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?]
"LIFE comes first. Its not "single issue," its the FOUNDATIONAL issue upon which all other rights rest.
If the politician can't get it right on basic human rights, they won't get it right on much of anything. I won't vote for them. Period. Regardless of their party."
Amen, Poly!
Ed
I realize the GOP isn't monochromatic, but what bugs me is the Party's tacit embarrassment with the conservative wing reflected in the asymmetry of it's speaker line-up.
Where/who are the conservative speaker(s)??
The GOP's entire message, and obvious demotion of its traditional base is totally unacceptable to those of us who are true conservatives.
We may vote Dubya in '04, but in '08 and thereafter the Republican Party will find itself in a far more contentious situation than they could ever imagine.
Is Barbara the one, or one of the ones, always pushing for that?
Yes, and I cant stop it. But I do prefer to win without their Trojan Horse and dont believe we need them to win.
Provided we get all our votes counted this time.
I would go so far as to say we would gain enough conservative votes by shunning LCRs to cancel theirs out.
I would expect some pro-illegal alien speakers as well. The rest of the lineup doesn't surprise me at all. Conservatism is functionally dead in the GOP.
At this rate a third party can't come soon enough.
bump
So what do you do if your choices are between a pro-abortion Republican and a pro-abortion Democrat? (Make it more fun & assume the Libertarian candidate is pro-abortion too.) Do you just not vote?
So her views on abortion don't matter. Yet there are conservatives in Texas who won't vote for her because of her views on something they consider critical.
It's only critical if it matters, and if her/his opponent holds the opposite view and every other facet of their political philosophy balances out. The religious right often tends to view a particular social issue as raising a veto flag about voting for a particular candidate, regardless of what the consequences of that candidate losing will mean, and regardless of whether that candidate could really affect that social issue in the first place.
They are not right to stay home, but apparently many of them are dumb enough to do it.
The queers are happy, the pro-aborts are happy, the "economic conservative, but socially liberal" crowd is happy, the RNC is cool with this and one has to assume that the President is too. Me, I wouldn't go if you gave me the air fare and a five star hotel room. I hope I can force myself to vote this November because I KNOW John Kerry support gun grabbers, baby killers and queers. Does President Bush also? (The lineup includes gun grabbers, baby killers and is supported by the queers and no doubt the queer children of the GOP will be there and spotlighted as well.)
Taft/Ike, Goldwater/Rockefeller, Ford/Reagan,
Cain/Abel, Eve/Adam, St Michael the Archangel/Lucifer...
"So what do you do if your choices are between a pro-abortion Republican and a pro-abortion Democrat? (Make it more fun & assume the Libertarian candidate is pro-abortion too.) Do you just not vote?"
My opinion? You don't vote. Kay Hutchison's vote this week against the Judge is why. You can NEVER trust a babykiller, ever. You may THINK you can, but they are warped.
That's a fair question, and certainly the prime time speakers were not chosen with pandering to the right wing of the party. I wasn't too pleased with the lineup, but I think I see the strategery. In a perceived close election, you have to win the mushy middle. Giving McCain a slot, where he endorses Bush, is critical. Same with Ahnuld and the others. This convention has been orchestrated to appeal to the non-political Americans, the ones who will determine the outcome.
We conservatives are on board, but we wanted some red meat thrown at us. We didn't get something equivalent to Sean Hannity. The planners are taking us for granted, and they're probably right. None of us can allow John Kerry to become President even if we feel like we're being ignored.
The convention is nothing more than a big campaign commercial in slow motion. It's trying to appeal to the consumer who feels he has a choice.
"None of us can allow John Kerry to become President even if we feel like we're being ignored."
True.
"The planners are taking us for granted, and they're probably right."
Maybe. They may be doing more than taking us for granted, they may be taking us for a ride. Has the Bush administration reversed "Don't ask, don't tell"? Are women still being used in close combat support? Are abortions still being done without let or hinderance? Are conservative judges being FOUGHT for? We may be being played as patsies while babykillers like the lineup at the convention get RICH 'representing' us.
as compared to gay marriage? no way. who cares if gays want to enter into wills, estates, health care proxy rights, rights as tenants, etc. I don't. gay marriage would be alot more pervasive then that on the culture.
So her views on abortion don't matter. Yet there are conservatives in Texas who won't vote for her because of her views on something they consider critical.
You couldn't be more wrong! They DO matter:
*** SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ALERT ***
Will Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison "Bork" Bush Judicial Appointee?
A vote is expected soon in the United States Senate on the confirmation of J. Leon Holmes to a seat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas.
According to a November 3, 2003 report in The Hill, a newspaper that reports on political happenings on Capitol Hill, "at least four centrist Republicans expressed doubts about Holmes, based on statements culled from some of his writings." The four are: Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (ME), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX).
All four of the Senators listed above are pro-abortion. J. Leon Holmes is pro-life. That's the number one reason they might vote against President Bush's judicial nominee.
Mr. Holmes is also a devout Catholic whose "writings" include an article he co-authored with his wife Susan about the Christian role of men and women, husbands and wives, based entirely on the New Testament and published in the Holmes's church newspaper.
With all the difficulty we are having with activist judges and Daschle obstructionism, it is shocking that any Republican Senator would consider voting against a nominee because he is pro-life and because he wrote a Christian article for his church newspaper that the feminists don't agree with. That's religious bigotry!
We are told that Senator Hutchison's office is taking a tally of phone calls regarding this appointment. They are counting those who ask her to vote to confirm Holmes and those who ask her to vote against him.
You see, Senator Hutchison is widely rumored to be seriously considering returning to Texas in 2006 to run for Governor in the Republican Primary against sitting Governor Rick Perry, who, while not perfect on the life issues, is a far sight better than she. Senator Hutchison is pro-abortion until viability and most Texans don't like that.
Senator Hutchison's vote on J. Leon Holmes' confirmation will be duly noted in Texas.
Please pick up the phone right away and call Senator Hutchison's office to add your request to the tally — you want her to vote YES on confirming J. Leon Holmes to the federal bench in Arkansas.
Calls should be placed from everywhere in the nation — especially Texas!
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison — Phone: 202/224-5922; Fax: 202/224-0776
You're right, we got nothing. Nada. Not even a bone.
"...The planners are taking us for granted, and they're probably right. None of us can allow John Kerry to become President even if we feel like we're being ignored."
Now this is where I feel the message sent is ANY conservative is too embarrassing to showcase -- like bums who the politicians like to "hide" or flush out near Conventions.
If we're THAT embarrassing to the GOP and threat to those in the "mushy middle," then so too are the "issues" that are important to us.
"You couldn't be more wrong! They DO matter:"
They do. Please think about this, your Senator is willing to defend the MURDER of babies. That's all. Just that one flaw. Get inside of the mind of someone who will agree that killing a baby is OK. Then RUN, They are unstable. Their conscience is malformed. They cannot be trusted, ever.
Ride in the back of the bus. Vote, work for us (including the gun grabbing, baby killing queers) and then SHUT UP.
I have NEVER seen a criticism from conservatives of a single judge he has nominated while President. Not one.
If you want to look for reasons not to vote for Bush, I'm sure you can find them. You can do that for any decision you make.
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.