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."
I know who I am, what I believe, and know too that President Bush is the best answer to the hope of the world.
There are those, however, who need someone to whom they can relate.
The RNC got the better of the deal. AFter all, Arnold is Governor of California and Ron REagan commentates on dog shows.
You're revising history.
Christian conservatives voting for third-party candidates were statistically almost a complete nonentity in 2000.
The right flank of the party held.
The real question for this year, as it was then, was this: How energized will that base be?
There are many reasons for conservatives to be highly motivated now: The treasonous and dangerous extremism of the Left (aka the entire leadership of the RAT party), the dangers we face to our lives and liberty from the Islamo-nazis, the judicial tyranny of activist liberal judges and their extremist leftwing constituencies, etc.
But having said all that, the 'moderate' leadership of our party, and the political hacks they employ, seem to have a real knack for squandering that fire and energy and motivation.
It's a real shame.
How does Ron Reagan earn his living? Has he just coasted for all of his 46 years using his father's contacts or he he done anything on his own(except ballet)?
He seems to be a rather useless individual to me and has only been brought into the spotlight since his father's death and his comments at the funeral.
Poor President Reagan must be rolling over in his grave?
And the media doesn't let their message go out unfiltered. The convention would be an opportunity to get the message out, without Dan or Tom or Peter cutting and editing. Unfortunately, the GOP bigwigs don't have the courage of the party's supposed convictions.
The base is made up of people who are pro-life, favor limited government, are pro-military, and want low taxes.
Do the speakers referenced in this thread meet those criteria?
If you only allow the minority opinion to be shown (and you admit this because you refer to Conservatives as "the base"), how do you then say that Conservatives are the heart of the Party?
If you marginalize the base, what does that say about your plans for the Party?
Why do you feel that "It will confirm the stereotype the liberals and the press have of Republicans"? Aren't you then "preaching" to the squish-moderates, who change direction more often than a windsock?
Couldn't you make the argument that showing a strong Conservative base would woo others who feel "disenfranchised" as EVERYONE is trying to woo the squish-moderates?
Aren't Conservatives on BOTH sides basically the "house-N's" of the Parties, as they are told to shut up and take it, and only are allowed any voice when it comes time to fleece the flock for campaign $$$...then it's right back to shut up and hide?
If Conservatives are the base, why try to pretend that the Party is something it is not...or are you pretending that Conservatives ARE the base, when they are not?
So I guess you are saying that the squish-Moderate windsocks are guillible, and won't see this for what it is...right? They won't know what hit them?
Or is it that when there are enough squish-Moderate windsocks who join, the Conservatives will be dumped? They won't know what hit them?
Either way, the subterfuge only plays one group as a sucker...which one is it I wonder?
What a bunch of Rhinos!
When do we form a new party? It maybe sooner than you think.
Why are we considered the fringes?
Why are we considered the right winged wackos?
I hate rhinos
and I hate especially rhinos that choose pragmatism over truth.
This is what it is all about!
As it says in the good book, a person must sometimes be nurtured with milk and fruit before they are strong enough for meat.
In today's highly charged world, it would seem a good strategy to attract viewers or voters who have an interest in Republican conservatism but a reluctant to jump in with all four feet.
Besides, I am sure there will be speakers in non prime time and elsewhere on the radio, TV and newspapers who will demonstrate stronger mainstream conservatism.
NewsMax seems to be making waves needlessly. President Bush has a strong conservative message.
End of Story.
I mean if 4 years will destroy the country, 16 years will finish it off.
"Don't kid yourself, the Party has gone so far Left that these are the likely Presidential candidates in '08. Sad, isn't it? When the only Conservative on the platform is a Democrat, we're in big trouble folks. "
Still, I just can't see one of those guys winning any Southern primaries unless they are running against each other and no genuine conservatives. The party has gone left on issues like immigration and racial preferences, and so far the 'they have no one else to turn to' rationale has allowed the party to get away with it, but there is only so far someone can be pushed before he simply doesn't show up anymore, or joins some 3rd party.
No, if it gets 'too big', that means those holding the other viewpoint have taken charge. And pretty soon they'll show you the door. That was done to Dem conservatives from the 70s on, until the south is solidly Republican, when it had been solidly Dem from tradition, and the war. So far, the GOP 'clubbercrats' have reluctantly, on the one hand, tolerated the grass-roots conservatives and evangelicals. On the other, the keep try to show them the door. And if conservatives are split off by such machinations by the 'old party hacks' and the cynical pols and contributors then there is really no history of a successful third party. If that happens, the Dem always win. And this country won't be worth . . . well.
There seems to be far too many 'professionals' in the GOP who can't stand the memory of Ronald Reagan. Reagan OUGHT TO BE their example. They ought to say his name with respect, not as a barely muttered curse. And they ought to study his method and his beliefs, because I think it's very clear that Republican Party would win, all the time - and ought to, in America.
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.