July 30, 2011 - 1:20 pm
ST. LOUIS, MO– While speaking to attendees during a lunch at the 2011 Smart Girl Summit, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart announced that he would be skipping next year’s CPAC in reaction to the American Conservative Union’s decision to bar GOProud from participating in the event.
Good guy when it comes to making news by destroying progressive, worthless person for promoting conservatism.
Who’s brand of conservatism are you calling “true” conservatism?
I think to remain consistent with the Constitution & the Founders the law must protect most, the rights of those who can not defend themselves. That means any political body that wants to govern has to have a broader, inclusive message. And that may mean compromise and tolerance for people who disagree with 10-20 percent of what you believe in.
No single faction of conservatism can win the day.
Show where he has advocated and advanced the conservative cause. Now where he has torn down the progressive cause, but where he has advocated and advanced the conservative cause. Take your time.
barring GOProud from the event doesn’t have anything to do with conservatism. he’s right to steer clear. bravo breitbart!
This was a stupid move by ACU. This will turn off many people who might otherwise be open to conservative ideas, and it will costs votes.
Accepting homosexuals is not the same thing as endorsing homosexuality. The prensence of gay conservatives at this event would be a good thing for conservatism and the gay political movement.
Good for Breitbart. Social cons are going to slowly lose fiscal cons like me if they continue to exclude homosexuals.
Social conservatives have ALREADY lost THIS fiscal conservative. If they want to fix what’s REALLY wrong with this country (the size of the federal government and its’ rapaciousness)then they HAVE to get their priorities straight. (No pun intended.) GO, Breitbart, GO!
Where is the loss? Your either going to vote Republican or Democrat, or your vote is wasted. Feel free to be lost all you want, but your choices are limited. Democrats will not give you any level of fiscal restraint. Where is your leverage?
Alan’s comment means either that (a) he is going to vote Democratic even though doing so means he prefers to elct those who will do far less to address the issue he genuinely think is the most serious issue facing the country, just to make a point on a social issue that he thinks is less important, in which case he is a moron or (b) he really thinks the social issue is more important but wants to pretend that his votes against conservative candidates is motivated by something other than his social liberalism, in which case he is a liar.
OR he will do as I do. Vote for a more moderate candidate in the primaries and local elections. At the presidential election you dont have much choice, but under your scenario, he would have to vote for Hitler as long as he was a Republican. I guess we are just not as pure as you are.
I will vote for the candidate who is most fiscally conservative. Me preference is for a small government that will respect individual rights. If I am forced to chose between a big government that redistributes wealth or a big government that intrudes into the bedroom and wants to then I am siding with the big government that redistributes wealth.
I am socially conservative personally but it is idiotic for social conservatives to promote allowing the government to decide what is morally right. I am right there with you in opposing special rights but people should be free to love and be loved by whomever they wish.
FisCons cannot get what they want without the SoCons, so deal with it.
GOProud are not Conservatives. They advocate for gay marriage, last I saw. That makes them moderate Republicans. FisCons who do not advocate the full Conservative spectrum are also moderate Republicans.
The ACU is a private group. CPAC is for that group. If they want to exclude someone, that is their right. If GOProud wanted to exclude the ACU from one of their events, I would have no problem with that.
Just because the GOP embraces GOProud does not mean that the ACU should. The GOP can be a big tent if they want. Conservatives are going to occupy some corner of that tent. GOProud will occupy some other space. They each do not have to be allowed into one another’s events. Likewise, you purely FisCons can occupy your corner as well. You do not have to embrace the SoCons. Just make common cause in the areas where you have common interests.
If one group decides to throw a party, do not think for a second that you in the other groups must be invited. This is not a GOP event. This is an ACU SoCon/Fiscon event. Why would you have a problem with that?
BTW, Reagan was a SoCon. The Contract with America was SoCon (family values). Without SoCons, the Republicans are still wandering in the wilderness, so quitcher bitchin’.
you are wrong in Reagan,
The Gipper was the first president to allow a Gay couple to spend the night in the White House and he was certainly exposed to enough gay men and women in Hollywood
Well said, Marc. A “conservative” is a fiscal conservative AND a social conservative. The fiscal conservatives are loathe to embrace the name “moderate Republican”, but that is what they are.
ACU is stupid to exclude GOProud. Andrew is right to skip.
Is this Andrew’s way of admitting he’s a pickle puffer? hmmmmmmmmmm
What are you…twelve?
What are you…6?
Come on, man, this isn’t a playground at an elementary school. Breitbart is married and has four kids. You don’t have to be one of the gays to support their rights.
You are not needed in the Tea Party.
I’ll ruin your day as easily as I ruin a socialist’s.
You are not better than a thief. Your brain is no more advanced.
Go CPAC. Wise move.
WTG, Breitbart! CPAC’s decision was ridiculous.
The Chairman of GOProud, Chris Barron, said it best: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”
They deserve a right to attend CPAC 2012 in order to promote their lifestyle and work on so-called “gay issues” whatever the hell that is.
goo.gl/NhNaa
It’s called promoting the Democratic party from within the GOP.
Thankfully, CPAC called their bluff.
You joined MY club, I never joined yours.
The GOP is now pro-gay, if you don’t like it quit.
I did quit. I do not donate to the Republican Party ever, because I am a Conservative, and the GOP has not represented my interests in a long time.
Hey EPH, I think his lovely wife and four children would have a bone to pick wih you. No pun intended.
Redirect to Elton John?????????
Barred or just not invited.
After the way GoProud behaved last year (bashing the social cons), they should not be “invited” back. I doubt they’ve been banned.
Conservative has nothing to do with religious values. Evangelicals better realize that there is a large contingent of us fiscal conservatives who are moderate when it comes to social issues like homosexuality. So your God says being gay is wrong, but what in the hell does that have to do with our country going down the tubes from fiscal irresponsibility. Ronald Reagan would have never approved of this kind of behavior from so called “conservatives” and would have welcomed GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans into the fold. I know several Gay Conservatives who have no place to go but to the Republican Party!!! I will not be sending any money to CPAC or the Repubs until this becomes a more free and open organization. It is imperative that we all join together to defeat Obama and the Democrats in 2012….I only pray that a Gay Republican will win a coveted seat in Congress or Senate….will CPAC support a Gay Conservative? If not, the party is doomed.
//Conservative has nothing to do with religious values.//
I’m not sure I agree with this anymore. I agree that your statement *should be* true, but I don’t think that it is. In my experience, the majority of people who call themselves conservatives openly despise homosexuality and are still pining for things like sodomy laws (often times, ironically, while sporting a “Don’t Tread On Me” profile pic on FB). If the majority of people calling themselves conservatives are anti-homosexual, then isn’t conservatism anti-homosexual? And might not those of us who reject this view start calling ourselves something else even if there are aspects of conservatism we appreciate? In other words, shouldn’t those of us who are, generally speaking, libertarian–minus, perhaps, some naive libertarian foreign policy views–simply allow the gay haters the title of conservative, and call ourselves something else?
Misha,
I hate the idea of essentially giving the word “conservative” to those who seem to posses narrow minds, but in a way, I guess you are right. Whenever I tell others I’m a conservative, they look shocked and ask how I could support bigotry. I explain my views and then they respond, “Oh, so you’re really more of a libertarian.” The problem is that, like you, I think the libertarian take on certain issues is unrealistic. I honestly don’t know what to call myself at this point.
an american?
Your friend says you’re a bigot solely because you say you’re conservative?
Then your friend was the bigot. You owe them no explanation, but it’s not really radical for a conservative, even one who doesn’t agree with gay marriage or whatever, to not want to shove their views down others’ throats. Trying to make this into a state’s rights issue (however difficult some want to make that) is how most conservatives I know treat abortion and gay marriage.
