The contortions of the religious right are unabated. The latest schism seems to be between Ann Coulter and the conservative news site WorldNetDaily.
The story starts with a group called GOProud, one of the few gay conservative groups. Such groups have problems right from the start, since most people consider the words “gay republican” to be a contradiction. GOProud has apparently now decided to go on the offensive by inviting Ann Coulter to deliver the keynote speech at their next big convention:
Today, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative author Ann Coulter is headlining their first annual Homocon – a party to celebrate gay conservatives. “The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the ‘no fun police’ on the left,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud. “I can’t think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed ‘right-wing Judy Garland’ – Ann Coulter.”
Right-wing Judy Garland? … yeah, anyway, Coulter seems to be on board with this, and it’s cost her. Most notably, WorldNetDaily dropped her from the lineup of speakers for one of their upcoming conferences. According to Joseph Farah, the head of WND:
“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.
Coulter responded – actually quite reasonably – that she’s a paid speaker and that speaking before a group does not automatically equal an endorsement. That doesn’t seem to have settled the issue, because she’s begun lashing out at Farah. In a recent episode of Fox News’ Red Eye, she called Farah and his crew “fake Christians who are trying to get publicity.” She’d know, I suppose.
Candace Chellew-Hodge over at Religion Dispatches suggests that some conservatives like Coulter and – surprisingly – Glenn Beck are moving towards toleration of homosexuals. These would be the new wave of conservatism that has realized that the gay rights battle is lost. I’m skeptical. Frankly, if conservatives begin repositioning themselves, I suspect it’s because they believe that the current wave of anti-Islamic feeling is a more successful wedge issue than gay rights.
The last paragraph sums it up. It’s probably been said a lot but a lot of the time I doubt believe many Conservative pundits even believe what they are saying- they flutter around various contentious issues and align themselves, regardless of logic, to the ones that generate most fervour amongst conservative groups.
Hasselbeck came out in favor of gay marriage the other day.
Cue predictable weeping and gnashing of conservative teeth.
I told a gay acquaintance once, “If you’re gay, and you don’t vote, you’re a moron. If you’re gay, and you vote Republican, you’re an idiot.” Apologies to all the morons and idiots out there for associating them with the Republican party.
lurker111…Given a litany of recent Democratic politicians betrayals and gay bashing (including President Hopey Changey himself), why do you reserve your opprobrium for “conservatives”? Refusal to vote may be a legitimate position, especially given the Democratic Party’s espousal of the basic right wing consensus.
I’d tend to agree with Lurker on this one.
If you don’t have a voice, you should vote the guy in charge out of office.
If you still don’t have a voice, vote the new guy out of office.
Repeat until you have a voice.
lurker,
i would tell your aquaintance to find new aquaintances
Looking for the logic in any of this may be a waste of time. The GOP logo with the Rebel flag on it reminds me that during the Civil War, Southerners with little or nothing to gain from a Confederate victory were willing to die for interests of the wealthy.
Just like today’s teabaggers who protest against policies that will directly benefit them and for policies that will only benefit the rich guys who run the the party from behind the scenes.
It is an odd choice though. President Abraham Lincoln was the Union’s (Northern anti-slavery side, for all of you Non-USA citizens) Commander in Cheif. He was also a Republican.
It’s sad how far the party has shifted since the civil war.
It isn’t reasonable to compare Republicans and Democrats today to their nineteenth century counterparts, because their views are almost completely reversed. In particular, Democrats used to be socially conservative while Republicans were socially liberal. Democrats were heavily southern and Republicans were heavily northern. And so on.
It also disturbs me that the Confederacy still gets so much support.
It’s angering to think that the only reason they’re moving to tolerate homosexuality is because they believe they can’t fight it. I mean its great that they realize this, but it’d be better if they realized that gays are just as much human beings as they are instead of begrudgingly accepting the fact that they can’t win.
Bottom line, gays buy stuff and “create value.” If all the gays took their money out of US banks or left the US en masse, there’d be significant consequences for US corporations. Does anyone recall when Florida gays wrote “gay money” on every bill that passed through their hands back in the heyday of Anita Bryant?
I think the real reason conservatives are becoming more vocally tolerant of homosexuality is the number of GOP politicians caught with rent boys. Or am I just being cynical?
Personally I think it’s revealing about Ann Coulter that she’s prepared to speak at that event in exchange for the almighty Dollar when it’s pretty obvious that she thinks all homosexuals have made a wicked choice and deserve to burn in hell. Actually, it really doesn’t say anything about her that I couldn’t have already told you. The woman is utterly without principles, for all her posturing.
From what I’ve heard, she does have principles. Well, one. She’ll do pretty much anythnig for money.
