Gay Patriot Header Image

Jim DeMint to Boycott CPAC

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:10 am - January 22, 2011.
Filed under: Conservative Movement,GOProud

South Carolina’s Republican U.S. Senators do seem to be in the business of marginalizing themselves.  While generally  toeing a conservative line on the Judiciary Committee, Lindsay Graham does sometimes seem often a bit too eager to work with Democrats on regulatory issues — even if it means abandoning conservative principles.  Meanwhile, Jim DeMint seems to brush conservative principle aside if it’ll help make him curry favor with some social conservatives on the fringes of the movement.

While, as Allahpundit reminds us, “plenty of big-name social cons are still planning to intend” CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) including “Rick Santorum(!),” DeMint has decided to garner himself a headline by staying away from the conservative confab:

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint will skip this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, making him the most prominent conservative figure yet to express objections to what critics see as a pro-gay, libertarian tilt to the 38-year old event.

“With leading conservatives organizations not participating this year, Senator DeMint will not be attending. He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said in an email. 

Leading conservative organizations?  Well, Heritage isn’t participating.  That’s about the only leading conservative organization I can think of that’s passing on the event.  Seems some of those supposedly leading groups are up in arms that GOProud is participating organization.

Despite their upset, the confab seems set to be a stellar shindig.  According to Ed Morrissey, last year’s CPAC blogger of the year:

Attendance at last year’s CPAC broke records even with a similar boycott in place from GOProud’s initial inclusion as a participating group.  This year’s registrations are at the same level as last year’s at this point of days before the event, and last year CPAC had already announced Glenn Beck as their featured speaker and had experienced a big spike in registrations.  (Keene didn’t say when CPAC would announce this year’s speaker.)  Last year, CPAC had 103 participating groups and sponsors, and so far in 2011, CPAC has confirmed 117.

14 more participating groups and sponsors than last year?!?! Well, I guess none of them are leading conservative organizations.

Share

40 Comments

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Colin Copland, DNC Fail!. DNC Fail! said: Jim DeMint to Boycott CPAC http://bit.ly/dLMUNS #tcot #tlot [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Jim DeMint to Boycott CPAC -- Topsy.com — January 22, 2011 @ 5:43 am - January 22, 2011

  2. Love the new lambda legal ad. Gay marriage & the 1040

    Comment by rusty — January 22, 2011 @ 5:58 am - January 22, 2011

  3. That is SO weird; I was JUST writing an article about CWA and FRC boycotting CPAC because of the inclusion of GOProud and the SHAMEFUL treatment Cenk Uygur gave the GOProud leader for being conservative – literally just as I was re-reading it, I saw your link on the sidebar to this piece. GP, all I can say is F** ‘em. I mean, really, if they don’t want the help of people who want to help, then let them go away – they’re gonna have to get used to the new face of things or they’re gonna have to make a major split. The Tea Party happened for a reason, and everyone who wants a constitutional government needs to be welcomed with open arms – oddly enough I don’t read anything in the constitution about policing people’s sexuality. Dobson and LaHaye may have their circles (and one-trick ponies they are), and they may even be big, but it just doesn’t matter; this is a matter of principle. They can’t just stomp their feet and demand that the entirety of conservatism/libertarianism be run their way to the exclusion of whoever they wish to exclude. Forget it. I’d rather let the socialists win. Just to show you -THIS is what I was re-reading (that I’d just written) the minute I saw this post – http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/01/good-news-and-bad-news.html Sorry, I’m not trying to pimp my site; honest; it’s just that it was so serendipitous lol. Well DeMint just lost my support. They’re dinosaurs and they don’t even know it. Shame, really. I’m going to post a link to this piece as related reading, in fact, since it is.

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 6:27 am - January 22, 2011

  4. Who cares what Sen. DeMented does? The little twerp isn’t running for the Presidential nomination. The real test of the theory of gays being welcomed into the conservative fold is for a major GOP figure who definitely is in the running for the nomination to pull this stunt.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — January 22, 2011 @ 9:40 am - January 22, 2011

  5. >>He hopes to attend a unified CPAC next year,” DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said in an email.

