Politics

When it Comes to teh Gays, Palin Clarifies; Heritage Not so Much

|

Chris Moody of the Daily Caller reports:

"I don't have a problem with different, diverse groups that are involved in political discourse, and having a convention to talk about what the answers are to their problems that face America," Palin said. "We better be concentrating on what is really important and not going tit-for-tat as people are positioning themselves for 2012 and figuring out what groups is going to support whom. We better be very serious about finding solutions to the problems."

Her statement clarified earlier remarks made last week about the [CPAC] conference allowing GOProud to co-sponsor the conference, which received a sharp rebuke from some social conservatives who demanded that she expand on her vague comments.

Other cons do have a problem such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who said, "conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist" in a political coalition. Translation: GOProud or Go Home!

Moody further writes up muddled reactions from the Heritage Foundation, the $75 million think tank that pulled out of a CPAC with not so much as a wham, bam, thank you ma'am:

[A Heritage spokesman said]: "It would be safe to say that GOProud's involvement was one of several groups whose involvement helped encourage us to take another look at whether this was going to be the best use of our time."

Other Heritage employees have echoed similar concerns. In an e-mail to a donor who said he would not renew his Heritage membership over the group's choice not to participate in CPAC, Bethany Murphy, a membership assistant at Heritage, emphasized the other events that Heritage planned to sponsor in 2011, calling CPAC just "one event" among dozens. (To put it in perspective, Heritage has more than 700,000 members who can donate as little as $25 to obtain membership.)

"The participation of the homosexual conservative group GOProud was not the determining factor in our absence," Murphy wrote. "We at Heritage had begun reviewing our participation in CPAC long before GOProud's increased role as a conference organizer was announced. The reason for our review was that it is no longer clear to us what form CPAC as an event is taking this year, or the next, or what core philosophies it is representing. So we decided to take a break and focus on other priorities."

Mike Gonzalez, Heritage's vice president of communication, told numerous newspapers, however, that the organization was staying away because of philosophical differences.

"We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. We think these policies are indivisible," Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times. "It's not a boutique. You can't pick one and not the other."

Whole thing here.

More CPACania here.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on the Non-Threat of Islamist Terrorism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All the models show the Chinese will surpass America in teh gays! Yellow Peril!!

  2. I’m not gonna lie; the ventriloquism is waaaaaay gayer than any amount of buttsex.

  3. Other cons do have a problem such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who said, “conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist” in a political coitus.

    Now look, the article said “…$75 million think tank that pulled out”
    so it was easy to think they were talking about f*cking.

    OH, he said COALITION! My mistake. POLITICAL DIScourse, not sexual intercourse. Well, easy to get that mixed up.

  4. Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s not a boutique…”

    Yeah, we get it. You already said you don’t like teh gays.

    1. Only a gay would use the word boutique in such an example.

      No homo.

  5. “Conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist.” Whatever happened to the Big Tent of conservatism?

    1. Yeah! What happened?

    2. Apparently teh conservuhtivs only get a big tent for Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter?

    3. It must have gotten lost in my lizard brain.

  6. I don’t know if it’s that Sarah Palin keeps getting more awesome or if it’s that she’s surrounded by social conservatives, who keep making her look better by comparison…

    Either way? Hating on Sarah Palin is making less and less sense all the time.

    1. Hating on Sarah Palin is making less and less sense all the time.

      It never made any sense.

      The left would have said and done anything to insure McCain did not get elected. but that election ended over 2 years ago.

      Why there is a persistent hatred of her is beyond me.

      I think it is a culture thing….if it was it would explain why the cosmos here hate her so much….and also why the hatred is completely irrational.

      1. All Republicans must be placed in one of the following categories by progressives:
        Too heartless
        Too crazy
        Too stupid

        Then she made a couple of decisions that were easy to paint as mistakes, and pretty soon everyone cast her as a lightweight. Her cardinal sin, however, was not going away after they wrote her obituary. I enjoy watching her because she pisses off so many of the people I want unhappy. Beyond that I haven’t much opinion.

      2. They hate her because, unlike George Bush and Dick Cheney who are still members of upper class at the end of the day no matter how much they play it down, Palin will always be a low class hillbilly no matter how many millions shes earns.

    2. Yep. By lowering everyone’s expectations in ’10, she gets to exceed expectations consistantly on her way to ’12. Or, it could just be that she doesn’t live a bubble of sycophants and monomaniacal drones. Actually, I’m going with option 2.

      Full Disclosure: I’ve never found Sarah Palin particularly stupid for a politician.

    3. Sarah Palin is blessed with enemies that make her look good. That’s one of the biggest things she has going for her.

      The other big thing she has going is that by some combination of luck and keen political instincts she’s right at the political center-of-gravity of the US population. Yes, Sarah Palin is a centerist.

