Andrew Breitbart threw a party at CPAC for GOProud, and Roger L. Simon was there. He called it as close to a game changer as things get:
The party staged by Andrew Breitbart for GOProud — the gay Republican and conservative group — was as close to a game changer as things get and the most interesting event at CPAC by far, at least to this point — and that’s meant as no insult to CPAC. With sexy Sophie B. Hawkins singing to a boisterous, supportive crowd, the party almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave the impression that young libertarians — and some not so young — are taking over the GOP. Pretty soon it may be cool to be a Republican and square to be a Democrat.
Were I on the left, I would tremble. And I would try to ascertain the identity of the most influential organizer(s) of the GOP’s anti-gay wing, and send a check. It would be helpful from a left-wing standpoint if they made it easier to do that by forming a specific, dedicated anti-gay PAC. They could even call it “ANTI-GAY Inc.” (Last time I checked, the name was available!)
Roger points out that Breitbart has taken a lot of flak for this, but he is reaching people who would otherwise be unreachable:
The younger generation, watching Glee and living in a world very different from that of their fathers and mothers, does not see gayness as a sin but as a civil rights issue. Many of them brand the GOP as bigoted. Yet these same young people often see eye-to-eye with Republicans on government overspending to a degree that has imperiled our nation. They also recognize full well the threats from abroad from primitive extremists who endanger the rights of women, gays and everybody else and the necessity for our country to stand tall against them. In fact, these young people are the ones who will be doing the standing tall. Andrew Breitbart is opening the tent for them.
So a word about my friend Andrew. I’m told he got a lot of flack for staging this event. But as I said to his business partner Larry Solov, every time you do something important or new or even interesting, you are going to get flack. And I must say this of Andrew, he is the only man I know who could have pulled something like this off with such elan. Forget for a moment the dissension such developments always engender. Andrew Breitbart proved them wrong with a party. Party on, Andrew.
I agree. I realize that gay conservatives are small in number, but how many gay conservatives there are (or how many gays there are) is not the issue. The dynamic reduces itself to a very basic one, which touches on the common sense of ordinary people. As I pointed out in a comment to an earlier post, a lot of non-homosexuals see the gay issue as a general litmus test of freedom. They think that the kind of people who care about other people’s homosexuality are quite likely to butt into our lives on other issues.
Those who are turned off by that mindset are by no means limited to homosexuals, but they tend to see them as a sort of canary in the mineshaft. To the extent gays are tolerated, they feel safer about their own privacy. A lot of people have something to hide, and they’re not about to tell you what it is.
There are a lot of people in this country who want to be left alone, and who also want it be cool to be a Republican.
And they get to say so from the privacy of the voting booth.
UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, the Reason video of the GOProud party.
Comments
38 responses to “People who want to be left alone want it to be cool to be a Republican”
Murderers also want to be left alone. Rapists want to be left alone. Thieves want to be left alone. Little children throwing a fit want to be left alone, and that’s where Libertarians come in.
It is not in civilization’s best interest that any of these people be left alone. More’s the pity that they are too immature to understand this.
You don’t have any children, do you DL? Little children throwing a fit DON’T want to be left alone, they want attention and to get their way.
Are you conflating gay people with murderers, rapists, and thieves? Even most hardcore SoCons don’t hold this view.
For myself, I just want to be able to marry the person I love and live a normal life with my family. I know that’s an incredibly subversive idea, but I think you’ll find it’s pretty common among gay people who aren’t “professional gays.”
With friends like Breitbart you really don’t need enemies. It’s lovely that this lying demagogue whose web sites support Mubarak, who has repeatedly published birther nonsense and comparisons of Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro, who pals around with anti-Muslim bigots like Pam Geller, isn’t anti-gay. Any more. But I wouldn’t have attended any event he organized, not if I wanted thinking people to listen to me.
DiogenesLamp,
Perhaps you could explain how murderers, rapists and thieves harm no-one except possibly themselves, and how their targets are in fact consenting adults?
Or did you miss the part of Libertarian that covers “activity by mutual consent that harms no-one else”?
I won’t even dignify your conflating murderers with children throwing tantrums with a response. That’s beneath contempt.
