United Liberty

While some conservative bloggers have tried to make a case for libertarians voting for Mitt Romney, they haven’t really been able to connect because they fail to understand where we’re coming from in our perspective on politics and public policy. However, Liz Mair, a libertarian who works as a political consultant and strategist, explains that she is voting for Romney, despite reservations about some of his policies:

As the controversy over GOProud’s inclusion as a sponsor of CPAC in 2011 continues to simmer, a couple of Republican-leaning bloggers are defending both the gay conservative organization and CPAC.

Liz Mair explains that while Democrats are often labeled as the home for gay voters, they are not entirely at home:

Let’s start with President Obama, the leader of the Democratic Party, since he’s the figure most in the public eye.  What’s that you say?  Obama is opposed to gay marriage?

Yes, it’s true.  Obama is opposed to gay marriage, though he has mentioned that his views on the matter may evolve over time.  He’s also in favor of civil unions.  You know who else held that position—pro-civil unions, anti-gay marriage?  George W. Bush.  Bush, as we all know, is a Republican.  Members of his party did things like voted for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.  But you know who else did?  Probably at least a few Obama voters.  Obama won California in 2008 with about 61 percent of the vote.  Prop 8 passed with about 52 percent of the vote.  Do the math; it can’t possibly have been McCain voters who put Prop 8 over the top, it was Democrats (or at least people who voted for the Democrat), and in a very liberal state, at that.

While we’re performing this little exercise, let’s take a look at the votes in the Senate and House on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the initiative to ban gay marriage nationwide, which was (admittedly) initiated by Republican Members of Congress.

A group of conservatives have written an open letter expressing their support for CPAC, which I’ve posted in its entirety below, in light of a nonsensical controversy due to the involvement of GOProud, an organization representing GLTB conservatives that also has several prominent conservatives serving an advisory role, that has caused several socially conservative organizations to boycott:

Dear Conservatives:

In a few weeks, thousands of us will gather in Washington, DC, for CPAC. For three days, friendships will be rekindled, and new ones formed. Strategies will be developed.

It is a cliché that the Conservative Movement is a “Big Tent.” Well, clichés are sometimes true. Our movement is filled with people who have their individual approaches to improving our country. Economic conservatives want to cut taxes, national security conservatives want to maintain a top-notch military, and social conservatives want to strengthen America’s moral roots. All make valuable contributions.

This conservative coalition guided the nation through the tough economic times of the 1970s and early 1980s and into the prosperity of the 1990s and early 2000s. We gave America her backbone, enabling her to win the Cold War. The fusion of economic, national security, and social conservatism has proven successful.

We are never going to agree on everything. Our Conservative movement is too messy for that to happen. We leave the lock-step thinking to the Left.

Some social conservative groups have decided to skip CPAC because GOProud is one of over 90 participating organizations at the conference. This is disappointing. In our broad conservative coalition we need each other to defeat the Left.

Just a few weeks after voting to extend a self-imposed moratorium on earmarks, some so-called conservatives are looking for away around the ban, fretting that their pet projects will now be put at risk:

[S]ome Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think “Bridge to Nowhere” — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of “earmark.”

“It’s like what beauty is,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “Everyone knows what a bridge to nowhere is, or an airport that lands no airplanes, or a statue to you — everyone knows that’s bad. It’s easy to say what an earmark isn’t, rather than what an earmark is.”

The issue has popped up most frequently at the Conservative Opportunity Society, the caucus founded by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in the early 1980s. During their Wednesday morning meeting last week, caucus members had a long discussion about how the Republican Party could redefine “member-directed spending,” as earmarks are formally called on the Hill.

Conservatives like Roe, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Iowa Rep. Steve King are among those trying to figure out a longer-term, sustainable way to get money back to projects in their districts.

“This isn’t trying to be too cute by half of what is an earmark and what isn’t,” Bachmann told POLITICO on Wednesday. “But we have to address the issue of how are we going to fund transportation projects across the country?”

Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) took to Twitter to put out the obvious hypocrisy of his colleagues: