Townhall: Jonah Golberg- 'CPAC Unwise To Snub Chris Christie, Gays'

Source:The Week- Governor Chris Christie (Republican, New Jersey) too big to fit into CPAC. Or maybe there's another reason why he wasn't invited.

"What can you do with a man like Chris Christie?

The answer, according to many with the conservative movement: Throw him overboard. And while we're at it, let's toss the gays over the side too.

The popular governor of New Jersey has certainly angered many conservatives, including this humble scribe. During the crucial final days of the presidential election, Christie didn't merely embrace President Obama, he all but endorsed him." 

From Townhall 

"Seemingly everybody to the right of Jon Huntsman has been invited to speak at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference — including formerly moderate Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R). There's one name, though, that's conspicuously absent on the list of invitees: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). CPAC spokeswoman Laura Rigas says that, officially, the conference "schedule is still being finalized, with several more announcements pending over the next three weeks." But multiple news organizations are reporting that Christie won't make the list." 

From The Week

Its not often that I agree with Jonah Goldberg (to state the obvious) he's a Conservative and I'm a Liberal. But you would think that an organization that calls itself the Conservative Political Action Conference, would want one of the most popular governors in America (who also happens to be a Republican) at their annual meeting. 

Governor Chris Christie (if he doesn't eat himself to death) is also a solid possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. He's big state governor, in a deeply blue state. If he can win statewide in New Jersey and perhaps win there again in 2013, maybe he can do it again in 2016. Just throwing some thoughts out there. 

You would also think that an organization that proud's itself on being big believers in individual freedom and free choice (like CPAC) wouldn't kick people out of their organization for simply being gay. But we're talking about the modern Republican Party that still believe its 1955 and that gays and homosexuality doesn't exist anymore or is perhaps still locked in the closet. 

I'm a big believer in truth, honesty and reason, and because of those values I believe that for political labels to mean anything in America, people who self-describe to those labels should actually have to own the philosophy of those labels before I take them seriously about their self-description. 

For CPAC to call themselves Conservatives (even though neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan could win the Republican Party presidential nomination today) they actually have to be Conservatives. And kicking people out of your organization for simply being gay, even though gay Republicans are about as conservative as Republicans get fiscally, economically, and constitutionally, seems to me to be as anti-conservative that an organization can get. 

When the Republican Party whether it's CPAC or some other so-called conservative group tells minorities, Muslims, gays, women, and immigrants, that they're not welcome at their dance, simply because of who they are physically or who they're attracted too physically and not because of what their political national values are, they're no longer conserving as a political organization, but contracting. 

So maybe CPAC should stand for the Contracted Political Action Committee, or even the Confederate Political Action Committee, since they don't seem to like two of the greatest American values that we have which is pluralism and diversity.