CPAC boycott

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133472250/groups-skip-conservative-gathering-over-gay-sponsor

>.<

I am shocked that they would consider such a thing!

I'm not suprised, just saddened.

"It's more that those in charge ... are looking for ways to squeeze out social conservatives from the movement..."

We can only hope.

I'd enjoy seeing the conservative movement in this country fragment into warring subgroups. It would make the task of actually getting things done much easier.

It would probably open the door as well to much more constructive debate.

So, what makes this new group different from the Log Cabin Republicans?

GO Proud is more conservative. (*Is Log Cabin Republican himself*)

"It's more that those in charge ... are looking for ways to squeeze out social conservatives from the movement..."

I hope this happens. Voting is irrational behavior, so if religious conservatives give up voting, faith and reason will appear to be on the same side.

Awesome. Maybe groups like this will squeeze social conservatives out, and good fucking riddance. They can just get the fuck out and start a Christian Party and be done with it, and we can go back to having the Republican Party of decades past, before they were hijacked by those fucking zealots. If that happens, I'll proudly call myself a Republican once again.

...My thoughts exactly. :D

Until such happens though, I am Barkey the Moderate/Centrist, an Independent voter.

There's a curious assumption here that you have to agree with the opinions of *everyone at the event* in order to attend it (or that the people organizing it must agree with the opinions of everyone attending). It dovetails with the current Republican modus operandi of walking in lockstep.

Even if the GOP ditched the religious nutjobs I'd still be against them (*iz a soshulist), but I might be able to consider them Worthy Opponents if they went back to Goldwater-style conservatism.

I don't understand why Goldwater is held up as a symbol of moderate Republicanism, considering that he was, among other things, a staunch segregationist.

Because as extreme as he was then, the GOP has gone so far to the right that if he ran today he'd be branded a RINO.

"Because as extreme as he was then, the GOP has gone so far to the right that if he ran today he'd be branded a RINO. "

You've got a little straw on your shirt. It probably got there while you were setting that up.

edited 7th Feb '11 6:25:15 AM by Wanderhome

Am I wrong? He was pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, and vocally against the religious right. Not unlike the group getting boycotted here.

Exactly.

"Am I wrong? He was pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, and vocally against the religious right. Not unlike the group getting boycotted here."

The man may have been registered Republican, but his views were libertarian. Your comparison focused on the most conservative parts of his views, and then immediately turned to describing him as far left of the GOP today.

Obviously the contemporary right has become rather entangled with the politics of religion and morality, to the point where that's seen as a more immediate identification of your average conservative's political ideas than their thoughts about, for example, economics or foreign policy (which I personally think are more important issues than worrying about who's fucking who).

To illustrate this departure, take Ronald Reagan who, as we know, was a very religious and socially conservative man. What is he remembered best for today? Answer; his economic policies.

That's the impression that I get anyway. Goldwater was obviously a staunch rightist in his attitudes regarding the role of government and economics, but he himself lamented that he and Bob Dole were essentially the liberals of the Republican Party back in the Clinton years.

edited 7th Feb '11 7:05:32 AM by TheGloomer

I don't know if I'd say Goldwater could ever be called liberal despite being anti-statist. Norman Rockefeller, sure, but Goldwater was always uber-capitalist.

edited 7th Feb '11 9:59:02 AM by Filby

Goldwater was what would probably be considered "libertarian" by today's standards. Of course, "libertarian" isn't on the one-dimensional political spectrum, but once you go into the two-dimensional "political compass" you get into a (slightly) more representative measurement of the variation in views, though you still get separate issues sharing an axis.

Though yeah, the Republican party really ought to split. Market-worshippers and bible-worshippers don't always correspond, and they should in theory be their own movements.

Agreed - do the Democrats have a similiar schism? Four-party politics would be even more fun than three-party.

^I'd love to see that happen but it's highly unlikely.