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."
They hate Bush.
Like I said, I have no problem with these guys and I don't think any of them should now be bumped aside. All I'm saying is that some time should be made for a prominent social conservative, or a social conservative who could be prominent 4 years from now. I know, that most people will not remember who spoke 4 yrs from now, but I'd sure like to get an early look at what some of the possible nominees of the future have to offer in terms of charisma and speaking skills -- like Sen George Allen and Gov Bill Owens to name just two.
Santorum? Yes, he's great.
Then they will follow with that nice little screed by Kerry's campaign ops/reporter on homosexual sex. Again. We all know who he is. The moderates would be reinforced that we are Nazis.
What are you not getting? They hate us. They really do.
That isn't all we are. We are not a one-trick pony. Read my post above regarding black churches and words vs. deeds. We don't pander. We don't need to.
If a more mainstream person gets to talk on a national stage, so what?
I'm not saying I would be happy about a Guiliani nomination, but I can see it happening.
Screaming with flying spit on national television won't win us any supporters.
Daschle and his warmth to Michael Moore is finding that out the hard way.
George Bush
Dick Cheny
Laura Bush
Lynne Cheney
Exactly. We MUST stay focused on the big picture. Too many are so worried about their own pet issues that they are being distracted. I am as socially conservative as they come but if the choice was to listen to Arnold or Gary Bauer, I would rather watch Arnold because he is a motivator and makes you want to do your best and makes you see the future. Gary Bauer and others like him do the opposite. That is why Rove is using his capital wisely.
Is there supposed to be a point in that? They hate us - so you propose that we pander to them in a futile attempt at making them like us. That's a bizarre line of reasoning.
That isn't all we are. We are not a one-trick pony. Read my post above regarding black churches and words vs. deeds. We don't pander. We don't need to. If a more mainstream person gets to talk on a national stage, so what?
I've got no problem with it. Just offer conservatives as well as opposed to nothing but the most liberal Republicans. I'm the one suggesting we need to show the full breadth of the GOP; you're proposing we offer up only a narrow view unrepresentative of mainstream Republicans.
I agree 100 percent.
IMO When Bush wins, Zell Miller will be rewarded with a cabinet post.
Aren't you silly; to some they are ALL immigration threads!
Is that what conservatives do?
People act like those people are the ONLY people speaking; this thing is at least four days long; there will be a LOT of people speaking!
No, I don't; we don't all have tunnel vision.
The tent has gotten bigger, or haven't you noticed?
If only the perfect one's would see that. No they will whine and complain, kind of like the liberals do that they are not being treated fair.
Grow up people we have a lot at stake in this election. If we pout and stomp our feet and lose this election you will be the loudest one's complaining.
Exactly. The unfortunate truth is that when Joe Voter hears "socially conservative Republican", he thinks "Pat Buchanan".
"I'm not saying I would be happy about a Guiliani nomination, but I can see it happening"
I just can't see him winning primaries in any Southern, Sun-Belt, or Rocky Mtn West state if there is an opponent is the slightest bit viable.
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.