A Quote by Andrew Breitbart

I don't understand if the conservative movement says you can't be gay and conservative, and I'm straight, then I don't think I can abide by that form of conservatism.
Who is the conservative movement, where is it located, and who runs it, and who's in charge of it? They can't even agree within the conservative movement who is a conservative and who isn't.
I go wading into the fire fit, but the conservative movement - jeez. Look at Milo [Yiannopoulos]. He's in his twenties. He's flamboyantly gay. We're nowhere near the conservative movement here. Ideologically he's pure. Ideologically he's brave, he's right down the line.
Movement Conservatism was a fringe force from the 1950s until the 1980s, when voters elected Movement Conservative Ronald Reagan to the White House. But even then, their control of the Republican Party was not a given.
I put my conservatism up against anyone. I'm a pretty staunch conservative, with pretty rabid ideas about conservative values... Questioning my conservatism doesn't seem like a particularly interesting project or exercise.
I was elected to solve problems, and I don't think it's conservative to have bad roads; I don't think it's conservative to have bad schools. I don't think it's conservative to have to go through budget crises every two years. So I'm taking the difficult issues straight on. That's what I was elected to do.
In Hollywood especially, if you're gay and conservative, it's worse to be a conservative in the gay community than it is to be a conservative in Hollywood.
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?
If you go to the right conservative places you'll find there's a huge argument about this among conservatives, particularly the conservative elites and the conservative intellectuals. There's always an argument among our people over who's the smartest person in the room and they're always trying to outsmart each other with the fanciest smartest most obscure argument. The fact is these arguments are taking place within the conservative movement I think quite a lot.
If we're going to win in 2016, we need a consistent conservative: someone who has been a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a national security conservative.
In no way, shape, manner, or form could the conservative movement or a conservative, a Burkean conservative could never, ever vote for some low-life like Donald Trump. It might affect their fundraising, which they need. It might affect their cruises, which they need. There could be any number of reasons for it, but in their minds it's rooted in principle.
Ronald Reagan leaves in 1989, and that's when coincidentally I show up, and that's when all these internecine wars within the conservative movement, and then William F. Buckley died. That's when all these intramural, internecine wars began for primacy, dominance, smartest guy-in-the-room competitions began in the conservative movement.
We really got a lot of very conservative gay people. You could look at the figures from the last election and realize that a third of the gay movement voted Republican.
I have no question that Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement.
Conservatism has always been about reforming government and solving problems, and that's why the conservative movement should lead on immigration reform.
I was never a very convincing social conservative, and always avoided associating myself with that part of the broader conservative movement.
I would note that the scripture tells us, "you shall know them by their fruit." We see lots of "campaign conservatives." But if we're going to win in 2016, we need a consistent conservative, someone who has been a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, a national security conservative.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!