CPAC Purges Gay Conservative Group GOProud

After two years of controversy and boycotts by social conservatives, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference have ousted GOProud, a gay conservative group, as a sponsor:

According to official letters obtained by The Daily Caller, the gay conservative group GOProud and the ultraconservative John Birch Society won’t be co-sponsoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2012.

The decision was reached by a full vote of the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) board of directors (the ACU sponsors CPAC).

Representatives of GOProud and the John Birch Society were notified of the decision via mail Friday afternoon.

The decision comes after GOProud’s 2011 sponsorship sparked severe criticism from ACU board members — and prompted several social conservative groups to boycott the event. The controversy reached a boiling point when GOProud’s chairman called respected ACU board member Cleta Mitchella nasty bigot.”

Unfortunate since it seemed like CPAC was becoming more socially tolerant.
FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Rotten.




    0



    0
  2. JohnMcC says:

    To me the important news there is that they’ve thrown the Birchers out. It was always obvious that in the modern ‘conservative’ movement there is no room for anyone out of the closet. It was not obvious that they had enough discernment to recognize real frothing-at-the-mouth imbeciles. Well done, ACU!




    0



    0
  3. WR says:

    @JohnMcC: No, it’s just that with all the Tea Party groups, they had already filled their quota of frothing at the mouth imbeciles.




    0



    0
  4. legion says:

    Well, considering the amount of closeted projection the Birchers do, this sounds like a match made in heaven!




    0



    0
  5. Nikki says:

    Eh. They kicked the Birchers out so that no one could accuse them of gay bashing.




    0



    0
  6. Brian Lehman says:

    I hate it when intolerance wins. I wasn’t likely to go to CPAC next year anyway, this makes it even more unlikely.




    0



    0
  7. superdestroyer says:

    The real question is can any homosexual really be a conservative. Homosexuals appear to be uniform in being very liberal and supporting a massive nanny state.

    If you look up what happened to the college Repubicans at Duke University, most so-called conservative homosexual groups are really stealth groups for liberal activist.




    0



    0
  8. A voice from another precinct says:

    @superdestroyer: I don’t know, I think that gays can be as opposed to paying taxes as straight people. Isn’t “no taxes–period” the utlimate goal of the conservative movement right now?




    0



    0
  9. George Vreeland Hill says:

    You can kick gays out, but they will be back.
    You can’t stop equality.

    George Vreeland Hill




    0



    0
  10. An Interested Party says:

    The real question is can any homosexual really be a conservative. Homosexuals appear to be uniform in being very liberal and supporting a massive nanny state.

    Of course there are conservative gay people, just look at GOProud…I wonder how the members of that organization feel about being shown the door by their fellow conservatives simply for being gay…




    0



    0
  11. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    superdestroyer:

    [M]ost so-called conservative homosexual groups are really stealth groups for liberal activist.

    We here at OTB require supporting evidence for assertions like the above. Care to provide any citations?




    0



    0
  12. superdestroyer says:

    Eric,

    all you have to do is look up the website for GOProud. It seems to be an organization that has the goal of getting two flaming homosexuals onto cable news talk shows.

    You should also look up the name Justin Robinette who has a homosexual president of the Duke University college Republicans (in 2010) . A liberal homosexual who seemed intent of running the Duke College Republicans into the ground once he became their president.




    0



    0
  13. superdestroyer says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    You are look at this

    The ideological battle has been playing out in the gay media and on some blogs for a while, spurred in part by the Blade’s revelation that the Log Cabin Republicans’ biggest backer is a prominent Democrat, Tim Gill.

    If the biggest supporters of “gay Republicans” are Democrats, then those groups are obviously stealth groups for liberals.




    0



    0
  14. Jay Tea says:

    It’s a damned shame. The Birchers ought to be allowed there; they’re always reliably entertaining. I’ve gotten many a good laugh at their conspiracy theories.

    Likewise, GOProud was a good addittion to CPAC. As I recall reading, some religious conservative started denouncing them as sinful, and was booed off the stage.

    CPAC’s message, by allowing both groups, was “hey, we’re a big tent. If you can reasonably claim to have conservative principles, come on down.”

    I don’t think it even went that far. I bet that if, say, Media Matters or the SEIU or MoveOn.Org wanted to pony up the bucks for a booth, they’d have accepted them, too.

    Not any more, though. Sigh…

    On the other hand, this is the same group headed up by the guy who tried to shake down FedEx for a couple of million by offering the group’s support in FedEx’s battle with UPS in Congress in exchange for a healthy donation. So, no great loss.

    J.




    0



    0
  15. @superdestroyer:

    The real question is can any homosexual really be a conservative.

    Homosexuals can be conservative. I’m not sure they can be Republicans though. I’m a firm believer in smaller, limited government. And you can’t get much bigger government than a party that’s campaigning on a platform that you specifically ought to be thrown in jail.




    0



    0
  16. Jay Tea says:

    @Stormy Dragon: Just when was the criminalizing of homosexuality on the GOP platform, anyway?

    Andrew Breitbart just said that he’s skipping CPAC this year specifically because of this dumbass move. He’s exceptionally good at seeing which way things are blowing; expect a lot more people to follow his lead here.

    J.




    0



    0
  17. T. Walls says:

    Don’t worry, Michele Bachmann’s effeminate husband will pray the gheys away if they try to get close to CPAC again.




    0



    0
  18. Jay Tea says:

    @T. Walls: So, you’re saying that because Mr. Bachmann speaks a bit like Barney Frank, he must be gay, too?

    Good thing he’s a conservative. It’s OK to call people fags. It’s only hate speech if you are attacking liberals.

    J.




    0



    0
  19. An Interested Party says:

    So, you’re saying that because Mr. Bachmann speaks a bit like Barney Frank, he must be gay, too?

    Actually, the most important part of what T. Walls wrote is how Bachmann runs a clinic that tries to pray the gay away…I wonder what GOProud thinks about that…

    It’s OK to call people fags.

    And you would know, considering the unsubtle joke you made in the past…




    0



    0
  20. Jay Tea says:

    @An Interested Party: If it works for some people, then fine with me. As long as it’s strictly voluntary, and the folks being prayed for think it might help them, more power to ’em.

    I’ve known a few very unhappy “gay” people who were very troubled by their sexual identity. I’ve also known a hell of a lot more who were very happy and content with being gay, but it ain’t universal. I’ve never had to deal with that kind of stress, so I ain’t gonna judge.

    Also, why are you more upset over my using a harsh word, and not at T. Walls tap-dancing around saying pretty much the same thing in a more insulting fashion? Did I ruin your fun at his/her “witticism” by stomping all over the subtlety?

    I hope so. That was my intent. Having to explain a joke tends to kill it; doing it deliberately, I hope, has the same effect.

    J.




    0



    0
  21. An Interested Party says:

    Once again, it’s about consistency (and that has nothing to do with your mixing bowl)…if it is offensive to insinuate that someone might be gay because of the way he talks, it is just as offensive to use the word fag in a joke related to Barney Frank…meanwhile, the whole pray the gay away thing is extremely damaging and it isn’t as benign as you imply it to be…how many of these people are pressured through family, friends, or even society at large, to participate in this ridiculous “cure”…

    I’ve known a few very unhappy “gay” people who were very troubled by their sexual identity.

    And why wouldn’t they be, when they have friends and family telling them that they are going to burn in hell if they don’t change this “lifestyle” they’ve “chosen” to lead…

    Did I ruin your fun…

    I had no “fun” in reading his words…




    0



    0
  22. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, pay close attention. I didn’t call Congressman Frank a fag. I referred to his speech pattern, and then used the term in relation to T. Walls’ reference to Mr. Bachmann.

    Speaking of consistency, have you anything to say to that worthy about their implication about Mr. Bachmann? Or do you only look for consistency in others, and not yourself?

    J.




    0



    0
  23. An Interested Party says:

    Oh, let me assure you, I have paid quite close attention…I wasn’t referring to this thread, but to something you wrote in the past where you didn’t call Frank a fag directly, but used the term in some lame joke in a discussion about Frank…as for Bachmann, it is silly to speculate about his sexuality without any firm proof, but, it is a bit of poetic justice because of this ridiculous “cure” that his clinic offers…of course, it would be just as offensive to refer to him as a fag or to use that term in a joke in a general discussion about him…




    0



    0
  24. Jay Tea says:

    @An Interested Party: Oh, that old thing. Yeah, I said it. Never denied it. Not one of my prouder moments, but not one of my more memorable to me, either. Big whoop. Does it have you so twisted out of shape that you can’t bring yourself to look at what T. Walls said just above?

    Let me repeat it for you:

    <i.Don’t worry, Michele Bachmann’s effeminate husband will pray the gheys away if they try to get close to CPAC again.

    Pray, cast your enlightened, sensitive, respectful judgment on that comment. Or show that your “consistency” boils down to “I only criticize those I don’t like already, and ignore it when it’s from my own side.”

    J.




    0



    0
  25. An Interested Party says:

    Oh, I’ll be happy to cast my enlightened, sensitive, respectful judgment on that comment…making insinuations about Bachmann’s sexuality is a cheap shot…granted, an understandable cheap shot, considering the “cure” that Bachmann is peddling, but still a cheap shot…as for getting twisted out of shape, well, that would be like someone writing about you, “Look at that Jay Tea, always teabagging through life.” I’m sure writing that wouldn’t be one of the prouder moments for that someone either…




    0



    0
  26. Jay Tea says:

    @An Interested Party: Could you repeat that last part, Interested? It was kind of muffled. Try it again without the scrotum in your mouth.

    J.




    0



    0
  27. An Interested Party says:

    See…twisted all out of shape… 🙂




    0



    0
  28. Jay Tea says:

    Interested, you don’t seem to like it when I take innuendos and put them in plain English. Let me explain it:

    There’s an old saying that the quickest way to kill a joke is to explain it. I figured that it might be worth trying to see if that rule could be invoked deliberately. So when someone goes for a bit of “subtle” humor that I don’t care for, I strip it of its subtlety and just put it in simple language.

    For some reason, that tends to bother folks. Which is pretty much my intent.

    J.




    0



    0