GOProud

AFA: Tea Party Married to Religious Right, Like It or Not

We have reported on the close ties between the Religious Right and the Tea Party as well as the tensions between social conservatives and libertarians in the Tea Party movement. An article in the February 2011 issue of the AFA Journal, published by the American Family Association, is the latest salvo in the ongoing effort to define the Tea Party agenda. 
 
Rise of the Teavangelicals” decries efforts by the “homosexual Republican” group GOProud to define the Tea Party as part of a  “leave-me-alone-coalition” that is uninterested in social issues.
 
If the GOP says it wants only tea partiers who are for smaller government but not any of those loony social conservatives, Republican leaders will undoubtedly discover that many of the latter are also part of the former category.
 
The article suggests that Religious Right activists see economic issues through a moral lens (much the way that David Barton has been promoting a biblical basis for Tea Party views on economics and the Constitution):
 
Perhaps it is precisely because many social conservatives have come to see the economy in moral terms that so many of them have found a home in the Tea Party movement.
 
The article concludes by quoting former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed saying that the Tea Party and Religious Right movements are “inextricably intertwined.”
 
Whether or not they like the idea, tea partiers are now married to the religious right. And as Reed insisted, “Those who ignore or disregard social conservative voters and their issues do so at their own peril.”

AFA: Tea Party Married to Religious Right, Like It or Not

We have reported on the close ties between the Religious Right and the Tea Party as well as the tensions between social conservatives and libertarians in the Tea Party movement. An article in the February 2011 issue of the AFA Journal, published by the American Family Association, is the latest salvo in the ongoing effort to define the Tea Party agenda. 
 
Rise of the Teavangelicals” decries efforts by the “homosexual Republican” group GOProud to define the Tea Party as part of a  “leave-me-alone-coalition” that is uninterested in social issues.
 
If the GOP says it wants only tea partiers who are for smaller government but not any of those loony social conservatives, Republican leaders will undoubtedly discover that many of the latter are also part of the former category.
 
The article suggests that Religious Right activists see economic issues through a moral lens (much the way that David Barton has been promoting a biblical basis for Tea Party views on economics and the Constitution):
 
Perhaps it is precisely because many social conservatives have come to see the economy in moral terms that so many of them have found a home in the Tea Party movement.
 
The article concludes by quoting former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed saying that the Tea Party and Religious Right movements are “inextricably intertwined.”
 
Whether or not they like the idea, tea partiers are now married to the religious right. And as Reed insisted, “Those who ignore or disregard social conservative voters and their issues do so at their own peril.”

Marco Rubio To Skip CPAC

Last year, Marco Rubio was tasked with kicking off the CPAC conference as one of the opening speakers where he received a rapturous welcome.

This year, Rubio - like so many others - is skipping CPAC, though he insists that it is not because of the inclusion of GOProud:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the latest Republican to decline an invite to next month's Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual gathering that typically attracts the nation's most prominent conservative names.

A spokesman for Rubio said the conference isn't on the senator's schedule, telling the St. Petersburg Times that Rubio will be focused on his work in the Senate during CPAC week and will then "return to Florida for a working weekend."

According to the paper, Rubio's spokesman denied the senator's decision had anything to do with the controversy over the presence of the gay conservative group GOProud.

You know, CPAC might really want to consider updating their banner to feature leaders who are actually attending the conference this year instead of people like Rubio and Jim DeMint who are boycotting:

Marco Rubio To Skip CPAC

Last year, Marco Rubio was tasked with kicking off the CPAC conference as one of the opening speakers where he received a rapturous welcome.

This year, Rubio - like so many others - is skipping CPAC, though he insists that it is not because of the inclusion of GOProud:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the latest Republican to decline an invite to next month's Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual gathering that typically attracts the nation's most prominent conservative names.

A spokesman for Rubio said the conference isn't on the senator's schedule, telling the St. Petersburg Times that Rubio will be focused on his work in the Senate during CPAC week and will then "return to Florida for a working weekend."

According to the paper, Rubio's spokesman denied the senator's decision had anything to do with the controversy over the presence of the gay conservative group GOProud.

