There more I hear about this, the less I like Republicans. I would expect homo's to be running the show if Demo's were in charge, but not Rep's....but that is apparently what is happening. I know it is turning off a lot of social conservatives.
That is the point of such fluff stories.
This is all about people with their own agenda to depress the turnout.
There are suicidal conservatives who actually want democrats to win so they can reconsolodate their power because they are only one voice in the chorus of a majority. (they rather be a big fish in a little pond)
There are also the MSM pushing the depress the turn out strategy.
The bottom line is that Republicans FIRE homosexuals.
Vote in November,
Get your friends to vote in November.
Piss off the Dinosaur media VOTE!
Well, I'm a social conservative. But I have no problem with homosexuals who share my agenda being in a coalition with me and exercising political power.
Of course, R homosexuals do or could cause the following problems for the Republican party:
1. I don't believe homosexuals, as homosexuals, should be held up as role models in public. It's the wrong message to children. As long as R homosexuals are discreet about their problem, that doesn't occur. There is, however, the danger that they will eventually be used to legitimate the practice of homosexuality because they are respected and powerful Republicans.
2. Because most R homosexuals in power are, to some extent, closeted, they are very vulnerable to blackmail. We see some of that happening now.
3. In today's charged climate, I suspect there is a strong possibility of hidden agendas where congressional staffers could have a lot of power.
4. Reactions like yours. The party isn't a church. So there is no requirement, ala Paul, to temporarily exclude sinners from the party until they change their ways. But the secular humanists will and have used this as a wedge, depending on Christian conservatives to act like ninnys and commit political suicide. Of course, the remedy for that is easy. Don't act like ninnys.
There's a lot of better reasons to be annoyed at the R's than a bunch of homosexual staffers.
Political coalitions are often messy and throw unlikely bedfellows together (bad image there). We need every conservative vote and contributor. I'm not willing to run homosexuals out of the party. Besides, if we ran all the sinners out of the party, who would be left?
Please identify any factual examples where "homo's" are "running the show" in the GOP, if you can; facts, not suppositions, innuendo and projections of unfactual perceptions.
I understand the mission of Agape Press and Americans for Truth.
However my view of them in the matter their weighing in on the Foley scandal, and their overly broad brush, overly (non-factual) focus on the influence of gays in the GOP in this case, says that they are no better in this particualr affair than the leftist groups who produced the outing of Foley and the news networks.
They are taking advantage of the Foley scandal to get attention, and support, for themselves, at the expense of the only national party that contains enough "social conservatives" to continue to support the true causes of Agape and Americans for Truth.
They are acting no different than the RINO Tom Kean in New Jersey who is so weak against the notorioulsy corrupt Menendez that he wants to win by running across the back of Denny Hastert; a man who Kean can never equal in any sense, moral or otherwise.
I hope there are fairer, more decent and more concerned social conservatives that do not get caught up in the GOP bashing so much that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
There will be no blessings of any kind in a Dim majority in Congress.
I would also venture to add that social conservatives could wind up cutting off there own nose to smite their face, if everyone else in the GOP attributes GOP loses to stay-at-home social conservatives. If one thing is certain there will be no places among the Dims reserved for them.
Libertarians, small government conservatives, non-Christian conservatives who want "federalist" type judges (like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) because they form the backbone of the limited role our judiciary should have, more than they want particular social conservative outcomes to be dictated by such judges; might all just decide they are happy with the freedom to not have to deliver "social conservative" outcomes all the time.
Social conservatives have spent nearly forty years (1968) building a political home in the GOP. If they become the cause of GOP defeat (by sitting it out) in 2006, they could just tear their own political house down.
That is not an eventuality worth applauding.
And I reject all efforts that lend support to that outcome.
Including unfounded assumptions, self-serving assumptions by some, that some "lavender mafia" is calling the shots in the GOP. It might sell for people who want to boost their own business or agenda, but it has little reality to it.