Posted on 07/12/2004 12:05:47 AM PDT by neverdem
THE REPUBLICANS
Some prominent conservatives say they are upset at the apparent exclusion of the champions of their favorite issues from the limelight of the Republican convention in favor of more moderate members of the party.
Conservatives said they were surprised to see former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator John McCain of Arizona - all moderate Republicans who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage - given high-profile roles at the convention, with few conservative Republicans on the list.
"I hate to say it, but the conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the president," warned Paul Weyrich, the longtime Christian conservative organizer, in an e-mail newsletter on Friday. "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."
Pleasing both moderates and conservatives at the convention has been a challenge for the Republican Party in recent elections. In 1992, after a bruising primary battle over social conservative issues, the party gave the outspoken traditionalists like Patrick J. Buchanan a major share of convention airtime. Many strategists later argued that their battle cries of a culture war over abortion, gay rights and feminism contributed to the defeat of the first President George Bush by driving away moderate voters.
Seizing on that lesson, George W. Bush was nominated in 2000 at a strikingly different convention dominated by images of inclusion and his calls for "compassionate conservatism," with little discussion of abortion or other priorities of social conservatives.
Prime airtime is particularly precious this year because the networks have said that they plan to limit their hours of coverage of the conventions. And at the Republican event in New York City - Aug. 30 to Sept. 2 - the Bush campaign appears to be following the template used in 2000.
The speakers' roster makes room for many moderate Republicans, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, as well as Education Secretary Rod Paige, Laura Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney. But conservatives have noted with alarm that so far, aside from Mr. Bush, the only like-minded social conservative with a featured speaking role is Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia.
"When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party's convention is a Democrat, the G.O.P. has a serious identity problem," Kate O'Beirne, the Washington editor of the conservative National Review, wrote in a column posted on its Web site last Wednesday. The list, she wrote, "is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment," adding, "if the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not."
Yesterday, Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The Republican Party is a national party, and the convention lineup will reflect the broad national appeal of the Republican Party. When the speaker lineup is complete, it will reflect that."
This year, Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, has emphasized the importance of turning out conservative churchgoers whose votes fell four million short of his projections in 2000. Bush campaign pollsters have concluded that frequent churchgoers are likely to vote disproportionately Republican and made them a major target of voter registration efforts.
And as the Democratic campaign of Senator John Kerry has tried to reclaim "values" rhetoric over the last week, Mr. Bush has turned up his own talk of opposition to abortion and especially same-sex marriage. He devoted his radio address on Saturday to supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is scheduled for a vote in the Senate this week.
"We had been assured months ago that as this vote happened the president would take an active role - both publicly and on Capitol Hill," said Gary L. Bauer, a social conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and the founder of the organization American Values. "So they are keeping their word and my hat goes off to them for that."
But Mr. Bauer added, "If they are going to win the values debate - and it looks like there is going to be one - it is important for the president's words to be reinforced by other major personalities at the convention." He said social conservatives were continuing to push for greater representation at the convention, as well as for Mr. Bush to take up abortion, same-sex marriage and similar issues prominently in his own address at the convention.
Some Christian conservatives were already feeling sensitive to perceived slights from the Bush campaign, in part because of how hard it is pushing for their help in turning out voters. Some had already reacted badly to reports of the Bush campaign's efforts to recruit churchgoers to help turn out their fellow worshipers, including by sending the campaign their church registries and by speaking about the election to church groups.
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement saying, "I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way."
He added, "I am fearful that it may provoke a backlash in which pastors will tell their churches that because of this intrusion the church is not going to do any voter registration or voter education."
The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, said that many conservative Christians felt the Bush campaign had made mistakes, including its outreach to churches and the omission of more social conservatives from the convention so far. "This campaign has done some dumb things," he said. "They have alienated people who they desperately need, big time."
Mr. Schmidt, the spokesman for the Bush campaign, said that polls show that support for Mr. Bush among the Republican base is at record levels, comparable to support for President Ronald Reagan.
On Friday, as the Senate began debating the amendment on same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, placed an advertisement in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call listing Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Pataki, Senator McCain and Mr. Giuliani. "Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?" the advertisement asked. "Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."
