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."
The Republicans!
I wouldn't matter anyway.
People,here,who do absolutely NOTHING but Bushbash,are NOT the GOP's "base"!
Those who do absolutely NOTHING but post any and every negative article about President Bush/leap onto any "good news" thread and trash it,are NOT members of the GOP's "base"!
Those who are sooooooooooooooooooooooooo far to the right,that they sound LEFT,are NOT the GOP's "base" at all!
I am a fiscal AND a social Conservative...I'm just NOT a part of any of the above groups and YES, I Am a member of the GOP's BASE;always have been!
And I want less taxation,a smaller government,and all of the usual bells and whistles that go along with being a Conservative;however,I refuse to help a damned,bloody LIBERAL Dem win ANY elected office,by cutting off my nose to spite my face.
How about you ?
I know.
Looks like the NY Times is concerned for the GOP. I'm impressed
(/sarcasm sign is on F-16)
I'm a BIG Lynne Cheney fan,but you're forgetting that she wrote a rather bawdy book about prostitutes with lesbian love scenes in it,many years back.You don't "know" either of the Cheneys from a hole in the ground and less about their public lives than you suppose.
I brought up the book,which was a pot boiler,not exactly something one connects with Conservative values.
Sheeeeeeeeesh it was a typo...WARM PISS,BECAME WARM SPIT and if you are THAT out of it,that you don't know the quote,then please don't consider yourself to be politically well educated.:-)
I'm guessing Pataki was picked because he is the Gov of NY .. where the convention is being held??
Good night,until anon.
Could it be that the perception of the whiners, oh I mean the purist base was wrong? You think maybe if they would have been mature in their thinking that we could have had a different outcome? Perhaps if the base would have focused on taking back the White House and voted smart and strategically they could have won and the current events we are dealing with right now could have been prevented.
We are blaming the dems for our woes but it is our own actions or lack of focus that allowed the scum to stay in office. You don't think the democrats know this? Go ahead and vote your conscious and remain ideolgically pure but when we get Kerry/Edwards for 8 years do not complain about the mess we will end up being in.
We don't need to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will just abandon them and let them go back into total chaos, according to them. We will have gay marriage shoved down our throats. We will have the most liberal judges placed in the courts, possible up to two in the supreme court. Do you want Ginsburg as the Chief Justice? You know she uses international law to make her decisions.
So go ahead and stomp your feet, hold your breath and throw a temper tantrum but if enough of you spoilers do that then you will reap what you have sown again and it won't be pretty.
How is that a winning strategy for achieving conservative change?
Answer: it's not.
If Rove is such a great strategist, why is Pres. Bush slightly down, instead of being 15 points up?
The best move Pres. Bush could have made to ease his reelection would have been to dump Rove.
He's way overrated, IMO.
He may yet pull it off, but it didn't need to be this difficult.
"If the trumpet doesn't sound a clear note, who will answer the call to battle?"
All I have to say about this to the 'moderates' today is:
You whined in '00 about the supposed millions of evangelicals who didn't show up. Don't whine again when and if the same thing happens after you devise a GOP convention that shuts them out and is even more hostile to conservative voices than last time.
In the meantime, I'll hold out hope that the leadership will regain their senses and not allow a leftwing perspective to dominate the convention of the conservative party of the U.S.
I have been watching the President's message, both on the stump and in his advertising, very, very closely. The President is highly energized, obviously enjoying himself greatly, and is VERY MUCH on message...and that message is wonderfully conservative and ringing with truth.
So, in closing, I believe everything is going to turn out okay. But Republicans stiff their own majority coalition at their own peril.
Here's my point, We have at this particular moment two viable choices for president. The election is going to be close and as a responsible adult I look at what chances do my issues have if the most liberal person wins the ticket? If I decide I am just going to show them that I will sit home and pout to prove a point to the evil Rove, I then help Kerry win. I don't need to be molly coddled to make damn sure I do what I can to keep Kerry out.
The christian conservatives voting third party or not voting to teach them a lesson very nearly cost us this last election. We have too much at stake this election to be divided and whining about my POV not being taken seriously. It did cost the election with Bush I and Dole, so we got clinton and 9/11. So go ahead and throw your little fits and act like children, sit out the election or vote third party but when we end up with the absolute worst person and total opposite of President Bush for president are you ready to assume part of the blame at the next 9/11?
National security is the most important issue this election. We know Kerry will make us beg the UN to defend ourselves, President Bush has shown us he will act in our defense. Is he perfect, no but he sure is light years better than Kerry.
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.