January 06, 2011
— Gabriel Malor This is apparently going to be a fixture in second-tier media and online media until CPAC in February, but -- as I noted here -- the family feud does not pit CPAC against social conservatives.
The Washington Times today has an article headlined: "Gay group in, values groups out at CPAC: Social conservatives to skip gathering."
That is simply not the case. Many social conservative groups are still attending as "participating organizations" (the same status as GOProud). They include pro-life groups, Christian ministries groups, and family values groups. Of course, these will be participating in CPAC with many participating organizations that aren't socially conservative, including tax reform advocates, limited government groups, economic conservatives, an English-advocacy group and a group seeking to legalize online gambling.
The only folks who benefit from portraying the boycott as a generalized abandonment of CPAC by social conservatives are Democrats (who love a good conservative crack-up) and the few groups who have chosen to absent themselves. They are putatively led by Family Research Council, but as I have repeatedly noted, FRC wasn't going to participate this year (or last) anyway and so aren't really boycotting as a result of GOProud inclusion. FRC now operates a rival conference, the Values Voters Summit and therefore simply benefits by drawing attendance away from CPAC.
The Washington Times adds Heritage to the list of "values groups" boycotting, but that isn't related to GOProud either. When Heritage announced its decision last month, it didn't link its attendance to GOProud. Instead, Heritage said that it's a budget issue:
"With the rise of the Tea Party groups this year, there have been more and more meetings we've been going to, and we're trying to reach out to new conservatives," said James Weidman, a Heritage spokesman. "We have a limited budget for outreach and we've got more and more organizations out there that want our outreach.""We've been a fixture at CPAC for years. I'm not sure we're going to reach any new people there," Weidman added.
The boycotting groups, which include the Center for Military Readiness, the American Family Association, the American Principles Project, the Liberty Counsel and the National Organization for Marriage, continually suggest that CPAC is trying to push them out of the movement.
Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project, called the move to marginalize values voters self-defeating."The rather arrogant treatment of social conservatives by libertarians is troubling," said Mr. Blom. "Social conservatives are the foot soldiers of the movement. Marriage has never lost an election. Being pro-life does not lose elections. It wins elections. This is not only a serious principle mistake, it's a serious political mistake."
Blom doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of economic conservatives, or admit that both social conservatives and economic conservatives are necessary for conservative candidates to continue to win elections. And once again he claims that CPAC is "marginalizing" social conservatives when, in fact, CPAC continues to welcome both social conservatives and economic conservatives. It was these groups' decision to marginalize themselves simply because they refuse to be put on the same list with a gay group.
Another socially conservative group that isn't part of the boycott seems to recognize that self-marginalization will only reduce social conservative influence:
Groups such as Citizen Link, the political-action arm of Focus on the Family, plan to attend this year's CPAC, but say the conference is on a short leash."It's obvious the influence of social conservatives has been missing and there needs to be more of it," said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Citizen Link. "If the ACU can't manage this problem that they've brought upon themselves, we'll have to make another decision."
The point is that CPAC is the paramount annual gathering of conservatives; if these groups want their influence to be felt, they have to show up. CPAC continues to welcome them and, of course, thousands of social conservatives will still show up for the conference despite the boycott.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
08:05 AM
| Comments (126)
Post contains 675 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:08 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:09 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 06, 2011 08:10 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:10 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 06, 2011 08:10 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:11 AM (3SBB0)
Actually, the point is that prominent "conservatives" who lecture social cons on our obligation to accept GOProud, like Allahpundit, are doing quite a lot to marginalize pro-family, pro-normal people from the conservative movement. This is how liberals and their fellow-travelers always operate. They infiltrate healthy, popular organizations like CPAC and change them to advance their agendas. And they acquire naive converts in the process.
This post's author doesn't acknowledge that CPAC began as a socially conservative organzation as has been a victim of the tactics described above. Admitting this point would go a long way in understanding the real problem here.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 08:12 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 08:15 AM (02uN6)
Imagine: no Bloggers' Row! What would "Poppin' Fresh" do?
Wasting time on circle-jerks like this is supremely pointless.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 06, 2011 08:15 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: joncelli at January 06, 2011 08:16 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 08:16 AM (xxgag)
This is rich:
"If the SoCon groups that absented themselves are truly pissed they can form a new organization and hold their own conference."