You know, CPAC might really want to consider updating their banner to feature leaders who are actually attending the conference this year instead of people like Rubio and Jim DeMint who are boycotting:

Bozell: Kids Are “Targets” of “Gay Propaganda” on TV

Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center talks a lot about “balance,” consistently railing against the media for not giving sufficient time to conservative viewpoints. While the MRC wants “balance” in the media, apparently it could not tolerate “balance” at CPAC as the group decided to boycott the conference over the participation of the gay-inclusive organization GOProud. Now, Bozell is upset the media isn't more critical of gay teen characters on television, particularly Glee. He laments the success and portrayal of Glee actor Chris Colfer and the introduction of a transgender character on the show Degrassi, blaming “gay propaganda” for “intimidating dissidents” and blasting GLAAD for “pushing to take the pro-gay message to grade-schoolers.” Bozell writes:

Their most controversial scene was the two private-school boys singing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" to each other on the Fox show. "That was the gayest thing that has ever been on TV, period, " Colfer boasted. The magazine touted this was the hottest-selling track on the "Glee" Christmas album, which gives you a flavor of Hollywood's reverence for that holy day.

As you might suspect, Entertainment Weekly didn't plan to debate gay teen propaganda, but to encourage it, energetically. Not a single soul had anything critical to say. Not even a question. If this magazine weren't so earnestly in the tank, the story could come with a disclaimer: "This issue is an advertisement bought and paid for by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation."

Writer Jennifer Armstrong summed it up like this: "The good news: Young gay characters are on a momentous roll after years of stops and starts." EW championed under the inside headline how "networks are making up for years of on-air silence and providing inspiration for real-life youth (and parents) still searching for answers." Armstrong says gay characters are "not just an accepted, but expected part of teen-centric television." (Emphasis hers.)

They are not celebrating diversity. They are intimidating dissidents.

In their Gay Teen Timeline, we hear the gay actors proclaiming the lack of opposition. "We never received a negative word," says the gay actor on ABC's 1994 bomb "My So-Called Life." The gay teen on ABC's "Ugly Betty" insisted, "99 percent of the public response was positive." Translation: Get in line.



But there is always a new trail to blaze. TeenNick's grope opera "Degrassi" has had eight gay characters and is now normalizing "Adam," a female-to-male transgender teen. Co-creator Linda Schuyler proclaimed, "People are realizing that the lines of sexuality are not just drawn between gay guys and lesbian girls, but there is a sliding scale of sexuality, and that's something new."

No one should be surprised that Armstrong and her GLAAD allies are also pushing to take the pro-gay message to grade-schoolers. Armstrong complained gay characters are "entirely absent from mainstream sitcoms and tween networks like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon." Disney Channel issued the magazine a vague statement about their "responsibility to present age-appropriate programming for millions of kids age 6-14 around the world."

"Age-appropriate" is not a term these activists recognize. Parents should understand that their young children are the next propaganda targets.

Bozell: Kids Are “Targets” of “Gay Propaganda” on TV

Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center talks a lot about “balance,” consistently railing against the media for not giving sufficient time to conservative viewpoints. While the MRC wants “balance” in the media, apparently it could not tolerate “balance” at CPAC as the group decided to boycott the conference over the participation of the gay-inclusive organization GOProud. Now, Bozell is upset the media isn't more critical of gay teen characters on television, particularly Glee. He laments the success and portrayal of Glee actor Chris Colfer and the introduction of a transgender character on the show Degrassi, blaming “gay propaganda” for “intimidating dissidents” and blasting GLAAD for “pushing to take the pro-gay message to grade-schoolers.” Bozell writes:

Their most controversial scene was the two private-school boys singing "Baby, It's Cold Outside" to each other on the Fox show. "That was the gayest thing that has ever been on TV, period, " Colfer boasted. The magazine touted this was the hottest-selling track on the "Glee" Christmas album, which gives you a flavor of Hollywood's reverence for that holy day.

As you might suspect, Entertainment Weekly didn't plan to debate gay teen propaganda, but to encourage it, energetically. Not a single soul had anything critical to say. Not even a question. If this magazine weren't so earnestly in the tank, the story could come with a disclaimer: "This issue is an advertisement bought and paid for by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation."