I know of no conservatives who want sodomy laws, though. I’m sure they are out there, and they aren’t really conservative, and they are a tiny percentage.
I don’t support gay marriage ‘rights’. But I realize the bigger picture is bringing people together who are 80% friends. I would never dream of excluding fiscal conservatives from events like CPAC at at time like this. I’m not familiar enough with GOProud, but I assume that’s why they are trying to attend CPAC. So long as they want to promote a major conservative idea, we should be willing to deal with some differences.
And states rights should be our uniting call. Those who want to force states to recognize gay marriage, or force them to ban in, are mistaken, in my view.
“I’m not familiar enough with GOProud.”
Exactly. You and all the folks complaining about the exclusion.
There are three aspects to “marriage”:
The nature of the participants (animal, vegetable, mineral, human)
The number of the participants (traditionally 2)
The gender (one of each, assuming there are still only two genders– perhaps I am a bit behind).
If you arbitrarily demand that one of the three aspects of marriage be discarded because it isn’t “fair” that it can’t be “whatever we want it to be”, then what binds us to the other two aspects? If two men can marry, why not two women and one man, or the entire bowling team, or a man and his dog, or a dog and his cat, or a man and his beloved Porsche or ficus plant? COME ON!
oh Dave, you scoff, nobody’s ASKING to change the other two aspects… oh yeah? Ever heard of Sharia law polygamy? It is considered a favor to a poor women for a man to marry her and bring her into his family to care for her, even if she’s number three or five or seven.
Now ask me how Sharia law is going to react to GAY MARRIAGE?????
If “gay rights” get any more traction in this country, it is THIS that will be the answer to the evergreen politically correct question, “why do they hate us?”
/end rant
You confuse social conservatism with political conservatism. I don’t see why we should listen to a large number of politically-illiterate social cons hijacking the term for their own purposes. They’re pulling the same stunt by infiltrating Tea Party movements, then trying to re-direct focus to social con issues.
There is very little conservative about GOProud. Do some reading.
As a liberal Democrat, I applaud CPAC’s move.
The Democrats need to realize that giving a platform to those who chose an alternative sexual lifestyle will not be tolerated by the masses.
I’m glad you were able to overcome your sexual attraction to men and choose to be straight. It’s unfortunate that not everyone has your strength of will.
Silly decision on the part of the organizers. Breitbart sets a good example by doing this. I’m not a same-sex marriage advocate but have many homosexual friends and co-workers. To “bar” them (as the article states) is just short-sighted.
Good for Breitbart.
The times are changing and these bigots are becoming more and more irrelevant all the time.
Gays are a perfect fit in the conservative movement, which favors individual self determination and abhors group tyranny, such as this ACU decision.
The fight continues, and I appreciate Andrew Breitbart for taking a stand. This will be remembered.
Interesting that conservatives don’t see certain connections.
These are a few of the communist goals to destroy America. Apparently many have already worked, with the willing help of “conservatives” no less.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
I love all the blather about how narmless the gays are. Like Kahne up there.
It is not about religion. It is about humanity and human nature.
What happened when we instituted Social Security and Medicare to the thriving society we had before it? Many in it decided they no longer needed to have children in order to be cared for in old age, so they stopped. They not only stopped, but they started aborting conceived babies at a horrendous rate. Our birthrate dropped precipitously to levels that are unhealthy for a prospering nation. Since children were no longer in high demand, marriage was next in line for attacks, and the easy out marriage entered our society. More and more people are childless, divorced and have voted into power over the years politicians who have promised to take very good care of them in their old age. They demand that the children of others care for them through redistribution of their labor.
See how that went. We just want to help a few old people who are going to be in dire need of help in their last couple years, if they are even fortunate enough to live that long, to, a very much very much less vibrant and flourishing society than we likely would have had without this small change some 76 years ago. It is likely marriage would have remained a strong institution without it being passed, that children would be a welcome addition to many more homes, that the population would be expanding much faster with much better educated children raised in a two biologically related parent home that in turn create far more wealth than the welfare queen babies and ghetto home babies that are our largest contributors today to our birthrate, outside of illegal and legal aliens that is.
This post is not entirely accurate. GOProud will not be allowed to be a sponsor at CPAC, but no one is barred from attending the event.
Good for CPAC. Breitbart will NOT be missed.
For the pro-gay guys here, I hope you’d be equally receptive to letting the UAW or SEIU speak at CPAC then.
And teachers unions, must let the teachers of our young have a platform. Can we add in the polygamist Fundamental Mormons join in too?
It is one thing to welcome votes for our cause, it is altogether different to celebrate and elevate those who are fighting against our family traditions.
@Stoic
Sure, why not? After all, we’re not leftists, who don’t believe in stifling dissent? Isn’t our position secure enough to allow opposing viewpoints?
So, what view points do you think we should subsidize and implicitly back? The ACLU, SEIU, Al Qaeda maybe?
I think it depends on what GOProud seeks to accomplish by attending or sponsoring CPAC. If they are there to support the common ground between us rather than the differences, then I see a serious problem with excluding them.
On the other hand, if they are there solely to advance the gay agenda, then that’s not the kind of help we need. Right now, pretty much most social issues are on the back burner until we can fix the nation’s fiscal problems. If GOProud is there to help us put the nation on a better fiscal track, excluding them is counter productive and Breitbart’s position is reasonable.
Social issues drive the entire fiscal issue. Putting them on the back burner is a recipe for an extremely short lived advantage turned greater than previous disadvantage.
GOProud is very strong on fiscal conservatism. To exclude them because they’re also gay is terrible. Since when did CPAC become so collectivist? Where’s the support for individual freedom and liberty?
I thought homosexuals wanted us out of THEIR bedrooms. Yet they wish to infiltrate EVERY other aspect of society with their agenda. If you are in fact fiscally conservative then what business has homosexuality in those issues? None. And GOProud has no place at CPAC. Social issues do, in fact, reflect themselves in fiscal issues. It is an adherence to identity and victim politics that is bankrupting this country. Tolerance costs money…other peoples money!
GOProud is focused, by their own admission, on making the government recognize gay relationships and giving them benefits (“rights”). In other words, increasing the government’s role in people’s personal relationships. That does not sound like a limited government organization.
Exactly. Homosexual rights advocacy has moved way beyond “leave us alone.” It is activist, aggressive and corrosive.
And to the extent there is a culture clash between an amoral, libertarian brand of “conservatism” and conservatism worthy of the name — premised on a society and a political culture grounded in the values and morals of what not only preceded what and who we are today, and what made that possible — let’s have that clash.
In case any of you commenters forgot this, the Republican Party principles which are voted on are that we are pro-life and pro-marriage between one man and one woman. So to say that the Republicans should accept GoProud means that we ignore those same principles. We can accept whatever people want to do in their bedrooms,changing the way marriage is defined is not acceptable. It has been acceptable the way it is for thousands of years. Why should we change that because the minority want that? They should get the same rights as married couples, but NOT gay marriage. The people who want polygamy are just waiting for us to change our policy because of human rights because they will say, what about their human rights! As you can see,it would start everybody going down that slippery slope.
You ask Christians to be more tolerant, but not accept that MOST of the people don’t want Gay Marriage, so they need to be more tolerant.
GOProud is not a conservative organization. It is a big government organization. Libertarians have long ago lost their way and can not recognize the damage they are doing.
Breitbart is just being his normal asinine self in the matter. Anyone that give the man any credibility needs their head examined.
