Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republican Convention Spotlights "Moderates:
CNSNews.com ^ | 7-12-04 | Paul Weyrich

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.)


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; conservatives; gwb2004; moderates; paulweyrich; republicans; rinos; rncconvention
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 07/12/2004 6:34:34 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

McCain doesn oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment. So far he has not taken a position on it.


2 posted on 07/12/2004 6:48:16 AM PDT by gilliam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

Who cares? The positions of Arnold, Guiliani and Pataki aren't close to a majority of Republicans nationwide. Unless these gentlemen get up there and deliver rip-roaring speeches in favor of abortion and gay marriage (highly unlikely), what they say will make little practical difference.


3 posted on 07/12/2004 6:48:28 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

Maybe Mr. Weyrich should remember the 1992 convention when Pat Buchanan let loose with his speech. I was embarrassed by that speech as were thousands of other conservatives.

Why don't we just tell all the moderates to take a hike and have an inclusive Republican Conservative Party and lose all the elections so people like this can continues to whine we are losing and don't understand why. (sarcasm)

You don't put on a party convention for the rank and file -- you put it on to capture votes of that mushy middle. Would I prefer that we were all Conservative in the Republican Party -- you can take that to the bank. Do I want to win every election -- absolutely. Right now those two don't go together thanks to a bunch of states with non-conservative values. That means in the general election you have to got to have moderates go vote and be in the party to ask others to vote. Will not turn my back on moderates when we need their votes so desparately to keep two extremely liberal lawyer RATs out of the WH. Those two make our moderates look conservative when comparing their voting records.

Some of these conservative writers need to put a zipper on their lips and keyboard until the election and just get out and get conservatives elected across the Country and re-elect Bush-Cheney '04.

When you have people like Rudy and Arnold in your Party, you need to spotlight them to bring in votes. I am very comfortable with both of them speaking. Rudy is a fantastic speaker -- heard him this spring.

We are not a one issue party and we are certainly not an exclusive party as much as Weyrich and some others want to make it so. I want to register as many new Republicans as we can to go vote -- they need to have one overall agenda and that is defense and homeland security which go hand and hand.

For social issues, you change hearts one at a time and we are winning in the hearts of the American people but you don't do it by shoving it down their throats. You do it by individual contact. Showcasing on the national stage some of our more outspoken conservatives plays to the base but we need to win this national election for the security of our Country which triumps social issues IMHO. Without national security, we don't have to worry about social issues, some socialist will take care of that for us.

Enough of my mini rant for this morning -- have some other things to get done -- local House Rep needs reelected and RATs are after him big time because he stands up for Conservative values.


4 posted on 07/12/2004 6:56:30 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Win Another One for the Gipper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Other than Ted Kennedy, does anyone think the RAT convention will feature their far-lefties? No, they won't. Both candidates must get the middle in order to win. Why don't people understand this????? Most voters are not one-issue people. The president has taken a stand against abortion and for marriage. That should be enough for people at this point in time. Like Kerry is an acceptable alternative??? I don't think so. President Bush is far more conservative in his views than some here give him credit for. Even with what he has done, he is called a right-wing radical, evil and a facist. It's time to pick a side, people. I'll take the President any day of the week. Gotta go but wanted to get my thoughts down here.


5 posted on 07/12/2004 7:05:18 AM PDT by Wait4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson
"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Regards, Ivan

6 posted on 07/12/2004 7:07:12 AM PDT by MadIvan (Ronald Reagan - proof positive that one man can change the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson
"since about a third of the Catholic Bishops have taken the position that he should not present himself for Holy Communion "

Should Catholics who support the RINOs on the platform or Specter also not present themselves for Communion?

7 posted on 07/12/2004 7:24:50 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
What embarassed you about this speech? It should be given again.

Patrick Buchanan at the Republican National Convention August 17, 1992

BUCHANAN: Well, we took the long way home, but we finally got here.

