15 Responses to Conservative Groups Threaten To Scuttle CPAC If GOProud Isn’t Removed

1. Pingback: Cato Institute To Hold Discussion On LGBT’s In The Conservative Movement.

2. Pingback: Cato Institute To Hold Discussion On LGBT’s In The Conservative Movement. - Lez Get Real

3. 

   Tracy Coyle Reply

   December 17, 2009 at 8:45 am

   1) There is zero indication that Palin is anti-gay.
   2) For a party all about individual liberty, it seems pretty STUPID to say the STATE has the authority to limit an individual’s pursuit of happiness.
   3) Social conservatives ARE NOT promoting the liberty our Founding Fathers fought and died for. They are demanding individuals conform to the tyranny of the majority/State/Crown. For the social conservative, King George has been replaced by God, individual liberty be damned.
   4) An gay person NOT a conservative fails to understand their own best interest.

   Remember, Clinton signed DOMA and DADT and Obama supports BOTH.
   • 

     Sei

     December 17, 2009 at 9:57 am

     Ms Coyle,

     Actually, there is quite a bit of indication that she is. Most of it comes from the people she associates with in her religious beliefs. That said, even if she is not, herself, anti-LGBT, the people who support her are, so it makes little difference.

     I have heard the same old saw about how Clinton signed DOMA and DADT and Obama supports them for a very long time. That does not make me any more willing to support people like John McCain or Sarah Palin. You will notice that I try very hard to explain that there are different forms of Conservative. Now, you may be a fiscal Conservative and a Hawk, but not a Social Conservative. That’s fine by me. Now, try to negotiate with Tea Bag and Conservative Party groups and see just how fast they tie you to a stake and set you on fire.
   • 

     Tracy Coyle

     December 17, 2009 at 10:12 am

     Thanks for the considered reply. I support Palin and yet, am a lesbian conservative. Granted I am a distinct minority on all three points!

     Being Christian does not mean supporting a ‘young world’, or opposing Evolution, or supporting ID, or being anti-gay. Absent a specific claim from Palin on those issues, painting Christians with such a broad brush is counter productive to anyone’s position.

     I am a participant in the Tea Party movement and have interactions with local leaders – all of which are open to my support and participation and have no problem with my lifestyle. I have conservative cred with them as the first Chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the American Conservative Party. The founding principle of which is “the individual is sovereign”. Are there member that oppose gay marriage – yes. As there are on the left. I engage my fellow conservatives almost daily on the issue and continue to point out that “the pursuit of happiness” includes the individual right to choose one’s life partner.

     I will not suggest to you it is not an uphill battle, but the number of Conservatives that accept gay marriage (or Civil Unions as a nod to gov getting out of ‘marriage’ altogether) is not an insignificant minority.

     Most “C”onservatives, reach the same conclusion as I have – individual rights are the foundation of this country. Even Dick Cheney agrees.
   • 

     Sei

     December 17, 2009 at 11:11 am

     Tracy,

     I am what one might call a Small Government Liberal. Which, I know, sounds entirely crazy. My stance regarding the size of the government is the need for efficiency over what most people would put on the chopping block. It would require a scalpel rather than an axe. I do not understand why we have fifteen or more intelligence agencies who seem to spend more time spying on each other than upon threats to the US. I do not understand why we need an FBI, an ATF, a Border Patrol AND a Coast Guard all as separate entities.

     When it comes to governmental philosophy, my view is that the government is suppose to be there to prevent large entities such as corporations from abusing and defrauding people. Regulations are a tool to do that, but those must also be reviewed and made simple and clear as well. Regulations should not be burdensome if businesses take into account the impact that their actions have upon people. Often times I hear about “personal responsibility” out of Conservatives, and yet none of them want to hold businesses responsible when they hurt people. I spent eighteen years in a city where houses were being corroded by the pollution coming out of the paper mills. The lung cancer rate was five times above the average. The business there fought tooth and nail spending almost three times on legal fees what it would have to put in a reclamation boiler. Because of the legal fees, the plant had to go up for sale and was bought by another company who started the process all over again.

     I have done several posts regarding the support that the LGBT Community has received from within the Christian faiths. Recently, I did a post about the Episcopalians in New York City helping to fund and set up a homeless shelter for LGBT youth. I do not believe that Christians are entirely against us the way most people in the LGBT Community do.

     Tracy, the problem I have always had with many of the fiscal and foreign policy conservative positions is that they fail to learn from History. They fail to look at what existed in the past and try to understand what to do moving forward. There is a quote from the “Founding Fathers” that goes “what people value is not freedom, but license.” In other words, people want the “freedom” to do what ever they want, when ever they want, and to whom ever they want without consequences. I believe that freedom without consequences is just a word. I have listened to the rhetoric from the other side, and I can tell you this- far too many of those who are pushing these ideals are not in it for freedom or democracy. They are in this for power. They are in this for money. They do not care. The positions that they have taken up are self serving and damaging to this country. I can also tell you this much, what they propose IS Fascism. Oh, I don’t mean the scary OMG they want to create a dictatorship Fascism, but real Fascism. The Big Business Owns The Government kind of Fascism. The Religion Is The Center Of Our Lives type of Fascism. Not Naziism, not Peronism, not Pinochet and Franco’s version of Fascism, but Fascism at its core.

     Right now, we cannot even agree upon terms. There is no debate. I am a quiet, rational individual who gets attacked all the time for daring to say that we should talk. The problem with talking is that we must, first, agree upon the terms we are using. That isn’t going to happen. Until we can actually sit down and have an intelligent conversation about all of this, nothing will get done. Give what I have seen, and I do mean in person, I doubt that will happen.

     I would like to add that I do know that this is a lot more complex than usually gets discussed. It is often why I break this down into three foci rather than blanketly talk about Conservatives unless I am talking about someone or something who is a social, fiscal and foreign policy Conservative.
   • 

     Tracy Coyle

     December 17, 2009 at 12:44 pm

     I think you make some strong points. Generally, I don’t disagree. I have issues with corporations – I think the legal fiction they are ‘individuals’ needs to end and because so many gov entities have control of regulations, corps tend to tread between the lines – both issues can be addressed, but not as long as we have politicians beholden to those corp interests.

     Beyond that issue, I agree there is a definition issue. Obviously, I have to spend a significant amount of time getting conservatives that call themselves conservative in the style of our founding fathers to understand that anti-gay rights is a violation of those principles.

     We – everyone – continue to pick politicians that promise things for us individually, to our everlasting detriment. A politician that adheres to the principle of small, unobtrusive government is in our – everyone’s – best interest, regardless of party. Our Founding Fathers wanted a gov chained and restricted. I helped start the American Conservative Party with those principles in mind – it is a work in progress but neither existing party has even a minor claim to represent us, the people.

     Last point, any activist group that proclaims they are for minority rights seek political power, period.
   • 

     Sei

     December 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm

     Tracy,

     I think that you and I have a lot in common in how we see where we need to get to. The problem is often agreeing how to get there. Often times one side or the other ends up being immobile on a lot of issues. One of the problems, and you fall into it here too, is that I do not like people making statements about our Founding Fathers as if they were a single entity. Jefferson was a small government proponent, Hamilton was a big government proponent. Both men are Founding Fathers. What the Founding Fathers proposed was not a big or small government, but a balanced government. It was suppose to be a government which took care of the interests of the little and the big. They tried a small, unobtrusive government, and it was ungovernable. They came from a big government, and that stomped on people’s rights. What the men who entered into that Constitutional Convention wanted was balance. Government that is too big serves only the bureaucracy. Government that is too small cannot govern. I cannot point you to a book that will tell you that. I have spent my life learning and studying History. I have been appalled at what we have done to it in the name of Science and Math. I look at statements like that and cringe because it is a blatant falsehood spread by people who want to back up their argument by saying that they represent a vision of the beginning of this nation without understanding that it is a lie.

     Prior to the creation of the Constitution was the Articles of Confederation. They created that utopian small government everyone talks about. It also lead to one state coming to the verge of declaring war on another. States imposed trade tariffs on other states. Big states tried to bully little states. I can go on. In that mess, MY state, Vermont, declared itself an independent republic. Until recently, our legislature had to vote to remain as part of the US every year. The Confederation (not Confederacy) that preceded the Constitution ultimately had to be replaced with a large government. The compromise was balance. It is why we have a House made up of Representatives proportional to each state (Vermont has one), but a Senate which has two fixed Senators per state. It is why the President is suppose to have little power and the Legislature have a lot. The way it has evolved has not retained as much balance, and many Conservatives look to the President as being invested with far more power than he is. The courts are meant to provide another balance and to overturn anything that would violate a lot of the rights that exist. The problem with that is that, now, people talk about ‘activist’ judges and assume that an ‘activist’ is a Liberal when they are just as likely to be Conservative.

     There is a lot more I can get into. Tracy, I will tell you this right now- there is no way on this Earth that I will ever support Sarah Palin. The person she is now is a caricature. I am sorry, but she put on this folksy persona for the election and it stuck. She knows about as much about Small Town America as Barack Obama. I look out my window and I SEE Small Town America. I live in the second largest city in Vermont- at seventeen thousand people. I drive through Brandon, Monkton, and a whole bunch of small little towns every year. Towns which don’t have a box store. Unlike Wassila with it’s four box stores at the intersection of two major highways. Wassila was only just a little smaller than Rutland, but without the zoning that kept it from morphing into places like Brunswick, GA. I voted for Obama BECAUSE McCain nominated Palin to be his running mate. Had McCain nominated anyone else, I would have voted for McCain- and so would have the majority of my family.
   • 

     Tracy Coyle

     December 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm

     I want to answer this piecemeal: you are absolutely correct regarding the differences of opinion – and deeds, with regard to Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton and those agreed with him, wanted a strong federal gov – much stronger than Jefferson thought was prudent. It is a little sloppy of me to pull just one part and assign it to a rather diverse group.
   • 

     Sei

     December 17, 2009 at 2:40 pm

     That’s fine. The problem is that you are hardly the only one making that assertion. It is the mythology that people are spreading right now. It is sloppy, it is inaccurate, and it is wrong. The problem is that this country has created such an anti-intellectual atmosphere that even SAYING that is enough to get attacked by people who believe the mythology. They cling to the myths and do not want to hear about the reality. When we cannot agree upon FACTS in a debate, there is no debate and there never will be.

     And, before you waste your keystrokes trying to convince me about Palin, I weighed her. I researched her. I looked up information. I am an academe and a fairly meticulous researcher on the whole. She is no better than the rest of the cadre of politicians. She is saying exactly what people want to hear and nothing more. I can tell a lot more about a person than is readily apparent, especially in their wordage and tone. I can tell a fake accent the bulk of the time. I know the fake folksy-isms. I weighed her, I did my research, and I say ‘no’ to her. It does not matter if she is a woman, a man, a three eyed alien, she was subjected to everything I put President Obama, Senator McCain, and Secretary Clinton to before I cast my vote. And, nothing you say will convince me to ever support her.
   • 

     Tracy Coyle

     December 17, 2009 at 8:10 pm

     I agree that there can ‘activist’ judges of both political persuasions. But I also believe that the majority of ‘activist’ judges are nothing of kind. People complain that judges are being activist when a court rules in a way they find offensive, even when the ruling is consistent with legal principles.

     I agree that President’s have more power than envisioned, but Presidents of both parties have pushed the envelope. FDR’s blackmail of the SCOTUS being ONE example – we both can come up with more. Congress has also infringed on the Executive branch, the Judicial has jumped in when it should not (Roe v Wade) is an example – I don’t disagree with the ruling, it just should not have happened. The people often encouraged these forays into extra-Constitutional activities because they WANTED gov to do something it was not supposed to be doing.

     How many people state gov should be caring for individuals because “common welfare” has been twisted (from the common welfare of the United States to the common welfare of citizens)?

     With regard to Palin. I am not interested in convincing anyone to support her. If you can’t make that decision (one way or the other) yourself, I can’t help you. And my personal history is very different – I was born and raised in Chicago. Southside. about 6 miles from Trinity. My family has personal experience with the Church and it’s leadership. the fact that Obama sat for 20 years in that Church disqualifies him in my mind from ANY position, public or private, in which trust is a factor.

     I gather from your POV, that pro-growth candidates are by definition disqualified from a political post. Maybe I took things wrong.

     I find your comments with regard to McCain confusing. Palin was a VP candidate – not the top of the ticket (by the way, I did not vote for McCain despite my support of Palin as his VP BECAUSE McCain was the top of the ticket). I did not vote for Obama because he was everything I despise in a candidate. the idea that you could desire and support McCain but vote for Obama suggests a lack of principles. No disrespect intended, but the two are such polar opposites on virtually every policy issue that to be willing to switch between them…doesn’t make sense. Given Palin was the only one of the 4 (pres & VP candidates) with ANY public executive experience, the Obama/Biden ticket was unqualified from virtually any POV. I make these observations, again, not to change opinions (Obama is my President), but to note your comments are inconsistent.

     That said, I appreciate the discussion – and calling me on the FF point.
   • 

     Sei

     December 17, 2009 at 8:29 pm

     Tracy,

     I have to move on. Other than the fact that, right now, I have a headache, I know that you and I are just going to keep going at this for a long time. I will explain this right now- I vote for Obama/Biden because I hoped that Obama could learn to use Biden properly. I do not like Senators who think that they can be President. Almost every Senator who has gone on to be President without some executive experience has been a disaster. Biden, I felt, might have more to offer than Palin when it came to the Executive. Neither ticket impressed me much.

     Take care.

4. Pingback: Tina

5. Pingback: lezgetreal

6. 

   Jessica Sideways Reply

   December 16, 2009 at 3:52 pm

   It is a wonder why any gay person would want to be an evil conservative? Isn’t that self-defeating?