Gay Patriot Header Image

GOProud Muzzled at CPAC?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 2:56 pm - December 28, 2009.
Filed under: CPAC,GOProud

According to Wing Nut World Net Daily, the controversy over GOProud‘s participation at CPAC, sparked by social cons objecting to their presence, has brought a mixed response from conference organizers. While GOProud is being allowed to participate, including having a booth at the conference, it appears that they are not being allowed any kind of speaking role:

[American Conservative Union chief David] Keene admitted GOProud “has signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate.”

In the December 8th announcement of GOProud’s co-sponsorship of CPAC, Executive Director Jimmy La Salvia stated the following:

This gathering of the nation’s most influential conservatives gives us an incredible opportunity to deliver our message. GOProud looks forward to continuing to work with the conservative movement to promote policies that will improve the lives of all Americans – including gays and lesbians.

With the ACU appearing to cave-in partially at least to social con pressure, how exactly is GOProud planning on “delivering their message”? How is the participation of a muzzled GOProud at CPAC any different than that of the Log Cabin Republicans over the previous few years? A different name slapped on the booth? A better spot amongst the “cool kids”?

I trust that GOProud will respond to Mr. Keene’s announced muzzling of their group and explain what exactly they hope to accomplish that makes this worth it. Right now I must say that I remain skeptical that this is anything more than a dog-and-pony show: CPAC gets to trot out the conservative/libertarian gays when needed to allay any concerns of anti-gay bigotry the general public might have about the GOP, while slapping a muzzle on them when the social cons start getting queasy about queers forgetting their place. Certainly my skepticism is misplaced here, no? We shall see…

— John (Average Gay Joe)

[UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): I see that Jimmy LaSalvia has added a comment to this posting and I’ve also been in communication with Chris Barron, Chairman of GOProud, today about this issue.  Chris tells me the following:  “We haven’t been muzzled at all by CPAC. No one has told us that there are things we can’t talk about and no decisions have been made about speakers.”

I should note for the record that I am the Treasurer of GOProud.]

Share

62 Comments

  1. GOProud has all of the benefits as any other co-sponsor at our sponsorship level, and nobody has asked us to speak or not to speak about anything.

    Comment by Jimmy LaSalvia — December 28, 2009 @ 3:40 pm - December 28, 2009

  2. My question is whether or not they had intended to speak in the first place. It’s my understanding that GOProud was going to have a booth there. I’ve not seen anything indicating that they had intentions of taking the podium, but I admit that I have not read too much about their plans.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - December 28, 2009

  3. Why shouldn’t gays be muzzled at a conservative event? When have gays ever shown any interest in conservative values? People suspect, and rightly, that whenever gays appear anywhere, it is to smuggle in their gospel of sexual liberation, gender-bending exotic behavior, and blurry age-of-consent limits–oh, and the new one–legalized marijuana. This is, as far as anyone can tell, the only gay agenda.

    The fact that their are gay conservatives doesn’t mean anyone is required to trust them. I suspect the people at CPAC assume that gay conservatives are a Trojan Horse (so to speak) who has come to undermine their values.

    Until it is clear that there are gay conservatives who genuinely believe in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, who lead sober lives, and who (yes, I’ll go there) believe in God, then I don’t see any reason why conservative groups should be welcoming.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 28, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - December 28, 2009

  4. well if I didn’t have a family event in Montana that weekend, it would certainly be a wonderful event (CPAC) to attend. . .especially the social mingling on Friday night at the CoSponsor Reception and The Diamond Reception before the Reagan Banquet. Would be quite an sight to see all those in a twitter with the dashing LaSalvia and his posse bouncing about the Halls at the Wardman.

    Comment by rusty — December 28, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - December 28, 2009

  5. “consensus” huh? Sounds like the AGW consensus. Not that I like to quote surveys but it seems to me support among Republicans has never been higher.

    From the tone of that quote, I hope it is one person with some personal grudge, since I can’t believe that statement made it past a PR person or had much oversight, they would have changed the tone if someone else looked at it.

    As long as conservative groups continue to make those statements, the Democrats will continue to allow Gays to speak then laugh behind their back how they have them snowballed and will never do anything for them. After all they have their votes locked in and don’t need to actually DO anything.

    Comment by plutosdad — December 28, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - December 28, 2009

  6. I’ve got the same question as TGC. Were they ever planning to speak to begin with?

    Why shouldn’t gays be muzzled at a conservative event?

    because that’s one of the things that differentiates Republicans from Democrats — we aren’t afraid of ideas, they are.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 28, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - December 28, 2009

  7. Until it is clear that there are gay conservatives who genuinely believe in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, who lead sober lives, and who (yes, I’ll go there) believe in God, then I don’t see any reason why conservative groups should be welcoming.

    You’re kidding, right? You obviously haven’t been keeping up on this story because for those social cons who are objecting to GOProud’s co-sponsorship of CPAC it matters not whether this group’s membership believes everything and more on your list here. The mere fact that they are openly gay, and not in a “repenting” way about it, is enough to disqualify them. Besides, it was my understanding that GOProud doesn’t have a problem with the items on your list here, anymore than LCR does. So why exactly do you feel justified in seeing them excluded in any way?

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - December 28, 2009

  8. GOProud has all of the benefits as any other co-sponsor at our sponsorship level, and nobody has asked us to speak or not to speak about anything.

    Then with all due respect Jimmy, how is GOProud going to be any more effective at CPAC than LCR has been? You get a booth? You get to mingle with many folks who can’t stand you because you’re living in sin? Gee, what a bargain! /sarc

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - December 28, 2009

  9. John-

    I’d suggest you attend, rather than make wild-eyed assumptions about what may or may not happen.

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 28, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - December 28, 2009

  10. Not everyone on the right feels the way that Social Conservatives are often caricatured. More power to you.

    Comment by Lauderdale Conservative — December 28, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - December 28, 2009

  11. because that’s one of the things that differentiates Republicans from Democrats — we aren’t afraid of ideas, they are.

    According to Mr. Keene, yes they are:

    since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate.”
    And as someone who is pro-life myself I’m not amused about being relegated to the status of those callign themselves “pro-choice” just because I’m gay. Heck, we’ve had “pro-choice” folks speak at these events before and there wasn’t this kind of rancor, but when it comes to the gays? Oh no! We can’t have that!!!

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - December 28, 2009

  12. John:

    You’ve given me pause with this post as I’ve been touting the GOProud sponsorship as an unalloyed positive.

    My understanding was that several socon groups threatened a sotto voce boycott of CPAC.  (I was really hoping that they’d carry through on that threat.) But my experience with CPAC is that sponsorship only gives you a chance topass out literature and engage the crowds.   

    But it’s a first, crucial step both in visibility for right-thinking lesbian and gay citizens as well as a stiff digit to the DNC hacks and their HRC lapdogs.  Not to mention the unexpected, but certainly welcome support from folks like Ed Morrissey, Ace of Spades, Jim Geraghty from NRO and others.

    My last CPAC visit was 1998, but work schedule permitting, you bet your ass I’m going to be at CPAC this year.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 28, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - December 28, 2009

  13. I’d suggest you attend, rather than make wild-eyed assumptions about what may or may not happen.

    Bruce, I would dearly love to be wrong about this and will gladly admit that I am wrong if shown to be. I’ve been known to be wrong on occasion. 😉 Yet I’ve seen this crap before from the GOP and the hold the social cons have over the party. I doubt that GOProud will be any more effective in changing this than LCR has been. I wish Jimmy and GOProud all the success in the world but remain skeptical until I see some change. I’ve been burned too many times before in the past to walk into this with nothing more than blind faith.

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - December 28, 2009

  14. Why are we forming a circular firing squad on this issue? Why are we assuming that our friends on the religious right will (or must) switch their beliefs like a light-switch? That doesn’t make any sense and – frankly – it’s just not conservative.