Social cons already had their own conference. Its was called CPAC. But then a bunch of opportunistic libertarians took over in a very calculating way, and social cons were too late to counter them. Those libertarians always have been a noble bunch.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 08:18 AM (psns8)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 06, 2011 12:10 PM (1Jaio)
There's another kind?
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 06, 2011 12:15 PM (02uN6)
I thought that Mrs. O'Leary's cow made a good point.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 08:18 AM (xxgag)
It must be January, we're talking about SoCons being upset about teh gheys being at CPAC. Again.
Really, Gabe, this is kind of tiresome.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 08:18 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: Ben at January 06, 2011 08:19 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Shooter McGavin at January 06, 2011 08:19 AM (cxGtL)
Posted by: Ed Wallis at January 06, 2011 08:20 AM (g6jaC)
Blom doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of economic conservatives, or admit that both social conservatives and economic conservatives are necessary for conservative candidates to continue to win elections.
Here is the list of all politicians at the federal and state level who are fiscal conservatives but are not also social conservatives:
(1) Chris Christie
(2) Nobody else
The fiscon who is not a socon is a nice theory but doesn't happen in practice.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 08:20 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 08:21 AM (psns8)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 08:23 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Joanie (Oven Gloves) at January 06, 2011 08:25 AM (HaYO4)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 08:27 AM (BvBKY)
Yeah, VDH nailed this like Will Folks nailed, well, just about everybody.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 08:29 AM (xxgag)
26 23 AmishDude, didn't Chris Christie promise to veto gay marriage if he was voted in as governor and the legislation crossed his desk?
Christie's history indicates he is pretty unconcerned with social issues and is more than willing to compromise in that area.
Like Guiliani, he respects socons though and this may be an acknowledgement that even in NJ same-sex marriage isn't popular and it would be an attempt based on parliamentary maneuvering by an out-of-touch legislature.
Still, I wouldn't call him a socon, especially based on this single issue.
To explain my snark, the bigger point is that all of the "moderate" Republicans who we thought were fiscons at least were the biggest spenders of all -- and not just when it came to their own state's pork.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 08:29 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: cali grump at January 06, 2011 08:29 AM (hL0k8)
"To explain my snark, the bigger point is that all of the "moderate" Republicans who we thought were fiscons at least were the biggest spenders of all -- and not just when it came to their own state's pork."
And, if you look at the vast majority of GOP capitulators on the DADT repeal, they are RINOs.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 08:32 AM (psns8)
You'll have to explain to me how the goals of this group comports with conservative values?
This is about libertarians at CPAC playing demographics nothing more. My guess is there will be a little more back-door dealing at CPAC before next years conference. Ooops, did I say "back-door"?
Posted by: IcallBull at January 06, 2011 08:32 AM (CHrmZ)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 08:32 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:33 AM (3SBB0)
"Gay group in, values groups out at CPAC: Social conservatives to skip gathering."
There is nothing inaccurate about that headline. A gay group is in and Social Conservatives are skipping the gathering. It doesn't say ALL. In the second paragraph the story makes clear it's only some:
Some of the nation's most prominent social conservatives are sending a message to their economic brethren by dropping out of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in response to the decision to include GOProud, a gay conservative group, as a participating organization.
Hell, it even goes with GOProud's self proclaimed farce of a contention that they are a conservative group.
The point is that CPAC is the paramount annual gathering of conservatives; if these groups want their influence to be felt, they have to show up.
If you want to suggest to the press you are conservative To everyone else it's clear CPAC has jumped they shark and will basically admit anybody that throws a bone towards a Conservative issue. It's basically the Ron Paul fan group meeting now. In a few years the keynote speaker will be Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by: Rocks at January 06, 2011 08:33 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:33 AM (3SBB0)
Oh yay. It's "So-Cons" vs "Mo-Cons", Round 28.
In-person conferences aren't nearly as important as they used to be. In fact, those of us at home watching/commenting/reading on the web as the process unfolds will know more about what's going on than 95% of the physical attendees. Sure, you don't get to sit in on the top meetings or schmooze with whoever passes for a luminary at CPAC, but you're not really missing much. Heritage gave the best reason of all to skip the thing, fiscal consevatism.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 06, 2011 08:34 AM (hUf/c)
And, if you look at the vast majority of GOP capitulators on the DADT repeal, they are RINOs.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 12:32 PM (psns
But that's my point. If they were at least fiscons, I'd be more sanguine about it. But they can't even do that right.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 06, 2011 08:37 AM (BvBKY)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at January 06, 2011 08:37 AM (+lsX1)
When Social Conservatives crusade for their social values, Socons need to be more flexible.
