« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

This is Too Much For Me

I have, for me, shown an amazing amount of restraint in keeping my mouth shut on an issue about which I can stay silent no longer — GOProud and CPAC.

RedState’s parent company, Eagle Publishing, Inc., is a long time sponsor of CPAC. RedState itself is helping FreedomWorks sponsor Bloggers Row. We were the sole sponsor of Bloggers Row last year. I will be speaking at CPAC at the Young America’s Foundation luncheon named in honor of Tom Phillips, my friend and also the big boss at Eagle Publishing, Inc.

I have done my best to stay out of this business, keep my mouth shut, and appreciate my friends on both sides of the CPAC divide. Had I not seen this particular attack by GOProud against long time solid conservatives I’d continue keeping my mouth shut. But this is too much. And my guess is that there aren’t many if any willing to call foul, so I will do it.

As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization.

Let me tell you why.

What has my blood pressure up is this particular bit from the article:

Of the Heritage Foundation’s decision, he says, ”They’ve chosen to – and it’s a mystery to me why – but they’ve chosen to align themselves with the losers.”

Asked to explain, Barron places the blame at the feet of Cleta Mitchell, the big-name Republican D.C. lawyer who was the attorney for the groups trying to keep marriage equality from coming to the District. Mitchell did not respond to multiple requests from Metro Weekly for comment.

”I think there’s a couple people in Heritage who, at the behest of Cleta Mitchell – who is just a nasty bigot … she got some of the people at Heritage early on fired up about this,” Barron says. ”We tried very, very hard to smooth this over and to avoid any public fight with Heritage and then when Heritage came up with their excuse about how this wasn’t about GOProud – first of all, we knew it was, we knew it was six months ago – but we were willing to publicly let them.”

You really should read the whole thing. You’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? You’re a bigot.

Wonderful trick. Sadly, it is being used on real heros within the conservative movement, including Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union.

According to the dictionary, a bigot is a person “obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of [their] own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.”

Chris Barron might want to look in the mirror.

Cleta Mitchell is not just my friend and lawyer, she is one of the keystones of the conservative movement in Washington, D.C. When Sharron Angle’s campaign seemed off the rails right after the primary, it was Cleta who went in to help right the ship. It was Cleta Mitchell who stepped up to defend Christine O’Donnell when no one else would. It was Cleta Mitchell who exerted pressure on wavering conservatives to get on board Marco Rubio’s campaign. It was Cleta Mitchell who helped organize defense and offense for a host of conservative causes headed to court. It remains Cleta Mitchell who does not hesitate to give advice for new conservative organizations and pick up the phone to raise money for conservative causes and candidates.

In fact, let me now fully disabuse you of the notion that GOProud is a conservative organization.

While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for children, Chris Barron was signing up to work for the champions of child killing.

While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for people’s right to work, GOProud was aligning itself with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

While Cleta Mitchell was helping the Senate Conservatives Fund get people like Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and others elected, GOProud was attacking Jim DeMint.

While Cleta Mitchell was in super secret meetings of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy this week, GOProud was attacking Tim Pawlenty for daring to defend conservative positions on don’t ask-don’t tell.

Those groups and people who have sat out CPAC this year have done so not because they hate the gays, as Grover Norquist and GOProud would have you believe, but because GOProud is not a conservative organization and its agenda is not a conservative agenda.

For that, they are called losers and nasty bigots.

These losers and nasty bigots have done a lot more for the conservative movement than GOProud. And I am very happy to call them my friends.

This week, I’d much rather be with them than be at CPAC.

COMMENTS

  • JadedByPolitics

    ingratiating themselves into Conservative circles. They became the pet cause for Conservatives to show that anyone could be Conservative, but the truth has always been that as liberals they too have had their agenda. BTW lets not kid ourselves and say they are any different then the Log Cabin Republicans (whom GOProud beats up for doing exactly what they do). The truth spilled out the minute Republicans won big in 2010 when they told those winning Republicans that they needed to get away from social issues (while continuing on with their social issue).

    What you have is a group of LIBERALS who have conservative traits and NO PARTY! It is going to get harder to pick the libs out as they come into the Party because the DLC is done and any semblance of conservatism is gone from the D Party, they will be trying to “change” the Republican Party. We absolutely MUST be critical of any “new” faces, that tell the over HALF in the R Party social Conservatives to sit down and shut up and NEVER will we allow ANYONE who calls themselves a Republican to call out ANYONE on our side a bigot.

    CPAC has a choice next year, either they go with the flamethrowers GOProud or they go back to the Conservative Action Committee they have always billed themselves as. Their problem will be attendance and I can guarantee them, there are MORE social Conservatives then there are gay Conservatives in this Movement!

  • JadedByPolitics

    let me also say Erick, that keeping silent only emboldens liberal. When Conservatives are silenced as has been proven over the years and allows liberals to “paint” them as bigots, homophobes, islamaphobes etc., they will think they are correct and they say it over and over again. GOProud and Baron in particular got bolder and bolder the closer CPAC got to their opening day and lo and behold he went there!

    BTW anyone at CPAC the next couple of days, please show your displeasure with GOProud by shunning them!

  • edwyrd

    GOProud was pro-life, anti-gay marriage and anti-DADT? they would still be a gay-first organization, and this fundamentally EXCLUDES them from conservatism.

    at worst, they are part of a deliberate conspiracy to sink the conservative coalition. at best they are a poison pill that will sicken the conservative cause from within.

    this theme has been echoed by, quite literally, hundreds of RS posters.

    additionally, i point to this pew study; http://www.google.com/search?q=church+goers+voting+study+pew&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADRA_en
    which shows 74% of white protestant voters voted republican in 2008. the %, i submit, would be much higher today.

    this debate has great potential for honing and strenthing the conservative movement. to appeal to democrats, as well as republicans, a strong, courageous, STANCH ( i shouldn’t have to say this) SOCIALLY conservative candidate would be, in my opinion, able to GOTV the white protestants as well as the conservative ( there are more than you think ) hispanics AND the growing conservative black voting block

  • tigertooth

    No need in going in to all the reasons why aberrational lifestyles destroy the participants and degenerate any society which has chosen the lifestyle to live within common sense, universal order, while aberrational deviants are disclosed as a scourge to mankind in the Bible. Just as they stold a beautiful word, Gay, and turned the word into a Lie to fit their agenda and have their lifestyles accepted as an alternative norm in society, GOPROUD is equally a Lie, because I’ve never met a Homosexual Person who was either Gay or Proud!

    CPAC might as well allow the Muslim Brotherhood a seat at the table. They could call it ShariProud, with the promise that they have Conservative Values, and they won’t cut your head off if you disagree with their views. CPAC has spun itself a peculiar web similar to a maze designed so well they can’t find their way out. I’ll bet you a dollar against my penny that, if one digs deep enough, you will find certain CPAC Managers who have an Aberrational Lifestyle Agenda.

    Allowing two males or two females to marry in the sight of God is mans’ acceptance of this putrid, secular humanistic, decadence. God will not allow Himself to be laughed at by mere, arrogant humans much longer.

  • jackhammer

    pro-life
    Pro-Traditional Marriage, with no marriage benefits for civil unions
    For DADT, meaning against openly gay people serving in the military
    For limited government, which includes not pushing for HIV AIDS funding from the government and such stuff…

    Then they can introduce and associate themselves as “gay first” as they want.

    If they want to curry favor formt he government for all sorts of laws and policies which are favorable ot them and their constituency, THEN they are fundamentally EXCLUDED from conservatism, becasue that isn’t what we are about.

    Conservatives are not for government funding for home schooling, we like school choice, and we’re more than willing o accept a voucher for less than half the face value of what it costs to educate a public school kid, because we know it can be done better for half the price.

    I mean guys like Breitbart and Aaron Schock seem pretty fruity, but I don’t care what their sexuality is, they are both conservative and right on almost every issue.

  • Doc Holliday

    we just lost another Congressman on “social issues”. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, we are acting like it is 2006 again.

    I want government small to keep all these jerks personal problems from affecting my life.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    More surface flack to obscure and confuse by the evil forces of Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, and Islam. This so called big tent that will be attending CPAC will be there to destroy Conservatism if for no other reason than to flaunt their own bigotry by condemning Conservative principles. This is nothing but the same process the left has used for a century–destroy from within by continually stirring the pot of social discontent that keeps people aligned with groups for easier agitation and deception. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong and when the two get mixed and obscured only evil wins. If you need proof, just witness what is already happening due to CPAC this year (Personally, what is happening is disgusting.); Republicans fighting Republicans, exactly what is intentioned by these evil forces posing as Republicans and/or Conservatives furthering the destruction intentioned by the Social Justice/Politically Correct mantra.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Not playing a game of hypotheticals.

    GOProud is what it is. Its leadership is what it is.

    And Erick took a stand.

  • EagleWatcher

    The notion of “Gay Conservatives” always struck me as strange. It’s a bit like a “Christian liquor store.” It just seems like the two concepts don’t work together. Politically, gay conservatives are more than welcome, but they need to realize that conservatism is about social issues like abortion and traditional marriage and not just fiscal ones.

    We are at a point where we are not only trying to redefine marriage, but we are in danger of redefining conservatism as well.

  • tigertooth

    A straight married cheater is cheating with a person of the same sex, or with small farm animals!

  • Doc Holliday

    I figured if GOProud was seriously conservative, they would try to bring gay fiscal conservatives to vote for small government conservatives. My advice was to just let them attend CPAC, sit in the corner, say their little thing, and leave it at that.

    OTOH, if their goal is to tear conservatives apart and to call people bigots, then they should be shown for what they are and we should tell them to get stuffed. We don’t need this crap, we are supposed to be stopping big government and going back to the Constitution.

  • Jack_Savage

    Bravo.

    And as far as a response to others on the possibility of redefining conservatism (which is a huge danger, as we see Reagan being redefined as we type), I would paraphrase a famous quote by saying that as far as conservatism goes, we will know it when we see it.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Seems like a familiar pattern.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    While we’re on the subject, don’t ever use this site again to equate homosexuality with bestiality.

  • ss396

    Barron looks at the landscape: ”We’ve said all along that we don’t think that the conservative movement is unwelcoming to gay people. There is a fringe element. A really nasty, anti-gay, bigoted element. And we have smoked them out, and we have marginalized them.”

    Yes, these fringe-group bigots such as Heritage Foundation, American Family Council, Sen. DeMint and Gov. Pawlenty. And let’s not forget all those nasty folks who think that the Constitution means what it says, and so does the Bible. Let’s marginalize that whole gang – that’s surely a winning strategy for conservatives.

    Exercising my freedom of association now makes me a loser and a bigot. I’m a little unclear on how that’s a conservative principle.

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    that if the radio doesn’t meet the spec, then change the spec. This was funny when it was a joke about something that didn’t matter, like transmitter power output or receiver selectivity, sensitivity, or FM discrimination.

    But now we see that it really is about power, selectivity and discrimination, and the specification that we are being asked to change is the Constitution and the dictionary itself.

    Hope and change the spec? Not on my watch. I’m a retired engineer (who really did help invent the internet, BTW) and now I’m interested in making our politicians meet the specification that has been in place for 200+ years, plus or minus 3 dB.

  • EagleWatcher

    When you try to create a “big tent” you usually end up with a lot more clowns.

    If the GOP caves on same sex marriage they will lose the Christian vote. Christian are wary of politics to begin with and this will only sour them even more.