    It’s got to be in steps and I’m proud to see it starting here.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 28, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - December 28, 2009

  15. Duh, #12 should be addressed to Joe, not John.

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 28, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - December 28, 2009

  16. My understanding was that several socon groups threatened a sotto voce boycott of CPAC. (I was really hoping that they’d carry through on that threat.)

    I can easily dismiss the ineffective blowhard extremists like LaBarbera & Barber, but not so easily folks like Bill Graham, Jr. and CWA. Those are biggies among the social con crowd.

    But it’s a first, crucial step both in visibility for right-thinking lesbian and gay citizens as well as a stiff digit to the DNC hacks and their HRC lapdogs.

    How is it any different than what LCR has been doing? It was my understanding that GOProud is the “new and improved” version for gay conservatives/libertarians, but I remain skeptical they will have more of an impact than LCR has had in the GOP.

    Not to mention the unexpected, but certainly welcome support from folks like Ed Morrissey, Ace of Spades, Jim Geraghty from NRO and others.

    Generally good folks even before all of this, but there comments were nice to see.

    My last CPAC visit was 1998, but work schedule permitting, you bet your ass I’m going to be at CPAC this year.

    Go. Have a good time. Don’t misunderstand my cynicism here for a call to boycott CPAC. Eh, I remain skeptical but not everyone shares my view. 😉

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - December 28, 2009

  17. Haha! Fooled me: John and Joe are the same person!

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 28, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - December 28, 2009

  18. CPAC director Lisa De Pasquale replied to Barber’s concern that GOProud represents a “radical leftist agenda,” countering that CPAC is a coalition of conservative groups, “many of which may disagree with one another on some issues.” And despite the fact that GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans — a pro-homosexual group — De Pasquale describes GOProud as a group that “promotes our traditional conservative agenda” — i.e., an emphasis on limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and a confident foreign policy. For that reason, she concludes, GOProud should not be turned away as a CPAC sponsor. onenewsnow CPAC and GOProud – strange bedfellows

    Comment by rusty — December 28, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - December 28, 2009

  19. Why are we forming a circular firing squad on this issue? Why are we assuming that our friends on the religious right will (or must) switch their beliefs like a light-switch? That doesn’t make any sense and – frankly – it’s just not conservative.

    I’m not asking social cons to change their religious beliefs about homosexuality or anything else, and neither is GOProud as I understand it. This is about conservatism in the CIVIL arena, not the religious. Folks can believe divorce and remarried persons should “repent” or are going to burn in hell for all eternity, but it’s not generally considered to be an acceptable tenet of conservatism to support a CIVIL prohibition on divorce because of one’s religious beliefs on the matter. Does this mean that CIVIL divorce laws do not need some tinkering? Nope, not at all.

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - December 28, 2009

  20. Bruce: Chris tells me the following: “We haven’t been muzzled at all by CPAC. No one has told us that there are things we can’t talk about and no decisions have been made about speakers.”

    That’s not what Mr. Keene’s email response apparently says:

    [GOProud] signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate.

    Since he is heading this shindig, perhaps a clarification is in order. Has GOProud sought one from Mr. Keene?

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 5:54 pm - December 28, 2009

  21. If everyone who attended/had a booth got to speak, I’d say you were onto something, John. Otherwise, I don’t see the kerfuffle.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 28, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - December 28, 2009

  22. I went to the GOProud site and read this:

    GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.

    Now I read above:

    With the ACU appearing to cave-in partially at least to social con pressure, how exactly is GOProud planning on “delivering their message”? How is the participation of a muzzled GOProud at CPAC any different than that of the Log Cabin Republicans over the previous few years?

    If the GOProud message is as stated above, why should they have the least problem delivering it?

    Now, if there is code for gay marriage buried in all of this, I can see how GOProud may have to redefine its mission statement in order to make their priorities open and plain.

