Posted on 02/19/2014 8:42:04 AM PST by kristinn
Meet the kinder, gentler Conservative Political Action Conference.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, snubbed last year after palling around with President Obama, is coming. So is GOProud, the gay rights group that was banned for the past few years amid noisy boycotts from critics and supporters. There's even a panel debating the merits of medical marijuana.
"CPAC is about finding conservative solutions to every challenge in America and not just saying 'no'," said Al Cardenas, chairman of the American Conservative Union, which runs the conference in Washington, D.C. "We're determined to win the majority of American support."
The annual debate over CPAC's participants and focus reflects the broader, ongoing dialogue over growing the conservative movement and the Republican Party without compromising core principles. Gay rights are a major part of that debate, as conservative groups remain firmly opposed to gay marriage despite polls showing increasing and majority support.
The dispute with GOProud dates back to 2011, when a number of socially conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council, objected to the group's involvement and declined to participate. Insults were traded between GOProud leaders and ACU board members, culminating in the group's exclusion.
Two former GOProud summer interns, Ross Hemminger and Matt Bechstein, took over last summer and sought to repair the bitterly frayed relationship. Under a compromise reached last week, they will attend the March 6-8 gathering as guests, without sponsorship or a booth. GOProud sees the lower-profile role as an important first step.
"We really just want to be part of the conservative movement," said Hemminger, a veteran of the losing Senate campaigns by Scott Brown and Gabriel Gomez in Massachusetts. "We want to establish a fruitful and respectful relationship."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
we already know these groups hate, and scream at, conservatives and their solutions to this issue.
Do you ever tire of your “’Ditto’ chorus”?
Well, “ditto” again. BRAVO!
We are dying by inches, now yards at a time, morally.
Absolutely the frogging strategy is warming the behinds of the party, intentionally making inroads for the crass purpose votes alone, assuring that American and Christian principles shall be compromised first, and eventually destroyed there after. Trading in votes in exchange for morality to obtain power is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. Indebted to licentiousness will be the outcome, and to pony up favors and legislation will be the required price.
Assisting the presence of evil in our midst, with RINO and CPAC styled hospitalty and openness, makes us complicit in our own demise as a people, as well as a party.
This administration is pushing sodomy globally as well as in our public schools, hinging withdrawal and refusal of financial aid to countries who will not comply, and funding Common Core to the exclusion of the tried and true methods of teaching, here at home.
This is huge and it’s all so obvious. Compared to the global efforts pushing sodomy, the R Party on a much smaller scale should prove a push over.
Probably this is the last hill to die on. We better muster, because it effectively determines a decadent society in our future, and will require certainly the death of religious liberty.
Underground may well be our future.
conservative solutions to the gay issue?
1. we do not ever endorse any immoral activity, whether people have a personal weakness for it or not.
2. we continue to believe and educqte about the dangers of homosexuality, and its destructive lifestyle.
3. we will never endorse tyrrany of the minority for immoral reasons/causes.
4. we endorse no special laws for those engaged in immoral acts, or simply because of who they decide to have sex with.
5. we will work to get homosexualty brought into public schools under the guise of “education”, out of public schools.
6. marriage will and always has been between a man, and a woman. we will never endorse gay marriage. we will work to make anywhere that damages the legal definition of marriage by allowing homosexuals to “marry”, to go bvack to the historical and correct definition of marriage.
7. we will work to correctly identify homosexuality as a mental disorder that requires treatment. you don’t do people any favors telling them a mental illness is awesome and how God wanted you to be.
8. we will push back all forms of sexual immorality eating away at the culture and family.
9. we will once again criminalize perversions of all kinds.
now these are conservative solutions to the homosexuality problem.
we’re not shifting off these positions, if they want compromise, let them come off their positions and shift towards ours.
“Well, “ditto” again. BRAVO!”
Now you did it. Soon my detractors will start posting pictures of Yosemite Sam on a Dragon and telling people that’s you.
