Wow.
Two more big guns of the conservative movement confirmed today they are not participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because of the continued participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud.
The Heritage Foundation, the largest think tank in Washington and not known as part of the religious right, confirmed that it is not taking part...
...In addition, the Media Research Center, led by Brent Bozell, a longtime associate of the hosting organization, the American Conservative Union, announced it was dropping out.
They join American Family Ass'n, American Vision, Family Research Council, and CWA in saying 'buh-bye' following CPAC's decision to include GOProud.
Wowza.
ReplyDeleteCPAC deserves it, for their idiocy.
Ummmhnn, it's going to be quite a sideshow! The rightwingers applying litmus tests to tea partiers...religious pharisees objecting to their secular brethren's position on social issues...and of course, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the new Weeper of the House.
ReplyDeleteI going to go contrarian here. "Conservative" is not the exclusive right of social cons. It is a broad spectrum.
ReplyDeleteAnd honestly, we don't need any more "compassionate" social conservatism at the expense of fiscal lunacy. GWB, Romney and Huckabee anyone?
GOProud ain't gonna give anyone cooties. Welcome them.
Heritage's position is the right one. Social, fiscal, and Constitutional issues are NOT separate.
ReplyDeleteTheir spokesman said that CPAC is, in reality, Libertarian-Fest.
Sorry. Marriage is far too important to discard for the sake of a nice hand-holding circus.
"If you don't believe in the traditional family, you're not a conservative."
ReplyDeleteThis statement from the source you linked is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard in my entire life. No wonder political movements are won or lost with such rhetoric.
"Social, fiscal, and Constitutional issues are NOT separate."
For a number of conservatives, they are exclusive. And that line of thinking only pushes people away from the "revolution" you call for.
Refer to those individuals as CINO's? They'll take offense to that notion, and get out their guns.
These groups can leave any organization for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteGood for them.
Well, some people define 'conservative' in the same way that some others define 'marriage.'
ReplyDelete"Whatever we damn well FEEL like today."
I'll stick with Edmund Burke--and actual marriage/family.
YMMV.
I'm going for the intersection on the Venn Diagram. 'Cuz if we exclude the libertarian leaning fiscal and constitutional conservatives now. We have already lost. Because Huck ain't gonna get us off the edge of the financial cliff.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, I know what loons pure libertarians are. But this crowd isn't that.
By boycotting, these groups are consigning the event to the Paul-Nuts.
Umnnhhh.....
ReplyDeleteCPAC "eliminated" the family-friendly folks. Let CPAC be pro-gay-marriage fiscal conservatives.
Actual Conservatives are a MUCH larger group and DO include fiscal conservatives.
IOW, CPAC has just marginalized itself. Family people did not marginalize CPAC.
And that's where we will have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI don't think some fiscally responsible gays will bring down the conservative movement. Lord knows they won't do any more damage to marriage and family than Rudy and Newt did. Don't they have 6-7 marriages with infidelity between them now?
Conservatism isn't a single-issue movement.
But some folks with single-issue credibility certainly have done some serious damage to this country and the credibility of conservatives via out of control spending and rank hypocrisy.
Its great to think that we can have ideological purity on all three of those points, but.... At this moment, fiscal and constitutional rank 1 and 2. Social Cons have been driving the bus for quite some time now - I think its time for them to take a passenger seat for a bit.
Umnnhh...
ReplyDeleteWe may disagree about a couple of things here.
First off, which "social cons" have been 'driving the bus'? McCain? Palin? IIRC, they were defeated--and McCain was the lead horse in that parade and he is NOT a 'social con.'
Which "social cons" have un-done Roe? Is Romney a social con?
More to the point: is Heritage Foundation "social con"?
Huckabee is, yes--but he's going noplace.
And I don't think that the "social cons" are a threat to the Constitution, nor to fiscal sanity. GWB, as we have learned, was neither a "social" nor a "fiscal" con.
Queer "marriage" is a threat to the first things--all of them. So when CPAC decided to play footsie with the queer-marriage crowd, they blew off the "social cons."
Too bad.