    Paint me naive, but I would think a gay could support the GOProud mission statement above. But, if all that mission statement is conditional on the larger organization accepting gay marriage as a fundamental understanding, then I believe that GOProud has made demands that are beyond its power to control.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 28, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - December 28, 2009

  23. [American Conservative Union chief David] Keene [says] “… opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives…”

    Not that that is the truth, but one reason I don’t call myself a conservative is the number of conservatives who want to assert it as the truth. (AGW-style, as plutosdad pointed out)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 28, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - December 28, 2009

  24. If the GOProud message is as stated above, why should they have the least problem delivering it?
    I assume #4 & 7 from GOProud’s stated legislative priorities find objections among social cons from what I’ve read online about this matter, besides this group’s name or the sexual orientation of its members.

    Paint me naive, but I would think a gay could support the GOProud mission statement above.

    Indeed. Their mission statement is great and I also support all of their stated legislative priorities.

    http://goproud.org/?page=legislativeagenda

    But, if all that mission statement is conditional on the larger organization accepting gay marriage as a fundamental understanding, then I believe that GOProud has made demands that are beyond its power to control.

    Of course and to my knowledge GOProud has made no such demands nor would it. Yet I would be shocked to see a GOProud rep allowed to speak at CPAC and have included in their remarks #4 & 7 from their legislative priorities.

    Comment by John — December 28, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - December 28, 2009

  25. The point is, no matter what gays say, no one believes them. It doesn’t matter how often you say you are pro-marriage–people hear “pro-open relationships” or “pro-multiple partners.” Conservatives assume that gays use the same words to mean different things. “Freedom from government interference” translates as “blurry age-of-consent laws” or “legalized marijuana.”

    Conservatives assume gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine. And why shouldn’t they? Isn’t that how Kevin Jennings got his job?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 28, 2009 @ 7:17 pm - December 28, 2009

  26. #24 John:

    Thanks for the link showing that GOProud includes dumping DA/DT and opposing a gay marriage ban amendment among its legislative priorities. (The #4 and #7 in your reply to my comments.)

    There are reasonable legislative priorities for a special interest group and they certainly do not overwhelm the rest of the priority list.

    I would rather see such priorities stated than to assume they are “in the prenumbra emanating” from the GOProud mission statement.

    Ashpenaz says in #25 that “Conservatives assume gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.”

    Not me. To be brutally frank, GOProud or unaffiliated gays will never have the numbers to undermine conservative values in general.

    But, conservatives are thoughtful and open to dialogue. And certainly GOProud members know that their legislative priorities are not all going to make it into the general party platform.

    If GOProud was kept from speaking because of #4 and #7, then CPAC has failed its own mission. It GOProud was put on the back of the bus, it would be a clear statement that CPAC has a litmus test and gays are second class conservatives.

    However, I am not sure we know if there is any slight intended or unintended here.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 29, 2009 @ 9:29 am - December 29, 2009

  27. I like your response, helio. Would that more conservatives held the same view. I can live with this. Thanks.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2009 @ 11:02 am - December 29, 2009

  28. Honestly, this is much ado about nothing. The fact that CPAC invited GOProud is BECAUSE of their mission statement. It is a conservative message and I wouldn’t be involved with the group if it were merely a front for a leftist agenda like Log Cabin Republicans was exposed to be.

    Just going to CPAC and showing folks that we are truly conservative gays to me is a “win”.

    The Tim Gill-Soros funding of Log Cabin is most responsible for the skepticism of some on the Right about GOProud. I completely understand that.

    Comment by GayPatriot — December 29, 2009 @ 11:02 am - December 29, 2009

  29. Such conflicting messages…

    In Illinois a GOP candidate losing the primary to another Republican is now calling him “gay” in attack ads. In this fight the establishment is firmly behind the “allegedly gay” candidate. 🙂

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6033857.shtml

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2009 @ 11:53 am - December 29, 2009

  30. While it causes the haters to gnash their teeth in impotence, but the political reality is that 15-25% of the G/L community supports now and have supported conservative and moderate Republicans in local, state and Federal Elections. And while doing so probably didn’t agree with all of the positions of their choice…but disagreed more-so with their Democratic Party alternative. And an awful lot of Republicans in the general population voted for similar reasons.