Writer Jennifer Armstrong summed it up like this: "The good news: Young gay characters are on a momentous roll after years of stops and starts." EW championed under the inside headline how "networks are making up for years of on-air silence and providing inspiration for real-life youth (and parents) still searching for answers." Armstrong says gay characters are "not just an accepted, but expected part of teen-centric television." (Emphasis hers.)

They are not celebrating diversity. They are intimidating dissidents.

In their Gay Teen Timeline, we hear the gay actors proclaiming the lack of opposition. "We never received a negative word," says the gay actor on ABC's 1994 bomb "My So-Called Life." The gay teen on ABC's "Ugly Betty" insisted, "99 percent of the public response was positive." Translation: Get in line.



But there is always a new trail to blaze. TeenNick's grope opera "Degrassi" has had eight gay characters and is now normalizing "Adam," a female-to-male transgender teen. Co-creator Linda Schuyler proclaimed, "People are realizing that the lines of sexuality are not just drawn between gay guys and lesbian girls, but there is a sliding scale of sexuality, and that's something new."

No one should be surprised that Armstrong and her GLAAD allies are also pushing to take the pro-gay message to grade-schoolers. Armstrong complained gay characters are "entirely absent from mainstream sitcoms and tween networks like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon." Disney Channel issued the magazine a vague statement about their "responsibility to present age-appropriate programming for millions of kids age 6-14 around the world."

"Age-appropriate" is not a term these activists recognize. Parents should understand that their young children are the next propaganda targets.

House GOP Looks to Overturn Marriage Equality in DC

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

House GOP Looks to Overturn Marriage Equality in DC

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Rick Santorum defends his comment about Obama and abortion.
  • Ron Paul mulls running for the Senate.
  • Once again GOProud makes itself a laughingstock. 
  • Quote of the day from Bryan Fischer: "I submit that the president of the United States shares moral culpability for creating a climate in which this kind of Mayan-era butchery could take place. He too, just like Dr. Gosnell, has shown a 'disdain for the lives and health of ... infants.'"
  • Finally, Glenn Beck:

Right Wing Leftovers

  • On his program tomorrow, Glenn Beck will feature the founders of the Wilmington House of Prayer.
  • FRC says there are "three kinds of politicians in Washington we must oppose": liberals, moderates, and everyone associated with the Obama administration.
  • Andrew Breitbart has joined the board of GOProud.
  • Shockingly, Randy Thomasson does not like San Francisco's GLBT History Museum.
  • Randall Terry has received the coveted endorsement of crackpot Rabbi Yehuda Levin.
  • Finally, Gabrielle Giffords is expected to be released from a Tucson, Ariz., hospital Friday. Amazing.

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Michael Steele's reign as Chair of the RNC has sadly come to an end.
  • Elaine Donnelly is pleased that Tim Pawlenty wants to reinstate DADT.
  • CNS appears utterly baffled by the Native American prayer delivered at the Tucson Memorial.
  • Apparently, Ronald Reagan supports the Personhood effort.
  • GOProud releases its agenda for 2011.
  • Finally, the right wing Mt. Soledad Cross protest taking place this weekend is not just a rally, it's a "mega rally."

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Michael Steele's reign as Chair of the RNC has sadly come to an end.
  • Elaine Donnelly is pleased that Tim Pawlenty wants to reinstate DADT.
  • CNS appears utterly baffled by the Native American prayer delivered at the Tucson Memorial.
  • Apparently, Ronald Reagan supports the Personhood effort.
  • GOProud releases its agenda for 2011.
  • Finally, the right wing Mt. Soledad Cross protest taking place this weekend is not just a rally, it's a "mega rally."

If Elected President, Pawlenty Tells Fischer He'll Reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

There are few Religious Right leaders active today who can compete with the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer in terms of openly hostile bigotry against gays, Muslims, and all those who do not share his radical worldview:

So it is bound to raise a few eyebrows that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty went on Fischer's radio program yesterday to promote his new book ... but it won't raise any eyebrows that Fischer used the opportunity to grill Pawlenty on social issues or that Pawlenty largely shared Fischer's right-wing concerns:

Fischer: If you are asked the question "should CPAC provide a place at the table for an organization like GOProud," what will you say?

