Rightbloggers Welcome Gay, Muslim Diversity at CPAC -- But Not Too Much

tomt200.jpgThe 2011 Conservative Political Action Cnference (CPAC), held last week, was in some respects like the previous year's: For example, everyone loved that the place was full of young people, until the kids gave libertarian Ron Paul their straw poll vote.

There were some changes, though. Perhaps hoping to convince people in preparation for a 2012 Obama challenge they weren't all uptight white guys, CPAC threw a little multiculturalism into its mix, with gays and Muslims gaining a sliver of representation.

You can guess what followed -- some of the brethren accused CPAC of selling them out to the gay/Muslim enemy.

The accusations of jihad-friendliness were spurred by the presence at CPAC of Arab Indian-American former Bush Administration official Suhail Khan, whom some rightbloggers claim is a member of the militant Muslim Brotherhood -- a charge Khan has denied, which denial Frank Gaffney dismisses as "a bit of taqiyya (lying for the faith)."

Khan took part in a CPAC panel called "The Importance of Faith and Religious Liberty." "Islamic Rights Promoted At CPAC," Judicial Watch warned the nation. "Muslim Brotherhood supporters and sympathizers promoted Islamic tolerance."'

Two ardent anti-Muslim rightbloggers with their own CPAC panels were outraged. Pam Geller said the whole event had been "corrupted and compromised by the Muslim Brotherhood... look at the panels, they're either clueless or complicit." David Horowitz of NewsRealBlog told his CPAC auditors Khan was "sponsored by his longtime patron Grover Norquist," implying the former Bush official was in on the whole dirty Islamicist deal.

A flyer denouncing "Grover Khan" was circulated at CPAC; suggesting this two-headed beast was trying to "boil the Conservative frog slowly" so "he'll stay in the pot till he's cooked." (Geller has referred to "GROVER NORQUIST HISS" and "Grover Norquist's Jihad.")

suhailnorquist.jpg
Watch out for these jihadi-conservatives!
What's especially odd about this is, Norquist's very much a made man in the conservative movement -- he was a buddy of Ronald Reagan, a Bush Administration official, and the guy who famously said he didn't want to just shrink the government, he wanted to "drown it in the bathtub." At his own CPAC appearance he denounced liberals as "parasites," just like a good ol' boy.

Nonetheless other rightbloggers felt they, too, had cause to read him out of conservatism on account of the Muslims.

"The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think," said Vanishing American. "Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude?"

"Norquist has done much good," admitted Arlen Williams at Renew America, "but his aims and influence are exemplary of what is has been harmful and corruptive in conservatism for a very long while. That is not because of his marital relations" -- ah, the moderate approach! -- "but because he is married to unbalanced transnationalism."

To what now? Williams explained: "the century old, relativist, communitarian, and globalist model of the likes of Morgan/Rockefeller/H.Ford/Bush. And now, this plan is nearly complete, with George Soros, Maurice Strong, and Ban Ki-moon, two nation destroying Marxists and one more coy in his rhetoric, leading the way." Huh. Well, so much for those "Miss Me Yet?" Bush posters.

After reading that Norquist "said that the right has to 'marginalize' Islamophobia within its ranks," Potomac Tea Party Report announced, "Norquist: Islam completely compatible with US Constitution... and calls anyone who disagrees Islamophobic!... If Norquist was sincere in his belief that Muslim goals (shariah!) and our Constitution were perfectly compatible, he would quit calling those who disagree with him names."

"Death-cult code could come from any jihadist, from Mohammed Atta in his night-before-9/11 instructions, to Anwar al-Awlaki in his e-mails 'ministering' to the underpants bomber, Umar F. Abdulmutallab," said The Two Malcontents. "But could it also come from a former Bush administration appointee?" Aww, they stole our punchline: "The surprise answer is yes."

Other rightbloggers declined to touch this one, and some even acknowledged the ridiculousness of the controversy. The gay outreach was a much bigger deal.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
16 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
NadePaulKuciGravMcKi
NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

[no censorship]

Pam Geller Gary Bauer John Hagee David Horowitz play dumb re 9/11 no questions re 9/11 What you have done will be the saving of Israel You'll be remembered forever for this Not only that you've been paid for your efforts Pretty good wages for one little kiss

NadePaulKuciGravMcKi
NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

Pam Geller Gary Bauer John Hagee David Horowitz play dumb re 9/11 no questions re 9/11 What you have done will be the saving of Israel You'll be remembered forever for this Not only that you've been paid for your efforts Pretty good wages for one little kiss

Moonstomping_glory
Moonstomping_glory

Poor GOProud, at what point do you just feel like a total whore, bending over for people who can barely acknowledge your humanity? Surely they can't love tax cuts that much? Can they?

Walterledgett50
Walterledgett50

Yes, they can. Remember, for GOPers of all kinds, the most important thing in life is money. It overrides every other issue or affiliation.

Zapp Rowsdower
Zapp Rowsdower

That's not even Mark Noonan's best bit of crazy regarding libertarians vs. social cons--check out this post, asking if the right is battling for lower taxes or civilization (because in his belief, gay marriage will end civilization): http://blogsforvictory.com/201...

It concludes with this line: "So, make up your mind, Libertarians – join us or die"

StringonaStick: Noonan is saying that libertarianism needs social conservatism (read: wingnut Christians) to survive, but social conservatism does not need libertarianism.

StringonaStick
StringonaStick

"But mark this fact and never forget it - libertarianism cannot survive in a non-Christian civilization and Christian civilization will not have - cannot have - gay marriage and abortion (along with a score or so other things, but those two are most important...)."

Really? Since when did libertarianism become a sect of Christopathic evangelotalibanism? I thought the main libertarian point was gubmint outta my life, but apparently there are now exceptions for required state religion, and gubmint simply MUST be in your bedroom and doctor's office. My, my, libertarianism certainly has matured over the years.

gw
gw

Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist?

NYM NYM NYM
NYM NYM NYM

Very much so plus she also in favor of abortion

mds
mds

"Morgan/Rockefeller/H.Ford"? J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller I, and Henry Ford were all relativist communitarian leftists? We've joked about some of these wingnut barfbags being to the right of Attila the Hun, but it's not nearly so funny now, somehow.

CapitalCat
CapitalCat

Of course Ann Coulter is a friend of the gays. Look how much she resembles Lady Gaga.

commie atheist
commie atheist

"our liberties, which have made us great, are now destroying us."

Just wanted to savor that one again.

Substance McGravitas
Substance McGravitas

"Social Conservatives, in my mind, lean a little bit too much to the Classical Conservative model," said Pirate's Cove.

Also in his mind: WRESTLING IS FIXED.

Ashkha
Ashkha

Correction: Suhail Khan is NOT Arab-American, his parents are from India.

edroso
edroso

Thanks, Ashkha. Fixed in the column.

Mrs Tilton
Mrs Tilton

"Guess next year they'll have to find a gay group that doesn't promote gay marriage, make too much of a fuss, or fight back when attacked. Any takers?"

The guys at the Gay Patriot blog are no doubt willing and eager to serve.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...