Posted on 08/19/2004 2:50:47 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Your liberal media elite may have found absolutely nothing interesting in the Democratic platform construction process, and may have found nothing interesting in boiling intra-party fights beneath the surface (other than Stephanopoulos hinting at it on the radio afterwards), but national reporters are now preparing their quadrennial promotions of the Republicans for Choice and the Log Cabin Republicans as they make their routinely pointless run on the GOP platform.
In the Los Angeles Times, they're breaking out the I word (intolerance) to describe what Republicans are trying to avoid in embracing the "religious right." The Los Angeles Times hasn't yet discovered the "lifestyle left" or "libertine left."
We're rewarded with idiotic comparisons like this: "We are giving President Bush an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment," said Christopher Barron, political director of the Log Cabin Republicans. For political newbies, the Times helpfully explains: "During the 1992 campaign, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton repudiated rapper Sister Souljah, saying that her suggestion that blacks kill whites was as racist as the anti-black rhetoric of KKK leader David Duke. Clinton's words drew reprimands from some African American leaders, but boosted his image among moderate voters as a Democrat who had support among blacks but was not beholden to special interests."
Does comparing the Family Research Council or Concerned Women for America to the Klan or rapper advocates of racist violence sound like the work of "moderates" in the party? Or are they in fact conservative-haters? Posted at 07:11 AM
What's wrong with being inclusive???
This ought to be an interesting convention. It should hopefully be less scripted than the DNC.
There should be some healthy debate, a variety of ideas presented by the speakers, and a variety of speakers... Like non-party members... *grin*
That's nice...'cause the Log Cabin "Republicans" and the "Republicans" for Choice are the Sister Souljahs of this party. It's time that those Democrats in Republican clothing were sent packing.
Being inclusive is one thing. Betraying core party principles for the sake of the fringe elements is another. What the LCRs and RFCs are asking for is the latter, not the former.
The model for dealing with this ought to be the way candidate Reagan dealt with Mary Crisp.
The way to win elections is not to drive people away.
Take a tour of the Log Cabin "Republicans" site. Change a couple of words around and it becomes just another Leftist site promoting the virtues of Regression.
They're nothing but Infiltrators, and we don't need them, any more than Conservatives need to bend and start welcoming abortionists or race hustlers or ecoterrorists or Appeasers/Collaborators. The Right has too much of a soft underbelly as it is.
Either you stick with principles or prostitute yourself for votes.
I don't recall the party collapsing between 1980-1988, although Mary Crisp and much of her ilk did leave.
Whether the true conservatives like it or not, there are people who are pro-choice and/or gay that stand with the Republicans on other issues that are important to them.
Does the Republican Party need to parade them on the platform because of this? - - - NO! , but no need to chase them away either.
Come on, Laura Bush has said she doesn't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and Lynne Cheney stands up for her lesbian daughter - - - Republicans aren't going to chase them out of the party.
Geez, this may seem crude, but I know a pro-life woman who said she may change her stance on that issue if it is ever proven that being gay is genetic and can be detected early in pregnancy.
Then they are advised to focus on the issues with which they share common ground rather than expecting the whole party to cater to their fringe interests.
They can't push their "fringe issues" by just voting Republican anymore than the anti-gay/pro-life Democrat voters can advance what they view as "fringe issues".
It's one thing to have strong views and try to change people's hearts and minds. It's another thing to chase people who don't share those views out of a great political party.
All that will happen by forcing religious ideologies into politics will be to put the democrats in power for the next 50 years.
Get rid of the conservatives and you get rid of the core of the party. The key is to emphasize issues that are important to moderate swing voters as well, NOT to turn into a bunch of squishy George Pataki/Christie Whitmans "me too" Republicans in Name Only.
Ahh, a typical Republican from the land of fruits and nuts. Enjoy your coked out orgies in Laurel Canyon or Marin County. ;-)
There are gays that vote for lower taxes, gun rights, and even pro-life
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.