« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Proud Go Hang Your Head In Shame

Torquemada In Pink

By: Repair_Man_Jack (Diary)  |  December 9th, 2011 at 02:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

GOP Proud - Paragons of Diversity and Tolerance

In the recent run up to the Iowa Caucus Texas Governor and GOP Candidate Rick Perry has put a socially conservative edge into his rhetoric that has caused a certain disquietude and alarm in some quarters of the gay, lesbian and transgendered community. GOP Proud is a GL&T group that purports to support the interests of these individuals who generally practice political Conservatism. Thus, it should not entirely shock a politically savvy readership that GOP Proud will not be strongly endorsing Governor Rick Perry for the GOP nomination next year.

Governor Perry, in a recent campaign add entitled “Strong”, stated the following.

“You don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.”

Thus, GOP Proud’s fundamental dislike of what he is saying does not provide gravamen for contempt in and of itself. What GOP Proud has done to express their dislike of Governor Perry is shameful and beneath the standards of basic decency.

Tony Fabrizio works for Governor Perry’s campaign. He has a significant disagreement with the Governor’s recent stances on issues as Rick Perry woos the traditionalist, conservative voters in the heartland, rural precincts of Iowa. Perhaps Mr. Fabrizio’s problems started when he strongly objected to having his boss Governor Perry air the ad at all. Huffington Post describes Fabrizio’s distaste for “Strong” below.

Perry’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it “nuts,” according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad’s main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio’s objections. “Tony was against it from the get-go,” Warfield wrote. “It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production.”

According to GOP Proud, Tony Fabrizio is offended by “Strong” because he is a practicing homosexual. They initiated a nasty, back-channel smear campaign against Fabrizio. One GOP Proud Member Tweeted the following.

“I’ve just about had it with faggots who line their pockets with checks from anti-gay homophobes while throwing the rest of us under the bus.”

(MiamiNewTimes)

They then sought rhetorical cover by denying their intentions to damage Fabrizio.. GOP Proud distances themselves from Fabrizzio below.

“From the time this organization was founded we have been clear in our opposition to outing. We would never intentionally out anyone. However, in the case of Tony Fabrizio, top pollster and chief strategist for the Presidential campaign of Texas Governor Rick Perry, we did not believe there was any question about his sexual orientation – nor did the reporters who called us to ask about his involvement in Perry’s anti-gay campaign strategy.

GOP Proud may now hang their heads in shame. They have just successfully nuked the fridge and should be considered no more concerned with social justice than say, Jesse Jackson, Sr. extorting Anheiser-Busch for a bunch of beer distributorships. Two reasons exist why this move is an epic fail and will backfire in Rick Perry’s favor.

1) Governor Perry is accused of being an anti-gay bigot. He’s such an intolerant, pig-ignorant; hater of the LGBTG Community that he looked up this guy who GOP Proud claims is obviously and blatantly as gay as a French horn. Once he found the dude, Governor Perry forgot to tie him to the kindling, douse him with lamp oil and set him ablaze. He was too busy hiring to perform an important and influential job in his primary campaign. It looks like GOP Proud just eviscerated their very own “Rick Perry is Homo-Hater meme.”

2) GOP Proud has also damaged its cause amongst other homosexual conservatives. If I were secretly dating other men and wanted no one else in the whole, wide world to know, I’d consider GOP Proud as a potential threat to my reputation and livelihood. If Tony Fabrizio wanted to be quietly homosexual, like how most decently modest heterosexuals are respectful of the dignity and privacy of their partners as well, GOP Proud has just proven about as useful as Gall-Bladder Cancer. If I were both Conservative and gay, I would trust GOP Proud about as far as I could poop them right now.

I suppose the smarmy, disingenuous operatives and hives of villainy and scum such as Politico or The Atlantic Monthly will eat this one up. Hee, hee, hee, look at the self-hating gay man! Laugh away, all you classless jerks. Nothing is funnier than ruining a man’s life and career because you have a bone to pick with his boss! GOP Proud, go learn a thing or two about dignity.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    They caused such angst at this year’s CPAC, they have been banned from future participation. They are nothing more than a bunch of prissy little girls whining because their tutus are a little too tight. Even if Perry didn’t cut or approve of the ad in question, he would have been the last candidate on their list anyway. Tell me again who it is that even listens to anything these creeps say, except themselves.

    • hal2715

      Can I just recommend that you not refer to a group of gay conservatives (whose vote, it bears mentioning, counts just the same as yours) as “prissy little girls” and “creeps?” That’s uncalled for and a sure way to invalidate whatever point you were trying to make.

      • zachv

        Perry wouldn’t have been endorsed by GOProud, unless he had won the nomination. Even then I’m not too certain that GOProud holds much sway with anyone except for a few random voters.

        As for insults, I’ve heard worse thrown at me. :)

      • jasondallastx

        they’re a bunch of creeps.

        Oh, they vote you say? That’s why we should overlook their creepiness? Oh, OK.

      • streiff

        and all manner of unsavory groups. Their votes count exactly the same as anyone else’s. Does that mean we need to solicit their votes or want them on our side? No. It doesn’t.

        The worst thing we can do is welcome groups advocating identity politics into our coalition. These clowns are as welcome as David Duke.

    • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

      http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/12/10/why-im-stepping-down-from-goproud-advisory-council/

      On numerous occasions I have spoken with Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron of the significant impact the practice of ?outing? had in my evolution from the political left to the right. I was under the absolute impression that both agreed.

      • kipling

        Breitbart and Roger L. Simon at PajamasMedia both called for a boycott of CPAC because it declined to invite GOProud to be a sponsor of the next CPAC Conference.

        Does Mr. Breitbart still support the boycott?

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

          He quit their advisory council. That’s a good thing. No need to pile on.

          • kipling

            My intent is not to pile on. It is a legitimate question.

            A lot of people took a lot of heat from Breitbart and Simon because they opposed GOProud becoming a sponsor of CPAC. I distinctly remember the charge of homophobia and bigotry being hurled around with reckless abandon.

            I was not surprised by GOProud’s response to the Perry campaign. I saw how they attacked anyone who dared to differ from them on the issue of homosexuality. So did many others. Breitbart championed their cause. Now he sees what many of us saw then. I think he should apologize to those he demonized.

            I don’t expect it to happen, but I wanted to raise the issue.

            Now that it is raised, even in such a minor way, I do not intend to harp on it.

  • kipling

    Don’t forget that GOProud cheered when Harry Reid used the lameduck Congress to repeal DADT. GOProud consists of a bunch of self-glorifying politicos. Remember their attacks on the Heritage Foundation and other conservative groups as a bunch of “losers.”

    • aesthete

      They’re a gay conservative group. One wouldn’t expect them to cheer on a law that prohibits them from serving in the military, any more than they would support that anti-sodomy law in Texas just because a bunch of other conservatives did.

      • westcoastpatriette

        It just made clear that homosexual conduct will not be tolerated or recognized as a protected class of conduct–which is what they would like it to be. An important distinction.

        • aesthete

          For the record, I’m against gays serving openly in the military, at least in combat-heavy units and branches — I’m not sure it would have a negative impact on the Coast Guard or Air Force. (I’m also against integration of women in those same units and branches, FWIW.)

      • kipling

        I don’t expect them to support DADT.

        But as a supposedly “conservative” group, I would not expect them to support the Democratic power grab of the lame duck session. Nor would I expect them to support such a radical departure in policy and support social engineering without a careful consideration of the impact such a policy change would have on the military and thus national defense.

        Now, of course, I actually expected them to support the Democratic power grab because they are a bunch of social liberals whose only pretend to be a “conservative” group to line their own pockets. They have been trying to drive a wedge in the conservative movement and the Reagan coalition since their inception. See, C-PAC, etc, etc.

        • aesthete

          They’re no more or less craven than their social conservative counterparts — or their libertarian and defense counterparts, for that matter.

          It’s Washington DC. One would be poorly-served in believe that GOProud, Focus on the Family, or any of those other organizations are organizations constituted and run altruistically and in philosophically pure manner. I guarantee you that James Dobson and the rest of the social conservatives during the Bush years didn’t give a crap about how much Republicans were spending or who they were bombing, so long as they please their constituents and donors. We can, however, grade on a curve — grading on a curve, I’d say that GOProud is a damn sight better than the Log Cabin Republicans on conservative issues; likewise, I’d say that Focus on the Family is far and away superior to whatever damnfool thing Ryan Sorba is heading. For all the sour grapes on the social right about GOProud, you’d think they were the Bolsheviks.

          • kipling

            When was the last time social and/or defense conservatives sold out the rest of the conservative coalition and sided with the Democrats to effect such a drastic policy change?

            What conservative issues has GOProud championed – not paid lip service to but actually championed?

            I was a social conservative during the Bush years and I was deeply concerned not only with our spending but our foreign policy as well. Social conservatives are not as one note as you seem to think.

            No sour grapes about GOProud. They have repeatedly attacked social conservatives organization and politicians – including the Heritage Foundation and Jim Demint. They no attack Rick Perry as homophobic and out one of his campaign staff. Yet, when they get called on their actions they whine and play the sexuality card. They are a social liberal organization – nothing more and nothing less. LaSalvia and Barron are both cowards who lash out at others and then hide behind their choice of sexual orientation.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            There is a big distinction. A HUGE distinction. For instance, a social liberal might be in favor of affirmative action for people who have been traditionally slighted by society.

            But a libertarian simply says, equal before the law, and no need for any affirmative action, only a level playing field.

          • kipling

            I could agree if GOProud was not so aggressive and hostile to social conservatives. So far they have made most of their political waves by attacking other conservatives with which they disagree on one issue.

            At their first CPAC conference they attacked Liberty University and went to the MSM with charges that Liberty was pushing a boycott against them. The MSM ran with the story except no one asked Liberty University and no one actually demonstrated that anyone orchestrated a boycott. Some social conservative organizations pulled out but no boycott existed.

            Later Barron and LaSalvia attacked the Heritage Foundation and labeled them as a bunch of losers. The Heritage Foundation had quietly pulled out of CPAC and had not even spoken to the inclusion of GOProud as a sponsor. Yet, Barron and LaSalvia launched a broadside against them and others and created an issue where nothing existed. Once again, they achieved fame and raised money for attacking another conservative organization.

            When the new management at CPAC would not allow them to be a sponsor of the event, they called for a boycott – the very tactic they had formerly denounced as destructive and unprofessional.

            Their fame and fortune come from attacking other conservatives not from championing conservative causes. I have yet to see them on the front lines.

            See also the attack on Jim Demint, etc. If you get a chance, read their prior press releases.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            isn’t also simply disagreement with people who you might ally with on other issues?

            For instance, I might agree with many foreign policy conservatives that we cannot become isolationist, but I disagree about a lot of interventionist foreign policy..

            So if I actively oppose them on those issues does that mean I am their opponents on the majority of issues in which we agree?

            I don’t think so.

          • kipling

            The greatest example is their attack on the Heritage Foundation. No provocation whatsoever by Heritage. Heritage had said nothing to the inclusion of GOProud. They simply withdrew and when asked about it said they want to expand their venues. Then the two tantrum twins call a press conference / interview to bash the Heritage Foundation by name.

            Where was the issue of disagreement?

            Why does GOProud never preface their attacks as policy disagreements? Instead their opponents are insane, homophobic, and losers – all words that they have used.

            Would you use those words in a disagreement over policy issues?

            Would you out someone as gay for simply disagreeing with your position?

            Remember, they did not say they disagreed with Perry on DADT. They said he was homophobic. Now, how are they going to walk that back if Perry is the nominee?

            What we have here is more than just policy disagreements? We have an organization attacking the conservative movement and the conservative coalition from the inside.

          • snowshooze

            And discredit them at every opportunity.

          • jasondallastx

            They’re dems in sheep clothing.

        • runner12

          Nt

  • center77

    I had no idea about this, but I think it makes no sense that they did this, Perry’s ad was not anti-gay, it was anti-Obama using his power to push on group while hindering another. It just so happens to be that the group that is getting attacked by the Democrats is the Christian community, or faith is trying to survive that white washing that is going on by the left, but faith is very much part of the history of this country. M.L.K. was a pastor. or founding fathers made it known that they were men of faith. We has a country allow all faiths to have a voice, but we should never limit the voice of faith. If you are a elected official and have faith, you should be allowed to express that faith anytime you please. The reason the founders made it known they did not want the church making the choices was because the church of England had so much power at one time.

    • lucasblack

      I believe that Perry’s ad was anti-gay (and rather pointlessly so) but all the same, I can’t support ‘outing’ people. What someone does and how open they want to be with it is up to them. Fabrizio had let it be known openly that he didn’t like the ad and had objected to it within the campaign. Political consultants are always going to find disagreement with their candidates.
      I’ve tended to prefer the Log Cabin Republicans to GOP Proud.

    • avagreen

      But, a nice spin for those looking for every thing imaginable for criticize him for.

      ……which is laughable as one of the “myths” that used to go around was that Perry was “gay” because he was the head of a yell team.

      And, now he’s a homophobe. Don’t any of these people have any shame about themselves and the over-the-top rhetoric they use to slime someone they don’t agree with politically. Politically.

      It’s not like he’s hanging little girls’ dolls, or drowning puppies or kittens.

      It’s an ad in which he’s asking that Christians have EQUAL RIGHTS AS GAYS!!!

      Helllllooooo.

      (Not directed at you, lucas.)

      • aesthete

        If it is, then it’s sort of a poor one — Christians can serve in the military, and (as far as I know) gays can openly celebrate Christmas and pray. The avenues for resolving either issue, proximate causes, and core issues in play are very different ones.

        It’s like saying, “hippos may be violent animals, but jackalopes don’t exist.” Both statements may be perfectly sound as independent statements, but the one doesn’t follow from the other.

  • jrfromdallas

    The ad simply stated the hypocrisy that DADT was repealed yet it is not political correct to be religious. That is how I interpreted the ad. I didn’t think it was a great ad and probably wouldn’t have run it but Iowa is make or break for Perry and his team obviously felt that it was important to make his point. Perry doesn’t come across as a bigot to me and if he wins the Presidency he will have to be President to every American regardless of their sexual preference. DADT was instituted by a Democrat YET the left thinks the Republicans are at fault. Pretty ridiculous.

  • jrfromdallas

    The ad simply stated the hypocrisy that DADT was repealed yet it is not political correct to be religious. That is how I interpreted the ad. I didn’t think it was a great ad and probably wouldn’t have run it but Iowa is make or break for Perry and his team obviously felt that it was important to make his point. Perry doesn’t come across as a bigot to me and if he wins the Presidency he will have to be President to every American regardless of their sexual preference. DADT was instituted by a Democrat YET the left thinks the Republicans are at fault. Pretty ridiculous.

  • zachv

    Preface: I’ll offer mine because, yes it’s going to be a different take than most of yours. I’m 21, male, college student, gay, and I’ll say “extremely right-wing”.

    Alright.

    Perry’s ad, to me, is offensive. It suggests that it is immoral and wrong for me to openly serve in the military as if I am a lesser person, or as if I am incapable of serving my country. I would like to think that I am neither.

    On the other hand, GOProud’s behavior is just as disrespectful. Forcibly outing someone and calling her/him such slur is WRONG to the nth degree. Even in the gay community where we have the likes of Barney Frank and his outing, both of those actions as demonstrated by LaSalvia is downright disgusting. These are the sort of actions that are these cause of LGBT teen suicides.

    I think Repair_Man_Jack is correct. I think GOProud’s tactic will backfire. However, I also don’t think Perry will emerge from this as clean as the pure driven snow. The ad clearly nicked a nerve and hard-hitting, effective ads won’t usually do that.

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

      I like Perry so I hope the immoral Barron and co. continue to attack him.

      The more that radical scum make hysterical shrieks against him, the more we know he’s over the target and defending honest American values against radical progressivism.

      • kipling

        n/t

    • gekster

      I’ll try one time. Look at it this way.
      If it is ok for a homosexual to be open about it in the military,
      then why is it not ok to be openly religeous in school.
      The question being, why is it ok to be openly gay, but not openly religeous.
      What makes the one right, and the other wrong.

      Perry did not say on thing bad about being gay.

      He was posing a question as to why is ones personal choice on one thing ok,
      but anothers personal choice on something else not ok.

      Can you see what I am saying.
      And as far as what Perry said, just when did we loose sight of the quote:
      “I may not agree with what you say,
      but I will defend unto death your right to say it.”