    4. One needn’t hate Sarah Palin. One need only recognize that she’s a shallow and shrill pretender, an unserious hack, an astonishingly ignorant dilettante.

      1. One needn’t hate Sarah Palin. One need only recognize that she’s a shallow and shrill pretender, an unserious hack, an astonishingly ignorant dilettante.

        And much more qualified than Joe Biden.

        1. Meaningless. A petri dish covered in algae is more qualified than Joe Biden. Speaking of which, it’s also more qualified than Sarah Palin.

          1. And Barack Obama.

        2. “”And much more qualified than Joe Biden.””

          What exactly are the qualifications for being a Vice-President?

          1. A pulse.

            1. Pretty much, which makes her qualified for at least two things in my book.

      2. “One needn’t hate Sarah Palin. One need only recognize that she’s a shallow and shrill pretender, an unserious hack, an astonishingly ignorant dilettante.”

        They said the same things about Ronald Reagan.

        That big dummy thought capitalism was the solution to almost everything! That big dummy thought the religious right should be tolerated–but never fed…

        We could use somebody stupid like Ronald Reagan was stupid again–and Sarah Palin might fit that to a “T”.

        P.S. No, Ronald Reagan wasn’t stupid, and Sarah Palin isn’t stupid either.

        1. *Pukes*

        2. I would concur that Palin is the intellectual equal of Ron Reagan, Jr.

          1. Even if she were stupid?

            I’d rather have a capitalist idiot with instincts that rub cultural conservatives the wrong way–rather than progressive idiot whose knee jerk reactions are almost always hostile to capitalism…?

            Any. Day.

            And that may be the choice we’re looking at. …and it’s a no-brainer.

            1. I’d rather not have another idiotic, nationalistic “shoot first, ask questions later” war hawk like Bush. Not to mention she’s one of few Republicans virtually guaranteed not to beat Obama, which is pretty pathetic in and of itself.

              1. She’s the best of the bunch.

                And running against Obama should be a cake walk for whoever wins the nomination.

                1. And running against Obama should be a cake walk for whoever wins the nomination.

                  It depends on how the economy is doing.

                  1. The midterms weren’t just about how the economy was doing.

                    It was about a reaction to ObamaCare.

                    It was a reaction to TARP.

                    Although the TARP recipients may have paid back the government–the government has yet to pay back the American people.

                    In fact, the government has already squandered all the money they were paid back by TARP recipients–and the money is still being drawn out of our paychecks to pay for it!

                    Until the government retires $700 billion in debt or gives the taxpayers a $700 billion tax cut, those TARP funds are still being drawn out of our paychecks.

                    They may have paid the government back, but they haven’t paid the voters back, and come 2012, Obama better cough up the cash or the voters are gonna throw him out on his ass.

      3. And which other politician is not?

  7. Mr. Gonzalez’ triad is reminiscent of YAF’s back in 1961. Eventually, the most libertarian elements opted out.
    CPAC sees the more libertarian elements opting in – Students for Liberty being one example. It will be interesting to see where CPAC wanders in the immediate future.

  8. “We want to promote economic freedom, a strong national defense and social conservativism. … It’s not a boutique. You can’t pick one and not the other.”

    Why, exactly, is that?

    1. Yeah, that’s what I was wondering. What exactly happens if you support economic freedom but not social conservatism? Do the SoCon elves steal your underwear or something?

      1. 1) Economic Freedom, Strong Nat’l Defense?, Social Conservatism
        2) ?????
        3) PROFIT!!

      2. What exactly happens if you support economic freedom but not social conservatism?

        You can’t. It’s just impossible. It has never been done.

  9. If the GOP keeps rejecting gay members, wouldn’t most of the sitting GOP Congressmen have to resign?

    1. No. Self-hating homos who deny their nature when they aren’t email pages or in airport bathrooms are welcome.

      1. “email emailing pages”

    2. If the GOP keeps rejecting gay members

      Not gay members. “Teh” gay members. Get with the tiresome lingo, Paul.

  10. Does anyone else feel that the fact that there is a GOProud is a libertarian failure?

    Are gay republicans simply gay poeple who hate Mexicans?

    1. This question has been answered – incidentally, through a lavish musical number.

    2. Are gay republicans simply gay poeple who hate Mexicans?

      Is opposing illegal immigration equal to hating Mexicans?

      1. Not necessarily, but the two often seem to coincide.

      2. Is opposing gay marriage equal to hating gays?

        1. Is opposing gay marriage equal to hating gays?

          No.

        2. Yes, almost always. Though SoCons are careful to attempt to conceal their underlying hateful motives. They aren’t against same sex marriage, you see, they only seek to “protect” the institution.

          From Teh Gheys.

    3. They may preach Republican homosexuality but you know their secretly having illicit heterosexual affairs. Damn hypocrites.

    4. Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks.

    5. “Does anyone else feel that the fact that there is a GOProud is a libertarian failure?”

