Social Conservatives Locked Out of GOP Prime Time

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.

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 Democrats aren't the only body of individuals in this country that fail to understand the risks this nation faces in the next 4 years. It is not realistic to reside under the belief that every battle can be fought at once by one man. G.W. has chosen the battle he feels threatens this country above any other. Terrorism. To round out his platform it would appear to be tax cuts and the fight to preserve marriage.

Smaller Government and immigration are concerns. Instead of expecting Bush to be our savior and tackle 5 strong platforms, why not call for greater accountability from our representatives in the House and Seante? I realize the President is the figurehead to the Republican party but surely it must be obvious he isn't the only one with power in Washington. Leave the President to his chosen platform. It is an honorable one. Demand the House and Senate adopt their OWN platform and carry some of the weight for a change. Between the two bodies it isn't unreasonable to ask those that distribute our money, reign in their expenditures. Nor would either body take the personal hit on a tough immigration stance that the President would. For they would be protected by the number that comprise those bodies.

To the article-

"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."

Be leery of the NY's motive in printing this piece.

Though it is truthful that conservatives are (so far) not among the majority of conservative speakers.

"Even though Karl Rove "emphasized the importance of turning out conservative churchgoers" who didn't vote in the numbers he expected in 2000,"

DUI release have something to do with this?

"The Bush/Cheney campaign has miffed some churchgoers with certain voter-registration tactics, including having congregations send the campaign their registries."

I do think it was a bad calculation to ask for church registries. Still, no one HAD to turn over the registry. Tell the campaign they are willing to aid his election but not sacrfice parishioners privacy. Issue over, unless people wish to leverage it for their own purpose.

"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."

A stance that he is largely being uncredited for, even though the courage required to take this stance isn't one a majority of private citizens would themselves take for fear of vocal reprisal.

"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."

Zell and Cheney will have a speaking role.

"The most like-minded person with a featured speaking role is Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia."

One, not true. Cheney will be speaking. Two, they just said no other true social conservative would speak than follow up with Zell? Sloppy journalism.

"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.""

Maybe we'll all be under the rubble of 20 detonated WMD's, making election irrelevant.

Threats, do not mistake that is what this is, do not engender sympathy with me. I believe conservatives do have a right to desire another vocal conservative voice, from within the Republican party, to speak. Fight for this right with the maturity I expect from an adult. This childish rhetoric does not have the desired effect of influencing change.

"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.""

So far it sounds reasonable, right?

"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.""

Then he moves from being reasonable to absurd. In otherwords, flowery language in deference to social conservatism over a week long televised period is of more concern than daily physical and verbal action over the distance.

"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.""

Admittedly a weak response until tempered by the last line. Curious of their intentions.

On reflection, I was too categorical in my statement, and you're both right to some extent. However, I know a LOT of people in the mushy middle that don't have a clue about political philosophy. They lead shallow lives never picking up much more about politics than accidentally hits their ears.

John McCain is a cool maverick.

I loved Terminator II.

Ask these people about pending legislation or the name of the head of the FBI, and they look at you like you just came from Mars.

Preaching or enlightening them about the conservative message is pretty much futile. They're going to vote, if they vote, based largely on emotion and some sense they've picked up as to who will be better. Trotting out speaker after speaker to talk about the horrors of abortion, or scary gays, won't win them over. They're going to vote on general themes. National security, keeping more of your own money, pro-family and small business. Things that all of the Republican speakers will be strong on.

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.