Pawlenty: You know, I am not familiar with that dispute, I have heard it referenced ... but I'm not just a fiscal conservative, I'm a social conservative so I can't speak for CPAC but I can speak for myself and what I believe and I've been a strong supporter of the family, pro-life positions, traditional marriage positions - so I'm not sure what that dispute all involves. But whatever it is, I don't think we should be afraid of telling what I believe and what we believe to whatever audience. We're trying to make sure we stand what what we believe in and we share it in a way that will hopefully bring more people to our side.

Fischer: Now the Left, and homosexual activists and organizations like GOProud, one of their stated agendas is to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage in federal law and for federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman. The Obama administration has made a tepid and pretty ineffective defense of that law - if you become president and that law faces a challenge under your administration, how vigorously will you defend DOMA? What will you do to make sure it's defended?

Pawlenty: I believe strongly in traditional marriage. I was co-author of the law in Minnesota that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I've been a vocal supporter of an amendment in Minnesota that would put that into our constitution. I hope that the day comes when it is put before the voters of Minnesota. And it's not just a legal issue; it's also an important cornerstone for our society and our culture. I mean, families and traditional marriage is so important to that and I don't believe all other domestic relations should be on the same platform as traditional marriage, I just don't buy and so I've been a strong supporter of traditional marriage. I also think who you appoint to courts in this regard is important and we don't have litmus tests, so to speak, but we want strict constructionists and people who take a conservative view toward the interpretation of our laws.

Fischer: Now Roe v. Wade is obviously the critical court ruling on the abortion issue - that is a ruling that was issued in 1973 so it seems to me that candidates would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought potential nominees to the Supreme Court, would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought Roe v. Wade was properly decided from a constitutional perspective. A number of sitting Supreme Court justices have commented on the fact that they believe it was poorly decided. So that's going to be a critical issue, if you have the opportunity to appoint nominees to the federal bench - will you talk explicitly with a nominee to the federal bench about his or her view about whether they think Roe v Wade was properly decided from a constitutional basis, will that be in the nature of a litmus test for you, that question, will you bring it up, will you look for an answer?

Pawlenty: Well, I've appointed a lot of judges as the Governor of Minnesota, including at our Supreme Court, appellate court and district court level. For the first time, at least in the modern history and maybe in a long time we now have a small majority of people on our Minnesota Supreme Court we are conservative and strict constructionist. I have confidence in them and how they would approach these issues of how you interpret the law. On the specific issue of Roe. v Wade, when you tell people or ask people to be strict constructionist and you look at the Constitution, to have people say "I'm a strict constructionist" would somehow lead to a decision or a conclusion like Roe v. Wade, I think it was wrongly decided. And if you look at the reasoning behind it and the strict interpretation approach to interpreting the Constitution, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the Court. But I have been careful that I appoint people, particularly at the appellate level, that share this strict constructionist philosophy - that at least says to me directly - I didn't have litmus test - but I do want to know that they share my view and values about the proper role of the court and the interpretation of the law, so we try to get to the bottom of that.

Fischer: One last question, got about forty five seconds left, put you on the hot seat one more time: we just saw the ban on homosexual service in the military repealed, overturned. Conservatives will be working over the next couple of years to see that that ban is reinstated. If you become president in 2012, will you work to reinstate the prohibition on open homosexual service in the military? Would you sign such a prohibition if it got to your desk?

Pawlenty: Bryan, I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There's a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.

If Elected President, Pawlenty Tells Fischer He'll Reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

There are few Religious Right leaders active today who can compete with the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer in terms of openly hostile bigotry against gays, Muslims, and all those who do not share his radical worldview:

So it is bound to raise a few eyebrows that former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty went on Fischer's radio program yesterday to promote his new book ... but it won't raise any eyebrows that Fischer used the opportunity to grill Pawlenty on social issues or that Pawlenty largely shared Fischer's right-wing concerns:

Fischer: If you are asked the question "should CPAC provide a place at the table for an organization like GOProud," what will you say?

