Posted on 07/08/2004 1:10:40 PM PDT by Polycarp IV
Log Cabin Republicans Happy With GOP Convention Speaker Line Up
The homosexual group known as Log Cabin Republicans praised the Republican national convention for its choice of “inclusive, big-tent Republicans to speak in prime time at the convention in New York City,” reports the June 30 issue of the Advocate.com, a self-described award-winning national gay and lesbian newsmagazine web site.
“The speakers include former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and New York Governor George Pataki.”
“These speakers represent the future of the Republican Party,” said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “These Republicans are among the leading voices for inclusion in the GOP.”
McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and Pataki have all been critical of what they call the “anti-gay” Federal Marriage Amendment. Each of these Republicans has a track record of running winning “inclusive” campaigns and of support for many issues critical to the gay and lesbian community, according to the Advocate.
Giuliani, Schwarzenegger and Pataki are ardently pro-abortion as well, as is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee Lew Eisenberg, all of whom are playing a major role in financing and organizing the Convention.
Reagan conservatives are, so far, not to be found among those who will present their views to the nation in prime time during the convention. A few pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage conservatives, who, after all, represent those of us who are the stakes that hold up the “big tent,” will probably be featured during the morning hours of the Convention, when the rest of the American people are busy with their daily duties and not watching television.
This sorry state of affairs prompted Kate O’Beirne, Washington editor of National Review, to point out in her 7/7/04 column, (http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200407070839.asp) that the only announced Convention speaker who actually agrees with President Bush on major issues is a Democrat – Senator Zell Miller of Georgia!
“When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party’s Convention is a Democrat, the GOP has a serious identity problem.”
“Given the political ambitions of some of the speakers, the party faithful should pray that Rockefeller Republicanism is not back in the future.” [Is that an echo we hear?]
In my opinion, the Christian right is critical to Republican victories in most locations, and certainly in national elections. But they are not reliable voters because they'll refuse to vote for a candidate that differs with them on an important social issue or religious issue, even if that candidate is far superior to the alternative on every other issue. And that costs conservatives elections.
It's too bad, because some of those issues, like abortion, are really not within the candidate's control, no matter what his or her position might be.
The Christian right is not exactly a swing voter in the traditional sense, but they swing between voting and not voting. There's not a counterpart to that in the Democrat party.
I don't think it's a positive social value, either, but I don't think the GOP should adopt a plank advocating the eradication of every homosexual in this country.
Answer this: Can a gay be a conservative and want to vote for Republican candidates?
Uh....Okay.
I'll bet most Catholics aren't nuts about you either.
What universe do you live in? There is nothing sweet tempered about the Rockefeller Republicans. They have been squealing like nasty stuck pigs for the 20 years I have been watching, and mostly sticking it to the conservatives and Republicans by voting with the dems over and over again to show how well they get along. How many tax increases have they helped to give us????
The main stream is the moral conservatives, look at how many more get elected than the Rockefeller Republicans of the north. What a joke, I have always found the rino's to be the ones with the nastiest arrogant attitudes, not the most conservative members of the Republican party.
Oh the Reagan republicans were not to be placated because they actually had some principle??? Good for them!
Rolling eyes! Would not want to be around a Christian or Jew who was praying...OOOOh how scary. What a joke.
Tell me are you from one of those gay web sites who are trying to infiltrate Freerepublic. What a waste of a brain.
Duh....
and while they changed their names, they brought much of their "democrat" ways with them, and we have been trying as sweetly as possible to break their old bad habits.
Uh no, Reagan was an economic conservative as well as a moral one.
Wow, how sad for you that we actually have moral, economic conservative Republicans and liberal (economic and moral), wishy washy Rockefeller Republicans.
"People have drug addicts, alcoholics and kleptomaniacs in their families too. Being related to someone with a mental illness or criminal or sick procilivity doesn't render said illness or proclivity harmless or cute."
Now see, there you go again, judging people on the basis of the way G_d made them!!
Don't you have any junkies, drunks or crazy people in your family??
Ed
No, Republican economic conservative Judeo/Christian moral voter....Priciple matters over name. The party can leave me but my priciples will remain firm or the party can remain firm. It is free to make that choice and leave but my priciples remain.
There is a huge part of the Republican party voter, that principles matter, unlike the democrat party voter that will shift with the political winds.
Right...
And since chimpanzees and humans are both primates, we assume no difference there either.
Uh, the Republican has been pro-family, pro-life conservative economic for all the years I have been voting. So when the liberals try a take over of the party, dang straight there will be some talking. Nor will the conservative "fall in line" with what is becoming the new democrat party.
If you really are the new face of the Republican party we can all say Loser for decades to come. The dem party thanks you!
You might want to retake a look at what makes up the base. You are the one selling something.
And if I refuse to vote because some of the candidates and some of the voters share different views from mine, then I'm shooting myself in the foot because I'm helping make sure that a candidate I detest gets to make laws and public policy decisions.
Why thank you so much, being dyslexic, and long nails, sometimes things like that slip through. Rolling eyes.
Depends on which way the wind is blowing -- OR poll results from the LA Times.
You and I might understand that, but from what I have watched, those candidates that are pro-choice never stick with even the conservative economic platform either. They have proven over an over again that they are no better than letting the dem win when it comes to big votes. Maybe even worse because replacing a Republican with an other Republican is impossible.
I think in a way they have proved to the very strict pro-life Republican that they are right to sit home. But having said that there are more pro-life Republicans that will go vote just to tow the party line, but then there are just enough strict Pro-life Republicans out there that will throw that election by sitting home. They all make up the moral right.
"My age is irrelevant, as is yours. The "struggle" only began when the "Reagan Republicans" decided that they didn't like the Republican Party the way they found it and have been trying to change it ever since."
Wow...where to begin.
There are just so many things wrong with this post that it's almost impossible to address them!
But, trill (I assume that's a reference to your shrill, patronizing denucnciations of conservatives?)...the conservative vs. liberal battles started WAY before Reagan.
Taft/Ike, Goldwater/Rockefeller, Ford/Reagan, for most of the last century it has been thus.
And ya' know what, the liberals were ALWAYS the interlopers...witness Bloomberg, who was a DEMOCRAT before the primary, and switched only because that was how he could win.
Aahh, what's the use?!
There's just so much disinformation here in your pompous pandering...the only thing you can be said to have gotten correct is the fact that people use "loose" when they should be using "lose," although I've come to wonder if that isn't a deliberate affectation, like "lusers," "series" and "hugh."
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.