldwater wasn’t a “real” conservative, either. After all, this is what he said about homosexuals in the conservative movement:

    “There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that’s not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don’t raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please.”

    I guess people should be free to make their own decisions about their lives — as long as they make the right decisions according to biblical principles enforced by the federal government.

  • Scope

    especially when they didn’t agitate for, or lobby for, gay rights, to be put in front of federal legislation to promote their gay agenda. GOProud isn’t some little group of gay people wanting to proclaim that they are finally out of the closet, and, are proud of it. They are working at the federal level to be recognized as a victim group who has been demonized against, and are the latest victims of prejudice and discrimination.

    If I recall correctly, the majority of states have passed laws against same sex marriage over the last few years. That is not acceptable for the gays. They are working at the federal level now because their agenda wasn’t acceptable in most states. They are a persistent bunch. I have to believe that someone is behind this movement, other than Christopher Barron. This has traditionally been a Liberal position, as has been evidenced by the Liberals, and the Obama admin., push for passage of repeal of DADT.

    The libertarian Cato Institute supports gay marriage, and they have had funding and support from George Soros, who also supports the gays, conveniently.

  • edwyrd

    and i’ll say it again.

    GOProud is a plot to cleve the “conservative union” from within.
    ideological implosion.
    the “gay agenda” is a poison pill for the conservatives.
    exactly what part of their agenda will make it into the conservative platform?
    there is NOTHING that they can bring to the table without a mass exodus from the very same table.
    90% of regular church goers vote republican.
    today thay are awake.
    awakened by obama and his liberal agenda. what will they think or worse yet, do, or again worse yet, NOT do, in the next election with GOProud claiming to be republican party mainstream, and the assnine boisterous libertarians claiming all is well and good?

  • Scope

    throwing a big bash for them. That’s a shame because when Breitbart really broke onto the scene, with his ACORN sting videos, he was great. It helped to get Congress to defund them. So, he bought into the hooker stings, but, supports the gay agenda. Just asking, but, are hookers more morally wrong than the gay lifestyle. From what I understand, there are gay hookers also. So are all hookers not equal?

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    just about every gay advocacy group has this inate desire to create controversy, even if its not even there? Do they do it for the attention, or is there a deeper reason?

  • writeblock

    they found out he was sleeping around outside of marriage. It’s nobody’s business. These are private issues. If a gay agenda is pushed, that’s another matter–but otherwise it’s a non-issue. Some in our ranks clearly feel threatened needlessly by anyone not aligned with their own religious and moral perspectives. But they need to ask themselves–is the GOP a political party or a religion? Does it want to build coalitions to win elections–or remain exclusive and lose? In the final analysis it’s a numbers game. And the numbers alone hold the keys to power. Power is what makes social changes, not loud pounding on the chest about morality.

    In this regard it seems to me many social conservatives have yet to come to terms with why Obama won and we lost in 2008–one of the most crucial elections in our history. In my opinion it had less to do with Bush and McCain and more to do with the intolerance of many fellow Republicans expressed through a staggeringly stupid primary process that gave more influence to small states with little importance in any general election than it was willing to give much more important battleground states–which would be the actual determinants of who the next president will be. It’s a process that makes little political sense.

    Any GOP candidate at all will win the red states. That’s a given. So why aren’t we backing a system to see which candidate fares well in purple and blue states instead? Doesn’t that make better sense politically if we want to win? Nor does this mean picking a moderate as some think. Reagan himself had a rough time of it in our primary system. Those small states don’t take kindly to big city, big state personalities–though Reagan picked up a lot of votes in places nobody imagined would vote Republican. What happened to the Reagan democrats, btw? Why is there no attempt to tap into that latent conservative resource? Why the blind spot politically?

  • powertothepeople

    but have to ask for a link showing 90% of regular church goes support or vote republican. If you are talking about your church, OK then. But the numbers of regular church goes who vote republican is no where near 90%. I could take you to hundreds of churches in my old state of Michigan and at best, the numbers would be 50/50. I could also take you to hundreds upon hundreds of churches across the country that are filled with regulars who vote democrat as a majority. Going to church, which is a very good thing, does not mean they are republican nor does not going to church mean a person votes dem. Until he was banned, we had a pastor of a church in VA who was a flaming liberal progressive and taught his vile from the pulpit. He did the same thing down here in SC, church was right down the road from my home, until they ran him out of town. One church was heavily republican, the other dem.

  • lineholder
  • powertothepeople

    I had so much trouble typing church “goers.” Too much fun this last weekend I guess.

  • lineholder
  • writeblock

    the way Rudy is New York and Christie is New Jersey. They come from places that are as far from small town America as you can imagine. But they are an important segment of the GOP and we need to appreciate the powerful influence they have in blue and purple states–and use it when it can help us get to where we want to go.

    These pols are not “moderates” in the sense we use the term–as some have called Republicans like Giuliani, for instance. These guys are tough, they’ve been in the trenches fighting the race hustlers, the media, the big government spenders, the terrorist-appeasers. They can’t be lumped together with Specter or Lugar or Graham. They are a special breed–and we need to respect them–and use their talents and try to understand where they’re coming from–big cities, big states, a different cultural milieu altogether.

    It creates culture shock for many–but it’s the new reality in the GOP. We need these kind of Republicans–bad. The Pawlentys, the Gingriches, the Huckabees, the Romneys are not going to turn back the tide, they’re not real reformers and none is a real fighter. Only real warrirors can achieve the kinds of changes we want–real feisty types who kick a$$–and they tend to come from big states where Republicans have had to fight tooth and nail just to stay politically alive.

  • Bill S

    Provide proof of why Obama won. Here. Now. Prove to us that Obama won because your man-god couldn’t campaign his way out of a paper bag.

  • Read Chesterton

    Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    As conservative as it gets.

  • edwyrd

    monday. he quoted a study that indicated that people who attended church regularly were highly likely republican voters. and as the attendance grew so did the republican loyalty.
    however i should have provided the link already.
    i will look for it. and in the future i willl include such links for referance as may be indicated.
    thankyou

  • writeblock

    He won because we backed a weak candidate. We backed a weak candidate because we have a politically stupid primary system that tends to eliminate our strongest contenders–i.e., those who are able to attract votes OUTSIDE the red state enclave–and gives unnecessary and ridiculous authority and power to insignificant states like IA and NH that have little or no relevance in any general election. It’s a system that does, however, give undue influence to social conservatives–which is why an ignoramus and do-nothing like Huckabee can rise to the top so easily. My understanding is that he’s polling well ahead of everybody else in IA right now. Does it surprise you that evangelicals vote for a preacher despite his poor record as governor? Doesn’t surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that Newt’s ahead in SC and Romney’s ahead in NH. It’s all so dumb–and predictable.

  • Scope
  • blooch

    Nope…not gonna do it.

  • Bill S

    Your theories don’t mean squat.

  • Bill S

    I believe I posted a link to it in my diary about the Trucers

  • gekster

    You said, “Reagan himself had a rough time of it in our primary system”.

    He lost the first caucus and rolled on from there.
    There was no “rough time” for him, unless you are counting the first caucas.
    The least you could do is get your facts straight.
    _______________________________________________
    from:
    http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=0117ba95-a2b6-4436-b90e-84ac8800c9be

    excerpt:
    “The GOP primary victory for Reagan over runner-up George Bush by 39,540 votes dramatically reshaped a race, which had already been turned on its head when Bush upset Reagan in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses on January 21.

    This rapid reversal of fortunes in the earliest primary created a Reagan resurgence so forceful that he was able to sweep through the remainder of the primaries with only four losses to Bush: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Bush was the final challenger to Reagan to withdraw from the race; he did so on May 26″.

    and the Iowa caucus he lost:
    from:
    http://publications.iowa.gov/135/1/elections/10-5.pdf

    1980 Republican Party of Iowa Straw Poll
    George Bush 33,530 31.6%
    Ronald Reagan 31,348 29.5%
    Howard Baker 16,216 15.3%
    John Connally 9,861 9.3%
    Phil Crane 7,135 6.7%
    John Anderson 4,585 4.3%
    No Preference 1,800 1.7%
    Robert Dole 1,576 1.5%
    ________________________________________________________

    Exsplain to me the rough time he had.
    And of course, I do expect you to move the goalposts again.

    (I would have replied sooner, but had to do some “research” on it.
    Try it sometime).

  • edwyrd

    http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-Church-Attendance-Affects-Religious-Voting-Patterns.aspx

    this link is the study that boortz quoted.

    however, it indicates that white protestants who attend church at least once a week, voted 74% republican. so i was 16% over. additionally, as you say, it is not ALL church goers, but rather, just the white protestants. other demographics are indeed not as likely to vote republican

  • Ben Howe

    …you want to fight for seats.

    That worked out real well when we did some “seat filling” in the last two decades, expanded government spending, destroyed the Republican brand, lost both houses in 2006 and are now known as a party of big spending hypocrites that did nothing to stop the tanking of the economy.

    And why? Because rather than fighting to teach people about conservatism and small government, we took any joe that was prolife, stamped an “approval” on his forehead and threw a rally for him.

    Maybe…just MAYBE it might be time to stop trying to win in democrat districts by simply becoming democrats.

  • Read Chesterton

    GOProud is a plot to cleve the ?conservative union? from within.

    Conservatism is a set of un-cleavable principles. Those who adhere to these principles will not be moved off of them by a “Gay Agenda” or the negative opinions of those sympathetic to same.

    Erick, Jim DeMint, Heritage, et al have taken the reasonable and conservative tack in dealing with the hijacking of CPAC by simply steering clear of it. The CPAC hijackers are no better than common liberal race baiters who attempted to smear the Tea Party out of existence. They’ve proven this by displaying the very bigotry and histrionics they believed we would when confronted by an in-your-face “We’re here, we’re queer” attitude. It didn’t work. It won’t work. It seems we care much less about who’s gay than gay activists care about who is a bible believing Christian.

    No, conservatism will not be fractured, but I believe the GOP baby is undergoing a King Solomon moment here, with Conservative and Progressive republicans playing the parts of the mothers. Looking at the CPAC shenanigans, it’s pretty obvious as to which mother belongs the baby.

    Better rent a bigger hall for the next RedState gathering.

  • writeblock

    Rudy was polling ahead of Obama and Hillary in PA by double digits–around 20%. He polled well ahead of all other GOP candidates in PA–but Republicans in PA never got a shot in the primaries. It was all over by the time it got to us. And while it suits some here just fine that this should be the case, it’s a sure road to electoral failure. After all, Pennsylvania matters big-time, the early states don’t–IA and NH because it has so few electoral votes, and SC because it’s predictably red no matter who runs under the GOP banner.

    Here’s just one of many reports on polls during the primary season:

    http://www.fandm.edu/politics/politically-uncorrected-column/2007-politically-uncorrected/a-rudy-rage-in-pennsylvania

    “The Pennsylvania results are also consistent with a spate of national polls. Nationally, the former New York Mayor narrowly leads his Democratic opponents, while he has opened up a substantial double digit lead over his most serious party rival, John McCain. The national polls also show Rudy running well in the northeastern states.”

  • runner12
  • runner12
  • writeblock

    He lost the first time around–when he was in his prime. He almost lost the second time, squeaking by in NH by a mere 8000 votes. The revisionism is on your part.