And I want to congratulate President Bush, and remove any doubt about where we stand: The primaries are over, the heart is strong again, and the Buchanan brigades are enlisted--all the way to a great comeback victory in November.

Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden--where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists--in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

One by one, the prophets of doom appeared at the podium. The Reagan decade, they moaned, was a terrible time in America; and the only way to prevent even worse times, they said, is to entrust our nation's fate and future to the party that gave us McGovern, Mondale, Carter and Michael Dukakis.

No way, my friends. The American people are not going to buy back into the failed liberalism of the 1960s and '70s--no matter how slick the package in 1992.

The malcontents of Madison Square Garden notwithstanding, the 1980s were not terrible years. They were great years. You know it. I know it. And the only people who don't know it are the carping critics who sat on the sidelines of history, jeering at 1 of the great statesmen of modern time.

Out of Jimmy Carter's days of malaise, Ronald Reagan crafted the longest peacetime recovery in US history--3 million new businesses created, and 20 million new jobs.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, 1 by 1, the communist dominos began to fall. First, Grenada was liberated, by US troops. Then, the Red Army was run out of Afghanistan, by US weapons. In Nicaragua, the Marxist regime was forced to hold free elections--by Ronald Reagan's contra army--and the communists were thrown out of power.

Have they forgotten? It was under our party that the Berlin Wall came down, and Europe was reunited. It was under our party that the Soviet Empire collapsed, and the captive nations broke free.

It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity--with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves--for leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Most of all, Ronald Reagan made us proud to be Americans again. We never felt better about our country; and we never stood taller in the eyes of the world.

But we are here, not only to celebrate, but to nominate. And an American president has many, many roles.

He is our first diplomat, the architect of American foreign policy. And which of these 2 men is more qualified for that role? George Bush has been UN ambassador, CIA director, envoy to China. As vice president, he coauthored the policies that won the Cold War. As president, George Bush presided over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. And Mr Clinton? Well, Bill Clinton couldn't find 150 words to discuss foreign policy in an acceptance speech that lasted an hour. As was said of an earlier Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the Intl House of Pancakes.

The presidency is also America's bully pulpit, what Mr Truman called, "preeminently a place of moral leadership." George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.

Mr Clinton, however, has a different agenda. At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clinton's convention, no room at the inn.

Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: "Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history." And so they do.

Bill Clinton supports school choice--but only for state-run schools. Parents who send their children to Christian schools, or Catholic schools, need not apply.

Elect me, and you get 2 for the price of 1, Mr Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe?

Well Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery--and life on an Indian reservation.

Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Friends, this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

A president is also commander in chief, the man we empower to send sons and brothers, fathers and friends, to war.

George Bush was 17 when they bombed Pearl Harbor. He left his high school class, walked down to the recruiting office, and signed up to become the youngest fighter pilot in the Pacific war. And Mr Clinton? When Bill Clinton's turn came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft.

Which of these 2 men has won the moral authority to call on Americans to put their lives at risk? I suggest, respectfully, it is the patriot and war hero, Navy Lieutenant J G George Herbert Walker Bush.

My friends, this campaign is about philosophy, and it is about character; and George Bush wins on both counts--going away; and it is time all of us came home and stood beside him.

As running mate, Mr Clinton chose Albert Gore. And just how moderate is Prince Albert? Well, according to the Taxpayers Union, Al Gore beat out Teddy Kennedy, 2 straight years, for the title of biggest spender in the Senate.

And Teddy Kennedy isn't moderate about anything.

In New York, Mr Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the "central organizing principle" of all governments must be: the environment.

Wrong, Albert!

The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds ahead of families, workers and jobs.

One year ago, my friends, I could not have dreamt I would be here. I was then still just one of many panelists on what President Bush calls "those crazy Sunday talk shows."

But I disagreed with the president; and so we challenged the president in the Republican primaries and fought as best we could. From February to June, he won 33 primaries. I can't recall exactly how many we won.