    Meaning: This GOP big shot wants to attend a GAY-FREE CPAC next year.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — January 22, 2011 @ 10:45 am - January 22, 2011

  6. where did the Gay Marriage 1040 lambda legal ad go? :(

    Comment by rusty — January 22, 2011 @ 11:32 am - January 22, 2011

  7. Who the hell is DeMint and why should anyone care? Screw him. There’s Tammy Bruce and Coulter and Malkin and even Limbaugh (no they’re not candidates but they’re important) and Breitbart – any conservative who wants to bite their noses off to spite their faces can do so, and pay the political price. Maybe it’ll weed out the dinosaurs. Then again I can’t really call myself “conservative” since I *personally* hold conservative values but have no desire to mix them in with the rule of law. Isn’t the idea to make gov’t SMALLER and LESS powerful, not MORE powerful over our lives? I mean, that’s what the Tea Party I was around for the beginning of was all about. If the left wants control of my wallet and the right wants control of my personal life then neither one belong in a seat of real power. Government to protect us from fraud, theft and harm – that’s what we need. Not to control us financially or personally. Isn’t that like 101?

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 11:48 am - January 22, 2011

  8. Social conservatives are on the fringe of the conservative movement? You keep outing yourself, B. Daniel. You and many of the commenters here are becoming more and more open with your disdain for social conservatives and their concerns. That statement of yours just proves what I’ve said for over year now. Gay “conservatives” are really nothing but social liberals who are working to make conservatism a vehicle for social liberalism, complete with virulent animus for traditional values and the people who hold them (including yours truly).

    I tip my hat once again to American Elephant who nailed it perfectly when he wrote that the gay Right is committed to the same agenda as the gay Left. There’s no real difference between the two. The only thing that truly matters to gay “conservatives” is the only thing that truly matters to gay liberals, namely, the normalizing and mainstreaming of their libido. For that to occurr traditional values must be eradicated. Period. Gay liberals are honest about that. Generally speaking, gay “conservatives” aren’t although, as I alluded to above, that’s beginning to change. Open hostility toward and contempt for social conservatives is starting to become the norm. And that’s what gay “conservatives” want.

    Gays, “conservative” and liberal, are the real exclusionists. They talk about tolerance, and many social conservatives, including yours truly, do extend tolerance to gay people. But that’s not enough for (most) gays who will settle for nothing less than a ringing endosement of their sexuality from every segment of society. Consequently, when gays gain real power in the conservative movement traditional views on marriage, family, etc., will be vilified and suppressed. Every effort will be made to undo conservatism’s role as the strong and unapologetic voice of traditional values in the culture. Conservatism will become just as “tolerant” as social liberalism, for that is what it will be. And when that happens there will be nothing left to stop the complete collapse of our culture’s moral core. Bye-bye Western, Christian civilization. Hello Brave New World. Gays, enjoy your victory.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — January 22, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - January 22, 2011

  9. Recently I’ve been to local Conservative events, Tea Party meetings and the like.
    I was impressed by how no one’s sexuality meant a hill of beans to a majority of the people present at any of them…
    Who did stand out were one or two people who were expressing ideas which required concern or interest in the private behaviors/sex of individuals. They were passively ignored and even visibly retreated from by many within earshot.
    I think we’ll find the same response to these people boycotting CPAC will occur.
    We should keep a civil tongue in our heads and just “dance with who brung us”.
    :)

    Comment by rodney — January 22, 2011 @ 12:14 pm - January 22, 2011

  10. I commented before reading Seane-Anna’s post. I couldn’t disagree more.
    I’m Pro- life, limited government, national defense(offense at times), Christian, free-market, Fair Tax and very, very pro-don’t dig in my personal life and I won’t dig in yours..
    I’m not for Same Gender Marriage.
    Having been married for 20 years, my understanding and belief of what it marriage is… is unique. I’ve proposed to my partner (and he accepted) years ago; but what we would have, given a legal pathway to join together, would not be a marriage. Call it anything else you want, I don’t care…I’ll take that…but it’s not a marriage and I don’t want that.
    I’d want an equivalency. But to counter claims of ‘equality’, I espouse equivalency out of respect for others whose foundation of society has been so defined for thousands of years.
    I don’t want my personal/sex life to figure into my politics, my government, my society any more than the AVERAGE HETERO CHRISTIAN AMERICAN wants theirs to either.
    For me those are distinct and mutually exclusive spheres of my existence. I’ve never voted because someone was of a particular gender, race, nationality OR sexual orientation. I won’t start now.
    And I’ll vehemently speak against anyone who does.

    I’m not partnering with Conservatives to shove some shadow agenda onto them, or to use them as a conduit to promote said agenda…
    I partner with them (in particular Tea Partiers) because THEY DON’T DO THOSE THINGS..{those are the Left’s tactics… to surreptitiously join to something and rot it from the inside} and because they espouse the ideals I listed above.
    Plain and simple.

    Comment by rodney — January 22, 2011 @ 12:28 pm - January 22, 2011

  11. Rodney, at the second DC TP Rally, I happened to be standing slightly behind a gay couple, and speaking to a young fellow from the midwest who was just sort of mingling – I kind of had to laugh when he smiled and nodded towards the couple and said, “See? We have gay people too. The liberals won’t believe it, but it’s true.” Something along those lines. I didn’t say it at the time but I just thought, uh, yep…Americans with American concerns. What most Christians fail to remember is Paul’s admonition that they are not to judge the world, but the church. We can duke it out among the denominations if we must but it has jack sh** to do with the constitution and the government. I didn’t sign on to a theocracy – we’d have to close down every bar in the country, for one thing, or at least sell nothing stronger than weak wine, and – oh good lord, there are a bazillion things we’d have to encode into law. Well, forget it.

    I do prefer to get government out of the marriage business (more along the lines of legal contracts for everyone and religious ceremonies for those who want them) as opposed to changing the definition of it, though, but that is going to be complicated. And we have enough to deal with right now that it can be tabled for the moment, can’t it?

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - January 22, 2011

  12. And frankly I have close gay friends who are *not* conservative but who don’t act like, for example, “ACTUP” or anything; but then I think they’re closet libertarians lol.

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - January 22, 2011

  13. DeMint has not lost my respect. I know an area of disagreement between us and I am disappointed that he has weighed his principles, political support, moral bearings, etc. and decided to stay away from CPAC.

    I am not a single issue voter and conservative virginity is an unrealistic expectation in any terms. On balance, DeMint stands and delivers and does not fudge on TEA Party issues.

    I seriously doubt that he is even mildly interested in surveying the problems facing all Americans and choosing homosexuality as a key issue to be addressed.

    I reserve the right to further assess him as this “wrinkle” gets aired.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 22, 2011 @ 1:12 pm - January 22, 2011

  14. If it weren’t a key issue to him why the grandstanding boycott just because this ONE group out of many MANY groups is attending? Why should GOProud be unwelcome because we may disagree on perhaps two things? (DADT and marriage would be the only places I can see where there would be any problem and DADT is a done deal for now.)

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 1:33 pm - January 22, 2011

  15. @Anniee451 #14….Donations to his PAC?

    Comment by Linda Strickland — January 22, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - January 22, 2011

  16. I’d hate to think mere lucre was the real reason for it. But you may be right. :(

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 2:01 pm - January 22, 2011

  17. 10.I commented before reading Seane-Anna’s post. I couldn’t disagree more.
    I’m Pro- life, limited government, national defense(offense at times), Christian, free-market, Fair Tax and very, very pro-don’t dig in my personal life and I won’t dig in yours..

    Rodney, it doesn’t matter. In Seane-Anna’s “mind,” you are not a conservative, because you are gay, you have a partner, and presumably have sex with your partner. The best you can be is a “conservative.”

    Seane-Anna is part of the fringe that Dan is talking about. And the organizations that withdrew from CPAC, including DeMint.

    Comment by Pat — January 22, 2011 @ 2:12 pm - January 22, 2011

  18. @ Seane Anne,

    My right to exist as a gay person does not depend on your approval but on my humanity and my right to live. (Right to life)

    Stop pretending that people need your approval to exist.

    Comment by JS — January 22, 2011 @ 2:29 pm - January 22, 2011

  19. “I commented before reading Seane-Anna’s post. I couldn’t disagree more.
    I’m Pro- life, limited government, national defense(offense at times), Christian, free-market, Fair Tax and very, very pro-don’t dig in my personal life and I won’t dig in yours..
    I’m not for Same Gender Marriage.”

    Fine. If you are not for “same gender marriage” then you are not. But where does this notion come from that we need YOUR permission to think of marriage in different terms. Why do want to control our thoughts?

    You have every right not to recognize gay marriage because that is your right, but why not extend the same right to those who want to recognize gay marriages?