  • mvjim

    Personally I would like to speak with a GOProuder, and find out how they think. To me conservatives need to respect all people and all ideas, and discuss differences like, well, like family. To me gays are mixed up; many are aware of this and have given up on trying to be straight. Gays need to be aware of who they are and think about why they are gay. Science has not shown that gayness is genetic. So it’s learned, and to me it’s almost a psychosis like alcoholism or like needing anger management. Anyone suffering from any of these symptoms doesn’t think anything is wrong until something snaps. And in my experience, managing anger seems like a hopeless cause, like this is how I am and I can’t change who I am. This is how gay people eventually think of themselves. It’s not right, but what else can you do, until someone shows the way for gays to truly appreciate the opposite sex for what they are.
    So conservatives need to have this conversation, and if GOProud can’t have this conversation, and just call others bigots, then they aren’t conservative.

  • lollycrow

    for finally speaking out, This organization seeks to divide and dilute the conservative movement and we must not allow that to happen. Actions always speak louder than words.

  • Doc Holliday

    we have had several social cons leave in disgrace. The Dems usually just stay on, I wonder why this guy quit so quickly. The point is sometimes we are often our own worst enemy; you know, that glass houses thing.

  • jiminga

    a agy cannot be conservative. He/she can certainly be Republican but definitely NOT conservative. A true conservative rejects the gay lifestyle and social mores, as they disagree with positions on marriage, DADT, etc.

    GoProud’s attempt to hijack CPAC is another example of a movement trying to bring down another from within, which is a liberal tactic.

  • EagleWatcher

    We are losing sight of what Conservatism means. It is being watered down slowly but surely. I have heard so-called “Conservative” radio hosts say that “if someone agrees with me 60% of the time I should support them.” Really?

  • jiminga

    agy = gay

  • Aaron Gardner

    You are missing the point when you engage in some sort of equivalence argument.

  • JadedByPolitics

    ..

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Tell me to my face that I’m not a true conservative. Here, let me take off my site moderator’s hat, so that there’s no worries about any possible power imbalance. So go ahead. Let’s hear it about how I, personally, am not a true conservative. Not some faceless Other. Moe Lane.

    Then you can tell us all what you’ve done to elect conservatives, to support conservatives, and to further conservative goals lately. Because I’ve been doing this gig for going on eight years now, four of which were during a time when it suddenly got pretty darn lonely out there for people trying to encourage conservative and Republican activism. And while I recognize that the Internet does allow for people to spout off, I find that this morning I don’t feel like being lectured to by people who haven’t earned the right to do that.

  • ron8072

    Just as we should all. Taking a stand is what will save this country, not keeping silent. Kudos to Erick for taking a stand.

  • tlhanger

    There are so many organizations out there. Saying they are conservative and being a cinservative are two different things . I get so much literature anymore and it all goes in the trash.
    I have started to just give to certain canidates and that may be a hasty decision, but thanks to you for starting to clear things up.

  • bigmaude

    As he quoted Thomas Jefferson, if it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket, it is nothing to me. Well, I submit to you he wasn’t speaking of sodomy. I researched what some of the founders thought of sodomy. I won’t post it all, but let’s just say that if somehow Barney Frank met up with certain men of old, he’d be missin’ “the offending pendage”. Okay then. Mr. Beck often takes the founders out of context to push his agenda. Sodomy offends me, personally. Abortion offends me. But here is the deal, this kind of crap our “leaders” continue to do, jades me, ALOT! This big tent has got to zip up the entrance or they will lose me and millions like me.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    …if it’s two men, or two women, it’s NOT marriage! Marriage ontologically IS a union of opposites; that is its very nature, and it can’t be changed, any more than the fact that the earth has a north pole and a south pole can’t be changed. The idea of a two-man partnership or a two-woman partnership being a marriage is as nonsensical as the idea of an earth with a north pole at both ends. It’s logically, physically, in every way impossible.

    You can CALL jumping off a thirty-story building “flying” — but that doesn’t make it so. CALL it whatever you want, you’re still going to end up dead at the bottom.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Is there a specific reason why conservatives need the ACU to define conservatism? I thought the principles underlying conservative philosophy were fairly immutable. But that’s just me.

    I would also like someone to identify the folks responsible for allowing GOProud/MB to attend CPAC and therefore identify themselves with the conservative movement. After all, they must be so proud. I am certain these folks still stand behind their decision resulting from what must have certainly been extensive research on these organizations philosophy. Also, I am sure they fully considered the ultimate impact on the conservative movement at this critical juncture in our history.

    Whimsical appeals to groups based solely on demographics never work. Never. How long will it take for these party stalwarts to understand that philosophical promulgation primarily depends on basic, principled agreement?

    By the way, this does not show we are a “big tent and open to different points of view”. Not compromising on basic principles doesn’t mean you are inflexible. It means, well, you are principled. Yielding makes conservatives look like a bunch of fools- willing to trade principle for appearances and prostitute themselves for votes. That plays right into the strategy of liberals to divide us. Mission accomplished.

  • Old_Dominion

    that social issues have become such a wedge. I feel like the fact that I’m fiscally conservative, and hawkish/conservative on foreign policy is irrelevant because I don’t oppose (non-taxpayer funded) abortion, and frankly couldn’t care less who gets married to whom.

    In fact, it’s probably more important to care about gays and abortion than it is to fight for democracy worldwide, reduce taxes, and support our allies. And that’s a damned shame.

  • cam1

    wake up and smell the coffee. GOProud is gay first, Republican second and conservative never.

    CPAC needs to re-examine itself to see if it wants to the Conservative Political Action Committee. CPAC has to stand for something and commit.

  • avgjo

    ‘Notes on the Virginia Constitution’. He prescribes castration as the punishment for sodomy.

    I don’t advocate that, but I am strongly against the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Like the Founders, I have read my history, esp. ancient history. And that history teaches that the more debauched a people become, the less free they become. As Franklin put it (very nearly): the more vicious and corrupt people become, the more they are in need of masters. One term I rarely hear today is macroanthropos; the body politic as the man writ large. Plato/Socrates postulated that a society, like people, has a psyche; the virtues of the individuals making up that society are the virtues of the society’s own psyche, of society itself. Ditto the vices of that society.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    …was going to come from an organization headed up by Grover Norquist (the ACU, I mean). Sorry, Erick, no offense to YOU intended, but all these other issues become absolutely MOOT if radical Islam defeats us, and millions of radical Islamists are working very hard on precisely that — whether or not we choose to believe it. Neville Chamberlain could delude himself that peace with Hitler was possible, but that didn’t stop Hitler from being Hitler and doing what he did.

    Norquist is one of the Islamists’ enablers, and as such, I see him as a man just as dangerous to America, if not more so, as GOProud is to conservatism. Truth be told, I’m kind of surprised that Allen West is one of the speakers. It will be interesting to see if his message is as undiluted and uncompromising as was the message he gave last year at Pamela Geller’s alternative conference during CPAC last year….

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Well said, Erick. When a light is shined on GOProud, they come up leftist.

  • geah

    each group would wear different color shirts, good grief,just when I was settled and happy RE: GOP back where they belong,now all this CPAC , GOPROUD, plain old house wives like me just get confused, dream up some way to flag wave or something really radical, Hey I know, RULES you have to be this and this or change seats and be a Dem.

  • avgjo

    I am not sure if in bringing up Glenn Beck, you were referring to an instance where he was referring to ‘gay’ rights. I know Beck takes that live and let live attitude towards the militant homosexual agenda. He also stated on his radio show in reference to the MLK day ‘controversy’ involving the governor of Alabama that it was unbiblical to not consider a muslim a spiritual ‘brother’. Now, I recognize that those folks are fellow human beings, and while I disagree with them on many things, I care about their welfare. That said, I do know that Biblically, ‘Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister…’ Also, the New Testament is clear that God’s will is for those who hear the Gospel to accept it. These folks don’t do that, so by definition you cannot call them brother or sister in the Christian sense. But I guess Beck was just reading his own version of the Bible. I used to really like the guy, but I’m starting to see two things about him: he’s rarely wrong in his own mind (I’ve never seen him admit he was wrong on anything except the ‘FEMA camps’) and he seems to fancy himself a spiritual leader (q.v. all the ‘how to live your life’ stuff and his new book). I guess by this authority he can interpret the FF and the Bible as he sees fit.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    What GOProud really need to do, if the membership are serious about being conservative, is throw Barron out on his ear and get a conservative leader/spokesperson.

  • Doc Holliday

    I find all these squabbling groups to be very childish. I don’t rely on government as much as they do, I wouldn’t mind if Congress met 1 month a year.

    You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I don’t have time to learn more about all these little clubs and grievance groups.

  • streiff

    we can do both and we must. I don’t know how anyone could claim to be in favor of lower taxes and democracy while in the same breath saying they are willing to pay taxes to snuff babies. I’m just glad I don’t have to live with that level of cognitive dissonance.

  • bcochran1981

    …let me start by saying you’ve always been my favorite blogger/commentator/contributor/whatever on this site. This is in no way an attack on you personally. (PS – you come very close above to crossing the personal attack line that so many moderators preach about) I very much would just like to hear how you reconcile your support for SSM with being a conservative.

  • Scope

    have you ever heard him even use the words abortion, gay marriage etc.? Have you ever heard him talk at all about any national security issues? There are plenty of libertarians that are very religious, as Beck seems to be. That doesn’t make him a conservative. He made me sick when he defended Westboro’s right to free speech. This week he said he was very happy to have Ron Paul in Washington, and that is where he needs to be. That was the last day I listened to his radio show or his TV show. He is absolutely working on getting his listeners to become libertarians, and if Paul, or anyone else run on the libertarian ticket in 2012, he would be holding rallies for them.

  • zroxx

    He:

    • voted yes on “Prohibiting Federally Funded Abortion Services”
    • co sponsored the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”
    • voted no on “Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” After Military Review and Certification”
    • voted no on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act”
    • voted no on “Hate Crimes Expansion”
    • voted yes on “Exempting Guns from an Estate for Bankruptcy Purposes”

    What else do you find in his actual voting record, or even in his statements outside of voting, that so overshadows his votes above to have you define him as socially liberal?

    On the other hand, he:

    • voted yes on “National Volunteer Program Expansion”
    • voted yes on “Trade-in Vouchers for Fuel Efficient Cars”
    • voted yes on “Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization and Expansion”
    • voted yes on “Flood Insurance Program Extension”
    • voted yes on “Extending Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits”
    • voted yes on “Science and Technology Funding”
    • voted yes on “Supplemental Appropriations for the “Cash for Clunkers” Program”

    These votes aren’t particularly indicative of a fiscal conservative. I see some votes that do comport with sound fiscal discipline, but it looks like a very mixed record to me.

    citations: here and here.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    I just read the article you linked to about Chris Barron’s abortion agenda. I had no idea. “Director of Republican Outreach for Planned Parenthood.” WTF?!?!?!!!!!!!

    As far as I’m concerned, that is CASE CLOSED on the GOProud issue. Anyone who earns their livelihood by working full-time to rope Republicans into one of the most evil organizations on the face of the planet is not to be trusted.

    And, yes, it’s pretty rich irony for anyone connected with Planned Parenthood to be calling anybody else a “bigot” or a “hater” — since Margaret Sanger’s whole PURPOSE in founding that organization was to get rid of black people and other “defectives.” She was one of the most hateful bigots who ever lived! And the organization she founded has continued that racist legacy, with 75% of their facilities located in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

  • rowdydfw

    GOProud is too proud of being GOProud…if they sincerely wanted to be part of the conservative movement they would adopt its agenda, come to it’s meetings as conservatives and not as GOProud members who obviously have their own agenda, which is liberal. They can’t be both and join the CPAC conference.

    It’s that simple.

    The big tent, we must embrace all, is liberal ideology. It’s the ideology that got us in the mell of a hess that we are in today. Whoever at CPAC that decided to give them the podium and a microphone made a very serious mistake that needs to be corrected NOW! As it is, it seems that GOProud is running the CPAC agenda instead of conservatives!

  • bus2dc

    If you’re part of GOProud then you should be questioning and exposing the curiously liberal character-smear tactics being exhibited by your own, not slamming the messengers reporting and exposing it — OR questioning those responding to it as less “valid” conservatives than yourself. How would you know who has “earned the right” (??!!) to be commenting on any subject matter? Do the world a favor and please don’t skip your morning coffee again, please.

    CPAC had better cure itself of its “confusion” very quickly. I don’t like what I’m seeing and hearing at all, and I chose to stay away as well this year. And while Erick has saddened me with Chris Baron’s ugly attacks, at least I found a new personal hero in Cleta Mitchell. Cheers to the quietest among us who are working 24/7 and hopefully too busy to even read the nonsensical attempts to both discredit them and falsify the truth.

  • zroxx

    you come very close above to crossing the personal attack line that so many moderators preach about

    In what way did he come remotely close to personally attacking jiminga? The guy made a clear and concise statement: “A true conservative rejects the gay lifestyle and social mores, as they disagree with positions on marriage, DADT“. Moe is asking him to back up that statement with an actual argument and reasoning for his position on what a “true conservative” must do.

    If you think the implication that Moe doesn’t feel jiminga is in a position to define what a “true conservative” is, is a personal attack, then you really need to thicken your skin on this site.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    …”How long will it take for these party stalwarts to understand that philosophical promulgation primarily depends on basic, principled agreement?”

    That would require some hard work — and our schools and media have been breeding intellectual laziness. Our mission is not impossible — it’s just a lot of hard work, and doubly so since we’re trying to make headway in a dumbed-down environment.

    One reason I love RedState is that the folks here challenge people to be factually solid and intellectually rigorous.

  • Bill S

    before one of us relieves you of your site membership. If you have issues with how this site is being managed, then click the contact link and complain there. DO NOT use these threads to air your grievances about a moderator.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    “basic, principled arguments.”

  • Thomas Crown

    Let’s simply make abortion illegal and pass a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, with states having the right to adopt civil unions as they desire.

    Then we can get on with the stuff you feel is important, like fighting abroad to instill democracies, reduce taxes, and support foreign allies — things that, as we’ve seen, are not divisive at all.

    Deal?

  • Finrod

    .

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    But here’s the problem with your inquiry: my issue is that various other people are unilaterally declaring themselves gatekeepers for conservatism; and I’m questioning their credentials for doing so, since it’s now impacting me.

    Can you see how I might not be predisposed to justify myself to anybody until that issue is resolved? :)

  • Scope

    Your name, and Redstate have enormous influence within the conservative circle, and this is taking a leadership position in pointing out the mission creep of non-conservative positions storming into the conservative tent. I just wish that those that have remained silent, as you have, would have done this long ago. GOProud was at CPAC last year, as were the radical islamic speakers. Grover Norquist has been instrumental at CPAC for years, even though his radical ties have been known for many years. I just hope it is not to late to turn back to traditional conservatism. The only way to defeat those that want to redefine it will be to remove the now heavy influence from the libertarians.

    I saw an article, front and center this morning on The Hill, declaring that Sarah Palin sees no problem with GOProud at CPAC, even though she is not attending herself. In the past she tweeted her support of them. I guess Palin has just lost her social conservative bona fides. If she does make a run for president in 2012, she just made a similar error as Daniels calling for a truce on social issues. Actually her words are more destructive to her, as she came out in support of something social conservatives are very much against. Did she think this would gain support for her with the Independents? According to polling, even the Independents are more in favor of social issues than are not. Ooooops.

  • EMT907

    Ronald Reagan said that someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is an ally and not a 20% traitor.

  • jpmulhern

    You can’t be conservative and in favor of using government power to promote homosexuality and undermine traditional morality. That’s what SSM and DADT repeal (and the rest of the “gay rights” agenda) are about. The essence of conservatism is perserving the distinction between public and private and ikeeping the government out of the private sphere. It’s great that you understand the damage government does when it intrudes in the private sphere by meddling with the economy, but that’s not enough to make you a conservative. You also have to understand that the government can damage society just as much, if not more, by meddling with our morality.

    Christian sexual morality developed over millennia and it has served our society remarkably well. Our culture approves of sexual expression only when it serves the purpose of creating or sustaining a family. It frowns on sexual expression in every other situation. Western Civilization has been successful, in large part, because it was constructed on this moral principle. We can’t approve of homosexuality (or adultery, or most other forms of sexual expression including bestiality) without uprooting this principle and gravely wounding our culture. The effort to deploy government power to make us abandon that principle is as damaging as anything the left has ever done. It’s been ongoing since 1791 and if you are inclined to assist the left with that effort, you aren’t a conservative. There’s no point in guarding the front door if the back door is wide open (so to speak).

    Incidentally, combining a pugnacious tone with a vacuous comment is no way to win friends and influence people.

  • Old_Dominion

    I was in favor of taxpayer-supported abortion? In fact I specified that I wasn’t.

    I couldn’t care less who marries whom–it doesn’t affect me. I don’t elevate a fetus to the same level as a human, although I can’t say I spend more than a negligible amount of time thinking about the issue. In other words, hot button social issues hold no appeal to me, save maybe for RKBA.

    Meanwhile, despite being new parents, my wife and I do not qualify for the associated tax credits because the government has determined that we earn too much. I just got a good look at what we paid in taxes last year, and it made me nauseous. I’m a firm believer in disproportionate response to terrorists, and I’ll never apologize for being an American.

    The gay GOP groups are more or less in line with my priorities. Some claim to be pro-life, some claim to be pro-choice, I don’t much care. If they want to join the fight for lower taxes and less government intrusion, then I say welcome aboard.

  • tritonle

    I heard Breitbart on the Rusty Humphries show where he was defending his position and his decision to reach out to GoProud. I’m sure you heard the reasoning. Among his reasons were that he didn’t like to see groups (paraphrase) “shouted down” like the left does. I get that. He doesn’t want to be in an organization that behaves like the left does……huh. Maybe he could’ve picked a better issue to get behind (whoops?). Andrew equates the shouters with all conservatives, when they probably just could’ve handled it better. I love Breitbart, I also think he’s gotten caught up in the trap layed by the left where there’s no response that cant be criticized. He said that if that’s the way conservatives are, then maybe he’s not one. Maybe he’s not. Or he just doesn’t completely understand it. We don’t care what people do privately. When its made an issue, that’s the emergence of an agenda.
    The problem is fundamental in that GoProud has allowed themselves to get caught in the trap of “grouping” that the left engages in – but they’re so accustom to being grouped, that they do it to themselves. If they came in and didn’t need to identify as gay, no one would care. The fact that its become this big of an issue is evidence of an agenda to me. “Grouping” and “categorizing” is fine for marketing and sales, but when it’s used for politics, it gets downright nefarious. It’s a tactic set in motion to disrupt and disarm the conservative movement. And its working…look at us.
    read more at: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tritonleatcomcastdotnet

  • Old_Dominion

    skip straight ahead to your second paragraph. If you accomplish that and then move back to paragraph one, then while I might personally disagree with wasting government time on such nonsense, at least I’ll be paying less for it.

  • Finrod

    I’ve advocated civil unions for a while now as a middle way, but most SSM advocates think it’s not good enough and most traditional marriage defenders call it SSM dressed differently. Sigh.

  • Read Chesterton

    that RS has been crawling wall-to-wall wit GOProud sympathetic mobies over the last fee weeks. I have to say we’ve been good about it, probably to a fault so ss not to live up to their stereotypes as social conservative bigots.

    But can we please ask them to leave now, we’re falling off mission here.

  • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

    I think you’re exactly right about there now being large numbers of people who “don’t have a party” anymore, since the Dems have become so blatantly socialist.

    And then they come into OUR party and try to make it “Democrat Lite”… If the stakes weren’t so high, it would be funny.

    It reminds me a little of all the people who move out of California because it’s so crazy. They often migrate to conservative places like Utah or Texas or Kansas — and then gripe about what rubes we are, and start trying to change us and make us more like… California!

    In some places, such as Colorado and Montana, that used to be conservative, the “liberalizers” have clearly made big gains.

  • Bill S

    And allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens
    And leaving Iraq
    And cutting the F-22
    And supporting the Department of Education
    And voting for Mike Castle
    and and and and…

    How many litmus tests are we going to put in place? How many of your “tests” can someone fail before you slap them with “NOT A CONSERVATIVE?” Conservatism isn’t a simple “yes or no” formula. It’s a continuum (sorry to those who have heard me harp on this before…)

    Granted, there is a point where someone can stray from enough conservative points of view that they are no longer in the conservative house. But you cannot brand someone as un-conservative if they disagree on one or two issues.

    And I doubt he was trying to win any friends with his comments.

  • EMT907

    I can’t seem to find any writings on Conservatism that gives any indication that it’s only for white, straight Christians.

  • bcochran1981

    …I wasn’t speaking to you. I specifically asked Moe a question. But ok, maybe it wasn’t a direct personal attack. But I’ve seen several instances of moderators warning the page at large to moderate their tone when addressing other people.

    “Tell me to my face that I?m not a true conservative. Here, let me take off my site moderator?s hat, so that there?s no worries about any possible power imbalance. So go ahead. Let?s hear it about how I, personally, am not a true conservative. Not some faceless Other. Moe Lane.”

    That’s a fairly aggressive in your face response. Especially when Moe wasn’t called out personally to begin with.

    My skin is plenty thick, but I thank you for your concern.

    Good day sir.

  • http://bluecollarmuse.com Blue_Collar_Muse

    it has been my experience that the most reliable supporter of the things most important to you are those who are social Conservatives.

    Think about it. Who is more supportive of fiscally Conservative notions: A) Social Liberals; B) Social Moderates or C) Social Conservatives? I cannot fathom an answer other than C.

    Once you answer that question, then another question near the top of your list, perhaps the very next question, needs to be “Then how far down the “Expand support – Alienate my base” continuum am I willing to go to acquire allies?”

    Erick has shown how far down that road GOProud is willing to go. He makes a strong case that such a journey ends in a place that is not going to be helpful to the very things you value most. If that is true, how can you ignore such a threat to the things you hold most dear?

  • bus2dc

    I simply applaud Glenn’s willingness to bring INFO forward. Massive amounts of info, and exposure of SO many Creep-of-all-Creeps I have filled notebooks. I think he actually REVELS in the “clown” moniker (which is so far removed from what he’s survived and who he is that it’s hysterical) for the very reason that the radical left did not take him seriously until it was too late. Now they simply want to kill him.

    There’s no more goofiness on Glenn’s tv show, either; he’s a man now positively DRIVEN to get out as much info on the people and groups in bed with each other which are systematically destroying our identity as a nation. If anything, he’s furious. And he repeatedly, constantly, urges viewers NOT to take his word for anything and to investigate on their own.

    Whatever religious or monetary “gain” or stakes he has here, I say good for him. He deserves it, his life has become security-hell and he is speaking FACTS — look things up, everything is there waiting to be found. I don’t agree with many of his personal views, but I respect the integrity of his purpose and his information. Anyone buying into the relentless character assassination should recognize this is the HALLMARK of the left when they are threatened by someone’s power. Don’t kid yourself, Beck HAS power, he’s fearless, and they know it.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Now you need to explain to everybody else why it is you have the authority to be a gatekeeper for determining who is, and who is not, a conservative. Because I’m telling you that I never gave you permission to do that in my case, and that I don’t recognize that you have any right to do so generally.

  • Bill S

    And as I told the other person later down-thread, if you have issues with how moderators are commenting, take it to the Contact link. Otherwise, stick with the questions at hand.

