Over at the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin has written a thoughtful opinion piece on social conservative groups boycotting CPAC in response to GOProud's involvement. She makes a couple good points, especially when she says what better place to discuss our differences as conservatives than at one of the largest conservative gathering in the nation.

Meanwhile, Kevin McCullough from The American Family Association (AFA) has announced AFA will not join itself to the list of other social conservative organizations boycotting CPAC. McCullough made a strong statement on why AFA will attend as well as what he thinks of those Christian groups who are participating in the boycott.

Having registered for the event with Campaign For Liberty, I'm looking forward to attending CPAC in February regardless of the hoopla over who's doing what to whom in their hotel room.

And in other news, the sky is blue.

Politico is reporting that at least 88 of the 168 RNC members will not be supporting Steele's audacious bid for re-election as chairman of the RNC. This is not a surprise to anyone paying attention, though I would say Steele's decision to even attempt re-election is in itself surprising. During his announcement to run for a second term, Steele tossed out a preemptive strike against the RNC in the (likely) case he doesn't win a second term, "Who you elect as our next Chairman will speak volumes about our willingness to truly be the party of Lincoln." So in addition to showing poor leadership skills and a lack of know-how when it comes to balancing a check book, Michael Steele showed his colleagues that he will resort to the race card should they not continue to support him. Yeah, big surprise his bid for a second term looks bleak. Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, former Missouri GOP Chairwoman Ann Wagner, and Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis will be running against Steele. According to the Politico poll, Priebus is leading the pack followed by Wagner and then Anuzis.

Does Michael Steele deserve a second term or does the RNC need new leadership? Who do you think would make the best RNC Chairman?
Inspired by my sister-in-law I finally uploaded photo apps for the iPhone. We hung out at Neptune Coffee in the Greenwood neighborhood of Seattle and collaborated on a reading blog.
It is a new year but in the world of CPAC, it’s the same old same old. It seems that defending individual liberty and fiscal responsibility while also supporting a limited federal government is only considered “conservative” if you’re not a gay organization. Just like last year, when gay Republican group GOProud signed on as one of CPAC’s many sponsors, talk of boycotting the largest conservative conference was threatened from social conservatives. This year, at least two large social conservative groups have publicly announced their boycott of February’s Conservative Political Action Conference over GOPRoud’s involvement as a "participating organization.”

WorldNetDaily ran a piece stating that Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America are among other groups adding their names to the list of boycotters. The problem these conservative groups have with GOProud’s involvement is the notion that it necessarily sends the message that “moral opposition to homosexuality is no longer welcome in the conservative movement.” That sounds like a half-baked and illogical conclusion to me because I recognize that no group (political, racial or otherwise) is a monolith. What GOProud’s involvement really says is that conservative thinkers come from all walks of life and though we may disagree on how some people live their lives, they have the right to live them free of government intervention. That’s the type of conservative message I would expect from the nation’s largest conservative gathering.

I don’t deny an organization’s right to boycott any event they choose for any reason they’ve chosen but I will point out what I think is total hypocrisy of their so-called “conservative values.” Nobody forces attendees to go to specific speaking events during CPAC and nobody would force FRC or CWA to approve of, support or otherwise engage with GOProud if they chose not to. Shutting any conservative group out of a conservative convention because they fail to conform to another’s idea of what conservative is would be wrong. GOProud rarely jumps on the “homosexual agenda” bandwagon and, even more telling of the organization’s endorsements and positions, is often blasted by the gay community on the left. I don’t always agree with them but GOProud definitely has a strong record of conservatism. In fact, with regard to fiscal matters and foreign policy GOProud probably stands on the same side as FRC and CWA.

The way I see it, any conservative group boycotting a conservative conference because gay conservatives will be there is a group I can do without anyway. I'm interested in a conservative movement that is more concerned with what's going on in government rather than in another conservative's bedroom.

What do you think? Should conservative groups boycott CPAC or are they making a big deal out of nothing?