Are you conflating gay people with murderers, rapists, and thieves? Even most hardcore SoCons don’t hold this view.
John S. · February 11, 2011 9:48 AM
Wasn’t really addressing the “gay” issue. Was pointing out that Libertarians keep using the “leave us alone” theme to justify conduct which is against the best interest of civilization and humanity. (Such as Drugs.)
I merely point out that criminals feel as they do, but everyone acknowledges that crime is morally wrong and cannot be tolerated by society. To sum up my attitude regarding the “Leave us alone” crowd i’ll cite Edmund Burke.
“Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
I won’t even dignify your conflating murderers with children throwing tantrums with a response. That’s beneath contempt.
Kate · February 11, 2011 11:09 AM
From your response I gather that you cannot dignify anything.
The “Consenting Adults” argument carries only a little weight with me because the argument that they harm no one but themselves is often false. Spreading a disease IS causing harm to others. Urging people into drug usage IS causing harm to others.
Who harmed Freddy Mercury and Janet Joplin? The people who introduced them to the disease that killed them. That’s who.
DL – I think I can sum up your position thusly:
“Live like a Christian or else!”
Everything you post indicates this mindset. You are not alone as this is the mindset most believers seem to have, in my experience.
I just can’t understand why believers expect sinners to live like saints, especially in light of the fact that the saints claim that they can only live like saints with God’s help.
To put it another way, why do the saved (the DL’s of the world) expect the lost to live as if they are saved? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? The Bible teaches that “lost” people, because they are “lost”, will act differently than the obedient “saved” person. Yet, against Biblical teaching, you expect and demand that everyone live as if they are saved!
Blasphemer!
Actually, blasphemer is incorrect. The truth, DL, and I take no pleasure in writing this, is that you and most Christians have much more in common with the Pharisees of 2000 years ago than you do with Jesus Christ, who you claim to revere and worship.
Actually, blasphemer is incorrect. The truth, DL, and I take no pleasure in writing this, is that you and most Christians have much more in common with the Pharisees of 2000 years ago than you do with Jesus Christ, who you claim to revere and worship.
Randy · February 11, 2011 12:43 PM
You will not find an instance of me claiming to worship Jesus Christ. I am an agnostic. Even when I was religious, I was more of a deist than a Christ Worshiper. It never made sense to me why people revered the son more than the father.
That being said, It is apparent to me that Christianity has been the most successful guiding credo for mankind ever. Since Christianity came about, all regions of the world not infused with Christianity remained dark and ignorant. (Until comparatively recently.)The Social stability created by Christian teachings made scientific advancement possible.
Libertarianism is nothing more than ancient Hedonism attempting to bring back the darkness. It’s adherents can no more see the damage they do than can a single locust in a swarm.
DL – Agnostic. Hmmm.
So there really is no excuse for your idiocy then. My apolgoies.
DL – One more thing.
As an agnostic, I think even you would agree with the Biblical commandment to “not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is a true moral concept. And to do otherwise would be immoral. I think this whether you do or not.
Because of this concept, I think you and those who think like you (agnostic or otherwise) are acting immorally in your legalistic moral crusades. How so? Because you bear false witness against thy neighbor. Your ilk has successfully criminalized actions that are not criminal. To call the peaceful actions of adults done of their own vilition a “crime” is to bear false witness against them. It doesn’t matter that you think it “intemperate”, it is not criminal.
Don’t feel too bad if you cannot wrap your arms around your own immorality here. It’s been my experience that the self-righteous like yourself rarely do. Even if they are agnostic.
Randy, so would you also condemn Breitbart, on the grounds of his lies about Shirley Sherrod (to name one of many examples)?
What lies about Sherrod?
Links please.
And make sure they actually show that he lied about her instead of some Media Matters link where they say he did but don’t actually prove it.
He edited the video to make her appear to say the opposite of what she said. If you don’t like Media Matters (who got the story right), here’s another link. Again, it’s far from the only example of Breitbart telling fantastic lies for political purposes—and, apparently, getting away with it. He’s treated as a serious commentator, rather than the crank he is.
DL,
I’m going to take this very slowly. I’m sorry if I have to use big words. Some things need big words.
