The Republican Convention is shaping up to be a dog-and-pony show for liberals and moderates within the Grand Old Party. Vaunted speaking slots have been awarded to Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. A Democrat, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, will address the gathering in prime time, but conservatives seem to be personae non grata. The event will even feature a tribute to Nelson Rockefeller, whose greatest accomplishment was donating his last name to serve as an adjective to describe Republicans who vote like Democrats.

“Given the political ambitions of some of the speakers, the party faithful should pray that Rockefeller Republicanism is not back in the future,” Kate O’Beirne writes on National Review Online. “So don’t worry about country club Republicans making a comeback,” responds John Hawkins of Right Wing News, who tells his readers: “this year’s group of ‘big name speakers’ is just a fluke.”

Folks, did you miss the last four years?

George W. Bush signed into law McCain-Feingold despite calling the bill unconstitutional. The president attempted to solve the illegal immigration problem by making illegals legals. He supports reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. The 1996 Republican Party platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. A few years later George W. Bush labeled education his priority, and pushed hard to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. The president has offered only token opposition to homosexual “marriage,” and endorsed some forms of racial preferences. Governor Bush denounced “nation-building.” President Bush nation-builds like none of his predecessors. He crusaded for increased funding for AIDS, the NEA, and a bizarre trip to Mars. Bush succeeded in codifying the largest entitlement program since the days of the Great Society, a half-trillion dollar prescription drug plan. Is it any wonder that federal expenditures will have increased by about 30 percent on his watch?

If prime-time sightings of liberal and moderate Republicans are frequent at the GOP’s national convention, it’ll be because the man calling the shots wants to be surrounded by like-minded politicians.

Ramesh Ponnuru over at NR has his comments on the convention speakers - and then Goldberg has a nice follow up.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_04_corner-archive.asp#035312

In the cover story of the latest American Conservative one finds this very insightful passage:

"America’s elites—both the corporate elites of the Right and the academic elites of the Left—do not share the opinions and tastes of the American people. Both elites have been, in effect, “de-nationalized” by the processes of economic and cultural globalization. They are more likely to share the tastes and opinions of their counterparts in other countries than those of their own countrymen in provincial and small-town America. They regard patriotism and "national feeling as atavistic emotions that retard both economic rationality (in the case of the Right) and cosmopolitan ideologies of “democratic humanism” (in the case of the Left). And they see America not as a nation like other nations, if more powerful, but as the embryo either of the global market or of a new “universal nation” without boundaries or restrictive citizenship. As a result, on a whole range of policy issues—racial preferences, bilingual education, military intervention abroad, open borders —the American people are firmly on one side and the American elites are on the other. This tends to produce cynicism about government and electoral abstention, punctuated by rebellious referendum initiatives such as Propositions 187 and 209 in which the voters briefly impose their will on the elites. Even then elitists in the courts frequently declare the people’s victories to be unconstitutional."

This strikes me as extremely accurate. If I was willing to vote it would have to be (at least for the presidential office) for a third party candidate, probably Peroutka.

I am making the prediction now that in 2008 we will see the GOP nominating Rudy Giuliani (a pro-abort dissenting Catholic) to go up against Hillary. Then I will love to hear conservatives spin how the Republican Party is pro-life, or otherwise conservative in any recognizable traditional sense.

As an added prediction, I bet that when Rudy gets the nod, the USCCB will vote overwhelmingly to withold the Eucharist from him, legitimately so, but reversing their current spineless and derelict policy which favors Kerry.

Brian: I grant that 2008 might be a bloodletting in the Republican party as the social (me and you) and the soulless (pro-big business and economically globalist, prowar, proabort, etc) conservatives fight for the banner. You are betting that the soulless-cons get the nod. I know that is possible, but former NYC mayor vs NY Senator! What happens to all the votes in "fly-over" country and in the South? If this were to happen, how does middle America split, and how do the party faithful, like Brad, split? I know it is possible, but I'm just not sure how I think it would end up.

Regarding whether Rudy would be officially excommunicated (or do they call this interdiction?) -- what grounds could the bishops use? They certainly wouldn't appeal to his abortion position, because they would have to apply that somewhat equally.

I never said Rudy would be interdicted in any way by the bishops, only that they would end up agreeing that they must refuse Eucharist to him. My cynical claim there is that if the 183-6 vote in Denver had been done with a Republican pro-abort running for president then it would have turned out differently. I am probably willing to drop that claim since the bishops are more likely just weak than simply looking out for a Democrat.

My original prediction I will hold to though. For some odd reason the media seems to think that choice of a running mate is important, so Rudy would probably get someone like Arnold if he could (he can't since he is foreign born) or anyway someone from the south or midwest. Hillary would play up her Arkansas roots again, and would pick an appropriate veep from fly-over country.

Then Rudy would exploit his popularity post 9/11 and his reasonable claims at patriotic leadership as well as his tough on crime and tough on terrorists stance. That would be the winning formula. He became more than a New Yorker after the terrorist attack, and conversely "we all became New Yorkers" that day, at least to some extent. (Massachusetts is different).

Besides, who are the masses of normal Americans and conservatives going to vote for anyway, even this year? Everyone who votes has been used to holding their nose when they do it for the last decade, why would that change in 2008? Maybe even less people would vote but the pols do not care about the people who refuse to vote at all anyway. They are perfectly content with winning by garnering 26% of the electorate's vote.

There really needs to be a serious third party populist revolt of some sort to get through to the establishment Republicrats at all, in my opinion.

And reports of the demise of the neocons lately have been very exaggerated and are more wishful thinking than anything else.

Why is it those of you who identify on the left or right must attack people of opposite opinions with labels? Such as "soulless." Such as "wackos."

Their opinions might be wrong, but they have a right to voice them without being attacked personally.

If you disagree with them, attack their opinion, not them personally.

Be well,

Dwain "Sponge Daddy" Koch
Independent (Federalist at heart)

Dear Sponge:

Although I do not always respect other people's opinions, I do respect other people's right to have their opinions. But what is this that you say: people "have a right to voice [their opinions] without being attacked personally"? I'm not 'attacking' anyone by calling them a wacko! And I don't think people have a right not to be called names.

Sure, using mean or inaccurate names for our opponents is wrong -- but we still need labels. And if we have to use labels, why not make them colorful?

Respectfully,

Mols

I stand corrected Mols. I get a bit tired sometimes of the mudslinging that goes on anymore without any intellectual debate. So many people refuse to listen to the other's opinions because their antagonist has a different ideology.

I grew tired of this watching "Crossfire" and the like. No debate, just name calling and yelling.

However, you make a valid point, and I will fight for your right to call someone an idiot.

Be well,

Sponge

Personally, I think that calling people names can be done to some extent (at least in understandable frustration or passion) as long as it does not replace actually having a debate or discussion. One can call an idea a negative name at any point, as in "that's an idiotic or whacko idea" but to call the person an idiot one should have demonstrated, in my view, that they were first obstinately incapable of rational thought and have exhausted attempts to deal reasonably with them.

As for t.v. debate shows like Crossfire and whatnot, I think they are largely put-ons. What I mean is that the tenor of the debates and the shouting is just the elite's form of Jerry Springer. Where a Manhattan liberal or a Falls Church conservative would feel guilty admitting to watching Springer they will eat up the polemically overheated displays of Hannity and Colmes. It is a similar form of catharsis (maybe even akin to pro wrestling . . . no offense intended Warrior . . . or daytime soap operas) to Springer just aimed at a more "intellectual" class. Off the air I bet all those shouting heads go out for martinis and discuss how to improve ratings by being even more obnoxious next time.