Well...that’s what some people think passes for adult discourse here anyway. Or did. But SURELY you’ll be shamed and ‘feel’ bad for your actions I’m sure...Shirley ;)
:)
Doesn't do any good to stay away unless they know personally that you're not attending....and WHY.
They need a LOT of letters. Next thing is the pro-abort and pro-drug RINOS sniffing around to sneak their way into the the CPAC organizational hierarchy.
Infiltraitors never sleep.
Leni
This why I know deem it “FudgePAC.”
As long as they are not there to preach a liberal agenda or tell people what their values should be, I think I’m okay with them coming.
I believe the big issue was Barron calling people bigots who disagreed with him. Then, Barron went completely overboard in 2013 and endorsed McAuliffe for Gov. of Virginia (This was pointed out on the GayPatriot blog last year).
If they are going over there to PROMOTE a leftist agenda, then I probably would say they shouldn’t go.
Big tent is a two way street. They’re going to have to accept those of us who support traditional marriage.
We’ll have to see what happens.
I have to agree. My landlord for my office is gay and he HATES Liberals. Just because you are gay, it isn’t that all gays are LIberals. My landlord is a business owner (he owns buildings, a hamburger restaurant and a bar.)
As DLinthedesert said, it is foolish to turn down support of people we don't agree with. If a tea party member was running against a RINO, and the tea party person is gay, does that mean you would vote for the RINO?
That is what I should said. You said it perfectly, Titans.
It is foolish to turn down the support of people we do not agree with 100%
Curious that some are so willing to lose elections if they don’t see 100% purity in our candidate.
Incredible. Replaced conservative with compromise.
In short: no.
There are strings attached. Groups like GOProud have a very clear agenda that they are forcefully trying to push that is completely counter to conservative beliefs. It's the same EXACT agenda as the HRC and other liberal groups: Redefine marriage. Indoctrinate our children with the pro-gay agenda. Call everyone who disagrees "bigots".
The actual founder of GOProud is already out today calling conservatives who stand for traditional values "forces of bigotry". Nope, no agenda there!
They are not coming to CPAC as conservatives. They are a gay agenda pushing group. That is their reason for wanting to come.
Should CPAC let an abortionist group in because they don't like high taxes? Should there be a GOPro-choice invite to CPAC too?
If CPAC is standing firm for the values of Reagan's 3 legged stool — fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and yes, social conservatism/tradition family values — then no, they cannot welcome groups that are actively trying to destroy any of these values. Conservatism cannot stand without all 3.
Hello Jeff! I so agree!!!
Though I do have a follow-on question: Exactly how is it feasible to integrate this insight into contemporary politics and still win elections?
Just to note: If you can't get elected, i.e., if you're not in office, you can't get much of anything done that remedies the problems you see.
I gather your insightful essay/post was addressed to the issue of the current division in the GOP between the party Establishment and the Tea Party folks, in the run-up to the 2014 Midterm elections.
I consider myself a card-carrying member of the latter. Given the seemingly endless impotence and fecklessness emanating from the Republican Establishment, I left the party in 2011.
I left because it seemed to me the Republican Party — the party of Abraham Lincoln — had abandoned the principles of liberty, equal opportunity, and equal justice, principles which took the bloodiest war in American history to uphold and defend — the essential principles embodied in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution that We the People instantiated in the Preamble, in order to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
But enuf of such ruminations. Dear friend, you so justly point out precisely what is needed: A way to reach voters in terms of a national policy that "will improve people's life and that of their loved ones...their kids and grandkids. That's how you win this battle."
Obama and his acolytes and enablers on the Progressive Left (such as Harry Reid in the Senate; and Nancy Pelosi, the fabulous Chucky Schumer and a legion of other like-minded (and seemingly terminal brain-dead) ne'er-do-wells in the House; not to mention the Lame-Brain Media and huge sectors of Academe) have signally failed to produce anything they promised us, after five years of effective (and seemingly unchallengeable) majority — tiresome presidential rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
Obama "says" he is the great defender of the American Middle Class. But it looks to me like he's systematically looting the middle class, under cover of "law," for the benefit of his politically-connected "friends," be they industrial tycoons, Hollywood moguls, or the ignorant masses, the latter of whom are more interested in getting a free Obama-phone (or refrigerator) at taxpayer expense, than they are in upholding the time-tested standards of a basic, civilized constitutional order — which to them is an "abstraction" that their minds cannot conceive. The former class pays him big campaign dollars. The last are just a manipulable mob in his playbook. Both have their purposes: but their purposes either serve Obama, or there will be "repercussions."
Some people, at least, see this. Which is why I suspect that the next crucial elections — 2014 and 2016 — cannot, and will not, be decided on the basis of "political ideology," Left or Right.
The People are so hurting so much by now, thanks to an ersatz president who has taken it upon himself to independently exercise sovereignty WRT national policy without having to consult Congress — let alone the Constitution, to which he swore a presidential oath to uphold and defend — that they are mainly looking for relief from their present sufferings, imposed upon them by the Powers that Be in Washington.
What conservatives most need right now, IMHO (FWIW) is a concept of political Realism. For, if ideology, "idealism," has landed us where we are right now, in such a way that people actually feel the devastating effects, it should be obvious that the "cure for what ails us" is not more "idealistic ideology," Left or Right.
People want solutions — not talk. If the Republican party can speak to the people in terms of their own immediate concerns — which largely devolve around the problems of paying the recurring household expenses, raising and educating their kids, providing for retirement, perhaps caring for elderly relatives — at a time when the public perception is of relentlessly escalating costs in order to achieve the American Dream, while their government is relentlessly, systematically, shrinking their means of doing so; i.e., of providing for themselves and their families.
Anyhoot, I'll end my present rumination there, adding only that I hope and pray that we do not have a reprise of 2012 in the November elections. People who are hurting don't care much about "ideological positions." They just want real answers to their real problems (which Obama seems bent on making as acute as possible): They'll vote for the guy — in the midterms and in the following general — they believe will help them fix their keenly felt problems.
Thank you so much, dear Jeff, for pinging me to your excellent essay/post!
Many voters are hurting that bad, they need relief. They'll listen to a message focused on that and a solution they can support.
I left the republican party about the same time you did, and for exactly the same reasons.
Your comment, 'What is needed: A way to reach voters in terms of a national policy that will improve people's life and that of their loved ones...their kids and grandkids. That's how you win this battle,' is spot on. The trouble is, Americans over the past several decades have 'evolved' to a point at which 'life improvements' have been re-defined so as to pretty much exclude, or at least ignore, the concept of individual liberty.
In addition, so much of what we speculate regarding upcoming elections rests on envisioning the electorate based on past precedent. But nowadays precedent cannot always be invoked simply because the citizenry today bears no resemblance to what it used to be, and, with each passing day, that difference becomes even more pronounced.
We have been witnessing for decades fascist techniques commonly used to prepare a country for the implementation of a dictatorship.
Our children today know virtually nothing about the proud history, and liberty-centered foundations, of their own country.
Our mainstream media regularly rewrite, interpret, or righteously ignore, both that history and the everyday events unfolding around us.
Either directly or indirectly, millions of people who have no business being in this country are being afforded a say as to who our leadership is, and are benefitting enormously from government handouts.
The ‘pioneer spirit’ that made America the most moral and prosperous civilization in the history of mankind has been replaced, systematically, by a victim/entitlement mentality that urges voters to cast their ballots on the basis of ‘What’s in it for me?’ rather than ‘What is best for my country?’ or ‘Who has the character to lead my country down the right road?’ or ‘Who will be earnest in continuing to guarantee the freedoms that our Founders fought so hard to ensure us?’ The last three considerations have been declared passé and nationalistic (which is now a four-letter word).
Voting on the basis of 'What's in it for me?' tends now to focus on material gains as provided by 'government', and tends to ignore the freedoms that must be relinquished in order to obtain such temporary 'gains'.
I believe that, more than any other threat we currently face, we must put an end to the independent and grossly illegal actions of the executive branch, because it is through those actions that our individual liberties are being most blatantly crushed. It is up to congress and the court to get this usurpation of power back under control ... and it is up to us to demand they do so. How, exactly, can that occur when ninety percent of the electorate value their smart phones significantly more than they do their God-given freedoms as ensured by the Bill of Rights?
~ joanie
So very true, dear joanie-f, thank you for your insights!
Recent actions by the executive branch are clearly impeachable offenses: e.g., the refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act; the announcement that all gay couples are eligible for the same federal benefits as received by married couples, regardless of whether they are "married" or not, and even if they live in states that do not recognize gay marriage; the selective enforcement of ObamaCare; the list goes on. The President is clearly in violation of his oath of office —
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."He is in violation of his Article II, section 3 duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
The problem is, Congress will not impeach him, partly because of a lack of courage, but also because they can impeach him all day long — but Harry Reid would never bring him to trial in the Senate. So why go through a punishing, divisive, polarizing process when you know you're going to come up with nothing to show for it in the end?
In order to impeach this president, the GOP would need to be in control of both the House and the Senate.
I do not look for relief from the Supreme Court anytime soon. They are the unelected branch, not directly accountable to the people. With a few exceptions, the sitting justices seem to have the view that the Constitution is pretty elastic, and may be interpreted in such a way as to accommodate changes in the culture over time. There is no other way to explain Roe v. Wade. Plus their decision on Obamacare is completely unintelligible to me: How can a law that is offensive on Commerce Clause grounds still be okay because Obamacare's penalty for noncompliance is covered under the federal taxing power, as a tax, not a penalty?
Obama must think he's sitting in the "catbird seat." He must think he's untouchable. Meanwhile, he dispatches his minions to harrass Americans who disagree with his plans and policies, through illegal activities carried out by his IRS, FCC, NLRB, etc. He violates Americans' First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights at the drop of a hat. He stacks the federal courts with radical Left Progressive judges, who enjoy lifetime tenure.
And he does all this with the attitude: "Just try to stop me! Heh-heh-heh." ["The really nice thing about being president is I can do what I want."]
Meanwhile, he is systematically looting the American middle class under color of law. That's the beauty of ObamaCare, from his point of view. For the middle class is where the real money is....
I daresay middle class people are beginning to feel the squeeze. After 5 years of the moribund Obama economy, rising taxes and prices, they are being hit hard in the pocketbook. Plus with new regulations constantly being ground out, and selective enforcement of those on the books, people cannot make reasonable plans for the future.
It is the middle class which is paying for all the freebies Obama is giving away to his "friends." I daresay when middle class people finally figure this out, perhaps the tide of events will turn....
When Obama speaks of "income inequality," what he really means is to reduce the middle class, not to bring the poor up to the middle-class level.
Sooner or later, something's going to have to give — this sort of thing cannot continue in a straight line. At some point, such abuses must "correct." What form the "correction" will take, I do not know. But nothing in the natural world, including cultures and societies, ever moves in a straight line; rather the movement is like that of a pendulum....
Joanie, you said the electorate is different today than it was in the past. Granted. The people have been systematically deculturated by our educational institutions at all levels, so-called "charitable" institutions, and the entertainment industries. Thus we have been "softened up" for the political progressives who are determined to wipe out American culture as we know it, that they may construct a Second Reality (that won't work), and drag us all kicking and screaming into it. The promised utopia will never materialize — as we all should know from History....
Ah! But there's the rub — how many Americans know their history today?
Things look pretty grim, dear joanie-f — but you must not lose hope!
I AM is still in charge!
Thank you so much for writing!
Hi Joanie, how good to know you are still keeping an
eye on FR. Your remarks as always are eloquent and
on target.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.