Real Republicans: Non-Purists Need Not Apply
Right now, all the Real Republicans™ are up in arms over the fact that four whole liberal pro-choice Republicans will be filling prime-time slots at the G.O.P. convention. Worse yet, one of those four, Michael Bloomberg, is actually a liberal in other respects as well! Never mind that he’s also the mayor of the city in which the convention will be held, as was another of the four. Never mind that number three is the governor of that same state, and number four, a wildly popular celebrity and the govenor of the most populous state in the union. Never mind that the anti-abortion side will still be well represented by the likes of Rod Paige, John McCain, Zell Miller and … oh, I don’t know …
Try as I might, I’m having a tough time bringing myself to care. In my view, the convention is not there to make the most conservative of the conservative feel warm and fuzzy inside, as though their Republican votes somehow counted more than everyone else’s. It certainly isn’t to reinforce any specific part of the party’s mistaken belief that it speaks for the party as a whole. It is there for one reason, and one reason only: to help the G.O.P. win as many races this November as it possibly can. I don’t know if they really needed to invite Bloomberg and Pataki, but I do think that failure to invite the other two would have been criminally stupid. Beyond that, not being a full time political consultant, I can’t pretend to know what the ideal mix of pro-thises and anti-thats is. I do think that Karl Rove and the gang know this stuff know how to play the game much better than you or I, or that matter, most Republican Congressmen, who represent “safe” Republican and cater almost exclusively to their partisan base.
I could be wrong, of course, but I’m not. To prove it, I’d like to start a pool. Rather than focus on who speaks and who doesn’t, let’s look at the message itself. How many of those rogue elephants do you think will abuse their platform by calling for more abortions, stricter gun control, higher taxes, amnesty and/or driver licenses for illegal aliens, or any other political agenda that clearly conflicts with the party line. My prediction: two. One from Mike Bloomberg, who isn’t really a Republican to begin with, the other from John McCain, whose religious beliefs prevent him from opening his mouth in public without reminding everyone that he’s a “maverick” about one issue or the other. Guiliani will take about being tough on crime. Pataki will try to me-too him while droning on about uncontroversial issues, and Ahnold will pump us up about bread-and-butter Republican issues, just like he did at the California GOP Convention last February. And everyone who complained about the fact they got to speak will end up looking very, very silly.
July 17th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t even pay that much heed about who speaks in prime-time at either convention. Frankly, if I were a good political strategist or a blogger, I would focus on the types who speak in the middle of the day. Especially at the Dem convention, for I would not be surprised to see the Dems relegate the “BUSH LIED; PEOPLE DIED.” and the “SELECTED, NOT ELECTED” chorus of freaks to that timeframe.
July 17th, 2004 at 6:44 pm
Well, Xlrq-er, Look at it this way. The dems have no pro-lifers as in zero-population-pro-lifers The republics do and are pro-life except perhaps for some Rino’s like Arnold and others who are hactually Kennedy Dino’s. For a solution to this mess, I’d write Dennis Archer of the ABA.
He has a clue except his organization is also zero-population-pro-life-growth.
July 17th, 2004 at 8:38 pm
Jeff,
I had already determined to blog on this topic at Calblog. I already know it will be much richer from having ruminated upon what you’ve posted here.
Conservatives wouldn’t be reacting as strongly as they are if the administration had planned for a speaker to the right of Zell Miller at the Republican National Convention.
When a Democrat is the most conservative man standing beside the President and Veep, it’s got to stand out as being a bit odd, no matter how you parse it. For conservatives to desire at least someone with beefier conservative credentials then Zell Miller is hardly equivalent to “all [pro-life] all of the time! Dammit.”
That having been said, I find myself in basic agreement with what is the essence of your argument:
I do think it is possible to present some Republican speakers that are to the right of Zell Miller without endangering races this November.
Even with the squeamishness being manifest in the selection of speakers at the Republican National Convention, there are safe non-RINO picks for speaking slots. One perfect example is Michael Reagan. He is—at least from what I understand—a solid conservative. He’s well-spoken, and his presence slaps back at the Dems’ use of Ron Reagan in Boston. Most importantly, he can speak about how GWB, and the Republican Party have RWR’s roots.
I don’t think that would be too much to ask.
July 17th, 2004 at 9:21 pm
Jeff,
I think your headline holds the stick from the wrong end.
It’s not Purists saying, “Non-Purists Need Not Apply.” Rather, it’s a squeamish administration saying that “Purists Need Not Apply” for speaking invites.
The Purists aren’t asking to own the table—they’re asking for a speaker, not a monopoly—but they would at least like a place at it, if only a token one.
As it stands so far, however, they have been consigned to the doghouse. That’s why the party conservatives are growling.
July 17th, 2004 at 9:30 pm
A couple of points, X. I’m not a Republican, so your link to me is inaccurate. I’m a conservative. My point is that George Bush’s Republican Party views conservatives as embarassing poor relations that they send out of town when polite company comes over.
As several of your commenters have pointed out, it’s not conservatives seeking to monopolize the convention. They just want a seat at the table. When the most conservative prime time speaker is a Democrat, conservatives have a right to ask whether the Republican Party is still their home.
July 17th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
There are several “purists” speaking already. McCain’s pro-life, as are Zell Miller, Rod Paige, Bill Owens, Melissa Hart. The conservative wing is certainly getting its place at the table; it’s just not getting the whole table.
Spoons: if you’re a conservative but not a Republican, what’s the objection to Miller being a Democrat?
July 18th, 2004 at 1:29 pm
I have no objection to Miller being a Democrat. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over most Republicas. My point, however (which you seem to be continually missing), is simply that the GOP is not hospitable to conservatives these days.
July 18th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
Yup, the Republican Party is so damned inhospitable to conservatives that they not only invite several conservative Republicans to speak at their conventions, they even invite a conservative non-Republican to speak, as well. Sounds pretty “inhospitable” to me. Not.
August 30th, 2004 at 4:00 pm
The sum of the parts
There comes in the growth and maturity of one who ponders politics when cogito, ergo sum gives way to sum, ergo cogito. It is left to those who still ascribe to the former schema of formulating policy positions and opinions in their ponderances to keep…