I don’t know if we should count, “How much am I being paid? as a principle.
Well it’s certainly a workable hypothesis.
This is precisely what I was thinking. Hell, she’d probably speak at a MANBLA (hope I got that right) gathering if they paid well enough.
I think you mean NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Yeah Southpark.
Didn’t she said something on the lines of “hey, I even spoke at universities and that doesn’t mean I endorse anything they teach”?
I’m inclined to believe that this moving toward acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights is no more than proof that most pundits tend to pander to their base for money and ratings regardless of their personal beliefs and *ahem* principles.
Hasselbeck supports gay marriage
“the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative author Ann Coulter is headlining their first annual Homocon – a party to celebrate gay conservatives”
I know acceptance of homosexuality is still in low in north America, but do people really need to celebrate the fact that there are conservatives who are gay? I might be biased by certain things that have happened in Canada (like the Gay Olympics), but is there any reason to have such a party?
I guess “for the hell of it”, would suffice as an answer (parties are great), but I’m open to other ideas.
I think the party is really more of a signal than a celebration – trying to remind people that “we’re here, we’re queer, we also hate immigrants and public spending”.
I read her creationist book as a dare. I’d rather slam a sliding glass door on my dick repeatedly than go through that again.
I kept daring her to make less sense. She kept obliging.
I’m more surprised that Coulter would speak at this event than I am that WorldNetDaily dropped her from theirs as a result.
The $ speaks louder than the conviction, yes?
Eh, Coulter has been kind of irrelevant these last couple of years. Now she’s front page news again.
I’m willing to bet she’d have done this for free.
World Net Daily?
Aren’t they the same bastion of good journalism who introduced us to Bat Boy?
No, No, No. Bat boy was introduced by weekly world news a renown source of reliable information about aliens (the kind from outer space, not Mexico). world net daily on the other hand is a cesspool of wingnut conspiracies and stupid.
ahhhh yes, now I remember…
Thanx for the clarification. My brain ain’t what it used to be.
Oh, and you made me chuckle too
As a long-time fan and daily reader, and occasional poster here, this topic veers close enough to a question that I have been wanting to ask, so that I will, without taking a topic too far off course, I trust. The question is this:
What am I?
We are each of us a combination of many things, experiences, and personal beliefs. And, I don’t like the whole idea of categorizing or labeling a thing, much less a person…but I (with a shrug and an “oh well”) have the notion that I am in a tiny minority of folks here, to wit:
1) Like most here, I am an absolute non-theist. The generally-held ideas about “God” seem naive, silly, unproductive, and often downright destructive.
2) I am fiscally arch-conservative, and believe in total personal responsibility, small government, less taxation, etc.
3) I am “socially” totally liberal. I firmly believe in gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, taking better care of the planet, aiding the weak and sick far better than we do, etc.
4) My wife and I are decades-long Swingers, which I mention not to titillate, but to demonstrate just how NOT mainstream I have lived for quite some time.
I know that Libertarianism might come closest to being an accurate “label,” but it somehow has never felt quite right for me. Perhaps I should put it this way…While I come here and laugh at the religious nuts as we all do here (and sometimes get a bit afraid of them), as a regular and enjoyable part of my surfing-time…I might a moment later be thinking “Yep, we do need to close that border,” or “Damn, the feds are spending way too much to sustain.”
Am I a party of one, lol? Just wondering, and thanks for reading/listening.
Keep up the great work Daniel, his team, and all the witty posters here!
Oh no…my better-half just looked over my shoulder, and has informed me that “you sir, are simply a Walking Oxymoron!” Don’t quite know how to take that……
You get +10 cool points for being swingers and remaining married.
I have a similar issue to a much lesser degree. I made myself promise to usually throw the bums out, but when religious crazies or science-deniers get involved, I go against them (meaning, I vote democrat).
How do you vote with such views? You seem to split the difference quantatively, how about qualitatively? (e.g. Do you vote ‘fiscally’ state-level, and ‘socially’ naitonal-level? Does gay marriage trump spending? etc.)
I would hope you vote anti-creationist for school-board level, every time.
I wouldn’t describe myself as ‘arch’ conservative, fiscally, but definitely on the conservative side of things there.
But since both parties are fight now totally fiscally irresponsible, I no longer vote for a party based on their claimed fiscal policies. Bush threw more money away than Clinton dreamed of spending. So, they both suck there.
The only real difference between the two parties right now is in social issues, and the Republicans fail my personal test on every single one of them.
So, until someone starts being fiscally responsible, while also not trying to legislate how people are allowed to use their genitals, I vote mostly Democrat.