Breitbart deserves lots of credibility. But not on conservative issues. He has made his name and his reputation destroying the progressive memes and he does a splendid job of it and deserves every bit of respect that comes from those accomplishments. But just as I do not take any advice from celebrities on things they have no understanding of, I give Breitbart no accolades on his conservative arguments. He is much better as a destroyer than he is as a conservator, as evidenced by his CPAC stand on GoProud. He caused destruction in the last event and he is determined to cause damage in the following one.
I for one still remember all the lecturing from the libertarians and social degenerates who insisted that the social conservatives who boycotted the CPAC last year were in the wrong. Can’t we all just get along they whined, when the most important issue that unites us is fiscal conservatism? Now little Andy shows his true self. Get along and don’t boycott when I get my way, but I’ll damn sure boycott when things don’t go my way. Those perverts at GOPRoud exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: To drive a wedge between a coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives who are liberal/libertarian on social issues.
The day anal intercourse became a greater “rights” priority than life for the soon-to-be-born was the day America died.
Non sequitur of the day! Congrats!
Last year Breitbart complained about those organizations who stayed away from CPAC due to the inclusion of GOProud. Now he does the same thing because of the exclusion of GOProud. Will he complain about himself?
Correction Request:
The American Conservative Union did not “bar GOProud from participating in the event.”
The American Conservative Union simply said that GOProud will not be allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud and its members were still encouraged to participate.
“As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.
“As always, GOProud members are welcome and encouraged to attend as individual registrants.”
GOProud was most likely, although the ACU did not say, prohibited from being a sponsor due to its attack upon social conservative organizations over the past two years. The most heinous was the attack upon Cleta Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation by Christopher Barron. The Christopher Barron who previously worked for Planned Parenthood.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/
Huge, epic mistake by ACU. Good for Andrew and others for bailing. IDGAF what your gay marriage position is, these are not Birchers, these are our friends.
Really, do our friends do the following?
In 2010 GOProud, with the assistance of Bob Parks at one of the Breitbart sites, made headlines by attacking Liberty University and making an unsubstantiated claim that Liberty was leading a boycott of CPAC because of GOProud. This past year they attacked several solid conservative organization including the Heritage Foundation.
As Erick Erickson at Red State pointed out in a post at the time, GOProud does not hold conservative values across the board. Nor have they been on the front lines in most of the battles against the left. In fact they applauded Reid when he crammed through the repeal of DODT without serious consideration of its impact on the military. They sided with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU on right to work issues. They also publicly attacked Jim Demint and Tim Pawlenty.
GOProud seems more intent on grabbing headlines and fundraising than actually stopping the left. With “friends” like these….
Everyone has an agenda…in the name of “stop the bullying” what ultimately will be tolerated is intolerance for any interpretation of scripture which holds that homosexuality is a sin. I can agree to disagree with just about anyone but gay activists, because to agree to disagree is not their aim. Their aim is to live with a clear conscience (which most of us would like too). But as long there are those who would preach the sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle then the struggle will continue, UNLESS, those voices can be muted or stained with ad hominem attacks of racism, narrow mindedness, mean spiritedness. Once I was told that they only wanted others to mind their business and stay out of the bedroom. Fair enough. Then it was to stop the discrimination…fair enough again. But now it is to teach and educate the “rightness” of their lifestyle choice to all….to recognize people’s sexual orientation when talking about scientific or historic acheivements. It will soon be the aim to enter into the sanctuary to promote a “proper and compassionate” interpretation of scripture regarding homosexuality, lest anyone look upon the homosexual as being out of God’s will in their “choice” of lifestyle. I get it, we all sin. We all are not perfect. Agree with that. Still, forgiveness of sin must be sought and repentance should follow. An awakened conscience is hell (Wesley). I believe the gay agenda will not stop until a GLBT Revised version of the bible is the norm and the law!
Sooner or later, one of our troops will take part in the capture or killing of a high level al-Qaeda/Taliban dirtball, a Mullah Omar or a Zawahiri or one of their ilk…and somewhere within one of these heroic units will be one or more who are gay as an Erasure concert in Provincetown on Oscar Wilde’s birthday.
