Posted on 02/02/2004 9:25:46 PM PST by TBP
Ousted Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore is focused on trying to get his job back but will not rule out a third-party run for the presidency that could threaten President Bush's re-election chances.
At a recent speaking engagement, the man who became famous for his defense of a Ten Commandments monument was asked during a question-and-answer session whether he would run for president, reported Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund.
"Not right now," Moore said, according to Fund, who noted Moore's friends say he is undecided about whether to run for president or to wait two years and seek Alabama's governorship.
Jessica Atterbury, a spokeswoman for Moore, emphasized yesterday to WorldNetDaily Moore is focused on his appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court but indicated he would not rule out a candidacy for the country's highest office.
"Anything is possible," she told WND. "However, until the appeal process has been run through, he'll make no decision for political office."
Atterbury said Moore believes he has an obligation to the people who elected him to appeal the Alabama Supreme Court's Nov. 13 decision that stripped him of his chief justice position for defiance of a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument.
"He is fighting for his job back for the people of Alabama," Atterbury said. "So he feels he needs to take every legal avenue possible to become chief justice again."
Earlier this month, Moore asked the state's high court to restore him to office, calling his expulsion "dangerous."
In legal briefs, he argued the decision sets a "dangerous precedent" that requires judges to deny their oath of office by barring acknowledgement of God, which is stipulated in Alabama's constitution.
A special court has been seated to hear Moore's appeal. A decision is expected in the next month or so.
Fund commented that while third-party campaigns by social conservatives have fizzled in the past, Moore could make a difference in a close race.
He noted last Saturday Moore was a featured speaker at the Christian Coalition's "Family and Freedom" rally in Atlanta. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported he was "treated like a rock star, signing autographs and getting thunderous standing ovations."
One week prior to that event, Moore spoke at a dinner in Lancaster, Pa., sponsored by the Constitution Party, which has the third-largest number of registered voters in the U.S. The party's presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, was on 41 state ballots in 2000, Fund noted.
Richard Winger, an authority on independent candidates, told Fund he believes Moore could rally enough support to sustain a presidential candidacy.
"If he can get on talk shows and stir up conservative voters he could easily get significantly more than the usual third-party vote totals," said Winger, editor of Ballot Access News.
Winger points out the Constitution Party has 320,000 registered voters nationwide and guaranteed ballot access in large states such as California and Pennsylvania.
With its convention scheduled June 22, Moore would have enough time to exhaust his appeal before Alabama courts.
Fund notes reporters who want to see President Bush face a tight race this year will be particularly interested in covering him. That's why Republican strategists are trying to talk Moore into campaigning this year for GOP candidates who agree with his stance.
"He can get a lot of attention this year for his themes," a strategist told Fund. "The question is whether he does it in a way that will help conservatives or whether he tries to do it in a way that could make him the Ralph Nader spoiler of the right in 2004."
You are correct, nor is this a new trend in the history of presidential elections. No southern third party has had the effect of a "spoiler" in recent years, but they have won several states before. Consider:
In 1948 southern Democrat Strom Thurmond won four southern states and got one of the electoral votes in a Tennessee.
In 1960 southern Democrat Harry F. Byrd won Mississippi, the majority of Alabama, and one elector in Oklahoma.
In 1968 southern independent George Wallace won five southern states and got an electoral vote in North Carolina.
I could easily see Moore winning a state or two - probably in this same region. If it were close enough it could cost Bush the election.
It's a long shot and probably wishful thinking, but stranger things have happened.
That is true. Suppose this were 2000 again and the Dem got 266 votes like Gore did winning the same states (yes, the census changed that around a little but just suppose for the moment). Bush got 271 in 2000. If Moore had run and won in the most likely state to support him, Alabama, that would have put Bush at 262 to 266 to 9 and the election would have gone into the House. It gets even wierder from there though as a partisan majority does NOT guarantee any candidate a victory there. Elections in the House give each state congressional delegation 1 single vote for a total of 50 votes cast for president. I do not know for certain who holds a majority in the delegations of each state, but some are definately split and if this had happened in 2000 Bush's home state of Texas would have actually voted for Gore!
Are they? What is the evidence to support that? Some are likely conservatives, others probably aren't. Remember how many of his father's nominees and President Reagan's nominees were supposed to be conservatives? Now those people, with a couple of exceptions, are holding up the liberal wing of the court. I don't trust this Republicn court appointment argument. Bush's people are already talking about putting Al Gonzales -- a pro-abort -- on the Supreme Court, because W wants to be the Preisdent who appoints the first Hispanic. Do we know that Bill Pryor is a strict constructionist? His conduct in teh Moore affair suggests otherwise. I would oppose his nomination. Estrada was a good conservative apparently, but of course, he is the one guy who had to withdraw. What do we really know about the other nominees?
IF not for the safety and security of this country. IF not for the future and well being of our military. IF not for our very survival.......
Any Conservative who runs on a third party ticket to oppose this President BECAUSE of the war, is risking our very future..........
If Judge Moore cares about the country, he'll not send it into the hands of the RATS.......
If you WILL work to elect a conservative who is not gwb, you WILL work to elect a RAT who will destroy this country.
For the sake of this country, WAKE UP!
The two situations and the two Presidents are not the same.
Wishful thinking on your part??
It never ceases to amaze me that the 'true' conservatives are in perfect alignment with the RATS when it comes to this President........
Then YOUR voice will be working de facto to elect a RAT.
You may not like the President, but there will only be two viable candidates. If you don't vote for him, you will help the other.
It's the reality of the system, like it or not.
The less Conservatives who vote for President Bush, the greater the likelihood that John F. Kerry will be elected.
If you can live with what that will mean to our national security, our military, our sovereignty as a nation, and our morality, go ahead and vote as you wish........
Just be honest about it.
What I'm trying to get you to is the bottom line.
The candidate who will win...... if there are enough of you who demand that President Bush must align himself with all of your political ideals to 'earn' your vote, and who vote for a third party candidate..... will be a Democrat who stands for NOTHING that you stand for, and accomplished NONE of your goals.
As I said, you may well make that choice, but if John Kerry is our next President, you have to live with your part in making that happen....
Well, it's a bad guess and your conclusion completely wrong.......but not at all surprising, because you clearly put everyone who doesn't see things exactly your way and who support the President, in a little box that matches your own bias.
But that's OK........the Dems do the same thing. We're used to it.
You jumped to illogical conclusions based on your arrogant supposition that I have no core values, and then find it entertaining that I call you on it?? LOL!
Give me a break, WHITE guy. President Bush has the support of 90% of Republicans, and WE are his base. We don't agree with him on everything, but are wise enough to support him because of the bigger picture.
It's obvious that YOU are not.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.