  • Bill S

    One poll? One state?

    You are delusional.

  • dajeeps

    Social libertarians on the right are classical liberals. I am almost as far right as one can get on economic and defense issues, but I have no problem agreeing to disagree with gays, live and let live. I am neutral on the issue of gay marriage with the caveat that the Feds don’t have any place in the issue and that matters of sexuality should not be taught in the schools. Of course, in my ideal world the government wouldn’t be running the schools and so schools that skew toward teaching deviant culture would most likely have their lunch eaten by the competition. Markets and ordinary people that make up our self-governed society are best suited for dealing with social issues, as in the latter phrase of the 10th amendment “… or to the people” and I think the real problem we have is that government is trying to offset that and force gayness as being acceptable on society as a substitute for persuasion.

    And that’s where I have a problem with it. It doesn’t matter to me if two men or two women want to get married, but it matters a whole lot when I’m told I have to accept them being granted some kind of protected status because of choices they make in life.That is between them and God, and it should not involve me being coersed to do anything I would not ordinarily do and pay for it as well.

    And so if GOProud is all about coersion, only at the state level, and not about the rest of the founding principles of a self-governing society of soverign people with limited but necessary evil of government, then it doesn’t not seem to fit with the rest of the conversation.

  • writeblock

    that many social conservatives despised the Giuliani candidacy because of his pro-choice stance, despite his commitment to nominating strict constructionist justices if nominated. That wasn’t good enough–though he brought a number of NE states to the table–PA, NJ, CT to start with. He had little backing in the early states–where either ethanol or abortion were the hot issues. But where it really mattered, he was strong. That strength was never tested because of the winner-take-all system.

  • Finrod

    “If you can’t define the words you’re using in the context that you’re saying them in, you really haven’t said anything.”

    This was a lesson he learned in dealing with liberals, of the theological variety; in his run-ins with them he learned quickly that while what they were saying might sound 100 percent in line with mainline Christian historical belief, they had redefined the words to mean something entirely different and thus what they were really saying was not Christian at all.

    Thus when I hear people saying things like “GOProud is pushing the gay agenda”, the first thing that goes through my mind is that unless there’s a clear definition of what “the gay agenda” actually is, they’re not really saying anything that has any semantic value at all. You might as well say “the color green is pushing the gay agenda” or “the Orbital Mind Control Lasers are pushing the gay agenda”.

  • Finrod

    I missed seeing the definition.

  • runner12

    How about you come up with a definition of the “gay agenda.” Then you can compare it with the one Erick already layed out in this diary (links were included) and the RS community can discuss it.

  • joayn

    Years ago, I wanted to be inclusive regarding GOProud, but they always managed to poke a finger in the conservative eye. In the end, they’re just another special interest/activist group who wants power for a small minority of people, without any consideration for the thoughts and ideas of the majority.

    I believe social conservativism is the foundation for being a conservative, and all fiscal policies evolve from that basis. That’s why GOProud will never be, why they can’t be because of their lifestyle, true conservatives and will never be totally committed to the conservative movement.

  • gekster

    from:
    http://primarynewhampshire.com/new-hampshire-primary-past-results.php

    1980 -
    Ronald Reagan* (49.6%)
    George H.W. Bush (22.7%)
    Howard H. Baker (12.1%)
    John B. Anderson (9.8%)
    Philip M. Crane (1.8%)
    John B. Connally (1.5%)

    49.2% to 22.7% dif 26.5%

    Thats a squeeker?

    And just for giggles, 1976 primary results.
    1976 –
    Gerald R. Ford* (49.4%)
    Ronald Reagan (48.0%) dif 1,4%
    Now THAT is an example of a squeeker.

    Look up the word dillusional.
    I think you have need of it.

  • Bill S

    But since you apparently need some help with it:

    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. According to GOProud, marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from the states. They endorsed DC Gay Marriage and oppose Rep. Chaffetz?s efforts to overturn it.

    GOProud is for repeal of DADT: ?GOProud is thankful to every Senator, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for repeal,? said Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud?s Executive Director. ?GOProud is particularly thankful and proud of the votes of Senators Scott Brown (R-MA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). GOProud was the only gay organization who endorsed and supported both Senator Brown and Senator Kirk in their respective elections.? (source)

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

    Etc.

  • writeblock

    happens to be PA–a critical swing state, a purple state, one of the biggest states in the Union. That poll also reflected a consistent polling that was done throughout 2007 and 2008–though I’ve posted other polls in the past from Gallup and Quinnipiac as well. Heck, Rudy was ahead in PA even AFTER he dropped out! That one state–PA–could well have given us the election, paired with OH and NJ where he was equally strong. The political landscape would have looked a lot different had he been our candidate, believe me. Rudy’s reform of NYC was exactly the kind of reform the country was desperate for–and he was just the guy to achieve it. And we would have had two more CONSERVATIVE SC justices, besides. So you SoComs who looked a gift horse in the mouth back when you had the chance to decide, bear full responsibility for the fiasco that is Obama. You sneered at Rudy’s credentials–and you still sneer. He’s not pure enough for you. So you gave McCain the nod–and the rest is history.

  • Bill S

    Uncle Rico.

    How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?… Yeah… Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would’ve been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.

    Yeah, if they’da put in Rudy, he coulda won State. No doubt in your mind.

    Get. Over. It.

  • joayn

    “Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by social conservatives to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships.[1][2] The term is regarded as pejorative by some LGBT organisations.[3] The term is applied to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, LGBT adoption, recognizing sexual orientation as a civil rights minority classification, LGBT military participation, inclusion of LGBT history and themes in public education) as well as non-governmental campaigns and individual actions which increase visibility and cultural acceptance of LGBT people, relationships, and identities.[2] ”

    Yep, sounds right to me.

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

  • writeblock

    which is what typically happens after the early states have their say. In the winner-take-all sweepstakes, the money dries up after NH and it’s all over technically, though some names remain on the ballot. That’s my whole point. It’s why the system sucks. Reagan almost didn’t make it the second time. Had he not won NH in a close race, he would not have gotten those final numbers. You don’t seem to appreciate this–as shown by posting the final tally–as if it mattered. McCain’s final tally was equally impressive–and irrelevant. The system doesn’t reflect real choice on the part of most Republicans outside the early states.

  • EMT907

    Does anybody have any idea what “the gay agenda” is or is that just a term used to stir up fear?

    “That person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally not a 20% traitor”. -Ronaldus Magnus

  • EMT907

    that using terms to generate fear, with no basis in reality, is a common liberal tactic.

  • David123

    Birds of a feather flock together.

  • writeblock

    lose us votes and alienate voters who might otherwise vote for us. Why do I want this? So we can WIN ELECTIONS. Why do I want to win elections? To gain POWER! Why do I want to gain power? So I can make the changes conservatives believe in. You can’t do it any other way! Politics is not high-minded, it’s messy and our opposition is ruthless. We have to be smarter and less emotional about issues. We have to persuade, not demand–and we have to recognize what’s in our interest in the long run–even if it means compromise in the short run.

  • runner12

    Please read further up the thread and the diary again. The gay agenda is clearly defined.

  • runner12
  • runner12
  • traversecityconservative

    ? Adhering to the Constitution
    ? Equal justice
    ? Less government
    ? Less spending
    ? Less taxes
    ? National Defense
    ? Life
    ? Liberty

    And the only real differences between us all is what order we place those things on our list? Are we still Conservatives if we take one thing off that list?

  • Ben Howe

    Your plan is to stop talking about things that people get upset about so that we can get votes from people who are turned off by social conservative positions.

    This way we’ll get their votes, allowing us to get into office to do what? Are you suggesting we tell people that social conservative issues aren’t on the table, get elected and then just start implementing the social conservative agenda anyway?

    Sounds like a great plan. Let me know how it works out.

  • joayn

    regarding homosexuality very late in life and was pretty much vilified for it. That wasn’t his position his entire career, or his active political life.

  • gekster
  • AceInTX

    This is what’s wrong with giving them a seat at the table! Besides that…it’s predictable…you take a group like this who agrees with conservatism in almost every way ….who form themselves into this group because they disagree with the conservative movement on the gay rights issue….and what do you think they are going to do….work on all the issues they agree with us on…or start picking away and agitating over the issue they formed themselves into a group to deal with?

    Put another way…Why wouldn’t you expect them to agitate and cause division over that gay rights agenda since that’s they reason they exist as a group in the first place!

    (slapping self on the forehead)

    Are you kidding me?

    I’ve largely kept my mouth shut about this with the exception of a few comments because I have trouble arguing with libertarians because for the most part….I ARE ONE…I just think libertarians get to carried away some times and miss the obvious about a lot of things…

    But on this GOPROUD vs the boycotters stuff…I’ve had enough…and it’s about time I unloaded on where I find myself on all this.

    If I and a bunch of like minded conservatives got together and decided Reagan, Friedman, Laffer and the Conservative movement, had it wrong about supply side economics and we demanded a place at the table at CPAC to advocate for raising taxes…and let’s say we pointed out that we agreed with controlling spending, and controlling the size of government….Let’s say we fit the definition of conservative down the line except on that one issue….and we demanded recognition from CPAC….would we be give that place at the table?

    What if the issue were free trade? And we demanded a return to the days of The Smoot Hawley Tarrif Act and trade protection of every king…Again…we fit with every other condition as being conservative…but we demanded a place at the table to advocate our point of view….would we be given a place at the table…

    go down the list…on issue after issue…if a group formed because the disagreed with a certain issue of conservative orthodoxy….on judges, abortion, spending, big government, repealing Obamacare, China, The Middle East, Russia, Foreign Policy and so on…would any other group formed to agitate against any plank of conservative orthodoxy be allowed the stage for their agitation…or would they be summarily shown the door…

    Finally…What about Paul Bots…would they be given a place at the table?

    I’m sick of this….I’m sick of one side acting like bigots and attacking their opponents for bigotry…it pisses me off when Democrats do it…and it galls me all the more to have done to me by people I agree with, admire in a lot of ways…and have common cause with…

    GOPROUD is an insidious and insipid organization formed to change a conservative position and replace it with a non conservative position….they were formed to be an irritant in order to affect they change they believe in…CPAC should have been allowed to tell them they are welcome as individuals to work in common cause on issues where they agree with the conservative movement…but that their group would not be allowed to participate as an organization designed for the purpose of making a matter of conservative orthodoxy unorthodox!

    but no…now Jim Demint and anyone who decided they no longer want to participate in this charade are lambasted with charges of bigotry and accused of dividing the movement while the agitators in this situation get a pass.

    Check that…they don’t get a pass…they get a hug and a pat on the head for being the victim here!

    I’m getting tired….so very tired of this

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Aaron Gardner
  • writeblock

    until some of you see the logic of what I’m saying. PA matters, IA doesn’t. PA is a purple state, a swing state, a battleground state. What people here think should matter at least as much as what a corn-grower in IA thinks, wouldn’t you say? Why aren’t you asking yourself this question? Why are you content with the system that loses you elections? Some of you remind me of the Japanese in WWII. It took not one, but two, atomic bombs to convince them to wise up and see the light. You need to wake up eventually. I hope it doesn’t take a loss in 2012 to do this. We need to appeal outside our own little red state world to voters unlike ourselves in the battleground states–and we should be testing candidates to see how they would do in those venues, not in NH or IA or SC.

  • writeblock

    nt

  • rightwingmom52

    be it from liberals, the media or GOProud. And what makes GOProud think they have the right to say what we rank & file conservatives care about?

  • writeblock

    But the fact remains he won NH by only 8000 votes. Not impressive at all. He lost by 2000 votes first time around. My point is that history ought not to hinge on what 2000 or 8000 villagers in NH think. Why should they have that kind of clout? By what kind of dumb political logic?

    In any case, I apologize for skimming over the post and assuming it was the same post gekster posted on another thread. I made more or less the same retort as I did then. My fault.

  • AceInTX

    they are for:

    gay marriage, gays in the military, teaching gay norming through the education system teaching children it’s OK to be gay starting in elementary schools, pushing gay images in television, art and throughout the entertainment industry as a healthy and hip way to be, they are for being in your face all day every day with what they do in the privacy of their bedroom…keep in mind this is just after they kicked us out of their bedroom by declaring we had no business there…they are for smearing Christians and those who hold to christian teachings on the subject demanding pastors shut up about what the Bible describes as an abomination before GOD…They are for using the tax codes to regulate what a pastor can say from the sanctity of his pulpit and they are for irradiating any and all images of Jesus Christ and any portrayals of his death, burial and resurrection

    The are against…(and loudly so)

    anyone who stands in their way, they are against any viewpoint that expresses revulsion at their despicable and disgusting public displays of debauchery and lustful indulgence, any parent who would protect their child’s innocence

  • gekster

    2nd nt

  • rightwingmom52
  • bobmontgomery
  • writeblock

    then they are part of the problem, not the solution. It does not good to get mad, we need to get even. And we do that by winning elections. There’s no other way. And you win elections by appealing to independents who may not have the same zeal about some of your favorite issues as you have. So if you’re smart, you emphasize what unites you and win their votes–and THEN you get the power to change things. In a democracy there’s no other way. It may not feel good–it may not alleviate your frustrations–but that’s the only way to achieve anything.

  • AceInTX

  • Bill S

    because no one here takes you seriously. Your Rudy fetish, your unsupported claims, and your unhinged obsession with social conservatives makes you look utterly foolish. In case you haven’t noticed, the contributing editors on this site place social conservative issues very high on their priority list and your whiny pleas about a hopelessly inept former candidate who had not a lick of skill in campaign strategy simply puts people off.

    Now take some advice: stop wasting our time and stop wasting your own time.

  • writeblock

    I tend to skim your posts–since they’re so laced with insults.

  • AceInTX

    what does this have to do with GOPROUD and CPAC?

  • powertothepeople

    moron, lets set a game here. I will show you how stupid your argument is, you show me where I am wrong. If you are half the moron I think you are, you should easily prove me wrong and then proclaim your man crush on Rudy with no argument from anyone. Side note by the way, just so you know, no matter how stupid you make yourself look on this site or any other, Rudy is not going to leave his wife for you and not sure he would swing that way anyways.

    A) You say, actually you spew nonstop, that Rudy was screwed because PA was not first and he did not get there. Lets set aside for a sec that he was the cause of his piss poor campaigning, that he dropped out of his own volition, and that he was trailing by primary time in nearly every state including PA and his own home state NY which is real telling about his chances to win anything, and lets give him the PA win. Pray tell me how he wins the nomination without SC, TX, NC, CA, NJ, IA, OH, etc which he either lost in or was losing? Give him PA just to shut you up, hell give him NJ as well since I have seen you run your mouth about that state as well, and he still loses because he could not take FL, SC, NC, TX, CA, etc. But please show us rubes how he would have won even if you give him PA which he was losing in without winning more states, some which he had already lost in and most others that he was losing in. Come in brilliant boy, show us.

    2) Next you keep spewing absolute nonsense about how he would appoint strict constitutional judges and we should forget about all that Rudy is and all that Rudy has done, and just blindly vote for him due to your claims he would appoint judges in the right way. Now moron, read this:

    A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

    A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

    Cumulatively, Giuilani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group.

    “I don’t think he was looking for someone who was particularly conservative,” added Barry Kamins, a Democrat who chaired the panel of the Bar Association of the City of New York.

    Giuliani cast himself in New York not as a conservative (he had actually run on the Liberal Party line).

    Charles Posner, a Brooklyn judge appointed by Giuliani, made the kind of decision that keeps conservatives up nights when he was asked to levy a fine against a shopkeeper, Abdulsam Yafee, who had illegally sold beer at 3:30 a.m. on a Sunday. In an unusual, lengthy 2004 ruling, Posner found that “there is no secular reason why beer cannot be sold on Sunday morning as opposed to any other morning.”

    While most conservatives would like the ruling made by another judge, they would as quickly denounce how the decision was reached due to their belief judges are not put on benches to change the constitution, but to protect it. Judge Michael Sonberg denied a motion by two Bronx strip-club owners to dismiss prostitution charges against them that were based on dancers’ offering “lap dances” to an undercover officer.

    Sonberg ruled that the changing “cultural and sexual practices” of the previous two decades permitted him to alter the definition of prostitution.

    More troubling to some of the social conservatives Giuliani is courting, however, would have been Sonberg’s other affiliation: When he was appointed in 1995, he was already an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges, a professional group. After his appointment, he became the group’s president.

    Two judges were appointed to federal district courts — one of them, Richard Berman, by President Bill Clinton. The other, Dora Irizarry, was a Bush nominee considered so liberal that Schumer pushed her nomination through.

    Irizarry, appointed by Giuliani to the Bronx Criminal Court in 1996, had disclosed that she considers herself “pro-choice” during her 2002 campaign for New York state attorney general. Her appointment to the federal bench was almost derailed when the American Bar Association ruled her “not qualified” on the grounds that as a state judge, she had been “gratuitously rude and abrasive” and “flew off the handle in a rage.”

    But to Schumer, who led the fight against Bush’s appellate judges, Irizarry was one he could live with.

    “Temperament is not at the top of my list,” Schumer explained at the time, when asked why he supported the former Giuliani appointee. “Ideology is key.”

    So we should just believe you that he would all of a sudden do the right thing now if he was president? We should also buy into your nonsense that had he been able to have PA and NJ (both of which he was losing in) vote earlier he would have somehow changed the minds of the millions in other necessary states in order to get enough votes to win the nomination. And you want us to believe that as lethargic as McCain made the right, a guy even left of McCain would have changed that causing Obama to lose. And are you trying to get us to believe that the entire left side of the spectrum and the disenfranchised moderate side of our party and the independents would have all of a sudden loved Rudy so much they would have changed their minds causing Obama to lose? Even if Rudy would have won, Obama would have still won and nothing you can say would change that, period. Rudy ran his campaign like a moron, he did not take it serious, and he doomed his own future. I have to wonder seeing your continued moronic posts if you were involved in running his campaign as you are such an idiot it would all make sense that you were in charge of what had to be the most moronic run for president in many years.Not too mention your continue insults of an entire state really shows your are one serious moron deserving of our complete contempt.

    Now show us how all the facts about your man crush are wrong.

  • writeblock

    you seem to need to wise up more than most. If you can’t respond reasonably without an ad hominem attack, what’s the point of responding at all. I asked a clear and logical question–which you studiously avoid answering. You remind me of liberals who don’t like conservative responses–so they resort to ridicule, hoping the arguments will go away or be devalued. But my question remains–why do we have a system that tests candidates in a tiny state like IA–and ignores battleground states that really matter like PA and OH? If you can answer that logically–then I’ll take YOU seriously. Right now I don’t.

    As for my so-called Rudy fetish, it’s not a fetish at all. It’s an attempt to come to terms with the enormity of our 2008 loss and the elevation of Obama to the presidency–when we had a powerful candidate of our own that would have done a helluva lot better in blue and purple states than McCain–or Huckabee or Romney or any of the others, for that matter. None of you can answer this–or seem to want to be bothered with the question.

    I’ll concede that Rudy ran a lousy campaign. But he was forced to by a united hostility to his candidacy on the part of the social conservatives who had such strong influence in IA and SC. It’s a dumb system–but you don’t seem bothered by it–though you should be.

  • writeblock

    answer my question first–then I’ll bother to read your screed.

  • powertothepeople

    you have been answered by me and most everyone else time after time after time after time……..

    You have now been given the opportunity to prove us wrong by simply stating where we are wrong. If you are too stupid to do that or realize you have been barking up the wrong tree for a long time now but are too cowardly to admit it, just say so and we will put you in the pity category and just look at you as such.

    But it is funny how you so quickly skip explaining yourself, run away, then pop up on another thread proclaiming your man love for a loser.

  • AceInTX

    I stopped reading when I got to the smear about the “Moral Mahjoritarian take over”

    my eye’s tend to glaze over after two lines of pablum but I doubt I missed much beyond that

  • Bill S

    I can confidently guarantee you that I will be here longer than you.

    In case you haven’t noticed: no one agrees with you. No one. You are ridiculed by everyone who responds to you. Take the hint.

    A parting thought: here’s your answer: I like the system just like it is, because it gives a socially conservative middle America a voice. Too bad for those who can’t figure out how to deal with that.

    Now, I am weary of reading your silliness. Have fun in your fantasies, Uncle Rico.

  • powertothepeople

    and a prime example of that is your and others continued exhortations that bad ole government should not dictate morality.

    Do you live in a shoebox sheltered from all society or do you just favor repeating liberal rhetoric? A vast majority of laws dictate morality already. Prostitution, theft of property, rape, sex with minors, etc etc etc etc ……………..

    If you are going to make an argument, first try to come up with your own talking points and second, make sure your argument holds water. Because right now what you have posted is absolute nonsense.

  • powertothepeople

    believes SC and IA had so much power they coerced every other person in every other state to reject Obama. Guess he believes socons in those states did a mind meld with all others and forced them to chose another candidate. Shame we lost all that power when it came to the Obama election.

    He is a simple minded fool worthy of nothing but contempt. Glad you are on board Bill………

  • powertothepeople

    “believes SC and IA had so much power they coerced every other person in every other state to reject Obama.”

    believes SC and IA had so much power they coerced every other person in every other state to reject Rudy.

    Should have been Rudy in the first part, not Obama.

  • http://kindlingforcandles.wordpress.com/ INC

    The other day, Leon Wolf had a post that summed things up. My emphasis below:

    Conservatism is (among other things) a belief as to the appropriate scope of government intervention in private life that is based on the teachings of history and experience, as they are rooted in Western culture.

    ?liberals favor reducing the scope of government intervention in private life as well; the difference between the liberal and the conservative is that the liberal favors the erosion of traditional government functions in favor of functions that are new or novel?

    Libertarians tend to believe one of two things about gay ?marriage.? Either they believe that gay marriage ought to be recognized by the government, which paradoxically increases the size of the government, or they argue that the government ?ought to get out of the marriage business altogether? ? which is more consistent with their libertarian beliefs but on the whole is a much, much worse idea (for reasons that are beyond the purview of this post). In either case they are advocating for a fundamental reordering of society because of a blind and faithless belief in the all-curing power of egalitarianism, which is the most liberal action a person can possibly support.

    Not only that, but this fundamental reordering of society is in defiance of Judeo-Christian teaching which has been the foundation of the best of Western civilization.

  • AceInTX

    if you’re ignorant of what the gay agenda is…I suggest paying a little more attention and attempt to educate yourself as to what it is

    you can start by reading my and a few other’s posts up thread

  • Doc Holliday

    Man is mortal, his mind, his body, they all return to dust. Goldwater aged for personal reasons, marital reasons, health reasons, etc. He also changed because he believed true conservatism was under attack by the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson,and the Christian Coalition, all of whom he thought were trying to change conservatism into an Evangelical revival.

    I know when I speak of Goldwater conservatism, I am talking of the Barry Goldwater of “A Conscience of a Conservative”. I am talking about a man in his prime who changed the fortunes of a philosophy, a party, and a country; even though it too Reagan to fulfill that promise.

    BTW, Willie Nelson is still my favorite singer even though age and pot have turned him into a nutcase. People change in their old age, and in the end, the final change is death. I have personal knowledge of how a great leader of men can become, well, I can’t go further, because the man I am speaking about is my father, and he will always be that, always a great man; just different.

  • AceInTX

    now as is so often the case…we’ve come full circle

  • writeblock

    1. First misstatement. He was never trailing in PA. He led here even after he dropped out.
    2. I’ve conceded he ran a poor campaign–but he was forced to. He had little in common with farmers and evangelicals. That’s my whole point. The NE and Mid-Atlantic has been effectively shut out of the system. It’s all over after NH.
    3. He was never in contention in the states you bring up. It was all over after FL. So what’s your point?
    4. He rubber-stamped appointments which were the province of a municipal commission in NYC. They were not his personal picks. New York City is the most liberal city in America. He couldn’t have achieved the reforms he achieved had he not worked with what he had. A better gauge of his record as a strict constructionist can be appreciated from his impressive record in the Reagan Dept of Justice and as a US attorney under Reagan.
    5. I never claimed Rudy was a social conservative. That’s ridiculous. But I do insist he would have done more for social conservatism than any other candidate by winning in the general election and by then nominating strict constructionists as he promised.
    6. Unlike most candidates, Rudy is honest about where he stands on issues. He didn’t waffle on pro-choice as Romney did. He was up front. When he said he’s a strict constructionist we can believe him–because he’s honorable. That’s his solid reputation–and there’s no reason to doubt him.
    6. You’re naive if you think what you say–and the way you say it–can be persuasive. In fact, yours is exactly the kind of mentality that loses elections big time. You rail at things nobody in the rest of the country gets much upset about. Yes, there are lesbians and gays in the world–always have been–but so what? Yeah, some people want their beer on Sunday–so what? Are these issues to get worked up over? Are you interested in bringing people into a political party and win elections —or do you want to practice your religion and lose? Take your choice. Dummies like you don’t seem to understand how you turn people off.

  • AceInTX

    and they were given this stick they are beating Demint and the rest of themselves by Grover Norquist and David Kean and the rest of the go along to get along crowd at CPAC

    I think this may be the end of CPAC…I and a lot of other socially conservative minded people are getting sick of being the whipping boys for groups like the RMSP and other RINO groups….and we’re not going to sit by groups claiming to represent conservatives start using the same sticks on us…

  • powertothepeople

    brilliantly said and absolutely right. If I could put words together as well as you just did, I would have said it first. Or at least a close second…lol.

    And keep on preaching it, it is a very needed sermon that people better listen to.

  • writeblock

    You have offered insults aplenty. But you haven’t dealt with the issue I’ve been raising–nor has anybody else so far. Yet it’s the key to why we lost and why the country’s sliding into socialism, no thanks to Dr. Dobson. I say again, why should we care what farmers and evangelicals in IA think and not voters in swing states, in battleground states, in states who are the real kingmakers in the general election? What does it prove if a Huckabee can win big in IA, for heaven’s sake? It all means zilch–but it’s the dumb system we’re stuck with.

  • Doc Holliday

    do you want them? Personally I could care less about CPAC or GOPROUD. I have never attended anything either have run. I don’t think we should start screwing with the Constitution with a marriage amendment. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and stop using taxes to favor one group over another. I don’t trust the government to make good decisions for our lives.

    I support DADT in the military because I think it helps readiness. I don’t think the military should be a social laboratory for the statists. I also think marriage de facto can only be between a man and a women, marriage is a religious act.

    If activist judges make it impossible for the states to decide, if they require all states to recognize gay marriages from another state, then maybe an amendment will be necessary. But if this occurs, it will our a loss we all share. I don’t see the people today worthy of amending the Constitution.

    BTW, most libertarian-conservatives are the TRUE conservatives, those that learned from the Founder’s, the Austrian School, Goldwater, Reagan etc. I don’t know about all these new “libertines” (a word I learned at this site), I think I have been a conservative Republican longer than you have sir. I have seen many who claim the name to be less than impressive.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The last I checked, over 50% oppose abortion and an even larger number oppose federal funding for abortion. Gay marriage loses every time it is left to the voters by heavy numbers. The repeal of DADT, not even supported by the military.

    It is simply incorrect to say that social conservative issues will cost us at the ballot box.

  • conservativemusician

    n/t

  • AceInTX

  • writeblock

    since it’s winner-take-all, something you don’t seem to understand, It’s all over after NH for the most part. In a proportional system, the season is prolonged and the other states have a chance for input. Not in our system.

  • Doc Holliday

    not just pick from a list of issues to vote on. Big gov Socons better come to terms with the fact that many of their leaders come off as jagoffs.

  • writeblock

    he still behaved with more manhood and pure steely-nerved leadership abitlity than any other GOP pol you can name.

  • AceInTX

    anything to add?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Social conservative issues are our best chance to reach out to traditionally Democratic minorities. African Americans and Hispanics overwhelming oppose gay marriage in direct defiance of the Democratic leadership. Hispanics are reliable in their opposition to abortion. Support for school choice among both groups is growing.

    If conservatives and Republicans truly want to find common ground with these minorities, why not around social issues.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Social conservative issues are our best chance to reach out to traditionally Democratic minorities. African Americans and Hispanics overwhelming oppose gay marriage in direct defiance of the Democratic leadership. Hispanics are reliable in their opposition to abortion. Support for school choice among both groups is growing.

    If conservatives and Republicans truly want to find common ground with these minorities, why not around social issues.

  • Doc Holliday

    btw, what is your deal with Rudy? The guy will not run again, he missed his chance. Who in their right mind would not rather have him in the Oval office than Obama? Sure it is hindsight but come on. Rudy is not perfect, hell even I had to deal with his gun control habits, that can’t be much worse than his pro-choice views to you. They are our sacred cows.

    But the reality was Rudy did reduce abortions in NYC and he did say NYC gun control would not work in the rest of the country. BTW, any politico knows that presidents have coattails. If Rudy had won, there were be a LOT more pro 2A and Pro life Congresscritters in DC as we speak? Do you understand that? Just like in a legal battle, you either win or you lose big. We lost, and any Repub candidate other than Paul would have been a huge improvement and saved this country a ton of misery.

  • Doc Holliday

    and here opera man speaks of Rudy

    when I watch these posts, I think so many have really forgotten what that man did for all of us.

  • writeblock

    For which he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. Maybe I should post that. Nah.

  • AceInTX

    I’m just tweaking the bull so to speak…heh

  • powertothepeople

    lets end your constant misrepresentation of who was winning in PA. Up until January, Rudy held a wide lead on all contenders in PA but by January, the lead was gone. This was just one poll conducted in PA in January and was quite comprehensive in the what it asked and how much info it gave. I am not going to take the time to get other polls that are simply duplicates of this one. Read it, and then find another argument.

    RUDY PA POLL

    Please, for the sake of what little pride and credibility you have left, notice the shift from late 2007 where he had a huge lead to January 2008 where it was all gone. And notice how he lost to McCain in nearly every question by this time.

    Now on to your other numbers.

    2)It is his problem he has and had little in common with the rest of the country or as you put it evangelicals and farmers. If a person wants to win the nomination and even the presidency, farmers and christians have to vote for them. Hate to tell you, there are more farmers and christians in this country than liberal republicans.

    3) My point is you keep spewing the nonsense that had Rudy Won, or better yet, been involved in the PA vote, he would have won, It is complete nonsense as it matters little if he could have won PA, he still had to win in other states in order to get the nomination. There is a reason we as a country and as a party do not allow one state to decide who wins. A person has to take a majority to win, not just win in PA. And since PA is given all the votes it should have, Rudy had to win in the other states as well. And he was not winning even in the “purple and blue” states you keep harping about. He was not winning in PA and he could not even win in his own home state NY.

    4) Do not be an idiot, he chose his own appointees, he even formed the committee that made the recos to him. What you say in number four has to be about the stupidest thing you have said to date and that is hard to do considering your incessant babble about Rudy.

    5) Again moron, a very stupid comment. Where do you get he would have done more for social conservatism than anyone else considering his own record, beliefs, and stances. His own record shows otherwise. Stop trying to feed us a BS sandwich as we are not buying it and we have all the facts on our side.

    6) Great he is honest about his liberalism. What is your point. No one here is defending Romney nor are we trying to deify anyone. The only one consistently repeating nonsense is you.And sorry bub, we do not care how “honorable” you claim he is or even how honorable he may be, we have a very poor past record to look out and we go on that.

    7) Even though you could not count and put 6 again, it is actually 7. Number one, not sure what your tangent is all about in this section. No one has stated gays do not exist or have not existed for all times. That has zero to do with the conversation. But onto the other points you made, if you want to call them that, we do not settle for less or for a liberal candidate just to hopefully win an election. We have done that for way too long and that is what pissed the nation off about our party. You could not tell the difference between the dems and the repubs so the populace grew tired of our failures and our liberalism so they vote us out in mass. And we do not abandon our principles just to elect a loser like Rudy or appease you or others like you. Our failure to stand on principle is why we and our country is in the mess it is in now. And contrary to your useless opinion, many in the middle and in the independent crowd have the same values. And since we do not care to cater to the left or their lack of morality, your point is moronic in nature and has no merit. We have won across this country for years, including in the last election with staunch social conservatives and we will continue to do so. And considering your flagship candidate was beaten badly and by early 2008 was losing to most of the republicans and to Obama and Clinton, guess you point again has no merit. And by the way, if “dummies” like me turn off idiots like you, job well done. We not only do not need idiots like you in our party, we would be more than happy if each and every one of you left. The shear reality is that a vast majority of the voting population identify themselves as social conservatives. We do not need to cater to anyone, much less you and your kind.

  • powertothepeople

    got the memo that losing in NH was the end all for all the candidates that were not lucky enough to win. Funny, most of us never knew that was how it all worked.And to think so many of us wasted our time voting in our primaries when we could have just stayed home since it was all decided in NH.

  • gekster

    Winning NH doesn’t garantee you get the nomination.
    Again from:
    http://primarynewhampshire.com/new-hampshire-primary-past-results.php

    Past New Hampshire Primary Election Results
    ( the asterisk denotes the nominee).

    Democrats
    2008 – Hillary Rodham Clinton (39.1%)
    Barack Obama* (36.5%)
    John Edwards (16.9%)
    Bill Richardson (4.6%)
    Dennis J. Kucinich (1.4%)
    Joseph R. Biden Jr. (0.2%)
    Mike Gravel (0.1%)
    Christopher J. Dodd (0.1%)

    2004 – John Kerry* (38.4%)
    Howard Dean (26.4%)
    Wesley K Clark (12.4%)
    John Edwards (12.0%)
    Joseph Lieberman (8.6%)
    Dennis Kucinich (1.4%)
    Al Sharpton (0.2%)

    2000 – Al Gore* (50.4%)
    Bill Bradley (46.3%)

    1996 – Bill Clinton* (unopposed)

    1992 – Paul E. Tsongas 33.2%
    Bill Clinton* (24.8%)
    Bob Kerrey (11.1%)
    Tom Harkin (10.2%)
    Jerry Brown ( 8.0%)

    1988 – Michael Dukakis* ( 36.4%)
    Dick Gephardt (20.3%)
    Paul Simon (17.4%)
    Jesse Jackson (8.0%)
    Al Gore (6.9%)
    Bruce Babbitt (4.7%)
    Gary Hart (4.0%)

    1984 – Gary Hart (37.3%)
    Walter F. Mondale* (27.9%)
    John Glenn (12.0%)
    Jesse Jackson (5.3%)
    George McGovern (5.2%)
    Ernest F. Hollings (3.5%)
    Alan M. Cranston (2.1%)
    Reubin Askew (1.0%)

    1980 – Jimmy Carter* (47.1%)
    Edward M. Kennedy (37.3%)
    Edmund G. Brown, Jr. (9.6%)

    1976 – Jimmy Carter* (28.4%)
    Morris K. Udall (22.7%)
    Birch Bayh (15.2%)
    Fred R. Harris (10.8%)
    R. Sargent Shriver (8.2%)
    Hubert Humphrey (5.6%)
    Henry M. Jackson (2.3%)
    George Wallace (1.3%)

    1972 – Edmund S. Muskie (46.4%)
    George McGovern* (37.1%)
    Sam Yorty (6.1%)
    Wilbur Mills (4%)
    Vance Hartke (2.7%)

    1968 – Lyndon Johnson* (49.6%)
    Eugene McCarthy (41.4%)

    1964 – Lyndon Johnson* 29,317 95.3%
    All others (4.7%)

    1960 – John F. Kennedy* (85.2%)
    All others (14.8%)

    1956 – Estes Kefauver (86.4%)
    Adlai E. Stevenson* All others (13.6%)

    1952 – Estes Kefauver (55.0%)
    Harry S. Truman (44.2%)
    Adlai E. Stevenson*

    *Went on to win nomination

    Republicans
    2008 – John McCain* (37.1%)
    Mitt Romney (31.6%)
    Mike Huckabee (11.2%)
    Rudolph W. Giuliani (8.6%)
    Ron Paul (7.7%)
    Fred D. Thompson (1.2%)
    Duncan Hunter (0.5%)
    Alan Keyes (0.1%)

    2004 – George W. Bush* (unapposed)

    2000 – John McCain (49%)
    George W. Bush* (30.2%)
    Steve Forbes (12.6%),
    Alan Keyes (6.4%),
    Gary Bauer (.7%)

    1996 – Pat Buchanan (27.2%)
    Bob Dole* (26.2%)
    Lamar Alexander (22.6)
    Steve Forbes (12.2%)
    Richard Lugar (5.2%)
    Alan Keyes (2.7%)
    Morry Taylor (1.4%)

    1992 – George Bush* (53.2%)
    Patrick J. Buchanan (36.5%)

    1988 – George Bush* (37.8%)
    Bob Dole (28.6%)
    Jack Kemp (12.7%)
    Pierre S. DuPont (10.7%)
    Pat Robertson (9.4%)

    1984 – Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)

    1980 – Ronald Reagan* (49.6%)
    George H.W. Bush (22.7%)
    Howard H. Baker (12.1%)
    John B. Anderson (9.8%)
    Philip M. Crane (1.8%)
    John B. Connally (1.5%)

    1976 – Gerald R. Ford* (49.4%)
    Ronald Reagan (48.0%)

    1972 – Richard M. Nixon* (67.6%)
    Paul M. McCloskey, Jr. (19.8%)
    John M. Ashbrook (9.7%)

    1968 – Richard M. Nixon* (77.6%)
    Nelson Rockefeller (10.8%)
    Eugene McCarthy (5.3%)
    George Romney (1.7%)

    1964 – Henry Cabot Lodge (35.5%)
    Barry M. Goldwater* (22.3%)
    Nelson A. Rockefeller (21.0%)
    Richard M. Nixon (16.8%)

    1960 – Richard M. Nixon* (89.3%)
    Nelson Rockefeller (3.8%)
    Paul C. Fisher (3.3%)

    1956 – Dwight D. Eisenhower* (98.9%)
    All others (1.1%)

    1952 – Dwight D. Eisenhower* (50.4%)
    Robert A. Taft (38.7%)
    Harold E. Stassen (7.1%)
    Douglas MacArthur (3.5%)

    *Went on to win nomination

  • powertothepeople

    No offense meant, but the premise is not whether or now Rudy would have been better as that is a given. Put a stinking dead corpse in as president and it would have done better. The issue is the idiot above who consistently hijacks threads with his nonsense about Rudy, his consistent non truths about Rudy leading everyone, his non truths about who Rudy would have appointed even though his own record in NY says otherwise, his consistent mocking of social cons, christians, people of faith, farmers, residents of IA SC and other similar states, and so on and so on. Had he ever or simply stated Rudy would have made a hell of a better president than Obama, no one on her would have disagreed.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    So do you list Jim Demint as a big government type like GOProud?

    Who are the big government social conservatives you always rail against?

  • Doc Holliday

    I have not followed this as closely as others. I don’t even know the difference between the Log Cabin Republicans and GOPROUD. If GOProud is not conservative, then they should not be at CPac. If their only issue is they are gay, but otherwise conservative, then we would be better off letting them in than making a big brew ha ha and giving them even more exposure.

    I don’t have a history of promoting gay rights etc. I think all should be treated equally before the law. However, conservatives have to be able to work together or there won’t be enough of us to win elections.

    some say we need a truce, and that pisses many off. I don’t think we need a truce, I think we need to coalesce around a small but clear set of values, and we can discuss differences after we win. do yo think GOProud will pick the next SC nominee if a conservative wins? I don’t .

  • Doc Holliday

    but as Rush says, a liberal is a liberal first, church, ethnicity, personal beliefs, etc are second. I will be happy when that thesis is proven wrong, so far, no good.

  • Doc Holliday

    it makes them easier to remember. btw, talking points are something politicos are faxed daily to push a certain point for a specific reason, usually an upcoming piece of legislation. I have been saying my “talking points” for five years here. And I do deviate and am willing to discuss seriously with anyone who is square with me.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Solomon Ortiz lost in a heavily Hispanic district here in South Texas to a white Republican. Ortiz voted for the healthcare law and ignored the abortion implications. It cost him.

    I am not sure how far that might go but it is worth a shot.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Solomon Ortiz lost in a heavily Hispanic district here in South Texas to a white Republican. Ortiz voted for the healthcare law and ignored the abortion implications. It cost him.

    I am not sure how far that might go but it is worth a shot.

  • Doc Holliday

    I see how most of South Texas and the border counties have turned blue. Some red would look nice there.

  • Doc Holliday

    GWB, Frist, Kyl, Cornyn. Goodlatte and there were others that backed them up. They abandoned limited government and we paid dearly at the polls.

  • writeblock

    A majority of the public is pro-life, but there’s a certain sort of zealotry in some quarters concerning this issue that turns off a lot of voters who associate it with intolerance–which, in a democracy, makes a lot of voters uncomfortable. I see some of that on display on this site, for instance, with some posters hurling epithets like “idiot” or “moron”. It’s childish in posters on a site like this, but it’s lethal in a political candidate–which was why the WashPost was eager to associate McDonnell with conservative social issues instead of having him focus on the economy. He didn’t fall into the trap. He kept his focus on the economy and won–big. That’s the way to go.

  • Doc Holliday

    here big government.com identifies Spencer Bachus as their new leader. I am not saying it is true, I need to do more research. I have met mr. Bachus and spent some time with him, I found him to be a very intelligent and friendly person, on of the best I met on the Hill.

    http://biggovernment.com/author/rmuny/

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

    I stand for small government and social conservative values. Never did like Huckabee because he seemed more for bigger government. It sort of canceled out his appeal in the social conservative realm. I know a lot of social conservatives who felt the same way.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Okay, I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

    I stand for small government and social conservative values. Never did like Huckabee because he seemed more for bigger government. It sort of canceled out his appeal in the social conservative realm. I know a lot of social conservatives who felt the same way.

  • writeblock

    but with the stupidity of the system.

  • Doc Holliday

    I am huge on 2A rights and Huckabee claims to be a 2A supporter. But that just means he is a big government type that happens to like guns. If he doesn’t’ like smoking, or fatty food, or free speech, he has no problem taking them out.

    It is the idea of the camel getting its nose under the tent. Once it gets its nose in, it can’t be stopped from getting in. Huckabee could wake up tomorrow and decide he wants more gun control, it is not his personal views that matter, it is that he supports the government mandating how we live our lives.

    I keep telling certain so called conservatives here (a small group) that you should be careful what you wish for. Some want the controls of big government in their hands,so they can make Americans do what they wish. But the political winds always change and the parties in power will always switch, there are no permanent majorities. The only thing permanent is big government, government gets larger over time, there are few if any cases of it actually getting smaller.

    All I want is for free men to live free, in a free land. I don’t want a dead end European socialist state. And that is the best alternative our foes can offer, the others are worse.

  • writeblock

    I don’t hijack threads, I’m pretty much forced to keep posting to defend myself from morons like you. I’ve primarily been talking about the GOP nominating process, –though Rudy illustrates my point exactly. I’ve also been talking about millions of people like myself in battleground states who are systematically excluded from the process. We’re pretty fed up with the deal–and won’t tolerate it too much longer imo. And for good reason. People like you don’t wish to deal with this. You;d rather smear me. Well, suppose you tell me–what lies am I telling? It’s just the opposite. So’s your hostile attitude–which is typical of what I’ve been talking about among certain social conservatives–intolerant, negative, brainless and smug.

  • writeblock

    I said it’s pretty much all over after NH. It does in some cases, give the nomination–not always.

  • Doc Holliday

    is bordering on abuse. I have not followed all writeblock has said, but I would take Rudy over Obama and many pretenders, faults and all. Like I said,I don’t think Rudy has a snowballs chance in hell of running and winning now, the past it past. But I know more about Rudy’s character than pawlenty’s and many others. I say give it a rest.

  • writeblock

    I said it pretty much ends the primary process, not that it gives the nomination to anyone. Bush, for instance, didn’t win NH–but he still won the nomination. Do you think I didn’t know this? I wish you pilers-on would read what I say and not put words in my mouth. You do this with regularity–I defend myself–and then I’m accused of hijacking threads.

  • gekster

    Pretty much implying that whoever wins NH wins it all. yawn.
    And then your precious state of Pennsylvania gets left out.

  • writeblock

    he had a wide lead in PA up till January–because that’s of course when McCain took NH and shot ahead for a while. The NH primary was on Jan. 8–so you’d expect a bump. But one poll I cited on another thread–I’ll look it up for the future–had him ahead by a few points in PA even after he dropped out! So you can pick what polls you’d like–my point is still valid–he was ahead with a wide lead up till around the time of NH–when you’d expect McC to do well right after such a victory.