    Comment by JS — January 22, 2011 @ 2:35 pm - January 22, 2011

  20. Pat, I don’t know how much of a “fringe” it is…conservatism has generally meant social and fiscal hasn’t it? Even the guy Cenk Uygur interviewed from GOProud acknowledges that the GOP hasn’t always been so welcoming towards gay people, and it’s slow going. Bitter arguments erupt over social issues whenever Tea Party conservative-leaning libertarians confront conservative conservatives on social issues. Try arguing the War on Drugs with staunch conservatives (don’t know where you are on that; just an example). I like to think a couple things on that – that 1) there is more than enough argument over these issues to keep a certain gridlock that will stop government from DOING more stuff on them for some time to come and that 2) after having worked side by side on core issues – like the implosion of the economy and restoring solvency to the nation – for any number of years, along with people who DO have different lifestyles, that the conservative conservatives won’t be so willing to just toss their fellow patriots overboard over mere issues of sexuality. People can and do change, and I would hope that when they find out that we all want pretty much the same thing – for gov’t to protect us from fraud, theft and harm but otherwise leave us alone to follow our own interests, that we really can put those things aside and consider one another people first and foremost. It takes time, I know – it took time to move from segregation to a point where we can elect a biracial president without blinking an eye (except for the real fringe) and I reckon it will take time on this too…but working together towards common goals is a perfect way to get there.

    We are Christians, and my husband asked me this morning what Dobson was hoping to accomplish boycotting this, and supporting Huckabee…this is a *political* event, not a church event. There has simply got to be a difference, and people have got to come to realize that. Like I say, we can duke it out in the denominations if we have to but it has nothing to do with constitutional government, no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. I don’t deny the role of Christianity in our founding, but neither did the founders form a theocracy. They formed “A republic…if you can keep it.” We have GOT to try to work together to keep it.

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - January 22, 2011

  21. Annie, I am not saying that those who simply oppose homosexuality are on the fringe. They will be in the future, but not yet. But what is happening here is that persons and organizations not only oppose homosexuality, but are pulling out of a conservative conference because, a conservative (without the scare quotes) gay group is in attendance. In 2011, that’s fringe, IMO.

    Comment by Pat — January 22, 2011 @ 2:45 pm - January 22, 2011

  22. There are a lot of people who don’t oppose homosexuality but who oppose gay marriage who I don’t think will be on the fringe ever. That’s going to be a problem to be solved, and I sincerely hope we will come to an equable solution to that in future, believe me. My favored hope there, as I’ve said, would be less government, not new law. (As I believe most answers usually are.) And I don’t put scare quotes around conservative just because the word gay follows it lol. You know, if only small L libertarian were viable instead of having to be shackled to D or R…pipe dream I guess.

    I don’t know who Heritage is (shame on me for not looking it up after the OP; I will) but I do know FRC (Family Research Council – i.e. Dobson) and CWA (Concerned Women for America – i.e. LaHaye) are not yet fringe groups because they are very big within Christian circles. I can’t figure out why more Christians haven’t dissociated themselves from them yet – I mean they’re NOT the Phelps, but they’ve got definite problems. Dobson is a one-trick pony and his only trick for like 15 or 20 years has been teh ghey, and the LaHayes not only write sh*tty books with bad theology, they are two-trick ponies – teh ghey and abortion. Uh…not starting on abortion; way too long. But I can’t really say they’re fringe considering their following at this point. But yeah, I guess I hope they *become* more and more fringe, so perhaps we’re on pretty much the same page. (By the way I think you are like the second person to answer me here; thanks! Been following this blog since the Tea Party started IIRC.)

    Comment by Anniee451 — January 22, 2011 @ 3:11 pm - January 22, 2011

  23. [...] Jim DeMint to Boycott CPAC – Gay Patriot [...]

    Pingback by Saturday Afternoon – Alleviating the Mr’s Boredom – Laundry Time , An Ol' Broad's Ramblings — January 22, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - January 22, 2011

  24. “Leading conservative organizations? Well, Heritage isn’t participating. That’s about the only leading conservative organization I can think of that’s passing on the event.”

    Suggestion: do a little bit more research. There are a more than a few leading conservative organizations. My concern is that Gay Patriot is becoming a little too tribal, and choosing not to see things.

    You can do better!

