Are they a plot by that evil genius Rahmbo? No, Rahm Emanuel would have broken legs to disrupt the CPAC convention. Hey, it’s “the Chicago Way.”
No, whatever geniuses invited GOProud to CPAC didn’t have their legs broke, they just got hoodwinked by a bunch of fairies masquerading as fiscal conservatives. Come on, you don’t think I’m right? Here, think this through with me. Let’s say you are a hypothetical gay person who also happens to be fiscally conservative. I doubt that such mythical beast exists, but bear with me.
And suppose that being a fiscal conservative, you were deeply concerned about the fiscal well being of America, so much so that you wanted to go to CPAC’s convention. You were all rah rah! to get the fiscal conservatives fired up to take back our country and fight back the fiscal libs and progressives. You wanted to build a majority, to cover over differences between members on controversial social issues like abortion and the death penalty. You want to be a uniter, not a divider. So you humbly appear and leave whatever the heck it is you do in bed out of the convention, and don’t mention your sexuality, right?
Wrong! Instead, you go in like gangbusters with the one issue– “gay rights”–most certain to divide this fragile new coalition, Brilliant, genius. Way to go. Your pathetic deviant libido is more important than creating a fiscal conservative consensus. What you do in the privacy of your own home–legally–isn’t good enough to keep private. You have to jam it down the social conservatives throats, force them to accept your immorality, just so you can. Makes perfect sense to me. Not!
Nope. I ain’t buying it. I will never believe that GOProud cares a wit about conservative fiscal issues. I think it is a front, concocted by some dumb ass liberal out there, in order to try to get invited to CPAC’s convention just so they could then trumpet the fact that they were rejected. Then some even bigger dumb asses at CPAC decided to invite them. Joy of joys, they got in where they never thought that they would be invited, and in fact they got to boo a social con who was offended by their invitation. And they would have gotten away with this ruse if not for the courage of the fearless crew, er, I mean if not for John Doe writing this comment.
What do you think? Are GOProud really liberals in drag just trying to destroy the fragile conservative coalition?
Your conspiracy theory has merit (echoed by the comments of a reader on your original “NAMBLA” post) — that it is likely a provocative “stump-the-cons” ploy masquerading as a straightforward appeal for representation at the CPAC event by an anomalous but highly controversial group. I am impressed, however, by the overall knee-jerk reaction by those present at Ryan Sorba’s call-out, repeated throughout rightwing blogdom. I had to search far and wide to find a mellow skeptic who didn’t reflexively condemn Sorba’s delicious courage and insight.
Well, I too thought Sorba was a little over the top. He was mad, just as I would have been, to have been placed in that situation, where he could either make nice and be loved by all, or stand up for his principles and be disliked for being a jerk by many. Sad to say, IF I had the courage to do what he did, I would have done the same but only worse. Sure, I would have preferred somebody else, more eloquent, had spoken with “Sorba’s delicious courage and insight,” but he was the only one who did. Kudos to you Ryan, kudos.
You think that GOProud is a front for liberals? I have to wonder if you are serious, if you have read up on them at all. They broke off from Log Cabin because they thought the Log Cabins had put a more liberal agenda up. Why is it that you think a gay person couldn’t possibly be fiscally/civilly conservative?
And as for Ryan Sorba’s rant, as a person who is truly for civil liberties, I’m glad he had the chance to speak his piece. However, he said what he had to say, then proceeded to get angry, yell, and call out someone in the audience about how they were now his enemy. That’s not conservatism. *That’s* liberal “I will tell you what to do and think, and get mad and call you dumb if you disagree.” type thinking.
And what is booing loudly when somebody is trying to speak? That is what bothered him.
I explained why I thought they were not fiscal conservatives: Because if they were, that issue should trump gay marriage, at least for the time being. Obviously, they insisted on bringing their social agenda to the CPAC meeting. That was as stupid as having a ProAbortion fiscal conservative group there, or a ProObama fiscal conservative group. Just leave the social shit at home, or bring it to some meeting where it won’t be so divisive.
p.s. IF I was going to attend a gay fiscal conservative meeting, I wouldn’t show up with a sign saying “Ban Gay Marriage.” I’d show up and see what we had in common.
I don’t know if you had the pleasure of being at CPAC, but I assure GOProud’s booth had nothing like that. They had a sign, a few sheets for signing up for their email newsletter, and a copy of their mission, which you can find here: http://goproud.org/?page=legislativeagenda
Only 4 and 7 are things you probably disagree with. They weren’t there waving a rainbow flag saying “Gays are awesome,” they were there as an economic/civil conservative organization.
You make an excellant point.
I’m not trying to convince you, or to persuade you, or piss you off, but let’s say NAMBLA was invited. Of course them being as non-obtrusive as possible would be better than them waving flags and making loud pronouncements, but it would still be unacceptable.
I know, I KNOW, you and many others gasp at comparing gays with pedophiles. I don’t. Do I want gays and pedophiles to vote for the more fiscally conservative candidate, whomever they are? Sure.
My philosophy is why bring it up? How is it relevant? IF you are trying to build a coalition of fiscal conservatives, why pick fights about gay marriage when you know it could dissolve the coalition?
Why choose the name Gay(gasp)GOPer? Who cares if you are gay? I didn’t ask if you are gay? TMI. It’s as though you were stranded on a deserted island and had to eat a dead companion. Sorry, but you don’t have to tell me about it, and I certainly wouldn’t be proud about it. You choosing it tells me you have an agenda and fiscal conservative isn’t tops on the agenda, advancing gay marriage and having gays seen as moral persons is tops on the agenda.
Frankly, I chose the name because you seemed to imply in your posting that there’s no way gay people could be conservative and I thought it’d be funny. I am, but you’re right in saying it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this conversation.
What someone does in the bedroom shouldn’t matter. To you, to me, to the government. That’s where I come from politically, and from my experience GOProud does too. My highest concerns are economic conservatism. Our govt (even the GOP in the last few years) has apparently forgotten about that, but thankfully the party seems to be returning to that.
But next are civil liberties, which should be left to the states. It doesn’t matter if you think gays are moral or not-the federal government shouldn’t be involved. If CA or any other wants to ban gay marriage-well, that makes me sad-but that’s the state’s decision. Washington should have nothing to do with it.
So, even if you don’t believe it, advancing gay marriage/acceptance is not at the top of my list. It’s fixing this economy, and not through bailouts, stimuli and other big govt programs (and this, I hope we could both agree on).
Oh, ok, then yeah, it was funny.
I agree that homosexual marriage should be left to the states.
You did not come up with the plan by GOProud, I presume. I think that they should have just appeared and supported CPAC, and not said a word about what they did in private. They chose not to go that route, so I still maintain that gay marriage is more important to them than fiscal issues. What other explanation is there? They are just stupid, and did not intend to cause a division?
Look, Gay (gasp!) GOPer — if you were serious about economic conservatism being at the top of your list, you’d find a home with the Libertarians who are indifferent to sexual orientation but all over fiscal issues. GoProud’s presence at CPAC, aided and abetted by its timid bunch of administrative weenies, was a calculated attempt to divide and conquer.
GOProud, like the neo-cons is another attempt to fracture the republican party. They never decry extremist gay activists, and they refuse to engage in honest debate, regarding pedophiles and other serious concerns we face by the extremist gay activists. They treat our religious beliefs with contempt, and demand our rights be sublimated.. they are the same as the leftists they claim they have no association with. Again, it’s an attempt to undermine the republican party, the conservative movement from within. They, along with neo-con Grover Norquist (he invited the alliance, and Norquist is also a converted Muslim, his new wife is related to men heavily involved in the Muslim Brotherhood) are allied to destroy us to further their agenda.
As only a dear Mary “mother” would understand…
First we must determine…which situation are we addressing…?
The battlefield…
or the political convention…?
Worlds apart…olde soldier sends…
H&K’s …Mary…!
Welcome, Gay(gasp!)GOPer… I don’t know where our manners are? They’re around here somewhere…
In any event; divergent thought and opinion are the mother’s milk of a flourishing democracy…
It’s also quite refreshing to see feathers ruffled here; by someone other, than “yours truly”.
Yes, I’m aware this thread is eleven months olde…
It’s very appropriate however; considering what is certain to be, the tight splintered nature, [in most cases…] of the new congress.
Hehehe…!
Pingback: Oh, so now it’s cool to boycott CPAC? | Smash Mouth Politics