Pawlenty: You know, I am not familiar with that dispute, I have heard it referenced ... but I'm not just a fiscal conservative, I'm a social conservative so I can't speak for CPAC but I can speak for myself and what I believe and I've been a strong supporter of the family, pro-life positions, traditional marriage positions - so I'm not sure what that dispute all involves. But whatever it is, I don't think we should be afraid of telling what I believe and what we believe to whatever audience. We're trying to make sure we stand what what we believe in and we share it in a way that will hopefully bring more people to our side.

Fischer: Now the Left, and homosexual activists and organizations like GOProud, one of their stated agendas is to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage in federal law and for federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman. The Obama administration has made a tepid and pretty ineffective defense of that law - if you become president and that law faces a challenge under your administration, how vigorously will you defend DOMA? What will you do to make sure it's defended?

Pawlenty: I believe strongly in traditional marriage. I was co-author of the law in Minnesota that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I've been a vocal supporter of an amendment in Minnesota that would put that into our constitution. I hope that the day comes when it is put before the voters of Minnesota. And it's not just a legal issue; it's also an important cornerstone for our society and our culture. I mean, families and traditional marriage is so important to that and I don't believe all other domestic relations should be on the same platform as traditional marriage, I just don't buy and so I've been a strong supporter of traditional marriage. I also think who you appoint to courts in this regard is important and we don't have litmus tests, so to speak, but we want strict constructionists and people who take a conservative view toward the interpretation of our laws.

Fischer: Now Roe v. Wade is obviously the critical court ruling on the abortion issue - that is a ruling that was issued in 1973 so it seems to me that candidates would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought potential nominees to the Supreme Court, would have the freedom to comment on whether they thought Roe v. Wade was properly decided from a constitutional perspective. A number of sitting Supreme Court justices have commented on the fact that they believe it was poorly decided. So that's going to be a critical issue, if you have the opportunity to appoint nominees to the federal bench - will you talk explicitly with a nominee to the federal bench about his or her view about whether they think Roe v Wade was properly decided from a constitutional basis, will that be in the nature of a litmus test for you, that question, will you bring it up, will you look for an answer?

Pawlenty: Well, I've appointed a lot of judges as the Governor of Minnesota, including at our Supreme Court, appellate court and district court level. For the first time, at least in the modern history and maybe in a long time we now have a small majority of people on our Minnesota Supreme Court we are conservative and strict constructionist. I have confidence in them and how they would approach these issues of how you interpret the law. On the specific issue of Roe. v Wade, when you tell people or ask people to be strict constructionist and you look at the Constitution, to have people say "I'm a strict constructionist" would somehow lead to a decision or a conclusion like Roe v. Wade, I think it was wrongly decided. And if you look at the reasoning behind it and the strict interpretation approach to interpreting the Constitution, I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by the Court. But I have been careful that I appoint people, particularly at the appellate level, that share this strict constructionist philosophy - that at least says to me directly - I didn't have litmus test - but I do want to know that they share my view and values about the proper role of the court and the interpretation of the law, so we try to get to the bottom of that.

Fischer: One last question, got about forty five seconds left, put you on the hot seat one more time: we just saw the ban on homosexual service in the military repealed, overturned. Conservatives will be working over the next couple of years to see that that ban is reinstated. If you become president in 2012, will you work to reinstate the prohibition on open homosexual service in the military? Would you sign such a prohibition if it got to your desk?

Pawlenty: Bryan, I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There's a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.

Daniels Comes Under Attack For Attending CPAC (UPDATED)

As we have been noting over the last several week, more and more right-wing groups are dropping out of CPAC, angry that organizers have allowed the gay conservative group GOProud to participate.

Many of these same groups have also been angry at Gov. Mitch Daniels ever since he called for a "truce" in the culture war, so I guess it was only a matter of time before groups like the American Principles Project (which kicked off the boycott of CPAC) would start attacking Daniels for agreeing to participate in CPAC:

"Unfortunately, while Governor Daniels is slated to speak at CPAC's 'Reagan Dinner,' he has failed to understand how Ronald Reagan fused the three critical legs of the conservative movement into one coherent governing philosophy," says Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. "Discarding one makes the whole obsolete."

..."Governor Daniels' selection is an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable."

According to CPAC organizers, Haley Barbour, Liz Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum are all "confirmed speakers" at this year's event, as is Michele Bachmann.

