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.)
I guess someone forget their medication this morning.
People who don't like the isolationist Buchanan are liberals? Hahahahahhahahah
No, people who say they are "embarassed" or "outraged" by Buchanan's '92 speech - which was pure Reagan conservatism - are liberals. There wasn't an iota of isolationist sentiment in that speech . Read it. There was a time when Buchanan was a REaganite - Reagan hired him as communications director - - this speech reflected Reaganism. IF you disagree with any sentiment in that speech, please point it out. Otherwise, you might consider doing to your "pie hole" what, when you're angry, you've suggested others do with theirs.
why do you always flame my posts re. Iraq? MO<Because you obviously find my views -- as a conservative who doesn't march lock step with you -- threatening.
Excuse me?
Everyone on this site knows you for what you are. A troll or a Buchananite and as far as I can tell, there's very little difference these days.
That you are defending someone who has definitely gone off the plantation since 1992 tells me everything I need to know about you. Now it all makes sense.
Try Reaganite. I was working and voting for Reagan when you -- probably -- were still voting Democrat.
You're about as threatening -- and conservative -- as Ron Reagan Junior.
There seems to be an entire wing of the psych ward off their meds around here lately.
You're a riot. I'm such a staunch Republican that I've turned off some conservatives. But keep it up, churchill -your namesake gets more embarrassed every day.
It's going to get worse as the election gets closer.
Mehlman will be leading Bush-Cheny down to defeat.
Bush has demonstrated an incomparable lack of good judgement on any number of issues, especially when selecting "advisors"
No Republican will ever be elected to office by pandering to the left. He won't get liberal votes (and these four RINOs are "liberals", not "moderates" - Bush is a "moderate") and he will erode his conservative base enough to loose enough of them to be defeated.
These four had better be very careful what they say, and they had better be balanced with a strong slate of conservative speakers.
I've just read through two month's worth of churchillbuff's posts. It was painfully evident he is not what he pretends to be.
The freeper who is mis-named does not support the draft it seems, even if it is determined that one is needed, and he makes fun of everyone who does support a draft.
He does not support the war on terror beyond Afghanistan and does not seem to grasp that this is a war on Islamic terrorism in general, not just Al Qaeda.
Is very upset that not enough Congressmen have sent their children to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the fact that over 10 names were provided him of kids who are over there.
Condemns all Republicans who supported the war including the entire admistration, Bennett, Feith, Kristol, Pipes, Gaffney, Frum, Wolfowitz, etc.
Thinks Bush should send his daughters to Iraq.
Bases his opinions on Tom Clancy, an author.
Calls Iraq a quagmire.
Defended Kerry twice against the charge of flip flopping on the war in Iraq.
This is a pretend conservative who spends far too much time on Free Republic finding every thread he can to condemn those who most of us support.
I've never pretended to support the war in Iraq. So how can you say I'm "pretending" to be something I'm not. I'm a conservative who opposes the invasion of Iraq. You conveniently overlook my many FR posts that have nothing to do with Iraq. I don't think I've ever seen you post about any subject OTHER than Iraq, so what evidence do we have that you're a conservative - - and not just somebody who (like a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans) happens to support the war in Iraq? Supporting the war in Iraq is no infallible sign that somebody's conservative - - since Hillary and Kerry both support it.
I've never pretended to support the war in Iraq. So how can you say I'm "pretending" to be something I'm not. I'm a conservative who opposes the invasion of Iraq. You conveniently overlook my many FR posts that have nothing to do with Iraq. I don't think I've ever seen you post about any subject OTHER than Iraq, so what evidence do we have that you're a conservative - - and not just somebody who (like a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans) happens to support the war in Iraq? Supporting the war in Iraq is no infallible sign that somebody's conservative - - since Hillary and Kerry both support it.
I've never pretended to support the war in Iraq. So how can you say I'm "pretending" to be something I'm not. I'm a conservative who opposes the invasion of Iraq. You conveniently overlook my many FR posts that have nothing to do with Iraq. I don't think I've ever seen you post about any subject OTHER than Iraq, so what evidence do we have that you're a conservative - - and not just somebody who (like a lot of Democrats as well as Republicans) happens to support the war in Iraq? Supporting the war in Iraq is no infallible sign that somebody's conservative - - since Hillary and Kerry both support it.
Ahem. I post on far more matters than just Iraq.
Anyone who suggests the president send his daughters to Iraq is not a Bush supporter. Period.
Really? I though it was a great speech, as did other conservatives I know. The only "conservatives" that were embarrassed were those uncomfortable with their social position, IMO.
Why? Is serving in Iraq not honorable - - and, according to you, absolutely essential to American security?
PhiKapMom still hasn't identified what passage in Buchanan's speech made her uncomfortable or embarrassed. I know that there was a lot in there that Hillary objected to. Kerry didn't like it either. What was it that PhiKapMom didn't like?
"troll" What does that mean? I don't know the official definition, but if it applies to me, it must mean:
1) A Reaganite conservative who in 30 years of voting has never voted for a candidate who wasn't a Republican. 2) A FR poster since 1998, consistently condemning Clintons (male and female), Carter, Kerry and the Klansman senator from West Virgina; and/or 3) an intelligent, independent minded conservative who gets under "Howlin's" thin skin.
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.