New CPAC head apparently plans to ban Dick Cheney next year

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The new head of CPAC, the biggest conservative conference of the year, just said that you're not welcome to next year's conference if you support gays in the military and/or marriage equality for gays. At first he said "groups" wouldn't be welcome, then he went on to say that individuals would be welcome if they didn't support lifting the ban or marriage.

That means ####### Cheney is banned from CPAC.

As is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

And Ted Olson.

And Laura Bush.

And let's not forget that Sarah Palin tweeted a comment about the gay ban being silly.

CPAC may need to trade that big tent in for a pup tent next year.

The good news, at least the official hate groups may now come back next year. Pretty clear where the GOP's loyalties lie. Better to have the attendance of a group listed alongside the Klan than to have some gays (and gay-lovers) show up.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/02/new-cpac-head-apparently-plans-to-ban.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

CPAC Will Prohibit Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-DADT Sponsors in 2012

Americablog flags an interview with new ACU President Al Cardenas, who says that groups requesting "participant" status in the annual conservative conference -- a status that means sponsorship and a role in event planning -- will be "vetted." What this means for pro-gay groups:

If you are a group -- and this has got nothing to do with your orientation -- if you are a group of straight couples, and you advocate gay marriage, that's not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the movement are. So it's got nothing to do with your orientation. It's got to do with the principles you advocate. There are a number of gays in America who don't advocate gays in the military or gay marriage. They'll fit within the tent.

That would mean no participating status for GOProud, which advocated for the repeal of DADT*. It would not bar people with these positions from taking the stage, which is good, because doing otherwise would bar ####### Cheney, Pat Toomey, and Ron Paul.

UPDATE: GOProud Chairman Chris Barron argues that none of this would prevent his organization from having a strong role in CPAC again, because DADT is already gone.

"If it's a question of policy, based on our 2011 Legislative Agenda there shouldn't be a question," he said. "Should be a slam dunk that GOProud is back next year."

*I originally said GOProud also advocated for same-sex marriage; its official position is that marriage is up to the states.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/17/cpac-will-prohibit-pro-gay-marriage-anti-dadt-sponsors-in-2012.aspx

Edited February 18, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[^_^ 5,021]

Video- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FutureofConservatis/start/508/stop/567

Basically, he says homosexuals are welcome at CPAC 2012 as long as they don't advocate for homosexual civil rights issues.

[Danno 1,228]

Look the facts are: it has to decide whether it is CPAC or LPAC (Libertarian-PAC).

It can't sell both Hotdogs and Steak to stay in business for long.

[^_^ 5,021]

Look the facts are: it has to decide whether it is CPAC or LPAC (Libertarian-PAC).

It can't sell both Hotdogs and Steak to stay in business for long.

Libertarians have long been part of the Republican Party tent and the Party seems to be doing just fine. In fact, without libertarian (small l) support I doubt they'd win as much.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If they decided to start restricting more and more than they will start to dwindle to nothingness. Go ahead GOP.

[Danno 1,228]

Libertarians have long been part of the Republican Party tent and the Party seems to be doing just fine. In fact, without libertarian (small l) support I doubt they'd win as much.

Valid point however, because someone wants to walk a mile with you does not mean he can dictate the direction.

[^_^ 5,021]

Valid point however, because someone wants to walk a mile with you does not mean he can dictate the direction.

You can either work with him and set the direction together or you can sit down and go nowhere.

Or, find another walking partner.

[Danno 1,228]

You can either work with him and set the direction together or you can sit down and go nowhere.

Or, find another walking partner.

You speak as if this walking partner is a 50/50 relationship, last time I checked the American people voted "yes" to a lot more Conservative ideas and people than Libertarian ones.

The libertarian element has a voice but, it would be ruinous to give them a platform from which to champion causes in direct conflict with basic core tenets.

Imagine prolife democrats getting a special platform to push for repeal of Row at leftwing PAC.

[^_^ 5,021]

You speak as if this walking partner is a 50/50 relationship, last time I checked the American people voted "yes" to a lot more Conservative ideas and people than Libertarian ones.

The preponderance of polling data shows Americans are more libertarian than conservative on many social issues - the war on drugs and homosexual civil rights being two examples. Abortion is a case of the opposite being true.

[Danno 1,228]

The preponderance of polling data shows Americans are more libertarian than conservative on many social issues - the war on drugs and homosexual civil rights being two examples. Abortion is a case of the opposite being true.

But there is only one poll that counts.

[^_^ 5,021]

But there is only one poll that counts.

We don't elect people on the basis of single issues. On the subject of the war of drugs, consider this - the last three elected presidents have all been open about their illegal drug use. Does that sound like an electorate that is conservative on the issue or libertarian?

[Danno 1,228]

We don't elect people on the basis of single issues. On the subject of the war of drugs, consider this - the last three elected presidents have all been open about their illegal drug use. Does that sound like an electorate that is conservative on the issue or libertarian?

Certainly not Libertarian or they would be current users rather than "repentant" users.

[james&olya 1,121]

Certainly not Libertarian or they would be current users rather than "repentant" users.

You assume their stupidity to want to use drugs if they were not legally prohibited? Now that I think about it, you are probably right!!

btw, your siggy is one of the more offensive ones I have seen here!

Edited February 18, 2011 by james&olya