GOProud Party Breitbart’s Proudest Hour

PajamasMedia ^ | February 10, 2011 | Roger L Simon

[Nickname]

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.

Well, maybe that’s what I wanted to see and wanted to feel, but the atmosphere was certainly there Thursday night at DC’s Eighteenth Street Lounge. People wandered the club’s corridors in wonderment at it all. No, there weren’t any leather biker studs or other accoutrements of the more outre gay scene, but there was as much acceptance of our modern world as at Democratic Party events, especially national ones of the scope of CPAC.

Does this indeed mean that libertarianism in its various strains is taking over the GOP? Again, that is possibly wishful thinking (and I wouldn’t want it to be that brand of libertarianism that seems to think the common defense can be accomplished with BB guns in someone’s garage), but there are indications across CPAC. Again, maybe this is anecdotal, but I’ve hardly heard much talk of abortion or other social issues at the conference — and when I have it seems vaguely discordant or anachronistic. Most people wanted to discuss the economy or the looming dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood. And, of course, who would be best to put Barack Obama out of office.

[LibLieSlayer]

Absolutely.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

That is how it appears.

LLS

[cizinec]

“Do you believe in laws made to prevent discrimination at privately owned busineesses against people whi identify themselves by perverted sexual acitivity?”

A private business is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases.

“Should the government be in the business of dictating to private citizens how their business should deal with this issue?”

No, which is why a Constitutional Amendment won’t work.

“And should a government punish citizens who do not hold the same perverted moral views that claim that people have a right to be perverts and that we all must accept thier behavior as normal?”

No. The government should not be in the business of dictating what is and is not normal. That knife cuts both ways.

“Should soldiers be forced to either agree to deal with open perverts and to bunk and shower with them or be punished?”

First, I am a soldier. We already are doing the above without *knowing* we are doing it. Most of us have a pretty good idea. Second, that’s a tough question. Most soldiers are more concerned about incompetent leadership, how often they will have to deploy thanks to morons in congress and the president, pay, equipment . . . it just doesn’t rank up there with me and a lot of other guys. When DADT goes away, I imagine we’re going to have to deal with *a lot* of harassment issues. “He looked at me wrong.” “He bumped my junk.” Guess what, harassment is in the eye of the offended. I think if you told soldiers, “Hey, you’re going to get funding like you did under Reagan, but you’ll have to deal with the end of DADT,” they’d take that deal in a second. I would.

I’m National Guard. I live in both worlds. In the military, you don’t do as you please and there is a whole lot of suck. If the guy next to me is an outstanding soldier, I don’t want him replaced with someone who is incompetent and doesn’t PT outside of drill just because he likes the ladies (existing soldiers only, there are plenty of outstanding potential recruits turned away because of troop reductions). How easy will it be to deal with issues arising from an end to DADT? I don’t know, but it appears I’m going to find out. I don’t like it and think it will be a disaster, but then I don’t like a lot of things that are already disasters.

CAN’T WE JUST GET COL. ALLEN WEST FOR PRESIDENT????? I think he agrees with you on this one. It’s not a huge issue for me, so I’d still vote for Col. West any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

“Amd most importantly why should ‘We the People’ not make an Amendment that makes our opposition to this insanity crystal clear?”

Because a private business is a private business and should be able to do as it pleases. A church of whatever bent should be able to do as they please on this issue. Freedom includes the freedom to be all jacked up. Freedom includes the freedom for me to not be associated with people, businesses and religions that are all jacked up, unless I receive a lawful order to do so.

I have a commercial espresso machine in my house. Mormons think caffeine is evil. Under your logic, I should be thrilled if Mormons try to pass a Constitutional amendment banning coffee, saving me from the evils of my La San Marco. If Mormons are right, I’m going to hell.

In *my* America, if Mormons are right, I still get to drink coffee and choose hell. Sucks to be me. It’s a free country. If I’m right (I am), then Mormons not drinking coffee reduces demand and lowers the cost of my cup of joe. Yay. It’s a cool thing and it’s called freedom. I like it even when it lets somebody else be stupid.