Harm for harm making any drug use a crime hurts society more than letting people use drugs if they wish. It makes corruption look much easier to people in power and gives those people easy ways to twist rules to suit themselves. Read up on “drug asset confiscation”. If you are unfortunate enough to be targeted while carrying a lot of cash, you will never see that money again – it doesn’t matter if you had illegal drugs or not. You will be booked for something to justify taking your money. If you think this is good for society I pity you. If you think jailing drug addicts is good for them and society, I pity you.
You say “spreading a disease is causing harm”. Do you isolate yourself the instant you realize you have been in contact with anyone who has a communicable disease so that you can’t spread it? Then you are causing harm, too. There is something called an “incubation period” when you can pass on a disease without knowing you have it. This is how epidemics happen. There is also something called a “carrier” where you can give other people a disease without having it yourself. Do look this up. It may prevent you making silly mistakes like assuming that everyone who passed on a disease did so in full knowledge that they had it and would infect others.
Heh.
That’s funny.
I understand you will not accept this statement, but that’s fine, I was just curious to see your “proof”.
So the statement you won’t accept:
He was showing the crowd cheering at her statement that was very racist. He said, “NAACP Racism” not “Shirley Sherrod racism”.
Sure she later, in the same speech, said that such racism was wrong, but the crowd still cheered at what they thought was a very racist comment.
That was the racism.
And it was very evident. The crowd was overjoyed that a black woman was about to screw over a white man.
And I would have taken a Media Matters link, it was the second part that was important, “where they say he did but don’t actually prove it”.
I’ve seen too many of their links that don’t prove what they claim.
DL – One more thing.
As an agnostic, I think even you would agree with the Biblical commandment to “not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is a true moral concept. And to do otherwise would be immoral. I think this whether you do or not.
Because of this concept, I think you and those who think like you (agnostic or otherwise) are acting immorally in your legalistic moral crusades. How so? Because you bear false witness against thy neighbor. Your ilk has successfully criminalized actions that are not criminal. To call the peaceful actions of adults done of their own vilition a “crime” is to bear false witness against them. It doesn’t matter that you think it “intemperate”, it is not criminal.
Randy · February 11, 2011 2:10 PM
You’re contortions of logic remind me of Eric. As I mentioned to him, I find any attempt to follow them painful, and i’d rather not encourage it.
I will chalk up your opinion to significant ignorance about the subject being discussed, and I suppose you will do the same. The difference though is I will be correct in my assessment.
DL – One more thing.
As an agnostic, I think even you would agree with the Biblical commandment to “not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is a true moral concept. And to do otherwise would be immoral. I think this whether you do or not.
Because of this concept, I think you and those who think like you (agnostic or otherwise) are acting immorally in your legalistic moral crusades. How so? Because you bear false witness against thy neighbor. Your ilk has successfully criminalized actions that are not criminal. To call the peaceful actions of adults done of their own vilition a “crime” is to bear false witness against them. It doesn’t matter that you think it “intemperate”, it is not criminal.
Randy · February 11, 2011 2:10 PM
You’re contortions of logic remind me of Eric. As I mentioned to him, I find any attempt to follow them painful, and i’d rather not encourage it.
I will chalk up your opinion to significant ignorance about the subject being discussed, and I suppose you will do the same. The difference though is I will be correct in my assessment.
DL,
Your cite of Edmund Burke is less than honest: in context, his emphasis is on the need to govern one’s own passions. He was actually describing the inevitable decay of society that followed when control was placed in the external agency of government rather than the internal agency of personal responsibility.
And yet you claim others are hypocritical liars. Your behavior is beneath contempt.
Randy, so would you also condemn Breitbart, on the grounds of his lies about Shirley Sherrod (to name one of many examples)?
Don · February 11, 2011 2:33 PM
You are repeating a malicious and untrue rumor regarding Breitbart. He was accused of editing the Shirley Sherrod video to remove exculpatory comments by her. This is not true.
The video was sent to him pre-edited in the fashion he posted it. After being informed that the Video was edited to leave out her conciliatory remarks (demonstrating she wasn’t a racist.) He apologized and made every effort to make people aware of the trick which had been played on him.