But tonight I want to talk to the 3 million Americans who voted for me. I will never forget you, nor the great honor you have done me. But I do believe, deep in my heart, that the right place for us to be now--in this presidential campaign--is right beside George Bush. The party is our home; this party is where we belong. And don't let anyone tell you any different.

Yes, we disagreed with President Bush, but we stand with him for freedom of choice (word missing?) religious schools, and we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

We stand with President Bush for right-to-life, and for voluntary prayer in the public schools, and against putting American women in combat. And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.

We stand with President Bush in favor of federal judges who interpret the law as written, and against Supreme Court justices who think they have a mandate to rewrite our Constitution.

My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.

My friends, in those 6 months, from Concord to California, I came to know our country better than ever before in my life, and I collected memories that will be with me always.

There was that daylong ride through the great state of Georgia in a bus Vice President Bush himself had used in 1988--a bus they called Asphalt One. The ride ended with a 9:00 PM speech in front of a magnificent southern mansion, in a town called Fitzgerald.

There were the workers at the James River Paper Mill, in the frozen North Country of New Hampshire--hard, tough men, 1 of whom was silent, until I shook his hand. Then he looked up in my eyes and said, "Save our jobs!" There was the legal secretary at the Manchester airport on Christmas Day who told me she was going to vote for me, then broke down crying, saying, "I've lost my job, I don't have any money; they've going to take away my daughter. What am I going to do?"

My friends, even in tough times, these people are with us. They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did. They share our beliefs and convictions, our hopes and our dreams. They are the conservatives of the heart. They are our people. And we need to reconnect with them. We need to let them know we know they're hurting. They don't expect miracles, but they need to know we care.

There were the people of Hayfork, the tiny town high up in California's Trinity Alps, a town that is now under a sentence of death because a federal judge has set aside 9 million acres for the habitat of the spotted owl--forgetting about the habitat of the men and women who live and work in Hayfork. And there were the brave people of Koreatown who took the worst of the LA riots, but still live the family values we treasure, and who still believe deeply in the American dream.

Friends, in those wonderful 25 weeks, the saddest days were the days of the bloody riot in LA, the worst in our history. But even out of that awful tragedy can come a message of hope.

Hours after the violence ended I visited the Army compound in south LA, where an officer of the 18th Cavalry, that had come to rescue the city, introduced me to 2 of his troopers. They could not have been 20 years old. He told them to recount their story.

They had come into LA late on the 2d day, and they walked up a dark street, where the mob had looted and burned every building but 1, a convalescent home for the aged. The mob was heading in, to ransack and loot the apartments of the terrified old men and women. When the troopers arrived, M-16s at the ready, the mob threatened and cursed, but the mob retreated. It had met the 1 thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, backed by courage.

Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.

God bless you, and God bless America.

8 posted on 07/12/2004 7:30:48 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all Things Truth Beareth Away the Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

Agreed.

The media doesn't have Perot, Kerry-Edwards is not bouncing... so they have to get conservatives to stay home.


9 posted on 07/12/2004 7:42:03 AM PDT by hchutch ("Go ahead. Leave early and beat the traffic. The Milwaukee Brewers dare you." - MLB.com 5/11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Thanks for posting this!!! I was out of the country at the time and am glad to read that speech in its entirety.


10 posted on 07/12/2004 7:58:02 AM PDT by SmithPatterson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson
Let's get some conservatives who will get the ordinary voters excited about the ticket!

Hmmm...several here disagree.

I happen to think it's a good article and that Bush needs to fire up his CORE to win, not the center.

We'll see who is right the day after the election.

11 posted on 07/12/2004 4:48:19 PM PDT by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

" Often I have become known as a cheerleader for Bush-Cheney "

Oh really.
Paul Weyrich routinely writes " this is the last straw " columns where he threatens President Bush that conservatives will stay home in November.


12 posted on 07/12/2004 4:52:25 PM PDT by Wild Irish Rogue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; livius; ...

