Skip to comments.Meet the billionaire hedge fund manager quietly shaping the GOP gay marriage debate (Paul E. Singer)
Posted on 05/06/2013 2:59:10 PM PDT by EveningStar
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who dont work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.
That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What makes this person a Republican? Why can he not be a Democrat? This is a Post story, so he may be, regardless of what they write.
Follow the money
Where does this all lead?
I am thinking it leads to “fellow travelers” infesting all levels of government until they are saturated and control everything.
Like the Nazis in Germany, they want to have people with no moral compass in charge. Then they can get them to do all kinds of horrifying things
Are you saying the author is lying about Singer’s political affiliation?
He is making the GOP more libertarian.
Romney Agenda again.
Polygamy, more Death Panels and Amnesty coming
from the GOPe.
Is this the guy that proposed/supported sex with chickens ?
The voters are ready for a new party.
It’s not possible. Homosexuals are powerless. downtrodden, impoverished, and violently discriminated against. They have no clout whatsoever.
The last successful third party was the GOP - over 150 years ago.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.-- RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975
Those libertarians are fakes and loud mouth goon bent on destroying the conservative momentum and movement then. That is why I have been going after them as much as the democrat progressive-liberals.
I wish I could say that, deadpan, without cracking up.
And that is why libertarians feel they have to infiltrate the GOP with their agenda. They quickly saw they were the antithesis of the conservative movement so they are plotting to destroy it from within.
Like the Nazis in Germany, they want to have people with no moral compass in charge...
Hey, libertarians are weird and nutty, but they’re not as bad a the GOPe and the RINO side of things.
LOL, not much to cling to is it?
1975 Candidate Reagan speaking to a libertarian magazine and trying to win them over just paragraphs before he proceeds to disagree with libertarianism and show himself as a social conservative and strong on national defense, yet here we are almost a half century later, and that quote is all you have.
Here is something more appropriate and relevant to this thread, the 2012 libertarian platform on homosexual marriage and the overall homosexual agenda what they are promoting with the GOP.
“”1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.””
The guy is a covert liberal operative. Why we put up with him as a “republican” is not logical. The RINO elite leadership must get a lot of money from him.
Listen to the rinos speak, they are embracing libertarianism to explain abandoning conservatism. From abortion, to homosexuals in the military, to open borders.
He’s got a queer son. Yawn.
Personal relationships only? Why are the libertarians so prudish and authoritarian? What about persons and animals, if both sides are willing? Lots of people would like to officially marry their animals and force the rest of the world to recognize their love.
Singer is an active participant in Republican Party politics. He was a major contributor to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns.
In 2007, Singer led a financial industry fund-raising effort for Rudolph Giuliani, first as regional finance chair and later as senior policy adviser.
In 2007, Singer provided $175,000 to support a petition drive for a proposed California initiative to apportion the state’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district. At least 19 of the state’s 53 congressional districts could be expected to vote for a GOP presidential candidate, enough to change the national results in a close election.
President George W. Bush appointed Singer to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May 2008.
In 2011, Singer played a major role in passing legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in the state of New York by, along with other major GOP donors, throwing his support behind it. In 2011, he donated $1 million to Restore Our Future Inc, the Superpac supporting Mitt Romney.
Lee Fang, writing for the progressive political blog ThinkProgress, claimed that “the rise of Singers political profile can be traced to his work as a top donor to pro-Bush character-assasination (sic) groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.”
In 2011, Singer donated $1 million to Restore Our Future, a political action committee (PAC) created to support Mitt Romney in the U.S. Presidential election. Singer was a major contributor to George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns and was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on the Honorary Delegation to accompany him to Jerusalem for the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel in May of 2008..
In 2012, Singer provided $1 million to start a super PAC named American Unity PAC. According to the New York Times, the PAC’s “sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.”
Big-Government Romney was about as far from a libertarian as they come.
The problem is always going to be the biology. The reason for marriage is to ensure a stable situation in which the species continues and to protect the primary caregiver, the mother, and the child. It involves the union of male and female genetic material basic to all species.Hate speech. Probably get banned one of these days real soon. Frankly, as a society, we are done for.
I will not support any politician that supports faux homo “marriage”, regardless of party.
Most of the "libertarians" I know inherited their money, barely work, and cry like little babies every time they have to make out a quarterly tax payment.
They'd rather spend their money on pot, drugs and prostitutes, and ever dollar that doesn't go to fulfilling their craven desires they feel is a terrible hardship.
Gay marriage? If it leads to a more hedonistic society, they're for it!
When the founding fathers talked about "freedom", they weren't talking about getting drunk, smoking dope and having sex all day. Yet those who call themselves libertarians will look you right in the eye and say that's just what the American Revolution was about.
Um, I actually agree with that, for the most part: you see it's not government authority that defines the relationship that is marriage, it's God Himself, giving the government the power to "define, license or restrict" such is giving to it that which is not rightfully theirs. Moreover, suppose you gave those powers to a government perfectly agreeing perfectly with your own view-point... what would happen if the government came to disagree with you? They would simply use those powers given to them to "define, license and restrict" as they willed.
In short, not every power or authority is properly ascribed to the state.
PS "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships" also means that they are free to suffer any consequences of that choice.
Not really, remember he was for homosexualizing the military and was pro-abortion, and he employed illegals, although that doesn't mean that he was as open borders as libertarians.
""Um, I actually agree with that, for the most part"
Thanks for admitting it, one of the frustrating things about most libertarians is their complete dishonesty and evasiveness, it is rare to have one speak openly.
Why not -- I believe that:
(a) the law should be blind,
(b) the law should be equitable,
(c) that people are, at their core, free-willed individuals, and
(d) that exercise of that will (c) will be rewarded/punished...
(e) the government does have the authority to punish evil doers [abuse of (D)], but
(f) it [government] is not free to [re]define good and evil as it has been doing (and will continue to do).
I also believe it's the height of stupidity to give the federal government the authority to allow a definition of marriage, precisely for the reason I gave, once they have that power someone will [ab]use that power to [re]define marriage. -- The whole "homosexual marriage" issue is therefore best recognized as a win-win for the statists: if you are able to prevent homosexual marriage then you have acknowledged the state's power over it, and therefore all they have to do is gain those positions in the state, or you fail and they pass it anyway (thus proving that the state has such power).
PS -- thanks for cutting off all the explanatory portion. [/sarc]
That's because they are complicit.
When someone supports the leftists homosexual agenda, we don’t really care what their excuses and explanations are.
Homosexuals in the military, adoption, polygamy “such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”, you guys have quite an agenda.
Seems like we are overdue.
In a way this is good.
Cameron dragged his so-called “conservative party” into gay marriage in England.
The result: The rise of the UKIP - England’s version of the Tea Party and just as conservative as our Tea Party. The Tories (i.e., Cameron’s party) is about to end up on the ash heap of British history.
I didn’t know libertarians were “open border. In fact, the opposite.
I part ways with libertarians on special gay rights and some drug stuff (not all, but I concur the cost/benefit of the drug war has exceeded anything rationale), but on fiscal responsibility, border (as I understand their positions) and foreign policy (there are very hawkish libertarians) there generally spot on.
I don't support it.
Where would you get that idea?
I think that it properly belongs in the realm of the Church to alter society against it, not the State to force people to accept its definition at the point of a sword.
How does the Mosque (or church) dictate homosexuals in the military, or in adoption, or child custody, or all the other homosexual agenda stuff or polygamy.
As far as you supporting it, you made that clear on this thread, and I find it hard to believe that someone promoting the homosexual agenda is so concerned about the Mosque and church and wants them forbidding homosexuals in the military for instance.
Libertarianism on immigration
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new Berlin Wall which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. governments policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
By dictating the acceptance/rejection is society.
As far as you supporting it, you made that clear on this thread
So "I agree for the most part" (with an explanation of of which part/principal) is exactly equivalent to "I wholeheartedly agree"?
and I find it hard to believe that someone promoting the homosexual agenda is so concerned about the Mosque and church and wants them forbidding homosexuals in the military for instance.
...I really like how you're putting a lot of words I never said into my mouth... you wanna know something?
They taste kinda like earwax.
You are intentionally confusing “libertarianism” with “Libertarians.”
The Libertarian Party is a bunch of kooks.
The TEA Party is very small-l libertarian.
So you're saying the US should abridge/deny human rights based on nationality?
That was a very confusing post since you agree with the libertarian support of the homosexual agenda, including homosexualizing the military.
Getting into world religions is gibberish and is a weird approach for you to try and conceal what is just your simple support of the homosexual agenda.
Not that I care about the large-L Libertarian kooks, but where are you finding that on their platform, all I see is this:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
That ain’t libertarianism.
“Real” libertarianism doesn’t embrace that crap. It just says “its none of my business, leave me alone and you can go to hell in your own way.” Naive, but better than “embracing” that sort of garbage.
Great, now the child speak starts, no wonder you guys are so confused with that level of thinking.
Well, Reagan was wrong. Libertarianism is about removing the moral compass, so that anything goes. I call it the perverts’ party. I wish they would go over to the Dems where they belong.
For unlimited and full term abortion for instance.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I actually am happy to see your (apparent) misquote of the Large L Libertaian platform because it shows they are not actually “libertarian” at all when it comes to the liberty of the unborn.