Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis’ chief communications director is Sean Duffy. A former deputy chief-of-staff for Gov. Bill Owens, Duffy supported the same-sex “domestic partnership” referendum on the 2006 ballot.
A December 2006 article in National Review claimed that Duffy was hired for the referendum effort by Tim Gill, Colorado’s wealthy homosexual activist who with Jared Polis and others has tried to buy up the state.
Regardless of Gill’s exact role in appointing him, there is no question Duffy served as executive director for Coloradans for Fairness and Equality.
Duffy also attacked the 2006 Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Janet Rowland, as “a clearly homophobic choice” when she ridiculed the idea of same-sex “marriage” by asking whether a man should be allowed to marry a sheep.
He appears to have been motivated by loyalty to his homosexual sister, so the issue is personal for him.
A Gill ally, whatever his competence and personal character, really shouldn’t be the media face for a potential GOP governor. After all, Gill told the DNC that the GOP is “full of bigots” who should be driven from power.
What Colorado Republican should overlook a highly placed staffer with the opinions of a CU-Boulder diversity trainer?
Rocky Mountain Right has noted the same problem with Duffy.
As for McInnis himself, he spoke to KHOW’s Caplis & Silverman last year about some of his positions.
Asked about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for which he had voted as a Congressman, McInnis responded with both a commitment and a non-commitment:
“I oppose gay marriage, [I’m] very clear about that. Civil unions, that’s not a big issue. Gay marriage is a big issue.”
It’s increasingly apparent that civil unions are intended to shift the debate and depict conservatives, or even 1990s liberals, as extremists for opposing them. Unprincipled but well-meaning moderates think the push will stop there, but the legal unions just create another foothold for the cultural left to suppress opposition to itself.
McInnis isn’t going to prove much of an adversary to Gill and company.
Indeed, Duffy’s placement in the Owens administration and the McInnis campaign suggests that Gill’s cohort already has a significant foothold. Seen in this light, accusations of Republican bigotry look like mere political theater.
Republican activists show little seriousness about moral conservatism in their personal lives and their philosophies. Their public appeals to it are opportunistic and shallow. What better way for Gill to advance his agenda than through the pretense that these are the people standing in the way of his vision?
Depict those who are unlikely to reverse your agenda as your most formidable opponents. Convince your real opposition to rally around compromised and wavering leaders. After a few small skirmishes, for appearance’s sake, take control of the field and accept the phony general’s surrender.
There seem few obvious ways to counter this phenomenon, if it is indeed what is happening. But skepticism towards a compromised leadership should be a start.
Update:
These concerns would be made redundant if McInnis doesn't win the GOP nomination. McInnis opponent Dan Maes won the majority of votes at the state assembly, a surprise only to those who have not observed McInnis' cool reception among party regulars.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
U.S. govt. commits $2 million to back Kenya constitution permitting abortion and Islamic courts
The U.S. government's attempts to promote abortion are well known enough. The Cairo conference, population control efforts, and Mexico City Policy
Less known are the U.S. government's efforts to promote Islam, such as its ensuring that Islam was recognized in the Iraqi constitution.
And now the Obama administration has combined the two efforts, in the president's ancestral homeland no less.
The proposed Kenyan constitution would both broaden the cases in which abortion is permitted and would establish state-funded Islamic Kadhi Courts as part of the judiciary, Catholic News Agency says.
The U.S. government has pledged $2 million to promote the proposed constitution, which will be voted on in an upcoming referendum.
Some U.S. Congressmen have charged that this violates the Siljander Amendment, which prohibits lobbying for or against abortion using the funds made available in the appropirations act for the State Department and Foreign Operations.
While these congressmen have called for a federal probe to establish whether laws were violated, it appears not to have much traction yet.
The double standard is so common it is cliched to point it out: a U.S. effort to promote Christianity or pro-life clauses in a foreign country's constitution would not be tolerated by the chattering class or the State Department bureaucracy.
For those of us who still believe America is a good country, it is increasingly difficult to imagine that we are still a force for good.
Less known are the U.S. government's efforts to promote Islam, such as its ensuring that Islam was recognized in the Iraqi constitution.
And now the Obama administration has combined the two efforts, in the president's ancestral homeland no less.
The proposed Kenyan constitution would both broaden the cases in which abortion is permitted and would establish state-funded Islamic Kadhi Courts as part of the judiciary, Catholic News Agency says.
The U.S. government has pledged $2 million to promote the proposed constitution, which will be voted on in an upcoming referendum.
Some U.S. Congressmen have charged that this violates the Siljander Amendment, which prohibits lobbying for or against abortion using the funds made available in the appropirations act for the State Department and Foreign Operations.
While these congressmen have called for a federal probe to establish whether laws were violated, it appears not to have much traction yet.
The double standard is so common it is cliched to point it out: a U.S. effort to promote Christianity or pro-life clauses in a foreign country's constitution would not be tolerated by the chattering class or the State Department bureaucracy.
For those of us who still believe America is a good country, it is increasingly difficult to imagine that we are still a force for good.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Is Beauprez endorsement of Lang Sias rooted in Ryan Frazier's social conservative problem?
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez's endorsement of retired Navy officer Lang Sias has perplexed Ben DeGrow of the People's Press Collective, who supports Ryan Frazier as the GOP candidate for CD-7.
In his comments, DeGrow sees the endorsement as a sign of Beauprez's dwindling relevance. In my view, he wrongly interprets the former Congressman's praise for Sias as an attack on Frazier. It could more easily be read as an attack on Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, if indeed it is an attack at all.
