SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Personally, I think its a great idea to link up the Liberty movement with GOProud and log cabin republicans. Freedom and Liberty has the best big tent potential out there, even if the sad, tired socons/neo-con elites are skeered of that relationship. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/cpacs-social-war/ Some social conservatives attempt to link Ron Paul’s libertarianism to GOProud’s social liberalism. By Daniel McCarthy For 38 years, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. has been the closest thing the vast right-wing conspiracy has to a national convention. There’s even a presidential nomination at stake, or at least a straw poll whose top spot is highly coveted by Republican hopefuls. (In 2007, for example, Mitt Romney went all out—and all in with his own cash—to win the poll as proof of his movement credibility.) This year, CPAC is making news before the conference even opens on Feb. 10. Furious at the inclusion of a gay Republican group, GOProud, among CPAC’s sponsors, a number of social-conservative organizations, such as the Concerned Women of America and American Family Association—and, more surprisingly, the Heritage Foundation and Media Research Council—are boycotting this year’s meeting. “To bring in a ‘gay’ group is a direct attack on social conservatives, and I can’t participate in that,” the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell III told WorldNetDaily. Bozell’s objection would be more credible if CPAC had not included other groups at odds with conservative orthodoxy in years past—including the American Civil Liberties Union. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association provided a clue as to a deeper reason for the split when he said, “We believe in truth in advertising. They should call themselves the Libertarian Political Action Committee.” One time Republican presidential candidate turned Fox News personality Mike Huckabee voiced the same complaint last year, as he pouted about Rep. Ron Paul’s unexpected straw-poll win. “CPAC has become increasingly libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year,” Huckabee said. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Can you say "Suni and Shiite"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Can you say "Suni and Shiite"? I was thinking Blood and water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yeah, but I liked the imagery of two subsets of the same religion claiming that the other isn't a true member of that religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Yeah, but I liked the imagery of two subsets of the same religion claiming that the other isn't a true member of that religion. good point ---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 09:31 AM ---------- I'm surprised our Tailgate neo-cons havent weighed in yet to tell me how batsh&% crazy liberty minded people like me are ---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 10:05 AM ---------- apparantly, CPAC is not really for actual conservative principles of limited Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So the whole social war is coming back to bite them on the butt interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 So the whole social war is coming back to bite them on the butt interesting. I dont see it as "biting in the but" as much as focing CPAC attendees to realize that individual liberty is the underlying theme to all conservatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I dont see it as "biting in the but" as much as focing CPAC attendees to realize that individual liberty is the underlying theme to all conservatism. The religous right still thinks they are the key to the party hence why as the election neared more focus was put on social issues even from those inside the tea party, and what do see the congress doing now, very little fiscal and whole lot of abortion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 The religous right still thinks they are the key to the party hence why as the election neared more focus was put on social issues even from those inside the tea party, and what do see the congress doing now, very little fiscal and whole lot of abortion You think Congress is more focused on abortion than fiscal matters currently? Not sure I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So the whole social war is coming back to bite them on the butt interesting. Eh. The Socons have won ever battle with the libertarians since 1965. I don't see this turning out any differently. At the end of the day, Ron Paul and his followers account for 5 to 10 percent of the modern GOP. The So-Cons - in the meantime - can be terribly divided on Mike Huckabee and still make him a legitimate contender for the nomination. The battle for the soul of the GOP has been over for 30 years. The issue is that the SoCons have less power on the national scene now than they used to. Trust me. I am someone who lives for the day that the GOP splits apart in a three-group civil war. But I saw the supposed "libertarian" tea party get taken over by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. So, I know where the real power lies in the GOP. The fiscal cons have the money (Romney). The socons have the votes. (Palin) The libertarians make the noise. (Paul) The reason the Socons don't win the nomination every year is because there are always too many Socon candidates or some kind of Socon stalking horse (like Huckabee). Huckabee stayed in the race until the very end last year and I think it's because he made a deal with McCain for a position in a NeverNeverLand administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Hey Bozell, go **** yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eh. The Socons have won ever battle with the libertarians since 1965. I don't see this turning out any differently. At the end of the day' date=' Ron Paul and his followers account for 5 to 10 percent of the modern GOP. The So-Cons - in the meantime - can be terribly divided on Mike Huckabee and still make him a legitimate contender for the nomination.The battle for the soul of the GOP has been over for 30 years. The issue is that the SoCons have less power on the national scene now than they used to. Trust me. I am someone who lives for the day that the GOP splits apart in a three-group civil war. But I saw the supposed "libertarian" tea party get taken over by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. So, I know where the real power lies in the GOP. The fiscal cons have the money (Romney). The socons have the votes. (Palin) The libertarians make the noise. (Paul) The reason the Socons don't win the nomination every year is because there are always too many Socon candidates or some kind of Socon stalking horse (like Huckabee). Huckabee stayed in the race until the very end last year and I think it's because he made a deal with McCain for a position in a NeverNeverLand administration.