Comments on: Real Republicans: Non-Purists Need Not Apply

By: One Fine Jay

One Fine Jay — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:00:38 +0000

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…

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:02:53 +0000

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.

By: Spoons

Spoons — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:29:30 +0000

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.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:34:02 +0000

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?

By: Spoons

Spoons — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:30:18 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:21:46 +0000

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.

By: Clark

Clark — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:38:05 +0000

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.

We want all [pro-lifers], all of the time! Dammit.

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:

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 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.

By: Nanuk

Nanuk — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:44:11 +0000

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.

By: Brad S

Brad S — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:11:21 +0000

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.