Hoping to turn the same advertisement into a message to the convention planners, Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, sent flowers to Cheryl Jacques, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, with a note that said, "Dear Cheryl, per your ad in Roll Call - thank you."
One mistake conservatives of all stripes make is that the moral laxity and intellectual bankruptcy found in people like Alec Baldwin or Whoopi Goldberg is confined to a few small cliques of Hollywood actors or college professors. Perhaps that was the case many years ago. However, decades of permissive child rearing, public schools immersed in secular humanism, lying liberal news media, and amoral entertainment have brought the values of North Beach, Hollywood, Harvard, and Greenwich Village to the humblest hamlets on the High Plains or in Appalachia.
Thus, you can have supposed conservatives like Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit make over the top statements comparing the Christian Right in America to the Taliban in Afghanistan, in defiance of history, theology, or logic. I am far from an uncritical fan of conservative Christians in politics, as my previous posts indicate. However, their actions to attempt to influence public policy do not essentially differ from other advocacy groups. False characterizations of Christian conservatives are neither fair nor reasonable.
...and the unfortunate tailspin continues with the Supremes' ruling that the Texas law against sodomy was un-Constitutional.
Thus, Comstock proves the maxim: bad law makes bad results.
And her spawn, Planned Parenthood, continues in her tradition by placing most of its facilities near or within inner-cities.
If a relatively fresh-faced conservative begins to emerge now, he/she can really catch fire come 2008. Man, do I long for someone to truly get excited about once again! I love Chris Cox, but truth be told the man needs a serious personality infusion stat!
PS-What do you folks think of Craig Benson? Yea, nay, or somewhere in between?
Granted. Neither is glossing over of excusing the minority who would attempt to advance a religious agenda via unconstitutional means if given the opportunity. The existence of Alec Baldwin and his ilk do not excuse them, nor justify giving them a national platform courtesy of the RNC in the name of "fairness", IMHO.
When it comes to a wide range of issues, people are going to advance religious and metaphysical viewpoints through political action. If, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rudy Giuliani were to advocate abortion on demand or state-sanctioned same sex unions, they are expressing their metaphysical views as surely as would, say, Henry Hyde or Tom McClintock in advocating an end to abortion and prohibition of same sex unions. Both groups of men have a "religious agenda"; but those of Hyde and McClintock are in conformance with Biblical teachings and those of Schwarzenegger and Giuliani are not. (I am aware that the latter two men are of Catholic background. However, their stances on social issues are in opposition to their church's teachings on such matters. They appear to be motivated by their beliefs in secular humanism and moral relativism.)
You made a statement that that there is a "minority who would attempt to advance a religious agenda via unconstitutional means if given the opportunity." Christian conservatives use the same techniques every other interest group uses: lobbying and petitioning Congress, persuading citizens through the use of books, radio and TV broadcasts, Internet sites, and the pulpit. All of these means are specifically protected in the Constitution.
If there are wannabe Cromwells, Spanish Inquisitors, or Gustavus Adolphuses among Christian conservatives, you should identify them. Where are the Alec Baldwins of the Right?
Would you support a national ban on pornography under the Commerce Clause?
If you're serious and not just blowing off some steam, than all I can say is John Kerry thanks you for your support.
You're like the California GOP. You just can't stand to win for some self-defeating reason. You're the type of Republican who inflicted Gray Davis on us because a guarenteed win like Riordan wasn't good enough. You insisted on the unelectable Simon, and the inevitable happened. THEN, when the recall happened, and we again had an automatic win with Arnold your type voted for a vote siphoner like McClintock (thankfully we won in spite of it this time).
And what makes me mad, is you are smart enough to know better. You are a Republican, and you know right from wrong. You know it is better to get 80% of what you want, than 20% but you vote emotionally because the party is not customized for you. You know, it's not customized for me either. I don't get everything I want, but I'm not about to punish America for not doing so. Ultimately, responsibility dictates that you vote the way that would ensure MORE of your agenda occurs (even if it falls short of 100%).
Vote responsibly. Vote pragmatically. Vote for GWB.