      The Log Cabin Republicans have been around since the 1970s.

      Just because they’re gay, doesn’t mean they want the Democrats flushing their paychecks down the toilet.

      1. I guess they’re generally pro-war, and want to get in on the action.

  11. I bristle at the idea of someone named Gonzalez speaking for my beloved party…

    1. How about a Fuentes?

      1. I’m cool with Daisy too!

        http://www.wallpapergate.com/d…..es_001.jpg

        (and Lupe)

        http://www.examiner.com/images…..uentes.jpg

      2. Rubio?

  12. Teh Gaiz (and others) are welcome in my new party, The AWESOME Party.

    We’re interested in partying, guns, cars, motorcycles, boats, good music, makin’ lots o’ money, having gummint leave us the FUCK alone, and stuff like that.

    I got yer big tent, RIGHT HERE. COME ON DOWN!

    1. I would be interested in subscribing to your newsletter. It sounds fabulous!

  13. Other cons do have a problem such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council who said, “conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist” in a political coalition. Translation: GOProud or Go Home!

    There should be some common ground.

    For example, it was be neither wise, just, or constitutional to enact a statute forbidding homosexuals from carrying concealed weapons.

  14. “It’s not a boutique. You can’t pick one and not the other.”

    No substitutions on your poo-poo (however you spell it) platter.

  15. The GOP honchos are idiots for shunning gays. They could get probably close to half that vote, rather than the miserable single digits they get now.

    I guess that is the price they have to pay for letting statist socons into the tent.

    1. I guess that is the price they have to pay for letting statist socons into the tent.

      It is a numbers game.

      There are a lot more statist socons than there are homosexuals.

      1. Socons::Republican Party as Blacks::Democratic Party. They don’t have anywhere else to go, they ain’t gonna vote for the Other Side. The sooner the Repubs figure out they can keep them on the plantation with a few symbolic scraps, the better.

        1. I have this fantasy where the Republican and Democratic parties break up into minor factions and the libertarianish factions of each party realign into one new glorious party that leads us into libertopia.

          Then I wake up . . . . . .

        2. Socons::Republican Party as Blacks::Democratic Party. They don’t have anywhere else to go, they ain’t gonna vote for the Other Side. The sooner the Repubs figure out they can keep them on the plantation with a few symbolic scraps, the better.

          True.

          SoCons used to be split between Republicans and Democrats, until the Democrats gained the perception of being an anti-God, anti-family, anti-American party.

          The only symbolic scraps needed to keep socons on the plantation are keeping the traditional definition of marriage and no public funding of elective abortions.

          1. How exactly is opposing public funding of abortions anti-libertarian?

            1. How exactly is opposing public funding of abortions anti-libertarian?

              It is not, and it is one issue where libertarians and socons find common cause.

            2. In some cases, the funding of the abortion is cheaper than funding a baby on the dole.

              Not saying there should be funding either way.

        3. They have shown a propensity to not vote when they think they are being ignored. There is also the fact that there is a huge overlap between social conservative and fiscal conservatives. By taking out the social cons you taking a sziable percentage of fiscal cons. There is not much evidence beyond libertarian assertion that there are enough socially liberal fiscal cons to attract to make up the difference.

          1. There is also the fact that there is a huge overlap between social conservative and fiscal conservatives. By taking out the social cons you taking a sziable percentage of fiscal cons.

            It was not socons who pushed for insane environmental regulations in California that chases businesses away.

            1. No, but they are the reason California keeps electing the people that push those insane regulations. Being a socon is totally uncool anywhere, but especially in Cali.

              1. No, but they are the reason California keeps electing the people that push those insane regulations. Being a socon is totally uncool anywhere, but especially in Cali.

                So how is it social conservatism is so unpopular but environmentalism is not, despite its track record?

            2. “”There is also the fact that there is a huge overlap between social conservative and fiscal conservatives. “”

              Not sure, I’ve seen very few fiscal conservatives.

          2. By taking out the social cons you taking a sziable percentage of fiscal cons.

            If you are willing to allow government spending to destroy the economy because some gay people came to your convention, I would say you aren’t a fiscal conservative.

            1. If you are willing to allow government spending to destroy the economy because some gay people came to your convention, I would say you aren’t a fiscal conservative.

              So where are the socially liberal fiscal conservatives?

  16. Is the photo of the Miss Arkansas that did the yodeling ventriloquist act for her Miss America talent? I have to admit that I was really aroused by that video.

    1. When she touches me, I get a woody.

    2. Is the photo of the Miss Arkansas that did the yodeling ventriloquist act for her Miss America talent? I have to admit that I was really aroused by that video.

      Yeah… wooden dummies…

  17. After the bill authorizing repeal of DADT was passed, Jim Robinson of the Free Republic had announced he would ban commenters who support the homosexual agenda.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.