GOProud and Birchers ousted as CPAC co-sponsors (David Horowitz survives vote)

Daily Caller ^ | 07/29/2011 | Matt Lewis

[Hawk720]

According to official letters obtained by The Daily Caller, the gay conservative group GOProud and the ultraconservative John Birch Society won’t be co-sponsoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2012.

The decision was reached by a full vote of the American Conservative Union’s board of directors. The ACU organizes and hosts CPAC each year.

Representatives of GOProud and the John Birch Society were notified of the decision via mail Friday afternoon.

The decision comes after GOProud’s 2011 sponsorship sparked severe criticism from ACU board members, and prompted several social conservative groups to boycott the event. The controversy reached a boiling point when GOProud’s chairman called respected ACU board member Cleta Mitchell “a nasty bigot.”

Long considered a fringe group, the John Birch Society’s sensationalist accusations (such as saying Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy“) once prompted William F. Buckley to effectively banish the group from the conservative movement.

Various blocs of CPAC board members find both GOProud and the Birchers highly offensive — and for entirely different reasons.

Meanwhile, one controversial conservative activist actually survived the ACU board vote.

Despite accusing Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist and ACU board member Suhail Khan, during his 2011 CPAC speech, of being in league with the Muslim Brotherhood, it was decided that conservative activist David Horowitz would not be precluded from participating in the future.

ACU’s decision to revisit past decisions regarding CPAC has been expected. After the departure of longtime ACU Chairman David Keene last year, it was predictable that ACU’s board of directors would address lingering questions surrounding past co-sponsors and speakers.

[Graybeard58]

They generally claim 10% or more.

[DoughtyOne]

If you happen to watch HGTV, FOOD, LIFHD, or BRAVO, you’d think 98.267% of the people in the United States were flaming homosexuals, cross-dressers, or bi-sexuals. The other 1.73% would be people who pierce just about every part of their body, and have enough tattoos that you’d think they were trying to hide the piercings.

And then there’s the nice looking women that now seemingly can’t wait to deface themselves.

If you’re not a spaced out nut-job these days, nobody will put you on the air.

[achilles2000]

Sure makes sense to evaluate people and an organization in 2011 based on what some other people in the organization did over 50 years ago...

[Chiltepe]

That’s funny. From where we stand today, the Birchers seem to have been far more accurate in their assesment of reality. Buckley seems more like a NE elitist than a conservative.

Right, and right. Buckley also oversaw the purging of conservatives from National Review when he decided it would be a better political gamble to throw in with the neocons.

[Nextrush]

CPAC is the inside the beltway crowd regardless-Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and other known Romney enthusiasts.

[Nextrush]

I still admire and respect Buckley.

He buckled under media pressure in dropping the Birchers in 1965.

But in the end, Bill B did throw in his lot with the GOP insiders like Dr. Henry Kissinger.

[rmlew]

But in the end, Bill B did throw in his lot with the GOP insiders like Dr. Henry Kissinger.
You are so right. It's not like Buckley spent the 1960s and much of the 1970s attacking Kissinger's boss Rockefeller. And it's not like Kissinger was routinely attacked at National Review.

I was briefly a Bircher. They are conspiracy loons, who base an entire ideology on the failed syllogism that intent is proven by results.

[Anti-Bubba182]

The 10% was from the old Kinsey Sex "research". Kinsey made it up. The 2% to 3% is an estimate from so called researchers, many gay themselves, the 10% figure not being plausible. Gays have every interest in inflating their numbers to gain acceptance and political power.

Notice how relatively few Gay marriages have occurred in Mass. where it is legal. (8,100 since 2004). Either Gays are not as interested in actually marrying as Straights or the underlying population is smaller.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

"..Out of the total of more than 8,100 marriages, 64% involve lesbian couples.[6] In comparison, more than 36,000 heterosexual couples are married each year in Massachusetts.[7].."

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

They jumped the shark.End of story.

[Valin]

Well can’t think of a better reason to ban them.
/sarc