The Republicans open their convention in New York City today. "There aren't really that many moderates or real liberals left in the Republican Party," political scientist Larry Sabato observed. "The party today is composed almost entirely of conservatives." Then why are Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, and other moderates dominating the convention? A Democrat, Georgia Senator Zell Miller, will even deliver the keynote address.

Why do conservatives complain about the exclusion of conservative speakers at the Republican National Convention, but stay silent when the party governs liberally? Let's review President Bush's policies over the last four years: the prescription drug plan, support for affirmative action in the Michigan Law School case, funding for stem-cell research, McCain-Feingold's assault on free speech, the Farm Bill, No Child Left Behind's further nationalization of education, nation building in Iraq, reauthorization of the assault weapons ban, increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, AIDS, and a mission to Mars, and the plan of amnesty for illegal aliens. Is it any wonder government will have expanded more than 30 percent on his watch?

Why would someone who has consistently rejected conservative policies turn his convention over to opponents of big government?

Notice how many speakers are pro-choice catholics. Also notice how silent the Catholic League is.

My girlfriend told me yesterday about an article she was reading (or she may have heard it on NPR) from a journalist who was investigating the 13 percent of Manhattanites who are registered Republicans to see what they were about. His query was, the city is considered liberal and Democratic but that these registered Republicans are here so why are they in the GOP?

He kept repeatedly getting answers like this, "I am a Republican but I am pro-abortion and pro gay marriage, I am just fiscally conservative."

More actual conservatives may in fact be Republicans, certainly nationally, but clearly the liberals and libertarian Republicans have a very dominant position in the party.

STOP PIGEONHOING CATHOLICS!!! Catholics care about many issues. Catholics care about all life unjustly taken, not just the unjust practice of abortion. So catholics are against capital punishment, against war, and against the materialism the Republican Party represents. There is a reason why the Catholic Church does not endorse the Republican party. The fact is that the Democrats are closer to papal positions are more issues than Republicans, abortion excepted.

DB: I don't know you and I don't know how much you know about Catholic theology and the structure of the Church, but I would like to point out that the Church doesn't endorse parties at all, and that is why they don't endorse the Republican party. So much for your "There is a reason the Church doesn't endorse the Republican party" crap. Also note that an understanding of the structure of Catholic doctrine would prevent you from saying that being against abortion is a Catholic position in the same way that being against war and capital punishment are Catholic positions. Abortion is never morally licit according to the Church; in contrast, war and capital punishment are not categorically condemned by Church teaching.

And as far as the Republican party representing 'materialism' goes, clearly from the Church's point of view both parties today in America are very materialistic, just as both capitalism and socialism are materialistic ideologies (read your Rerum Novarum). But one of the parties certainly makes much more room for people of faith than the other (the only group in the Democrat party that is consistently religious are Black Americans; the other Democratic voting blocks are not typically religious).

Your error probably stems from confusing materialism with 'selfishness.' Democrats believe that Republicans are selfish. But just because the Dems are generous with other people's money doesn't make them not-materialistic.

Its not a sin to vote for someone despite their pro-abortion platform- but would you vote for Hitler despite the fact the he was anti-Jewish just because he was pro-German worker?

Killing our own children cannot be accepted and should be a top priority when voting. Shouldn't we question the principles of a political party who supports such an act?

S you are entirely wrong. War is sometimes justified. Capital punishment is not. The church is as against the death penalty as it is against abortion....And I know the catholic church does not make endorsements....where you get your "materialistic socialism" is beyond me...The catholic church condems all materialism, both parties have materialistic philosphiies, but the Democrats have many more anti-materialist Christians than the Republicans. Republicans chritians are more fire and brimstone old testament crowd, while democratic christians are more the peace and love new testament bunch.

Doesn't matter who will be speaking. This is starting to look like a slam dunk for Bush.

Poll numbers are up; Kerry is self destructing; Dems are dazed and confused about it all.

Zippity, doo dah, zippity day, my oh my what a wonderful day.....

Sing with me DB....

I don't really like Kerry, but if dosen't win in november I fear for for my children.