Heck, it may have already happened.
And then what will the god-botherers have to say then?
Was he practicing a gay lifestyle?
@knockatize: some of our most decorated servicemembers have been unceremoniously booted out because they are gay. so, yeah, it’s safe to say that ir has ‘already happened’.
@astonerii: what the heck does “practicing a gay lifestyle” mean ?? gay people are gay, straight people are straight…it doesn’t require a lot of practice…and both gay and srtaight folks live all sorts of differing ‘lifestyles’.
good for breitbart for rejecting what is bigotry in the guise of conservatism at CPAC. now, will somebody tell the rabidly anti-gay commenters at the breibart sites that their benefactor doesn’t share their blind hatred for american citizens who happen to be gay ?
So, pushing the gay agenda onto the American people is something that has been studied and you can assure us, with penalty of death that the consequences of this action will not have worse effects on our society than the non existent benefits of it?
I have history and every bit of human cultural experience saying my position is correct. What do you have in your favor? And you call us out as Bigots? Go review what the word means, and get back with us.
Good for Breitbart. What’s even more offensive about this whole ACU fiasco is that while they barred GOProud from sponsoring the next CPAC, they couldn’t bring themselves to do the same to David Horowitz, who at the last CPAC insanely accused Grover Norquist of being in league with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Go to Big Peace, a Breitbart website, and search for “Suhail Khan.” They did a series of articles on the connection between Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan (board member of the ACU), and the Muslim Brotherhood. They had actual video and audio of Khan defending the Muslim Brotherhood. Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media has also discussed the issue with Khan.
Horowitz is on the money and Breitbart and Pajamas Media support his contention.
They’re not putting up a “no gays allowed” sign; they’re barring a group that demands acceptance ( not merely “tolerance”) of something the majority of Americans recognize as against human nature. Good for CPAC.
Also, why is it that only social conservatives are expected to check their values at the door? GOProud members could easily go to CPAC to support fiscal conservatism, without pushing their gay agenda. But that’s not good enough for them, apparently. If anyone should be blamed for letting a social issue divide us, it’s GOProud, not social conservatives or CPAC.
I’m with Breitbart on this one, but I understand many of the opposing commenters’ point of view. But that’s what makes conservatism interesting: we really ARE a ‘big tent,’ compared to the frightened, totalitarian ninnies that call themselves progressives.
Here’s to disagreement.
I despise social conservatives because they want to impose a collectivist mold on society
I thought conservatism was about individuality
The purely social cons want to turn society back to something it never was, I want government letting me do what I want in regards to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Yet, you, Breitbart, and Roger L.Simon would impose your collectivist mindset upon CPAC and social conservatives. Why, according to your collective mentatliy, is CPAC – a private organization – to be denied its right to associate with whomever they wish? Why must they loose their individualism and embrace your collective mindset that supports the homosexual agenda? Why must social conservative groups give up their beliefs, in many cases their religious beliefs – to satisfy the collective agenda you would impose on all
in the conservative movement?
I think we all know who the collectivists are here.
You thought wrong. Libertarians are about individuality. Conservatives are to the Left of them, just to the Right of Center. Conservatives believe in a limited government, but also in there being certain standards for society. Conservatives believe in a moral society, a G and P-G rated society. Libertarians are “live and let live” types.
All you “Conservatives” who think homosexual marriage is fine should go be Libertarians. Then you can argue with them about their stupid foreign-policy views.
You say you believe in individuality, but when CPAC decides to express their own individuality and reject GOProud, suddenly, you snarl at Conservatives. “They are not supposed to believe this way.” Hypocrite.
Homosexuality is a birth defect, not a moral failing.
This is like trying to exclude people who are color blind. Completely retarded and counter productive.
Way to go guys, thanks for validating the Marxists’ talking points. While you are at it, how about you go lynch some black people. Then you’ll REALLY be proving the leftists right.