    Please spare me the crap about pride and credibility. I’ll match my credibility against yours any day–though you are part of a clique around here. You posted sheer nonsense previously–and spewed out venom that pretty much summed up where you’re coming from as far as I[m concerned–and it’s people like you who give conservatism a bad rap. You’re a type–intolerant, vicious, snide, arrogant and smug. I know it well–and you come on stronger than your weak arguments warrant. You’ve yet to answer why we should give farmers in IA or villagers in NH the kind of clout they have in the process. Until you do I can’t take you very seriously.

    My point about Giuliani’s integrity was germane since it involved his promise to nominate strict constructionists if elected. Your screed about those NYC judges that permitted beer to be sold on Sundays, etc. was an indication clearly that you believed he’d nominate liberals to the SC–otherwise why bring that up? So the point was relevant.

    Finally, and for the umpteenth time, Rudy is not a liberal the way McCain is a liberal. You need to understand he’s from the NE and he has a history that belies the kind of nonsense McCain routinely pulls or Specter or any moderate or rino you might name. Rudy, like Christie, is a warrior, a reformer, a hugely successful executive, a 9/11 hero, etc. He’s not a wimp or an ignoramus. His knowledge of the law is as profound as Scalia’s.. He fought the mafia, the media, the unions. So yeah, he’s pro-choice–but in the scheme of things the pro-life cause would have fared far better if it had gotten behind him than it did by dissing him so rabidly. Social conservatives need to wise up as a faction. They are rigid and self-defeating–and the country can’t afford their finicky-ness about who is or isn’t suitable as a candidate. The first and most important capability should be–can the candidate win? And I don’t mean in tiny IA or in a red state like SC. I mean in a purple or blue state. If a candidate can’t–then he is a loser, period–even if he manages to win the early–and insignificant–primaries.

    .

  • SirGladiator

    I agree completely. Certainly the Marriage issue played a very huge, most likely election-deciding role in 2004, with George Bush getting an unusually large share of the black vote (particularly in Ohio) thanks to the pro-Marriage campaign. We can win back a large share of the Hispanic vote on the Life issue as well as the Marriage issue, an of course school choice as well. These are not just the right issues from a moral standpoint, they’re the right issues for victory, and we definitely shouldn’t run away from them, we should embrace them fully.

  • tigertooth

    The solution to CPAC is simple. Form a National Conservative Coalition with a platform that excludes all Aberrational Lifestyles and includes Judao-Christian Values. Just MOVE ON from CPAC and let “Democrat Wannabees” play at Republican Conservatism.

  • randy_burgess

    Well each of us can define anything however we want. Of course if no one agrees with our definition then it’s sort of pointless for communication purposes. I agree with what Erick has to say the majority of the time. I consider myself a conservative and also libertarian to a certain extent, outside of the never going to war to defend yourself part of libertarianism. I’m all for getting government out of our lives and being truly free. Social conservatism and conservatism in general are not the same in my opinion. It seems to me, that if abortion were outlawed by any big government party and the homosexual agenda stopped, that many social conservatives would be fine without freedom and government could get as large as possible as long as these social issues were addressed. Of course there are many that are not only socially conservative but conservative in the traditional sense and would not be happy with this outcome.

    This observation has nothing to do with GOProud. They don’t sound conservative to me either but I know nothing about them. I can tell you that there are many with the same point of view as myself but I don’t have poll data to back that up, it’s just anecdotal from my 50 years of experience.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Scope

    claim to conservatism. Moral and ethical values drive fiscal conservatism and national security conservatism. Without the SoCons, you have nothing left except maybe a few very narrowly defined fiscal similarities. Moral and ethical conservative values provide more freedom than any libertarian idea ever has. The value of an ordered society keeps you from having to defend yourself from anarchy. How free is that?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The media tries to depict a certain image, especially on the prolife movement, but it has largely failed as larger numbers identify themselves with the prolife position. We have to get better at handling the media and even circumventing them but we cannot let them dictate what positions we hold. Otherwise, we will become democratic lite again.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The media tries to depict a certain image, especially on the prolife movement, but it has largely failed as larger numbers identify themselves with the prolife position. We have to get better at handling the media and even circumventing them but we cannot let them dictate what positions we hold. Otherwise, we will become democratic lite again.

  • annplato

    The “gay agenda” is an incremental push for accepting homosexuality as the norm in human copulation.

    While in the beginning it was all about non-discrimination in hiring, it now became a “non-discrimination agenda” in EVERY aspect of life, like marriage, educating children, adoption etc.

    It was well and fine not to punish sodomy as a criminal act, but then we, heterosexual people, thought it will just be decriminalization of a private practice, but NOT something we would have to deal with everywhere and certainly did not think that we will have to have a “discussion” about with our children in their pre-pubescent years.

    Now GOProud is trying to sell that they are not for a “federal” marriage licensing, but state marriage licensing ONLY! How believable can they be? Since their opposition comes form main stream conservative thinkers, they want to first get them to acquiesce to the state level, but once they get a commitment, such as sponsorship and participation in CPAC (CONSERVATIVE Political Action Committee), skeptics (like myself and Mr. Erickson) question what is next, since Mr. Pawlenty and Jim DeMint ARE the definition of conservatism much more then GOProud.

    The last three questions regarding conservative votes, (on which GOProud was SILENT) prove unequivocally, how the? gay agenda” is merely “the camel’s nose under the tent? of conservatism.

    Concisely that is the definition of “gay agenda” that Mr. Erickson defines in this article.

  • Scope

    and it is most excellent. I wasn’t here when you originally wrote it. Because of my time at Redstate, I have learned the value of Kirk, Burke and Chesterton to name a few.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And I am glad that RS has helped in your conservative edification. ;)

  • powertothepeople

    so he was winning all the way through according to you, was beating the pants off of everyone according to you, would have beat everyone including God according to you, I show you hard cold proof he was not, now you play the back up game?

    By the way, you complete imbecile, I have always said he held a lead late into 2007. It was you who claimed he always was beating everyone and never lost the lead in PA, not me. Your moronic attempts to make Rudy something he is not have been shredded. Spend more time actually learning FACTS about the guys you support rather than constantly day dreaming about being his wedgie puller outer.

    And you have no credibility, period. I was simply trying to be nice. You are hands down the most moronic person to set foot on this site to date. Hard to beat the Ron Paul folks, but you did it.

    As to the rest of your nonsense, shove it. You seriously need to get help for your medical condition, HIA disease before it gets worse. Head In Ass disease is curable you know………..

  • powertothepeople

    and since it has been quite obvious to everyone on this site you are a moron, liar, Rudybot, have a sick desire to snuggle close to Rudy, etc and that it is now obvious you have a very short memory and have a serious issue with reading comprehension, not going to once again display for you and the world your serious lack of character, your moronic arguments, and your complete inability to make a rational argument about anything.

    And you are not excluded from crap, this argument is even more silly then your Rudy crap. Get a life……………

  • cam1

    organization. Go to their website. Being gay is their core. I don’t think that conservatives would go out of the way to criticize other conservatives especially on a national stage. I think that their “conservatism” is a ruse. I think their presence in the Republican ranks is to undermine conservatives in the Republican party.

  • annplato

    ? ? ?

    Biblical principles ENFORCED by the government? NO! That’s the Taliban’s way! Government is a secular institution, not a theocratic one!

    The “gay agenda” is NOT about “biblical principles” but about defining natural (normal) AND productive human behavior versus whimsical eccentricity or “orientation” dressed up as “normal” or “natural”.

  • annplato

    ? ? ?

    Biblical principles ENFORCED by the government? NO! That’s the Taliban’s way! Government is a secular institution, not a theocratic one!

    The “gay agenda” is NOT about “biblical principles” but about defining natural (normal) AND productive human behavior versus whimsical eccentricity or “orientation” dressed up as “normal” or “natural”.

  • powertothepeople

    with all due respect, if you have not followed this series, watched this moron over so many threads, watched how he is unable to listen to viable advice from a vast majority of active posters including every single mod, his consistent hijacking of threads, his absolute nonsensical arguments about Rudy and the primary system, his complete lack of facts, etc etc etc etc then you really should not make a judgment on the validity of what I say about the guy or the many others who have said the same or worse, mods included.

    Again, the point of the discussion, and his own assertions, have not been retrospective views on how good he would have been or if he would have been better than Obama. That has never been the morons premise, hence it has no bearing on the this discussion. Again, had he simply stated how much better of a president Rudy would have been over Obama, no one would have disagreed. Had he even stated the opinion, and I stress opinion, that Rudy would have been and would be the only good president, debate would have ensued, but it would have never been to this point, But since that is not what he is saying really do not see why you keep repeating it. And since you yourself admit you know little about this guy, his posting tactics, or his “arguments” I think the most prudent thing for you to do is research the guy, look at all his posts and look at the constant repeating theme, look at all the people in here and how they have responded starting with “you are wrong here are facts” then progressing to giving advice for him to stop with the nonsense up until what you see today. Mods have all warned him to cease and find a new subject, yet he continues on due to his man crush and inability to dwell on anything else.

    So in closing, either look through his postings, our posting, and the then form an opinion, or skip getting involved at this point when you have no real knowledge (self admitted) about this saga.

  • annplato

    just like the democrats, who are all about “PC talk”, not REAL debate! NO ONE should “shut up” just to get what they want, then do as they wish! That is Obama! He talked everyone’s ?language?, and the inconsistencies be da*ned! You’re the epitome of hypocrisy that brings to power dictators! If Republicans want to be anything like you, than IT IS time for a third party!

  • annplato

    just like the democrats, who are all about “PC talk”, not REAL debate! NO ONE should “shut up” just to get what they want, then do as they wish! That is Obama! He talked everyone’s ?language?, and the inconsistencies be da*ned! You’re the epitome of hypocrisy that brings to power dictators! If Republicans want to be anything like you, than IT IS time for a third party!

  • controse

    AceInTX. Is GOProud another one of George Soros’s mole operations? If they were as concerned about the state of the union as the rest of us Conservatives they would not be incessantly bringing up misuse of their body parts as the number one issue of our day.

  • AceInTX

    the fact that the vast majority of the Republican Party…especially the activists who are the boots on the ground in every election are overwhelmingly socially conservative is irrelevant…ditto the fact that Abortion on demand is losing support by the day, that gay marriage has been rejected by margins approaching 60% every place it’s been voted on, that the repeal of DADT is was opposed by numbers approaching 60%….facts don’t matter…and you’re an idiot for daring to rely on facts to make your arguments….Mitch Daniels, John McCain, Grover Norquist and the left wing of the Republican Party who controls the levers of power have said social issues are divisive and drive as away voters and you and I are to shut up and get in line

    get it?

  • Scope

    Here in VA, there is a bill before our state Senate to require all abortion facilities, in the state, to be regulated the same as outpatient surgery facilities. Believe it or not they aren’t currently. The facility operators are screaming that they couldn’t afford to remain open because of all of the additional costs to be in compliance. You see, not all regulations are bad. Hopefully it will pass.

  • acat

    I forget which southern Red state it is, but one of ‘em has no abortion facilities because there’s no way to run one and make a profit.