Peg, I would argue that voting for President based on your views on abortion is actually hurting your cause and causing more babies to be killed. As I've made clear earlier, abortion is wrong, but the president does NOT have the authority to change abortion policy in the United States. Only the Supreme Court has that power, and it isn't likely to change its position anytime soon (to appoint an anti-abortion judge you need 60% of the Senate. Not likely.) So if change isn't likely to occur at the governmental level, why waste your vote on this issue??

If anti-abortion activists really cared about abortion, they would pool thier money together and found an organization to rival Planned Parenthood. They could run commercials telling women to think twice before thier abortions and come in to one of the new clinics to explore alternives. This orginzation could set up connections with adoption agencies, could educate women about the health risks of abortion, could offer emotional support to single mothers, could offer medical help for the pregnacy, etc. It could help women have thier children, rather than berate them for wanting to get rid of them. This orginization could save thousands of lives a year by offering a clear alternitive to abortion!! It could give many women a choice, which fits with the conservative mantra of choice, not government intervention.

But instead of trying to save lives the anti-abortionists just waste thier time and talent voting for a canidate who can never fulfill his promises and is just using the pro-life movement to get elected. I'm sorry, but I just don't have any sympathy for anti-abortion republicans. If they really cared about saving lives they'd be out there doing it. Seems to me they just cast thier vote to try and save thier own souls, not a baby's life.

Imagine the money this new orginization would get from the millions of people who cared about abortion!! But instead we'd rather give money to republicans. as if they needed it.

DB: you are betraying your lack of knowledge of the Church and of the 20th century. Socialists can be materialists (Marxists are the most obvious example); but again you would know this if you read Rerum Novarum or knew anything about Catholic social teaching, which was the topic of your post, or anything about 20 century history of communism. And regarding your idea about the Church being just as opposed to the death penalty as to abortion, you are factually wrong again. The condemnation of abortion is categorical but the condemnation of the death penalty is not. Stop typing and start reading.

Buddy I don't read papal documents, and I doubt you do either. I was taught in catholic schools that the church opposed capital punishment in all instances. I don't know why a priest would lie about the positions of his own church.

As to your socialism thing. I know that Marx's socialism is actually the opposite of materialism, often to a fault. I can't speak for anything that the Soviets believed, but who can? That whole country was nutty.

When asked on Larry King why he didn't support expanded stem cell research, the former governor of Texas who executed more people than any other governor and the architect of a war in Iraq that killed more than 15,000 people responded - "I want to preserve the culture of life in this country."

Watch out for that bolt of lightning.

Hey yeaH! Welcome M. Someone on my side!

Priests lie because priests have agendas, mostly the one about the "circle of life" seamless garment crapola.

DB: I'm not arguing with you; I'm informing you. And yes I have read many papal and counciliar documents. If you want to be informed rather than misinformed I suggest you try it too. If you are not willing to do some reading in order to inform yourself, them you should stop talking about what you clearly know nothing about. Same goes for Marxism. Marx is a materialist. He rejects Hegel's idealism and replaces it with his own dialectical materialism. I have read Marx -- have you?

If you care about whether what you say is true or false (which I doubt) then you should inform yourself. Do some reading. And I mean of paper, not of your computer screen.

Db:thanks for your response. But I have to disagree with some of your points. first of all pro-life groups do sponser tv ads. Remember the Life is Beautiful comercials(although I havent seen one in a while) and they also they give money to pergnancy aid centers etc.

What if in the next election there happens to be an overwellming amount of prolife members put in congress(miricles do happen.) John Kerry would never nominate a pro-lifer for the courts and would veto any pro-life law passed by congress.
So the pres. does matter!

I am not for capital punishment but it is the lesser evil. And doesnt cap. punishment remain a state issue, unlike abortion?

Consider, if you will, what kind of people Kerry might have in his administration:

Sandy Burglar as National Security Advisor?

Mike Dukakis as Secretary of Defense?

Al Gore as Secretary of the Interior?

Al Sharton as Secretary of State?

Ted Kennedy as a SCJ or head of the ATF?