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."
You don't understand; this is the part of the party that has been rebuked since 1996; we're not going to have another Pat Buchanan representing us and they can't take it.
So their soluation is to hang around the GOP and try to destroy it from within; their thinking is that if they can cause a big enough GOP defeat, in our dispair, we will once again turn to them to save the GOP.
They'd actually rather turn this country over to the Democrats than "compromise."
See, it would "teach us a lesson."
Yeah, but what if its McCain? . . .
Silly you. Don't bring up issues. Afterall this is just a thread about the Republican candidate for president and that conservatives have no place at the rino convention.Issues! Silly! It's party time!
Well I meant in addition to Bush. And I'll bet that none of the other three you mention will not mention one single social issue, even those in which the mainstream majority position of Americans is the conservative position. I don't think Bush will either with the possible exception of marriage.
Maybe its irrational, but I want to see a future star.
Having Zell Miller be the voice of social conservatism at the convention is a smart move. Should be fun to watch the press try to paint him as an eeeeeeeeeeevil Republican.
Boo hoo hoo. I'm no John McCain fan, but there are plenty of swing voters who are. So as long as he doesn't say something stupid, I'm glad he's speaking. The conventions aren't for the base. They're for the undecided.
There was a glowing article about South Carolina governor Mark Sanford posted last week. What do you think about him as a Republican candidate in '08?
How old is McCain? I just don't think it will happen. But McCain actually does have a pretty good historical record of being mostly conservative, so he would be better than Guiliani. He seems to be going left a bit though recently with his oppostion to the Marriage Amendment and opposition to making the tax cuts permanent.
Is conservatism incapable of persuading undecideds?
I don't know much about him, but what little I have heard sounds good. I didn't mean to suggest that Sen Allen and Gov Owens were the only ones, or even the best. For all I know Sanford may be the best choice in O8 to face either Kerry/Edwards in round 2, or Edwards/???? or Hillary/??? in round 1.
I'll look that article up and read it.
About half of the "life long Republicans now fed up with Bush" posters you see on FR are actually DUh trolls. The other half are Buchananites. Impossible to tell which is which, though, as they are naturally interchangeable (with or without disguises).
So you think Kerry will be elected?
Oh I know, they are DELUDED if they think we will get just a little spanking if their little temper tantrums win.
McCain will be 72 in 2004, a couple years older than Reagan was in 80.
Well, how do you know you won't?
Did you see Condi Rice's speech in 2000? I would have voted for her on the spot after that speech. I hope SHE has a speaking role sometime, even in the middle of the night.
I know these people may not be some people's "kind" of conservatives, but they ARE conservatives in one form or another.
Yes. The mushy middle has no political leaning and maybe doesn't have the intellectual capacity or inclination to get it.
Both sides needs their votes in order to win.
Much as you hate it, conservatives ARE going to be at the convention; just not the right wing whackos.
I don't agree with that at all; conservatism CAN persuate undecides; just not the firebrands.
Bush IS a conservative.
That's where we differ. Conservative values (limited government, low taxes, self-sufficiency, pro-military, etc.) are extremely persuasive. It's when we hide our values as though we're ashamed of them that conservatism's worth is called into question.
That inherently weakens the GOP. We must stand proud if we wish to strengthen the party.
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.