So is their participation an "affront to the millions of conservatives" as well?  Will the Religious Right start also attacking them for participating in CPAC too? 

UPDATE: Upon reading the entire APP statement, it turns out that they were slamming CPAC for inviting Daniels, not Daniels for attending CPAC (which, frankly, makes even less sense): 

The American Principles Project today blasted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for giving a major platform to potential 2012 presidential candidate Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who recently called on Republicans to make a “truce” on social issues, abandoning a key tenet of the conservative movement.

“Unfortunately, while Governor Daniels is slated to speak at CPAC’s ‘Reagan Dinner,’ he has failed to understand how Ronald Reagan fused the three critical legs of the conservative movement into one coherent governing philosophy,” said Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. “Discarding one makes the whole obsolete.”

In November, the group organized a coalition of conservative organizations protesting CPAC’s inclusion of GOProud because it is “fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith,” it wrote in a letter to CPAC Chairman David Keene and his fellow board members.

“Governor Daniels’ selection is an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable.”

Since APP launched the coalition, concern has grown and other groups have pulled out of the conference, including many past sponsors.

“The Beltway wisdom among Republican insiders boils down to a simple mantra: Social issues are a thing of the past. But this theory falls apart outside of the Washington bubble. The Republican sweep in the House was dominated by pro-life, pro-family candidates, and polling shows large majorities want to see action on these issues,” said Mr. Blom.

APP has already announced that it is boycotting CPAC because it is insufficiently socially conservative.  So what exactly do they think they are going to accomplish by slamming CPAC for inviting someone, like Daniels, who they also think is insufficiently socially conservative?

Awakening 2011: Another Chance for GOP Political Leaders To Bond With Religious Right Activists

Last year, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli joined dozens of Religious Right leaders for an event called "Awakening 2010," organized by the Freedom Federation and hosted at Liberty University, where Cindy Jacobs declared that "the Bible is the government of the people, by the people, for the people," while Matt Barber and Andrea Lafferty claimed that passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would allow those working at the Veteran's Administration to freely molest disable veterans.

In April, the Freedom Federation will host its second annual "Awakening" conference entitled "Raising Our Voices: Equipping and Empowering a New Revolution" which organizer hope will feature a mix of right-wing activists like Lou Engle, Tony Perkins, Mat Staver, Frank Gaffney, Wendy Wright, David Barton, and Gary Bauer with Republican leaders like Cuccinelli, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Alan West, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee:

Notice also the proposed inclusion of Ryan Sorba, whose made a name for himself as last year's CPAC by blasting organizers for allowing the participation of GOProud.

Religious Right “Intellectual” Claims Marriage Equality “Opens the Door to Unlimited Statism”

Nancy Pearcey has made a name for herself in the Religious Right as a chief advocate for intelligent design, which emerged as the leading anti-evolution 'science' following the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that public schools can’t teach Creationism. She is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading propagandist of intelligent design, and scientist and evolution-defender Jeffrey Shallit called Pearcey the “Creationists’ Miss Information.” But Pearcey, who has no scientific credentials, appears to have replaced evolution with the LGBT community as her latest target.

Having previously called homosexuality the “denigration of physical anatomy,” Pearcey is now attacking the claim that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. Writing for The Daily Caller, Pearcey defends the organizations boycotting CPAC over GOProud’s involvement because she believes that once sexual orientations other than heterosexuality are respected, affirmed, and considered equal, the U.S. will subside into government oppression and lose “the foundation of the American republic”:

By voting with their feet, however, social conservatives are not giving up, they are taking a public stand — which creates a forum to make their case more effectively. They should take this opportunity to argue that the practice of homosexuality has a negative impact not just on the family but also on individuals — that it expresses a profound disrespect for a person’s biological identity.

Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. The male sexual and reproductive anatomy is obviously designed for a relationship with a female, and vice versa.

Homosexual practice thus requires individuals to contradict their own biology. It disconnects a person’s sexuality from his or her biological identity as male or female — which exerts a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.

And the logic of alienation will not stop there. Already the acceptance of same-sex relationships is metastasizing into a postmodern notion of sexuality as fluid and changing over time.



