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."
I'm certain that Bush and Rove have a strategy behind all of this, I just hope they're right.
Starting to sound like Demo whiners me thinks?
Why preach to the choir?
We're trying to bring more folks to the table, and trotting out the base isn't going to do it. It will confirm the stereotype the liberals and the press have of Republicans. Why should we help them?
Look, we have the entire Republican Senate pushing for a constitutional ammendment and we have a President endorsing it and being very pro-life.
Let's let the party try to appeal at least a little to the moderates at the convention (aka: show).
Maybe the demonrats will invite Gary to speak in Boston?
Bush was the first president to address the annual Right to Life March on Washington. He is not embarrassed to speak publicly about his religious convictions.
I don't fault Rove on this one. Many religious conservatives are politically naive and easily taken to the cleaners by the media.
I DO fault Rove for sabotaging Bill Simon and favoring Arnold Schwarzenneger. I don't mind having Arnold talk at the convention, but he must be told in no uncertain terms to behave himself and not talk about Big Tents.
Notice that this story comes from The New York Times, which is trying--as usual--to split the Republicans. It's not often you find them interviewing Don Wildmon for an article. Wildmon should have known better than to let himself be inveigled into doing their dirty work.
I will be disappointed if at least one Republican social conservative is not given a prominent speaking slot. Its insulting not too, and it would be a missed opportunity to not give some early national exposure to some potential Presidential candidates in 2008 like Senator George Allen of Virginia, and Gov Bill Owens of Colorado. While it makes sense to give Pataki a slot because he is gov of NY, and Guiliani because he is a 9-11 national hero, and McCain because the media loves him, and Schwarzenegger because he is a small counterweight to the glamorati who support the Dems; the fact is that none of these could be the nominee in 2008. McCain will be too old, Arnold is foreign-born, and Pataki and Guiliani are too liberal on the social issues.
I don't care who speaks or does not speak at the Republican Convention because I won't be watching it anyway, or the Democrats either. My vote is already signed, sealed and delivered. Both parties are going to use their conventions to woo the Undecided 5% who will tip the election. This doesn't concern me.
Like their great strategy of looking the other way while millions of illegal aliens enter the country hoping that they will eventually vote Republican?
These conventions are shows and maybe it makes sense to just trust those who have been delegated the duty of designing the show. If it succeeds, everyone will be happy. If it bombs, well, they won't be asked again. ;-)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Sounds to me like their weeding out left leaning Conservatives
The strategy is to attract some liberal votes while dumping social conservatives. It worked for Weld in Massachusetts!
"but no true social conservative other than President Bush will garner precious, limited network airtime."
Uh, Dick Cheney.
Kerry WILL destroy this country the rest of the way. Ain't no way I won't vote for Bush...but if the bots could stop deluding themselves for 5 seconds, they would realize that Mr. Weyrich is correct.
It has been proven that without strong enthusiastic base support, you can not win.
IMO, Bush is making a very large mistake. Deja-Vu.. We'll see who gets to eat crow on election day!!!