That would be the sound of social conservatives sniveling hysterically about how libertarians are taking over the conservative movement. *sniff* *WAAAH!*
Now let me say up front that there are some libertarians who have some serious growing up to do. They’re loud, immature, obnoxious and rude. I said as much on my Facebook page when I linked to a story about a band of obnoxious Ron Paul supporters who interrupted an exchange between Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld .
“You know, I’m all about free speech,” I wrote, “but have some goddamn class! Agree or not with Cheney, Rumsfeld and crew, whatever… but at least have a little fucking decorum. I always said Ron Paul’s biggest challenge is his fans.”
It’s also true that I know quite a few social conservatives. They’re genuinely good people who abide by their faith, who are kind and generous and who believe in every principle I hold dear: independence, personal responsibility, liberty, a strong national defense… you know…
Unfortunately, there are jerks on both sides. And today I’ll focus on the conservative ones, so if you all want to cue up your howls of protest, please do so…
…and then go away. I don’t want to hear it.
On Monday, after this weekend’s CPAC and RLC meetings, some dillbag named Kevin McCullough penned a whining editorial for Fox News, lamenting how “Disrespectful” Libertarians *insert horrified gasp of indignation here* hijacked CPAC.
Normally, I’d laugh at him and let it go, but apparently this has been a recurring theme after this weekend, with one outraged caller on Hannity even calling for libertarians to just stay away from the GOP and stick to their own party. To his credit, Hannity (whose show I can only take in small doses) told his caller that he disagrees. While he doesn’t support the libertarians’ social agenda of… *insert another horrified gasp of indignation here* freedom and equal rights for all, even Teh EEEEEEVIL GHEYS™, he’s loath to alienate a rather large group of people with whose views on the Second Amendment, the economy and free markets he agreed.
In any case, Rob recommended (well, more like challenged) that I fisk McCullough’s whining diatribe, so… OK.
The top three winners of this weekend’s CPAC straw poll will not win the 2012 presidential nomination. And if any of the top three do break through to prove that prediction wrong, none of them will go on to win the White House in 2012.
This year’s top three placeholders in the poll were Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeat their standing from the 2010 poll as No. 1 and No. 2, respectively.
If the results of this straw poll do not sufficiently demonstrate the bizarre nature and overall oddity of this year’s gathering of “conservatives,” nothing else can.
That’s a pretty brazenly bold call, especially when it concerns Mittens, whose plastic Edwards-esque hair, liberal (which today is considered moderate) views on health care and gun rights, propelled him to a fairly close contest with Zombie McCain in 2008.
It’s also an interesting proclamation, because all three actually appeal to a broader spectrum of “moderates” than the uber-religious nutjob Mike “…what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” Huckabee and his ilk.
The “bizarre” label is particularly insulting since conservatives CLAIM many of the same principles that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, in particular, have been espousing since emerging onto the national scene: deficit reduction, paying off debts and fiscal and personal responsibility. I say “claim,” because many of them go back to the policy of “Politics as Usual” as soon as they secure reelection.
But hey, just because their views and principles more accurately reflect conservatism than those who claim to support fiscal responsibility, but then proceed to claim some kind of divine mandate to use your tax dollars to support programs that fit their religious/personal mold, their good showing at the CPAC straw poll is obviously a bizarre anomaly.
Ron Paul, though technically still a Republican, has given up his GOP identity to embrace the chance to be the poster child for the more libertarian streak that has run rampant through CPAC, largely unabated for the past two years. Mitt Romney, the virtual author of Obamacare, and 2008’s third-place finisher for the GOP nomination, is weighed down by the fact that his universal health care mandate in Massachusetts has largely failed with the exception being the $50 state-subsidized abortions. Gary Johnson was only added to the lineup at the last minute, his presence stoking the flame of immoral libertarianism that actually advocated for legalized pot and the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions.
And what “GOP identity” would that be, Kevin? The fact that Paul supports tighter border security, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and any form of welfare for illegal aliens? The fact that he opposes membership in the UN? The fact that he voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists after the 9-11attacks? The fact that he regularly votes against tax increases and increased government spending? The fact that he supports states’ rights, and happens to be one of the most ardent and consistent supporters of the Second Amendment in Congress? Or is it the fact that he explicitly stated his belief that abortion is murder?
Yeah, sure looks like he’s given up his GOP identity, moron.
Now, to be sure, there are a bunch of things I completely disagree with Ron Paul about, and I do think he’s way too close to the 9-11 Truthers. Of course, there’s not candidate with whom I agree 100 percent, but to claim that Paul has relinquished his Republican creds, because he happens to agree with libertarians on many issues is disingenuous at best and a downright, intentional lie at worst.
As for the “immoral libertarianism” of Gary Johnson… OH NOES! HE SUPPORTS TEH EEEEEVIL GHEYS AND STONERS!
