Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention
NY Times ^ | July 12, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: conservatives; convention; republicanconvention; republicans; rncconvention
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last
To: neverdem

I will only be concerned when RINO's are headlining the ticket. So far its still Bush and Cheney from what I remember.


61 posted on 07/12/2004 6:45:02 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
From your link about "Key conservatives" (*wink wink*), the line that should make every conservative sit up and know it's a bogus hit piece is this one:

The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal

Right.

62 posted on 07/12/2004 6:45:53 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
To all the Republicans out there. Keep it up and Kerry will win. Do not ignore Conservatives because that is how George Sr. lost.
63 posted on 07/12/2004 6:47:22 AM PDT by bmwcyle (<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Sometimes having a larger tent means making it uncomfortable for those who liked their company small and their thiking rigid.

AMEN!!!!!!

64 posted on 07/12/2004 6:47:40 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: no dems
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.

Spare us the histrionics will ya?

Some of us give a damn about conservatisms future that's why we bitch. Hell, somebodys gotta keep pulling back on the reigns of the Christian right so we don't get pulled over the cliff.

Why does that mean we're going to vote for anti-American idiots like those you mentioned?

65 posted on 07/12/2004 6:47:46 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
Conservative Republicans don't have the guts to punish Bush for being a RINO.

97 percent of CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS support Bush, according to the latest Pew Research survey.

Just how would you 3 percenters like Bush punished?

Do you think putting Kerry in the Oval Office will "show him" just how serious you are?

66 posted on 07/12/2004 6:49:38 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Religious social conservatives scare the hell out of many many moderate Republicans because if they become the predominant voice in the party, the Republicans are doomed to lose nationally.

Part of the problem we have right now is that they USE to be in control of the party -- and now that they're not, they are determined to trash the rest of us.

67 posted on 07/12/2004 6:51:37 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Bwaahahaha! I didn't even see that line. Yeah, right wingers were really distraught about Abu Garaib. LOL.


68 posted on 07/12/2004 6:51:56 AM PDT by Huck (I love the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Yep. Bells and whistles went off when I read it!


69 posted on 07/12/2004 6:54:39 AM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Why don't they get Michael Reagan to speak? He's the only remaining Reagan who really "gets it."


70 posted on 07/12/2004 6:59:01 AM PDT by ncdrumr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
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.

The fact is there are societal and political realities that the extremes of the party refuse to accept.

The far right has similarities to the far left in that legislation and governmental intrutsion seem to be the main responses to what they feel are the problems in our culture.

I firmly believe that less government intrusion and manipulation will allow for the the society (especially in terms of personal behavior and morality) to reach it's own healthy equilibrium.

71 posted on 07/12/2004 7:02:05 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're an institutional bellyacher around here.

Maybe he is, and I often disagree with him, but...he is one of the few left that provides a balance to the fingers-in-the-ears crowd.

Someone's got to get the message to the GOP that they are going too far with this "look...we're all moderates" push. And now is the time to do it, before the convention.

Here's one of the upcoming convention speakers:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City: "There's too many guns on the street. And people use guns. Guns have one purpose, it is to kill people. There is no reason to have a gun."

How about we get Michael Reagan on the podium?

72 posted on 07/12/2004 7:04:15 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
"Nah, give the RINOs the TV time. Conservatives control the platform, that's the more important thing. "

Dole established the GOP tradition of not reading the platform. "Show me your company and I'll tell you who you are". This is not a Conservative Party any longer it is a RINO Party. That's why Bush endorsed Specter.

73 posted on 07/12/2004 7:05:43 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zarf
I firmly believe that less government intrusion and manipulation will allow for the the society (especially in terms of personal behavior and morality) to reach it's own healthy equilibrium.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.

--Herbert Spencer

74 posted on 07/12/2004 7:13:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic ( Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
First of all, thank you for the excellent and well thought out post. I will put you on my VIF (Very intelligent Freepers)list for future reference.

The picture you paint is a fair and balanced defense of SC's goals based on Christian teachings in their ideal, educated conservative form.

My argument is that although you are correct about the doctrine itself and perhaps even the intent, the practice and/or interpretation comes across in such a manner that it scares average moral Americans (who according to you should have nothing to fear). And, it scares them enough to vote for Democrats. Thus, something must be rotten in Denmark.

I will admit to intentionally nitpicking by pulling out these words you used:

of the ability to control vice

as a prime example of the type of language that SC's use that causes them to split the party. The Vice Police or religious police are exactly the type of institutions that exist in the theocratic systems of Islam.

Moreover, the undoubted response of an SC to the question, "Who decides what is moral?" is to revert to the Christian bible. Unfortunately, there are some disagreements in different cultures with regards to things such as divorce and pre-marital sex. Thus, in a pluralistic culture such as America, talk about controlling vice can quickly be interpreted as an attempt to impose Christian religious values on others regardless of religion.

I do not want you to get me wrong, I agree with most of the basic SC tenets. That is not the point. Rather that their "bible thumping" generally does more damange to Republicans causes on a national (and often state) level than it does good.

75 posted on 07/12/2004 7:16:43 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Tax Energy not Labour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

good post. There is no comparison btwn the Taliban and what mainstream Chirstianity wants. The Bible says we are first citizens of heaven.


76 posted on 07/12/2004 7:18:46 AM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
It sounds as if the administration has a tin ear when it comes to listening to social consevratives and there can really be only one reason for that. They don't really believe in what we stand for.

They would believe in what we stand for if it would get them votes, but let's face it, many of the issues you and I believe in are too divisive or seen negatively by many who are in the middle.

I'm not saying it's right, it's just the reality. The GOP can't afford to do anything that could cost them votes in key segments.

77 posted on 07/12/2004 7:27:37 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zarf
The far right has similarities to the far left in that legislation and governmental intrutsion [sic] seem to be the main responses to what they feel are the problems in our culture.

LOL...here on planet Earth, there are few advocates of the use of government power greater than "moderate" Republicans.

Conservative Republicans have wanted to shrink government for a long time, but are always blocked by moderates. Apparently, the fact that conservatives want to amend the Constitution to stop the impelmentation of court-ordered homogamy is some kind of awful threat, on a par with Alar.

78 posted on 07/12/2004 7:30:56 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
I don't buy it...they haven't tried selling conservatism for a long time. It can be done; Reagan proved that.

I think it's because a large number of the party leaders don't really like it all that much.

79 posted on 07/12/2004 7:34:32 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Moreover, the undoubted response of an SC to the question, "Who decides what is moral?" is to revert to the Christian bible. Unfortunately, there are some disagreements in different cultures with regards to things such as divorce and pre-marital sex.

If you take a look at the political activism and leanings of the Episcopalean Church, you'll see that on a political level, the differences can run much deeper than that, even within the Christian community.

80 posted on 07/12/2004 7:35:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ( Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson