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!
First of all, there are those who would dispute that. At least, it's certainly not clearly established that people are born gay. The loudly trumpeted studies to that effect have been discredited. Other studies show a host of possible factors, with environmental factors being the strongest. And yes, it's certainly very difficult for the majority of gays to change their orientation. It is also certainly true that some people can and have changed their orientation, permanently.
Setting that aside, behavior is always a choice.
Furthermore, the current front in the battle is whether government should endorse gay "marriage," not whether we should hate or kill gays. To do so it must redefine the term "marriage." Culturally, the concept of marriage has already been eroded to a great degree. Pushing back against its further erosion is not hate; it is standing on principle.
Even more than just this issue, though, is the fact that because of this issue the groups like GOProud are splitting up the conservative camp. Whether or not they are liberal plants, they certainly seem to be having the same effect.
Edited on August 4, 2011 at 11:17pmJun '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Demaratus, your question answers itself. Divorce, homosexuality may, by your lights, be considered "sins against God" but sins against you or me? No. There are public policy issues which are implicated but you simply cannot cite bibilical authority in the public square to those who do not share your beliefs. We may actually agree on the policy ramifications even though you may arrive from a theological perspective and I from a secular view. Don't tell me that the Torah prohibits the consumption of swine, tell me about trichinosis.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I don't have any problem with a simple amendment that preserves DOMA, that is, prevents legal activists from using the reciprocity clause (Full Faith and Credit) to force states that elect not to permit gay marriage to recognize them. That is, I am fine with NY voting to permit gay marriage- that is the state's right, and that is how this stuff should be done, instead of BS lawsuits based on "civil rights" that equate formal gay marriage with Loving v. Virginia. But, Alabama should not have its right not to vote for or against such a law precluded by a requirement to recognize the NY law in Alabama, or state choices become a mockery.
The CPAC stuff drives me crazy on a lot of levels. The treatment of gays by these groups is stupid. Let them come, invite them to participate, if the official position is opposed to gay marriage, that is one single policy difference like any other one.
You emphasize the common ground, not the differences. Get together and support equity by contract, not marriage, then get to the important stuff: spending, freedom, market economy, opposition to socialized medicine, and defense of the country.
Apr '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Odd, isn't it?
Jul '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
So I just showed this thread to a conservative extremely wealthy gay man. He said all this fluff is pointless compared to the fight against the nanny state.
So while there are some who will hitch their wagon to pure social conservatives only, I am concerned about defeating the greatest enemy of the American dream our country ever faced since Wilson.
I personally do not like the idea of gay marriage or abortions. I am also positive that focusing on those issues as a platform are going to lose critical voting blocks. Make no mistake, this will be the biggest push the Dems make against a social conservative and one can stand on principle til the cows come home but it will not win the white house.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
And I repeat that the nanny state will continue to grow as long as people are not self-governing-- and a free, self-governing people requires a responsible, healthy family structure to foster those values in them. Yes, it's a vicious cycle-- the government breaks down the family through education, social policy and welfare, which causes more people to need welfare and nannying, which the government happily provides.
Fiscal and social conservatism, in a nutshell, are ultimately inseparable.
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Which candidate is focusing on social issues? Bachmann has the most background in this area, but she seems to be focusing her statements on the economy.
I think the Democrats will focus on entitlements (or "investments" in Obama's terminology). The claim will be that the Republicans want to starve disabled children, the elderly, etc etc.
DocJay: So I just showed this thread to a conservative extremely wealthy gay man. He said all this fluff is pointless compared to the fight against the nanny state.
So while there are some who will hitch their wagon to pure social conservatives only, I am concerned about defeating the greatest enemy of the American dream our country ever faced since Wilson.
I personally do not like the idea of gay marriage or abortions. I am also positive that focusing on those issues as a platform are going to lose critical voting blocks. Make no mistake, this will be the biggest push the Dems make against a social conservative and one can stand on principle til the cows come home but it will not win the white house. · Aug 4 at 3:29pm
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
You could say the same thing about any issue. The Dems are going to attack on any and all fronts. Are they all-powerful? Why do we quake in our boots that they might make a big push on one particular issue?
Edited on August 5, 2011 at 12:39amAug '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Regarding Mr Grant’s comments, I think what he was driving at is the following: one cannot ultimately divorce fiscal and moral questions when it comes to political decisions. Indeed, politics is not merely economics and one cannot pretend that the only things that matter in any given election cycle are taxes, the debt, job creation, etc, important though they may be. To return to the Republican platform of 1856, two relics of barbarism are mentioned: slavery and polygamy. If it is argued that “the platform of 1856 should not be used as a guide” ought we not then to reopen the question of slavery? Why would slavery be wrong while homosexual unions are acceptable? Were the serious men who supported Fremont in 1856 and then Lincoln in 1860 simply wrong or ignorant to link these two practices and consider them both evil?
I don't think these questions are merely frivolous. If one abandons the natural justification for traditional marriage (what Lincoln and the founders would have called the natural law), one is on the path to rejecting the grounds for the opposition to slavery.
Aug '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
But why does the question of homosexual “marriage” matter? It should not be left forgotten than homosexual unions are not something which merely affect the “partners”, especially if their unions are recognized (as is now the case in New York) as true marriages. For this entails the grave consequence of redefining the nature of marriage as an institution. As is evident from the nature of things, two men and two women are utterly sterile and cannot produce offspring. In effect, marriage essentially no longer has anything to do with procreation and the education of children. Children may be rather considered in principle as an inconvenient circumstance of some (eg, heterosexual) marriages or even as a preventable disease (in this context, Mrs Sebelius's decision and her justification of it makes a great deal more sense). In addition, since marriage would be defined principally in the terms of erotic friendship (two men do not need to get married to watch football games together), divorce becomes rather the norm than the exception in principle. This attitude can only strengthen the woeful prevalence of divorce in our nation and the disastrous effects it has on the education and formation of the children.
Aug '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Finally, the remarks regarding Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Alcibiades were amusing. Of course, it should be known that at least Plato has left us at least one very strong attack against the practice of homosexuality in the Laws, arguing that it is contrary to nature and a profoundly subversive influence in the city. Furthermore, as to Socrates’ exploits, one can find a very, um, interesting account given by Alcibiades in the Symposium regarding Socrates’ unwillingness to yield to his advances.
Apr '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
A pointless and absurd characterization that says far more about the speaker than it does about those the speaker would, ala the left, dismiss as moronic bigots.
Thank you for proving my point with such a lame refutation.
Apr '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Bingo.
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
I'll answer no to that. The reason I dismissed the 1856 platform as irrelevant was that just because they were wise and moral in opposition to slavery, that doesn't mean they weren't being a tad silly in equating it with polygamy (not at issue here anyway). I shudder to think what else is in that platform that we must now endorse to not be accused of being soft on slavery.
People shouldn't huffily protest an event because it's partially sponsored by a group with whom they broadly agree except on one issue. That's a bit rude and insulting, as well as counterproductive. I know for a fact that we've lost at least one gay Member due to people's continued insistence that the major threat facing the nation in this time of crisis is too many gays. Somebody should post a thread titled "I'm Gay, and I Don't Feel Comfortable Saying That on Ricochet".
May '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Michael Patrick Tracy
A pointless and absurd characterization that says far more about the speaker than it does about those the speaker would, ala the left, dismiss as moronic bigots.
Thank you for proving my point with such a lame refutation. · Aug 4 at 4:30pm
Showed me, arm-crossing dude! Perhaps you can explain in words of one syllable another reason for not wanting to be in the same room with people who agree with you on pretty much everything, but might be gay even as we speak.
Dec '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
There is no reason, on the grounds of Christian morality to exclude these folks. If you want to make a difference for the cause of your moral convictions, follow the actions of your leader. Christ joyfully broke bread with the publicans and the prostitutes. As a rule of thumb, if you're setting a standard above that of the Son of God, you're probably overshooting the mark.
Edited on August 5, 2011 at 1:46amJan '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
There's a gaping fallacy here at the root of our debate: among (most) social conservatives, homosexuality and its acceptance are seen as serious moral failings; among (most) fiscal conservatives and libertarians, they are not. This difference is often so strong that SoCons can only see the Libertarian position as a rejection of morality itself, while the Libertarians assume that the SoCons must be bigoted.
Both positions are misguided. That someone has a laxer view than you of a particular moral position does not make him an anything-goes libertine (though he might be). Likewise, having more traditional values does not make one a bigot (though he might be).
Edited on August 5, 2011 at 1:48amJan '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Speaking for myself, I'm with Kennedy on this and I'll paraphrase the Gipper in our defense: GOProud is asking to support CPAC, not the other way around. Moreover, it speaks poorly of giants like Heritage and CWA that they don't feel they can compete against little GOProud in a market of ideas.
Jul '11
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Chris Deleon
And I repeat that the nanny state will continue to grow as long as people are not self-governing-- and a free, self-governing people requires a responsible, healthy family structure to foster those values in them. Yes, it's a vicious cycle-- the government breaks down the family through education, social policy and welfare, which causes more people to need welfare and nannying, which the government happily provides.
Fiscal and social conservatism, in a nutshell, are ultimately inseparable. · Aug 4 at 3:35pm
The two do not intertwine in my libertarian world in terms of absolutism. It is ironic I find myself arguing against issues I believe in for myself and my family. I understand the importance of social responsibility, ethics and family values quite well. We shall never return to days of yore but rather than drinking like Miniver Cheevy or expecting the population to embrace social conservatism I hope to get candidates elected that do not use government funding for much of anything which includes abortions and strange classes in elementary school.
Dec '10
Re: Not Enough National Drama? Lets Start a CPAC Civil War!
Steven Drexler
[...]
But it's got nothing to do with conservative political principles. · Aug 4 at 1:35pm
Exactly.
Most of us would unquestionably go anytime with Breitbart and Coulter to celebrate a political event at a party organized by a group of people who have sex with the same sex, so long as the premise of that group’s organizing itself into a political group has anything to do with something other than creating a protected class subsidized by government intervention predicated on the behavior of having sex with the same sex.
If there is an edifice that already exists, why is it that the social engineers are we who enter it as it is, not those who want to tear it down in order to make room for transforming principle into behavior consisting of having sex with the same sex built up as a principle?
If their agenda is to make marriage a shelter for having sex with the same sex and they promise not to ask for another damn dime from government to protect their behavior of having sex with the same sex as a matter of principle, then do it.