Money is money but people are people. I’m not a real fan of over-spending and mis-spending but I think that is just not going to be solved by voting for candidates of any team. They pay themselves first and I just don’t see cutting programs is going to resolve massive waste of taxpayers money. If they are going to make a dent in waste, they are cutting the more important programs first, the ones that help people. Fiscal conservative reps tend to shaft the people who need money and all your taxes go to programs and wars that you might not support. And all their backwards thinking that stifles civil rights from people who deserve to be treated as equals. I mean, would you rather keep a smidgen more money for yourself and support things, programs and agendas you do not actually support, or would you rather let it go, and support social programs, at least you would feel like some of it’s going to a good cause. I think people who vote republican are not fiscal conservatives more than they just like the ideas the candidates stand for in that regard, the things I generally oppose, and that’s how I tend to vote.
As far as taxes go, most people let the government pay them back after April 15th than keep that and invest it wisely and owe maybe a little, so they aren’t really concerned how much the government gets to keep. Getting a tax refund shouldn’t be like winning the lottery, it’s your money.
I’m also a little uncomfortable with the idea of having to vote along party lines. The entire concept of political parties is detrimental to democracy. Why can’t I support gay marriage and lower spending? Why can’t I be pro-choice and keep my NRA membership? There just isn’t really any opportunity for someone who does not define their views along party lines to vote for a candidate or party that actually represents their views. The best you can hope for is a candidate who represents something closer to what you would like to vote for the the other guy.
This is why I vote mostly democrat. Not because I am a democrat or because I have any love for the democratic party. But because on one side of the aisle you’ve got a bunch of puppets with lobbyists hands up their a**es who at least know that their voting base is liberal and they will occasionally have to throw them a socially progressive bone, and on the other side you have puppets being controlled by the exact same lobbyists but also with a political need to cater to their base of tea partiers and young earth creationists.
On a side note, the thing I am hoping for out of all this is that the tea party actually splits off from the GOP to form their own political party, thus splitting the republican vote and balancing out the effect of the green party.
Oh and on another side note, why are there not more “fiscal conservatives” who opposed the massive spending increases under Bush? It’s like they don’t consider it a spending increase if it goes to the military.
Bush also turned a ton of private sector jobs into government jobs, and no one made a fuss. That’s like, the opposite of what fiscal conservatives are supposed to do.
I shouldn’t care because it’s not even my country, but I have a hard time understanding why so many Americans consider that “small government” and “less taxes” are good things. What’s wrong with the government providing services like education, health care, law enforcement, infrastructures, etc?
I think you guys should read this:
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/
Via http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=18961
why so many Americans consider that “small government” and “less taxes” are BAD things.
Ignore this stupid correction, I said it right the first time. I need a coffee.
Not to mention … what on Earth makes anyone think that any government, anywhere, will ever do away with taxes? The Tea Party’s belief it can somehow arrange the abolition of taxes, is so absurd, it merits no further discussion at all.
To quote Winston Churchill on economics:
“A man who is a [fiscall] conservative in his youth has no heart. A man who is not one when he gets older has no brain”.
In the UK I can tell you for an absolute fact that Conservative fiscal policies (small government, limited welfare state) cause a massive increase in social mobility every time they’re in government, whereas Labour fiscal policies (massive government spending, gigantic welfare state – £100,000,000,000 per year currently) cause a massive DECREASE in social mobility – and have in fact fostered a massive underclass of lazy chavs who won’t work. This is not snobbery, it is demonstrably and proveably true.
Since I am socially liberal, I regard social mobility through meritocracy to be inherrently good – therefore I am a fiscal conservative.
I agree that a more efficient government is a good thing but a Glenn Beck/ Koch brothers type of fiscal conservatism is a killer for any type of social mobility since in the name of small government they want to kill things like public education and transport that are essential if you want poor people to have a chance to improve their lives. Bender’s quote list some things that I think are essential services that can only be reliably taken care of by the government, these include education, police, infrastructure and I personally will also add healthcare and a basic social safety net. I think that these things are important enough to spend on and unfortunately the only source of money for the government is taxes. Obviously we, as tax payers, should make sure that the government is using the money in the most efficient way to maintain services.
Thanks all of you for taking the time and effort to respond. That is one big batch of thoughtful, reasonable comments!
It occurred to me today, that one of the SF writers of my youth (Asimov, Niven, Heinlein?) had a great idea years ago, which is that if you paid an additional 10% voluntarily in federal taxes, you could then choose EXACTLY where and how your money was allocated. Not a bad idea…
I think I would choose to pave over a Creationist Museum or two…with hot asphalt that cannot possibly be more than 6,000 years old, of course!
i wonder if it’s reasonable to let other men have intercourse with my wife… i’ll have to take that up with my reasonable friends. My friends who, of course, do not have ancestors dating back more than 6,000 years because I get off making fun of Catholics while she gets off on some other dude’s johnson . What a complete moron. How did natural selection not unselect you yet?
