# CPAC - The fall of Social Conservatism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164 "2011-02-12T21:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/81 "2011-02-15T18:28:07Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Really? Cause all the legislation I’ve been hearing about has been moral conservative stuff, primarily anti-abortion. I assume you’re taking (minor) issue with my contention that in the down economy, libertarians will gain traction. To which I would respond: under what other conditions would libertarians hold _any_ substantial sway in today’s Republican party? That’s not to say that social conservatives and their issues _disappear_, now, as you’ve noticed…they just don’t get the usual amount of lip service. IMHO, the current bad economy (and debt/deficit, of course) is providing a high-water mark; as the economy improves, whenever that may be, libertarian influence will recede once again. ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/82 "2011-02-15T19:53:25Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > At least as Democrats, the old fogies who “see no value” in personal freedom can continue to vote after death. 😛 Ah, yes, the “Golden Age” of the New York / Chicago political machines. If only I were Irish 100 years ago… 🙂 Anyways, of course there’s value in personal freedom, but wouldn’t you agree that the exercise of any freedom must be examined to the extent it affects third parties or society as a whole? For example, taxation is an impingement on one’s “right” to “life, liberty, and property”, but there’s potholes what need paved, whether you (or your driver) happen to traverse those particular roads or not. Labor laws concerning collective bargaining “impinge” on the private right of contract (in a technical sense). And shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is a no-no, First Amendment rights notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/83 "2011-02-15T20:28:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Really? Cause all the legislation I’ve been hearing about has been moral conservative stuff, primarily anti-abortion. I think that’s more a reflection of what the sites you read want to focus on. Both sides play the same game - when ever some marginally-batshit member of the house sponsors a crazy bill, the other side writes it up as, “\\ plan to do \”. What matters is really the stuff that makes it out of conference. What I’ve been seeing is that the ‘Tea Party’ caucus staged a near revolt when the Republican leadership proposed a budget that cut 60 billion from the current budget. They said that was way too small, and raised enough of a fuss that the cuts were increased to 100 billion. You’re always going to see Republicans proposing bills to cut abortion funding or ‘promote the family’ or whatever. It only takes one crazy fundy in Congress to propose those bills, and no matter how weak the social conservatives are, there will always be some social conservatives in the House and Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/84 "2011-02-15T21:41:34Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > What I’ve been seeing is that the ‘Tea Party’ caucus staged a near revolt when the Republican leadership proposed a budget that cut 60 billion from the current budget. They said that was way too small, and raised enough of a fuss that the cuts were increased to 100 billion. Where did they cut the extra 40 billion from? That’ll tell you if they’re socially conservative or not. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/85 "2011-02-15T23:41:10Z")
Well, let’s see - Here’s a good article which details the differences between the original house bill and the new one amended after complaints from the Tea Party: [Tea Party wins: $100 billion in cuts in House Republicans’ spending bill](http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/143641-tea-party-wins-house-gop-spending-bill-cuts-at-least-100-billion) > [@](#): > > The CR cuts transportation and housing by $15.5 billion, or 23 percent, compared to a 17 percent cut in the original CR. > > From agriculture spending, it cuts $5.2 billion, or 22 percent below last year’s level, compared to 14 percent in the original leadership bill. > > Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations are reduced $11.6 billion, or 18 percent, below last year’s level, including the elimination of the $298 million COPS hiring program. This compares to 16 percent in the original CR. > > The Interior and Environmental portion of the CR cuts 14 percent, or $4.4 billion, below last year’s level, compared to an 8 percent cut in the original CR. > > The Financial Services and General Government section of the CR contains a $3.8 billion, or 16 percent, reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels, compared to a 13 percent cut in the original bill. > > The Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) section of the CR cuts $17.5 billion, or nearly 11 percent from last year’s level, compared to a 4 percent cut in the original CR. The CR eliminates funding for programs such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and Americorps. > > Energy and Water programs are cut $3.6 billion, or 11 percent, below last year’s level, compared to 10 percent in the original. > > The State and Foreign Operations section of the CR cuts $3.8 billion, or 8 percent, below last year’s level, compared to a 4 percent cut in the original CR. To get there it cuts back contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations and banks but continues the fiscal year 2010 level of economic assistance to Egypt. > > It cuts $2 billion from unobligated stimulus funding, a far smaller amount than Republicans had hoped for. > > The CR contains many controversial deep cuts; among them are $747 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants & Children (WIC). > > It cuts $350 billion from border security fencing, and $783 from FEMA state and local programs. > > It cuts $1 billion for community health centers and $1.1 billion from Head Start. > > It especially whacks foreign assistance for the poor. Food for Peace looses $687 million. Global Health and Child Survival gets cut $784 million, development assistance is cut $746 million and international disaster assistance looses $415 million. > > From transportation, high speed rail is cut by $5 billion. The new Tea Party members of Congress want [cuts to the military](http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303019): > [@](#): > > Newly elected Tea Party members are giving traditional Republicans a scare in suggesting the bloated US defense budget should go under review for budget cuts, but Howard McKeon, Armed Services Committee Chairman plans to “educate” them. They’re not unanimous about it - as usual, members who come from districts with big defense suppliers are generally not on board with cuts. But it appears the caucus would be fine with the $78 billion in cuts SecDef Gates has proposed. [Rand Paul wants to cut $500 billion from next year’s budget](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/news/la-pn-0125-rand-paul-budget-20110125): > [@](#): > > Paul’s budget cuts more than five times as much as House Republican leaders have advocated and faces little chance of winning support, even from within his own party. > > Still, the “tea party” favorite’s plan demonstrates one pole in the coming budget debate. His plan would cut in half funding for the Department of Commerce and nearly eliminate the Department of Education. It would eliminate the Department of Energy, which oversees environment regulation and enforcement. > > The budget would cut funding for the federal court system and the Agriculture Department by nearly one-third. The Pentagon would see a roughly 6% cut, and the Food and Drug Administration a 62% cut. > > “By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing, we are cutting nearly 40% of our projected deficit and removing the big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency in our federal government,” Paul said in a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/86 "2011-02-16T04:01:19Z")
It appears that the Republicans are going to step up to the plate on entitlement reform as well. From the web page of the [Speaker of the House](http://www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=225191): > [@](#): > > \*\*Statement by GOP Leaders & Chairman Ryan on Upcoming GOP Budget Plan > \*\* > > WASHINGTON, DC (Feb 15) House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement after President Obama’s press conference today: > > ``` > “The American people are ready to get serious about tackling our fiscal challenges, but President Obama’s budget fails to lead. The President’s budget punts on entitlement reform and actually makes matters worse by spending too much, taxing too much, and borrowing too much – stifling job growth today and threatening our economic future. > > “The President says that he wants to win the future, but we can't win the future by repeating the mistakes of the past or putting off our responsibilities in the present. Our budget will lead where the President has failed, and it will include real entitlement reforms so that we can have a conversation with the American people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to prosperity. Our reforms will focus both on saving these programs for current and future generations of Americans and on getting our debt under control and our economy growing. By taking critical steps forward now, we can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans without making changes for those in or near retirement. We hope the President and Democratic leaders in Congress will demonstrate leadership and join us in working toward responsible solutions to confront the fiscal and economic challenges before us.” > > ``` No details yet on what the reform will look like, but at least they’re trying. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/87 "2011-02-16T04:30:40Z")
No, they’re talking. Which is what they always do. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/88 "2011-02-16T05:42:22Z")
I guess we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/89 "2011-02-21T17:10:19Z")
Looks like CPAC’s flirtation with social moderation [is over](http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/18/groups-supporting-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-or-gay-marriage-will-no-longer-be-allowed-to-participate-at-cpac/): > [@](#): > > Cardenas said that groups advocating for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or supporting gay marriage would not be welcome. > > “If you are a group, and this has got nothing to do with your orientation,” said Cardenes, “of straight couples, and you advocate gay marriage, that’s not within the scope of what we believe the three legs of the stool of the movement are.” A vote for a Republican will continue to be a vote for hatred and intolerance for the foreseeable future, no matter how much **Sam Stone** and other respectable economic conservatives want it to be otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/90 "2011-02-21T17:12:20Z")
“Stool of the movement” is right. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/91 "2011-02-21T21:03:48Z")
Cardenas looks like he’s on the other side of that split. I already agreed that the Republicans are now divided on social issues. I even said that if the economy gets better we’ll probably see a big fight within the Republican party between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives. This guy’s putting a marker in the sand for next year. I guess we’ll see then how much opposition to his position there is. As for opposition to gay marriage and support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being ‘hatred and intolerance’, I guess you include Barack Obama in that group, huh? It’s his justice department fighting to keep DADT in place, and he has personally stated his opposition to gay marriage. On these particular issues, I don’t see any daylight between his position and that of Cardenes. Which in this case puts me to the left of Obama, since I support both the repeal of DADT and gay marriage. And don’t forget, it was the Democrats in California who killed gay marriage. They could have passed it with a large enough majority of Democrat voters, but they couldn’t get it - largely because black voters, who vote over 90% for Democrats, do not approve of gay marriage. Do you decry their hatred and intolerance as well? In New York in 2009, a bill legalizing gay marriage was shot down by the Democratically-controlled state government. So let’s not portray this as a fully partisan issue. While it’s true that opposition to gay marriage is higher on the right, it is far from being a one-party issue. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/92 "2011-02-21T21:15:00Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for opposition to gay marriage and support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being ‘hatred and intolerance’, I guess you include Barack Obama in that group, huh? It’s his justice department fighting to keep DADT in place, and he has personally stated his opposition to gay marriage. On these particular issues, I don’t see any daylight between his position and that of Cardenes. Obama is the reason DADT was repealed. His justice dept. defended it in court because it was the law. It was Obama’s desire to repeal it legislatively (and thus permanently) that pushed it through. He knew that no Republicans could allow it to happen until after the election. So that’s why it went through in the lame duck. Seriously poor recitation of the facts on your part there. As for SSM, yeah, he’s for civil-partnerships. Which I consider too right, but nobody’s perfect. > [@](#): > > And don’t forget, it was the Democrats in California who killed gay marriage. They could have passed it with a large enough majority of Democrat voters, but they couldn’t get it - largely because black voters, who vote over 90% for Democrats, do not approve of gay marriage. Do you decry their hatred and intolerance as well? In New York in 2009, a bill legalizing gay marriage was shot down by the Democratically-controlled state government. There are prejudiced douchebags on all sides of the divide. There are just more of them on the right. > [@](#): > > So let’s not portray this as a fully partisan issue. While it’s true that opposition to gay marriage is higher on the right, it is far from being a one-party issue. It would probably be important to mention that more SSM bills would pass if the vast majority of those on the right didn’t vote against them. Some Democrats vote against it, true, but almost all Republicans do. That matters more to the results than the fraction of Dems voting no. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/93 "2011-02-21T21:25:37Z")
[Washington Post - Same-sex marriage gains GOP support](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082705614.html) > [@](#): > > A growing number of Republicans are breaking with the party’s traditional stance to publicly state their support for same-sex marriage, a shift strategists say stems as much from demographics as from the renewed focus on economics and the “tea party” movement. > > A solid majority of adults younger than 30 - about six in 10 - support the right of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, according to a Washington Post poll in February. > > But even many older Americans and self-identified social conservatives have changed their view on an issue that just six years ago galvanized voters in support of President George W. Bush’s reelection. > > … > > [Glenn] Beck, a tea party favorite, recently told fellow Fox talk show host Bill O’Reilly that gay marriage was not “a threat to the country” and that marriage is a religious, not a governmental, issue. > > A number of prominent Republicans have been more outspoken, stating that they support same-sex marriage rights. They include Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.); “The View” commentator Elizabeth Hasselbeck; former first lady Laura Bush and former vice president Dick Cheney. > > Ted Olson, solicitor general under Bush, was part of the legal team that successfully challenged Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. And this week, former Republican operative Ken Mehlman disclosed that he is gay and that he will be raising money to support Olson’s effort. > > Also at play is the rise of the libertarian-leaning tea party movement. Many of the movement’s leaders have said they oppose government intervention on marriage issues, while others say their concerns about taxation and the size of government supercede concerns over social issues. Six in ten Republicans under 30 support gay marriage. The old guard is changing [slowly]. The conservative wing of the Republican party, the old moral majority, makes up about the same percentage of voters as the ‘liberal’ wing of the Democratic party - about 15-20%. That’s not a small number, but it’s also not the whole party, or even a majority of it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/94 "2011-02-21T21:27:29Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for opposition to gay marriage and support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being ‘hatred and intolerance’, I guess you include Barack Obama in that group, huh? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/95 "2011-02-21T21:36:53Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for opposition to gay marriage and support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being ‘hatred and intolerance’, I guess you include Barack Obama in that group, huh? Yes. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And don’t forget, it was the Democrats in California who killed gay marriage. They could have passed it with a large enough majority of Democrat voters, but they couldn’t get it - largely because black voters, who vote over 90% for Democrats, do not approve of gay marriage. Do you decry their hatred and intolerance as well? Yes. How many times do conservatives on this board need to ask this “gotcha” question? The answer is the same every time. I know it’s nearly impossible for you to wrap your mind around this concept, but try: we don’t think as black and white as you do. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/96 "2011-02-21T21:50:27Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > [Washington Post - Same-sex marriage gains GOP support](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082705614.html) > > Six in ten Republicans under 30 support gay marriage. The old guard is changing [slowly]. > > The conservative wing of the Republican party, the old moral majority, makes up about the same percentage of voters as the ‘liberal’ wing of the Democratic party - about 15-20%. That’s not a small number, but it’s also not the whole party, or even a majority of it. Cheney has a personal stake - not that he doesn’t deserve credit for this stand. The big question is how many Republicans in power (who do not come from Hollywood) see the handwriting on the demographic wall and get out ahead of this issue, and how many are going to stonewall until the majority of the anti-SSM forces are dead. As for Obama, if a miracle happened and the Congress passed a law legalizing SSM, do you think he would veto it? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/97 "2011-02-21T22:03:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And don’t forget, it was the Democrats in California who killed gay marriage. They could have passed it with a large enough majority of Democrat voters, but they couldn’t get it - largely because black voters, who vote over 90% for Democrats, do not approve of gay marriage. Do you decry their hatred and intolerance as well? In New York in 2009, a bill legalizing gay marriage was shot down by the Democratically-controlled state government. Going by the figures on page 3 of [this report (pdf)](http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf) only 30% of Democrats voted for Proposition 8, compared to 81% of Republicans (and 53% of independents). 58% of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, compared to 49% of whites. I suppose you can blame the Democrats and the African-Americans if you want, on the basis that the Democrats don’t have enough of a supermajority to counter the Republicans’ opposition, but that seems disingenuous to me. In New York, the Democrats held a slim majority of the Senate, and voted in favor of marriage equality 24–8, while the Republicans voted 0–30. Three of the Democrats that voted against the bill have been replaced with Democrats who support marriage equality since then. By my calculations, the current Senate Democrats favor marriage equality 26–4, while the Republicans seem to be 0–32. There are rumors that a couple Republicans would vote in favor if the bill would pass with their votes, but I don’t know of any who have even committed to that much. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/98 "2011-02-21T22:30:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for opposition to gay marriage and support of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being ‘hatred and intolerance’, I guess you include Barack Obama in that group, huh? It’s his justice department fighting to keep DADT in place, and he has personally stated his opposition to gay marriage. You appear to be only partially informed on these positions. The Justice Department thing is about process, not results, and in point of fact, while Obama says he “personally” thinks that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” he also _opposes_ any legislation to make it illegal and that he would not support an anti-SSM Amendment. Legislatively speaking, he offers no opposition to it and he frames his personal opinion only as a personal, religious opinion (albeit a stated position that is clearly a lie) and not as a position on actual public policy. His stance is essentially analogous to politicians who say they are “personally opposed” to abortion, but still think it should be legal. It’s meaningless, political obfuscation. You should inform yourself better before you try to _tu quoque_. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/99 "2011-02-21T22:49:25Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Yes. > > Yes. > > How many times do conservatives on this board need to ask this “gotcha” question? The answer is the same every time. I know it’s nearly impossible for you to wrap your mind around this concept, but try: we don’t think as black and white as you do. That ‘gotcha’ question keeps coming up because people on this board keep accusing the right of ‘hatred and intolerance’ because of DADT and gay marriage, when in fact there are plenty of people on the right who support it, and plenty of Democrats who don’t - including the current Democrat President. So we keep pointing out that inconvenient fact. Maybe if people on the left learned to be a little more nuanced in their debates and stop throwing around blanket accusations against everyone on the right, they’d stop getting caught in these gotchas. **waterj2** : I already agreed that more Republicans oppose gay marriage than Democrats. But the point is that there are significant blocs on both sides who oppose it, therefore it’s not an issue that breaks down strictly along partisan lines. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164/100 "2011-02-21T23:13:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That ‘gotcha’ question keeps coming up because people on this board keep accusing the right of ‘hatred and intolerance’ because of DADT and gay marriage, when in fact there are plenty of people on the right who support it, and plenty of Democrats who don’t - including the current Democrat President. So we keep pointing out that inconvenient fact. > > Maybe if people on the left learned to be a little more nuanced in their debates and stop throwing around blanket accusations against everyone on the right, they’d stop getting caught in these gotchas. > > **waterj2** : I already agreed that more Republicans oppose gay marriage than Democrats. But the point is that there are significant blocs on both sides who oppose it, therefore it’s not an issue that breaks down strictly along partisan lines. It is notable that you haven’t accepted or acknowledged that you were wrong. I suspect you’ll make the same argument in the future. Is that a good thing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cpac-the-fall-of-social-conservatism/571164.md?page=6)