Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Oys, headdesks and facepalms all around, everyone.
Some may recall the stir caused by last year's sponsorship of CPAC by GOProud, a group of gay Republicans whose platform reads like a Tea Party manifesto, with no mention of "gay issues". But since they self-identify as gay, three groups boycotted the event. The Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America and some family values group or another. Attendees to last year's event will also remember two things vividly:
- The CPAC party was THE hot ticket. Not to stereotype, but I will anyway, gays know how to throw a party. Breitbart was there, Coulter was there, all the yoots were there. Good time had by all, though they may have been hurting in the morning.
- Harshing people's mellow, a young speaker the next day delivered a harangue against gaydom generally, and how it had no place in the conservative movement. He was hooted off the stage by irate attendees. Thus giving a sense of the gathering.
Well, this year, Breitbart will have left the building. The chair of the ACU has passed from David Keene to one Al Cardenas, who has announced that GOProud will not be allowed as a sponsor this year. I have a theory about this involving taut domestic drama in the Cardenas household . You may draw your own conclusions.
But the upshot is this: we're going to look bad. They will pound us on this. Gays aren't a huge voting bloc (be generous and say 5%), but most people are sympathetic. Our candidates will be asked about it relentlessly, and will be on defense. And it's all so unnecessary. GOProud doesn't wander the corridors of CPAC french kissing while wearing chaps sans pants. They're conservatives, of a Tea Party sort.
Besides, who wants to attend the big bash thrown by the Concerned Women for America? Sounds like a fun crowd. Oy.
- Comment (152)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Dan Hanson:
If the GOP continues to insist on adherence to social conservatism as well as fiscal conservatism, it's going to continue to struggle to get 50% of the country on its side, and its 'base' will be 20% of the public. But if the GOP can get past the social conservatism and focus on being the party of small government and maximal personal freedom, it can build a coalition of Reaganesque size, and that's what it will take to get the kind of majorities required to make sweeping change.
Actually, this is backwards. Not to mention insulting if you think socially conservative issues only appeal to 20% of the population. If the GOP insists on ignoring social issues, it's going to continue to struggle to get 40% of the country on its side.
Good luck forming a "Reaganesque" coalition with adherence only to fiscal conservatism.
Edited on August 4, 2011 at 9:35pmApr '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
GOproud "support[s] the repeal of DOMA." I can see where that might fall outside the 80/20 rule for a lot of religious conservatives.
Also, GOProud leadership seem to be far more concerned with snarky micturating contests and getting publicity for themselves at the expense of the conservative movement than anything else. They seem incapable of dealing with disagreement without a scorched earth response.
The homophobia card is just silly, and seems to betray an unfortunate tendency among conservatives to ape the memes of the Left. This is an ongoing tail-wags-dog distraction.
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
The Republican Party platform of 1856 condemned "those twin relics of barbarism--Polygamy, and Slavery." The first Republicans believed "it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit" both polygamy and slavery in federal territories.
Statesmen like Washington and Lincoln understood that you cannot separate morality from politics. Fiscal conservatism has to have a moral ground if it is to be anything other than a preference.
For our Founders, the same natural law that was the ground of our individual natural rights mandated that government and society should support the family (as in married man and woman and their children).
Our society is trying to have our cake and eat it too. It will not work.
Edited on August 4, 2011 at 9:49pmOct '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
This seemed more like cold-blooded electoral math than anything else, consolidating the conservative coalition pre-2012. So long as it doesn't balloon into something like Bush's 2004 re-election strategy I don't really care, and it sounds like it won't.
Sep '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
How can a conservative who is also a Christian reconcile their libertarian-leaning belief in letting people live their own lives with the Christian teaching, expressed for example in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Rom 1:26-28, that homosexuality is a sin against God? Where should the line be drawn between what amounts to tacit approval and not? A similar line has already been crossed concerning divorce, as Jesus himself condemned divorce in Matthew 19; can a good Christian allow this trend to continue without speaking up? Especially if these Christians believe that their fellow conservatives are potentially staking eternity on their sexual actions on earth.
Perhaps the trend towards what amounts to agnosticism and hokey spiritualism will continue, and these questions will no longer be politically relevant, but for those of us that are Christians, that would be a tragedy if America lost its Christian character. As long as it hasn't, than questions like this cannot be avoided. How are we to pick and choose which religious commandments are acceptable in political settings and speech, and which are not?
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I'm not sure that boycotting an event because it is sponsored in part by conservative gays can be described as anything but homophobia. That's not aping the memes of the left; it's plain truth. Can't see a way around that one. Guess they think it's contagious, possibly involving cooties.
As to DOMA, if you can't hang out with people who think that's a silly law, well, you're limiting your circle of acquaintance rather narrowly for a bunch of people who should be focused on winning in 2012 and saving the nation from irretreivable decline.
John: Not sure the Republican party platform of 1856 is especially dispositive or persuasive in this instance. Or any instance, near as I can tell.
Demeratus: While I don't think you can rank biblical pronouncements in private life (that's a lie; everyone does, really), you draw the line at passing biblical laws. As to fellow conservatives endangering their souls, I am a reluctant proselytizer. Besides, like other people's marriages, I have plenty to worry about with my own soul.
Edited on August 4, 2011 at 10:04pmJul '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Dan Hanson: The GOP needs to become a much bigger tent to be successful.
.. it can build a coalition of Reaganesque size, and that's what it will take to get the kind of majorities required to make sweeping change. · Aug 4 at 12:28pm
President Reagan didn't build a bigger tent. With His message President Reagan inspired more people to join Him.
By Yer reasoning We should out affirmative action the left and We could win a majority of the "minorities'" votes. Yeah, right.
Dec '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
michael kelley: Sooooo.....I guess Socrates, Plato, Alcibiades, Aristotle will be personae non gratae?
Edited on Aug 04 at 10:52 am
Not a really helpful comparison. They weren't so much into the whole consenting adults thing if you know what I mean.
Sep '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I ask the preceding questions seriously. Those of you that believe the GOP tent should grow, offer some solutions to my moral dillema. I'm open to being persuaded by any good arguments you can offer.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
First, we should recognize that sponsorship is different from mere inclusion. To reject GOProud as a sponsor is not the same as saying they don't belong among conservatives or Republicans. Sponsors are often, though not always, perceived as representative of the organizations they support.
That said, I agree that the Tea Party movement is focused on fiscal issues and limited government, though a large portion of its membership is so-called "social" conservatives; and it is naive to think the next President won't face decisions on "social" issues. Even though I believe homosexual desire is disordered and gay sex is wrong, I see no reason to exclude reasonable and civil gays from our political alliance.
There is a legitimate concern that the Left is seeking to infiltrate and corrupt conservative organizations. How many fake Tea Party groups have we seen now? How many fake demonstrators? I can understand that genuinely conservative gays might organize under a name like "GOProud" to advertise the fact that a person can be both gay and Republican. But there is good reason for someone unfamiliar with its individual members to be suspicious.
Dec '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. GOProud is basically one guy, Chris Barron. His previous job was to do infiltration, uh, outreach to the GOP from Planned Parenthood. Did he have a change of heart? Probably.
But his major problem is that he did call an ACU board member a "bigot" on national TV. Actually, a "nasty bigot".
I won't pass judgment on whether she is (her husband divorced her after several years of marriage after discovering that he was gay, so there's the suggestion that she's got a vendetta) but you don't bite the hand and expect to get fed again.
From what I've read, this kind of activity is par for Barron's course. He's not exactly a graduate of the Dale Carnegie school.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Jimmy Carter
Dan Hanson: The GOP needs to become a much bigger tent to be successful.
.. it can build a coalition of Reaganesque size, and that's what it will take to get the kind of majorities required to make sweeping change.
President Reagan didn't build a bigger tent. With His message President Reagan inspired more people to join Him.
Agreed. Reagan boldly stood on principle and communicated it well.
Trying to "move toward the middle" is what Republicans usually do. It's not a new strategy, and it doesn't work.
Sep '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I think that it is true that simply living one's own life well is hard enough.
However, it seems to me that there is a difference between the current cultural position on divorce and the direction the culture seems to be headed (or at least is argued to be headed by certain peple) concerning homosexuality; while divorce seems to be still considered a failure in most cases, even if it's one in which we do little about, the advanced position on homosexuality deems there to be no failure or mistake.
I think this distinction is where the rub lies: certain people, myself included, will never conceed that certain actions will ever be morally justified, and those include divorce (in most cases) and homosexual fornication. I think it's clear to see there is an irreconcilable disagreement here on first principles, one that is more extreme than the divorce case, and more in line with, say, disagreement concerning the morality of abortion.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
You stole the words out of my mouth, only you said it in far fewer words than I could.
The reason the gay movement uses the tactic is because it is, unfortunately, effective. But it is wrong and does not lead to truth.
Do you enjoy being called a racist for opposing illegal immigration or amnesty? Do you like being called sexist or anti-woman for being pro-life? How about anti-poor for opposing welfare? How does it feel to be accused of wanting to throw Grandma off a cliff for wanting a balanced budget?
I've seen so many people who should know better get persuaded by this tactic, or at least intimidated into silence.
Being against a behavior doesn't automatically cause one to become a hater. Yes, there are some haters out there, but then again, there are genuine racists and sexists and anti-poor, too.
I think we should send this tactic back to the Leftists and Alinskyites from which it came.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Wrong, and it is downright despicable to continue this line of attack.
Could it possibly have something to do with disagreement on social policy? Naaaaaaah, it HAD to be hate! And fear! And COOTIES!
The level of condescension in these smears is incredible.
Edited on August 4, 2011 at 10:36pmSep '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
The most pure conservative religious principles. Were I religious I would try desperately not to confuse the church with the state.
David Carroll: So, now there is a conservative purity test for CPAC? How sad.
One can be conservative on economic but not social issues. One can be conservative on social but not economic issues. And have lots of positions in between. This move sends the message that CPAC is limiting itself only to those with the most pure conservative credentials. That is not good for the conservative movement as a whole. · Aug 4 at 11:45am
Sep '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I'm also in agreement the main point of Kennedy's post.
However, the identy-group politics is really starting to get on my nerves. Sure, put together your unique interest group, like "Fuel Injected Sportbike Riding Conservatives." But please spare me the sexual prediliction groupings. What's the point? If they are not pushing a gay policy agenda, why can't they just be Libertarian-leaning Conservatives? I mean, my preferences lean towards hot athletic women in strappy shoes, but should I really form a group based on that? I'm sure I could gather plenty of avid members. But it's got nothing to do with conservative political principles.
Jul '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Faith in the Son, in essence the acceptance of His gift is all that is required for eternity.
I am not a fan of divorce but had a chronically cheating drug addict child endangerer for wife one and nixed her. I now have 10 years of a wonderful woman in my life. That's where God's forgiveness comes in to play. St Paul is not the decider of eternal life. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of a Christ like life. Of course our morality as a society has decreased but to be unkind or judgmental to a gay person on that basis alone strikes me as decidedly non-Christian.
Being gay is not a choice like murdering your baby. The distinction is lost on many Christians and often the same group that feels that it is all choice often has elaborate explanations about dinosaurs flaming out just a few short millennia ago.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
GOProud has no agenda other than joining in with the tea party tax-cutters. Riiiiiiiight.
Wow, you really stand on principle here. We're going to look bad to people? What about all the head-bashing we've received over spending and tax policy? Aren't we already accused of wanting to throw Grandma into the street and snatch food from the mouths of babes?
We can't demand a balanced budget! We're going to look bad! They will pound on us!
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Fair enough. I was trying to point out that the platform involved a moral distinction.
Lincoln and his compatriots thought that the destruction of the natural family was as barbaric as slavery.
Kennedy Smith: .
John: Not sure the Republican party platform of 1856 is especially dispositive or persuasive in this instance. Or any instance, near as I can tell.
Edited on Aug 04 at 01:04 pm