    Just by being there, having a table or booth, walking the CPAC floor identified as GOProud starts a conversation that might not otherwise take place with and amongst the attendees…without necessarily being on any panel of speakers or official agenda.

    While I’m loathe to recycle the old 1980’s mantra “…we’re her, we’re queer, get used to it“, that’s in many ways what GOProud’s official sponsorship says. And the more gay Republicans (note that I DIDN’T capitalize “gay”) who can find the time and funds to attend CPAC the better. Just as any other living organism, political party’s adapt to survive and to optimise their condition. The Christianists and Anti-Abortion activists influenced the GOP by showing-up, giving money and time when the Party didn’t agreed with their positions initially either in the 1970’s. But they showed-up….

    Are they any smarter than us?.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — December 29, 2009 @ 11:55 am - December 29, 2009

  31. Three cheers to Ted B. His “living organism” metaphor is exactly right.

    I have always advised my students that showing up on time with a good attitude is 95% of success. (Something that Obama has yet to learn.)

    Comment by heliotrope — December 29, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - December 29, 2009

  32. I just wanted to post a quick clarification on the speaking issue.

    First, GOProud has all of the benefits as any other co-sponsor at our sponsorship level. Next, it was decided long before we ever signed on as a sponsor that there would not be a panel on marriage in the program. So when Mr. Keene said in an email that marriage would not be debated in the program, it was not a response to or a condition of our sponsorship. Last, there are nearly 100 co-sponsors of CPAC. Some of them will provide speakers for the panels and some of them won’t. Speaking slots are not a guaranteed benefit of sponsorship. So the reports that we are somehow being muzzled or not treated like everyone else are completely false. We have all the same benefits as the other co-sponsors. We are looking forward to representing gay conservatives and our allies at the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the country.

    Comment by Jimmy LaSalvia — December 29, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - December 29, 2009

  33. I can’t wait for the photos Jimmy Hope you post them at GoProud.

    Comment by rusty — December 29, 2009 @ 2:09 pm - December 29, 2009

  34. I sense your feelings are hurt.

    “According to Wing Nut World Net Daily, the controversy over GOProud’s participation at CPAC, sparked by social cons objecting to their presence, has brought a mixed response from conference organizers.”

    As a gay conservative, you know better than to engage in the same narcissistically hostile and borderline behavior of the gay left. Gay marriage and civil unions are part and parcel of LGBT Republicans and Democrats. They are not part of the Republican platform, much to the chagrin of the Rockefeller Republicans. You espouse Reagan, but Reagan was conservative. Unlike Goldwater, he knew how to articulate conservatism. Look how his error regarding LGBT teachers has wrought Kevin Jennings and Arne Duncan in their vain attempts to normalize sadomasochistic sexual behavior to children (can gay cannibalism be far behind?).

    Comment by RJLigier — December 29, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - December 29, 2009

  35. I am a “social” conservative. But I am also a “fiscal” conservative and a “foreign/national security” conservative. I am a C O N S E R V A T I V E. And I welcome GOPProud being at CPAC and being a part of the conservative/Republican movement. Do I disagree on same-sex marriage? Yes. But, I note that the propriators of this site are in no way knee-jerk about it as would be the LC”R”s. And especially the Gay left. There is some thoughtful dialoge on the topic. But, on issue after issue, we are really in more in agreement than disagreement. Once again, the real threat is ISLAMOFACSISM. And that affects ALL of us. BTW RJLigier, I can not believe that you are tacitly blaming Ronald Reagan for the likes of Kevin Jennings. Prop 8 was a draconian measure that would have went after good teachers that were not gay. And those that are gay and totally ashamed and embaressed by the likes of Jennings.

