And, more importantly, who gives it any weight in political circles? I could care less what RWP’s perspective is as to what defines a “conservative.”

Who says that social issues are what defines someone as a “conservative?” Would you call those predominantly social conservatives who have been spending like drunken sailors, afraid to challenge the President OR their constituents, as conservatives? NO WAY! For me, it is the belief in what the role of GOVERNMENT is that defines conservative and liberal, NOT some laundry list of issues with which you agree, but others may not.

I refuse to allow anyone to define or label my politics. It’s all just opinion, and I refuse to buy into the conservative/liberal clap trap any more than I would the Fred Phelps definition of what or who we are, and what or who we do.

Censored–while I think you’re too harsh on the GOP, I fear its leadership has lost sight of the Reaganite small government principles.

Please remind me again. When did the GOP have “small government principles”? Reagan certainly didn’t have any, neither did Bush I, and, quite frankly, neither did Bush II. Neither did Nixon–recall his “wage and price controls”? (Ford was a cypher, so I’ll ignore him.) Eisenhower didn’t, either.

So, remind me. When did the GOP have “small government principles”? The only Republican president who comes to mind who may have had “small government principles” was Calvin Coolidge. And we saw where that led to.

Why are Sullivan’s minions, such as Gryph, so eager to attach the word “conservative” to Sullivan anyway?

Because to loony leftists, anyone to the right of Stalin is a conservative, or just as likely, an “extremist.” It’s moving the goalposts and changing definitions to suit their own purposes.

Why are Sullivan’s minions, such as Gryph, so eager to attach the word “conservative” to Sullivan anyway? Is there some kind of prestige factor in the word that they are (illegitimately) attempting to co-opt?

I thought “conservative” was supposed to be a slur, a bad thing, in such Gay Left circles as theirs.

While a die-hard blindly partisan Republican would never have endorsed John Kerry, A Conservative might,

No conservative would endorse a politician who has consistently opposed his own nation and national sovereignty, supports every socialist nutball idea that comes down the pike, and turned traitor the minute he returned from Vietnam.

Wrong, Gryph; you merely THINK I do the same thing. Your irrationality blinds you to the facts of the matter.

Of course, the reason for that is, having endorsed a homophobic bigot like Kerry who wants to strip gays of rights and given him millions of dollars, both you and Sullivan have to rationalize why you’re correct. Thus you make up all these arbitrary reasons for why Bush is worse, even though KERRY has repeatedly endorsed and pushed antigay constitutional amendments, had enormous influence and power as the Democratic nominee for President, and also deliberately endorsed an amendment that nullified civil unions (in Missouri), claiming it was “the same” as the Massachusetts legislation he supported.

I have made it clear that that is antigay bigotry regardless of who does it. You and Sullivan say it’s pro-gay and gay-supportive when Kerry does it.

It’s more than Andrew’s tone. He has leveled many irresponsible criticisms against the president, notably his allegations of torture.

Michael in #23, I remain dubious of Patrick’s claims of access. Though I do think he is doing the right thing in instructing you to lobby legislative leaders on non-gay specific issues, my point remains — which you don’t address — is that the group has failed to distinguish itself from the gay organizations on gay issues.

And if you go back to my posts last April (after the New Orleans convention (e.g., here, here, here, here and here), you will see that I offered praise as well as criticism of the group. I praised the group for co-sponsoring the CPAC conference last year and in December praised Patrick in December for chastising the gay groups for rushing to condemn then Supreme court-nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Over the past few months that I’ve been reading this blog, your attitude toward, and the attitude of your co-blogger Bruce toward, the LCR seems reminesent Andrew Sullivan’s attitude toward the President. A wrong turn taken a couple of years ago colors your view of everything they/he have done since. Some of the critiques you and Bruce have provided have been meaningful, others just seemed bitter. (I particularly thought Bruce’s post on the Bolten/Bolton misspelling was beneath him. Mistakes like that are embarrassing but are indicative only of poor proofreading, not over arching incompetence. They occur everywhere – newspapers, signs, websites and this blog.)

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to have dinner with a small group that included Patrick Guerriero. Because of what I had read on this blog, I went into the evening with a high level of skepticism. By time the dinner was over, my view had begun to change. Assuming that what Mr. Guerriero said was true, he and LCR still have access to the President, Karl Rove and Republican leaders in both the House and Senate. LCR continues to lobby on gay issues such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, same sex marriage, and non-gay specific issues as lower taxes. In fact, Mr. Guerriero emphasized to us the need to talk to our congressional and state leaders about conservative non-gay specific issues.

I will be attending the LCR convention next week. I’m doing my best to go with an open mind in an attempt to determine whether this is an organization with which I want to get further involved. We’ll see.

Regarding the issue of the Log Cabineers inviting Andrew Sullivan to their confab, apparently the poster does not really know how these confabs work. The organizers of these confabs invite people who are relatively well known in hopes of getting people to pay to attend the confabs. Or, in the unlikely event that they don’t pay to attend, at least to enlarge the number of people who do attend, to make others believe that they have more clout than they do. It isn’t rocket science. I’ve worked with professional groups in organizing these kinds of confabs, and that’s precisely why more than a few of them are willing to pay huge amounts of money to have some well-known people to give a 20 minute stump speech at a luncheon.

I really feel sorry (/sarcasm) for the Log Cabineers. They are like the Janus of Don Quixotes: tilting at the Republican Party establishment, on the one hand, and unable to penetrate the resistance of most gay people on the other hand.

And finally, Gryph in #3, just by looking at the way Andrew has expressed his opinions for these past 2 years and (nearly) two months shows that he is not conservative. I’ll grant that he may be more of a fiscal conservative than the president, but let me repeat a point I made in the post — a conservative would not endorse John Kerry for president nor adopt the tone Andrew has when taking issue with this president.

While a die-hard blindly partisan Republican would never have endorsed John Kerry, A Conservative might, if they thought it would lead to a better outcome for the country in the end, by providing a restrained government in the form of a divided government. Which is what Andrew did. Conservatism is practical, realistic. That does not describe the current make up of GOP leadership or rank and file.

Frankly GPW, your definition of what being a Republican and what being a Conservative is seems mixed. They are not the same things. Maybe they should be, but they are not.

And unlike you GPW, Andrew Sullivan does not, has not, ever claimed to be a Republican. You treat him as if he is committed some great betrayal of the Republican Party by criticizing the President. But he is not a member of the GOP, so that is a betrayal that by definition can’t occur.

As for your problems with the “tone” of Andrew’s criticisms of the President. Get real. You belong to the Party of Sean Hannity, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Roberston, Frist, Santorum, Marilyn Musgrave, etc.

That you can sit there with straight face and tell me all just comes down to Andrew’s “tone”… Bah.

NDT says:

That includes Sullivan, who is such a rank hypocrite that he can bash one man for wanting to ban gay marriage while heartily endorsing and praising another who wants to do the same.

Speaking of Rank Hypocrisy NDT, you do exactly the same thing when you bash Kerry and praise Bush. And there is a major difference between the two that you fail to acknowledge, and in fact that you always blithely skip over and omit, and that is that only Bush came forward to endorse and continually call for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage. And only Bush, to this day continually campaigns for its passage.

Another difference between the two that you always omit is that Bush simply has more power than Kerry does to harm gay and lesbian people and families in this country. And with his endorsement of the Constitutional Amendment, he shows that he wants to do exactly that.

The last difference NDT, is that while President Bush says he is “OK” with domestic partnerships and the like, have you ever seen him come forward and endorse one? Has he made any attempt to influence the writing of the Amendment he wants so that it does not have language that would preclude those arrangements? -Nada.

NDT, you and the rest on this blog keep trying to dress up a cow-pie as a birthday cake and then you urge everyone to eat it because its “good for you”. But Bush is still a cow-pie and there is not a damn thing you can do to change that fact.

If the LCR were a principled, conservative caucus, they would (among many other things):

oppose abortion, euthanasia, and other legalized murder
oppose incremental socialism
oppose legislation by an unaccountable, activist judiciary, as well as the advancement of a “representative” judiciary
oppose all hate crime laws, and expansion thereof
oppose all identity politics
oppose any subversion of national sovereignty to the UN or any other international body
support the Second Amendment without qualification

Yet, the LCR does none of these things. They are in bed with leftist organizations. What conservative principles they claim go right out the window when it comes to their own pet issues (gay marriage comes to mind).

Sullivan is exactly the same. He has no principle, and is no conservative. As to the question about why not create another caucus, it’s an interesting idea, but why do we need a special group? Conservatives don’t do identity politics. And I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, but if you are so insecure that you need a little badge and a little special interest group, we don’t need you, thanks.

JimG in #13, Andrew has been far from responsible these past 2 years and 2 months. Let me repeat, it’s his tone. He has made several valid points of late — and I have commended him from that — but since 02/24/04, his criticism of the Administration has (by and large) been based more on emotion than argument.

Er, Erik in #15, why is it that you assume (as does Andrew) we write out of the GOP all those who don’t worship the ground the president walks on? We have criticized the president on this blog numerous times — as have many other conservatives and Republicans. The president has indeed made many mistakes, but he’s far from an incompetent leader.

And where do you go about making such assumptions when the main point of the post was to take issue with Log Cabin for conforming to the gay left rather than promoting Republican principles? I didn’t ask that they defend President Bush for his each and every action, but merely that they stand up to “hateful anti-Bush rhetoric.” That doesn’t mean worshipping the ground he walks on, just faulting those who unfairly demonize the man. Let me repeat the problem with Andrew Sullivan is not that he has criticized the president, but it is his manner of criticism with which I take issue. I question why a Republican organization would invite such a critic to its “convention.”

Like you in #17, I had some issues with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Its creation added a layer of bureaucracy which compounded FEMA’s problems in providing relief to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. But, to say that the RNC labeled Cleland as unpatriotic is to misrepresent the ads used against him — and to borrow a dishonest talking point from the Democrats an their allies.

And what the blink does that have to do with Log Cabin’s kowtowing to the gay left–the point of this post (where I only mention the president to note that Log Cabin has invited an outspoken critic of the incumbent president of its own party while it fails to challenge the gay Left (including Andrew Sullivan) for their hysterical anti-Bush rhetoric)?

Can someone not be a Republican if they don’t worship the ground President Bush walks on?