When Fiscal Conservatives crusade for their social values, Socons need to be more flexible.
Why is it OK for gay conservatives to disrupt of the overall mission of restraining government by pursuing their pet issues but it is not OK for social conservatives to do likewise?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 06, 2011 08:38 AM (o2QOm)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:39 AM (3SBB0)
Could this be the next President of the United States or the next V-P?
to paraphrase: We need to recognize who the enemy is.
West speaks at pro-Israel conference.
Summed up in one word: AWESOME! INTELLIGENT! BALL-DIPPING ECSTASY!
Posted by: momma at January 06, 2011 08:39 AM (penCf)
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 06, 2011 08:41 AM (piQhE)
Posted by: Rocks at January 06, 2011 08:42 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 06, 2011 08:42 AM (piQhE)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:45 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:46 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 06, 2011 08:47 AM (6ftzF)
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 06, 2011 08:47 AM (FzVlt)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at January 06, 2011 08:48 AM (RsCf8)
Sorry this is so off topic, but,
Hey, I have an idea! Why not find some "Amish" people to start their own activist group! We can force Amish-sensitivity training into the public schools, force every municipal building in the country to add horse-and-buggy parking and rooms without electricity, and highlight what an abused, unwelcome minority they are, and how great the need is to incorporate their lifestyle into mainstream society.
No matter that it will completely shut society-as-we-know-it down! The Constitution is about rights. And there's nothing in the Constitution that gives you religious zealots the right to exclude them!
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 08:48 AM (psns8)
In other words stop discussing morality. The only thing that really matters is money.
Posted by: Shooter McGavin at January 06, 2011 08:48 AM (cxGtL)
Let's see.... Oh yeah straw poll winners.
2007 Mitt Romney
2008 Mitt Romney
2009 Mitt Romney
2010 !!!!RON PAUL!!!!!!
What were you saying again?
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 06, 2011 08:49 AM (piQhE)
And many are not. They made their choice, and that choice is to become increasingly irrelevant.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 06, 2011 08:50 AM (61b7k)
Posted by: Vic at January 06, 2011 08:50 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: cali grump at January 06, 2011 08:50 AM (hL0k8)
Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 06, 2011 08:53 AM (6ftzF)
Posted by: GOPWelfareMoms at January 06, 2011 08:54 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 08:56 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: ed at January 06, 2011 09:00 AM (Urhve)
Letting the Muslim Brotherhood in is only fair, Chicago Jedi. I mean, they do say they support less govt. spending and lower taxes. It would be foolish to divide the coalition so needlessly.
What do you want? To require the Muslims Brotherhood to renounce creeping shariah, or something? That's not fair. GOProud doesn't renounce the radical gay agenda. It actually works to advance it. And, since it is just silly to object to GOProud, who are you to object to the MB?
Start your own conference.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 09:01 AM (psns8)
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 06, 2011 09:01 AM (FzVlt)
This is why I come to AoSHQ, the endless repetition of trivial issues. That, and the apple cobbler.
Posted by: countrydoc at January 06, 2011 09:01 AM (131HS)
So how many elections have the Gay-"cons" help deliver for conservatives?
Yeah, let's let a fringe group dictate to the majority. Its the American way.
Posted by: Iblis at January 06, 2011 09:03 AM (9221z)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 06, 2011 09:04 AM (o3bYL)
Posted by: the chicken at January 06, 2011 09:05 AM (UqKQV)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:05 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: NotALibertarian
Good point. If GOProud went after the peple who want to hang them from cranes with half the vehemence with which they went after the U.S. Military, they might have a little credibility.
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 06, 2011 09:05 AM (hUf/c)
Whenever something happens that could make conservatives look bad, it is immediately published as proven fact. Case in point:
"An individual who believes President Obama wasn't born in the United States interrupted a House reading Thursday of the U.S. Constitution."
On the other hand, when a Muslim shouting "Allah akbar" sets off a bomb or shoots a number of people after posting jihadi messages on his website and and following jihadi clerics, the reporting is: His motive is unclear. What could have made him do that?
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 09:07 AM (xxgag)
Soothsayer,
"not the hill to die on" is Libertarinese for "just give in on this so we can take over!"
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 09:08 AM (psns8)
Posted by: railwriter at January 06, 2011 09:10 AM (daRzV)
Soothsayer,
"not the hill to die on" is Libertarinese for "just give in on this so we can take over!"
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 01:08 PM (psns
My favorite is "It's inevitable!" Ed Morrisey uses this so often I redubbed it inEditable.
Posted by: Rocks at January 06, 2011 09:11 AM (Q1lie)
What's 'first-tier?'
Posted by: railwriter at January 06, 2011 01:10 PM (daRzV)
Anybody that doesn't piss Gabe off.
Posted by: Rocks at January 06, 2011 09:12 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:13 AM (3SBB0)
IRS Tax Liens Jump 60 Percent
Change Baabaay!
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 06, 2011 09:13 AM (piQhE)
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 09:13 AM (xxgag)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:14 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:15 AM (3SBB0)
<Checks poster> Ah, another "bash the socon bigots while posing as a neutral observer" bullshit Gabe post.
<Moves to next post>
Posted by: David, infamous sockpuppet at January 06, 2011 09:16 AM (UtoLw)
Now that gay partners get health insurance, etc., from their other half's employers, can dating but living together man/woman couples get the same?
There is no way to stop it if someone sued, is there?
Posted by: momma at January 06, 2011 09:16 AM (penCf)
I wonder if people realize the amount of damage the "inevitability" line (and others) has inflicted, though. The gay rights movement has been one big successful astroturfing from the beginning. It began with the fraudulent Kinsey studies in the 40s, flashpointed with the APA's de-classifying homosexuality as a disorder in the 1970s and the exploitation of the AIDs epidemic in the 90s, and we now have otherwise intelligent people like NRO's Jonah Goldberg who maintain that homosexuality is just a benign phenomenon.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 09:16 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Soothsayer at January 06, 2011 09:19 AM (3SBB0)
Posted by: Cherry π at January 06, 2011 09:19 AM (+sBB4)
Yes you are right. But first you will blow me!
Posted by: Conflicted Mel Gibson at January 06, 2011 09:22 AM (tf9Ne)
the cost of the repeal of Obamacare.
Said Obamacare doesn't kick in for three years. Yep, math still stumps them.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 09:22 AM (B+qrE)
The U.S. Justice Department went into a public high school on Tuesday with a message for students: If you’re “different,” if you’re gay, and if you’re being bullied – don’t feel alone, don’t be ashamed, and don’t hesitate to call on the federal government for help if your school doesn’t stop the bullying.
“If you have been targeted for harassment or bullying because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity or expression, or simply because your classmates see you as different, I am here to tell you that the Civil Rights Division will not stand for it,” Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told students at James Hubert Blake High School in Silver Spring, Md.
As part of the event – sponsored by the school’s administration and its gay-straight alliance – Perez played a videotape in which mostly gay and lesbian Civil Rights Division employees (and one who identified herself as intersex) shared their stories of being bullied at school. They also offered supportive messages to those who are being bullied now:
“You do have allies -- we are here for you,” one Civil Rights Division employee says in the video.
“If you can find some hope in the fact that you have a whole community of people out here – people who you’ve never met, and we’ve never met you, but we think of you and care about you and want you to be safe and want you to be happy,” another employee says.
“Being different is cool,” another employee says.
“When I was in grade school and high school, I was bullied. But now I prosecute bullies,” says yet another employee.
“Don’t be ashamed of who you are, just keep on being yourself.”
The video was produced by the Civil Rights Division staff for submission to the national “It Gets Better” Project, which was launched after a string of suicides of homosexual students who reportedly had been bullied. The project is intended to reassure LGBT youth that life gets better after high school.
Following the assistant attorney general’s remarks and the video presentation, students at Blake High School were invited to sign the “It Gets Better” Pledge, which reads as follows: “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work. I'll provide hope for lesbian, gay, bi, trans and other bullied teens by letting them know that ‘It Gets Better.’"
According to a blog on the Justice Department’s Web site, Perez told students that in addition to the Civil Rights Division bringing cases against bullies, “we also need to address the attitudes and behavior that lead to bullying.”
Perez gave the students examples of how the Justice Department has intervened in cases of bullying – including the case of an openly homosexual teenager in New York who “failed to conform to gender stereotypes.”
A settlement reached in that case requires the school district to, among other things, retain an expert consultant to review policies related to harassment, and train faculty and staff annually on discrimination and harassment.Posted by: pam at January 06, 2011 09:22 AM (uDwml)
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie has signed a bill advocates say gives New Jersey the toughest anti-bullying law in the nation.