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — December 29, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - December 29, 2009

  36. And to further show the rationality of the social cons, there’s this:

    Almost 4 times as many states recognize marriage between first cousins than gays…

    http://www.queerty.com/and-what-fraction-of-these-cousin-marrying-states-allow-gay-marriage-20091229/

    Comment by Tim — December 29, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - December 29, 2009

  37. this is from another SO CON group
    Ever since noble President George W. Bush did what was necessary to protect our nation from terrorism, we have not had one more major planet attack. Now suddenly, right on Christmas and coincidentally while the dark president is on vacation, a terrorist becomes an expert bombsmith? Unlikely.

    Also, it is no coincidence that this man is Nigerian and Obama is Kenyan. They are all the same and something is just not right here. We will keep you informed as more details emerge

    Christwire.org http://christwire.org/2009/12/flight-253-terror-attack-thwarted-obama-on-vacation/

    sorry a tad bit off topic but more on SOCONs

    Comment by rusty — December 29, 2009 @ 9:11 pm - December 29, 2009

  38. First cousins probably don’t say marriage and mean open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy. First cousins probably don’t advocate for blurry age-of-consent laws. First cousins don’t try to get books about fisting into schools. I would say that first cousins can make a better case for their contribution to traditional society than gays.

    And notice that first cousins got the right to marry without Pride parades and rallies.

    I really must say it again: Gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.

    Ooops–I meant to say “People THINK gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.” That makes it all better, doesn’t it? I mean, gays would never try to twist the meanings of words in order to get their way, would they? The fact that gays say they want to be in the military and then call the US the great oppressor doesn’t mean they’re misrepresenting themselves, does it? The fact that gay educators want to use sex education to talk about the joy of anal sex wouldn’t be slightly misleading, would it? People only THINK gays lie because they’re homophobic! Gays have never, ever done anything, ever, to earn people’s mistrust.

    Conservatives are just bigoted and exposure to gay people will change their minds because gays are really into traditional values such as church, family, and country–right? Gays would never just SAY they believe the same things as conservatives in order to try to open conservatives’ tiny little minds to sexual liberation for everyone. Would they? Could they?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 29, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - December 29, 2009

  39. Yes, Rusty, that author whom no one has ever heard of before, on a website that no one has ever heard of before actually has an enormous super secret following, and is the epicenter of social conservative thought!

    Now lets go look at http://www.barebackingmethaddictpedophiles.com to see what gay people think!

    Brilliant!

    And Tim,

    I wasn’t aware that California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, etc were hotbeds of the dreaded, dastardly SOCONS!!!! (cue scary music) According to your “logic”, they are.

    And on an entirely unrelated topic, anyone else ever notice how stupid bigots usually are?

    Comment by American Elephant — December 29, 2009 @ 11:48 pm - December 29, 2009

  40. Ashpenaz @ 38:

    I really must say it again: Gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.

    Uh no, Ashpenaz. You have no call to say such a thing. None whatsoever.

    Oh, there are people who lie in order to infiltrate and undermine alright. They are the Left. They are simply engaging in their typical behavior.

    If you’d just modify your statement to this:

    Gay leftists lie in order to infiltrate and undermine

    then you’d be on solid ground.

    You see, the lying isn’t driven by their sexual orientation, but by their political orientation. This way you won’t be offensive by painting all homosexuals with the lying leftist’s brush.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 30, 2009 @ 5:24 am - December 30, 2009

  41. Tim’s more upset that they allow first cousins, but the age of consent is over 8 years old… Still, it’s nice to see him digging up the non-sequetors again.

    Why is it Rusty has to dig into the conspiracy swamp to find nutjobs but the rest of us just have to go to MSNBC or the Huffpo?

    Bruce, Joe, and special guest commenter Jimmy, thank you for keeping us straight on what’s going down at the CPAC meeting. 😉

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2009 @ 6:36 am - December 30, 2009

  42. Why is it Rusty has to dig into the conspiracy swamp to find nutjobs but the rest of us just have to go to MSNBC or the Huffpo?