    This kind of State-by-State approach is the best chance to end the current insanity – I applaud Virginia for taking this approach.

    It won’t be a nationwide victory all at once, but .. neither would overturning Roe v. Wade – that would just throw it back to the States. This approach has the dual advantages of reducing the number of abortions and of making sure some States are prepared (and others can then crib from them) when – not if – Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Mew

  • acat

    I forget which southern Red state it is, but one of ‘em has no abortion facilities because there’s no way to run one and make a profit.

    This kind of State-by-State approach is the best chance to end the current insanity – I applaud Virginia for taking this approach.

    It won’t be a nationwide victory all at once, but .. neither would overturning Roe v. Wade – that would just throw it back to the States. This approach has the dual advantages of reducing the number of abortions and of making sure some States are prepared (and others can then crib from them) when – not if – Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Mew

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Too bad we are not the get in line types.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Too bad we are not the get in line types.

  • rightwingmom52

    Almost makes me want to sign up just so I can give them a piece of my mind when they call for a donation. We call most of those folks “RINO’s” all the time. Although they claim 2 of the 3 Reagan legs, we know better. I put GOProud in the same category.

  • AceInTX

    but I didn’t know about this move in VA…

    Good to see the old dominion leading the way once again!!

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    maybe “points of discussion”…or maybe “positions” would have been better…

    and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by inviting you to weigh in on the topic of the thread

  • rightwingmom52

    My family, friends and I are just as opposed to big government as anybody. We believe that the government confiscastion of our earnnigs and using as they see fit is outright thievery. This belief is rooted in our Christianity. We are so much more than prolife and pro marriage, and I’m tired of being labeled otherwise. For the record, we don’t like big government candidates like Huckabee and McCain, and we call and write Shelby & Bachus here in AL and Alexander & Corker in TN quite often about all their votes, not just the ones on social issues. We also helped boot out Lincoln Davis in TN’s 4th District despite his strong pro life & 2nd amendment record because he voted with Pelosi 79% of the time.

    I see the GOProud issue much like DADT. Why do they have to be “gay” conservatives? Why not just conservative? Why not just a soldier? Could it be because they have an agenda?

  • melle1228

    That sounds like “equal results” to me, and that is liberal.

    Conservatives are more that you adhere to the Constitution and people have equal opportunity based on rights defined in the Constitution.

    Some of us don’t consider state-recognized marriage or military service a right. Those are privileges, and people are discriminated in both based on the best interest of the state and defense.

  • writeblock

    DeMint is wrong. There are plenty of social conservatives who don’t give a damn about fiscal concerns, and plenty of fiscal conservatives who don’t give a damn about morality. They are cleavable. It’s a myth that they aren’t. These are distinct factions, though plenty of us share both perspectives. But there wouldn’t be so much tension in our ranks if these weren’t separable categories. They just are. It’s a reality. It’s up to us to acknowledge it and not pretend these differences don’t exist. Our challenge is to find some common ground, to present a united front to the opposition–and to win elections. We can’t do this by remaining in denial about what’s really going on.

  • powertothepeople

    Acat that at this point, the best thing to lower the million plus dead a year would be to move abortion rules to the state. But realistically, it would not lower the number that much. Even most conservative states are filled with jelly reps who have no stomach for doing the right thing. So the best way and the only right way to do it is to afford babies not yet born the same right and protections given to the born. And since the right to live is guaranteed in our constitution, it needs to be enforced on a federal level. States have no right to end black equality, make murder legal, etc they should not be relied on to protect the unborn as most will do no more than keep current laws.

    I could care less how pro abortion folks feel about what I just said, to me, they are lower than pond scum and have very bloody hands. My only concern is the murder of million upon millions in this country that must be stopped. If half the states started committing genocide against republicans, we would demand federal intervention especially if we lived in those states. If Southern states started a kill all blacks campaign, we would demand federal intervention……..and we would get it most likely. The same protection should and must be afforded to the most defenseless in our society that are being killed at a rate of over 3288 a day. That is genocide of our own people and deserves the same action that would be taken if it happened to any other group of people.

  • melle1228

    Homosexuals have every freedom under the Constitution. It is not dictating morality. It is the state recognition of an alternative sexuality that does not benefit the state at all. Our marriage laws were formed from the English Common law. It was under the assumption that heterosexuals would form a union via children outside the state and without state coercion. It was in the best interest of the state to acknowledge and formalize those unions. A homosexual couple can pair up(via contract law), but they cannot do it independent of the state to form a family. They will always require a third genetic donor which requires coercion of the state. It is about dictating to the state what their marriage laws HAVE to be… instead of letting the people decide.

    State recognized marriage especially gay marriage should be anti-libertarian. Marriage via English common law was instituted, so that the state: was the LEAST responsible for the offspring; inheritance laws; and so the state could keep track of its tax payer base. Homosexual marriage will require the complete overhaul of the family court system, because it doesn’t add on to marry- It changes marriage.

    The state only recognizes “sexual preference” in that two people have the physical tools to procreate. They don’t care if you are attracted to your spouse or love your spouse. Yes, there is older couples and infertile couples, but it also still legal to annul your marriage on the basis that someone is impotent, or fraud(where one partner wanted kids, and the other didn’t or wasn’t able to provide them).

    Gay couples have a right to marry within the context that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one has the ability to marry the same gender for any motivation. There is no legal exclusion. Even in Loving v. Virginia, there was an exclusion. White people were not allowed to intermarry racially while other races were. The same SCOTUS that ruled on Loving also ruled on Baker v. Nelson.. This has been the precedent (that many federal judges ignore). Heck, miscegenation laws were founded on the precedent that the couple could ?breed? hence laws striking at ?interbreeding? between races.

    And I say this as an evangelical so-con who is quite sick of society…..You want to sleep with your adult sister in your own house. I could care less, but if you want the state to recognize it and give that sexual relationship legitimacy- then it becomes political.

  • edwyrd

    would be just fine for GOProud. it would be “mission acomplished”.

    but as i agree enthusiastically with your faith in conservatism, i am wondering will it strenthen as a result of this test?

    the pew study shows a 74% vote rate for McCain in the 2008 election among white protestants that attend church on sundays. i would venture to say that since obamas’ inauguration, the % is greater, even as high as i stated eariler (90%), along with corresponding spikes in the other demographic groups, this would be the pot of gold at the end of the conservative rainbow. IF we can show strong sturdy morally conservative leadership. boldly taking possession of the BABY.

  • edwyrd

    would be just fine for GOProud. it would be “mission acomplished”.

    but as i agree enthusiastically with your faith in conservatism, i am wondering will it strenthen as a result of this test?

    the pew study shows a 74% vote rate for McCain in the 2008 election among white protestants that attend church on sundays. i would venture to say that since obamas’ inauguration, the % is greater, even as high as i stated eariler (90%), along with corresponding spikes in the other demographic groups, this would be the pot of gold at the end of the conservative rainbow. IF we can show strong sturdy morally conservative leadership. boldly taking possession of the BABY.

  • http://missionoutreach.org raydownen

    The definition is accurate as far as I can tell. And homosexuality has nothing to do with the Republican political party, I hope. Marriage is one man and one woman–for life, if the Lord wills. Marriage should not be entered into thoughtlessly. It should be a lifetime commitment. If Republican leaders want to offend most Republicans, they’ll talk nice with GOProud as that group advocates things most of us cannot respect or admire.

  • YnotNOW

    Sure, there are SoCons that don’t give a damn about fiscal concerns, but when the Government grows and increases its power to reach into areas where it should not, the SoCons will get bit when it turns against them.

    Likewise the FiCons often don’t care about morality (often a Libertarian variant). But the lack of personal responsibility becomes undermined when it i not based upon a moral consensus. When the inevitable consequences of a breakdown in public morality erupt, the calls for “someone” to do “something” undermine the limitations on Government.

    This is why the 3-legged stool that Reagan talked about (Social, Fiscal and Defense conservatism) cannot long stand without all three legs.

  • YnotNOW

    Sure, there are SoCons that don’t give a damn about fiscal concerns, but when the Government grows and increases its power to reach into areas where it should not, the SoCons will get bit when it turns against them.

    Likewise the FiCons often don’t care about morality (often a Libertarian variant). But the lack of personal responsibility becomes undermined when it i not based upon a moral consensus. When the inevitable consequences of a breakdown in public morality erupt, the calls for “someone” to do “something” undermine the limitations on Government.

    This is why the 3-legged stool that Reagan talked about (Social, Fiscal and Defense conservatism) cannot long stand without all three legs.

  • jfhunt

    Please define your “conservative” values …

  • jfhunt

    Please list your “conservative” values …

  • jfhunt

    GoProud attempts to embrace fiscal issues find a chink in the armour of Conseratism via the homosexual agenda and subsequently devalue all of social conservatism – simply selfish Nihilism in action. They use typical Alinsky tactics to destroy from within.

  • eburkedisciple

    Go far far away. Deviancy is and always will be deviancy no matter if you vote right or left. It is just more likely on the left.

  • acat

    I won’t ask the first two questions that popped into my head.

    I’ll just ask how long your lever is. Archimedes applies, long enough lever, solid enough fulcrum, move the world.

    Thus far, the *only* groups that have had success at shutting down abortion mills are the ones who have acted *locally*. They’ve taken comparatively short levers, and jelly fulcrums, and done the best they can.. and it’s been vastly under-reported, but quite successful.

    Is it nationwide? No. Should it be? Yes… but waiting for it to become so – waiting for a long enough lever to be built to make it so appears, to this cat, to be letting the perfect stand in the way of the good…

    Mew

  • EMT907

    I’m glad you know what the “gay agenda” is. As a gay man, I never knew that. Then again, I never got my membership package and handbook. Curious to know how you got one and I didn’t.

    Anyways, I would like to point out that I’m opposed to the majority of items you listed. I would also point out that GOProud is as well. Then again, given that you seem to be more familiar with gays than I am, I wonder if you can show exactly how GOProud supports and supposedly pushes said “gay agenda”.

    BTW, I hope you keep Kosher. After all, not doing so is an abomination before God. Further, if GOProud supports the “gay agenda”, couldn’t I likewise say that you support the liberal Rev, Phelps’ agenda?

  • melle1228

    The ?gay agenda? is a political movement to change the definition of marriage and to normalize gay relationships by forcing acceptance. They believe that state recognition will somehow legitimize their relationships. BTW, a goal that is not even attainable. Acceptance can?t be forced.

    You may not be part of the political movement, but GOProud is?. They want to federalize marriage laws under the guise of equality. They just don?t want opposition to gay marriage federalized. They want to ?socially experiment? with our military hence the complete disregard for legitimate arguments for DADT which now introduced sexuality in an institution that does its best to stifle sexuality-hetero included i.e., fraternization, no sex in war zones.

    Every political group has an agenda, especially those that are specifically founded on identity(sexual, religious).

  • powertothepeople

    in order to have an answer to your questions. I realize getting federal intervention will be as likely as getting a clear photo of Big Foot. That being said, I also stated realistically, states will do little to end abortion even if Roe vs Wade is ended. While I know of a few success stories and I am sure there are more, most of these cases have worked not due to law changes but simple enforcement of current laws. Had the clinic been in compliance in the first place, there is little anyone can do to shut them down outside of actually assisting in a life change (change of heart0 in the clinic doctors.

    I also stated that while it may not happen, to state that abortion should not be a federal issue is just wrong. I stated a few examples of when the feds would get involved concerning the genocide of a group of people, in my humble opinion, babies deserve no less protection. Getting them to do it is a milestone in itself and I am quite familiar with fed unwillingness to involve themselves in the issue. I have been on the marches, clinic protests, board of South Carolina Citizens for Life, and fully realize the mountain we are climbing. But knowing how hard it will be to stop the genocide is one thing and stating that babies should be protected under the constitution (fed) is another.

    I will never claim to have the answers (lever) or that I live in a delusional state. I simply believe that just as the feds and the people of this country would go to battle should a state(s) start wiping out (name of a group of people) they should do the same for the millions of babies being killed and who are being denied their constitutional rights to life. I know it may never happen no more than we will get Obama to stop acting liberal, but it is still the right thing to do.

  • writeblock

    just take a look at the Catholic Church. Many many Catholic bishops are pro-life and Marxist. They just love the Democratic Party.

  • powertothepeople

    and I know that is a common argument from the left and others, but before one uses that old rhetoric, they should understand or at least be honest about what the Jews in the OT were required to be Kosher, when it was ended, and why it was ended. Outward signs or ceremony are a far cry from law. If you are going to argue the merits of another post fine, but lets try to not twist biblical law and biblical ceremony in an attempt to justify your own position.

  • rightwingmom52
  • williamjameson

    There is room for GoProud so long as they blend in and avoid ushering in the angry liberal demands that become a specious pretense for pushing the GOP around. While that’s always the liberal goal, thinking the GOP should think and act like them and always vote with them, in other words they still desire a one party nation.

    The good news is accepting GOProud at GOPAC becomes one less phony talking point for the liberal media to pontificate lies and spin doctoring nonsense. The bad news is they will be watching every move including what is said on high profile sites like RedState.com and others. However liberals aren’t as accepting of gays as they’d like you to think so we can always find facts to prove that many liberals are against gays……..all those lib states banned gay marriages for a reason. So we can back libs off while finding common ground with GOProud so long as they remember American tradition is part of the conservative movement.

  • powertothepeople

    was referring to Social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and black jelly beans when he stated we needed all three to succeed. He loved his jelly beans.

    But on a serious note, nice reply!

  • al003

    GoProud is not a group for the Gay Conservative. Conservatives are those who hold the Conservative position to the Constitution and hold the same position to all things. There is no such thing as a Gay Conservative who is pushing Gay Marriage. Marriage is a Biblical Term and Conservative people recognize this. The term Marriage in the Torah is stipulated as between a man and a worman. The day that the American People let the Government adopt the term “Marriage” and put it in the Civil Law was a big mistake and there should be a court action because this is placing Religion into Civil law. For four thousand years this term has been a sacred term in the Jewish religion. No True Conservative, be they gay or not, would take a position and trample on a sacred term from another person’s religion.
    So those who think GoProud has something to do with Gay Conservatives have made a big mistake.

  • Bill S

    The problem isn’t the group and its presence. The problem is the agenda they bring with them. Erick did a fine job expressing that in his diary, and despite the denial in some of the commenters here, it is silly to think they would even FORM such a group unless there was such an agenda.

    The problem is identity politics. If they did NOT have an agenda, they would still be guilty of playing identity politics. Instead they have blown it on both accounts.

  • Read Chesterton

    papal relations with China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Russia would be thriving rather than perpetually strained, as they are. And even the democrat bishops had to quietly go along with kicking homosexuals out of the seminaries after the so-called “pedophile” scandal that was really a post-pubescent teenage boy scandal. They have a long way to go before the Church could call itself Marxist.

    But enough of the almost-a-threadjack… it’s been pointed out a hundred times around RS this week how untying social conservatism from fiscal conservatism would force the unraveling of both in the not-too long term. Any other position on this matter pretty much amounts to a “the tire is only flat on the bottom” kind of logic.

  • Read Chesterton

    He would have been governor of NJ had not the Whitman republicans sabotaged his campaign to put McGreavey, the closet gay philandering democrat, into office.

    Conservatism, unlike progressivism, always works when its tried.

  • writeblock

    My claim that Rudy was ahead in PA by double digits throughout the primary season stands. You cited the single poll, taken right after NH, that showed McCain ahead when he got an anticipated bump.But throughout the season Giuliani’s poll numbers were very high and very solid in swing states. He led all contenders by double digits, according to Quinnipiac–in FL, OH and PA. He even led in NJ and CT–which was why Brokaw made a big deal asking questions about abortion during the debates–doing what liberals do best, undermining our best chance. And of course dummies like you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    So yeah, you can bring up the one poll where his numbers fell behind McCain’s–just prior to Rudy’s dropping out some weeks later. But it doesn’t prove you right. Just the opposite. By your own admission he had PA in his pocket up until then. What ticks me off is Republicans in PA never got a chance to have their preferences count. Neither did millions of other Republicans in battleground states. Instead we give IA and NH all this unwarranted influence–despite its having no bearing on the general election which is what really counts. You got your pro-life candidate all right–but that also gave you Obama.

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2007/04/26/swing_states_poll/

  • powertothepeople

    admit you are theirs? By the way, you are absolutely horrible at backtracking. Even worse than making a cognitive argument.

    And to play your nonsense game one more time, liberals did not sink Rudy’s campaign. Only a complete idiot and moron would try to claim that. He sank his own ship.

    PS During the primary season of 2008, no liberal or conservative could have swayed me one way or the other since I was in a coma due to a wreck. I did not come out of the coma till mid year and was barely able to vote in the general. So again, you can stop the nonsense as I would not have voted Rudy had I been able to, and no convincing one way or the other would have changed that.

    And since you claim republicans in PA did not get their voice, write a letter to Rudy telling him how pissed you are. He was the one who felt PA was a lost cause and dropped out. No one forced him to do so, he did it all on his own.

    And still waiting for one single piece of proof from you he was winning in PA close to, at, or after primary season in PA. So far all you have brought to the table is about a 6th grade level of common sense, intellect, conjecture, and bullcrap. Sorry to insult 6th graders that way, but they have to live with the fact your moronic level of knowledge compares to their not yet trained minds.

  • writeblock

    you do know he dropped out in January, don’t you? Because your response indicates you don’t really know what you’re talking about when you claim I’m wrong when I say he was beating everyone in PA “all the way through”. In fact, he was–until NH. So I was absolutely correct. In poll after poll he led nationally–even leading both Obama and HIllary–and always ahead in the swing states, the most crucial in any election. Not that it mattered to people like you who confuse politics with religion. Lots of luck if you think you can win elections with guys like Pence and Hunter and Huckabee. All you do is constantly shoot yourselves in the foot–and elect the very guys who do you the most harm. Stupid politics.

  • EMT907

    “They want to federalize marriage laws under the guise of equality.”

    So when they say that the federal government should not have anything to do with marriage whatsoever, you conclude that means that they want to federalize marriage laws? How does that work?

    All GOProud wants is the ability to marry who they love. Heck, most of us who support GOProud don’t want anyone’s approval or validation of our relationships. Just leave us alone about it. They also want gays to be able to serve honorably in the military and has no interest in “introducing sexuality”.

    And GOProud has no interest in “forcing acceptance”. We realize that that can’t be done. We’re more inclined to wind friends and influence people by being who we are and demonstrating that we’re not all that bad, once you get to know us. The gay left is all about forcing acceptance.

    I highly recommend reading the GayPatriot blog. You’ll find that what I’ve said is largely true. Further, we don’t really discuss sex like most of the gay blogs do. We might throw in a humorous comment now and then for levity, but that’s about it. It’s mostly discussions about political issues.

  • melle1228

    So when they say that the federal government should not have anything to do with marriage whatsoever, you conclude that means that they want to federalize marriage laws? How does that work?.

    By repealing DOMA and pushing the fair, faith and credit clause. Massachusetts would then require Alabama to change it’s marriage laws to the new marriage def. Gay marriage requires a complete overhaul in marriage laws.

    All GOProud wants is the ability to marry who they love.

    The state does not care who you love. State recognition of your marraige has absolutely nothing to do with love. The state recognizes a formal union for inheritance purposes and children.

    They also want gays to be able to serve honorably in the military and has no interest in ?introducing sexuality?.

    No a very small group of individuals are changing the military so they can take a boyfriend to a ball. Case in point, right now in a war zone hetero male and female can get slammed for being behind closed doors alone. The military uses this method to prevent fraternization and pregnancy. With the repeal of DADT (equality) you can no longer have that procedure.. Why? Because homosexuals who want a relationship will be bunking together. You can’t slam heterosexuals for being behind closed doors together; if there are homosexual individuals bunking together.. Equality at its finest. Nobody wanted to discuss the problems that the repeal would bring to the military. Nope, we are just going to act like it doesn’t change a thing..Why? Because people are scared of the homophobic label, especially now that we have ANOTHER protected group in the military, And Yes I realize that homosexuals were there prior, but the formal acknowledgement of this is what I am talking about. My husband who is getting back from a year deployment in Afghanistan now has to attend 3 frickin months of sensitivity training based on the repeal. Ridiculous.. My husband knows how to work in a team, and treat everyone with respect. Why should this be any different?

    I highly recommend reading the GayPatriot blog.

    I have read it. And it is a fairly smart blog GOproud has a lot in common with the left. Calling other conservatives bigots because they disagree with their policy position. For a lot of us there are legitimate reasons that we didn’t support repeal or gay marriage. They are policy reasons and not personal.

  • billollib

    AceinTX, I was there the year it happened. I was at a precinct meeting in the mid 80s in Orange Co, NC. For years we had had about 30 or 40 people come to the meeting, and then, one year, about 150 people showed up. They were all Moral Majoritarians who had registered as Republicans only a few days ago. They voted out all the officers and put their people in place, saying that they were in charge of the Republican Party now, and that they didn’t need us anymore. There was a fight at the state convention, and the MM delegates did not get seated because of a rule that stated that one been a Republican for a year in order to be a delegate. But the next year, the takeover was complete.

    So it may be a “smear” to you, but it’s exactly what happened. Too bad it makes your eyes glaze over — knowing the history of your party might not be such a bad thing.

  • billollib

    I know that folk who think the government should enforce morality with force of arms will never believe there is any other legitimate viewpoint. But know that abandoning liberty and requiring that your moral views be enforced on everybody will make the “conservative” revival a passing phase to be abandoned as soon as people get over their fiscal fears.

  • billollib

    I see. It’s not about Christian religious morality, but what’s “normal.” The government should enforce “normal” behavior and outlaw “eccentricity.” Got it. That’s liberty for you.

  • Jack_Savage

    And that includes abiding by the rules of the Republican Party to take it over, doesn’t it?

  • Jack_Savage

    “I know that folk who think the government should enforce morality with force of arms will never believe there is any other legitimate viewpoint.”

    If you believe that, then you are a conservative like I am Prince William. You need to do better than that if you want to stick around.

  • onename

    The devil joined the Church for the same reason.

    Disregard them, and distance yourselves. They are an insignificant portion of the electorate, but a deeply disturbed one.

    We don’t need them. If they wish to vote R, so be it. Don’t cater to them at all. They won’t want to stay and play.