Gay Patriot Header Image

Reflections on building an inclusive conservative movement

While we don’t always agree with social conservatives, we recognize how they have helped build the conservative movement. That said, by and large, we share the same goals as many of them: reducing the size of the federal government and expanding the freedoms our founders fought for over two centuries ago, the freedom of association and the freedom to determine our own destiny.

Both Bruce and I have been involved in the conservative movement in various capacities since the Reagan era.   We have both seen the commitment of social conservatives to electing candidates we also support.

We know that while we are often at odds with a number of social conservatives of variety of issues, we recognize that we need work beside them to advance certain shared goals, including a commitment to constitutional principles, judicial restraint, a reduced role for state and federal governments and more freedom for individuals and the institutions we join of our own accord. Those institutions include churches and synagogues as well as gay community associations (not to mention civic and professional organizations, to name but a few).

Hopefully, people will learn from the various experiences of gay people at this year’s CPAC, showing that while most rank-and-file conservatives are willing to work alongside gay conservatives, some are not wiling to do so if such association means the exclusion of social conservatives.   Despite some misunderstandings expressed in the comment section to the blog and elsewhere, we do not seek their exclusion.  

We are willing to work alongside social conservatives even if we have different goals on certain issues, provided the conservative movement as a whole continues to focus on the broad, inclusive agenda, promoted by Ronald Reagan, built upon with the 104th Congress and articulated anew with the Tea Party activism of the past two years.

And that it does not recast those unifying principles.

At the same time, as we have learned from the reaction of most conservatives in the run-up to CPAC, most conservatives remain willing to work with social conservatives provided such association does not mean the exclusion of gays and socially liberal small-government types.

We need to recommit ourselves to cutting the size of the federal government, including ending all earmarks, repealing Obamacare, preventing the judiciary from usurping responsibilities the Constitution clearly delegated to the legislature, confronting the pro-union agenda of the administration (and several Democratic governors) in order to streamline government. In short, it’s time we work with all those willing to reduce the power of the state and increase the freedom of the individual.

And for that inclusive agenda, we must roll up our sleeves and work together.   The future of our nation is at stake.

Share

50 Comments

  1. most conservatives remain willing to work with social conservatives provided such association does not mean the exclusion of gays

    I think that’s taking it a bit far seeing as CPAC is not talking about not inviting GOProud back because of their behavior towards social conservatives.

    I think you have it exactly backwards. Most conservatives are willing to work with gay conservatives, provided such association doesn’t alienate social conservatives. But if it comes down to choosing between the two, I think they will choose the latter.

    Also, you may be talking about someone else, but just in case you were talking about me, I dont think you want to exclude social conservatives per se, what I glean from your writings (and the letters you sign your name to) is that you just want them to sit down and shut up and allow you to move the gay marriage ball down the field while you simultaneously expect them to continue to support the Republican party.

    Aint gonna work that way.

    And what I specifically said was that GOProud was COMING ACROSS as though they wanted to exclude social conservatives.

    And I think CPAC’s statement regarding GOProud, (and just about everyone else’s reaction including such fundamental Christian zealots as AllahPundit at HotAir) makes it clear that they agree.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 12, 2011 @ 3:14 am - February 12, 2011

  2. oops, that should read, “…seeing as CPAC is talking about not inviting GOProud back…”

    Comment by American Elephant — February 12, 2011 @ 3:15 am - February 12, 2011

  3. Gay Patriot is on my blogroll because, as they say, I’m straight, not narrow.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — February 12, 2011 @ 3:41 am - February 12, 2011

  4. is that you just want them to sit down and shut up and allow you to move the gay marriage ball down the field while you simultaneously expect them to continue to support the Republican party.

    [Citation Needed]

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2011 @ 8:32 am - February 12, 2011

  5. Nowhere do you say how you can change the minds of those who are revolted by your appearence at CPAC. Why not? Why dont you try to give something back to the Gay population and engage those groups who dislike you.