So your initial point is that homosexuals are defective people. Way to go there sparky. Whose side are you on in the debate? Charles Martin thinks they are like flightless birds. Delia compares them to lower life forms. And now you say they are defective. And yet all three of you guys claim to support the homosexual group.
Homosexuals are people that chose to live a homosexual lifestyle. They are not born that way. It is a choice. It is a wrong choice but it is still a choice.
Also nice attempt to play the race card. Very subtle.
Bleh, you make me feel bad! Stop being such a good debater damnit! Glad your on my side. You are, right?
I think we are on the same side of this fight. Glad to stand in the breach for social conservative values.
Andrew: From a gay conservative, thank you.
Ain’t no sech thang as a “gay Conservative”. You are a gay Republican.
CPAC just became irrelevant. It embarrasses me when conservatives are hateful, and prove the Liberals right in their accusations. But its usually just a small number of latent homosexuals.
There is no place in conservatism for excluding people because of what they do in their bedroom. Not only is hating homos distracting from our core message of smaller government, but it should not even be on our list of 2012 goals; we have much more important issues than that.
If it’s gay marriage, then get marriage out of government; marriage is a spiritual thing and has no business being involved with the government. That’s another thing we can cut out of the government budget.
Please take your complaint to GOProud. So far GOProud is the only institution that has advocated and praised the use of big government to push their view of marriage and society upon the American people. Check out their press releases if you don’t believe me.
Incidentally, social concerns are a foundational part of conservativism. Without it, it’s just libertarianism. If you want to argue we should all be libertarians, fine. But don’t try to co-opt the conservative movement to push your libertarian ideals. We agree on a lot of things, but not all things. Libertarians don’t get to redefine conservativism to fit their wants.
Breitbart, sorry to hear that you take this as such an important issue that you would skip the conservative conference. I guess that just shows that some silly liberal views are more important that most conservative views… Geez, isn’t that a shame!
Seems to me that there are way too many social liberal folks in our movement that place their agenda atop the saving of America. Too bad, we could have used them…
Were the Log Cabin republicans also excluded? Sounds to me (who have never heard of GOProud) like this is an organization whose ideals are centered around Gay issues with some peripheral interest in fiscal and small government issues. If the organization’s behavior at the last CPAC was as described, that is, attacking other members, maybe they need to seek out groups that share their entire platform and agree with them on all things. It doesn’t sound as if they were “banned” – just not invited to host, since they obviously did not get along with other members. It is not reasonable to expect any organization to invite those who foment disagreements with other members over less than central issues.
A few points:
I’m curious if it prevents GOP proud from having a vendor booth as well.
Nobody it seems wants to ditch CPAC over the fact they are excluding the John Birth Society as well.
I’m going to make the same argument I made last year, I would rather engage someone who I disagree with then exclude them.
However I think conservatives who are throwing CPAC under the bus over this decision are making the same mistake.
I’m betting there is an awful lot of inside baseball behind this decision that has very little to do with homosexuality and a lot more to do with ruffled feathers and competing egos.
Government has no business in the marriage business. Leave that to religions and their fakirs however they practice it. But civil unions should be available to all. Freedom is for everyone.
Given the mess straights have made of marriage and family I can’t understand why gays would want to get involved in it anyway.
Good for Briebart. To me “real conservatism” is not about how much you can oppress gays, it is about getting control of spending, and stopping the growth of oppressive gov. I think there is a generational thing here. Many young people are ready to embrace fiscal conservatism, since they know they will be the ones that get stuck with the bill. But they are turned off by the morality crowd. Ironically, being 57, I am by age closer to the older conservative crowd, but politically I am closer to the more libertarian younger generation. As long as the repub party is able to accomidate both the traditional conservative, and the libertarian conservative camps, as the Tea party does, they will win. But if the socons ever think they can win without conservative libertarians, like they did during Bush, the dems will come back.