    Comment by Ben — January 22, 2011 @ 7:04 pm - January 22, 2011

  25. JS–
    How can you quote me verbatim “very, very pro-don’t dig in my personal life and I won’t dig in yours..” which makes my position crystal clear?
    AND then immediately assert that:
    Fine. If you are not for “same gender marriage” then you are not. But where does this notion come from that we need YOUR permission to think of marriage in different terms. Why do want to control our thoughts?
    How on Earth did you gather from my expressing my personal opinion (directed at no one) that I’m attempting “mind control”? And over who?
    {and for the record, my partner just told me not to pull any of this mind control shit on him…}

    Comment by rodney — January 22, 2011 @ 9:38 pm - January 22, 2011

  26. I will say though, JS, you’ve given me some insight to the hyperbolic, paranoid thinking of the left…when a simple expression of opinion becomes a directed, ‘mind control’ effort on the part of a citizen. How horrible it must be to go through life paranoid and certain that others possess powers unavailable to yourself?!

    Comment by rodney — January 22, 2011 @ 9:42 pm - January 22, 2011

  27. @11 Anniee: I’m sorry but you’re confusing your sect’s beliefs for those of Christianity in general. There are a lot of major Christian branches who disagree both on the Constitution and the booze. After all when the Constitution was ratified, how many states had official churches and long did that continue? As to the booze, try visiting an Orthodox Church on Pascha.

    Comment by Kevin — January 22, 2011 @ 11:44 pm - January 22, 2011

  28. Okay, a little Chrisitanity 101 for you folks who think social conservative Christians should just live and let live….you live your life and leave me alone while I live mine. It ain’t gonna happen and here’s why:

    True, fundamentalist Christians believe that the USA was born and blessed by Divine Providence. That the very existence of this nation on the earth is through God’s will, to spread Christianity (their version of it) to every corner of the world. The USA has been dominant and successful because of its adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs and because we have generally been a Christian, God-fearing nation. God has, thus, blessed us and made us great. These folks believe that if our culture and our laws turn from a Christian basis (again, their version of it), that our nation will fail. They will never compromise and they will never give up on the idea of making our laws and our culture as “Christian” (in their view) as possible. They will never stand back and tell you that its okay for you to sleep with whomever you choose, to marry whomever you choose, to smoke or inject whatever you like and suffer the consequences on judgment day. That’s not good enough for them and never will be. For them to have that point of view would pull the bottom card from the card-house and it would all crumble (for them). So…gays, who want any kind of legal recognition of any kind have a culture war on our hands and we always will. Fortunately, we are gaining ground in the public sphere, while they are losing ground.

    I do not consider my sexual orientation to be in conflict with my Christian beliefs or my conservative politics. But fundamentalist Christians, many evangelicals (and I suppose Catholics) cannot accept that at all.

    I often hear my gay friends wonder out loud why conservatives can’t just leave everyone alone and let everyone live as they see fit, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else. Why force their beliefs on everyone else. Now you have the answer.

    Comment by Eddie — January 22, 2011 @ 11:48 pm - January 22, 2011

  29. Eddie, if you believe so strongly in people living life as they see fit and not imposing their values on others then you must be working hard to remove GLSEN from public schools, right? I mean, why should GLSEN be allowed to impose its “gay is good” belief on a captive audience of public school children? What about traditionalist parents who don’t believe that? Don’t they have the right to live as they see fit and without fear that the government will impose anti-traditionalist values on their kids via the schools? Or are you of the (self-serving) opinion that only traditionalists can be guilty of imposing things on people?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — January 23, 2011 @ 3:01 am - January 23, 2011

  30. And JS, when did I ever say that gays need my approval to exist? And Pat, I never said that gays can’t be conservatives. My point is that social liberals can’t be and aren’t conservatives. In my opinion, most of the gays–and straights–who comment on and/or contribute to GayPatriot claim conservatism while espousing the social Left’s position on homosexuality and its contempt for traditional values, WHILE DENYING THEY’RE DOING THAT. Conservatives don’t do that. That’s why I put the word conservative in quotes here, Pat.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — January 23, 2011 @ 3:34 am - January 23, 2011

  31. The only people marginalizing themselves are the homosexuals/bisexuals aka libertarians, progressives, and objectivists masquerading as conservatives within the minority liberal Republican Party, Dan. The Democrat Party, for all intensive purposes, will not be a factor in 2012 since the Loughner incident. The battle remains solely within the Republican Party between the federalists and the center left/right social liberals for whom self autonomy is more important than the rule of law.

    Comment by RJLigier — January 23, 2011 @ 3:38 am - January 23, 2011

  32. [...] Gay Patriot points out that Jim DeMint is making a big mistake [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — January 23, 2011 @ 9:58 am - January 23, 2011

  33. A curious conundrum. Let us suppose Heritage looked at CPAC and said “we do not want to get mixed up in social conservatism (whatever that is.). We want to stick to the Constitution and fiscal sanity.” Suppose Heritage looked at GOProud and said that “individually, we welcome the members, but collectively they are carrying a social agenda.” Then suppose that Heritage told CPAC that “we are going to sit out and see what this GOProud group is all about.”

