Gay Patriot Header Image

GAYPATRIOT EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:
Alexander McCobin from Students For Liberty
The Student Activist Who Spoke Up FOR GOProud At CPAC

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:00 pm - February 20, 2010.
Filed under: CPAC,Gay Politics,Heroes

GayPatriot readers, let me introduce you to Alexander McCobin from Students For Liberty.  Alexander was one of the student activists who spoke from the main CPAC stage yesterday.  He spoke up IN FAVOR of CPAC’s including GOProud BEFORE Ryan Sorba’s tirade a few minutes later.

THIS IS THE PART OF THE STORY THAT HASN’T BEEN TOLD YET.

UPDATE at 5:00PM – I’ve learned a couple of important facts that shed some more light on this whole incident. First, folks have emailed pointing out that there were boos when Alexander spoke (see video) below. But the boos were quickly and resoundingly overtaken by applause. Secondly, the booing was started by none other than Ryan Sorba and it is quite possible he was THE ONLY one booing since he was onstage and near a microphone.

From Students For Liberty on the CPAC kerfuffle:

Background: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-causes-cpac-controversy/
Videos: http://studentsforliberty.org/news/sfl-controversy-video/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/studentsforliberty

Secondly, I have found out that Ryan’s outburst was a publicity stunt. Ryan is hawking a new book called “The ‘Born Gay’ Myth”. That pretty much speaks for itself and the CPAC crowd rejected Ryan’s message and tactics resoundingly.

The first video is Alexander’s remarks yesterday.

The second video is my interview with Alexander this morning.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

34 Comments

  1. Hubba Hubba.

    Comment by Robert — February 20, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - February 20, 2010

  2. This kid is a very impressive speaker. He took command of moderately hostile crowd and hammered home his message. He showed no fear and the crowd — even the boo-ers — obviously noticed. Kid’s got a future in politics, most definitely.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — February 20, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - February 20, 2010

  3. Isn’t Students For Liberty a classical liberal organization rather than a conservative one? Are we supposed to be surprised that they would stand up for GOProud? Let’s see if Young America’s Foundation or Young Americans for Freedom, which are conservative organizations, will actually follow in their footsteps.

    Comment by Rob — February 20, 2010 @ 3:40 pm - February 20, 2010

  4. [...] audience rightly booed Sorba off the stage.  So far media coverage has focused on the latter, but GayPatriot has an exclusive interview with McCobin which tells his side of the [...]

    Pingback by CPAC 2010: Conservative Is The New Gay : Conservative Compendium — February 20, 2010 @ 3:52 pm - February 20, 2010

  5. I was disappointed that Ryan Sorba, speaking on behalf of Young Americans for Freedom used his time to bash fellow conservatives. What an immature display and ultimately damaging and counterproductive to the goal of building a conservative governing majority.

    Comment by Mike — February 20, 2010 @ 4:02 pm - February 20, 2010

  6. it’s a great thing that you are telling his side. HE should be THE STORY!!

    Comment by daftpunkydavid — February 20, 2010 @ 4:18 pm - February 20, 2010

  7. Rob – and those like you–

    Just admit it — there is no progress with conservatives that you won’t poo-poo.

    You are quite annoying, I must say. Put your money where your mouth is and actually interact with conservatives instead of playing the stereotypes over and over in your minds.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 20, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - February 20, 2010

  8. Nice that the coastal ellites of the GOP are not anti-gay. Too bad, the tea party convention showed the heart of the GOP base…homo-haters.

    Comment by gillie — February 20, 2010 @ 5:34 pm - February 20, 2010

  9. Nice that the coastal ellites of the GOP are not anti-gay. Too bad, the tea party convention showed the heart of the GOP base…homo-haters.

    And notice the clear proof of the heart of the Obama Party base that gillie worships.

    “God don’t like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female. If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you’re out of your damn mind.”

    In short, the tea partiers aren’t homo-haters because of what they do or say; they just refuse to worship the Obama Party, so that makes everything they do wrong in the eyes of gillie and his fellow plantation gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 20, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - February 20, 2010

  10. Rob – and those like you–

    Just admit it — there is no progress with conservatives that you won’t poo-poo.

    You are quite annoying, I must say. Put your money where your mouth is and actually interact with conservatives instead of playing the stereotypes over and over in your minds.

    There’s no problem with classical liberals/fiscal conservatives, who espouse limited government and individual freedoms. I’m just not surprised that they would stand and defend GOProud against a bunch of troglodytes. So kudos to those conservatives that stand with them

    My issue with the conservative movement is solely with the social conservatives who want to impose a nanny state and restrict freedoms. The so-cons were polite at CPAC while in front of GOProud, but explain why they cowardly say things against them when at a distance.

    Comment by Rob — February 20, 2010 @ 6:18 pm - February 20, 2010

  11. Rob-

    So your comments suggest that you are here?

    If you were not, then you have no factual basis for your sweeping generalized lie.

    Comment by GayPatriot — February 20, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - February 20, 2010

  12. “Secondly, I have found out that Ryan’s outburst was a publicity stunt. Ryan is hawking a new book called “The ‘Born Gay’ Myth”. That pretty much speaks for itself and the CPAC crowd rejected Ryan’s message and tactics resoundingly.”

    Of course Bruce is going to find an excuse for anti-gay prejudice from a “republican.” It is partisan politics as usual. Reminds me of when Obama defended DOMA and is against SSM, but still all the u bu gay leftists found excuses and justifications about it.

    I wonder what other excuses you repubics will have for the shenanigans over at the DADT conference at CPAC.

    And if you think the crowd “rejected Ryan’s message and tactics resoundingly…” somebody is completely delusional. Yes he was booed, but by a very loud minority of people. He was cheered and appluded by many.

    Goes to show you how blind and naive you are to the fact that CPAC is no longer about true conservatism/libertarianism/individual freedom (hence why McCobin was booed) but repubicism. Everything seem right from a republican point of view, just like how democrats view everything right from their point of view.

    GP Ed. Note – What the hell are you talking about? WATCH the videos. Ryan was BOOED OFF THE STAGE. By the MAJORITY of the crowd. That FACT is all people are talking about here. I’m here, remember. In person. You are not.

    By contract, Alexander was applauded BY THE MAJORITY after ONE person booed him. Can you not tell the difference? Man, you are so effin brainwashed. Sad.

    Comment by PureLibertarian — February 20, 2010 @ 6:35 pm - February 20, 2010

  13. Good for Alexander. I’d like to see more Republicans like him.

    Comment by John — February 20, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - February 20, 2010

  14. 11: Bruce, I have a feeling that Rob has this episode in mind:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/77138/goproud-director-national-organization-for-marriage-are-pansies-wusses

    Btw, where were you today??? My sister met Jimmy but you were absent!

    Comment by John — February 20, 2010 @ 7:48 pm - February 20, 2010

  15. Wow! So this is where the self loathing gays hang out.

    Comment by James — February 20, 2010 @ 10:22 pm - February 20, 2010

  16. I couldn’t help but notice that the man boo-ing the loudest in the first video seemed to be also artificially deepening his voice. Funny how much people can tell you about themselves without meaning to.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 21, 2010 @ 1:42 am - February 21, 2010

  17. #15, Actually James, the self-loathing gays hang out at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and all the other lefty sites, because it is the gays whose lives are consumed with using government to force other people to like them who are the ones who really hate themselves. Those of us who are comfortable with who we are dont care what other people think.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 21, 2010 @ 1:44 am - February 21, 2010

  18. My issue with the conservative movement is solely with the social conservatives who want to impose a nanny state and restrict freedoms.

    Examples please! Please name these conservatives and cite the “nanny state” laws they are trying to pass to restrict freedoms.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 21, 2010 @ 1:48 am - February 21, 2010

  19. American Elephant,

    Any law promulgated or supported by “conservatives” which restricts freedom of any person AND tells them how they should live their lives is a “nanny state” law. I’m with Dick Cheney. On the issue of gay marriage, “freedom for some means freedom for all”. On the issue of “blue laws” in my state of Texas….just because YOU think some stores selling certain kinds of products must be closed on Sunday does not mean that should apply to me. There’s two, bucky. And they are “conservative” down the line.

    Comment by Matty_J — February 21, 2010 @ 8:15 am - February 21, 2010

  20. [...] Gay Patriot interviewed him after the speech, Alexander McCobin from Students For Liberty. The Student Activist Who Spoke Up FOR GOProud At CPAC. [...]

    Pingback by Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » A brief roundup of CPAC friends — February 21, 2010 @ 8:53 am - February 21, 2010

  21. Asking are trolls for facts is like asking Tim to date someone his own age.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 21, 2010 @ 10:28 am - February 21, 2010

  22. Ryan Sorba’s mistake was to condemn his audience and his hosts right off the bat, never a smart thing to do. Sorba is much too bitterly belligerent to understand that what he really needed to do was to rhetorically flatter the audience and make them want to join his crusade against sodomy. Had he done that, and still gotten booed off the stage, it would have been Sorba who would have been a “authentic” conservative martyr victimized by “moles” and “fifth columns” within the conservative movement, thereby assuring that GOProud and other gay conservative groups would never be invited to CPAC again. It is GOProud’s good fortune that its most visible enemies are people like Sorba and not more sober-minded and effective conservatives.

    Comment by Disgusted in DC — February 21, 2010 @ 3:21 pm - February 21, 2010

  23. Examples please! Please name these conservatives and cite the “nanny state” laws they are trying to pass to restrict freedoms.

    LOL There’s so many of them, where do I start? The worst one is supernanny Mike Huckabee. But as well as the conservatives in congress that:
    Want to pass FMA and are against repealing DOMA. Regardless on which side of the issue you’re on, marriage regulation can be argued as a form of social engineering by the state.
    Interferred with the private Shiavo case.
    Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.
    Continue to support the disastrous war on drugs.
    Want to control more on what can be broadcast and set anti-pornography laws.
    Last but not least; support the anti-sodomy laws such as Bush when he was governor of Texas.
    There’s a lot more of course. Social conservatism is is in essence a form of statism. Someone wrote that it’s not only that they want the government kept out of their wallet, but out of their bedroom as well.
    The only conservative with solid principles that I can think of would be Ron Paul (who won the CPAC straw poll without spending as much effort as Mitt Romney), although he has his own set of issues outside the scope of this topic.

    And John is correct, I was alluding to that story. LaSalvia referred the NOM group as a bunch of pansies. No beer summit with them I guess.

    Comment by Rob — February 21, 2010 @ 4:26 pm - February 21, 2010

  24. Rob @ 23,

    American Elephant asked for examples of laws that “restrict freedoms.” You’ve managed to produce some pretty poor examples:

    Want to pass FMA and are against repealing DOMA. Regardless on which side of the issue you’re on, marriage regulation can be argued as a form of social engineering by the state.

    The government not formally taking notice of homosexual unions is not a restriction of liberty. The government is simply ignoring the matter. If marriage laws are per se a form of social engineering, the only way to end such engineering is to end state recognition of marriages. But your comment against the FMA and DOMA suggests you want more such social engineering, not less.

    Interferred with the private Shiavo case.

    A legal case isn’t a private matter. And since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

    Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.

    Now that was a very bad decision, being part of the erosion of federalism. (Of course, the states could stand up to such nonsense if they had the will.) However, unless you propose doing away with the drinking age concept altogether, this isn’t such a big case of nanny law.

    And those are your first three example! That’s not good arguing. (In fairness, your last three examples were better.)

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 22, 2010 @ 2:53 am - February 22, 2010

  25. Brought the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which coerces individual state policies into setting the legal age to 21.

    Frank Lautenberg is a conservative? He’ll be interested to hear that, I think. He could probably use a few laughs right now.

    Comment by Pablo — February 22, 2010 @ 10:58 am - February 22, 2010

  26. The government not formally taking notice of homosexual unions is not a restriction of liberty. The government is simply ignoring the matter. If marriage laws are per se a form of social engineering, the only way to end such engineering is to end state recognition of marriages. But your comment against the FMA and DOMA suggests you want more such social engineering, not less.

    Your argument is flawed since It is a form of social engineering so long as the government favours heterosexual unions. You’re aguing about a posive liberty in the form of government recognizing heterosexual unions, instead of negative liberty. Nanny law it is.

    A legal case isn’t a private matter. And since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

    Wrong. Some legal cases are private matters, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for court censures. How would you like it if your daughter’s rape case was televised, or even worse, paraded by congress?

    Now that was a very bad decision, being part of the erosion of federalism. (Of course, the states could stand up to such nonsense if they had the will.) However, unless you propose doing away with the drinking age concept altogether, this isn’t such a big case of nanny law.

    Big case or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s still a form of nanny law pure and simple.

    Comment by Rob — February 22, 2010 @ 5:15 pm - February 22, 2010

  27. Frank Lautenberg is a conservative? He’ll be interested to hear that, I think. He could probably use a few laughs right now.

    In that circumstance, he took the social conservative positision. Anyway, it’s a tu quoque argument since we’re talking about conservatives being the vanguard of individual liberties.

    Comment by Rob — February 22, 2010 @ 5:19 pm - February 22, 2010

  28. Rob.

    under current Marriage law, you can marry one (1) person of your choice, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state to have government recognition.

    Please explain how that discriminates against anyone.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 22, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - February 22, 2010

  29. The_Livewire:

    under current Marriage law, you can marry one (1) person of your choice, subject to the restrictions imposed by the state to have government recognition.

    Please explain how that discriminates against anyone.

    LOL “Restrictions imposed by the state,” thank you very much for proving my point: it’s a nanny law. The solution would be for government to get out of the marriage business.

    BTW that inane argument can also be used against interracial marriages: that is a black person has the freedom to marry, so long as it’s a person of his or her own race.

    Also, what about the children of gay parents? They had no choice in their relationship, so why should the state penalize them?

    Comment by Rob — February 22, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - February 22, 2010

  30. Rob @ 26:

    Having a bad day, Rob? It’s not my fault you can’t come up with better examples. ;)

    Your argument is flawed since It is a form of social engineering so long as the government favours heterosexual unions. You’re aguing about a posive liberty in the form of government recognizing heterosexual unions, instead of negative liberty. Nanny law it is.

    Please. AE asked you to name restrictions of liberty; he did not invite you to play games about “positive” versus “negative” liberties. Not recognizing gay weddings as legal imposes no restriction on the actions of anyone.

    The phrase “nanny law” is most often used to describe laws meant to protect individuals from themselves. Drug laws are perfect examples. In describing marriage laws as such you are using the phrase to mean any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake. So be it. But as I said, your comments about the FMA and DOMA suggest you want more government interference in these affairs, not less. It is therefore incongruous for you to complain about marriage laws as examples of nanny statism.

    Some legal cases are private matters, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for court censures.

    This is rubbish. Why do you insist on arguing past me instead of with me?

    You stated that social conservatives “interferred with the private Shiavo case.” There was no private case. This wasn’t a private disagreement between a husband and two parents. It was a court case. (Court cases involve the government and are therefore the people’s business per se.) A very public court case.

    How would you like it if your daughter’s rape case was televised, or even worse, paraded by congress?

    Well, sherlock, I don’t have a daughter. But I do have a niece, so will use her in your hypothetical. In such a situation the televising of the proceedings would be beyond my control, but how I felt about them would depend on the particulars of the situation. Of course since this is a hypothetical question, I can give nor further answer.

    As for being paraded by Congress, are you saying that the case was paraded by Congress from Terri’s husbands perspective, from her parent’s perspective, or from hers? Anyway, if I thought my niece was being done an injustice by the court, the “parading” of her case by Congress would probably please me just fine.

    Now that I’ve answered you hypothetical question, perhaps now you will answer my non-hypothetical question from my original comment that you ignored:

    since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

    Big case or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s still a form of nanny law pure and simple.

    Not a man for subtle distinctions, are you Rob? Yes, withdrawing the ability to drink legally from 18 to 20 year olds is rather nannyish. My point was that this wasn’t a new kind of restriction. When you call the 21-year drinking age “nanny law pure and simple” are you just opposed to denying alcohol to legal adults, or are you opposed to drinking age laws in the first place? From your comments it’s impossible to tell.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 23, 2010 @ 4:46 am - February 23, 2010

  31. So in Rob’s world apparently the e-trade baby can drive, the black panthers can intimidate voters, and rape isn’t a crime it’s a personal matter.

    Again, Rob can’t explain how or why the marriage laws discriminate against him, when they’re applied equally to everyone.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 23, 2010 @ 6:40 am - February 23, 2010

  32. Please. AE asked you to name restrictions of liberty; he did not invite you to play games about “positive” versus “negative” liberties. Not recognizing gay weddings as legal imposes no restriction on the actions of anyone.

    No games at all. If you or AE can’t understand how marriage is a form of positive liberty, then it’s not my problem. To put it simple and in AE’s words, when the government took notice of only heterosexual unions, it did imposed legal restrictions on those that were not married in terms of family law and spousal privilege.

    The phrase “nanny law” is most often used to describe laws meant to protect individuals from themselves. Drug laws are perfect examples. In describing marriage laws as such you are using the phrase to mean any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake. So be it. But as I said, your comments about the FMA and DOMA suggest you want more government interference in these affairs, not less. It is therefore incongruous for you to complain about marriage laws as examples of nanny statism.

    ‘any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake,’ like a national anti-smoking law that Huckabee has advocated for? Yet the real question is why should government be encouraging one behaviour over others with the exception of being lawful? Government or even religion wasn’t in the marriage business and the sky didn’t fall because they weren’t. When they did get into the marriage business, they got If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    This is rubbish. Why do you insist on arguing past me instead of with me?

    You stated that social conservatives “interferred with the private Shiavo case.” There was no private case. This wasn’t a private disagreement between a husband and two parents. It was a court case. (Court cases involve the government and are therefore the people’s business per se.) A very public court case.

    This ‘private’ thing you’re arguing about is just a straw man. The point I was making was about the state and federal government blatantly interfering with the judicial process of a single case and curtailing Shiavo’s marital contract.

    Now that I’ve answered you hypothetical question, perhaps now you will answer my non-hypothetical question from my original comment that you ignored:

    since when is deciding whether someone else gets food and water just a private affair anyway?

    You mean taking life support off from someone who’s permanently lost all cognitive functions? Again, the matter should be private between spouses and their physicians.

    Not a man for subtle distinctions, are you Rob? Yes, withdrawing the ability to drink legally from 18 to 20 year olds is rather nannyish. My point was that this wasn’t a new kind of restriction. When you call the 21-year drinking age “nanny law pure and simple” are you just opposed to denying alcohol to legal adults, or are you opposed to drinking age laws in the first place? From your comments it’s impossible to tell.

    Opposed to the latter altogether. Satisfied Dave?

    Comment by Rob — February 23, 2010 @ 6:36 pm - February 23, 2010

  33. One more correction. I attended the CPAC panel event with the student activists which included McCobin and Sorba. The boos were provoked by and directed at Sorba, for putting his thumb down while McCobin was speaking.

    Comment by Filby — February 25, 2010 @ 9:40 am - February 25, 2010

  34. Rob @ 32:

    No games at all. If you or AE can’t understand how marriage is a form of positive liberty, then it’s not my problem.

    Sigh. Now you’re being willfully obtuse, Rob. AE and I have no problems understanding the positive liberty concept. My point was that AE didn’t ask you to elaborate on such distinctions. At #18 he asked you to

    cite the laws they are trying to pass to restrict freedoms.

    This clearly means laws meant to keep people from doing things, not laws which fail to help them do something.

    Your answer to AE (@ 19) was

    Any law … which restricts freedom of any person AND tells them how they should live their lives is a “nanny state” law.

    This answer is redundant: restricting freedom is telling people how they should live. However it does suggest you got the point of AE’s question (as did your example of “blue laws”), your point about Cheney and SSM notwithstanding.

    when the government took notice of only heterosexual unions, it did imposed legal restrictions on those that were not married in terms of family law and spousal privilege.

    Here you logic really runs off the rails. By recognizing some relationships but not others as marriages, any intimate relationship between persons not recognized as a marriage has legal restrictions placed upon it by your definition. No government interference is required at all. That is not “restriction freedom and telling people how they should live.”

    ‘any law that attempts to encourage one behavior over others for society’s sake,’ like a national anti-smoking law that Huckabee has advocated for?

    Uh, no. An anti-smoking law isn’t attempting to encourage a behavior. It prohibits a behavior. Here we have the main point of our disagreement: you don’t argue well. In fact, you don’t argue properly. I note that you’ve extended the usual use of a phrase and you come back with an example that fits the usual use of said phrase! Come on, man!

    Yet the real question is why should government be encouraging one behaviour over others with the exception of being lawful?

    Yes, that is the real question. But if people think the government should create incentives for one behavior without banning alternatives, should they be accused of wanting to restrict liberty?

    This ‘private’ thing you’re arguing about is just a straw man.

    The hell it is! You said that the “private Shiavo [sic] case” was interfered with. The case wasn’t private; it was a legal matter. You can’t call a court case something it isn’t and then fairly complain when you’re called on it. If you didn’t like the way Congress went about trying to ensure Terri’s constitutional rights weren’t infringed by Florida, you should have said so.

    the state and federal government blatantly interfering with the judicial process of a single case and curtailing Shiavo’s marital contract.

    Oh, really? I saw no interference in the court case. I saw the Florida legislature having second thoughts about what it had previously done, and Congress acting — in panicked and ineffective fashion — to ensure Florida didn’t deny Terri’s constitutional rights.

    As for Schiavo’s marital contract, that wasn’t even an issue in the case. But then you’ve already demonstrated that you don’t approve of legal marriage contracts, so why do you care?

    You mean taking life support off from someone who’s permanently lost all cognitive functions? Again, the matter should be private between spouses and their physicians.

    No. I asked about denying food and water. No one in this case was on “life support” like a respirator. (You enjoy playing with words and changing the terms of an argument, don’t you? Such sophistry doesn’t work on me.)

    As for the “permanently lost all cognitive functions” bit, that’s a medical diagnosis and medical diagnoses aren’t perfect. If we assume that such an diagnosis is wrong since it may be wrong, it that too nanny state for you?

    And what’s this business about spouses and physicians. Didn’t you say you don’t like the government elevating certain relationships above others? Why then did Florida get to elevate her husband (who had moved on) above her parents?

    Don’t bother answering, Rob. I know the answer: Because killing off those in a persistent vegetative state fits your secular humanist ethics.

    Opposed to the latter altogether. Satisfied Dave?

    Yes, very satisfied, Rob.

    You don’t like legal marriage unless it is used to kill of those in a vegetative state. And you think any child should be able to legally buy alcohol. Got it.

    You’re not a libertarian. You’re a libertine jerk.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 27, 2010 @ 1:56 am - February 27, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.