In other words, yesterday I was straight, today I may be homosexual, and tomorrow I could be bisexual. One’s psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux.

In the past, homosexuals employed the defense that they were born that way. But now they are beginning to embrace the postmodern idea that you can be anything you want to be along a sexual continuum.



The CPAC walkout is a chance to highlight what is at stake. Jesse Hathaway at NewsReal Blog defends CPAC, saying “I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me.”

But it does affect him — and everyone else. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it — all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.

If America accepts practices such as same-sex “marriage,” in the process it will absorb the accompanying worldview — the redefinition of human personhood as a purely social construction — which opens the door to unlimited statism, because there is no human nature that an oppressive state could possibly offend.

Those who resist will be compelled by the state to go along, or face penalties for “discrimination.”

Margaret Thatcher used to say, “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.” Instead of caving on this issue, the leaders of CPAC should be vigorously advancing the core arguments of conservatism. Not just to win the vote but to preserve the foundation of the American republic.

Heritage Foundation and Media Research Center Join CPAC Boycott

Last February the Media Research Center’s director of media analysis Tim Graham defended the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) from a charge that the event was “once a venue for the radical fringe.” Today, the Media Research Center joined other groups in boycotting the conference because it isn’t conservative enough. While the Heritage Foundation announced on Wednesday that it would be boycotting CPAC, the Media Research Center, led by notable right-wing activist Brent Bozell, is both the latest and one of the best-known organizations to join the boycott movement.

Back in November, the far-right American Principles Project declared that it would not take part in CPAC as long as GOProud, a conservative group that supports some gay-rights initiatives, remains a participating organization. GOProud’s status as a “participating” organization prompted many Religious Right groups to boycott CPAC, including: American Values; American Vision; the Capital Research Center; the Center for Military Readiness; Concerned Women For America; the Family Research Council; Liberty Counsel; Liberty University, and the National Organization for Marriage. The American Family Association, which boycotted CPAC last year over GOProud’s more limited involvement, has decided to sit out this year’s conference as well.

The decision by the Media Research Center and the Heritage Foundation to leave CPAC represents the most noteworthy achievement for the boycott movement since Concerned Women For America and the Family Research Center joined the cause. Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink remains a chief sponsor of the event, however, CitizenLink’s head Tom Minnery said that his group will only remain in CPAC to limit GOProud’s influence and may boycott next year’s conference. Minnery told The Washington Times that “the influence of social conservatives has been missing and there needs to be more of it,” but “if the ACU can't manage this problem that they’ve brought upon themselves, we’ll have to make another decision.”

WorldNetDaily, the right-wing publication which has been attacking CPAC since the conference refused to hold a WND-sponsored panel that would showcase “birther” conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birth certificate, has been rallying behind the boycott movement. Joseph Farah, the editor-in-chief of WND, called for a “purge of the conservative movement” that would begin with CPAC’s organizers since “conservatives need God’s help, not GOProud’s.” Today, WorldNetDaily broke the story about the MRC’s decision to pull out of CPAC:

Two more big guns of the conservative movement confirmed today they are not participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because of the continued participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud.

The Heritage Foundation, the largest think tank in Washington and not known as part of the religious right, confirmed that it is not taking part in what has been the largest annual gathering of conservatives in the country. Heritage has been an active participant in CPAC every year for the last 10.

"We have withdrawn," said Mike Gonzalez, vice president of communications for the Heritage Foundation.

"We have been there for many, many years at the highest level of participation. "We believe in the traditional definition of the family,"

Gonzalez explained. "We believe in defending the family against any threats that come against it. We're not for gay marriage. We don't think institutions that have existed for millennia can be done away with at the drop of a hat." Gonzalez emphasized that the "three pillars" of conservatism, economic liberty, national defense and social conservatism, are "indivisible."

In addition, the Media Research Center, led by Brent Bozell, a longtime associate of the hosting organization, the American Conservative Union, announced it was dropping out.

"We've been there 25 years, since our inception," said Bozell. "To bring in a 'gay' group is a direct attack on social conservatives, and I can't participate in that."



The Christian ministry American Vision and related businesses Vision for America and Patriot Depot also said they have dropped out of CPAC because of GOProud.