DL, even if Breitbart’s claims about the video were true—and after the ACORN scam, we would be foolish to believe a word he says—it’s still damning. At best, he published a story without bothering to find out whether it was true or not, knowing what would happen as a result. He continues to deny responsibility for the consequences.
Kate · February 11, 2011 4:10 PM
I’m thinking that I will be unable to explain anything to you, and that neither of us will likely have the patience to tolerate it. But i’ll give it a quick attempt just for the hell of it.
Swapping body fluids internally (especially anally) with multiple people raises the probability of a serious (mortal)infection exponentially.
In China in 1905, 3/4ths of the Male population of Manchuria was addicted to opium. As China was unable to defend itself, Japan walked in and massacred them by the millions. A Dictator came in seized power and killed all the drug addicts.(and something like 85 million others beside.)
THAT’s what happens when you legalize drugs.
Drug abuse causes imperialism? Never heard that one before.
DL,
Oh, so because China didn’t criminalize opium use – and let’s not forget they lost a war with the British over whether they had the ability to make their own laws and that the British “interventions” wreaked havoc with Chinese Imperial rule and gosh, a demoralized, mostly unemployed population is going to turn to something to numb themselves – it’s their fault the Japanese massacred them? And you call Eric’s logic tortured? (Fair enough, I guess. It’s obvious from your increasingly outre alleged examples you wouldn’t know logic if it bit you).
Clearly you also have issues with kissing and all forms of sex, because all of them raise the possibility of a serious infection exponentially. You must also disapprove of pregnancy and children, since infections can be passed on that way, too – and often are.
Oh wait, I forget. You never actually researched any of this yourself, you just listened to what the appropriate authorities told you. Because if you’d thought about it yourself you might actually manage something other than a caricature of a hellfire-and-brimstone sermon.
What’s unforgivable is that you’re not even managing a funny caricature, just a pathetic one.
Oh, and don’t accuse me of lacking patience. If I did lack patience, I’d have called you a fornicating idiot long ago, instead of humoring you.
Poor baby. You just can’t cope when someone doesn’t crumple and start acting like whatever weird stereotype you think they are.
Seriously – legalizing drugs causes the Japanese army to come and massacre you? Wow. I wonder how the USA managed to survive 200-some years without any illegal drugs? Surely someone would have invaded and massacred at least one coastal or border city.
DL,
Your cite of Edmund Burke is less than honest: in context, his emphasis is on the need to govern one’s own passions. He was actually describing the inevitable decay of society that followed when control was placed in the external agency of government rather than the internal agency of personal responsibility.
And this contradicts me how? I believe the quote speaks for itself, in or out of context. You presume to know my thinking, and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of your presumption.
And yet you claim others are hypocritical liars. Your behavior is beneath contempt.
Kate · February 11, 2011 4:25 PM
Hypocritical yes, Liars no. That allegation is all on you.
DL,
Your cite of Edmund Burke is less than honest: in context, his emphasis is on the need to govern one’s own passions. He was actually describing the inevitable decay of society that followed when control was placed in the external agency of government rather than the internal agency of personal responsibility.
And this contradicts me how? I believe the quote speaks for itself, in or out of context. You presume to know my thinking, and then claim hypocrisy on the basis of your presumption.
And yet you claim others are hypocritical liars. Your behavior is beneath contempt.
Kate · February 11, 2011 4:25 PM
Hypocritical yes, Liars no. That allegation is all on you.
DL, even if Breitbart’s claims about the video were true—and after the ACORN scam, we would be foolish to believe a word he says—it’s still damning. At best, he published a story without bothering to find out whether it was true or not, knowing what would happen as a result. He continues to deny responsibility for the consequences.
Don · February 11, 2011 4:38 PM
If he did not do the editing, why is he responsible? The full video eventually came out, but it was the person who made the racist sounding statements, and the person who sent him the edited copy that is responsible.
Breitbart informed everyone that he would post videos if they were sent to him. Everyone familiar with the Acorn Sting operation already knew that, and the Acorn Sting operation was a very good thing by the way, unless you are a supporter of crime.
Drug abuse causes imperialism? Never heard that one before.
Don · February 11, 2011 4:47 PM
Anarchy begat a dictator. What’s so unheard of about that? It’s happened over and over again in human history.
Kate · February 11, 2011 5:04 PM
Your opinion is noted and dismissed.
Excuse me. I need to laugh hysterically for a while here.
Ah. That’s better. If your comments here are not accurately reflecting your thinking, then I strongly recommend a good course in basic English. I gather community colleges offer them for a reasonable fee.
And now, since you clearly don’t understand what you actually said, I guess I’ll have to make it even clearer.
You cited Edmund Burke, adding your own emphasis. Your emphasis is counter to the point made by the quote in context. This, in normal terms, is called dishonesty. Some would go as far as “lying”.
English is a complex language, DL. You show evidence of trying to play games with it by composing posts that accuse others without ever quite explicitly stating this. If this is not, in fact, your intention, you definitely need a better English teacher.
Not, based on the evidence presented thus far, that you would be likely to pay attention in class.
Kate · February 11, 2011 5:04 PM
Your opinion is noted and dismissed.
Dear me, DL. You can’t handle a little reductio ad absurdum? Poor ickle diddums. I didn’t mean to hurted his poor feelings.
Your opinion is noted and dismissed.
Dear me, DL. You can’t handle a little reductio ad absurdum? Poor ickle diddums. I didn’t mean to hurted his poor feelings.
Kate · February 11, 2011 5:26 PM
You misunderstand this, just as you apparently misunderstand everything else. Your manner of arguing is like that of a child, and therefore isn’t worth the bother. I suspected as much earlier, but I said i’d give it a try for the heck of it.
Monkeys throw shit, children taunt. It’s the same sentiment being expressed. Simplemindedness.
DL,sweetie, you’re projecting again.
Do put it away before you scare the children.
DiogenesLamp:
Here’s a song for you by a little Catholic girl, Sara Bareilles, from Humbolt County…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPk4_XfYhjg
Who Made You King Of Anything
Keep drinking coffee, stare me down across the table, while I look outside.
So many things I’d say if only I were able, but I just keep quiet and count the cars that pass by.
You’ve got opinions, man…we’re all entitled to ’em, but I never asked.
So let me thank you for your time, and try not to waste anymore of mine, and get out of here fast.
I hate to break it to you babe, but I’m not drowning. Who cares if you disagree?
You are not me…Who made you King of anything?
So you dare tell me who to be? Who died and made you King of anything?
You sound so innocent, all full of good intent…swear you know best.
But you expect me to jump up on board with you, and ride off into your delusional sunset.
I’m not the one who’s lost with no direction, but you’ll never see…You’re so busy making maps with my name on them in all caps.
…So you dare tell me who to be? You are not me. Who died and made you King of anything?
Sara calls it her “Fuck You” song.
And have a nice day, DL.
DL: Why is he responsible?? He’s responsible because he published the story. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. There’s no moral difference between a liar and a man who doesn’t care whether or not what he says is true.
Your position on the Japanese invasion of China isn’t clear. Certainly the simple explanation—that the Japanese were responsible for the Japanese invasion—is more believable.
So bottom-line it for us, DL: Your right to force people to act the way you want them to act–or not do want you don’t want them to do–derives from . . . ?
Actually, blasphemer is incorrect. The truth, DL, and I take no pleasure in writing this, is that you and most Christians have much more in common with the Pharisees of 2000 years ago than you do with Jesus Christ, who you claim to revere and worship.
Old Testament Christians are like that. Full of legalisms and THE LAW without love or compassion.
Emblazoned on the front of my orthodox synagogue when I was growing up in very large letters was:
“Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself”
Too funny. Old Testament Christians and New Testament Jews.
I see DL’s problem. He has no connection to the Maker. The Maker’s love has not touched his heart. So all that is left is legalism.
I was under the impression that there was some guy 2,000 years ago who thought that legalism without love was a bad idea. It is told that he hung out with criminals and sinners. I forget his name. I’m sure it will come to me soon.
[…] a couple of years later, Breitbart famously threw a party that “almost obliterated in one night the conception that Republicans are anti-gay and gave […]