Posted on 07/12/2004 6:12:22 PM PDT by wagglebee
Social conservatives feel they are getting short shrift from the Republican National Committee’s lineup of speakers at the GOP convention in New York this year, reports the New York Times.
Thus far, prime time speaking slots are nearly bereft of those who share the views of the party's conservative majority - a vital voting bloc the Bush campaign desperately needs if it is to win in November.
Still, the Times writes:
Even though Karl Rove "emphasized the importance of turning out conservative churchgoers" who didn't vote in the numbers he expected in 2000, and even though they are a "major target of [GOP] voter registration efforts," it doesn't seem they will be well represented in prime time at the convention in NY.
The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, told the Times the "Bush campaign had made mistakes, including its outreach to churches and the omission of more social conservatives from the convention so far. 'They have alienated people who they desperately need, big time,' he said."
The Bush/Cheney campaign has miffed some churchgoers with certain voter-registration tactics, including having congregations send the campaign their registries.
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, told the Times: "I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way."
President Bush is the only visible national conservative who has "turned up his own talk of opposition to abortion and especially same-sex marriage," which is up for debate in the Senate this week.
Moderates like McCain, Giuliani, Pataki, and Schwarzenegger will all speak in prime time at the GOP confab, but no true social conservative other than President Bush will garner precious, limited network airtime.
The most like-minded person with a featured speaking role is Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia.
He drew fire from National Review's Washington editor Kate O'Beirne, who wrote, "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."
The roster of speakers, she added, "is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment."
More ominous was the warning from long time conservative activist Paul Weyrich: "I hate to say it, but... 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."
More conciliatory was Gary Bauer, a social conservative candidate who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
Noting the Bush backs the Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being solely between a man and woman, now being debated in the Senate, Bauer, the founder of the American Values organization, added. "We had been assured months ago that as this vote happened the president would take an active role - both publicly and on Capitol Hill. So they are keeping their word and my hat goes off to them for that."
But he told the Times, "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 added that his fellow social conservatives continue to push for greater representation at the convention, and said that the President should address abortion, same-sex marriage and similar issues prominently when he speaks to the convention.
Answering conservative critics, Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt told the Times Sunday: "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."
He drew fire from National Review's Washington editor Kate O'Beirne, who wrote, "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."
I'm certain that Bush and Rove have a strategy behind all of this, I just hope they're right.
Starting to sound like Demo whiners me thinks?
Why preach to the choir?
We're trying to bring more folks to the table, and trotting out the base isn't going to do it. It will confirm the stereotype the liberals and the press have of Republicans. Why should we help them?
Please explain.
Look, we have the entire Republican Senate pushing for a constitutional ammendment and we have a President endorsing it and being very pro-life.
Let's let the party try to appeal at least a little to the moderates at the convention (aka: show).
Maybe the demonrats will invite Gary to speak in Boston?
So, in your opinion, conservatism lacks the ability to "bring folks to the table"?
Bush was the first president to address the annual Right to Life March on Washington. He is not embarrassed to speak publicly about his religious convictions.
I don't fault Rove on this one. Many religious conservatives are politically naive and easily taken to the cleaners by the media.
I DO fault Rove for sabotaging Bill Simon and favoring Arnold Schwarzenneger. I don't mind having Arnold talk at the convention, but he must be told in no uncertain terms to behave himself and not talk about Big Tents.
Notice that this story comes from The New York Times, which is trying--as usual--to split the Republicans. It's not often you find them interviewing Don Wildmon for an article. Wildmon should have known better than to let himself be inveigled into doing their dirty work.
I agree, but remember how Dole seemed to abandon the base and what happened.
Words vs. deeds.
I was going to type the same thing.
I'd rather have the work than the pretty talk.
He's definately making inroads into the black churches - this is why the venom from the NAACP just popped to nuclear proportions.
I will be disappointed if at least one Republican social conservative is not given a prominent speaking slot. Its insulting not too, and it would be a missed opportunity to not give some early national exposure to some potential Presidential candidates in 2008 like Senator George Allen of Virginia, and Gov Bill Owens of Colorado. While it makes sense to give Pataki a slot because he is gov of NY, and Guiliani because he is a 9-11 national hero, and McCain because the media loves him, and Schwarzenegger because he is a small counterweight to the glamorati who support the Dems; the fact is that none of these could be the nominee in 2008. McCain will be too old, Arnold is foreign-born, and Pataki and Guiliani are too liberal on the social issues.
Sick of the whining.
Rush was whining about this the other day.
We are a big party that needs every vote and I for one am so proud of Zell Miller's appearance at our party. Why in the world would anyone be insulting him as some have???????????
I don't care who speaks or does not speak at the Republican Convention because I won't be watching it anyway, or the Democrats either. My vote is already signed, sealed and delivered. Both parties are going to use their conventions to woo the Undecided 5% who will tip the election. This doesn't concern me.
I know its four years away, and a WHOLE LOT can change (a lot depend on who rises to the top in the second Bush administration), but I would not be surprised if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination in 2008.
No, honey, not conservtism - just the messengers. The non-telegenic messengers can't seem to get the ideals out during non-election years, so I don't trust them to get it out during prime time. I'd rather the leftists screeds be shown as lies and prove we are more than the hateful idiots we are constantly being portrayed.
Get people interested, and they'll go in search of more information all by themselves. Spoon feed them and we lose them the first time they are challenged.
Like their great strategy of looking the other way while millions of illegal aliens enter the country hoping that they will eventually vote Republican?
These conventions are shows and maybe it makes sense to just trust those who have been delegated the duty of designing the show. If it succeeds, everyone will be happy. If it bombs, well, they won't be asked again. ;-)
Easy. There is a thread on this very plot:
Kerry looking to take advantage of split in Republican base.
Don't know how he plans that, but there is a plot afoot, that's for sure.
Because the choir is uncertain as to whether George Bush still wants to be a member.
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.