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.)
Since this is a Republican convention it seems to me that all aspects of the party would be included.
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".
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.
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
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.
True.
Is it this passage that offended you? It also offended Hillary.
Was it this passage that made you gag? Hillary didn't like it either. Real conservatives loved it.
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.
It should be given again. --- Damn straight it should.
Howlin, maybe you didn't like the speech because he was mean to Hillary.
Typical boilerplate.
Are you under the impression that I give ONE rat's butt what you think about me?
Frankly, I'm glad to be on the other side of whatever issue you're on.
And I can surely see what you'd agree with Pat Buchanan.
Are you a "real conservative?" If you are, I don't want to be one; as much as you've trashed the members of this party, I'm glad to be on the "other side" from you.
Once again, I'll post this:
About half of the "life long Republicans now fed up with Bush" posters you see on FR are actually DUh trolls. The other half are Buchananites. Impossible to tell which is which, though, as they are naturally interchangeable (with or without disguises).
You fit the bill, kiddo.
Please point out the passage in the Buchanan speech that you find offensive or embarrassing. And please stop using coarse language in your efforts to lash out at me.
You're not very knowledgable are you? One can find the 92 speech thrilling without being a "Buchananit" -- because today, a Buchananite is by definition somebody who's left the GOP. The 92 speech was all about SUPPORTING the GOP. I rooted for that speech - - as I expect Reagan did. Reagan made Buchanan his communications director -- something you may not know. The fact that Buchanan has gone off the reservation post-92 (and I didn't follow him) doesn't mean his 92 speech wasn't classic conservatism. Rush liked it. (Rush even offered to be BUchanan's PR guy - facetiously - during the 92 primaries). But this is all wasted on someone as thick as you, so I'll sign off from our unedifying "interchange" now.
I'm knowledgeable enough to know that all your posts are trolling.
Pick on somebody who cares what you think.
"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."
Oh I see, better to be "pure" than win the election, better to be "better than" and 100% "right" than work with those of lessor moral standards :-)
Yeah, let's get get excited about a chance to "tell off America". Let's get some "morally superior" sermonizer and tell the American people just how much we despise and look down on them and then, I suppose, they'll feel so ashamed and humiliated they will all magically change into "good" people that the "pure conservatives" can stand.
What a great idea. NOT
I'm not picking on you, just exposing you. (And if you don't "care what I think" -- which is fine by me -- why do you always flame my posts re. Iraq? Now that you've outed yourself as a liberal, I'll put even less credence in your hysterical responses on that issue) Have a nice day!
Because they are filled with lies.
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.