  • JadedByPolitics

    when you hear one. They will never softshoe their Conservative principles to be liked by the media wing of the Democrat Party. They will sound the same on CNN as on FOX as on their websites as when they talk to a gun group or a Church group…..they do not say different things to different groups. You will know them by their votes and you will know them by how they live. TRUE Conservatives NEVER call someone on their own side names to make their point, that is a disgusting liberal trait that should be mocked and derided by the whole of the Movement when it occurs. I would like to see Baron belittled and held out for derision from this moment forward.

  • Bill S
  • Raven

    That it can’t be a reasonable partnership.
    But it can never be argued that its purpose is to produce children and continue the traditions or culture of the people or nation, nor even the genetic traits of the persons involved. It’s a dead-end street.
    Whatever beneficial genes went into the partnership (Elton John’s artistic talents) are lost forever.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    I’ve always objected to the whole idea of “gay marriage” and hence have been suspicious of gay-first interest groups being part of the conservative movement. I never bothered to research the issue any further and simply wallowed in suspicion.

    Thanks for pointing out exactly what is going on with this group, GOProud. I am mostly leery of any group that places a special status or interest above all else. For a philosophy that reinforces principles over self interest, it just seems incompatible.

  • lineholder

    Even when we want to give others the benefit of the doubt, to believe that they are genuine and sincere, it isn’t always a wise choice to make a commitment or to join forces in haste. We can leave ourselves wide open to being deceived and end up ruining our own reputation in the process.

    I’ve more or less had the mindset for quite a while to “just wait and see” about GOPround, that the proof was in the pudding, and that if this group was sincere, their actions would prove it. But that until such time, I would restrain from committing myself to anything.

    This is one time that I’m glad I’ve had enough of common sense to do this. They may be fiscally conservative on some areas of policy, but they are socially liberal regarding how they approach politics. And if speaking the truth on that makes me a bigot, then other people can call me what they choose.

  • Aaron Gardner

    The guy was a porker, he never ran on, or emphasized while in office, social conservatism. Additionally he was a member of the RMSP.

    I am looking through his voting record via this site since it hasn’t been memory holed.

  • EMT907

    that he only worked there for two months. He was pro-choice before and became pro-life by the end of the “worst two months of my life”.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …very, very clear when I’m speaking as Moe Lane, RS commenter, and not Moe Lane, RedState Avatar of DOOM. If I don’t, people will – usually rightly – think that I’m laying an elaborate trap for a moby or troll. Which is one reason why I don’t actually do it all that often; it’s not fair for site moderators to have arguments with commenters unless the former voluntarily and temporarily gives up the right to moderate, but it’s still usually confusing to others when the former does that.

  • Raven

    Christ turned water into wine.

    Seems a pretty strong endorsement from the Saviour in favour of moderate drinking…
    Further, moderate drinking has been shown to have many beneficial health effects.

    Like Eating, it’s when you do it too much that it becomes a problem.

  • streiff

    you’ve embarked on a very suboptimal evolutionary strategy on this thread. I’d suggest you cut your losses and move along.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I’ve taken off the site moderator hat for this one.

  • redneck_hippie

    Those who have eyes can see that the event has a problem on its hands. As EPU said above, you shed a strong, bright light.

    GOProud has been shown as a false-flag organization. They need to hang there banner elsewhere.

  • streiff

    I don?t oppose (non-taxpayer funded) abortion,

    and you up the ante

    I don?t elevate a fetus to the same level as a human

    Let’s forget about you being conservative, those two positions put you in opposition to the what the GOP platform has been since 1980.

  • zroxx

    Glenn Beck’s position on abortion seems pretty clear to me:

    Abortion is killing. … It’s killing. You’re killing someone.[cite]

    If you think abortion is a right, you know, a woman?s right to choose, et cetera, et cetera, fine. I disagree with you.[cite]

    … for a lot of people, me included, abortion is murder. And it just becomes clearer and clearer the closer you get to birth. I mean, it’s just so ? I think if you had a womb with a window, it would never happen.[cite]

    On the subject of abortion, do you agree or disagree with “Glenn Beck, the libertarian”?

  • Old_Dominion

    social conservatives often. Not because I agree with them on social issues, but because they’re typically the ones who will vote to let me keep more of what I earn.

  • Scope

    in an article right on his own Big Government site. If I can find it again, I’ll link it.

  • Old_Dominion

    Let’s try this again. I don’t oppose non-taxpayer funded abortion. Put another way, I don’t oppose abortion if it is non-taxpayer funded. If it is non-taxpayer funded, that means no public dollars are funding the procedure.

    Get it now?

    We’ll ignore the silliness that one must support each and every plank in the GOP platform to be a conservative, since I doubt even you really believes that.

  • streiff

    the Bible proscribes drunkenness not drink.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • bus2dc

    Is this an error? Because I was not “airing grievances on how this site is managed”, i was replying to a poster named Moe – in defense of someone else here, I might add. I applauded Erick (moderator?) for the info, in fact. I had – and have – no wish to contact anyone and “complain” about this site. (?)

  • zroxx

    cached

    The second link simply supports my note that he co-sponsored the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”. The first link supports everything else.

    You’ve offered no evidence to support the implication that he was socially liberal in light of his voting record but thank you for conceding that he was not fiscally conservative.

  • realvoice2010

    Why are only the Christians the only vote we will surely lose, with gay marriage? What happened to the so-called Judeo-Christian block? There isn’t any such block because 90 plus percent of the Jewish voters are liberals who always vote for “doing what feels good”.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Thomas Crown

    I’ve never understood the value of a majority voting coalition anyway. It’s certainly not useful in getting uncontroversial things like supporting democracy abroad, tax cuts, and supporting foreign allies done. Especially when members of that same coalition support those issues, too. Jettison their useless, wedging hides.

    Incidentally, as we’ve already established that you’re divorced from reality, I’m also curious as to the number of suns in the sky in your world.

  • streiff

    that the GOP platform isn’t conservative.

    Yes, I get it very clearly. You think the label “conservative” has a cachet of some type that is beneficial to you and you want it. What you don’t want is any part of Reagan’s three-legged stool which includes “traditional values.”

    So feel free to redefine conservatism down until it meets your needs. Just don’t expect the rest of us to do the same.

  • stacyarena

    Now when will you take that same discerning eye & look long & hard at the Libertarians & how THEY are more closely aligned with The Democrats than the GOP on everything except Domestic Fiscal Issues?

    On social issues, the “Classical Liberals” make the Democrat Liberals look relatively chaste. On Foreign Policy/National Defense the Libertarians resemble a gun totin’ faction of Code Pink. Yet we are embracing them? Allowing them to gain power & enabling them to vote with the Democrats, stopping important to the Conservative Republican Cause issues such as The Patriot Act ~ that’s a MUCH bigger issue to me than GOProud’s infiltration & goals of pushing the LGBT agenda. Not by a whole lot, but our National Security is at stake…

  • EMT907

    an American, a Christian, a Conservative and a gay man. I frankly don’t care if you think or believe that I am or not. Matter of fact, it seems to me, very un-conservative for arrogant snobs to drone on and on about who is and who isn’t a conservative. Yes, I am happy and no, I don’t require your approval or disapproval. You can huff and puff all you want, but it won’t matter one whit to me.

    Erick, that Planned Parenthood bit was a cheap shot, sorta like you accuse Barron of, and I hope you’re aware of that fact.

  • bcochran1981

    …a pitter-patter. Moe Lane, responding to ME personally. ;-) I don’t believe anyone (other than God Almighty) has the right to declare themselves the gatekeeper of anything. However, by and large, there are certain…concepts, ideas, etc….that can be identified as “conservative.” Lower taxes, smaller govt, respect for life, individualism, etc. And while opposition to SSM isn’t perhaps a cornerstone like those others, I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb to say that it’s a conservative point. Now, do we throw people out of the party because they disagreee? No, of course not. My wife for example is in favor of SSM. But I also don’t think it’s wrong to question people about their ideas, beliefs, ideologies. I’ve never been a proponent of “let’s come together.” Honest, intellectual, spirited debate is not only beneficial, it’s, imo, essential.

    Your personal business is just that, yours. And it’s no one else’s. But your post really struck me as completely different than anything else you put up here. It caught me by surprised and I wanted to ask you about it. Thank you for responding.

  • Finrod

    Of the “three legs” of conservatism (fiscal, defense, social), in my experience the most crossover is between fiscal and defense. Occasionally I’ll run across a fiscon that doesn’t want to pay for wars or a defcon that fears budget cuts because they’re afraid the military will get chopped, but more frequently than either I’ll come across a socon who doesn’t really care about fiscal or defense issues. I remember a frontpager here saying once that the only issue they really cared about at all was abortion; to me that’s a textbook one-legged conservative.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I believe at last check the abortion industry is about a $1 billion dollar a year industry? Heck, PP has, what like a $900+ million budget?

    Making abortion illegal wouldn’t exactly comport with all those pledges to strike a “balance” between “prudent regulation” and “economic growth”- with “economic growth being paramount of course.

    Yes, of course. Let’s take care of the economic issues first and plow social conservatives aside. It’s not like a fetus can vote and being a social conservative is so yesterday.

    Yeah, I am done being sardonic.

  • Scope

    that every diary that has been put up in defense of conservatism, and against those that want to redefine conservatism, the wall-to-wall sympathetic mobies, or those that obviously support GOProuds gay mission, come out shouting and protesting the position of the diarists, to the point of utter disrespect of the diarists themselves. I just love when some demand that their voices be heard, but are right their slamming those of the opposite, or different views.

    Yes, you are correct, can we rid ourselves of those that are working against the leadership position that EE and many other front pagers have taken in preserving and protecting conservatism. I remember reading a few times that it is obvious Redstate has been infiltrated by some that are clearly not on our side, and are in fact working against our side. I believe that list is growing. When some support a group, that clearly holds and pushes Liberal issues, they are harming our goals.

  • Bill S

    To call them “champions of child killing” a “cheap shot”? Heck, it wasn’t severe enough. They enable murder, plain and simple.

  • Scope

    that keep asking “Can’t we all just get along.” Too me, they don’t have the courage or leadership to take a strong stand, but rather have decided it’s better to sit on the sideline mum, and just let the destruction happen.

  • streiff

    to SSM is that the “full faith and credit” clause makes a SSM in one state legal in all states. That is why DOMA and inevitably a constitutional amendment are going to be required otherwise one state decides for everyone what the rules are.

  • Bill S
  • realvoice2010

    Why get into a trap responding to the Left? Let’s just beat the political hell out of the LEFT through activism and our votes, where THE LEFT can’t make any responses (like answering facts) that can’t be criticized and REJECTED.

  • zroxx

    Moe wasn’t speaking to you either but you were ok with engaging him, right? So let’s not caught get up in any silly “not speaking to you” indignation.

    When he reasonably challenges the commenter to defend their statement only after specifically and clearly shedding any pretense of threat or possible retribution, so that the commenter feels welcome to express their argument, there simply is no aggression. It’s an invitation to debate.

    The following is a personal opinion and although he doesn’t need me to defend him, Moe is the least likely moderator here to behave churlishly, react aggressively, or engage in ad hominem. To see him inaccurately portrayed as such prompted my reaction.

  • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

    Many people don’t seem to remember just how scary things were when TARP was passed and use it as a litmus test. In fact, lawmakers could have voted for it in good conscience, because it was being pushed as something that had to be done to prevent a total economic meltdown. Because it was passed and because we did not suffer a meltdown, there is no way of knowing if bank failures would have been so widespread, without it, that they might have caused everything to crash. The number of small banks that have failed in the last couple of years is pretty incredible as it is.

    That’s not to say that I think that TARP was necessarily a good idea. I am too ignorant about it to make a measured judgment. But it was possible to vote for TARP and still be conservative. When the government started bailing out car manufacturers using money set aside for troubled assets, we crossed over into malfesance territory (in my opinion), but that’s a different subject than TARP itself.

