CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, has been making news with its proposed agenda and sponsors list for its upcoming conference next month. Unfortunately for the American Conservative Union (ACU), the group that organizes CPAC, the news has been all about who isn’t invited to the conference–namely the gay conservative group GOProud and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In both instances it appears that the group is trying to set the parameters for which groups and individuals are welcome in the conservative movement, and which should be excluded.
The GOProud ban is nothing new for CPAC, as this is the second straight year that the group has been prohibited from participating in the conference as sponsors. In 2010 and 2011 GOProud were co-sponsors, but after a dust-up between ACU and other groups with more high level sponsorships, GOProud was dropped from any and all official CPAC events. National Review‘s Dan Foster has a great post arguing the group should be welcomed to the conference and, more broadly, into the movement. While Foster’s points are all well argued and valid, I would argue they are somewhat unnecessary. One conference’s decision has no bearing on GOProud’s membership in the conservative movement on the whole. GOProud’s exclusion from CPAC has given it an incredible amount of exposure and free publicity, raising its profile throughout the movement.
The decision not to invite Christie, especially in light of his headlining CPAC Chicago as recently as last summer, seems to be a purposeful statement on what the ACU sees as Christie’s role in the movement after the governor’s high-profile work with President Obama following Superstorm Sandy. Conservatives have been wincing every time the governor has spoken lately, whether by comparing himself to his Democratic New York counterpart Andrew Cuomo, or buckling on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. Conservatives have legitimate concerns with the governor, but there are also valuable contributions that a Republican governor of a state as blue as New Jersey could make–for example, with regard to his work on school choice and education reform, which have both been instrumental in his record high approval ratings.
A year like this, in which the conservative movement debates its future in light of a stinging electoral loss, isn’t an appropriate time to dismiss popular figures and shrink an already defeated movement. It is not up to the ACU or any other group to determine who can maintain their conservative credentials. While the ACU may be trying to marginalize Christie and GOProud, they may be marginalizing themselves instead. Conservative commentator S.E. Cupp announced today that she would not be attending CPAC this year over the GOProud flap after liberal MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes did the same, which some conservatives, including NRO’s Foster, begrudgingly cheered. Many other conservatives, while perhaps still attending and speaking, are coming to the conclusion that the ongoing conversation on conservatism’s future may not be taking place at CPAC this year. If that’s the case, the ACU only has itself to blame.
Purify the ranks! Smaller, more strident — and even crazier.
Christie is the one who hugged Obama, did nothing for Romney, smeared the GOP Congressional leadership in the name of extorting money from the taxpayer that had nothing to do with Hurricane relief (the kind his pal the President wouldn't provide) and today became the latest GOP governor to capitulate before the almight bribe that goes with Obamacare with Medicare expansion. And for all this, he should somehow still get a place at an event devoted to the promotion of *conservative* principles? Sorry Bethany, but you have to be inhaling illegal substances to come up with that argument. n nOh, and S.E. Cupp ain't showing up? Big frigging deal, that's one less phony in the ranks to muddy the waters. It seems like more and more, conservatives are supposed to check all their principles at the door in the name of pursuing some phony vision for "victory" that amazingly never comes every time these phonies in the ranks get their way. n nMaybe if GOPProud demonstrated that they are not in favor of seeing the institution of marriage destroyed it would be easier to accord them a place at the table. But if they want to keep being part of the movement tha tsays the GOP must buckle on this point and further extend a middle finger to the social conservative base, that is when I decide the GOP isn't worth my time any longer.
The institution of marriage was created by God and, as such, cannot be destroyed by man. There are two aspects to marriage in America today. The religious and the legal. The legal is nothing more than a contract between two individuals. What difference to jurisprudence does it make if gay men marry eachother or a man and a woman? On the religious aspect, hold that in your Church or place of worship. Take comfort that marriage cannot be destroyed by anyone – gay, straight, whatever.
Oh my, so now here we go with the stale cliche that rewriting the definition of marriage to appease a bigoted, movement that hates the Judeo-Christian tradition, will somehow not affect the status of religious institutions. That idiotic thinking leaves out the reality fo what we're already seeing in terms of how the state will engage in a punitive assault on ANY institution that does not kowtow to their secularist vision on social issues (just ask the Boy Scouts) or the assault on religious liberty the State is currently carrying out in their zeal to enforce subsidized abortion and birth control (for which GOP moderates are too cowardly to bring up as always). If gay marriage becomes the norm then ANY church that dares to stand by the traditional marriage will face bullying, intimidation and threats from the state and we will in time see the free exercise of religion disappear in this country completely because government monitors will use the coercive power of the state if a minister so much as preaches a sermon calling the gay lifestyle wrong.
Churches can handle it. They'll be fine. Can you tell me how gay people getting married has any impact on you at al?. Gay people are getting married today. Is your life ruined because of it? Has your marriage failed? Use your freedom to believe what you want. Say what you want. It's crazy that you don't want other people to be able to use theirs because of your religious beliefs. On a religious note, I agree with you. However, public policy is not formulated around religion in this country.
If you honestly believe for one minute that any Church that so much as TRIES to maintain the normal Judeo-Christian perspective on marriage in an environment where the secular state says we must (usually as the result of judicial fiat) “accept” the redefinition of marriage as demanded by an extremist (and bigoted) faction, is not going to escape the wrath of that same state through punitive actions designed to bully and intimidate them (in the same way that religious institutions are seeing thier liberties stripped for the sake of Obamacare), then you are inhaling illegal substances even more than Mandel is, and offering a nice reminder of how my regard for phonies who demand that social conservatives observe “party loyalty” for moderates and who then turn around and try to read them out of the ranks if they dare hold to their principles is non-existent. If this is what the future face of the GOP is, then it can go straight to Hell as far as I’m concerned.
No sir, Churches will NOT be safe. All we have to do is look at how this administration tried to compel Churches to comply with the Disability Act so that they couldn’t fire a disabled person who no longer shared their faith and the aforementioned cases of the bullying and intimidation of the Boy Scouts to not let them have their own standards. The question that should really be asked is why you are in favor of having the State codify *your* definition of morality and why you are not willing to look at the impact this has on religious institutions and their ability to take their First Amendment rights for granted?
As for religion having no place in public policy, then gee, I guess your copy of the Declaration Of Independence leaves out the part about “Nature’s God”, “The Creator” and “Divine Providence.” Today’s hostility toward religion in the public square wouldn’t even pass muster with the Deists of the late 18th century!
not letting the GOProud group in is absolutely ridiculous, and will do nothing but further the idea that "conservatives" (which are identical to "Republicans" in the public's mind) hate gays. n nas for Christie, however: his exclusion is fine with me. he had to know what he was doing in the waning days of the campaign, with the Sandy thing and the Obama bear-hug and the snide comments. he didn't do a thing to support Romney and may actually have harmed him. him, you can jilt. n nbut GOProud: big mistake. I thought conservative meant "small government," not "small-minded." n
Agreed. 100%.
You want "small minded"? Tell that to the GOP "moderates" who keep expecting social conservatives to vote for them out of "party unity" but who then gladly treat them as fringe people not worth listening to or having a place at the table in their visions of a so- called "GOP majority". If GOPProud wants to stand behind agendas that are in keeping with the bigoted secularist agenda embraced by modern liberalism, then let them join the Democrats who'll gladly rubberstamp their agenda any day of the week.
Chris Christie and GOProud can go to hell