Social Conservatives Want More of Their Own to Speak at the G.O.P. Convention

NY Times ^ | July 12, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[neverdem]

THE REPUBLICANS

Some prominent conservatives say they are upset at the apparent exclusion of the champions of their favorite issues from the limelight of the Republican convention in favor of more moderate members of the party.

Conservatives said they were surprised to see former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator John McCain of Arizona - all moderate Republicans who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage - given high-profile roles at the convention, with few conservative Republicans on the list.

"I hate to say it, but the conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the president," warned Paul Weyrich, the longtime Christian conservative organizer, in an e-mail newsletter on Friday. "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."

Pleasing both moderates and conservatives at the convention has been a challenge for the Republican Party in recent elections. In 1992, after a bruising primary battle over social conservative issues, the party gave the outspoken traditionalists like Patrick J. Buchanan a major share of convention airtime. Many strategists later argued that their battle cries of a culture war over abortion, gay rights and feminism contributed to the defeat of the first President George Bush by driving away moderate voters.

Seizing on that lesson, George W. Bush was nominated in 2000 at a strikingly different convention dominated by images of inclusion and his calls for "compassionate conservatism," with little discussion of abortion or other priorities of social conservatives.

Prime airtime is particularly precious this year because the networks have said that they plan to limit their hours of coverage of the conventions. And at the Republican event in New York City - Aug. 30 to Sept. 2 - the Bush campaign appears to be following the template used in 2000.

The speakers' roster makes room for many moderate Republicans, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, as well as Education Secretary Rod Paige, Laura Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney. But conservatives have noted with alarm that so far, aside from Mr. Bush, the only like-minded social conservative with a featured speaking role is Senator Zell Miller, a Democrat from Georgia.

"When the only Reagan Republican to enjoy a prominent supporting role at the party's convention is a Democrat, the G.O.P. has a serious identity problem," Kate O'Beirne, the Washington editor of the conservative National Review, wrote in a column posted on its Web site last Wednesday. The list, she wrote, "is not the mark of a self-confident party establishment," adding, "if the lineup is intended to make an overwhelmingly conservative party attractive to swing voters, it does so by pretending to be something it's not."

Yesterday, Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "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."

This year, Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, has emphasized the importance of turning out conservative churchgoers whose votes fell four million short of his projections in 2000. Bush campaign pollsters have concluded that frequent churchgoers are likely to vote disproportionately Republican and made them a major target of voter registration efforts.

And as the Democratic campaign of Senator John Kerry has tried to reclaim "values" rhetoric over the last week, Mr. Bush has turned up his own talk of opposition to abortion and especially same-sex marriage. He devoted his radio address on Saturday to supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is scheduled for a vote in the Senate this week.

"We had been assured months ago that as this vote happened the president would take an active role - both publicly and on Capitol Hill," said Gary L. Bauer, a social conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and the founder of the organization American Values. "So they are keeping their word and my hat goes off to them for that."

But Mr. Bauer added, "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 said social conservatives were continuing to push for greater representation at the convention, as well as for Mr. Bush to take up abortion, same-sex marriage and similar issues prominently in his own address at the convention.

Some Christian conservatives were already feeling sensitive to perceived slights from the Bush campaign, in part because of how hard it is pushing for their help in turning out voters. Some had already reacted badly to reports of the Bush campaign's efforts to recruit churchgoers to help turn out their fellow worshipers, including by sending the campaign their church registries and by speaking about the election to church groups.

Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement saying, "I'm appalled that the Bush-Cheney campaign would intrude on a local congregation in this way."

He added, "I am fearful that it may provoke a backlash in which pastors will tell their churches that because of this intrusion the church is not going to do any voter registration or voter education."

The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, said that many conservative Christians felt the Bush campaign had made mistakes, including its outreach to churches and the omission of more social conservatives from the convention so far. "This campaign has done some dumb things," he said. "They have alienated people who they desperately need, big time."

Mr. Schmidt, the spokesman for the Bush campaign, said that polls show that support for Mr. Bush among the Republican base is at record levels, comparable to support for President Ronald Reagan.

On Friday, as the Senate began debating the amendment on same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, placed an advertisement in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call listing Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Pataki, Senator McCain and Mr. Giuliani. "Want to get a prime time spot at the Republican National Convention?" the advertisement asked. "Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Hoping to turn the same advertisement into a message to the convention planners, Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative Family Research Council, sent flowers to Cheryl Jacques, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, with a note that said, "Dear Cheryl, per your ad in Roll Call - thank you."

[Howlin]

I guess we have different standards for what constitutes a desirable candidate.

Just we do; I prefer Republicans, not Democrats, unlike you.

[Wallace T.]

Rev. Henry Comstock was a New York minister noted for his promotion of the Comstock Act, which in 1872 banned interstate commerce in obscene materials through the U.S. Mail. Several facts must be remembered about this statute. First, Congress was at the time dominated by Radical Republicans, who well exceeded Abraham Lincoln and Henry Clay, themselves strong government Whigs, in their zeal to centralize political power in Washington. As such, they were in opposition to the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian mistrust of central government. The defeat of the attempt of Southern secession eliminated the notion of limits on Federal power in the eyes of the Radical Republicans. Second, Comstock was not motivated by his concerns about public morality, but in protecting his friend, the prominent New York minister, Harry Ward Beecher, from having word of scandals involving him and his mistress spread via the mail system.

Using the U.S. Mails as a tool of censorship defied both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The U.S. Mail was authorized in that document to exist. However, its monopoly was never intended. Nor was the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution intended to be anything other than establishing a free market among the states, eliminating interstate tariffs. However, Federal power has been abused as far back as the Sedition Act of 1798. The U.S. Mail prevented the dissemination of abolitionist literature in the South before the Civil War. Seditious materials were often banned from the mails, particularly during the Civil War and the two World Wars. Today's advocates of "hate crime" laws, who include a majority of the Senate, the RINOs not excluded, would do the same thing to political and religious speech.

Comstock, though not motivated by enforcing morality but in protecting a fellow clergyman, was wrong. Those who would use Federal power to enforce personal morality are also misguided. The fact remains that those who scream the loudest against censorship on sexual matters seem to have no problem in silencing Christians and other moral people, as well as those who advocate what they deem as "hate."

[familyofman]

How many 'fiscal conservatives' will be speaking at the RNC - probably none. No one will speak about a 'Balanced Budget Ammendment' - only talk of tax cuts, and phony talk about 'spending cuts' that will never happen with the group of'porkers' in Washington now.

[Hank Rearden]

I prefer 'Rats?

You haven't read anything I've posted, have you?

[Howlin]

Yeah, I read where you won't be supporting Bush.

[tacticalogic]

Comstock, though not motivated by enforcing morality but in protecting a fellow clergyman, was wrong. Those who would use Federal power to enforce personal morality are also misguided. The fact remains that those who scream the loudest against censorship on sexual matters seem to have no problem in silencing Christians and other moral people, as well as those who advocate what they deem as "hate."

Be that as it may, wheather the calm voice of reason gets filtered out with the screaming is up to you.

[Wallace T.]

Since the 1970s, evangelical Christians have been moving away from the public school children. The home school movement, which accounts for about 2 million students, is predominantly made up of these people. Forty years ago, church-affiliated schools were mostly Catholic, with some Lutheran and Reformed private schools. At present, the number of students attending private schools with an evangelical affiliation are roughly equal to those in Catholic schools. Prominent evangelical spokesmen like James Dobson who advocated reforming the public schools a decade ago now support shunning them. The fact that a measure encouraging Southern Baptists to seek Christian education made it to the floor of the nation's largest evangelical denomination indicates the progress of the home and private school exodus.

It would appear that conservative evangelicals are trending away from attempting to influence public schools to setting up an alternative educational system.

[Howlin]

As much as he would like to be re-elected, I imagine he would get back to "clearing up some brush" in Crawford. The we will all be up Sh!t Creek with President Kerry.

Exactly. It will be interesting to watch who on this forum is happy about it.

[tacticalogic]

It would appear that conservative evangelicals are trending away from attempting to influence public schools to setting up an alternative educational system.

Aspirations of prominence in a dominant political party indicate that there are areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control.

[rwfromkansas]

None of these speakers will oppose social issues during the convention.

Also, aside from Bush....the article fails to mention Cheney will be speaking in primetime.

The platform is what matters.

That said, it would be nice to have Michael Reagan speak!!!

Bush campaign:

Phone: 703.647.2700
Fax: 703.647.2993
Email Addresses:
General Information:
BushCheney04@GeorgeWBush.com

[Wallace T.]

You are assuming that the liberals and leftists who would advocate "anything goes" sexually but who would suppress speech that goes against their political views are prone to the rules of logic. They tend to be postmodern in their thinking; to them logic and even language are merely tools of those they consider oppressors in repressing creativity and spontaneity and in establishing the dominance of an oppressive class. They agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Additionally, there is the issue of situational ethics, which is the predominant viewpoint among the elite. To those who hold such a viewpoint, there is a "higher value" such as love or self-preservation, that supersede other values. Thus, a liberal who supports gun control may feel no guilt in shooting a burglar because his need for self-preservation supersedes the importance of taking guns away from general circulation. Liberals and leftists also suffer from cognitive dissonance, which enables them to hold to differing opinions at different times. Take John Kerry and John Edwards as examples. One day, they can laugh at the X-rated diatribes of Whoppi Goldberg; the next day, they can pose as upright moral family oriented men.

Whether social conservatives protest immorality a lot, a little, or not at all has little to do relative to the Left's desire to thwart its opponents.

[Wallace T.]

But who doesn't have "areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control," except perhaps the Amish or hermits?

[neverdem]

How many 'fiscal conservatives' will be speaking at the RNC?

How about Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York. I'm not so sure about Arnold raisng income taxes. I'm pretty sure he went about it the indirect way approving the issuance of new bonds.

Probably all of the others have wanted to raise revenues with some sort of tax e.g. income, property, sales, excise, sin, etc. or fees, fines and tolls. In that sense of balancing a budget, they can claim to be a fiscal conservative. But cut a government spending program or pork, I think only McCain would qualify as being willing to cut pork. How sad?

[Wallace T.]

Some early advocates of sexual freedom were themselves white supremacists. Margaret Sanger, the early 20th Century birth control crusade, was an advocate of eugenics. She believed that nonwhites, along with whites from southern Europe, were genetically inferior to whites of northern European extraction. The sex researcher Alfred Kinsey excluded Jews and blacks from his staff.

Racism is far from the exclusive property of holders of traditional values.

[tacticalogic]

You are assuming that the liberals and leftists who would advocate "anything goes" sexually but who would suppress speech that goes against their political views are prone to the rules of logic.

Where did I make that assumption? The only assumption I have made is that just because they ignore the rules of logic, it does not mean that I must also.

[tacticalogic]

But who doesn't have "areas of public policy that they are seeking to influence, and control," except perhaps the Amish or hermits?

Probably no one. Everybody wants things, it's what they're willing to do to get them that gets to be problematic.

[Wallace T.]

The "loudest screamers" to whom I referred in post #102 are the liberals and leftists, especially those associated with the news and entertainment media. They are the first to go on the warpath respective to, say, attempts to censor Howard Stern (a misuse of Federal regulatory power, BTW). It is also they, who, to cite Alec Baldwin as an example, joke about murdering men like Henry Hyde and his family. (Granted, Baldwin's rant was facetious, but it is a reflection of his deep seated hatred of his opponents. I do not believe Baldwin is an isolated example of liberals' disdain for opponents.)

[Tamzee]

I've learned that Motrin is best for post-Freeping headaches ;-)

[tacticalogic]

Okay. Now, how are those people and their tactics relevant to the issue at hand? What pupose does bringing them into the debate serve? Baldwin doesn't like what they have to say. I simply have reservations about the venue they've chosen to want to present it in.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Fantastic. What an enjoyable thread. I hope the others who responded to me are reading what you wrote as well.

I hope at least you are teaching this stuff somewhere.

Or perhaps you should (or have) at least try and get elected somewhere. Alas, your response is a bit more nuanced and well thought out than your less refined SC's are used to understanding.