    Now, suppose De Mint had exactly the same thought pattern.

    I think repeal of DA/DT has been the catalyst of real upset among conservatives. The repeal was social engineering, not a clear improvement in furthering the military mission. Of course, DA/DT is a social issue by its very nature. But conservatives can certainly oppose a social change if it complicates and does not clearly bolster the primary mission.

    I would not be surprised if DeMint would rather concentrate on fiscal policy than get mired down in social engineering. To my knowledge, the amorphous TEA Party has stayed away from such crusades as well.

    I am not putting the onus on GOProud to meet the requirements of Heritage or DeMint. That is why I say it is a conundrum. Because GOProud is a small group of a very small group of voters in general, the onus is on society in general to want the social change sought by some gays. Until then, it is all politics. And Dobson and others of his ilk probably have greater reach and influence in the matters affecting social change for gays.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 23, 2011 @ 11:01 am - January 23, 2011

  34. Seane-Anna, there is nothing that you posted that any gay person, who lives their lives as a gay person (i.e., just like any straight person, except when it comes to the gender of their partner), or a straight persons approves of such, and claims to be a conservative, they get the scare quote treatment from you. In other words, even Barry Goldwater is not a conservative by your narrow standards.

    The way I have interpreted your posts is that the only way a gay person can be conservative is to basically repudiate their sexual orientation and remain celibate. Please correct me if I’m wrong, and let us know if it is possible for a gay person, to date, marry, etc., in exactly the same manner as a straight person, except for the gender of the other person, and still be a conservative. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2011 @ 11:10 am - January 23, 2011

  35. I would not be surprised if DeMint would rather concentrate on fiscal policy than get mired down in social engineering.

    Heliotrope, I doubt it. If anything, the answer is in your post. Politics. I suspect DeMint doesn’t realize he is part of the fringe yet. When he does, then he’ll decide to attend CPAC again.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2011 @ 11:15 am - January 23, 2011

  36. Too good not to pass along: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1674519577603&set=p.1674519577603

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — January 24, 2011 @ 11:40 am - January 24, 2011

  37. I suspect DeMint doesn’t realize he is part of the fringe yet.

    What “fringe” is that?

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 24, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - January 24, 2011

  38. Heliotrope, pretty much what has been discussed in this thread. The belief that a gay organization has no place at a conservative conference.

    Comment by Pat — January 25, 2011 @ 8:36 am - January 25, 2011

  39. I have not looked into DeMint’s statements or background to know if he believes “that a gay organization has no place at a conservative conference.”

    I am concerned that we might be blurring the differences between being gay or a gay organization and being a person/group (gay or straight) taking a role in promoting gay marriage and/or repealing DA/DT.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 25, 2011 @ 10:34 am - January 25, 2011

  40. DeMint and the “new” Republicans have got to have THE STUPIDEST PUBLIC RELATIONS teams ever. Or do they really believe all this stuff? Can I have the job? I’m sure I could do much better.

    How anyone could be so incredibly stupid, in front of the American people, and run for office is beyond me.

    The position should be this:

    We don’t need another “special interest” group within parties. I can agree with that. All should be treated equal, according to all our individual rights.

    But DeMind goes further to make a TOTALLY STUPID and judgmental approach, with some bullshit about “family values”. Hey DeMINT! The gays are not going away. And they are not going away IN YOUR PARTY! Get over it. (And don’t start talking about family values, being cheaters, drunkards, screwers and closeted ones, yourselves. It is what it is…)

    The only leg you have to stand on is that the special interest groups are not needed, especially in the Senate and House. I think they should all be done away with if they are based on gender, sex or race.

    But you, being the public relations IDIOT that you are, took the stupid road. Now that you have SHaT on yourself, and the rest of the Tea Party, or conservatives for that matter, maybe you will shut your stupid mouth for a while and actually think about what you are saying. I think you guys are going to get kicked out just for being so incredibly stupid, with what you say. Rand Paul and the others as well. Get a brain. Fast.

    (and I would check on that PR team to see who they are really working for)

    Comment by tropicgirl — January 25, 2011 @ 11:29 am - January 25, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.