[/quote'] I actually think that's a pretty good assessment, with one caveat - the country is on a slow, inevitable march against social conservatism. In thirty years (I said it was slow), gay marriage will be common and pot will be legal in a majority of the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Just saw they aren't allowing Gary Johnson to speak this yeAr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Whoever runs those things - trust me, you don't lose anything by losing the American Family Association. Those guys have more mean-spirited hate and close-minded ignorance in them than any other big player in the SoCon movement, by far. SoCons would do much better if they would marginalize extreme groups like that rather than allowing them to set the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Whoever runs those things - trust me, you don't lose anything by losing the American Family Association. Those guys have more mean-spirited hate and close-minded ignorance in them than any other big player in the SoCon movement, by far. SoCons would do much better if they would marginalize extreme groups like that rather than allowing them to set the agenda. To me the irony in all this resides in the fact that CPAC was a Goldwater brain child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Whoever runs those things - trust me, you don't lose anything by losing the American Family Association. Those guys have more mean-spirited hate and close-minded ignorance in them than any other big player in the SoCon movement, by far. SoCons would do much better if they would marginalize extreme groups like that rather than allowing them to set the agenda. Grover Norquist and David Keane (of the ACU) put CPAC together The right is now turning on Norquist because he has a Muslim wife and could be a "secret Muslim." He has pushed Muslim candidates and his wife ran the "Islamic Free Market Institute." Horowitz wrote some ridiculous article on Norquist So its really about gays and Muslims, which is a big no no for SoCons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 [/color]I'm surprised our Tailgate neo-cons havent weighed in yet to tell me how batsh&% crazy liberty minded people like me are You're bat **** crazy ....and confusing so-cons and neo's I don't have a problem with gop proud at CPAC or anywhere else...but then I'm a uniter,not a divider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 You're bat **** crazy ....and confusing so-cons and neo'sI don't have a problem with gop proud at CPAC or anywhere else...but then I'm a uniter,not a divider There you go! Thats what I expected a long time ago! (but from some others with less sense of humor and more "mad" style of posting and debating. How dare you be polite and have debate at the same time! No, not confusing the so's and neo's in this case. The ones we are discussing are in both camps apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Just saw they aren't allowing Gary Johnson to speak this yeAr:cuss: I could EASILY see myself voting for Gary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 :cuss: I could EASILY see myself voting for Gary. me too, in fact he had an awesome speech at CPAC in 2010 that was very well received. (Though on the personal side, I hear he is a real jerk at times) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Eh. The Socons have won ever battle with the libertarians since 1965. I don't see this turning out any differently. At the end of the day' date=' Ron Paul and his followers account for 5 to 10 percent of the modern GOP. The So-Cons - in the meantime - can be terribly divided on Mike Huckabee and still make him a legitimate contender for the nomination.The battle for the soul of the GOP has been over for 30 years. The issue is that the SoCons have less power on the national scene now than they used to. Trust me. I am someone who lives for the day that the GOP splits apart in a three-group civil war. But I saw the supposed "libertarian" tea party get taken over by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. So, I know where the real power lies in the GOP. The fiscal cons have the money (Romney). The socons have the votes. (Palin) The libertarians make the noise. (Paul) The reason the Socons don't win the nomination every year is because there are always too many Socon candidates or some kind of Socon stalking horse (like Huckabee). Huckabee stayed in the race until the very end last year and I think it's because he made a deal with McCain for a position in a NeverNeverLand administration.[/quote'] I'll slightly disagree with this for two reasons. First, the fiscal conservatives and the libertarians are more alike on national issues than different. I understand the differences (austrian vs chicago economics, int'l relations, mary jane), but I'm not sure the nation does. Most see fiscally conservative versus fiscally liberal, and stop there. In that sense, even though there are meaningful differences, that fight hasn't become public yet (though it could become somewhat more public over defense and the debt). Second, it's true that Palin has the backing of the social conservatives, but the tea party isn't about that. It's about big government and debt, fiscal issues. Part of the reason Palin is so popular is because she speaks out on those fiscal issues (even though her only articulated response is "no") but also has street cred with the social crowd. I desperately hope a social conservative doesn't win the R primary every time we have one, mostly because I don't think their eye is on the right ball. IMO, this country needs a strong and articulate fiscal conservative first and foremost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 You think Congress is more focused on abortion than fiscal matters currently? Not sure I agree How much legislation have they brought forth for debate and proposed without abortion in it somewhere? ---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 04:54 PM ---------- Eh. The Socons have won ever battle with the libertarians since 1965. I don't see this turning out any differently. At the end of the day' date=' Ron Paul and his followers account for 5 to 10 percent of the modern GOP. The So-Cons - in the meantime - can be terribly divided on Mike Huckabee and still make him a legitimate contender for the nomination.The battle for the soul of the GOP has been over for 30 years. The issue is that the SoCons have less power on the national scene now than they used to. Trust me. I am someone who lives for the day that the GOP splits apart in a three-group civil war. But I saw the supposed "libertarian" tea party get taken over by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. So, I know where the real power lies in the GOP. The fiscal cons have the money (Romney). The socons have the votes. (Palin) The libertarians make the noise. (Paul) The reason the Socons don't win the nomination every year is because there are always too many Socon candidates or some kind of Socon stalking horse (like Huckabee). Huckabee stayed in the race until the very end last year and I think it's because he made a deal with McCain for a position in a NeverNeverLand administration.[/quote'] Or the public gets tired of the socon Seems the moderates and the Indies just want a fiscal con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 How much legislation have they brought forth for debate and proposed without abortion in it somewhere? I'd have to check (not sure exactly where to check to be honest), but I honestly think that ,much more has been brought forward without abortion than with. Its an interesting point though and I'm curious if anyone here knows for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Or the public gets tired of the socon Seems the moderates and the Indies just want a fiscal con Heck, this liberal wants a fiscal conservative. Of course, my idea of fiscal conservatism is to, you know, balance the budget. Somewthing that is going to take significantly lower expenditures combined with some increases in taxes. Some people who claim to be fiscal conservatives really mean "lower my taxes and increase defense spending and ignore the deficit and debt." Something for nothing is not fiscal conservatism, but hey, lots of people think Ronald Reagan was a finscal conservative. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 me too, in fact he had an awesome speech at CPAC in 2010 that was very well received. (Though on the personal side, I hear he is a real jerk at times)He's a politician ...increase defense spending...Don't get me started on this :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.