"Homosexuals can get involved in the conservative movement any way they want, but to come in and push an agenda that's contrary to biblical values, traditional values and rational moral values, that's another thing," said Gary DeMar, president of American Vision and Vision for America. "We wouldn't exclude adulterers from participating, but if there were a group of adulterers who said 'we want adulterers' rights,' we're going to say no."

Bozell said GOProud is not a genuine conservative organization, and suggested inviting homosexual activist groups into the conservative movement could drive social conservative activists to the political sidelines.

"They attack the Family Research Council, they attack Concerned Women for America, they are proponents of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell," he said of GOProud. "If you don't believe in the traditional family, you're not a conservative."
Syndicate content

GOProud Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 03/25/2011, 9:59am
After an openly gay Republican, Greg Gandrud, was elected to the board of directors of the California Republican Party at their convention, anti-gay organizations were obviously displeased. Similar to the debate over GOProud’s inclusion in the Conservative Political Action Conference, when right-wing groups blasted GOProud because it represents gay and lesbian conservatives, the head of the California Republican Assembly has taken issue with Gandrud’s sexual orientation. Celeste Greig of the California Republican Assembly said that Gandrud shouldn’t “bring his personal... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 03/16/2011, 10:57am
Ever since various Religious Right groups boycotted CPAC over the inclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud, there have been a lot of questions about what direction the conference would take in the years to come.  New new American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas has already been suggesting that he is going to do what he can to bring the offended Religious Right groups back into the fold by limiting GOProud's involvement.  And now comes word that Cardenas has now hired the executive director of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition to undertake the task of... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 02/24/2011, 2:07pm
After the brouhaha over GOProud's participation in this year's CPAC finally died down, new American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas started suggesting that the gay conservative group might not be welcome at next year's conference, saying that groups that support issues like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell or gay marriage which are "not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the [conservative] movement" will not be allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia tells CNN that, given this new standard, he expects that he group will be... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 02/24/2011, 2:07pm
After the brouhaha over GOProud's participation in this year's CPAC finally died down, new American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas started suggesting that the gay conservative group might not be welcome at next year's conference, saying that groups that support issues like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell or gay marriage which are "not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the [conservative] movement" will not be allowed to sponsor the event. GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia tells CNN that, given this new standard, he expects that he group will be... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 02/23/2011, 10:44am
For months now, the Religious Right has been up in arms that gays were allowed to participate in the annual CPAC conference, claiming that it is part of an effort to 'infiltrate" and divide the conservative movement. And now the same thing looks to be happening to Fox News as well, as Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media reports that some Fox News personalities will be attending the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's "Headlines & Headliners" fundraiser next month ... and Peter LaBarbera sees it as proof that the network has been infiltrated by gays who... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 02/23/2011, 10:44am
For months now, the Religious Right has been up in arms that gays were allowed to participate in the annual CPAC conference, claiming that it is part of an effort to 'infiltrate" and divide the conservative movement. And now the same thing looks to be happening to Fox News as well, as Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media reports that some Fox News personalities will be attending the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's "Headlines & Headliners" fundraiser next month ... and Peter LaBarbera sees it as proof that the network has been infiltrated by gays who... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 02/22/2011, 2:02pm
On yesterday's episode of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom Radio," Matt Barber and Shawn Akers discussed reports that GOProud would not be allowed to participate in next year's CPAC , news which Barber hailed as proof that GOProud's effort to infiltrate the conservative movement in order to "divide and conquer" has backfired and ended up unifying the movement in opposition to the gay agenda.  Barber went on to say that any "true conservative" candidate running for office must not only refuse to defend groups like GOProud, but must actively stand against... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 02/22/2011, 2:02pm
On yesterday's episode of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom Radio," Matt Barber and Shawn Akers discussed reports that GOProud would not be allowed to participate in next year's CPAC , news which Barber hailed as proof that GOProud's effort to infiltrate the conservative movement in order to "divide and conquer" has backfired and ended up unifying the movement in opposition to the gay agenda.  Barber went on to say that any "true conservative" candidate running for office must not only refuse to defend groups like GOProud, but must actively stand against... MORE >