However, on the matter of Beauprez's motivation, there is significant chatter among social conservatives about Frazier's credentials, or lack thereof. Some potential donors have even shied away from the candidate.
One of my sources, a sober social conservative who judges his words carefully, has written that the candidate is "definitely not pro-life and pro-family," quoting Westword:
My source spoke with Frazier and mentioned the Westword article to him. The candidate "bristled" when questioned, but he confirmed that it was "substantially true."
A candidate questionnaire from Frazier would appear to contradict this evidence. There, Frazier wrote "I am pro-life, from conception until natural death. I believe that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. In fact, protecting life is a paramount duty of any lawful government... Every life should be allowed to come into this world."
However, my source plainly recalled that Frazier repeated the boilerplate "rape and incest" exceptions when explaining his position. He was caught short when challenged with the consistent pro-life position, as if he had never heard it before. So there too are ambiguities.
Many would tolerate his unclear "struggle" with legal protections for the unborn were he just a friend, but they will not tolerate that in a candidate.
Furthermore, Frazier's support for same-sex couple benefits represents a novel expansion of government power and a surrender to cultural leftism. Too many Colorado Republicans whine about Tim Gill, but then turn around and support the advancement of Gill's most cherished policies.
It is possible these grave betrayals of conservative principle are a factor driving Beauprez's endorsement, even though they go unmentioned in his letter. He is a former Catholic youth minister, after all.
DeGrow's comments include a standard appeal to the Future, saying the Beauprez endorsement "comes across more as a leading figure of the Colorado GOP’s stodgy Old Guard missing the boat on the enthusiasm and energy behind the fiscally conservative, pro-liberty 'New Way Forward' embodied in Frazier’s campaign."
These are typical PPC talking points, which (like the Frazier campaign website's issue section) lack a shout out to social conservatism.
Republican activists in the Denver area have shown themselves to be tone-deaf about SoCon concerns, to the point where a Denver Metro Young Republicans' meeting venue is a hamburger diner with homosexual camp themes. This suggests political incompetence and anti-conservative hostility as well as questionable principles, a point I have tried to drive home to them.
Social conservatives more often have familial, civic and religious duties. Thus they are generally underrepresented in the libertarian-skewed political debate.
If the Frazier campaign stalls on their issues, he won't stop the chatter and he won't attract their votes in the general election. His supporters can argue that Perlmutter's positions are more repellent, but that's not an argument that can sustain enthusiasm.
Twitter: @bobbeauprez @LangSias @RyanFrazier2010 @peoplespress @kevinjjones
In his comments, DeGrow sees the endorsement as a sign of Beauprez's dwindling relevance. In my view, he wrongly interprets the former Congressman's praise for Sias as an attack on Frazier. It could more easily be read as an attack on Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, if indeed it is an attack at all.
However, on the matter of Beauprez's motivation, there is significant chatter among social conservatives about Frazier's credentials, or lack thereof. Some potential donors have even shied away from the candidate.
One of my sources, a sober social conservative who judges his words carefully, has written that the candidate is "definitely not pro-life and pro-family," quoting Westword:
"[Frazier's] markedly liberal stance on social issues is likely to put off his party's conservative Christian base. While he's not necessarily pro-choice, he noted that 'I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there.' He's also been very public in his support of benefits for same-sex couples."
My source spoke with Frazier and mentioned the Westword article to him. The candidate "bristled" when questioned, but he confirmed that it was "substantially true."
A candidate questionnaire from Frazier would appear to contradict this evidence. There, Frazier wrote "I am pro-life, from conception until natural death. I believe that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. In fact, protecting life is a paramount duty of any lawful government... Every life should be allowed to come into this world."
However, my source plainly recalled that Frazier repeated the boilerplate "rape and incest" exceptions when explaining his position. He was caught short when challenged with the consistent pro-life position, as if he had never heard it before. So there too are ambiguities.
Many would tolerate his unclear "struggle" with legal protections for the unborn were he just a friend, but they will not tolerate that in a candidate.
Furthermore, Frazier's support for same-sex couple benefits represents a novel expansion of government power and a surrender to cultural leftism. Too many Colorado Republicans whine about Tim Gill, but then turn around and support the advancement of Gill's most cherished policies.
It is possible these grave betrayals of conservative principle are a factor driving Beauprez's endorsement, even though they go unmentioned in his letter. He is a former Catholic youth minister, after all.
DeGrow's comments include a standard appeal to the Future, saying the Beauprez endorsement "comes across more as a leading figure of the Colorado GOP’s stodgy Old Guard missing the boat on the enthusiasm and energy behind the fiscally conservative, pro-liberty 'New Way Forward' embodied in Frazier’s campaign."
These are typical PPC talking points, which (like the Frazier campaign website's issue section) lack a shout out to social conservatism.
Republican activists in the Denver area have shown themselves to be tone-deaf about SoCon concerns, to the point where a Denver Metro Young Republicans' meeting venue is a hamburger diner with homosexual camp themes. This suggests political incompetence and anti-conservative hostility as well as questionable principles, a point I have tried to drive home to them.
Social conservatives more often have familial, civic and religious duties. Thus they are generally underrepresented in the libertarian-skewed political debate.
If the Frazier campaign stalls on their issues, he won't stop the chatter and he won't attract their votes in the general election. His supporters can argue that Perlmutter's positions are more repellent, but that's not an argument that can sustain enthusiasm.
Twitter: @bobbeauprez @LangSias @RyanFrazier2010 @peoplespress @kevinjjones
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)