    Because Rusty feeds on conspiracy blogs and stores what he finds under his tin foil hat. He is a truther on a crusade. He keeps us informed when the droids of opposing conspiracy hives are on the loose. Sort of like Paul Revere riding into the night shouting “The lesbians have landed.”

    Comment by heliotrope — December 30, 2009 @ 10:35 am - December 30, 2009

  43. You see, the lying isn’t driven by their sexual orientation, but by their political orientation. This way you [Ash] won’t be offensive by painting all homosexuals with the lying leftist’s brush.

    Exactly, CLB.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - December 30, 2009

  44. Sorry, meant CL-D- 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - December 30, 2009

  45. Whenever gays get involved in something, whether the church, the military, or government, people assume the gays are there to infiltrate and undermine. It doesn’t matter that there are gays who are genuinely pro-marriage, pro-military, and pro-God. No one believes them because most people have been burned before. On the issue of marriage, say–look at the lesbian couple in Vermont who are fighting over child custody. Everyone is going, “Of course gays are going to act like that. They never thought marriage was real in the first place.”

    I am willing, for the sake of truth, to say “Leftist gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.” But what the world thinks is that gays in general lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 30, 2009 @ 1:07 pm - December 30, 2009

  46. So what’s y’all’s plan at CPAC? Other than to pay them money to highlight Huckabee, Colson, and the others on the far far far social right? Will Gay civil rights be discussed at all at the event, or are they simply going to highlight opposition (while banning you from speaking) while you are paying for it?

    Do you have any goals that you’d like to accomplish there? What are they? Do they relate to any Gay civil rights bills?

    Its your money, but don’t expect enhanced credibility as a Gay organization if you’re just gonna pay for a dance that you aren’t really an equal player at. Or if you’re just there to parrot Conservative talking points while not saying or doing anything on Gay civil rights causes.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — December 30, 2009 @ 2:32 pm - December 30, 2009

  47. I sense your feelings are hurt.

    Your ways of the Force are flawed, Obi-Wan. It matters not whether the GOP champions SSM, nor am I advocating such. If anything the GOP should remain silent on the matter, as should the DNC, but this is akin to spitting in the wind wishing for either I suppose. Try again.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - December 30, 2009

  48. I am a “social” conservative. But I am also a “fiscal” conservative and a “foreign/national security” conservative. I am a C O N S E R V A T I V E. And I welcome GOPProud being at CPAC and being a part of the conservative/Republican movement. Do I disagree on same-sex marriage? Yes. But, I note that the propriators of this site are in no way knee-jerk about it as would be the LC”R”s.

    Now this is a response I can appreciate and respect, disagreements over issues aside.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 2:45 pm - December 30, 2009

  49. Comment by Ashpenaz — December 29, 2009 @ 10:56 pm – December 29, 2009

    You know, I don’t use the term “self-loathing” hardly at all since liberals use and abuse it so much, but given the bullshit you post here tarring all gays with the same crap that is nothing short of bigotry, I do believe it’s appropriate here.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - December 30, 2009

  50. So when Mr. Keene said in an email that marriage would not be debated in the program, it was not a response to or a condition of our sponsorship.

    Ok, if you say so Jimmy. Of course according to Mr. Keene “opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives”. Funny how Mr. Keene was also able to hit all the right buzzwords that make these social con groups weak in the knees like “promoting their lifestyle” and “opposed to the sinner as the sin”. Since “gay issues fall within this category” [issues without merit to debate], what exactly do you hope to accomplish again? How is this not being muzzled? Sorry, I do wish you the best and hope I’m wrong about all of this but I do not find anything about this the least bit encouraging. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - December 30, 2009

  51. 30: LCR has been doing that for years and I do not see what difference that has made. Is GOProud planning on something different at CPAC?

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - December 30, 2009

  52. 28: The shenanigans at LCR of their being on the take for Dem activists may have raised eyebrows, but I think you’re kidding yourself if you really believe this is the primary reason why GOProud faces skepticism in the GOP.