Just two things…
1.- Natural selection works upon a poblation, not an individual.
2.- Please rewrite your first sentence, it sounds like your wife was your property and you could choose to rent her to other males.
On the other hand, 100meters, just a question. Can we pave over the Cretinist Museum while his director is inside? I would pay 10% more for that.
i want to be the guy who loves and respects my future wife more than anything, never cheating on her and never wanting to sleep with other women. And I am the bad guy because I expect her to never cheat on me either? Who raised you people? Have you ever heard of something called loyalty? Usually when I go on this site, I get a kick out of throwing some conservative stuff out there and ruffling a few feathers. But I am actually starting to feel legitimately bad for you people. I make an argument against cheating on one’s wife and having one’s wife cheat on you and I get turned into the domineering Chauvinist and nitpicked for making a passing joke about natural selection. Sorry Francesc, I guess I forgot I was writing my grad school thesis on darwinian fitness.
And yes, please go plow down the Creationist museums. I believe in evolution 100%. It’s ok to be Christian and accept scientific truths. I even believe the universe is heliocentric.
“I get a kick out of throwing some conservative stuff out there and ruffling a few feathers.”
Now the problem is, it’s always difficult to identify that compared to random insults and stupidty. Could you put the following into the right category for me?
“My friends who, of course, do not have ancestors dating back more than 6,000 years because I get off making fun of Catholics while she gets off on some other dude’s johnson”
“What a complete moron.”
“How did natural selection not unselect you yet?”
Ta …
jabster do you think it’s morally right to be a swinger, and see other women while you are married?
and don’t get smart, by see i mean have sex with
and also, how is that a random insult? the guy was boasting about how “out there” he is because he is a swinger. A “random” insult would be to say he has a small penis. My insult was actually right on topic. The premise is I disagree with the lifestyle he so outwardly stated in his previous posts. Do you know what the word “random” means? Random means that you are doing something that has nothing to do with what was previously said or done, like a complete non sequetor. If he said he’s a swinger, and I called him out on it, that’s completely not random. instead of defending him, why don’t you just agree with me that it’s not cool to cheat on your wife.
Don’t mix up swinging and adultery. You have already admitted you are a troll.
@wearyleary
You really are a complete and utter fecking moron aren’t you … just how much stupid can you get into on post?
and by the way i forgot to mention to Francesc that even though natural selection does technically work on the level of population, allowing your wife to mate with other males does lower INDIVIDUAL darwinian fitness for that person. I guess I could go further and make the argument that I have never heard of a species of human male who was cool with letting other men bend over his wife. In that regard, 100meters makes up his own population where natural selection is free to work its magic. And most importantly, I guess Francesc thinks it’s ok for men and women to cheat on each other in a relationship. she is more possessed with defending darwin and his theories and calling me a chauvinist for expecting my wife not to cheat on me (what an asshole I am)
Don’t get out much, do you?
Also, who died and made you owner of people’s lives and what they do or don’t do with their bodies, mm? Who the f*ck should care about what you think?
I assume you went to a school that thought abstinence only sex ed so you are unaware of these amazing things that let you have sex that will not result in a pregnancy. You obviously don’t understand natural selection as well and as for your insistence on the word cheating, who the fu*k are you to impose your version of morality on the choices made by other people.
If you are not Darwinianly fit to reproduce, her lovah is probably twice as much a man as you. For the survival and prowess of future generations, it seem better for humanity that she take a virile and muscular hunk, and sucker you with helping to raise them, freeing the virile, muscular hunk to pound his sperm into many other men’s wives. “Your” children and future generations will be better off. That’s how this works, not how like you think it does.
“And I am the bad guy because I expect her to never cheat on me either?”
No you’re the bad guy if you expect other people to live their lives the way you want them to.
“I even believe the universe is heliocentric.”
By this do you mean the solar system is heliocentric, or that the actual universe revolves around our sun?
1. I’m not sure you understand what the word “heliocentric” means. Perhaps you should be sure of the definition prior to using it in a sentence.
2. How about if you “let” your wife make up her own mind about her sexual partners. If you and your wife agree to share your intimacy with other individuals, that should be a joint decision. Only if your partner doesn’t know there might be others can it be called cheating or adultery. Swingers don’t generally call their shared intimacy cheating or adultery because everything is open.
Too funny, Francesc.
But remember, morality aside, we could never catch any cretinists inside, as they would all be able to ride away to safety on the backs of their pet dinosaurs !!