    Moe, thanks for standing up and saying that you are pro-SSM and anti-DADT. I’m there with you (and Dick Cheney) on SSM, as long as it is implemented democratically and not judicially. I don’t know enough about DADT and its impact on the military to voice an informed opinion.

    /threadjack

  • Thomas Crown

    Which frontpager was that?

  • lineholder

    newcomer. Mr. Barron is in a leadership role at GOProud. “Old-timers” are trying to determine to what extent GOProud can and/or can not be trusted. And this is not something we do for the sake of bigotry or any other reason. There is a great deal at stake in the current situation and it is imperative that we try to make wise choices.

    Anyone who claims a role of leadership has these kinds of situations evaluated with the reason being that it can often provide evidence regarding the mindset and character of the person in the leadership role and how this could influence the kind of leadership that will be provided. As individual citizens, we can and do question such things, and it is our responsibility under the laws of this country to do so.

    Even with long-standing conservatives in leadership roles, if they were to take a stand supporting a policy or organization such as PP, we “old-timers” would question it.

    This is not a popularity context, emt. The choices we make will play a part in the direction that this country goes in from this point forward. This responsibility is not something that we take lightly and neither should we be persuaded to do so for any reason.

  • Scope

    the fiscal conservative bona fides of any group who associates themselves with the AFL-CIO and SEIU. I believe that LUR tied them back to the unions. I honestly believe that they really are a Liberal group of infiltrators, with no other purpose than to split and divide the conservatives, and the whole Republican party as a whole.

  • redneck_hippie
  • etlib

    “Science has not shown that gayness is genetic.” There seems to be a lot of discussion over this in the media as if it makes a difference. Like homosexuality is okay if it genetic.

    As an extreme example, would raping young children be okay if pedophilia is shown to be genetic?

  • johnt

    What am I missing. Since when with normal people do you take pride in who you have sex with? Fun and/or love yes, Pride?
    Just another bunch of hostile people, emotionally disturbed for the most part, and having a little nasty fun. The media will love it.

  • Finrod

    ..

  • jpmulhern

    and now you’ve broken the surface. Nobody needs permission or authority to observe the obvious. “Conservative,” like every other word in the English language, has a meaning. It refers to people who are willing to stand against the leftist tide. Either you are or you aren’t. If you won’t stand against the left’s cultural vandalism, you aren’t a conservative, by definition. You can proclaim that you’re conservative all you like. You can also proclaim that you’re a zebra if it suits you. Your proclamations can’t alter reality.

    Ever since the French Revolution the left has been tearing down the moral infrastructure that supports the Western family and stands in the way of the all powerful, all caring state it is trying to build. This is even closer to the core of what the left is about than the ongoing effort to manage the economy. Those who are only willing to fight the left on some of the several fronts in its war against the West aren’t much use to the forces of conservatism. The enemy is sure to attack with its greatest force at precisely the points you aren’t willing to defend.

    If the left strips our culture of its sexual morality it won’t be able to support the structure of political and economic freedom that depends on that morality. Leftists know that, which is why they never stop trying to strip away our sexual morality. Apparently you don’t know that and you’re willing to help them. There is no definition of conservative that fits anyone willing to assist the left with that project. If you truly want to be part of the solution, you have to stop being part of the problem.

  • RSSS

    while I read some classics by Lewis or Spurgeon.
    Thank you very much!

  • gaudium

    We have an abundant supply of RINOs. I stopped sending donations to CPAC some time ago and support conservatives directly. Our big time RINO appears to be getting ready to run for president again, if he is nominated B.O. will win again, because conservatives will not vote for a socialist nor will they vote for a RINO.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If you look at the voting records in the House, a broad spectrum of American views if you’ve ever seen one, pro-lifers are much more likely to be pro-growth than pro-aborts.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Marcus_Traianus

    Question a groups motives or on the basis of their objectives, whether those goals are compatible with conservatism.

    But you have seemingly labeled an entire group of people as abnormal.

    That’s unfortunate, judgmental and groups people into a stereotype which I certainly don’t believe is true.

  • jpmulhern

    but it has a particular cultural foundation. That foundation depends on Christianity and the moral code that grew out of it. American conservatism is about defending classical liberalism (John Locke and all that) which depends on that code. Uproot the code and the whole system falls apart. The idea that we can let our government tinker with our fundamental moral commitments without inviting the development of a totalitarian state is nonsense. You can’t be “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” The world just isn’t ordered that way.

  • Old_Dominion

    conservative, liberal, moderate, blue, green, magenta, etc. My interest is my family. I get to spend less time with them because I work a lot. I work a lot because cost of living in this area is high. It’s made a lot higher by the amount of money I pay in taxes. On the issues that impact my family the most–i.e., fiscal issues–I want whoever is going to let me keep more of what I bust my rear end to earn. Whether they indulge in trivial matters like abortion or gays is of only fleeting interest to me, and while I don’t agree with the social conservatives on the most contentious issues (aside from RKBA), it’s a rare social conservative that votes for higher taxes, so if they need to obsess over abortion and gays, it doesn’t really impact me which is why I don’t have much problem voting for them. I just wish they’d find more constructive uses for their time, given that we pay their salaries.

    The foreign policy conservatism is just a side benefit. I care about it more than I do the social issues, but everything takes a backseat to my ability to provide for my family. If you want to call it something other than conservatism, I’m okay with that. I’m frankly bemused by people who care what others label them.

  • tritonle

    “CHA!”
    I said Breitbart got caught up, not us.
    Exposing the tactic and the agenda is part of how we beat the political pants….
    (sorry) the political hell out of them. :)

  • Finrod

    Not in public, anyways. I’d be happy to continue this via email if you desire. If you get contact@redstate.com email, I just reported some diary spam yesterday, so my email address would be on that message.

  • http://bluecollarmuse.com Blue_Collar_Muse

    “social issues have become such a wedge.” It seems to me that such a bifurcation of the discussion is damaging.

    It is not **social** issues that have become such a wedge. It is **conservative** issues that have become such a wedge.

    At issue here is not whether or not someone has a position on social and fiscal issues. At issue is where do those positions fall on the scale of Conservative to Liberal. We are talking about, in truth, defining what it means to be a Conservative.

    I am not trying to establish where anyone specific falls on that scale. But I will note that, logically speaking, someone who is FisCon and SoCon **must** be seen as more Conservative than someone who is FisCon and SoMod. Equally, they would be more Conservative than someone FisMod and SoCon.

    Thus if the idea is to determine whether or not the group or view in question is, more or less Conservative, than others on the same scale, we have a decent tool for doing so.

    What remains to be decided, and this post and thread are trying to hash out yet again, is the answer to the question, “At what point along that line does one tip from being Conservative to being Liberal?” I cannot claim to know where that is and each man must decide for himself. Certainly there are arguments to be made on both sides.

    One thing is quite clear, however. The middle ground is where the controversy lies. Those who are FisCon and SoMod or SoLib are the ones around whom the conflict is swirling. It has been fairly well established that certain social positions are seen as Conservative and others as Liberal. Fiscal issues are evaluated similarly.

    And so the issue is not whether or not someone is tossing Social issues in as wedges. That argument implies that Social issues have no place in the debate. I cannot disagree more. While the Revolution was fought over taxes, the population that revolted descended from those fleeing religious persecution. It is not an either/or when it comes to Social/Fiscal matters. It is both/and.

    As noted, the issue is not whether or not Social issues are a wedge. At issue is, when examining the weighty and influential issues of the day, toward which end of the spectrum will you move? Will you declare yourself as a Conservative? Or will you align with Liberals? For those wanting it somewhere in the Center, a pop culture reference to Mr. Miyagi’s grape might be a warning to be heeded.

    So please, if you care to self identify yourself as a Con, Mod or Lib on any issue you choose, such is both your right and duty. But to declare that extending that identification to some areas constitutes driving an unneeded or unwelcome wedge into the discussion is, IMO, an invalid variable.

    The spectrum we are evaluating here is “Conservative – Liberal”. Full stop. It is applied to all manner of issues from monetary and foreign policy to social and education policy to climate and science policy. Wedges divide. Thus, adding in another view to place on the spectrum is not the introduction of a wedge. But either insisting that it be left off as irrelevant or including it but diminishing its impact on the overall outcome is.

    Trying to make sense of where GOProud, or any other group – even RedState, stands on that spectrum on either specific or more general grounds is both necessary and legitimate. The real questions arise once that determination has been made. Because then you know not merely what the issues are, but with whom you will be fighting.

  • Scope

    sitting here thinking about the numerous articles I’ve read about the overtaking of CPAC, and in fact the entire Republican party by the libertarians. That was a complaint being made even long before GOProud. From last year’s CPAC, it became obvious what their intentions were. The libertarians support the gays, and I’ve read posts right here at Redstate, where some libertarians also support the the rights and freedoms of the islamists as well. I don’t know if you saw the comment by one of our members yesterday, which laid out the libertarian and Liberal positions as being very closely tied. I would also add that they aren’t even similar to conservatives on domestic fiscal issues. By supporting the gays, they are supporting the social issue expenses that would be involved in promoting the gays agenda.

  • acat

    …although I was, and still am, one of the ones saying “Let them fail”. We have an existing procedure to handle a company that failed – bankruptcy laws – that TARP absolutely short-circuited…. and all that seems to me to have happened since is gamesmanship. Further agree that Bush & Co. screwed up – and should probably be in front of a congressional hearing or three – for using TARP funds for things not related to purchasing toxic assets.

    The run-up to TARP seemed to be filled with FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Maybe it’s just because I’ve been watching Microsoft business practices for so long, but .. FUD makes me suspicious, not fearful… Not enough of us react that way…

    As to DADT, it’s something like the “default setting” for armed services. Putting it into a law was excessive micromanagement of the armed services by the political class, and just as wrong-headed as excessive military influence over the political class would be. The armed services need to exist apart from politicians, and vice versa…. Bad things happen (the words “invasion” and “junta” come to mind) when we forget this.

    Mew

  • Old_Dominion

    that fights for fiscal conservatism, which is why I usually vote for SoCons, because they’re usually the ones advancing FisCon beliefs as well. Their abortion and gay obsession, however, holds no appeal to me personally. If it does for you, then mazel tov.

  • Doc Holliday

    a license to practice law would be a license to practice law in any state. If that were true, a Texas concealed carry permit would be accepted in Washington DC.

    There are ways to do these things. There is not just one way.

    btw, why do people think the government should promote marriage through taxation or other devices? Does Western Civilization need the government to keep it going?

  • lineholder

    GOProud has taken the approach of very publicly asserting themselves. So be it if that is the approach that they choose.

    But they’ve done this in a manner that closely resembles the methods used by the left when they want to “control the narrative”. The general public is not as naive as it was even 2 years ago to these kinds of methods. They don’t want it, like it, respect it or appreciate it. They want to get down to business addressing the issues that our nation has. Period.

    If GOProud continues to take this approach, there could easily come a point in time between now and the elections in 2012 where the general public will begin to turn a deaf ear to anything this organization has to say. If the organization has any degree of prudence at all, they will take this into consideration.

  • Doc Holliday

    and no, it is not even close.

  • Scope

    I look at it as the enemy working against us, pure and simple. You would undoubtedly be much happier over at Hillbuzz, or joining up with GOProud themselves, if you haven’t already.

  • jpmulhern

    you shouldn’t have any dispute with your fellow conservatives. The problem is precisely the effort to use the power of government to compel our approval. If you don’t want the government tryiing to reform conventional morality and make us all celebrate your sexual preference — welcome to the big tent brother. The number of conservatives who have any taste for persecuting homosexuals is vanishingly small. But don’t expect anyone to treat you as a conservative comrade if you join the left in its cultural vandalism.