This is where the social conservatives and social libertarians part ways. We happen to think that there’s nothing immoral about two people of the same gender wanting to spend their lives together and having the same right to do so (and the same marriage tax penalties, to boot!) as two people of different genders. And we happen to believe that the federal government shouldn’t have a say in what amounts to a socio-economic contract between two consenting adults who want the rights afforded to married next of kin. McCullough and his socon ilk, despite claiming to support individual freedoms, only do so when it comes to heterosexual couples who only have sex in the missionary position and only to procreate – NEVER for actual gratification. (That last part was sarcasm, assholes. Stop your screeching.)
But since socons loudly proclaim that their religious text of choice not only condemns homosexual relationships, but some claim their Sky Elf of choice actually HATES FA
GS, anyone who actually supports equal rights for them EEEEEEVIL GHEYS must be immoral.
As for Johnson’s support for legalized pot, he comes at it from a strictly economic and criminal standpoint. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexican drug cartels make the majority of their profits from marijuana trade. As anyone with a basic grasp of economics understands, when something is illegal, it’s inherently dangerous; when something is inherently dangerous, those who are still willing to engage in its trade will earn a bigger profit, giving criminals a virtual monopoly on the market.
Additionally, the prisons are brimming with stoners who committed the egregious crime of toking up (not necessarily harming anyone with their actions). How much do you think it costs to keep these losers in prison?
Johnson advocates having a DEBATE on the issue and approaching it from an economic and criminal standpoint: It has never been legal to use any type of drug, including alcohol, and drive or do any type of harm to others. So, he says, it’s time to discuss legalizing it, controlling it and taxing it. And for those efforts, he’s called “immoral” by socon buttnuggets, such as McCullough, despite being highly rated by the Right to Life Committee on the socons’ pet issue – abortion.
In other words, this year’s CPAC wasn’t about advancing conservatism. Rather, it exposed the radically disrespectful element of the libertine.
Read: They didn’t advance my moralistic, religious, fundamentalist agenda which seeks to marginalize a large portion of the population that doesn’t think like me and my frothing fundamentalist fruitcake friends!
Apparently in McCullough’s worldview, anyone who actually stands by their principles of personal and fiscal responsibility is debauched, lewd and lustful. Either that, or he has no concept of the word “libertine.”
It has been the inclusion of the libertarian aspects of the past two years that has thrown the message of conservatism askew in a widely disproportional way.
It is the libertarian in attendance that produced the free pornographic calendar passed out to attendees in 2010. It is the libertarians in attendance who openly promote the inclusion of groups like GOProud, largely as an attempt to silence groups who would speak in strong support of traditional moral values. It is the libertarian in attendance who slandered President George Bush, by claiming his appreciation for the Constitution was best summed up as a “damn piece of paper.” It is the libertarian in attendance that proclaimed the war to prevent terrorists from regathering strength and coming after our homeland as “illegal.” And it is the libertarian in attendance that eschewed, booed, cajoled and screamed “war criminal” to Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who served his country with commitment and still attempts to help the world understand the threat of the radical Islamic element devising plans to eliminate us and our allies.
Wow, anti-First Amendment and gay-bashing in one paragraph! Pretty impressive. Yeah, Great Pumpkin forbid we actually include people who support freedom, individual liberty, personal responsibility and fiscal conservatives in our ranks. We might catch Teh Ghey™!
I would submit people who fear the inclusion of gays, who agree with what they claim are their basic principles, in their “Big Tent” might not be so secure in their sexuality, but that’s just me playing amateur shrink. Fact of the matter is that pornography is legal. It’s a protected form of speech, as is disagreement with Bush or any other president about foreign policy. But to McCullough, it appears only speech HE approves of deserves recognition or respect. Anything else is immoral and should be avoided.
Now the libertarians stuffed the ballot box of the CPAC straw poll, and for the second year in a row made it the laughingstock poll in the eyes of the voters. (This year’s voters are perhaps more engaged, more aware and more plugged in than ever before.)
Really, Sparky? Got evidence of that, or are you just too appalled to actually believe that a gathering of liberty-minded people would produce a liberty-minded winner in a straw poll?
In head-to-head polling going back a full year to last year’s CPAC, neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney has consistently topped a head-to-head match-up against a greatly weakened President Obama. Romney has only topped the sitting president once in that 12-month period. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a no-show at CPAC for the past years, has beaten the president head-to-head in nearly every poll taken.
Is the goal to elect a liberty-minded president who will respect the Constitution of the United States, or someone who could potentially beat Obama? Is the goal to elect someone who could beat the current president, even if they’re a theocratic fuckwad and would use the office to push his social and moralistic agenda? Is the goal to exchange one form of tyrant for another – one who would steal your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because they happen to be kids, and that happens to be what Jesus would want him to do?
Yeah, not so much. The idea isn’t to find someone who would defeat Zero, but would impose his own special brand of dictatorial fucktardery on the nation. The idea is to find someone who respects this country and her laws, not someone who would change the Law of the Land to fit their religious beliefs.
David Keene, the American Conservative Union’s outgoing president, gave a lengthy discounting of this year’s poll in the lead up to it. That should serve as a very clear indicator that next year’s CPAC needs some significant changes if it is to become the great conference it has been in past years.