Do you believe that the Constitution encompasses a "right to privacy" that supersedes state legislation on abortion?
You have yet to answer the question I posed in post #126, "If there are wannabe Cromwells, Spanish Inquisitors, or Gustavus Adolphuses among Christian conservatives, you should identify them. Where are the Alec Baldwins of the Right?"
"What do you folks think of Craig Benson?"
I never heard of him. I'm familiar with Bill Owens, but someone mentioned that he was recently divorced, and therefore, wouldn't appeal to the religious right in the primaries.
Social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are quietly being edged out of the party. Gets in the way of staying in power if one actually has to stand for something
Whereever you find them. Who are these conservative Christians who reject the original intent of the Constitution that you speak of? I suggest that where you find one you will find the other. I'll not damage my own argument by resorting to name calling, any more than you have.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, et. al., do not appear to subscribe to the doctrine of original intent. Neither do President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Speaker of the House Hastert, etc. If Falwell, etc., are Cromwells waiting in the wings, why would you not characterize President Bush, etc., in the same light, since they all reject the doctrine of original intent?
Because I differentiate between the ends and the means. Louis Farrakan is anti-abortion, pro-RKBA, anti-feminisism, and anti-gay, but I don't classify him as a Conservative. Right ends (mostly). Wrong means.
Arguments based on logical fallacy aren't particularly good means either. Do you have any evidence that GWB rejects the doctrine of original intent outright?
IMHO, preserving the integrity of the Constitution is a primary concern, and it is not subject to situational ethics. If preserving the Constitution in a particular case advances a liberal social agenda, then so be it. If that's untenable then it's time we get involved in fixing it by the proper means. In the long run I believe it will result in a more conservative society with less reliance on government. I question the credentials of any "social conservative" who doesn't think it matters.
As for the issue of President Bush or for that matter the vast majority of Republican politicians not adhering to the doctrine of original intent, the proof thereof is evident in the legislation they support. Nowhere does the Constitution permit Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, the National Parks Service, the FBI, the National Endowment for the Arts, and a myriad of other Federal laws and regulations. Were the Feds to adhere strictly to what the Constitution permits, most Federal functions and properties would revert to the states and the people.
The Constitution, as originally intended, would predominantly assist the conservative and libertarian positions inasmuch as the massive Federal intervention in the economy and society would cease, becoming limited to monetary policy.
Granted. And this can be seen clearly in the rhetoric and justifications he uses. Every argument is made from the basis of his interpretation of religious scriptures, and everything he does is intent on advancing the objectives laid out in those scriptures, without any sense that there is or can be a secular authority that must be taken into account.
As for the issue of President Bush or for that matter the vast majority of Republican politicians not adhering to the doctrine of original intent, the proof thereof is evident in the legislation they support. Nowhere does the Constitution permit Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, the National Parks Service, the FBI, the National Endowment for the Arts, and a myriad of other Federal laws and regulations. Were the Feds to adhere strictly to what the Constitution permits, most Federal functions and properties would revert to the states and the people.
And who, among these representatives of the "social conservatives" will voice that concern at the convention? Will they quote the Constitution, or the scriptures? Will they argue for the laws of men, or the laws of God? Are these people Republicans because they believe in the republic, or because Alec Baldwin is a Democrat?
The Constitution, as originally intended, would predominantly assist the conservative and libertarian positions inasmuch as the massive Federal intervention in the economy and society would cease, becoming limited to monetary policy.
Yes it would. And I think a fair number of these "social conservatives" will run screaming in the other direction as soon as they hear the word "libertarian".
I never supported Perot either,
I'm sick of the religious right placing a stranglehold on the party. When they don't get their way they threaten. Gary Bauer and his followers can vote for Kerry if they don't like it.
How is the frustration of the religious right "placing a stranglehold on the party"? And why do you think this frustration is limited to those who are religious? For conservatives and libertarians, there's little to celebrate about power hungry, populist, RINO pols.
Think of a frog in a pot of water that starting to get a little warm. I'll vote for Bush, but that's because Kerry would be a disaster. However, I'll donate a modest amount to those who honor their oath to uphold the Constitution.
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.