Moderate = babykilling gun grabbers. Adultery and sexual misconduct issues plague many of them as well. But then again, whose convention is it, anyway?


13 posted on 07/12/2004 5:00:33 PM PDT by narses (If you want ON or OFF my Catholic Ping List email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; livius; ...

"Should Catholics who support the RINOs on the platform or Specter also not present themselves for Communion?"

In my opinion, babykilling repugnicans are no better than babykilling democrats. Schwarzenegger, Pataki, Guliani and the rest of the GOP abortion lobby ought to be treated exactly the same as Kerry and the Keretics.


14 posted on 07/12/2004 5:02:46 PM PDT by narses (If you want ON or OFF my Catholic Ping List email me. +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
"Should Catholics who support the RINOs on the platform or Specter also not present themselves for Communion?"

"In my opinion, babykilling repugnicans are no better than babykilling democrats. Schwarzenegger, Pataki, Guliani and the rest of the GOP abortion lobby ought to be treated exactly the same as Kerry and the Keretics."

From Fr. Pavone on elections: Q & A

2. They're all bums! -- No candidate is worthwhile!

This is the trap of looking for the non-existent perfect candidate. But your vote is not to canonize the candidate; it is to give him or her temporary power to do some limited good.

If both choices look evil, try to see how one may be better than the other. This is not "choosing the lesser evil." Rather, it is choosing to limit evil, and that choice is a good.

3. I can't be a single-issue voter!

First of all, most people are. It is a "single issue" that usually motivates a person to rally around the candidate who supports that issue.

But if you don't want to be a "single-issue" voter, at least you can be an intelligent one, and realize how the many issues are related. At the foundation of them all is the right to life, without which no others are possible. If a politician can't respect the life of a little baby, how is she supposed to respect yours?

4. The election doesn't matter. -- We can't put our trust in worldly power. Those we elect whom we think are on our side disappoint us anyway.

We don't put our trust in earthly power and government, but in the Lord. Political involvement is not our salvation, but it is our duty. It is God Himself who gives us the opportunity and wisdom to shape our society according to His laws. Surely, any human leader can disappoint us, and many do. But we are not responsible for predicting or controlling the future, nor are we capable to do so. We are responsible for analyzing the positions of the candidates and choosing those whose positions correspond to the moral law and the common good.

5. I'll show them! -- using the election to take out our anger or resolve a personal problem.

Sometimes individuals or groups vote reactively. A candidate, or a party, did them wrong, and so they want to teach them a lesson by voting vindictively. This may help to vent a personal frustration, but who suffers in the process? It would be far better to go to the gym and take out your anger on a punching bag, or go into a field and yell. But those you elect to public office will influence a lot of people -- and unborn babies -- for a long time. Look beyond your personal problems or agendas.

6. The media says…-- I am swayed by what the news says about who is winning.

Look, what you do determines what the polls say, not vice-versa. Decide whom to vote for based on who is the better candidate, and then cast that vote without paying any attention to what the news reports are saying. If you think you will be swayed by a news report, don’t listen to the news until after you vote.


In all cases, keep your focus on God and on the future. There is work to do, there is no time to waste, and the truth always prevails.

WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

15 posted on 07/12/2004 7:14:59 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (Abortion is the Choice of Satan, the father of lies and a MURDERER from the beginning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; annalex; Annie03; Antoninus; ...
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.

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.

President Bush, are you listening?

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)

16 posted on 07/12/2004 7:43:34 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic - -without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I was embarrassed by that speech as were thousands of other conservatives.

I've heard from the media that there were people "embarrassed" by PJB's speech in 92. Never met a Republican or conservative in the flesh who was "embarrassed" by the speech, though. You're one unique individual if you were really "embarrassed" - and if you're really a "conservative." The polls showed a hike in support for the GOP right after the speech, so I think a lot of the dumping on the speech is media fantasy. For you to be pushing the liberal media line makes me suspect you're no conservative.