    As an aside, off the top of my head I can’t think of anything I disagree with LCR on issue-wise (except hate crimes which I’m neutral towards). LCR and GOProud seem to be very similiar to me, though I’m not a member of either so there are probably differences I’m not aware of. Yet given the shenanigans of LCR that were exposed recently and the refusal of top LCR officers to step down, I can understand why GOProud was formed. Skeptical I remain of how effective either will be in the GOP but I do wish them success.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - December 30, 2009

  53. I am willing, for the sake of truth, to say “Leftist gays lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.” But what the world thinks is that gays in general lie in order to infiltrate and undermine.

    So many things wrong with that, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll just restrict myself to a couple.
    – You don’t know what “the world” thinks. You don’t speak for “the world”. Also, “the world” isn’t a monolith. Groups don’t think; only individuals do.
    – In reality, you often do not say “leftist gays”. That’s the point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - December 30, 2009

  54. I would say that the majority of Americans’ opposition to gay marriage, gays in the military, and gays in church leadership suggests that “the world,” which is a hyperbole for “general consensus,” wants to protect those institutions from being undermined by a “gay agenda,” that is, sexual liberation and amorality.

    The reason we have trouble gaining a voice in groups like CPAC is because when conservatives see us coming, they say, “Oh, no, now we have to fight off the gays–they’re dressed right and they say the right things, but underneath, they’re selling the same old gay agenda. They just want in so they can tear us down, and if we let them speak, that will be just the start.”

    Gee, if only I weren’t so self-loathing, I’d see the happy rainbow world people like you see.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 30, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - December 30, 2009

  55. “the world,” which is a hyperbole for “general consensus,”

    Again: The “consensus” you claim does not exist. And as neither you nor anyone speaks for “the world”, neither you nor anyone would be in a position to positively claim that it does.

    But here is the real translation of your comment: Ashpenaz gets to say stupid and offensive things, then later fault people who found his remarks stupid and offensive, because it was so-called “hyperbole”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - December 30, 2009

  56. Not to mention be completely wrong about gays in the military, if polls are to be believed, and as far as church leadership goes that depends upon one’s church. Of course the latter isn’t even an issue here and something each church can and will decide for themselves.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - December 30, 2009

  57. How is this not being muzzled?

    Again, how can you be muzzled if you weren’t planning on speaking in the first place?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2009 @ 1:29 am - December 31, 2009

  58. I keep forgetting the Gay Motto. Let’s see, it goes something like this:

    “Gays problems everywhere, throughout all time, are not due to anything gays might have done but are entirely due to other people’s homophobia. Anyone who says differently is a bigot or a self-loathing queen.”

    Can I have my toaster now?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 31, 2009 @ 11:10 am - December 31, 2009

  59. But heck, they let in the Birchers last I heard. Whats up with that…

    Comment by mrbill — January 1, 2010 @ 3:06 am - January 1, 2010

  60. Sweet Jesus! It’s bad enough that this thread got beyond #2. The fact that it went beyond #32 really makes me sad.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 1, 2010 @ 6:18 am - January 1, 2010

  61. I applaud GOProud’s sponsorship of CPAC. Part of the reason for going to these conventions is to show the attendees that we are normal, conventional people who lead lives that are similiar to their own.

    Comment by Terry Hamilton — January 1, 2010 @ 9:32 pm - January 1, 2010

  62. Conservatives are not stupid we know that GoProuds efforts are to drive a wedge down into the center of the Conservative ideology. This is all about the Homosexual agenda forcing its way onto Conservative Americans like it or not. It is a bitter hateful agenda that will not stop until the Bible is re-written and Conservative thought is re-made into the image of Nancy Peolosi. CPAC should be ashamed of themselves for even entertaining the idea of taking this deal from the devil and their Director fired: Print…

    Comment by Phil Kammer — January 15, 2010 @ 3:17 pm - January 15, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.