but I think you miss the point. I doubt many genuinely dislike people who are gay, they disagree with their chosen gay lifestyle, and, particularly GOProuds activism in Washington. They actively lobbied Congress to pass the repeal of DADT. They asked the Republican leadership to not go down the rabbit hole of social issues. It’s not some little group of gay people, who just want to be called conservatives.

Our country was founded on Christian Judeo values, which means social values. Most all, if not all of our laws are based on those same values and ethics. Traditional conservatism stands on the shoulders of Christian Judeo social values for more than 200 years. I think I can pretty safely say that the gay lifestyle, and particularly gay marriage is not recognized by the traditional conservatives, and, it is not an accepted by the Christians for sure. It is not the gay people themselves, it is their choice of their sexual partners. There is no identity politics to that view of traditional conservatives.

With respect to the inclusion of the Islamists at CPAC, with well known and proven ties to radical Islam, and the MB, should we back away, and not participate in calling out the danger they can wreak with the country. Would that not be PC?

You talked about the Ron Paul libertarians having such a major presence at CPAC, and said yourself that they occupy only one leg of the conservative three legged stool. They are making a conserted effort to quiet any social and/or national security importance on the three legged stool. This in itself alienates those that consider themselves Reagan conservatives.

BTW, what is this a fight between some front pagers? If so, put me in the camp of Leon, Bill S and Ben, as I find myself agreeing with their positions much more than believing that Conservatives should all just get along, and grow the tent so big it collapses on itself.

“Al Sharpton, notorious race hustler and false accuser and defamer into the people’s house, the White House, to watch the Super Bowl with his family tells me everything anyone could want to know about whether the President is serious about a “new tone””

Reverand Al owes $3.7 million in delinquent city, state and federal taxes. Yeah, that hate baiter is a great choice to share nachos on Super Bowl Sunday in the White House.

And I’m really tired of hearing about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged as a justification of taking social issues off the table.

However, I have run across a lot of opinions by conservatives in my own social circles that women with kids should not run for office (e.g. Nikki Haley and Sarah Palin). That infuriates me. Of course they faced being falsely accused of all manner of slime as well. Don’t kid yourself that their Republican opponents who claim conservativism are not happy to use identity politics dishonorably to their advantage. I have witnessed this.

There are also certain issues (e.g. immigration) that are huge legitimate concerns but are used dishonorably by some conservatives who know they can play the identity card to ramp up fear and support among those who are inclined to associate the problem with a race, rather than a failing system. Anti-semitism among those who are susceptible to conspiracy theories and would identify themselves as conservatives really bothers me. I run across it in my own circles and there is nothing more infuriating to me.

I thought it was doctrine at redstate that any criticism of Palin could not possibly be sexist. At least I got raked over the coals for suggesting it.

Sorry if that question is offensive to anyone. First there was the banning Libertarians suggestion through support of the CPAC and now another “big tent” scenario as well? I can’t help but wonder what the purpose is, that’s all.

I’ve never once analyzed what might or might not be conservative values. I just see things as life and death issues.

I see no evidence that GOProud’s purpose is to take a conservative message to gays.

Its behavior seems the opposite: It’s taking a gay agenda on the military, marriage, adoption, and other issues to conservatives.

libertarians know they can’t run as independants so this is simply an attempt at an idealistic coup de tat of the republican party. it is, in its accusational tone, simply the same “identity politics” in reverse. they cry they are the real pure and true consevatives, but mask a liberal agenda behind fiscal conservatism. it is a trojan horse, this is the only pure and true component ; the libertarian power play.

fit on the identity politics spectrum?

Identity Politics, Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Politics of grievance, Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Identity over character, Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

In short, the left has a rulebook they have played for a long time and many so-called Republicans refuse to get out of that sandbox and play in their own sandbox.

Simply stated, this is not a bunch of funny circles but a liner scale of less government, the less government we have the more we are reliant on each individual. In the infancy of the conservative establishment, it was declared by law that the free enjoyment of the liberties which humanity, civility, and Christianity called for, was due to every man in his place and proportion, and ever had been, and ever would be, the tranquility and stability of the this new land. This has been the battleground for a long time and the more government types attack with ridicule, this dependence upon piety, religion and morality. Unfortunately, some have reacted to the ridicule wherein more government types take advantage of the situation. Instead of fighting, some Republicans meekly move to the back of the bus and use that nasty word, “compromise” and “bipartisanship” signifying surrender of their morality.

destroyed any credibility she may have had with her first post, except of course with the die hard libertarians, and the gays. Some of them are still over there fighting their ideas. I’m sure that RS will acknowledge that sometimes even they make mistakes. The site claims to be a conservative site, and does support Republicans. It is neither conservative or Republican to invite every breathing being with 2 brain cells under the tent simply to rack up votes. Votes seem to be Ms. Clouthier’s only goal, even if they come from some who want to destroy this country, namely the radical Islamists. I’ve noticed she hasn’t addressed that group at all.

You disavow identity politics, but then you say this:

So, I love that conservative advocacy groups have sprung up to reach out into under served communities. People shouldn’t have to buy liberalism just because they don’t see any other product available.

Which, of course, promotes: identity politics

Does not compute.

You post a diary arguing against Identity Politics, and two of the three organizational examples you cite for the way forward are 1) a conservative female identity group and a “conservative-libertarian” group advocating “RACIAL DIVERSITY” (caps theirs, not mine) to promote “conservative rejuvenation.”

Unless you have some kind of “hair of the dog” cure in mind for the problem of identity politics in the conservative movement, I have to ask if you are one of those “trucers” that seem to be intentionally stirring up the right with all the deftness of Nairobian community organizers.

of GOProud and the radical Islamists. The radicals have no love or tolerance of Christians. GOProud is in essence balking at the Christian views on gays. Christians have been under attack by so many, and the liberals have waged war on the Christians. Anyone see any connection there, am I way off base?

I’ll be honest, I was not big on the one you wrote the other day, inre CPAC and GOPRoud. This one I like. I endorse it.

As to the comment section on this, I’ll let all those people speak for themselves. There are arguments and agendas going on that I have no interest in (today). For me, I read the article and I like it. If I am to gather correctly what your message was, it was this:

Conservatism is the opposite of identity politics. Conservatism sees individuals and Americans.Identity politics sees “su vs them”, and leads inevitably to “how can I use the system for the advantage of “us” at the expense of “them”.

Good job. Stay strong.

I’ll be honest, I was not big on the one you wrote the other day, inre CPAC and GOPRoud. This one I like. I endorse it.

As to the comment section on this, I’ll let all those people speak for themselves. There are arguments and agendas going on that I have no interest in (today). For me, I read the article and I like it. If I am to gather correctly what your message was, it was this:

Conservatism is the opposite of identity politics. Conservatism sees individuals and Americans.Identity politics sees “su vs them”, and leads inevitably to “how can I use the system for the advantage of “us” at the expense of “them”.

Good job. Stay strong.