Christie signed the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights,” according to a press release from Garden State Equality, the state’s largest gay rights organization, which advocated for the bill.
The new law is intended to eliminate loopholes in the stateÂ’s first anti-bullying law, passed in 2002, that encouraged school districts to set up anti-bullying programs but did not mandate it.
It will require training for most public school teachers, administrators and other employees on how to spot bullying and mandate that all districts form a "school safety team" to review complaints. School districts would be graded by the state on their efforts to combat the problem.
Administrators who do not investigate reported incidents of bullying would be disciplined, while students who bully could be suspended or expelled. School employees would also be required to report all incidents they learn of, whether they took place in or outside of school.
The bill sailed through the Assembly and Senate in November. It passed 73-1, with 5 abstentions, in the Assembly. It passed the Senate 30-0.
Christie signed the bill Wednesday, spokesman Michael Drewniak said.
"He signed it, and we're overjoyed," said state Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), one of the bill's prime sponsors.
State Sen. Diane Allen (R-Burlington), also a prime sponsor, said while the law won't end bullying, school employees will know how to better deal with it.
"While we cannot change human nature, we can change how government and school officials respond to unacceptable behavior," she said.
The bill, in the works for almost a year, gained publicity and momentum after the suicide of Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi, whose roommate streamed a romantic encounter between him and another man over the internet.
Posted by: pam at January 06, 2011 09:24 AM (uDwml)
Posted by: railwriter at January 06, 2011 09:25 AM (daRzV)
ie. mentally ill boy dresses like girl, wonders why people look at him funny and tease him.
Posted by: ed at January 06, 2011 09:27 AM (Urhve)
Posted by: railwriter at January 06, 2011 09:27 AM (daRzV)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 06, 2011 09:29 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 09:30 AM (psns8)
Imagine the Fed Government telling kids that anal sex "get's better".....just hang in there, your life will improve with high risk deadly behavior...and let's take a walk thru a hospital where men in their 40s are unable to retain their feces anymore. See what you have to look forward to!
Oh yeah....let's buy you a pack of smokes too! (not)
Posted by: pam at January 06, 2011 09:31 AM (uDwml)
Posted by: ed at January 06, 2011 09:32 AM (Urhve)
Hi, all!
This whole "issue" frosts me no end. The media wants it to look like conservatives are at each others' throats, and we're NOT. There are differences of opinion in some areas, but name me a large group where that DOESN'T happen. Instead of focusing on those groups that won't be attending CPAC, how about focusing on the groups (and individuals!) who will be there?
ARRRGH. *headdesk*
Posted by: MWR at January 06, 2011 09:34 AM (4df7R)
Since I'm all burned out talking about gay people how about Global Warming!
Thousands of crabs washing up on beaches in England.
They are dying of hypothermia
Posted by: robtr at January 06, 2011 09:35 AM (hVDig)
This is perfectly acceptable just as long as they don't try to show fighter pilots on an aircraft carrier videos that include the "F" word. Not that "F" word. The other "F" word. The one that offends "F" words.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 06, 2011 09:35 AM (xxgag)
It's inevitable that we will all go gay. Embrace it.
Indeed. My years of studying bug mating rituals is finally paying off!
Posted by: Dr. Pervert Kinsey at January 06, 2011 09:36 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 06, 2011 09:37 AM (FzVlt)
#94 If Pence wants to be President then he had better find his balls...his inner ruthless SOB must someday show itself, so far, it has not.
(WP report on the 2006 GOP Lame-duck Congress)
Congress will convene on Tuesday for what some fear will be the lamest of lame-duck sessions, and GOP leaders have decided to take a minimalist approach before turning over the reins of power to the Democrats. Rather than a final surge of legislative activity, Congress will probably wrap up things after a single, short week of work. They have even decided to punt decisions on annual government spending measures to the Democrats next year.
“There is a lot of battle fatigue among members, probably on both sides of the aisle,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), usually a reliable conservative firebrand. “Contrary to popular belief, members of Congress are human beings. They have a certain shelf life and a certain amount of energy to be drawn on. We’re tired.”
Anguished over the Democrats’ victory on Nov. 7 and the tumult that has followed, GOP lawmakers want to get out of town. One senior Senate Republican aide called hopes for substantive legislation “delusional.”
Posted by: pam at January 06, 2011 09:37 AM (uDwml)
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 09:40 AM (d2Pb5)
Hey, in more NJ education news...
Expensive, Lengthy NJ Tenured Teacher Removal Process Revealed (link goes to Big Government)
Yes, this isn't anything really new, but it's nice to be reminded of why teacher unions SUCK SO MUCH. All told, in the BEST case scenario, it takes two years to remove a tenured teacher from their position in NJ. And the school has to continue paying that teacher's salary; the salary is only suspended for the first 120 days of the process. Fun! Really, give it a read. It'll make your blood boil and keep you toasty warm in this cold weather.
Posted by: MWR at January 06, 2011 09:40 AM (4df7R)
Wonder what that equal protection clause means?
What? What? Nothing to see here. Nothing to see.
Posted by: Atty General E. Holder at January 06, 2011 09:41 AM (4df7R)
They should print a list of their paying "attendees" as a helpful guide to con artists, who have been hit hard by the recession. And citizens would benefit, too, by seeing the list of who is so foolish with their own money, so we do not pay any attention to their opinions dealing with the taxpayers'.
Posted by: Adjoran at January 06, 2011 09:42 AM (VfmLu)
“There is a lot of battle fatigue among members, probably on both sides of the aisle,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind. . . . "
This is your issue with Pence? That a lonely conservative with an impeccable voting record in a sea of RINOs who was getting little or no public support or Tea party anything had a publicly-expressed morale deficiency?
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 09:43 AM (psns8)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 06, 2011 09:43 AM (0YS61)
Posted by: dagny at January 06, 2011 09:46 AM (d2Pb5)
The Dems never tire, ever.
Which is why they win actual legislative and PR battles, as evidenced by their monopolies with government bureaucracy (growth of gov dependents), unions, Hollywood, the entire news media, the whole of Academia, and their Judiciary power.
Pence would have some battle wounds had he been fighting hard enough, so far I haven't seen them. But of course, I hope he jumps in the contest.
Posted by: pam at January 06, 2011 10:11 AM (uDwml)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 10:23 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Archie Boinker at January 06, 2011 10:25 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: ef at January 06, 2011 10:30 AM (c7Pp2)
This is going to be a long essay/rant, but please indulge me.
Social conservs and fiscal conservs all share certain traits in common: a clear cut view of what is right and what is wrong, reward and consequence, and an understanding of the principle of restraint. Live within your means, understand the value of tradition and history, respect yourself and others -- these are all things that conservatives of any stripe share in common. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but I have a problem with the homosexual AGENDA, which is essentially to make homosexuals a protected group with special rights. No.
If you're homosexual and you claim to be a conservative, then you should be right up front saying that very thing: "I'm a homosexual, I want to get married like heterosexuals, but I don't want you passing laws that say people aren't allowed to use the word "gay" in a derogatory manner. Being homosexual doesn't make me special like some kind of rare bird that needs to be protected. It just makes me homosexual. Back off, big gubmint. I'm not a victim." That's what conservatives do. Conservative women don't like people telling them they're "victims" of a patriarchal hegemony. "Screw that," we say. "I'm no victim." Black conservatives don't like people telling them they're the victims of a racist system. "Bullshit," they say. "I'm no victim." If you're a conservative, what you want is the chance to be self-sufficient and independent, not the ward of some Nanny state. Anyone who claims otherwise is, IMHO, not a true conservative. If you're gay and you subscribe to this philosophy, booyah, welcome to the party. If not, please go home to San Francisco.
That said, social conservatives, particularly those who have strong religious beliefs, cannot support the gay "lifestyle," because it's sinful in the eyes of God. Condoning homosexuality is the equivalent of telling your fellow man, "I don't mind that you're going to go to Hell when you die and roast in the flames of eternal damnation, denied the grace of God and the love of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Here, have a cupcake!" It's not just about wanting the greater population to acknowledge homosexuality as an aberration and not "a different kind of normal." That's a big part of it, and I'm sure for a lot of social cons -- particularly those without a strong religious background -- it's the primary reason. But for deeply religious social conservatives, accepting homosexuality is condoning damnation and denying gays and lesbians their salvation.
Do I think that's the driving force behind these so-called "boycotts" of CPAC? No. I think that's just a lot of sniping that happens all the time and is only getting press now because the media wants us to eat our own. But it really aggravates me when fiscal/political conservatives dismiss the social conservative wing of the ideology as a bunch of kooks. I consider myself more of a fiscal con than a social con, and there are definitely kooks on the fringes of the social side (and the fiscal side, because that's what fringes are all about), but social conservative values aren't unimportant and shouldn't be dismissed. A breakdown of morality leads to an increase in corruption, amorality, apathy, moral relativism, and all the things that conservatives as a whole are staunchly opposed to.