    Comment by gillie — February 12, 2011 @ 9:09 am - February 12, 2011

  6. You’re a better man than I am, Dan!

    Comment by Bobbie — February 12, 2011 @ 10:36 am - February 12, 2011

  7. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Erick Erickson, Melissa Clouthier, Liz, GayPatriot, Patricia Smiley and others. Patricia Smiley said: Reflections on building an inclusive conservative movement http://bit.ly/hIyAIk #CPAC11 #tbrs #teaparty #sgp #tcot [...]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention GayPatriot » Reflections on building an inclusive conservative movement -- Topsy.com — February 12, 2011 @ 11:15 am - February 12, 2011

  8. Barron >> Of the Heritage Foundation’s decision, he says, ”They’ve chosen to – and it’s a mystery to me why – but they’ve chosen to align themselves with the losers.”

    From Riehl’s
    Don’t GoProud, Just Go Away: A Withdrawal Of Support

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/02/dont-goproud-just-go-away-a-withdrawal-of-support.html

    or is this more suppose to follow the great THE GODFATHER

    Keep your friends close, your enemies closer situation

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2011 @ 11:27 am - February 12, 2011

  9. Yes, AE, I was talking about someone else.

    Perhaps, from a broader perspective, I have it backwards, but I wrote this post from Bruce and my perspective to make clear we’re not averse to working with social conservatives.

    oh, and gillie, I’ve tried to engage those gay groups who dislike us and instead of being open to our message, they either ignore us or berate us. Most conservatives have been far more open to our message. It seems we are succeeding at changing those minds, though perhaps more slowly than some would like.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 12, 2011 @ 11:36 am - February 12, 2011

  10. I actually disagree with you that social conservatives have a goal in mind about expanding freedom, unless it focuses on not limiting the role of religious or religious choices. They do have goals that limit choice when it comes to behaviors that they are against. They want to use the government and law to make actions that find wrong morally to also then wrong legally.

    It is not just that they are against gay marriage but they are against the idea of same sex couples being able to enter in contracts as a straight couple would do. They push not only banning gay marriages but civil unions and domestic partnerships because they don’t believe gay is morally correct and want to make limit that “choice” as much as possible.

    If conservatism is about great personal choice, liberty and responsibility, then social conservatism is not a part of it. They want to enforce a moral code of conduct into the law and not leave people’s personal choices to themselves. The freedom of religion should be protected but they advance more than just that.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — February 12, 2011 @ 11:51 am - February 12, 2011

  11. Well darkeyedresolve, I see you are perceptive at interpreting the collective agenda of social conservatives everywhere, from evangelical whites to Catholic hispanics.

    Social conservatism is not a movement, so much as dozens different cultural groups that differ from each other in various ways. Some will be more libertarian then others. The basic idea is to encourage the more libertarian-leaning ones while discouraging the statists.

    Comment by joeedh — February 12, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 12, 2011

  12. another image that keeps running through my head is the fictional storyline of MILK: Harvey hopes to work with Dan White but then Dan goes all ‘twinkie’ on him.

    I agree it is good to hope for and to work on building relationships within a group. But, good luck.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 12, 2011

  13. Dan, I think groups like GOProud and gay conservatives are at a crossroads. Maybe AmericanElephant is right that you have it backwards. At least that was the case even as recently as five years ago. It probably didn’t help with Barron’s comments. And perhaps gay conservatives still have to “behave.” But five years or so down the road, I think it will be people like Cleta Mitchell, Jim DeMint, and Heritage that will have to learn how to behave, or they will be on the outside looking in.

    Comment by Pat — February 12, 2011 @ 12:24 pm - February 12, 2011

  14. #5 – “Why dont you try to give something back to the Gay population and engage those groups who dislike you.”

    Because, gillie, these same so-called “inclusive” people are the same ones who ridicule and demean you when you out yourself as a conservative. That’s why. And I for one don’t have time to waste with these closed-minded little drama queens.

    I am treated better as a gay man at my local Tea Party gathering than I am as a conservative at the local gay bar.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 12, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - February 12, 2011

  15. “But five years or so down the road, I think it will be people like Cleta Mitchell, Jim DeMint, and Heritage that will have to learn how to behave, or they will be on the outside looking in.”

    That’s what gay conservatives want, and I think that’s why some social conservatives are boycotting CPAC. Again, I think the boycott is a bad idea. Any social conservative who has concerns about where including gays will lead the movement should attend CPAC and make those concerns known. They should talk to GOProud and its supporters face to face and ask hard questions. The fear that gay conservatives really want to “queer” conservatism, similar to how gays have “queered” the schools, making them places hostile to tradition moral values, is a justified fear. Boycotting CPAC, or anything else, isn’t the right way to deal with it, though.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 12, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - February 12, 2011

  16. If the conservative movement is to be broad enough to win elections, and to have the Reaganite focus on limited government and constitutional principles that it ought to have, then it should not exclude social conservatives. And it should not exclude gays. Simple.

