Posted on 07/12/2004 6:12:22 PM PDT by wagglebee
Its about giving a little representation to the values of the vast majority of people who will wind up voting GOP on election day. I'm not saying to get rid of the ones already slated to appear, but instead to simply make time for a full conservative.
Also, the media will attack it no matter what. If it were conservative-heavy, then it would be a shrill, mean-spirited, divisive, anti-diversity, gathering of rightwing extremists. If the moderate-liberals dominate as scheduled now, then it will be a disingenuous representation of the party; a cynical attempt to place a nice face on what is really a shrill, mean-spirited, divisive, anti-civil rights, anti-gay, wacko party of Christian extremists.
Weird stuff this year.
Arnold from the Kennedy clan speaking at the RNC and Reagan's son speaking at the DNC.
>>>>>I'm certain that Bush and Rove have a strategy behind all of this, I just hope they're right.<<<<<<<
We need to keep the moderate pubbies on board at least until after the election in order to win. If we lose the focus of the big picture then we will help get the worst person elected, I believe that Kerry could be worse than Clinton for this nation. Let's face it listening to the enthusiasm of Arnold and Rudy goes a long way to win over the undecideds out there. They see that we have MEN in charge who are able to stand strong and lead when we need that.
Sorry, you must have clicked on the wrong thread.
This isn't an illegal-aliens-are-the-devil's-spawn-and-it's-all-Bush's-fault-thread.
That must be one down.
So have Guiliani and Arnold, but Pataki? Why not let at least one conservative on stage such as Bennett or Kemp? Are we supposed to go into stealth mode because we are ashamed of our positions? or because we think we can somehow trick people into voting for us?
Really? I didn't get that memo. Sorry.
How do you know that they tend to whine if you don't read it anymore?
Bill Owens? Rick Santorum? They seem to be doing just fine as near as I can tell.
I'd rather the leftists screeds be shown as lies and prove we are more than the hateful idiots we are constantly being portrayed.
So you believe having conservatives speak will reinforce the notion that we are "hateful idiots"? Only when the most liberal of all Republicans speak can we then demonstrate this is not the case?
In other words, you're willing to make every concession to the liberals - if only they'll like you. I've got some news for you...no matter who we trot out the liberals are not going to like us. All the more reason why we must advance sound principles.
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.
Again, in your opinion is conservatism incapable of getting people interested?
"I'm certain that Bush and Rove have a strategy behind all of this, I just hope they're right."
Yes, the strategy is called pandering.
I doubt they're right.
UNRELIABLE SOURCE.
They're going to have a long wait. I really don't think many of them believe that anyway. Businesses like paying teenager type wages, and the Reps understand this.
That's my point.
Everyone already knows we are social-conservatives. That's a given. What nobody else is hearing is who else is on our side.
Besides that, we don't even know what will be said.
I think it's a shame that nobody is giving them the benefit of the doubt first, but attacking right up front.
I can't believe so many have fallen on their week knees (not directed at you) already, and we still have a long way to go.
Politics is a blood sport.
Well. The solution to being defined by liberals is, of course, to accept their definition?
No. The solution is to attack.
Four years of Kerry would make the eight years of Clinton look relaxing and fun. IMHO
Baloney. We know full well where Bush stands on social issues and what he has done so far. The truth is that some in the choir want to be pandered to in order to feel more important or special. If they want to have a snit about it, it's a free country, but it's neither rational or mature.
Arnold is the only Kennedy not a sibling of JFK who can win a state-wide race.
Pretty much a slap in their face.
And no, I didn't get any memo either, but I read the news and see what's going on.
"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."
Then you can kiss the part of the base that is motivated primarily by values goodbye. The party should be a big tent, but the national leader must reflect the values of the people who actually vote for the GOP. Guiliani was as far as I can tell an excellent mayor of NYC, and I'm sure he would make a good Gov of or Senator from NY. But the key is that its New York. It is unreasonable for social conservatives to expect one of their own to win in places like that, so you go with the next best thing which is a guy like Guiliani who is worthless on most social issues, but probably is good on most economic and national security issues.
And there is nothing wrong with this. Zell Miller could never have gotten the Dem nomination. Evan B__? of Indiana could never get it. Ben Nelson of Nebraska could not get it. Baucas of Montana could not get it.
Knowing that Guiliani would probably not nominate conservative judges would be enough for me to not support him as a presumptive nominee, but I'd be happy to help him get elected to another office in NY.
Social conservatives speaking during prime time: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney (she's a social conservative on almost every issue, FMA notwithstanding), Senator Zell Miller.
Social moderates speaking during prime time: Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki.
Sometimes conservative, sometimes maverick, sometimes moderates speaking during prime time: John McCain.
The full line-up of speakers hasn't been made public yet. Bloomberg isn't speaking during prime time, he's speaking during the day. Guiliana, McCain, and Schwarzenegger are three of the most popular and high name recognition Republicans in the country. The only one I'd drop from the line-up is Pataki (I'd give him a non-prime time slot). Given the mix, and the fact that there's still one prime time slot open (which will likely go to a conservative), I don't see the problem.
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.