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."
I don't think that the Republican leadership is "pandering" to moderates, I think it is paying them lip-service. Once Bush is reelected they can work on satisfying their base.
You are right though, they do have risk alienating the base. This just means they are walking the election year tight-rope right now. Since there are only two real meaningful parties any split is disasterous and the Republicans know this. They won't move too far to the left, because they don't want another Ross Perot spoiling things. Just as the Dems won't move too far to the right and risk another Nader taking votes.
All I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't worry that the Republican party is moving too far to the left. After election day there won't be any more need to appease moderates for another four years.
AS much as we would all like to think that we conservatives are in the majority, it ain't that simple. On particular issues some folks that you would think should be conservative aren't. For example, the "social conservatives" would probably cover a large number of practising Catholics. How many of them are going to vote for Bush if the Rats are busy punding away on the "scary right wing"? John Kerry is the classic "statesman" and frankly so was Clinton, they all want to get along and find consensus. There is something known as cutting your nose off to spite your face. Statesmen don't win wars...in fact they usually get us into them at too late a date ( think Chamberlin)
Zarf, you made an excellent point and now I want to point out something that is going to get those who read this and identify themselves as social conservative very angry.
You see, social conservatives are not really "conservatives". Those who readily identify themselves as politically active SC's are almost always just religious fanatics. And, religious fanatics are, based on their (often admirable and passionate beliefes) striving to achieve Utopia. At the end of the day, they want basically what the Taliban wants, which is complete and literal observance to whatever scripture they purport. And, this means everyone and if someone refuses they will be forced to do so. Of course, if everyone really did listen to what Jesus taught we would live in a Utopia. If everyone acted the way Karl Marx thought it would also be great. (Please do not think I am equating Marx with Jesus, rather showing the parallel that sexpectations that all people will act properly are utter nonsense) A real conservative will immediately let you know that this is only the wishful thinking. That does not mean we can't make things better, just not perfect.
Real conservatives begin and end their thought processes by reminding themselves that Utopia (by its very definition) is not to be achieved. RATS want to social engineer everyone there and so-called Social Conservatives want to pray and, yes, legislate everyone there.
This is not to say that SC's often stand on the right side of the debate - to the contrary. Just that the manner in which they self-righteously do so is not only off-putting to more moderate folks, but downright scary in a Sharia Law kind of way.
For most Americans, including true conservatives, talking about denying people rights rarely strikes a positive cord. The abortion issue aside, SC's often (and perhaps for good reason) give your average moderate the feeling that they have no intention of stopping with their current demands and that a first they came for the . . . is always just the tip of a much larger SC iceberg agenda.
HERE WE GO AGAIN. DIDN'T WE LEARN OUR LESSON IN '92 WHEN MANY OF US ABANDONED BUSH THE FIRST FOR ROSS PEROT? REMEMBER? THAT GAVE US 8 YEARS OF BILL CLINTON.
I'M AN EXTREME SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE BUT YOU GUYS NEED TO PEACE OUT.
Note the source...NYTimes...divide and conquer.
What conservative, in their right mind, would vote for Kerry, by abstaining to vote for Bush?
If Bush loses because of division in the party, then it seems maybe the Democrats deserve to win.
I don't believe in "cut off my nose to spite my face" politics.
Why don't you guys keep it up and divide the GOP as much as you can then on election night maybe Michael Moore, George Soros, Whoppi Goldberg, John Mellancamp or Chevy Chase will invite you to one of their victory parties.
"Let's just let John F*ckin' win so the RINOs can get the President they really want."
If you wouldn't make statements like that people wouldn't know just how ignorant you really are.
I believe GWB sees himself as president of ALL Americans, not just one party or one interest group. Like all politicians I suppose he has to take care of his big donors first, and of course he wants his base supporters to vote for him, but he also has to govern. And that means governing all America. Not just the red states but the blue states too.
Yep, the left is going to put out as much of this crap as they can:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040712/ap_on_el_pr/bush_conservatives&printer=1
Reading through (some) of the responses, I am surprised at the dims that try to represent "true Conservatives"! Moby has them motivated, but they are easily spotted!!!
President Bush does not have to stump for GOD, as GOD's light shines from within him. He has supported and signed legislation banning Partial Birth Abortion. The dim’s liberal courts have overturned the law, and it is winding its way to the Supreme Court. This story has repeated itself in many ways in the last 3 1/2 years.
Go ahead and vote for kerry, or stay home and take a pass to not vote. Those in the past that have taken the same moral out (I won't vote for _____ because he is not, or did not support, or did support _____), are the ones that are responsible for most of the setbacks to our hard won victories. It only strengthens satan's power, and emboldens his minions such as kerry, kennedy, and edweirds.
I will proudly cast my vote for the President in November. I know that God will smile upon me as I punch out that chad. He will smile upon America by providing us with four more years of steady leadership from a man that loves GOD, and America with all of his heart!
LLS
I agree with you. I do think his foreign policy is more aggressive than he had thought it would be, due to some obvious changes in circumstances he probably didn't fully appreciate back in 2ooo. But in general, he is what he said he would be.
Why is a social conservative considered a conservative but a fiscal conservative considered too extreme to be allowed to speak at the convention? Could it possibly be that the fiscal conservative threatens the slop trough that feeds the hogs at the national level?
Actually it is the Social Conservatives that make the GOP consistently less attractive. I would postulate that there are actually very few hard core liberals out there who really support what the RATS are doing.
It is the SC's who scare away the moderates with their Taliban rhetoric. Without the SC's providing RATS ammunition to scare the moderates (most of America) the Republican party would sit squarely in the middle with the lunatic fringes to the left and right.
Sometimes having a larger tent means making it uncomfortable for those who liked their company small and their thiking rigid.
All orthodox Christians recognize that Jesus said to Pilate that "My Kingdom is not of this world." His last command to His disciples recorded in Acts 1 calls for the spread of the Gospel to "the uttermost part of the earth." Christ's personal example, and that followed by the disciples, as evidenced throughout the New Testament, was to spread the Gospel via preaching and witnessing. While there were some unfortunate exceptions to the rule, notably during the Crusades (which, FWIW, were an attempt to recapture formerly Christian lands that had been conquered by the Muslims) and by the Spaniards in Latin America, the Christian faith was spread throughout the world through the means via persuasion and not compulsion.
The Christian Right in America is dominated by evangelical Christians, members of conservative churches, Baptistic, Calvinist, holiness, or charismatic/pentecostal that adhere to orthodox Christian doctrine and believe in Biblical inerrancy. Their religious beliefs come far closer to those of the majority of the Framers of the Constitution than any other religious or philosophical tendency in American society. Most (although not all) of these Christians subscribe to a premillenial view of end-times prophecy, which believes that it will be Jesus Christ Himself, and not any political leader, who will establish a 1000 year Kingdom of God on earth, as Revelation indicates will occur.
Not all Christian conservatives think alike. Many are way too statist for my own liking, rejecting the original intent of the Constitution, economic freedom, or states' rights when a program they support is under consideration. As an example, many Christian conservatives do not support ending Federal involvement in welfare, but argue for "faith based" programs, enabling that their agencies receive a piece of the pie.
However, most of those who protest the agenda of the Christian Right do so from a libertine, "anything goes" mentality. Liberal courts have manufactured a structure of "rights" in the last 40 years: abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, "no fault" divorce, pornography, vagrancy, etc. These "rights" have nothing to do with what the Founders of this republic conceived of as being unalienable rights. These vices had been illegal under Anglo-American common law since medieval times. Before 1960, if you wanted to live in an immoral environment, you left Podunk and moved to places like New Orleans or San Francisco. I hardly think that the pre-1960 state of American culture equates to that of Afghanistan. Those who think so must fear consequences for their lewd behavior.
Liberal courts and elite opinion makers have deprived local governments of the ability to control vice and the will to do so over the last few decades. To a large extent, the nightmare scene in "It's a Wonderful Life" has become true: clean living Bedford Falls has become sleazy Pottersville.
The Christian Right has many flaws. One of them is not their desire to raise American society out of the degradation caused by broken families, sexual perversion, and a jaded, sated population.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. That's all you do, Hank.
You're an institutional bellyacher around here.
All orthodox Christians recognize that Jesus said to Pilate that "My Kingdom is not of this world." His last command to His disciples recorded in Acts 1 calls for the spread of the Gospel to "the uttermost part of the earth." Christ's personal example, and that followed by the disciples, as evidenced throughout the New Testament, was to spread the Gospel via preaching and witnessing. While there were some unfortunate exceptions to the rule, notably during the Crusades (which, FWIW, were an attempt to recapture formerly Christian lands that had been conquered by the Muslims) and by the Spaniards in Latin America, the Christian faith was spread throughout the world through the means via persuasion and not compulsion.
Agreed, but you have to realize that when you attempt to make that faith a political platform, you are talking about ultimately incorporating it into a legislative agenda and if successful, will result in compelling people to support it.
Considering what I read some of the more religious folks say about homosexuals on FR, your statement about the imposition of a conservative "Sharia Law" is not far fetched.
Now, now....you wouldn't want to take away OUR side's "talking points," would you? What else can they trash Bush about? :-)
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.