Skip to comments.Republican Convention Spotlights "Moderates:
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.)
NJ is surprising in flux at the moment, many assumed it would swing to Kerry early. And many in NJ consider Guiliani an idol. I know one woman who named her daughter Guiliana.
California... even if Arnold can't deliver California for Bush, it will force the Dems to spend money there. That's less money for the Dems to spend in PA, FL, Ohio, etc...
Political conventions don't sway voters. Political conventions are meant for loyal party activists to gather together and nominate their choice to run for POTUS. It's a big rally designed to call to action the party faithful and come together to renew an effort by joining in a common cause. Most of the RNC delegates will be made up of consevatives and rightfully so. Just like the DNC delegates are mostly made up of liberals.
While Pat Buchanan's rhetoric in 1992 was over the top, he was right. There is a culture war going on in America today. Its the left against the right. And spotlighting GovRino as a prime time speaker isn't the best way for conservatism to triumph over liberalism. Besides, Arnold's support for PresBush is lukewarm at best. Heard through the grapevine that Arnold wanted to attend the Democratic National Convention in a show of bi-partisanship. His advisors told him, that was a bad idea.
People seem to forget it's about winning an election .. not spotlighting their petty little agenda.
The President has already proven to me by his actions that he has the best interests of AMERICA on his mind and in his heart.
That's all I need to know. If some extreme right-winger doesn't get asked to speak .. that's just too bad.
Does Weyrich hear himself? The words hateful, spiteful, mean, narrowminded, petty and childish spring to mind.
As Dog Gone pointed out to you when you made that same statement an hour ago on another similar thread, the post-Convention bumps prove otherwise. Mushy middlers pay attention to the conventions and become attracted to candidates as a result.
What they will say will be very helpful to President Bush. They will all praise his leadership and explain why he should--needs to--be re-elected.
You are right, of course they won't be advocating the issues listed.
The CORE should be fired up against Liberals without needing help from anyone. I don't need Bush to fire me up to vote against Democrats. If the CORE needs "firing up" then the CORE has a serious problem.
Dog Gone is right IMHO -- over the years the mushy middle has chosen their candidates from conventions and why you see the bumps. Sometimes the mushy middle changes and likes the 2nd convention better then the first.
Thus, we have Rudy (great speaker) and Arnold (very popular) speaking.
If the base isn't already fired up, especially this time, a convention is not going to help. Didn't help me get fired up with Dole! The base is meant to get fired up by VP Cheney and Pres Bush not other speakers as they give their speeches and then leave the convention on a campaign swing. The last night is for the base IMHO!
It was only afterwards that the media (and liberal Republicans) began their campaign to position the speech as a hate-filled diatribe.
And, we see that even today, the media won the war to rewrite the speech after the fact, to the point where even Republicans buy into the dishonest and factually incorrect spin that was applied after the fact.
And I don't even like Buchanan! But, this almost Soviet rewriting of history really bothers me.
Heard through the grapevine that Arnold wanted to attend the Democratic National Convention in a show of bi-partisanship. His advisors told him, that was a bad idea.
Sure you did.
On your very own sour grape vine.
Arnold has ALWAYS campaigned for the GOP.
The latest Pew research indicates that 97 percent of CONSERVATIVES support Bush.
No doubt; you are correct; this is not about party affiliation, this is about dead kids...
BS; I've never met one that WASN"T horrified by it. You're a great one to be telling people they're not conservatives.
And I don't believe one word you said about support for the GOP going up after that speech; if that were so, the GOP wouldn't have run like hell from Pat Buchanan.
It was THE nastiest, most mean-spirited, condescending speech I have ever heard.
Some around here -- the "real conservatives," ya know? -- are demanding somebody short of Pat. Some "in your face" stuff that would turn off most of the swing votes AND some of the other conservatives.
I think you replied to the wrong post... I said nothing about Buchanan or his speech.
Since you mentioned it to me, though, I'll tell that I thought Buchanan's speech was a great one, just a poor venue for it strategically. Buchanan's speech given at the convention helped underscore the growing complaints that Bush 41 wasn't conservative enough. I became one of the angry, ill-informed, "teach the GOP a lesson about moderates" who voted 3rd party in 1992, the only time in my life that I didn't vote a straight Republican ticket. And look where that brilliant strategy got us.
"MODERATE" will get Kerry elected.
Then ponder this one for a moment... there is currently a bill heading for Congress that will force abortionists to inform women seeking abortion that the infant suffers severe pain during the process. There will be real babies saved once women are forced to hear this and a few change their minds.
It will be a battle to get this passed, if not this year then we have a better shot next year with a few more conservatives and "repugnicans" that help us keep an even greater majority in Congress and force bills to the floor.
Lastly... if that bill DOES pass Congress but not until next year, Bush will sign it. If Kerry is in the White House at that point, Kerry certainly will not.
If God can use a donkey then we can surely use moderates to give us leverage in gaining ground on pro-life issues.
Forgot to throw in the debates. They are significant and influencial in people making a final determination on who they'll vote for in the end.