A breakdown of traditional morality allows the government to force its own version of morality on the people, "For their own good." Political correctness, affirmative action, race and gender quotas, hate speech, hate crimes, welfare, amnesty, bullying laws; artificial morality, the lot of it. A society with strong, shared values doesn't need the government to tell them that they need to hire more black people. A moral society hires people regardless of race, gender, or (yes) sexual identity, and bases those hirings on each individual's ability. That's what leftists don't want minorities and so-called "special interest groups" to find out. And that's why I think that treating social conservatives like some kind of anathema to the conservative cause is fundamentally flawed.
There are good and bad individuals and groups in any ideology. There are good and bad social conservatives, and there are good and bad fiscal conservatives. There's going to be argument and pushing and shoving and outright fights, but that happens every day in minivans taking kids to school all over the world. The important thing is to focus on what I consider the core goal of conservatism: independence. The freedom to make your own choices, spend your own money, raise your children the way you see fit, worship your God(s) the way you see fit, say the words you think need to be said, all without fear. If you do that, then the sniping and the squawking will fade into the background and become the fringes, while the solid conservatives -- social and fiscal alike -- will form the core of the ideology. It's a pie-in-the-sky scenario, yes, but then again, I'm partial to pie.
Okay, essay/rant over. If you read the whole thing, power to you! I clearly tend to ramble. ;-)
I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate(s).
*bows out*
Posted by: MWR at January 06, 2011 10:47 AM (4df7R)
"The point is that CPAC is the paramount annual gathering of conservatives; if these groups want their influence to be felt, they have to show up."
and by showing up, they accept by default GOProud's agenda...
I can't stop CPAC from doing anything, but I can refuse to participate or even take notice of CPAC, I can choose not to accept CPAC as representing me or conservatism.
there has to be a place, a group for traditional, christian conservatives, I will not stand silent as they are erased from the political landscape of this nation, I will not stand silent as everything they hold dear is relentlessly attacked, degraded and dismantled, I will not stand silent because they are people that love and cherish the Constitution, that have tried to defend it, that mourn as they see it laying in tatters, mangled beyond recognition by it's enemies and their enablers.
Posted by: The One at January 06, 2011 11:13 AM (ehKDD)
"Bash the socon bigots"? I challenge anyone to explain where or how I "bashed the socon bigots" here.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 06, 2011 11:17 AM (XVaFd)
"Blom doesn't seem to acknowledge the existence of economic conservatives..."
I don't know about bashing, but you seem to not acknowledge, Gabriel, that CPAC was originally a fiscal and social conservative organization. Fiscal-con organizations were allowed in, and social cons tolerated the decision. What have social cons gotten in exchange for their tolerance? A diluted organization. An organization that is now cast by fiscal cons as one in which social conservatism is negotiable.
"The point is that CPAC is the paramount annual gathering of conservatives; if these groups want their influence to be felt, they have to show up. "
Actually, if these groups want their influence on social issues to be felt, they need to stop dignifying CPAC -- a shell of what it once was, of what made it what it became -- by participating.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 11:50 AM (psns8)
Actually, this is a soft-sell jab:
"The only folks who benefit from portraying the boycott as a generalized abandonment of CPAC by social conservatives are Democrats (who love a good conservative crack-up) and the few groups who have chosen to absent themselves."
Actually, The only folks who benefit from including GOProud as a participating organization are gay activists and libertarians who want to co-opt the conservative movement.
Then there's this: "both social conservatives and economic conservatives are necessary for conservative candidates to continue to win elections."
Just as with immigration, since traditional marriage is a winning political issue, economic conservatives should be the ones pressured to get on board with social cons. GOProud's inclusion sets up the opposite dynamic.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at January 06, 2011 11:58 AM (psns8)
Posted by: Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz at January 06, 2011 12:15 PM (CbWlv)
'It must be January, we're talking about SoCons being upset about teh gheys being at CPAC. Again.
Really, Gabe, this is kind of tiresome.'
Tiresome yes, in that " we've already movedon.org from this stupid shit" tiresome.
Speaking of what is under CPACs Big Tent, when will creepy creep Grover Norquist's Open America's Borders for Islamic-Imperialism be reemed by CPAC's Big Tent Bigwigs Inside the DC Beltway?