    The devil is in the details. In practice, the movement must exclude *some* social conservatives and *some* gays. It must exclude those social conservatives who are unwilling to work with gays; those who say “If I have to associate with gays, then I am going to take my marbles and go home.” The right answer to those people is: Fine, go, get the hell out.

    Likewise the reverse. The broad form of the conservative movement must, in practice, exclude those gays who are unwilling to work with social conservatives; those who say “If I have to associate with social conservatives, then I am going to take my marbles and go home.” The right answer to those gays is: Fine, go, get the hell out.

    In other words: No boycotters please, on either side. Boycotters not welcome.

    In that light, it makes sense that we’re seeing CPAC talk about not inviting GOProud back because of Barron’s recent behavior towards social conservatives. (Item on HotAir: New CPAC chief: We might have to dump GOProud for taunting the boycotters) It’s great that CPAC didn’t cave in to the social conservative boycotters. It’s bad that Barron did an end-zone dance over it. I hope Barron has learned a lesson.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - February 12, 2011

  17. That’s what gay conservatives want, and I think that’s why some social conservatives are boycotting CPAC.

    Seane-Anna, my point is that is what conservatives, in general, will want. I’m just following a trend here. Of course, I could be wrong, and the trend stops at tolerance of gay conservatives, who can “behave.” We’ll see.

    Again, I think the boycott is a bad idea.

    We agree here, but probably for different reasons.

    The fear that gay conservatives really want to “queer” conservatism, similar to how gays have “queered” the schools, making them places hostile to tradition moral values, is a justified fear.

    If I was on the losing side, I would be fearful too.

    Comment by Pat — February 12, 2011 @ 1:01 pm - February 12, 2011

  18. [Some social conservatives] do have goals that limit choice when it comes to behaviors that they are against.

    DER, that’s a fair point. Some social conservatives, the Bush-Huckabee types, have been in favor of Big Government. It’s up to constructive people in the rest of society to steer them in a better direction. Many social conservatives see that they can get 80-90% of what they might want, just by going with constitutional principles and a much smaller government, like America had in the first 140 years or so of its existence.

    For example, we really should cut government funding for abortion (Planned Parenthood) and modern art, not as a statement on whether those things are good or bad, but simply because we can’t afford it any more and from a constitutional/fiscal conservative standpoint, government never should have been in the business of funding them, in the first place.

    they are against the idea of same sex couples being able to enter in contracts as a straight couple would do

    I don’t think there are very many of those people left. Some, but they won’t get far.

    The basic idea is to encourage the more libertarian-leaning ones while discouraging the statists.

    Exactly, joeedh.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 1:09 pm - February 12, 2011

  19. #14 Peter – Good answer to gillie. But I also notice that his whine, “Why dont you try to give something back to the Gay population”, has a mistaken central premise. gillie apparently does not understand that many of us do quite a bit for gays. For that matter, so do some social conservatives.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 1:18 pm - February 12, 2011

  20. I think both Seane-Anna and Pat have different points, but are talking past each other.

    A sub I know once said “We’re not kinky people we’re people who are kinky.” I’m sure to some it’s a distinction w/o a difference, but it is one.

    I think the same issue is there with the short hand “gay conservative.” The statement can seem to focus on the ‘gay’ more than the ‘conservative’.

    Seane Anna, think of WW II. Churchill said of allying with Stalin, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” The same thing goes here. You know that you and I both oppose the redefenition of marriage, we have different ‘solutions’ for the issue. I can stand with you so far, but no farther. Your issues with gay conservatives are the same, take a back burner to ‘gay’ and focus on the conservative.

    Pat,
    My concern is always nobility in Victory. If the social pendulum doesn’t swing back the other way , then groups like GOProud need to act now reaching out to be gracious in victory, to include, and address their concerns, in the future.
    If the pendulum *does* swing back the other way, groups like GOProud and the liberal groups on the left, would be best served to be diplomatic now, to avoid being completely frozen out when it swings back.

    As I’ve said here and elsewhere… i’m a 1950′s kind of guy. I think I should be the one out earning the money while the wife stays home and cooks and cleans. I’d like a return to that lifestyle. I’m also a 21st century guy. I don’t care if the wife works and the husband stays home or if Bill is the ‘wife’ and Ted is the breadwinner. I just want a country that allows all those options.

    The key isn’t ‘social’ ‘financial’ ‘neo’ or ‘gay’. It’s conservatives. We all agree the house is burning down. Let’s focus on putting out the fires and repairing the structure. We can argue about who gets to pick out curtains later.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 12, 2011 @ 2:13 pm - February 12, 2011

  21. TL, agreed.

    But I would add: Let each focus on their area of interest. I see the financial-economic house burning down, and I think that’s the key to the military and social houses burning down. So I talk about that a lot, venting about what I know, perhaps trying to spread awareness. I also wouldn’t agree that gay marriage is an example of the social house burning down. So, even as we put out the fires, we are going to have disagreements.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 2:22 pm - February 12, 2011

  22. Livewire, I pretty much agree with your point. As one who is not a conservative, I’m just looking at the opposing sides and just opining what I see. Obviously, GOProud is the one who has to decide what the best course of action is for them and for conservatives in general.

    I certainly agree about being gracious. It’s just a good thing to be in most situations. But I think that both sides of the issue have to realize that there will always be missteps along the way. So does Barron’s misstep warrant GOProud from being excluded from CPAC? Does this give the excuse to others to say, “See, I told you so.”? For someone like me, it’s no different than saying that religious Christians should be excluded because of the antics from persons like Pat Robertson.

    And I’ll also throw this in. What if Cleta Mitchell, or others are bigots? I don’t know. Barron certainly knows her and others better than I do. He rightfully backed down from that statement. But should the bigotry be tolerated? Should other conservatives be the ones to tell them to cut the crap? Or should the bigotry continue with impunity?

    Comment by Pat — February 12, 2011 @ 2:46 pm - February 12, 2011

  23. [Citation Needed]

    Hardly. In fact ouve been crying and whining about me bringing the very evidence for my claim up for the past several days, so obviously I need not remind you that Dan signed a letter telling Republicans to ignore social issues, and then when right about pushing for the repeal of DADT and writing about how to best get gay marriage realized.

    Do you even think before you read? Or are you that much of an upsucking sycophant? Its like you are Joy Behar and Dan is your Obama.

    No one was addressing you, and as you can see, Dan can handle himself. All you do is make him look like he cant.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 12, 2011 @ 2:52 pm - February 12, 2011

  24. Why dont you try to give something back to the Gay population

    What has the “Gay population” done?

    It’s killed hundreds of thousands of people and maimed and disabled millions more, at a staggering cost to productivity and health care, because it puts promiscuity and irresponsibility first and foremost.

    It has declared all-out war on religious people and religious beliefs.

    It demands the sexualization and exploitation of children.

    It riots in support of corrupt and wasteful government, demanding punishment of business and redistribution of wealth from those who earn it to those who refuse to work.

    How about the “Gay population” try doing something to make up for the incalculable amount of damage that IT has done to society?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 12, 2011 @ 3:41 pm - February 12, 2011

  25. I believe, IloveCapitalism, that you are more optimistic about social conservatives than I am. They will never settle for 80 or 90%, thats how it works when you are motivated by a sincere religious belief in what you are doing. Why would they never want to compromise in favor of a group they believe are going to hell and are corrupting a society that they are actively working to make in their own image.

    You say most aren’t for out right bans by looking at bills in Iowa, Indiana, Wyoming, they all not only ban gay marriage but also civil unions. If they were fine with settling with compromise it would just be marriage that would be banned, but they are doing what they believe is in God’s will. Why would they want to back down?

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — February 12, 2011 @ 4:52 pm - February 12, 2011

  26. TGC #4 – A very fair request.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 5:00 pm - February 12, 2011

  27. I think it will be people like Cleta Mitchell, Jim DeMint, and Heritage that will have to learn how to behave,

    Here’s my thing: We got half of a story and everybody’s clutching their pearls over the half we got. He said he was responding to attacks by Heritage et. al (or whomever, he didn’t say). I’m curious to know what those were. He apparently wasn’t going on the offense for the hell of it.

    How come nobody’s the slightest bit interested in the rest of the story?

    We all agree the house is burning down. Let’s focus on putting out the fires and repairing the structure. We can argue about who gets to pick out curtains later.

    Sounds good but if you dare suggest it, some folks will go ape shit and accuse you of being a liar and a hypocrite. Worse, they won’t shut up about it even when they’re shown to be wrong. We have to suffer through their whining, pissing and moaning until, I suppose, they get tired themselves.

    so obviously I need not remind you that Dan signed a letter telling Republicans to ignore social issues, and then when right about pushing for the repeal of DADT and writing about how to best get gay marriage realized.

    Ok. 1) I do not whine, sir.
    2) I shouldn’t need to remind you that neither Dan, Bruce, Andrew Ian Dodge etc. DO NOT write legislation for our country.

    Do you even think before you read?

    Of course I do, but I don’t have to because you’re writing the same boring, dishonest shit you’ve been writing on the issue for months now. It’s old and people are tired of it.

    Looking over your post here, do you even read what you’re writing?

    Or are you that much of an upsucking sycophant? Its like you are Joy Behar and Dan is your Obama.

    Know what you can upsuck?

    No one was addressing you,

    Tough shit. You wrote it on a blog and should have the expectation that someone just might question your absurdities. If you can’t back them, who’s the one with the problem?

    All you do is make him look like he cant.

    All I’m doing is wondering why you have to inject so much dishonesty. Why such a hard-on for smearing Dan as a liar and a hypocrite? What’s your bag?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2011 @ 6:05 pm - February 12, 2011

  28. The CPAC boycotters have asserted, at times, that GOProud is a gay marriage advocacy group. Is it? I checked the GOProud website a couple weeks back, and did not see GOProud taking any position on it.

    For that matter, has Bruce ever written a post to advance the cause of gay marriage? I don’t believe so. Dan has written on it more, and generally with a lukewarm view: saying it should be achieved democratically if at all, and criticizing its advocates for ignoring its opponents’ reservations. Not complaining, but I’ve always felt a bit lonesome on this blog, as a (non-Left) gay marriage advocate.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - February 12, 2011

  29. You say most aren’t for out right bans by looking at bills in Iowa, Indiana, Wyoming, they all not only ban gay marriage but also civil unions.

    Yes, but DER, they aren’t going to get any farther with it than they already have. They’ve already hit their own high-water mark.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2011 @ 6:47 pm - February 12, 2011

  30. Chris Barron has stated his favor for SSM. Jimmy is still on the hunt.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - February 12, 2011

  31. “We are willing to work alongside social conservatives even if we have different goals on certain issues,”

    ok, I can agree with that. My philosophy on politics is that I’ll work with anyone on an issue even if I disagree with them on everything else. So while I’m against gay marriage, I’ll work with gay conservatives on issues we agree on. If you can accept that we’ve got a deal.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — February 12, 2011 @ 9:11 pm - February 12, 2011

  32. If you can accept that we’ve got a deal.

    And that’s the point. There’s no tri-lateral gay conservative (who’re really liberals) black helicopter conspiracy to use HAARP to build a super highway meant to split insecure SoCons.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 12, 2011 @ 9:39 pm - February 12, 2011

  33. Excellent. I knew I liked this blog for a reason.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — February 12, 2011 @ 9:54 pm - February 12, 2011

  34. Ok. 1) I do not whine, sir.

    snort!

    Of course I do, but I don’t have to because you’re writing the same boring, dishonest shit you’ve been writing on the issue for months now.

    I am??? That’s strange, since I am writing about events that just happened this weekend.

    And IF you had stopped your histrionics for just a moment, untwisted your panties, taken your Pamprin and allowed your estrogen levels to return to normal, you MIGHT have noticed that Dan conceded my point.

    Not one dishonest remark. And every bit of it already backed up.

    Tough shit. You wrote it on a blog and should have the expectation that someone just might question your absurdities. If you can’t back them, who’s the one with the problem?

    See, were you a thinking human being, which you clearly are not, you would see the irony in that statement, and realize that is EXACTLY what you are getting so hysterical over. I questioned something Dan wrote on his blog, and you are throwing a hissy fit — as you usually do.

    You’re an hysterical ass who doesn’t think, but emotes. You come here NOT to discuss, but to meet some emotional needs you have for belonging or something just as pathetic. Which is why you behave, and think, like a guard dog, actually, more like one of those yippie annoying little purse dogs. And which is why you keep being so utterly stupid as to demand that you have a right to question what people say on a blog, while throwing a hissy fit because someone else is doing so.

    And you lie. And argue like the STUPIDEST of liberals, claiming I must HATE Dan because I am disagreeing with him and holding him to account when his views do not comport with reality. And claiming I lie without being able to provide any examples — because I dont.

    Now go away, you are utterly pathetic, and I really am tired of having to wipe the floor with you.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 13, 2011 @ 8:09 am - February 13, 2011

  35. Girls, Girls! You’re both pretty!

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — February 13, 2011 @ 9:53 am - February 13, 2011

  36. DER,

    ‘Bans’ like those in Ohio, indiana, Iowa, et al. are in large part *defensive* actions, against courts ‘making shit up’ as it were.

    I wouldn’t say all social conservatives are not going to settle for 80%. A good chunk of us would be happy to have our 80% and be left alone to live our lives.

    The blind spot* for social conservatives is the old saying ‘a government powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it away.’ In trying to get the government to enshrine a way of life, they’re conceding the power of a future government to take it away.

    *Yes I don’t have that blind spot. No I don’t think I don’t have *any* blind spots. If I could see them, then they’d not be blind spots would they.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 13, 2011 @ 11:07 am - February 13, 2011

  37. Now go away, you are utterly pathetic, and I really am tired of having to wipe the floor with you.

    I guess you’ll have to let me know when you do, because you haven’t yet. Just more spleen venting over someone DARING to question you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2011 @ 1:40 pm - February 13, 2011

  38. TGC, I could have sworn there was some comment in this thread at some point, about Dan supposedly working to promote gay marriage while wanting to silence soc cons. I remember seeing it for sure in other threads, say from Seane-Anna. But, wherever I’ve seen it and whomever from, it’s a joke.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 13, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - February 13, 2011

  39. #23

    Comment by rusty — February 13, 2011 @ 3:24 pm - February 13, 2011

  40. snort!

    Mr. Owl. How many lines of coke does it take to get to the center of paranoid batshitcrazy?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 13, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - February 13, 2011

  41. And IF you had stopped your histrionics for just a moment, untwisted your panties, taken your Pamprin and allowed your estrogen levels to return to normal,

    Not too misogynistic. Yikes!

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2011 @ 4:05 pm - February 13, 2011

  42. Well rusty – as I suggested at #28, Dan’s support for gay marriage is reserved on a good day, Bruce’s seems to be missing (although he may not oppose it vociferously), and neither one of them wants to silence soc cons. (Unless we are in Crazy Land, where partial disagreement on issue X is tantamount to attempted to murder the person’s voice. But I had thought that only university students pushing “speech codes” lived there.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 13, 2011 @ 4:07 pm - February 13, 2011

  43. Seems to me that Mr. Barron proved every so-called social conservative who stayed away from CPAC to be exactly correct in their reading of the situation. His remarks showed him to be just another gay bomb-thrower.

    So, how long before he and GOProud take the requisite action to restore the integrity of gay conservative movement? The eyes of millions of folks who are conservative in how they go about their lives and beliefs are watching.

    Movements make these mistakes when starting out. It’s a learning event. Except for the person who makes the mistake. That person is gone, banned, a vacuum, an un-person forever more. I don’t, however, advocate martyrdom for Mr. Barron.

    Comment by DaveO — February 13, 2011 @ 10:19 pm - February 13, 2011

  44. 43.Seems to me that Mr. Barron proved every so-called social conservative who stayed away from CPAC to be exactly correct in their reading of the situation.

    DaveO, is that why these groups boycotted? Because they knew that Barron was going to blurt out something to someone who is not gay friendly?

    Movements make these mistakes when starting out. It’s a learning event. Except for the person who makes the mistake. That person is gone, banned, a vacuum, an un-person forever more.

    Who is going to take the Orwellian step and begin the process of making Barron an unperson?

    Comment by Pat — February 13, 2011 @ 11:18 pm - February 13, 2011

  45. I’m sorry, Dan, a few of your determinedly dishonest, reactionary purse dogs want to pretend as though you have not done the following things and want to pretend I am lying and hate you for saying that you have done them.

    Do you deny you signed this letter, urging the Republican party to ignore social issues, that indeed it was your belief that the government had no business addressing values, and that while you claim the Tea party was instrumental in Republican wins (despite having lost many major races that should not have been lost from Alaska to Nevada to Delaware and beyond) and at the same time urging Republicans NOT to pursue any of the issues important to Social Conservatives, which the letter uses the derisive term “special interest” even though Republicans also could not have won without them?

    Furthermore Dan, do you deny having written, since signing that letter. the following:

    this piece praising Illinois for passing civil unions legislation, and giving them specific kudos for “moving forward on such legislaon”?

    Or

    this second piece also praising Illinois for passing a law reconizing same s civil union. Calling it imperfect but a step in the right direction?

    Did you at any time suggest that Illinois should NOT be passing such social legislation and should instead be focused on fiscal matters?

    Do you deny writing this piece, since then, advocating for leftist gay groups like HRC, who are very much focused on realizing gay marriage, to adopt a bipartisan approach to furthering their agenda?

    Do you deny advocating:

    “An ability in the current climate to appeal to Democrats will not help move legislation repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) or recognizing, for the purposes of federal law, same-sex unions.

    This is why I’m so gung-ho about GOProud. They are familiar with the arguments we need make in order to influence a more conservative Congress.”? [emphis mine]

    Do you deny advising leftists that

    Some Republicans may be willing to move forward on gay issues. Others may find that by avoiding such issues, they can toss a bone to social conservatives.

    Whatever the case, gay groups will have to adopt a new strategy or become gay cheerleaders for the Democratic agenda. Steadfast, to be sure, in pursuit of their principles, but ineffective in achieving legislative success. [emphasis mine]

    And do you deny having written several posts in favor of repeal of DADT?

    Thanks, Dan. And no, I dont hate you all, indeed you seem like a very nice guy. I just disagree with you on this and think you are being hypocritical.

    Heather and Heather, I have just mopped the floor with you again. Perhaps in the future you night try thinking before shooting off your mouths for a change.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 14, 2011 @ 4:14 am - February 14, 2011

  46. I could swear I read something funny on the Internet the other day. It said that the smell of straw men and goalpost-shifting is the smell of desperation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 14, 2011 @ 5:55 am - February 14, 2011

  47. To continue blabbing generally… Occasionally, I may wonder if enough people understand my comments. I may wonder if adding bold, or **stars**, or CAPITALS, or **bold starred CAPITALS**, could aid anybody.

    For instance, to take recent comments of mine at random, I could have maybe gimmicked them up like this:

    has Bruce ever written a post to advance the cause of **gay MARRIAGE**? I don’t believe so. Dan has written on it more… saying it should be achieved democratically if at all, and criticizing its advocates for ignoring its opponents’ reservations.

    Well rusty – as I suggested at #28, Dan’s support for **gay MARRIAGE** is reserved on a good day, Bruce’s seems to be missing (although he may not oppose it vociferously), and neither one of them wants to **silence** soc cons…

    But then my common sense hits and I realize: No point. Anybody who can’t or won’t understand my comments from normal font, won’t from gimmicks either. Their problem.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 14, 2011 @ 7:00 am - February 14, 2011

  48. Heather and Heather, I have just mopped the floor with you again. Perhaps in the future you night try thinking before shooting off your mouths for a change.

    A horses’ ass all the way.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 14, 2011 @ 8:41 am - February 14, 2011

  49. TGC, wish I could argue with you. (but can’t)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 14, 2011 @ 6:59 pm - February 14, 2011

  50. #44: Pat,

    Not that Mr. Barron would blurt something out. That is a too-literal inference. The generic read of the boycotters was to see if GOProud is a trojan horse for anti-social conservatism. Barron’s attacks signalled more than annoyance – I’d say contempt is more appropriate a term – at social conservatives. That’s going to take more than a band-aid to fix.

    On the second point, it is for Mr. Barron to do this. Failing that, Mr. DiSalvia and the rest of the board should begin the process. If Mr. Barron is too important to the movement for it to succeed without him – bail out, quickly now don’t hesitate.

    Comment by DaveO — February 15, 2011 @ 11:09 pm - February 15, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.