GOP to Hear Conservatives at Convention (they revised the moderate lineup

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-speakers21jul21,1,4031411.story?coll=la-news-a_section

GOP to Hear Conservatives at Convention
By Maura Reynolds Times Staff Writer

July 21, 2004

WASHINGTON — After protests from the party's conservative wing, the Republican National Committee has invited several conservative Republicans to speak during the presidential nominating convention, which begins next month in New York.

Additions include Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, three of the most prominent conservatives in Congress.

Originally, the party announced a lineup of speakers heavy on moderates, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who supported abortion rights and opposed a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

That troubled social conservatives such as Paul M. Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.

"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," Weyrich wrote recently.<snip>

[aden_nak]

1. They're letting Santorum speak?

What a blundering mistake that is. Well, if there were any social moderates that did not feel 100% alienated by the Republican party, Rickie-boy oughta take care of them!

[spooky3]

11. Ah, the party bosses will have a "nice little chat" with Rick

before he steps on the podium. Everything he says will be scripted by you-know-who. They won't take any chances. And he'll be only too happy to oblige.

[Leilani]

12. But the fundies want to hear about

God, Guns, Gays, & Family Values!

[terrya]

2. Another screed against gay marriage. That's what Santorum will be for.

Throwing some of that homophobic red meat on the convention floor.

[calico1]

3. I think its great that they picked Santorum

to speak! He is sure to turn off any Moderate that hears him rant against gays. I hope that is what he talks about.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. 1992 Convention

Let's hope he does a Pat Buchanan type speech ala 1992.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Santorum Is Milquetoast And Therefore Ineffective.....

I saw the Buchanan speech.....


It was down right incendiary......

[MrBenchley]

4. They have to worry about hanging on to the crazies in their base...

and can't afford to reach out to moderates...

[DaveSZ]

5. Woooooo! Great news!

Let's hope this will be 92 all over again.

I hope Santorum resorts to overt bigotry in his speech.

On another note, I didn't know Miss America was African American?

[Tweed]

7. Sweet! Scare the moderates and independents away!

Yeah!! Piss off the crazies if he isn't on prime time!

[Leilani]

8. What a trio!

Santorum & Brownback want to take us back to candles & buggies...

Hastert, the warm & fuzzy teddybear, who told McCain to go visit a vet hospital, to see sacrifice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Should Be Santorum and Brownshirt...

Sam Brownshirt is such a dweeb... I'd be ashamed to have him represent me...

If you look up goober in the dictionary it would have his picture...

[Leilani]

13. Sam Brownback, Senator from Kansas..

Kansas is the state that had the big fight over Creationism vs Evolutiion being taught in schools.

Typical...

[joanne]

14. Hastert is another right wing nut case

I'm really glad these nuts are going to speak.

As has already been posted, it will drive moderates and swing voters away.

And that is exactly what we want!

[FredScuttle]

15. C'mon "Man on Dog"! C'mon "Man on Dog"!

I guess it's too much to ask for a recitation of the Parable of the Box Turtle, but I'll settle for Sen. Sanctimonious' views on bestiality...in prime time!

[LoZoccolo]

16. He was warned!

Emphasis mine:

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm