Christian Right Leaders Agree: If Rudy Is Nominated, We Might Go Third-Party
Are religious-right elites serious enough in opposing Rudy Giuliani that they'd willingly throw the election to the Democrats if he's nominated?
The New York Times reports that at a breakaway meeting of the ultra-secretive Council for National Policy, such leading figures as James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Richard Viguerie and others agreed on that very proposition. The group will reportedly unveil at a later date a statement that "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate."
Comments (15)
the nothers wrote on September 30, 2007 10:33 PM:Assuming this is the meeting that took place on Saturday in Salt Lake... Dick Cheney was in attendance. I don't know if that's been reported here yet, but he was definitely there.
Also, Mitt Romney was there. It might be safe to assume that he would be a potential "third-party candidate" for the group to nominate. Otherwise, his presence at the meeting might have been a little awkward.
phil james wrote on September 30, 2007 10:45 PM:Since the Do-no-crats don't seem to be able to save themselves from their own idiotic votes in Congress and their powerlessness in the face of the minority thug party, here's hoping the thug party splits into the war-mongers and the family values wingnuts. That way we don't have to nominate HRC.
Gopher Interloper wrote on September 30, 2007 10:49 PM:What's that line about people who don't learn from the mistakes of history being doomed to repeat them? Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader in 2000; how would the electoral college have voted if the popular votes those candidates received had instead gone to Bush(41) and Gore respectively?
If all of Perot's votes had gone to Bush 'the elder' that would've put Bush at 48.8 million ... the same number he received in 1988 when he beat Dukakis 426-111 in the electoral college; in 1992 that might have led to an approx. 392-146 defeat of Bill Clinton (in reality Clinton won 370-168). If all of Nader's votes had gone to Gore, he and Bush 'the junior' likely would've flip-flopped, resulting in a 271-266 win for Gore instead of Dubya.
Are Christian conservatives prepared for a similar situation to occur as a result of the move they are now contemplating? As a matter of principle, if they believe the heart of the Republican Party has moved too far from their ideology -- both front-runners, Giuliani & Romney, ARE the most moderate of the GOP candidates -- then in all good conscience maybe they should break away and support someone like Huckabee as a third party candidate. They could call themselves the American Theocracy Party ... the Theocrats; their symbol, the Lamb (of God).
Of course, as a consequence of their proposed defection, they may have to live through eight years of a liberal White House. Are they really prepared to do that, or is all of this merely an attempt to coerce the GOP base to move farther to the right?
cd wrote on September 30, 2007 11:39 PM:
I'm not sure the strategy involved is so intricate or about long range planning, GI.
The third party aspect of it is the least important, probably. It's all about these people getting together and trying as a group to unite on their priorities. (Probably not a difficult part of the meeting.) Then it's about trying to force Giuliani to kiss their ring. How to do that is likely the sticking point- what do they have left when Rudy tells them they can kiss his ass, their voters are going to vote his way anyway?
A threat of going third party is probably what is most effective. They can't get at his money from CEOs and corporations. The grassroots in Blue States is motivated by working against Democrats. He's seventy-something, so threatening his further career is a joke. He can apparently win the primaries without a whole lot of hardcore Christian Right votes.
So they can only get at him by threats of harassing him in the General campaign and denying him the Purple States and thinly Red states. In short, a kind of blackmail. But a blackmail that may break the cracking Republican coalition.
I've thought of this election as 1968 in obverse, this is just one further element of the end of one Party's domination and succession by the next.
Gopher Interloper wrote on October 1, 2007 1:02 AM:Hey, cd, who's seventy-something; sixty-three year old Rudy?
Sounds like we basically agree that the Council for National Policy's intention is blackmail; as for the intended victim, the statement quoted in the article, "if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate[,]" leads me to believe their goal is to force the party to pick a different front-runner more than it is to convince Giuliani to change his position on abortion, although I'm sure they will take whichever they can get.
Keith Hulst wrote on October 1, 2007 1:02 AM:Pull your heads out of your rears Christian Right leaders. I have considered myself a Conservative Christian American for so long I can't remember when I was anything else. We can’t let democrats win the 2008 presidency; this only sets our cause back further. If Hillary gets in then the "Me Crowd" numbers get larger and abortions increase. Rudy may not be my #1, but it sure beats getting #2, that’s Hillary for those of you not paying attention.
Keith Hulst
All-American Dad
Comforting to know Rudy isn't enough of a Constitutioon-hating, fear-mongering, lunatic fascist warlord for the "Christian" wing nuts. God forbid they back someone who actually believes in following the law rather than their dictates. And these people complain about the Taliban.
lvdjgarcia wrote on October 1, 2007 9:08 AM:If Guliani gets the nomination he will have a pro forma meeting w/the "leadership" of the "religious"right and they will isue a statement saying that they will support Guiliani because the is "personally" pro-life. People like Perkins, Dobson et al have no priniciples, they want access to power (and $$$$).
colonpowwow wrote on October 1, 2007 9:11 AM:Keith Hulst
Some stubborn little facts: The number of abortions decreased every year that the Clintons were in the White House with their policy of keeping abortion legal, safe, and rare.
Since our "prolife" president (you know, the one that gets smirkily gleeful over executions) took office, the number of abortions has increased every year as families fall apart under his anti-family and anti-middle class economic policies. The number of abortions seems to be tied to personal economics somehow, I just don't understand it!
If Roe v. Wade is overturned (unlikely), all that would mean is that individual states would set abortion policy (as it was before RvW). All but 11 abortion clinics are located in states that would keep abortion legal under this setup. You all are spinning your wheels against the reality of the situation, against history and the public mood re this issue.
But if it keeps you distracted from trying to take over politically, from taking charge so you can torture and kill freethinkers like is the wont of fundamentalists when they run the show (I'm sure the corporate capitalists who run things now will just step aside to let James Dobson et al set the agenda). So,keep focused and busy on this matter, I say. It will keep you self-righteous and happy working to advance your so-called "prolife" religious agenda (when again does your god kill all of us as set forth in your holy book?). Ruining the Republican Party will just be a delightful sidelight.
Dansden wrote on October 1, 2007 9:25 AM:A third party would give the religious right COVER to vote their true conscience, as skewed and screwed as it is, since they know 'in their hearts' that this Republican regime has been anything BUT CHRISTIAN- in their hearts they know the truth they cannot admit to the public and they will not win this election!
Why not? Thinking persons voted for John Anderson given the choice of Ronnie 'Raygun' and 'Smiling Jimmy'!
mikeg wrote on October 1, 2007 10:01 AM:Colinpowwow,
Nice fisking. I'm patiently waiting for the All-American Dad's response.
phil james wrote on October 1, 2007 11:19 AM:Well sure he's All-American. Isn't it totally American to force your own morals and agenda on the women who would otherwise have to make this most personal and moral decision for themselves? Isn't it truly American to force their own agenda about everything...war, taxes, health care, immigration, the environment, reagardless of how transparently self-serving and self-aggrandizing that agenda might be? Isn't it American to believe that you and only you have all the right answers since you have been chosen by your own personal God to run things here on planet earth? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I guess I was thinking about Bush and the rest of the neo-fascists. Nevermind.
DaveP wrote on October 1, 2007 1:38 PM:Perot in 1992 was not a right-wing spinoff. He was a crazy billionaire who only did well because he had the money. Nader's votes in 2000 were more honestly spinoff, because he had none of his own money.
There is no way there will be a right wing spinoff in 2008, unless there is a well-funded who decides on his own to do so. It won't be a committee's decision.
This is just distraction.
Gopher Interloper wrote on October 2, 2007 5:48 AM:colonpowwow wrote: "The number of abortions decreased every year that the Clintons were in the White House with their policy of keeping abortion legal, safe, and rare."
-- A million abortions per year, 1 out of every 5 pregnancies, is rare? The MOST optimistic estimates have the numbers dropping from 1.4 million to 848 thousand over the last 15 years (from 35% to 21% of all pregnancies); that's great but it hardly makes the incidence of abortion "rare".
"Since our "prolife" president [...] took office, the number of abortions has increased every year"
-- Incorrect. From 2000 to 2003 the number of abortions fell from 857 thousand to 848 thousand. If you have some legitimate statistics that show otherwise, please cite the sources and I'll check it out.
There's even a Web site started by a group of Catholics, http://www.catholicsagainstrudy.com, to oppose Giuliani's nomination. Clearly, if he gets the nod (and perhaps even if he doesn't), the Christian right will be as disjointed as ever heading into 2008.
