Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention

NY Times ^ | July 12, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[Howlin]

I guess we have different standards for what constitutes a desirable candidate.

Just we do; I prefer Republicans, not Democrats, unlike you.

[Wallace T.]

Rev. Henry Comstock was a New York minister noted for his promotion of the Comstock Act, which in 1872 banned interstate commerce in obscene materials through the U.S. Mail. Several facts must be remembered about this statute. First, Congress was at the time dominated by Radical Republicans, who well exceeded Abraham Lincoln and Henry Clay, themselves strong government Whigs, in their zeal to centralize political power in Washington. As such, they were in opposition to the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian mistrust of central government. The defeat of the attempt of Southern secession eliminated the notion of limits on Federal power in the eyes of the Radical Republicans. Second, Comstock was not motivated by his concerns about public morality, but in protecting his friend, the prominent New York minister, Harry Ward Beecher, from having word of scandals involving him and his mistress spread via the mail system.

Using the U.S. Mails as a tool of censorship defied both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The U.S. Mail was authorized in that document to exist. However, its monopoly was never intended. Nor was the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution intended to be anything other than establishing a free market among the states, eliminating interstate tariffs. However, Federal power has been abused as far back as the Sedition Act of 1798. The U.S. Mail prevented the dissemination of abolitionist literature in the South before the Civil War. Seditious materials were often banned from the mails, particularly during the Civil War and the two World Wars. Today's advocates of "hate crime" laws, who include a majority of the Senate, the RINOs not excluded, would do the same thing to political and religious speech.

Comstock, though not motivated by enforcing morality but in protecting a fellow clergyman, was wrong. Those who would use Federal power to enforce personal morality are also misguided. The fact remains that those who scream the loudest against censorship on sexual matters seem to have no problem in silencing Christians and other moral people, as well as those who advocate what they deem as "hate."

[familyofman]

How many 'fiscal conservatives' will be speaking at the RNC - probably none. No one will speak about a 'Balanced Budget Ammendment' - only talk of tax cuts, and phony talk about 'spending cuts' that will never happen with the group of'porkers' in Washington now.

[Hank Rearden]

I prefer 'Rats?

You haven't read anything I've posted, have you?

[Howlin]

Yeah, I read where you won't be supporting Bush.

[tacticalogic]

Comstock, though not motivated by enforcing morality but in protecting a fellow clergyman, was wrong. Those who would use Federal power to enforce personal morality are also misguided. The fact remains that those who scream the loudest against censorship on sexual matters seem to have no problem in silencing Christians and other moral people, as well as those who advocate what they deem as "hate."

Be that as it may, wheather the calm voice of reason gets filtered out with the screaming is up to you.

[Wallace T.]

Since the 1970s, evangelical Christians have been moving away from the public school children. The home school movement, which accounts for about 2 million students, is predominantly made up of these people. Forty years ago, church-affiliated schools were mostly Catholic, with some Lutheran and Reformed private schools. At present, the number of students attending private schools with an evangelical affiliation are roughly equal to those in Catholic schools. Prominent evangelical spokesmen like James Dobson who advocated reforming the public schools a decade ago now support shunning them. The fact that a measure encouraging Southern Baptists to seek Christian education made it to the floor of the nation's largest evangelical denomination indicates the progress of the home and private school exodus.

It would appear that conservative evangelicals are trending away from attempting to influence public schools to setting up an alternative educational system.

[Howlin]

As much as he would like to be re-elected, I imagine he would get back to "clearing up some brush" in Crawford. The we will all be up Sh!t Creek with President Kerry.

Exactly. It will be interesting to watch who on this forum is happy about it.

[tacticalogic]

It would appear that conservative evangelicals are trending away from attempting to influence public schools to setting up an alternative educational system.

Aspirations of prominence in a dominant political party indicate that there are areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control.

[rwfromkansas]

None of these speakers will oppose social issues during the convention.

Also, aside from Bush....the article fails to mention Cheney will be speaking in primetime.

The platform is what matters.

That said, it would be nice to have Michael Reagan speak!!!

Bush campaign:

Phone: 703.647.2700
Fax: 703.647.2993
Email Addresses:
General Information:
BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com

[Wallace T.]

You are assuming that the liberals and leftists who would advocate "anything goes" sexually but who would suppress speech that goes against their political views are prone to the rules of logic. They tend to be postmodern in their thinking; to them logic and even language are merely tools of those they consider oppressors in repressing creativity and spontaneity and in establishing the dominance of an oppressive class. They agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Additionally, there is the issue of situational ethics, which is the predominant viewpoint among the elite. To those who hold such a viewpoint, there is a "higher value" such as love or self-preservation, that supersede other values. Thus, a liberal who supports gun control may feel no guilt in shooting a burglar because his need for self-preservation supersedes the importance of taking guns away from general circulation. Liberals and leftists also suffer from cognitive dissonance, which enables them to hold to differing opinions at different times. Take John Kerry and John Edwards as examples. One day, they can laugh at the X-rated diatribes of Whoppi Goldberg; the next day, they can pose as upright moral family oriented men.

Whether social conservatives protest immorality a lot, a little, or not at all has little to do relative to the Left's desire to thwart its opponents.

[Wallace T.]

But who doesn't have "areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control," except perhaps the Amish or hermits?

[neverdem]

How many 'fiscal conservatives' will be speaking at the RNC?

How about Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York. I'm not so sure about Arnold raisng income taxes. I'm pretty sure he went about it the indirect way approving the issuance of new bonds.

Probably all of the others have wanted to raise revenues with some sort of tax e.g. income, property, sales, excise, sin, etc. or fees, fines and tolls. In that sense of balancing a budget, they can claim to be a fiscal conservative. But cut a government spending program or pork, I think only McCain would qualify as being willing to cut pork. How sad?

[Wallace T.]

Some early advocates of sexual freedom were themselves white supremacists. Margaret Sanger, the early 20th Century birth control crusade, was an advocate of eugenics. She believed that nonwhites, along with whites from southern Europe, were genetically inferior to whites of northern European extraction. The sex researcher Alfred Kinsey excluded Jews and blacks from his staff.

Racism is far from the exclusive property of holders of traditional values.

[tacticalogic]

You are assuming that the liberals and leftists who would advocate "anything goes" sexually but who would suppress speech that goes against their political views are prone to the rules of logic.

Where did I make that assumption? The only assumption I have made is that just because they ignore the rules of logic, it does not mean that I must also.

[tacticalogic]

But who doesn't have "areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control," except perhaps the Amish or hermits?

Probably no one. Everybody wants things, it's what they're willing to do to get them that gets to be problematic.

[Wallace T.]

The "loudest screamers" to whom I referred in post #102 are the liberals and leftists, especially those associated with the news and entertainment media. They are the first to go on the warpath respective to, say, attempts to censor Howard Stern (a misuse of Federal regulatory power, BTW). It is also they, who, to cite Alec Baldwin as an example, joke about murdering men like Henry Hyde and his family. (Granted, Baldwin's rant was facetious, but it is a reflection of his deep seated hatred of his opponents. I do not believe Baldwin is an isolated example of liberals' disdain for opponents.)

[Tamzee]

I've learned that Motrin is best for post-Freeping headaches ;-)

[tacticalogic]

Okay. Now, how are those people and their tactics relevant to the issue at hand? What pupose does bringing them into the debate serve? Baldwin doesn't like what they have to say. I simply have reservations about the venue they've chosen to want to present it in.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Fantastic. What an enjoyable thread. I hope the others who responded to me are reading what you wrote as well.

I hope at least you are teaching this stuff somewhere.

Or perhaps you should (or have) at least try and get elected somewhere. Alas, your response is a bit more nuanced and well thought out than your less refined SC's are used to understanding.