Because dammit, next year, they’ll stuff the ballot with votes for Sarah Palin, which is much more preferable to stuffing the ballot with votes for Ron Paul.
Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals. The truth is libertarians are the worst form of political affiliation in the nation. Combining the desire of economic greed, with the amoral desire to promote any behavior regardless of its cost to our culture is a stark departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Really? All that different? Fiscal responsibility, ending outrageous entitlements, Second Amendment and strong self defense, individual liberties… Yeah, they’re really different. I guess Mr. McCullough is one of those douchebags who believes that those who believe it’s their right to keep the fruits of their labor instead of having them appropriated by government force and redistributed to fit politicians’ end are evil and greedy? I would think so. It’s OK to take your tax dollars to provide health care for illegal aliens, because Jesus says so? Is that how it goes, Kevin?
If having a fundamental belief that I am the owner of my efforts and that I’m best qualified to judge how my money is spent, not a politician, who cites the Bible or the Communist Manifesto as his justification…
If having enough maturity to let people live their lives without moralistic interference from religious nutjobs and letting whatever God I believe in do the judging is equal to amorality…
I’ll take that over sniffly, moralistic preaching from people who have no understanding of the concept of actual freedom and merely give lip service to liberty while pushing an agenda that reflects their religious views any day of the week.
And it is not consistent with the average conservative voter in America.
Is that the same average conservative
voter who idolizes Ronald Reagan?
If you analyze it I believe the very
heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism — Ronald Reagan
Yeah. THAT Ronald Reagan.
The fact that so many faith-based conservatives were missing from CPAC, and are also arguably the most dependable conservative voter in the country only added to the confusing, bizarre, disrespectful and, in many ways, off-putting memories of this year’s event.
Yes, CPAC enjoyed its largest attendance ever. But one could possibly argue that it was smaller than it would have been if the third leg of the conservative stool — social conservatives — had been the key player they have traditionally been in the past.
Maybe it’s because the bigots of the bunch were booed at last year’s CPAC for being… um… rude asshole bigots, hmmmm? Remember Ryan Sorba? Talk about your rude, insolent little fucks! Talk about being disrespectful to members of a group that supports freedom, academic and personal liberties and fiscal conservatism for everyone, regardless of the choices they make in life.
And given the fact that the Ron Paul-toting, uber-disrespectful and, in many ways, disruptive ballot stuffing has wrecked the straw poll results, pinging completely unelectable candidates in two of the top three slots, perhaps more significance should be paid to the straw poll to be conducted by the conference that happens in the fall called the “Values Voters Conference.”
Because the ballots will get stuffed in favor of religious zealots there!
If social conservatives are the largest portion of the conservative discussion, no attention should be paid to a poll that virtually eliminates their presence all together.
Many of them chose to boycott CPAC altogether because of the presence of those EEEEEEEEEEEVIL GHEYs! And guess what! CPAC had a record attendance anyway! Maybe there’s a reason their presence was discounted!
The reason? According to that amoral libertarian rag, Human Events, “84% of the voters identified themselves as fiscal conservatives, placing their highest priority on economic growth and restraining the growth of government.”
So maybe the majority of conservatives simply didn’t give a rat’s flying fuck how the Bible tells us to screw. They’re more worried about becoming another Zimbabwe.
CPAC leaders did the best they could to put on the best conference possible. It wasn’t their fault that the libertarian elements within the attendees equate free speech with animalistic expressions, especially when visiting someone else’s “house.”
They paid to be present at that “house,” asstard. The organizers of CPAC opened it to anyone who supports conservative principles, and as long as they paid their fee, they had every right to express themselves at said house. Unless, of course, Kevin, you don’t think the First Amendment applies at a gathering of those who claim to support freedom!
Libertarian elements, because of their strange combination of policies that add up to anarchy without moral limits, don’t mix with conservative ideals. And, because of that, perhaps they should have their own conference and let all the pot-smokers and gay marriage supporters come and complain about how the U.S. shouldn’t be fighting terrorists, while they slander public servants.
What you call “strange” is what is commonly known as “consistent.” These people believe in freedom and individual liberty for ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation, even if they disagree with said choice. They believe in responsible government spending, even if it makes the hypocritical theocrats shit their underpants at the thought of legalizing marijuana or cutting spending that supports religious initiatives. They believe in a strong national defense without the fraud, waste and abuse that comes with the ever-growing government bureaucracy. And they believe that if someone doesn’t act like a conservative while claiming to hold conservative views, they deserve skepticism and criticism – not slander, as you claim – even though they have an “R” behind their name. (read: I’ve abandoned my free market principles to save the free market system — George W. Bush)
At the very least, the winner of their straw poll would be somewhat reflective of the title of who they are, and what they believe.
Done and done.
Now why don’t you and your minority theocrat fundamentalist Bible thumpers go cry in a corner somewhere! There doesn’t appear to be any more room for you under that big tent.