Posted by: Susan at January 06, 2011 02:53 PM (p+8kM)
You have lost any credibility with me, and I suspect many others, with your totally misleading diatribe.
First, the tone of your language suggesting that social conservatives may be tolerated at CPAC provided that they shut up and let the homosexual lobby run things is pretty pathetic.
Second, you completely omit the criticisms of CPAC bowing, a la Obama, to the jihadis.
Third, anyone reading your screed would be uniformed about the financial irregularities which may have prompted CPAC to sell out to the homosexual lobby and the jihadis.
I go back far enough in the conservative movement to remember when Dave Keene was President of YAF. I was suspicious of him then. I was right!
Posted by: Carl Hay at January 06, 2011 10:22 PM (d4r89)
www.fashionspaceonline.com is one of the great resource for brand new fashionable clothing, shoes and accessories.
Here are the main products that we deal with:
Shoes: Nike Air Jordan, Air Force 1, Nike Air Jordan AFJ Fusion, Dunk SB, Nike Air Max, Air Shox Running Shoes, Nike Air Zoom Dunkesto, Air Yeezy, Nike Work Boots, ACG, Nike Foamposite, Gucci, Prada, Puma Ferrari, Supra, Ato Matsumoto, Lacoste, James, Kobe, Converse, Creative Recreation, CR DICOCO, Ed hardy, Evisu, Mauri, Coogi, Dsquared, Ice Cream, New Balance, Greedy Genius, Clae Shoes and Sneakers.
Jeans: Evisu, Gucci, Armani, Bape BBC, Red Monkey, G-Star, Levis, Diesel, Versace, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Ed Hardy, True Religion, Coogi, Christian Audigier, Affliction, Laguna Beach, Iceberg, Crown Holder, Roca wear, Dolce & Gabbana, Artful Dodger, Blac Label, Rock & Republic Jeans Shorts and Pants.
T-shirt: BBC, Bape, G-Star, Evisu, Coogi, Armani, LV, 5ive jungle, Akademiks, Smet, A & F, Affliction, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier, Blac Label, Polo, Lacoste, Crown Holder, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Ecko, Gucci, Adidas, Nike, Levis T-shirts and dress shirts.
Other Accessories: Chanel, Chloe, Coach, Dior, Gucci, Fendi, LV, Juicy, Prada, D&G, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Leather Handbag, Purse and Wallets.
Rolex, Breitlint, JACOB & CO. Cartier, Gucci, Ed Hardy Watches.
D&G, Okley, Fendi, Coach, Chanel, Gucci, Prada, Armani, Versace, Burberry, Ray.Ban, Ed hardy, Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Cartier Sun Glasses
Armani, CK, D&G, LV, Versace, Ed Hardy, Diesel, Gucci, polo, Prada, Puma, Versace, G-star Underwears.
Juicy, Bikini, Ed Hardy, A&F, Polo, Christian Audigier Swimming Wear, Bikini, Bathing suits.
Bape, Ed Hardy, New Era, Coogi, Gucci, New era with light, Louis Vuitton, Monster Energy Caps
DSQ, D&G, LV, Bape, Armani, Gucci, Chanel, Boss, Affliction, Versace, Ed Hardy, Christian Audigier Belts.
Welcome to contact us by MSN: babydress898@hotmail.com .Thanks!
Posted by: China-store at January 07, 2011 04:18 AM (t24Na)
On this page you will find the various styles of womens jordan heels , the Air Jordan knit boots combines a classic prep school pattern and a cozy sweater knit for the coolest, most comfortable. The shoe is as unique as any other Jordan model relative to the rest of the field. Starting at the toe, the toe cap has Michael Jordan's signature embossed. The side of the shoe features a stitched pattern that gives the shoes strength in addition to cosmetic effect.
Posted by: Jordan heels at January 09, 2011 05:40 PM (TLe2p)
Have you ever seen such fashion of Chanel online store ? In comparison with sporadic release in last few years, this year is really good for Chanel lovers. We have informed Chanel shoes online of new released discount Chanel boots autumn/winter collection 2010 to our customer. Luckily, we have get large inquires on it. We are so glad to hear from all over the world.
Posted by: Chanel shoes at January 09, 2011 05:43 PM (TLe2p)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1667 seconds, 254 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Soothsayer isn't done ranting at January 06, 2011 08:07 AM (3SBB0)