17 posted on 07/12/2004 7:52:54 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson
I understand the need for the President to attract swing independent voters to the ticket.

Then STFU. This is a critical election and desperate times for our country. Kerry would be WORSE than Clinton. The speakers are all about helping Bush appeal to moderate voters which will sway this election in November.

18 posted on 07/12/2004 8:17:28 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gilliam

Yeah .. leave it to Paul to muddy the waters.

Rudy = New York .. could bring in a lot of votes for Bush and it might give us the state .. or New Jersey (NJ people love Rudy).

Arnold = California .. the state has been close and a lot of people who might not otherwise vote might be inspired to listen to Arnold


19 posted on 07/12/2004 8:20:30 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: America is the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

Good grief. What a whiner. If you knew that the election was going to be decided by about 6-10% of the populace who occupy the middle -- what would be the wise thing to do at your convention? Try to shove and "agenda" down people's throats? Preach to the choir? I thought that was what liberals and activist judges did?


20 posted on 07/12/2004 8:26:15 PM PDT by Sunsong (John Kerry, who rose without a trace, with no accomplishments but his own advancement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Good points.

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...


21 posted on 07/12/2004 8:27:41 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
>>You don't put on a party convention for the rank and file -- you put it on to capture votes of that mushy middle.

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.

22 posted on 07/12/2004 8:43:43 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

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.


23 posted on 07/12/2004 8:45:52 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: America is the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

Does Weyrich hear himself? The words hateful, spiteful, mean, narrowminded, petty and childish spring to mind.


24 posted on 07/12/2004 8:56:18 PM PDT by cyncooper ("We will fear no evil...And we will prevail")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; PhiKapMom; Dog Gone
Political conventions don't sway voters.

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.

25 posted on 07/12/2004 9:00:23 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
what they say will make little practical difference.

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.

26 posted on 07/12/2004 9:00:31 PM PDT by cyncooper ("We will fear no evil...And we will prevail")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Indie
I happen to think it's a good article and that Bush needs to fire up his CORE to win, not the center.

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.

27 posted on 07/12/2004 9:09:42 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey; Dog Gone

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!


28 posted on 07/12/2004 9:37:58 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Win Another One for the Gipper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
If the speech was so bad, why did Pres. GHW Bush gain 15 points from the convention?

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.

29 posted on 07/12/2004 9:38:42 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

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.


30 posted on 07/12/2004 9:44:06 PM PDT by onyx (Kerry/Edwards: It's the hair, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Indie

The latest Pew research indicates that 97 percent of CONSERVATIVES support Bush.


31 posted on 07/12/2004 9:46:31 PM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: narses

No doubt; you are correct; this is not about party affiliation, this is about dead kids...


32 posted on 07/12/2004 9:49:05 PM PDT by Tuco Ramirez (Ideas have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; PhiKapMom
I've heard from the media that there were people "embarrassed" by PJB's speech in 92. Never met a Republican or conservative in the flesh who was "embarrassed" by the speech, though. You're one unique individual if you were really "embarrassed" - and if you're really a "conservative." The polls showed a hike in support for the GOP right after the speech, so I think a lot of the dumping on the speech is media fantasy. For you to be pushing the liberal media line makes me suspect you're no conservative.

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.

33 posted on 07/12/2004 9:51:05 PM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
what would be the wise thing to do at your convention?

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.

34 posted on 07/12/2004 9:53:06 PM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Heard through the grapevine that Arnold wanted to attend the Democratic National Convention in a show of bi-partisanship.

BS.

35 posted on 07/12/2004 9:54:56 PM PDT by Howlin (John Kerry & John Edwards: Political Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

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.


36 posted on 07/12/2004 9:55:56 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

"MODERATE" will get Kerry elected.


37 posted on 07/12/2004 10:05:07 PM PDT by paleocon patriarch (Rule One: -"The cover-up is worse than the event." Rule Two: "No one ever remembers the first rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
In my opinion, babykilling repugnicans are no better than babykilling democrats.

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.

38 posted on 07/12/2004 10:06:03 PM PDT by Tamzee (Flush the Johns before they flood the White House!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
No one watches the conventions. That's why the ratings are so low. Aside from it being one big infomercial that is basically used for internal purposes, the conventions have little if any influence on the undecided voters. For a few days people are subjected to media accounts from the conventions and the storylines are splashed on TV and in rags and mags. Aside form the party loyalists and politcal junkies, most folks turn away. They're not interested. Bottomline. Just like VP bumps, convention bumps don't matter much in the long run. What happens in the roughly two months after the conventions and leading up to the election itself, does matters a whole lot. That's when the elections are decided. Slugging it out, in the closing weeks on the road with the excitement of the campaign rallies, stump speeches and general ballyhoo.
39 posted on 07/12/2004 10:07:53 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom

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.


40 posted on 07/12/2004 10:11:17 PM PDT by Reagan Man (.....................................................The Choice is Clear....... Re-elect BUSH-CHENEY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmithPatterson

Since this is a Republican convention it seems to me that all aspects of the party would be included.


41 posted on 07/12/2004 10:13:10 PM PDT by ladyinred (What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? Become a monthly donor and find out!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.

Having just read it I don't see what's so "horriffying". It's an excellent conservative speech. And you are most likely a democrat or at best a RINO.

It's nice that you don't believe one word about support going up after that speech but the polls showed otherwise. But if you're a good liberal, you won't let the facts get in the way of your " beliefs".

42 posted on 07/13/2004 8:13:08 AM PDT by TradicalRC (From big government conservatives, good Lord deliver us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
It was THE nastiest, most mean-spirited, condescending speech I have ever heard.

You've just revealed to me and the FR world that, while you're vociferously in favor the war in Iraq, you're no conservative. Being pro-Iraq-war certainly isn't a conservative litmus test; Kerry is for the war, too; so is Hilary. But real conservatives agree that there's a culture war in this country and that the ACLU, etc is trying to tear down our institutions. That's what PJB said - and conservative applauded. Hilary - and you - didn't.

43 posted on 07/13/2004 8:25:26 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Since this is a Republican convention it seems to me that all aspects of the party would be included.

Exactly, so lets have some social conservatives speak! If it wasn't for social conservatives migrating from the Dems to the GOP, the GOP would still be a minority party - and Gore would be president. In other words, don't dis them

44 posted on 07/13/2004 8:28:44 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Please identify the passage in Buchanan's 92 speech that you found outrageous. This will help Freepers understand your liberalism, as you point out specifically the sentiments in that speech that you disagree with.


45 posted on 07/13/2004 8:33:07 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: narses
In my opinion, babykilling repugnicans are no better than babykilling democrats. Schwarzenegger, Pataki, Guliani and the rest of the GOP abortion lobby ought to be treated exactly the same as Kerry and the Keretics.

True.

46 posted on 07/13/2004 8:33:35 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom. And from the ancient forests of Oregon, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to the environmental extremists who put insects, rats and birds ahead of families, workers and jobs. " --- Buchanan, 92 speech

Is it this passage that offended you? It also offended Hillary.

47 posted on 07/13/2004 8:36:35 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"Greater love than this hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friend. Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as they took back the streets of LA, block by block, so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country. " --- Buchanan speech, 92

Was it this passage that made you gag? Hillary didn't like it either. Real conservatives loved it.

48 posted on 07/13/2004 8:37:55 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
"My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him." -- Buchanan, 92 convention.

Maybe it was this passage that upset you so much. Kerry and Hillary were also upset by it, as was the ACLU, Norman Lear, Barbara Streisand and Michael Moore. You're in good company, Mr. liberal.

49 posted on 07/13/2004 8:39:57 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
What embarassed you about this speech? ----Not a single word.

It should be given again. --- Damn straight it should.

50 posted on 07/13/2004 8:42:21 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson