First things first. I think this is an important topic to delve into. I would much prefer to have a country full of young Ron Pauls and Young Justin Amashes than I would a band of mindless Karl Roves and John Boehners and John McCains. I figure a college age libertarian leaning voter seeking the truth is a lot more likely to find that truth than is a go-along voter willing to vote for anyone simply because they were endorsed by the party of Lindsay Graham.
I am not an "establishment Republican". I stopped calling myself a Republican years ago--I'd say somewhere in the middle of George W. (stands for "where is that blasted veto pen Karl?") Bush's reign. I am the conservative guy who wants to take back the GOP from the establishment which, it turns out, appears to be a wasted effort. It is, after all, the establishment GOP that has compromised and compassioned this country into a position of bankruptcy for no other reason than its desire to be champagne sipping members of a perpetual ruling class.
The truth that you are not standing up for is this:
My concern is not that Mr. Agema's words constituted bigotry per se, but rather they could easily be seen as bigotry, which I think could have been handled differently.
The letter you signed did not appeal to the intent of Agema's words but rather allowed others to inaccurately interpret the words and then you jumped on with both feet. Overreaching government control is indeed what they are seeking and their most effective tool in reaching that end is their control of the debate.
The GOP and conservatives do not hate gays--we'll leave that cause to reliably Democrat constituencies such as the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK.
Conservatives have learned the hard way on this--we cannot sufficiently clarify our positions well enough for the left not to bastardize the intent. Ask Bill Bennett or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. When we hobble ourselves in any debate in order to appease the other side's sensibilities we are playing by their rules at the outset. WE WILL NOT WIN IF WE DO THIS!
Eric Holder has chastised this country for its unwillingness to have a conversation on race. Then, if conservatives are not sufficiently cowed into being lectured on race, they are "racist" if they are whites, and "inauthentic" if they are blacks. End of story. The left does not want a conversation on anything--they want you to shut up, agree with them, be lectured and, by the way, you're gonna love this legislation!
Here is where we are. Wanting to shore up our borders means we hate Hispanics. Wanting to pare back welfare and using the term "urban" in conversation means we are racist. Believing that marriage as a social construct has always been defined as a man and a woman makes us homophobes. Any effort to get in the way of climate change buffoonery means we hate the planet and the children. And the Catholics. I probably shouldn't go there...I do hate Catholics. (Hah! Levity in a comment on language...priceless.)
Let the left make their false statements about our intent and then we must attack them for their fabrications. They are going to lie--its what they do. It is chapter one in their play book. They attack Agema for his hatefulness and bigotry, something that I now see that you seem to disagree with, and then in the form of your signature, you seem to attack him for his hatefulness and bigotry. This is playing by their rules and they have enough people on their side pulling the strings.
I appreciate your passion for the conservative cause. Many years ago I was young too and had that same passion. Now mostly I have gas.
Parent