  • Old_Dominion

    Especially since I can freely admit that as a FisCon, SoMod, and foreign con, I will fall on the spectrum to the left of one who is conservative on all three. I’m okay with that, what I’m not okay with is social issues becoming the litmus test for anything other than social conservatism.

    Put another way, there are probably very few, if any, leading Republicans who are not fiscally conservative (some have made the case that Huckabee is not). However there are a number of us who don’t share socially conservative stances, leading that to be more of a wedge, so to speak, than other issues.

  • http://bluecollarmuse.com Blue_Collar_Muse

    However, there is a difference between identifying a person for whom a specific issue is the all consuming fight and identifying a person who fights a singular fight as being a one legged Conservative.

    The person for whom Abortion is the all consuming battle may be described as merely that – a single issue combatant. But one cannot extrapolate from there to identify his other positions. He may not vote or give on them much, but he does have them.

    I’ll wager that they fall more regularly on the FisCon side of the equation than not. I share your discomfort with those who choose to so narrow their focus to a single issue when it comes to establishing bona fides. Not at all when it comes to deciding in which battle to engage. I cannot fight every battle. But I can have a reaction to the outcome of most of them.

    For me that’s always been the best way to break it down.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    It’s not my fault that you don’t have the actual authority to be a gatekeeper. There’s no need for passive-aggressive sneers.

  • melatr7

    The Gay Manifesto…..

    ?We shall sodomize your sons… We shall seduce them in your schools?in your army bunkhouses…in your houses of Congress…

    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

    All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united politically and financially.

    We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened? We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks?.

    The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished.

    All churches who condemn us will be closed.

    We shall rewrite history?

    Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.?
    ———–

    For a supposed fiction. it is remarkably accurate. Gay ‘rights’ are responsible for THE LARGEST conservative split in our history. Pity.

  • Doc Holliday

    the “three legs” of conservatism are simply a poor explanation of conservatism, the “three legs” are a failed theory. This is why all serious political preference tests now use 4 quadrants of statism, libertarianism, liberalism, and conservatism., something like that.

    Here I make my point clear. Just like in science, if a theory can be proven wrong in ANY instance, it is not a law.

    1) Fiscal – can you be a fiscal conservative and NOT be a libertarian-conserative? The answer is yes.

    2) Hawk – can you be a defense hawk and not be a libertarian-conservative? The answer is yes

    3) social – can you be a social conservative and not be a libertarian-conservative? uhh, is the Pope Catholic?

    So those who keep going on and on about the “three legs” are imho PURPOSELY ignoring libertarian-conservatism; the philosophy I find most consistent, most likely to win elections, and the driving force behind current GOP gains.

    # notice, I did not saying anything about gay marriage, DADT, GOProud, or CPAC, So if anyone wants to respond to what I did say, keep that in mind.

    ## And I don’t think this is off topic since most of the thread has been about the definition of conservatism. How can we define conservatism with a unproven theory of who conservatives aref?

  • Ender

    invite the development of a totalitarian state? Also how does being for gay marriage preclude someone from being a firm free-market capitalist, supporting limited government, lower taxes and strong national defense?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …my own dad hated extruded plastic pieces of junk toys on the floor; he didn’t often look where he was going, either. Damm*t, that hurts; at least the ankle’s taking the weight.

    Anyway, the problem here was that some people weren’t realizing that some of the comments that they were making that surely everyone here agreed with… everyone here doesn’t agree with. Particularly people who have frankly been working while others idled. And since nobody else was speaking up, well, somebody had to.

    And now, the couch.

  • citizenjerry

    Eric,
    Thank you for standing up for conservative principles. Of course GOProud fits in well with Republicans. The RINO good ol’ boys club wishes social conservatives would go away and stop talking about the sanctity of life and marriage. But we ignore social issues to our own peril and ruin. We should have learned that from the Founders.
    I’m saddened that so many name brand so-called conservatives have been co-opted by the lavender lobby.
    Again, many thanks for speaking up.

  • chihank

    Some GOP pollsters say the demographics favor gay marriage in the next 10-15 years. They point to young people not having a problem with gay marriage. Children of GOP politicans like Barbara Bush and Meghan McCain favor gay marriage. Thus some in the GOP say conservatives should just forget about fighting gay marriage. Should conservatives take such advice or redouble their effort to promote Christian values to America.

  • Finrod

    I was comparing socons to defcons on fiscal issues and socons to fiscons on defense issues, however; instead of comparing socons to anti-socons. There’s no intrinsic reason we can’t both be correct.

  • bay0wulf

    I submit to you the following thoughts ….

    Anyone I have ever met who proudly or even comfortably announces or calls themselves “Gay” is, by definition, Liberal. Not just Liberal but “Screaming, In Your Face Super Liberal”. They have an agenda that is about nothing other than themselves and their desire to rub your noses in their “Right” to an alternate lifestyle.

    I can’t think of a single “Gay” person I have ever really cared for.

    I know and have known many people who are of the same sex persuasion. Many of these people are and have been friends, respected mentors and even relatives. Not one of these people has ever been comfortable using the term “Gay” to describe themselves or their lifestyle. Some of them, when required in some conversation will admit to being of the same sexual persuasion and some will use the term “Gay” but, like myself, (I am straight) hesitate over its use but are lost for another, more acceptable, or usable term.

    “Gay” has many uncomfortable connotations. “Homosexual” has many negative connotations.

    I know many of these people and they are as conservative in their outlook and lifestyle as anyone else who claims the title of being conservative. Many are easily among the most ultra-conservative people I know. Many are republicans and many have been democrats and many are finding themselves aligned more as independents as the Democratic Party derails and the Republican Party is still too centrist.

    These people don’t advertise who or what they are. Its not that they are ashamed of it, they have come to be comfortable with themselves, they just don’t think that its anybody’s business. They look at the whole “Gay” thing and the “Gay Rights” thing as being as ridiculous and foolish as we might view a whole “Straight” thing or “Straight Rights” movement.

    Like you or I they see no reason or point to wearing their personal lives on their sleeves. If you see them as a couple you might be able to tell that they are a “couple” because of they way they interact but most people would miss it. They tend to live quietly, have very productive lives and tend to be well thought of. Just like you or I.

    They would never be caught dead in a “Gay” club, a “Gay” parade or become involved in any other openly “Gay” activity. They tend to think that type of thing is as weird as you would. They don’t tend to associate with people who consider themselves “Gay”.

    Most of them are glad to see many of the more onerous laws being softened and some of the more ridiculous reactions of the “uber-conservative” christian right being pushed aside but are not “activists” in getting the changes made.

    Like you or I they work, they live, they go home to their lives and mostly mind their own business and are quietly happy and comfortable with themselves.

    I have many friends of this type. I am proud to call them friends. You probably have friends of this type and may not even know it … may not ever know it.

    They shun “Gays” just like I basically shun “Gays” not because of their sexual persuasion but because they don’t like the Liberal slant of their outlook.

  • Ender

    90% of Jewish voters are liberals who *always vote for “doing what feels good”*?

    First of all about 25+% of Jews vote GOP so your “statistics” are off, and why would you want to slime an ethnic group by assigning ridiculous motives for their votes?

  • http://bluecollarmuse.com Blue_Collar_Muse

    While he did take GOProud to task for their position on homosexual rights issues and he did introduce abortion into the discussion by pointing out their alignment with Planned Parenthood, he did not exclusively critique them on social issues.

    He noted their views on Unions and Right to Work matters; he noted their financial support of Senate Conservatives Fund – not specifically or even primarily a social Conservative front. The strongest point of all, however, is the basic notion of Erick’s piece, that GOProud started taking shots at, of all folks, the Heritage Foundation.

    I know there is discussion of a lot of social issues there. But they are hardly a SoCon fortress to the exclusion of all other notions. Instead, the are a long term bastion of Conservatism in all its permutations, social and otherwise.

    You said it yourself. Your position marks you as less Conservative than others. I find nothing wrong with that (it’s actually rather refreshing to hear). Nor do I find anything in your identification of yourself as such which would prevent me from working with you on a wide variety of issues. We are likely far more allies than opponents.

    But it would seem Erick has outed GOProud as being the one using social issues as wedges here. It is one thing to champion Limited Government and Gay Rights. It is another thing to champion Gay Rights and assault Limited Government. One might mark someone as a person like yourself, a person with whom I can ally myself on many things. The other … not so much …

  • Scope
  • silkywiley

    I do not consider the Republican party to be conservative. As a child they were the country club Republicans. My aunt and uncle belonged to that group. Those people wired the system with their tax loop holes, I didn’t blame them, but they were pragmatists not conservatives.

    My daughter is a primarily a libertarian, she is also a pragmatist, she believes the social issues turn off the younger Republicans. She was the President of the Young Republicans at her college during the John McCain campaign, a RINO. The old conservatives made my daughter and other young people itchy. However, they are young and have not yet seen the havoc the socially liberal agenda has wrought, because they are fish swimming in it. It is what they know.

    The conservatives cannot make a pact with the devil, regardless of how many may be turned off.

    Groups like GoProud will destroy the chances of rollback of this virulent socialist agenda. The young are not so motivated to vote, but old conservatives like me are faithful voters. The young can be educated, they can be brought to see what decadence does to society.

    Now as to my take on the homosexual agenda rise to prominence.

    For fifty years or more, we have sexualized children. During the prepubescent ages, children are homosocial, this is natures way of protecting them from engaging in sex at too young an age. Boys hang out with boys and ignore girls and girls think boys are icky.

    Isn’t natural order beautiful? But if children are sexualized at this stage of homosocialabilty into same sex experiment, they will likely become homoerotic. Humans can be sexualized to a shoe. The point is they should be protected until the natural opposite sex attraction is awakened, at least 14 or 15 and for many, it is much later. So we have many more people being sexualized into same sex at a young age, at ages when they are naturally homosocial. Viola-more homosexuality. And boy what a virulent group they are.

    I find this a sad state of affairs for them, because they will not have growth and actualization of highest human potential and for society because this aberrent behavior is damaging to civilization and undermines our social contract.

    The purpose of marriage is domesticating of males and the protection of females and children. This rock of civilization should be changed because (for whatever reason for their homosexulaity) some men are unable to fulfil their responsibility to women and children. Marriage is under attack from all sides, including heterosexual behavior. Some of us have to defend it and explain to the young why this must be protected.
    As for redefining marriage

  • silkywiley

    Made an error in my last paragraph. “This rock of civilization should NOT be changed….

  • lineholder

    there will always be people who find themselves in opposition. I agree with your evaluation regarding the necessity to take where someone’s positions may lie along that spectrum into context in the current situation.

    Those differences have existed for many years, particularly within the realm of politics. There is nothing new about the process that is taking place right now. To suddenly throw assertions of it as being a “wedge” and making statements that those who don’t always agree are “bigoted” is really pretty ludicrous.

    But the questioning process we’re going through right now does have to take place in order to determine to what extent trustworthiness and/or loyalty on various issues may or may not exist between various groups.

    This is a normal process of life going on here. When you meet someone new, do you automatically just believe everything they say about themselves to be the truth, and blindly trust them? Or do you give it some time, get to know the person, listen to what they say, look at how they respond to situations in order to determine to what extent their words and actions are in agreement and then determine to what extent the person can be trusted?

  • jpmulhern

    So far it looks as though you’re quite content just to burble incoherently, I’ve heard some inane diversions in my time, but your “gatekeeper” ravings seriously contend for top honors.

    Most likely you haven’t tried to reconcile your purported conservatism with your support for SSM and DADT repeal because there is no rational way to reconcile them. Conservatives prize liberty. You can’t have both liberty and a system in which the government tries to alter our basic moral commitments by decree. So are you conservative or do you stand with the left as it does everything in its power to dismantle our traditional morality to clear the field for constructing Utopia? You can’t have it both ways. Nobody has the authority to repeal the law of contradiction.

  • huskerchad

    Who is taking the applications to decide who gets to be a conservative?

    I’m pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small government, anti-ENDA, anti-hate crimes bills, and I support a flat tax and the principles of federalism.

    I am also a gay man married to another gay man. Legally. Sorry if you think that will end our society.

    Do I get to be a conservative? How pure is pure enough?

  • Bill S
  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …but I just finished wrapping up my ankle, and whatever spare energy I have for the next few hours is going to be in figuring out how to juggle one semi-sessile toddler, two flights of stairs, and an almost-four year old coming home on the bus. So, much as I would enjoy watching you flail about on this, I am regretfully cutting this short.

  • citizenjerry

    For those who think we should just give up because the next generation will favor same-sex marriage should remember the witness of history. Societies that embrace this are societies that start to die. America is not the first, and we’re not immune.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Look zroxx, this guy was a flake, all the way around. He wasn’t a fiscon, he wasn’t a socon, he was a flake. That’s why he cheated on his wife, or at least attempted to. You can go to his 2008 campaign web page and see that he didn’t campaign as a social conservative, he campaigned as a fiscon and an envirocon.

    The original point in me entering this thread was to stop the moral equivalence that could be inferred from Doc’s comment.

    Now, as this diary isn’t about Chris Lee, and that his infidelity has no bearing on the focus of this diary, why don’t we just end this threadjack right here.

  • cordpt

    as a big government type who wants the federal government to enforce their moral views.

    As a Traditionalist Catholic, I reckon that it’s more important to me a society where politicians don’t have the power to enforce moral views than a society where politicians have the power to enforce moral views – just because they may be the just ones (and I do believe there are right and wrong ones, my position isn’t founded on any sort of relativism).

    I fully support the POV – who comes from Tocqueville and the Greeks – that a moral society is essential for the survival of a free society. There’s no liberty in a world where libertinage is the norm. However, some of today’s SoCons are delusional if they believe that the best way to protect those moral values is through legislation, through government intervention. It’s never worked and it won’t start working now. The Christian morals this country and political community was founded upon will only survive free of government intervention.

    This is a deeply conservative view rooted on Burke’s view of a society as “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. This is why I can’t support the idea of a federal government forbidding the use of burkas or managing what marriage is. I know bad things happen to religious people like myself when politicians are given that type of power.

  • jpmulhern

    By itself it doesn’t do anything. But a society so confused about what sex and marriage are for that it could even discuss such an absurdity is on a high speed train to oblivion. The only stops en route are likely to be a smothering nanny state followed by a brutal dictatorship.

    Stop and think for a moment about what it takes for a civilization to succeed..
    To organize people to be productive, both biologically and economically, you have to get your sexual morality right. You have to use the power of the human sex drive to motivate people so they will do the hard work of raising and providing for families. A society that doesn’t take sex seriously can’t do this. It will decay and eventually fall apart at which point you won’t have free markets, limited government or effective defense.

    As a society’s morality is less and less capable of holding it together, political power will fill the void. Any efforts to maintain a limited government will be futile once the moral foundation that makes such government possible disappears. Government metastasizes. Social pathologies aren’t held in check by powerful social taboos, so we try to hold them in check by brute force. The result is ugly, violent and ultimately ineffectual.

    We can’t approve of homosexuality without abandoning the idea that sex is supposed to serve a particular purpose — the creation and maintenance of families. That idea is part of society’s essential foundation. Without it, the process outlined above unfolds. Look around you. It’s happening as we write around the world. If you sign on for the social agenda of the left (which is not, by the way, limited to the promotion of homosexuality) you’ve signed on for the entire progressive project. You have joined the side that wants to see the West fall, which is not where any conservative should find himself.

  • lineholder

    The term homosexual may have negative connotation, but they are honest enough to acknowledge that regarding their sexual preference the term does apply. They don’t push themselves or their sexual orientation on anyone, and for a period of time, I was good friends with them.

    They are females and so am I. The problem that came into play is one of them made a pass at me. I’m strictly heterosexual, so obviously my response was “no thanks”. Back in those days, I was an incredibly simpleminded kind of person. The thought of lusting after someone of the same sex had never crossed my mind.

    However, the person who considered an act infidelity and unfaithfulness in that relationship went to their partner and admitted this. Forgiveness was requested much as it might be between heterosexuals. They found a way to overcome it and are still together to this day.

    We don’t see much of each other these days, but they’ve made it plain that they really don’t appreciate the approach that GOProud is taking because they see it as an effort to use sexual preference for the sake of gaining power politically.

  • jpmulhern

    but if you have nothing substantive to say, perhaps you should refrain from saying anything at all. If you can’t defend a position, don’t take it. Don’t puff out your chest, challenge all comers to knock the chip off your shoulder and then retreat bleating about a wounded ankle. Sheesh.

  • bcochran1981

    As a father of a soon to be 4 yr old and a soon to be 1 yr old I, literally, feel your pain. Heal up and I really enjoyed the chance to talk to you Moe.

  • rightwingmom52
  • silkywiley

    Son, it won’t make any difference to the conservative movement whether you sign up or not. Your group numbers are statistically insignificant.

    So, CPAC and other want to be edgy and “with it” and bring in some GoProud people, guess what, they soon figure out that social conservatives will drop their group in a big hurry, and statistically that is a problem. Because their existence depend of donations and volunteers and participants.

    GoProud will go under the bus or CPAC will lose prominence.

    So we are living in decadent times, the pendulum always swings when civilization start pushing back. I agree there is a witness to history and when civilization start breaking down like our has, the swiing back can be ruthless.

  • lineholder

    That isn’t the case. There are a significant number of us here at RS who are small government SoCons. The truth being told, more and more SoCons are moving in this direction with each and every day that passes.

    If the generalization is made that all SoCons are “big government” SoCons, then that is a false premise to the argument you’ve presented above simply because it is not a true evaluation of the small government position that many of us have.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    If all socons are going to be painted with the Mike Huckabee brush, then the libertarians (small and large) can be painted with the Ron Paul brush. Personally, I’m fed up with all of them. It would be one thing if there were enough of them to matter, but thankfully there isn’t.

  • huskerchad

    To paraphrase: if what you are saying is that I can’t be gay and be a silkwiley conservative, then fine, I’m not a silkwiley conservative.

  • ciscoguy

    Conservatism is the only political ideology that promotes fidelity to the written law and ordered government. Contrast that with the left, who will ram their agenda through against popular opinion by hook or by crook – usually either through activist courts, government regulation or electoral fraud. There is nothing inherently honest about the modern-day liberal.

    I?m happy to have gay conservatives voting with me, as long as they don?t disrespect or malign me for disagreeing with their lifestyle. It is unfortunate that GOProud looks like they are going down this path. If we are at odds with each other politically on issues, fine. Respect each others’ opinions on the matter, make your arguments to the American people and let the chips fall how they may. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

  • streiff

    and have a moral society.

    As a Traditionalist Catholic you really believe there is a constitutional right to abortion?

    Are you saying federal intervention in Brown v Board of Ed was wrong? Or that Plessey v Ferguson was right? Well, of course you are, and one hopes that this facile argument you’ve tossed out here is a rhretorical device.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …I’m sure that nobody really wants to see my feet.

    But since you apparently want to take advantage of my earlier willingness to take off the site moderator hat in order that you can make passive-aggressive insults in perfect safety, let’s set this up this way. You can keep trying to claim that you have the right to be a gatekeeper, and then you can take it as given that I responded with “I deny that you have the authority to do that to me or anybody else,” and you can keep ignoring that, and I can slap on another ice pack.

    Hope that works for you! :)

  • Scope

    I just read an article where, as pointed out in the article, Barron, the GOProud leader, is “gloating” because the “boycott” has “backfired spectacularly” apparently because his group is still there, and those that have chosen not to attend, the “losers” are the ones that now have the “image” problem. How very Liberal and how very very childish, Barron. The way I see it is that many many were not aware of the problems that were going to come about by giving GOProud a seat at the main table before people bought their tickets, and other sponsors already paid their fees. It’s enough that they have created such a stir, but, to shoot off his mouth, to gloat that they won, and to knock those that are highly respected conservatives, like DeMint, in the end will backfire on GOProud and CPAC. I am willing to bet big time that next year, the attendance will be way down by any conservatives, and it will be fully taken over by the libertarians, the gays and the radical islamists. How very conservative.

    About Jim DeMint not attending, he said “Im glad he’s willing to be on the Island of Political Misfit toys, with Farah and the Concerned Women of America.” Wrong statement Barron, you underestimate the Concerned Women of America, the Jim DeMint supporters, and for that you will pay the price. Oh Chrissie, you can have Palin, take her, please, take her, she’s all yours.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I have to tell you I feel like we need a hazmat team for some of the comments here.

    This is not about gay rights per se and homosexuality. This is about giving a group the label “conservative” when it clearly is not.

    Some of you need to use judgment and common decency in your remarks. Just as I am offended by them calling many of my friends “bigots” I am equally offended by the name calling in that direction.

  • lineholder
  • Scope

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/alana-goodman/389333

  • lineholder

    I worked in both product quality and as a mechanic for quite a while. We used to joke about the same kinds of things. Maybe that’s why our viewpoint on the situation is a bit different.

    We’ve seen the specs changed for the purpose of taking the path of least resistance, especially in regards to costs, and it doesn’t always end up being the best way to deal with it in the long run.

  • silkywiley

    So why should you care if others accept you or not. If you have your principled positions, they won’t change regardless of social conservatives rejection of you.

    If you do care that others do not accept your lifestyle into their group, then you first and foremost agenda is the gay agenda.

  • tropicgirl

    Coming from an independent direction, I can’t see how this argument is going to enable a conservative president to win. Like it or not, it has to move quickly out of a republican squabble INTO an argument that the country can get behind. Preferably an honest argument, not a deception that we have seen on these issues in past elections.

    It is a serious issue if you consider that the entire country is desperate for a leadership that can, well, save it. Most presume it will come from the conservatives, but that may change.

    If you are against people being gay, that is a personal, private right of any person. There is a lot of evidence that position may be correct. You can certainly advise someone not to engage in gay behavior, but you cannot punish them for it if it is agreed to and not with minors.

    The only way that government should get involved is in areas of public funding, education, and child protection type things. The fact remains that gays exist and are not going away and will demand conservative representation, whether you like it or not. You don’t own conservatism.

    If you are against alliances with activist groups who are organized on the basis of sexual preference, or anything else besides government policy, even by race, or gender, or religion, also, then that is a legitimate position that holds true for any minority special interest group. This is a position that the general public can understand.

    You guys are going to lose this argument and fall into the trap again, if you do not get your positions straight. Its really important to the country right now. If you want to lead.

  • bcochran1981

    …you just went from the guy making well reasoned conservative arguments that a lot of people agree with, to being a pr*ck that no one wants to associate with.

  • cordpt

    Sorry if didn’t explain myself well. I was trying to convey that Finrod may have a problem with a *specific type of SoCons*, those who favour an extentivand the use of legislation and of the democratic tyrany to promote particular worldviews. Those are the ones who will be prone to support big government agenda in other areas too.

    I fully agree there are plenty of constitutional conservatives who are social conservatives (I’d guess it’s still a majority).

  • lineholder

    what I’ve just asked it of someone else’ to try NOT to do.

  • controse

    Notice how it has discombobulated the CPAC gathering. Everybody is expending energy on the GOProud controversy rather than on retiring Obama. When are conservatives such as yourself going to master the art of the big, fat ignorum. The whole point of GOProud is to disrupt and distract.

    After all, homosexuals have a whole party to support their agenda. Rather than try to convince Conservatives that the Bible doesn’t know what it is talking about when it comes to the proper use of body parts they should try to convince Democrats to shrink government interference in the economy. Please go disrupt the Democrats. America has a crises on its hands and it doesn’t involve what I think about what you choose to do with your penis.

  • lineholder

    Look if we can cut our way through some of the BS that is going on right now and stop throwing the hard-core generalizations around, it is possible that on a grass roots level, we could get some things done between now and the 2012 elections that need to be addressed.

    Such as election fraud, get it?

  • Scope

    abortion is acceptable in any form has bought the Liberal faux Catholic argument. Soros, and his puppet Tom Perriello, a Catholic, started a few groups that had the purpose of giving Catholics the OK to vote for Democrats, even those that are pro-choice. One group, who was co-founded by Perriello was called “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.” They are referred to as Obama faux Catholics.

    http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/02fake/topiclinks.php

  • acat

    Serously – there’s a lot of effort that goes into persuading the federal government into defending a religious rite.

    It seems to this cat that the better approach – political judo, if you will – is to change the ground where the fight is happening. Why not push, instead, for a civil contract and tax status that is similar to what marrieds currently enjoy, that marrieds can use, but that is not restricted .. then take the fight to the left in the culture itself…or at the State level, where Red States can succeed by being “lighted cities on hills” while Blue States fall further and further apart….

    Mew

  • irishfreedomfighter

    is actually a moderator.

  • streetwise

    Not to mention another reminder of the competing Salvation business Christianity runs.

  • streetwise

    Not to mention another reminder of the competing Salvation business Christianity runs.

  • jpmulhern

    A picture of a bandage? And this is an excuse for posting content free drivel? Are you trying to suggest that you’re so addled by pain that you can’t get past raving incoherently about “gatekeepers?” Nobody is claiming to be a gatekeeper, whatever that may mean, least of all me. I’ve just pointed out that you are contradicting yourself by claiming to be conservative as you support SSM and oppose the repeal of DADT. I explained in some detail why those positions are contradictory and answer came there none. You responded but never even began to answer. When I point out that you don’t seem to have anything to say on this subject, even though you brought it up, you accuse me of insulting you “passive aggressively” and retreat to nurse your ankle. Again, I say — Sheesh! Now I have an appointment back on the planet Earth.

  • Scope

    a link between Soros and GOProud. So far the only thing I have found is that the Cato Institute, that supports gay marriage, has in fact received funding from George Soros. I can’t find any direct links between GOProud, the leader Barron, and Cato. Then again Soros could be funding the group buy using proxies to do it. This is without doubt a Liberal move to try to destroy the Social Conservatives, because there are many many of them.

  • acat

    Society creates government. Will of the governed and all that.

    Culture determines what society looks like, therefore what government looks like… and culture is at the bottom morals and mores.

    Government can influence culture, but the influence of culture over government is far stronger…

    Mew

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I really appreciate the kind words, but the comments here have descended into chaos and some are as offensive as those made on the other side.

    So we’re done here. I’ll resist a mass banning and just say we should not treat them as they treat us.

  • celador2

    The Republican party platform should be a guide to the members political action in ofice and as candiates. GOPROUD however may differ with two planks in the platform. One DADT and marriage as one man and one woman.

    Palin appreared on Tammy Bruce radio and supported repeal DADT shortly before she appreaed on Hannity and explained why she backed GOPPROUD and any conservative group’s attendance at CPAC. She sees them as legit.

    Palin is a hot item in media, she makes grown men cry in her base. And if a candidate for president Palin may tease the media on her stand on marriage and DADT. I see no solid Palin support for any stand but GOPROUD’s on DADT

    Will GOPROUD be seated on GOP plalltform committee at convention? Wiill Palin support them? Or will she sit on the fence as she has on DADT?

    GOPROUD insults conservatives.

    GOPROUD are Americans for sure, and can work as well in Dem party or Greens as they can GOP is my read on GOPROUD and its backers in GOP.

    GOPROUD in its current mode is not a good fit inside GOP.

    Cel

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
  • cordpt

    The rationale supporting Roe vs. Wade is basically the same “there’s a moral imperative” in the Constitution, you can see it “amidst a penumbra”, that some are defending here.

    So, no, there’s no constitutional right to abortion (as there is no natural right to abortion).

    The government as the duty to punish those who commit abort not because that’s consistent with the Catholic doctrine but because it’s consistent with the principle that the government should protect one’s right to life.

    And obviously that every law is founded upon some sort of morality. It doesn’t follow that everything moral should be legislated, which is my point.

  • jenniferjmilleresq

    Truly despicable and deceptive effort by this group.

  • huskerchad

    There are gay people. This is reality. If you choose not to “accept” them, that’s your choice, but not a particularly mature one.

  • eburke

    so this is just me speaking for….well, me.

    Moe’s *job* on this site is to be a gatekeeper. So your comment about God being a gatekeeper might have some relevance if we were talking about who gets into heaven and who doesn’t. But, since Moe, to the the best of my knowledge, has never claimed gate keeper status to the Pearly Gates, your little snit is not applicable here.

    Moe is, unfailingly, one of the most professional, fair ‘gatekeepers’ on RS (please note him removing his Mod hat for purposes of this discussion). So you may wish to treat him with greater respect.

    And ftr, I happen to disagree w/Moe on DADT and SSM. But what I have *always* respected about him is the fair and even-handed way in which he conducts his debate on these issues. And that level of discourse and professionalism deserves respect, not snark.

  • bay0wulf

    Do you … in your own mind … consider yourself “Gay”?

    “Gay” carries with it a whole mindset and thought process. It is a popular term today used as a synonym for “Homosexual” or “Same Sex Oriented” but, really, it is something quite different.

    I submit that if you really consider yourself “Gay” that you aren’t completely “conservative”.

    Personally, I think that today’s use of the term “Gay” has wrecked a completely wonderful word.

  • lineholder

    tend to look at the spectrum of moral/amoral/immoral behaviors in black and white. It’s just a viewpoint on moral values from an objective point of view. If we ourselves are objective in evaluating our own behaviors in the context of moral absolutes, we could see those behaviors as being wrong and make an effort to change them on our own. And we don’t need government to define for us when that has to take place or how it should be accomplished. That’s a responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the individual.

    But when wrong becomes right, evil becomes good, lie becomes truth, etc…it does speak to the direction that a society as a whole is moving in. The context in which moral standards are evaluated becomes distorted. And it can be very easy to be deceived by how things seem to be.

    However, if government displays that it’s priorities in evaluating moral standards aren’t based on absolutes but on based on an agenda or on relative standards, that can be a real problem, because how will it influence the kind of leadership that government provides?

  • huskerchad

    Why do you believe you are entitled to say who can identify as gay and who can identify as conservative?

  • Scope

    is because Social Conservatives have been sitting in the back, quietly, for a long time, because they have been asked to, so as to not bring any divisive issues to the front that could cause some to lose elections.

    You forgot to include that Cheney has a gay daughter. McCain is not even close to being a conservative, and his daughter has proven to be a mouth sitting on an empty head. The young Barbara Bush has been working for some international do good organization. Laura Bush, I believe has made statements in support of Gay Marriage, just as Cindy McCain has. Many question the extent of Pres. Bush’s conservative bona fides in many areas. I wouldn’t go by the opinions of those that have never been planted in Reagans traditional conservatism. The problem is that since Reagan, there has not been the first leader to fight for traditional conservative values, and in honoring all three legs of his stool. We need to find another Reagan type, but, unfortunately the closest thing to Reagan, Mike Pence, just took himself out of the running. Can’t say I blame him though. Before long, he would have also have been called a bigot, a homophobe and an Islamaphobe.

  • The_Gadfly

    But here’s the problem. Even if we were to accept your premise, it wouldn’t matter. The reality is that the rules are DIFFERENT for Republicans. Not because the base makes the different, but because the LSM does. If this had been a Dem, none of the gossip sites would have even referenced the Craig’s list ad. If fact, we got pretty good evidence that if he’d been a Dem running a prostitution ring out of his DC residence through a proxy live-in lover, he’d be hailed as a hero. If you’re a Republican, you just HAVE to be cognizant of that fact whether you like it or not.

  • APA Guy

    …of when Gibbs walked on Hannity’s remote set during the 2008 election and made him look like a fool. I STILL can’t believe it happened – especially after watching Gibbs fumble about as Obama’s pony for the better part of two years.

    jpmulhern, I have NEVER seen a blogger take a moderator to the woodshed like this. Kudos for putting forth a successful argument – then seeing it through to the end.

  • APA Guy

    …of when Gibbs walked on Hannity’s remote set during the 2008 election and made him look like a fool. I STILL can’t believe it happened – especially after watching Gibbs fumble about as Obama’s pony for the better part of two years.

    jpmulhern, I have NEVER seen a blogger take a moderator to the woodshed like this. Kudos for putting forth a successful argument – then seeing it through to the end.

  • eburke

    to gay marriage is that it focuses far too much on *just* gay marriage and the gay lifestyle.

    There have been very cogent arguments made upthread (some rudely IMHO) about the need to have a socially moral society if a free society is to prevail. The Founders wrote a *lot* about the need for a moral society being essential to the preservation of the political system they created.

    Unfortunately, far too often, ‘conservatives’ focus solely on the gay agenda. I think we’d be wise, if we’re going to use the ‘it undermines the social order’ argument, to argue against the relentless onslaught of pornography, a government which encourages men to be sperm donors instead of fathers, no-fault divorce, the glorification of sex outside of marriage in all areas of our popular culture, and the general ‘if it feels good do it’ mentality of the post-modernistic ‘it’s all about me’ culture in which we live.

    Otherwise, it just looks like we’re bashing people who derive pleasure from activities which we find to be ‘offensive’. And sense there’s a lot more sexual promiscuity going on among heterosexuals than homosexuals (because there’s a lot more of ‘em), to ignore that aspect of the social order comes off as being, well, bigoted.

  • APA Guy

    …for an inconsistency between that person’s self-professed political ideology and policy positions to the contrary. That’s hardly being a “pr*ck”.

  • APA Guy

    …for an inconsistency between that person’s self-professed political ideology and policy positions to the contrary. That’s hardly being a “pr*ck”.

  • celador2

    CPAC has a choice next year, either they go with the flamethrowers GOProud or they go back to the Conservative Action Committee they have always billed themselves as. Their problem will be attendance and I can guarantee them, there are MORE social Conservatives then there are gay Conservatives in this Movement!>>>>>>

    CPAC needs keep its own original people together and not banish conservatives to wilderness or join critics who insult conservatives. CPAC should be very narrow and focused on conservatives and not grow or broaden its scope.

    Conservatism can be made weaker by growing hostile voices that redefine within its membership.If GOPROUD can not speak in a civil manner it should not be included in a conservative discussion.
    . .

    cel

  • celador2

    CPAC has a choice next year, either they go with the flamethrowers GOProud or they go back to the Conservative Action Committee they have always billed themselves as. Their problem will be attendance and I can guarantee them, there are MORE social Conservatives then there are gay Conservatives in this Movement!>>>>>>

    CPAC needs keep its own original people together and not banish conservatives to wilderness or join critics who insult conservatives. CPAC should be very narrow and focused on conservatives and not grow or broaden its scope.

    Conservatism can be made weaker by growing hostile voices that redefine within its membership.If GOPROUD can not speak in a civil manner it should not be included in a conservative discussion.
    . .

    cel

  • The_Gadfly

    moreso than wine or beer. Hence in the popular portrayal they tend to be associated more with drunkenness and lewd behavior than wine or beer.

    Personally, I like an occasional Gin and Tonic, and although I am Christian, and am not opposed to Christians drinking or even running Liquor stores, the concept of a Christian Liquor store is still … disquieting.