The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ready for the Best. CPAC. Evah?

Posted on | December 28, 2010 | 30 Comments

Confirmed speakers for this year’s event — Feb. 10-12 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in D.C. — include Ann Coulter, Andrew Breitbart, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz and Haley Barbour — and you can expect many more big names to be announced in the next six weeks.

Lisa DePasquale and her crew out-do themselves every year and 2011 — coming in the wake of a crushing Republican mid-term victory — is certain to be the most memorable CPAC ever. I’ve called it “Mardis Gras for the Right,” and if you’ve never been to CPAC, this is the year to go. You don’t want to miss it.

Given so many reasons to be excited about CPAC 2011, I’m disturbed to see that some people think this is a good occasion to marginalize themselves:

Two of the nation’s premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited. . . .
FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.

Which is nuts. There are many organizations that participate in CPAC who have agendas I don’t agree with. So what? My attendance does not constitute an endorsement of the agendas of those organizations (and heaven knows, they don’t all endorse me). Coalition politics sometimes requires that people get along with people they disagree with.

Dave Weigel points out that “nothing’s going to stop presidential candidates and thousands of activists from attending and getting media coverage.” Exactly what the boycotters think they’ll gain by pursuing a strategy of auto-marginalization, I don’t know.  This certainly seems an inauspicious occasion to make such a gesture.

Meanwhile, go sign up for CPAC now!

UPDATE: Lots of blowback in the comments. I tried to call Lisa DePasquale to get her reaction before I published this, and expect to hear from her tomorrow.

UPDATE II: There’s a kind of “thought police” aspect to this CPAC uproar that is relevant to some other things going on out there. It’s a free country and the principle of voluntary association means that people are free to include or exclude whom they will in their organizations and events.

Obviously, nobody can force any individual or group to support or attend CPAC. But to very publicly boycott CPAC . . . I don’t know. Something about that bothers me.

UPDATE III: Welcome, Ace of Spades HQ Morons! Meanwhile, Matt Lewis writes about this and other gay-themed controversies on the Right.

One of the things that troubles me about this uproar is that some social conservatives use “libertarian” as a pejorative. My problem with the gay-rights movement is that it is not libertarian, but rather egalitarian.

Also, there’s a lot of unseemly bashing of social conservatives in the comments. But I don’t have time to address this right now, because my wife has plans for my afternoon.

Bookmark and Share
Category: CPAC, Gays

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/davidschmidt David R. Schmidt

    The American Conservative Union runs CPAC and they are corrupt with a corrupt leader David Keene. Us conservatives should create a ACU free CPAC.

  • Joe

    So Stacy, are you saying just in case Rich Lowry or Jonah Goldberg go that is no reason to stay away from CPAC?

  • Anonymous

    Is the problem corruption or is it gays? Make up your mind. I don’t have enough information to judge your accusations against Keene. If you’d care to share that information, please do so.

  • WTPBN

    Oh I see…give up your moral values all in the name of getting along? Sounds more like a liberalfest than a conservative event…I applaud all those organizations and people who are boycotting this event because this event and these organizations no longer represent conservatives…since when does Islam promote conservatism when they promote violence? Since when does gay/lesian sexual deviants promote family values? Give me a break.

    There are other organziations that can sponsor CPAC…maybe it’s time to rid ourselves of the phony ACU.

  • Guest

    If CPAC (around since 1973) or National Review (around since the 1950′s) successfully advanced the cause of Conservatism then why is the Tea Party movement the only grassroots movement making a difference in the political landscape?

    All those years of ‘speeches’, stroking of egos, while funding the bank accounts of the GOP Ruling Class Corrupt Bastard Boys Club has done nothing to alter the political perception that ‘Liberals are Good’ and ‘Conservatives are Bad’

    Enjoy another year of speechifying, stoking ego and piling money into the Bastard’s Club at the end of it all remember that CPAC and NR failed over the last fifty yeas to do what the Tea Party movment accomplished in two years.

    And all without theGOP Ruling Class Corrupt Bastard’s Club dictating their rules and regulations.

  • PCP Smoker

    Who wants to listen to Newt Gingrich? He should go cheat on his wife or make a commercial with Nancy Pelosi

  • Quartermaster

    Yep, those organizations should not help with a conference that will have another organization that stands foursquare against what they stand for. They haven’t marginalized themselves, the ones that stay, OTOH, have marginalized themselves. GOPround is not a conservative organization and is a serious aberration at CPAC.

  • Pingback: Some Social Conservative Groups Skipping CPAC Over GOProud | The Lonely Conservative

  • http://americanmaxim.com/blog/ MikeC
  • Charles Johnson

    My attendance does not constitute an endorsement of the agendas of those organizations (and heaven knows, they don’t all endorse me).

    I have something contrary to say to that matter…

    But first, want to buy a calender from Amazon?

  • Pingback: Ready for the Best. CPAC. Evah? | Tea Party Digest

  • http://twitter.com/jimmiebjr Jimmie

    Define “foursquare”, because I don’t think you’re using that word anywhere near correctly. GOProud differ from the FRC and CWA on, essentially, two issues — gay marriage and “don’t ask, don’t tell”. That’s it. They work for limited government, low taxes, strong national defense. They want Congress to focus on the same big issues the public overwhelmingly have named as important (hint: social issues, not so much) and have even publicly forsworn their signature issues to deal with the serious spending and entitlement problems we’re facing.

    In short, they are an ally and not “foursquare” against any mainstream conservative group at all.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    I have to agree with RSM. Wrecking the CPAC conference over the presence of a gay group is stupidly self-destructive. I assume that GoProud was invited because of their political rather than their sexual orientation. Would we be better off if they just voted for Democrats? I think not.

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    It is just growing pains. The Bush / Cheney wing of the party just won’t go quietly into that good night. The social conservatives ran the party for the past 20 or so years, and they’ve simply ruined it. It’s time to let the fiscal conservatives give it a go.

  • Anonymous

    Social conservatives ruined the party? I always find it amusing you and your ilk are willing to throw them under the bus for what? 3% of the population who are only interested in their sexual pleasure. You act like socons are not fiscal conservative. You get the best of both worlds with them without making a deal with the devil with gays.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    I’ve always felt CPAC and similar conferences are highly overrated as to influence. They exist mainly to make money, and to promote businesses and candidates to conservative activists and writers, who attend and “cover” each other, so it all seems important to them.

    Having cleverly claimed the conservative mantle, of course few candidates will decline an invitation, which serves to make the whole she-bang seem even more important. But it isn’t, to anyone not in attendance. The only mention any of it might get outside conservative media and blogs is if a candidate or prominent figure commits a gaffe or says something provocative.

    So this meaningless kerfluffle over “sponsoring” organizations or participants and talk of boycotts only serves to divide the greater conservative movement, and that’s not a good thing. I’m a social conservative (as well as an economic conservative and security conservative), but I’m not in favor of excluding anyone from the table. My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy.

    But since it’s just CPAC, I don’t really give a rat’s patootie. Y’all have a nice vacation! I’ll look to hear when you get back, or if someone uses the “n” word (about the only way to get national coverage).

  • Johnny O.

    Are there any Flemish groups there?

  • Pingback: I purchased my tickets for CPAC yesterday « Da Techguy's Blog

  • Rob S.

    I believe the Republican party is strong enough now that they can tell the social conservatives to SIT DOWN, SHUT UP and take a TIME OUT. They offend the majority of independents that would like to vote Republican except for the religious right who would like to use government to instill their social views. No longer do they have the power they once had. Conservative means LESS GOVERNMENT including the BEDROOMS.

  • Tennwriter

    We, the regular conservatives, don’ t need the fiscons. We’ve been letting the tail wag the dog for far too long.

    The historical situation is that Socons do most of the work (and stand foursquare for Full Blooded Conservatism), and Fiscons (often squishes) and Libertarians come by and snipe at them, and threaten to quit the party if the Socons are given anything at all. Socons grump a bit, and take down a few really outlandish sorts, but in the end accept their secondary position. Thus the RINOs run the GOP as the Libertarians don’t have the power to take on RINOs and Socons.

    The logical thing to do is to tell the Libertarians ‘help us, or there’s the door’. Now in order to do this, you gotta be willing to be a little crazy. Which is why Christine O’Donnell was such a big deal.

  • Tennwriter

    there’s the door, man.

  • Tennwriter

    Please mention your name, Guest, because this was very good indeed.

  • Tennwriter

    Well said.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Well said, Rob.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper
  • Quartermaster

    Hogwash! I know exactly what I wrote and why. GOProud is a homsexual interest group standing for destruction the military and marriage. Those two issues set them “foursquare” against what the social cons stand for. The gay agenda is not conservative. They may support a few things we want, but they are not conservative. Just replace the two things they want with abortion issues and the problem is the same.

    Sorry, but you need to grow up just a bit.

  • Anonymous

    Except that Rob CONVENIENTLY ignores the fact that the homosexual/lesbian lobby uses government to advance their agenda EVERY DAY!

    And why does GOProud exist at all? Why don’t GOP homosexuals and lesbians just say they are in the GOP?

    Why MUST homosexuals and lesbians identify and organize themselves by their sexual orientation?

    The fact that homosexuals/lesbians actually formed a group of GOPers that distinguishes itself from other GOPers ONLY by their sexual orientation SHOWS that their orientation is how they ID themselves and so that is, in fact, their main reason for being a group.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    You make some valid points. However, not all gays/lesbians lobby the government for special rights — GOProud doesn’t. I suppose that gays identify with their sexual preference because of extreme prejudice and hatred of them for many years, the same way Jews may self-identify by their religion or blacks by their skin color.

  • http://twitter.com/davidschmidt David R. Schmidt

    Embezzlement of $400,000 in donor funds uncovered inside top conservative group
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=239505

  • Pingback: CPAC 2011: I’m Going, But Shall We Call it the Libertarian PAC Instead?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE