Posted on 07/12/2004 6:34:33 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
Republican Convention Spotlights 'Moderates' By Paul M. Weyrich CNSNews.com Commentary July 12, 2004
The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual organization, sponsored an ad last week in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call showing pictures of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Governor George Pataki, former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain.
The ad asked how one could get a primetime slot at the Republican Convention next month in New York? The answer was by opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), the amendment to the Constitution that the U.S. Senate began debating late on Friday, July 9.
Apparently political stars get rewarded with a primetime Convention spot if they disagree with President Bush's position on the MPA, as well as (except for McCain) President Bush's position on the right to life. They can also disagree with the President's position on capital punishment, guns and a host of other issues. Mind you, the over-the-air networks are only carrying an hour or two a day of either Convention this year because there is no drama in either Party.
So these so-called "moderate Republicans", what in the bad old days we used to call Rockefeller Republicans, are most of what you will see in the four days of political coverage unless you are a C-SPAN junkie.
In fact, the only primetime speaker who agrees with the President on the MPA is Democrat Senator Zell Miller, (D-GA), who heads up Democrats for Bush.
To make matters worse, three of the four "moderates" are what National Review's Kate O'Beirne calls "Kerry Catholics". These are so-called Catholics who do not subscribe to the Church's position on marriage or life.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am outraged that men like this would be highlighted, yet people such as Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA), a member of the Senate leadership; Senator Sam Brownback, (R-KS), who has selflessly given his time to help poor refugees in Africa; and Representative Henry Hyde, (R-IL), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- all traditional Catholics who accept Catholic positions -- are passed over.
I understand the need for the President to attract swing independent voters to the ticket. I understand that McCain and Giuliani are especially popular among independent voters and that Schwarzenegger is a big star who the White House is happy to have supporting the President. (By the way, Governor Arnold has said he will help the President so long as it doesn't diminish his own popularity. So much for true dedication.) But Pataki? Who needs him?
Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney campaign manager, is a bright fellow who says he understands the need to attract the Catholic vote. Indeed, the Catholic vote could be a problem for Kerry since about a third of the Catholic Bishops have taken the position that he should not present himself for Holy Communion given his position against key church teachings -- especially on marriage and life.
A few other Bishops have gone further and said they would not give Kerry communion if he came to their diocese. St. Louis Archbishop Burke instructed all of his clergy to deny Kerry Communion if he came to church in his diocese, as did the bishops of Colorado Springs and Lincoln, Nebraska.
Does Mehlman think he is going to win over the Catholic vote by highlighting dissenting Catholics? Don't show me these polls that say that Catholics are no different than other voters when it comes abortion and marriage -- the Catholics in these polls do not necessarily attend Mass frequently. "Catholics" who give themselves the label are one thing; Catholics who take their Church seriously are another matter.
If Bush gets the vast majority of votes from serious Catholics, he wins. To do that, a Henry Hyde or Rick Santorum would need to assure serious Catholics that Bush is where they are and Kerry is absolutely in the opposite camp. You won't get that from the presently constituted line-up at the Convention.
Putting that aside, what about the rest of the conservatives in the country? Mehlman evidently hasn't learned yet that not all conservatives are Republicans. We understand that not all Republicans are conservatives...so that crowd certainly will be well represented in the primetime line-up.
Let's get some conservatives who will get the ordinary voters excited about the ticket! The left is highly motivated. I hate to say it, but conservatives, for the most part, are not excited about re-electing the President. They are supporting him reluctantly.
Often I have become known as a cheerleader for Bush-Cheney only to be tamped down by the vast majority of people who are in touch with me by e-mail, phone or snail mail. I find this shocking.
I am willing to guess that the argument for this primetime line-up at the Convention is that the President and Vice President are conservatives so there is no need to present others. Maybe the Vice President will have some red meat for the troops (tepidly delivered), but the President cannot say what needs to be said. He is the President after all.
Senator Jon Kyl, (R-AZ), the Chairman of the GOP Policy Committee, or Rep. Roy Blunt, (R-MO), the House Majority Whip, surely could speak for conservatives. Senator Jim Talent, (R-MO), or Senator John Sununu, (R-NH), are also good choices. Or how about some of the new, young talent in Congress like Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI), or Mike Pence, (R-IN)?
For all their brilliance, Mehlman and Karl Rove (who no doubt vetted this line-up) have made a very serious mistake with this Convention's line-up.
It is one that the rank and file should not tolerate. 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.
(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)
No the only "conservatives" who were embarrassed AREN'T conservatives - they're liberals, or - the same thing - CINOs (conservative in name only)
Yes, it will; then we'll need the drugs. :-)
Once again, this thing has managed to turn yet another thread into it being all about IT!
Yup. In the future I'll post some things on his threads but will ignore him. It's a favorite tactic of DNC plants.
Any group of conservatives who cannot see the profoundly clear choice between a vote for Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards aren't worth keeping in the GOP anyway. Really, those who need to be coddled to do the right thing for themselves, their families and their country cannot be trusted for support regardless of the tribute they are given at the Convention.
This is a silly, contrived outrage.
Amen.
I didn't say there wasn't a clear choice between the two pairs.
I did state that they are making a serious political error in pandering to a wing of their party which has no real philosphical connection with Republicanism and never will.
Nobody can convince me there is any substantial distinction between a Rockefeller Republican and a Democart excpet the name.
The "Rockefeller Republicans" you loathe are voting for George W. Bush on November 2. Democrats, by definition, are voting for John F. Kerry on November 2.
What is so difficult to understand in this equation?
Excellent investigative reporting. Facts to back up our impressions + misleading screen name.
The "Rockefeller Republicans are setting their agenda for a campaign run for the White House in 2008, or increased influence in a new Bush administration after 2004.
If they get elected to the White House, or succeed in having more influence with Bush and the National Party, you can expect on a national level what Chrissie Whitman (another Rockefeller Republican) provided to the people of the State of New Jersey during HER tenure: One of the most liberal, if not, THE most liberal State Supreme Court in the Nation which continually generates activist court decisions on a multiplicity of social issues outside their proper functions for which the people of New Jersey pay with their hard-earned tax money; more anti-gun legislation; a fiscally bankrupt state; and the use of her position, office and finances to defeat conservative Republicans in primaries as far away as Virginia - she campaigned against Oliver North when he ran for office in that state. She also pandered to the most offensively racist minority leaders in New Jersey and failed to cooperate with Federal officials in apprehending illegal aliens. She even caved in to radical animal rights people in calling off a much needed black bear hunt in that state which the State Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Council supported and said wa necessary for the safety of the people and livestock of that state.
I am happy they MAY vote for Bush (nobody knows WHAT they will do in the ballot box), but I certainly am NOT entertained by the prospect of having them as keynote representative speakers at a Republican convention.
What part of what I said did you not understand?
Rockefeller Republicans are RINOs. They are liberals who are anti-gun, loose Constitutional constructionists, oppose the death sentence, support abortion, support appointment of activist liberal judges, believe in affirmative action, oppose clamping down on illegal aliens, oppose a Constitutional Amendment to protect the flag, support the removal of God and religion from every aspect of public life, support "gay" rights, and in nearly every other respect I can think of act like Democrats.
If you can't see the danger in allowing them a voice in the Party after reading the above, you must be a RINO yourself.
Grow up.
That's a pretty empty retort.
So much for the "no liberal media" line...
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.