Posted on 09/30/2007 5:23:05 PM PDT by jonyyeh
Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”
The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.
A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major portion of Republican primary voters. But the threat is risky for the credibility of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters could still choose to support even a pro-choice Republican like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are worried about war, terrorism and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Yes, I know. You're a broken record.
Thankfully, most conservatives have pragmatic streaks and aren't idiots.
Your arguments have run out of gas when you get to this point, Ol' Sparky.
Don't expect those that are conservatives first to vote from Republicans that aren't conservatives.
You're a fake conservative. Real conservatives live in the real world.
Yup, there are plenty of Republicans who claim they'd stay home rather than vote for the lesser of two evils in the upcoming election, but what many of them fail to recognize is that they have voted in such a manner for the past ....well, since Reagan left office. If you voted for GHWB ('88 & '92), Dole ('96), and GWB ('00 & '04) you voted for the lesser of two evils. That's the real world -- Ronald Reagans are extraordinarily rare, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, as bad as Bush has been on certain issues, can you imagine what kind of shape we'd be in if either Gore or Kerry won? ...especially concering the makeup of SCOTUS. No Roberts and Alito, but undoubtedly a couple of Ginsburg clones. ...and conservatives wouldn't have won all the cases we've been winning recently.
I'm no Rudy fan by a longshot, but anyone who thinks that he and Hillary are politically indistinguishable and that their SCOTUS picks would be nearly identical isn't playing with a full deck.
I won't judge the status of another person's soul. I will assert--with the facts of history to back me up--that anyone who goes "third party" instead to one of the two electable parties ends up helping one of the two electable parties.
In this case, a third party vote by a conservative will help Democrats.
I won't do that.
I have stopped giving $ to the RNC and the liberal leadership of the Republicans, and I give to conservative Republican candidates.
I don't argue FOR liberal Republicans in the primaries.
I do support Republicans in general elections because without them we get the SOCIALISTS running as "Democrats".
Ross Perot gave us eight years of Clinton. Mistake.
Ralph Nader, thank God, helped BUSH win in Florida in 2000.
Anyone who thinks voting AGAINST the Republican is a smart move for a conservative is going to help elect Democrats, pure and simple.
Part of running for the highest office in the land is raising cash. In fact it must be one of a candidate’s top priorities — no cash, no votes.
After donating a few duckets to Duncan I began to count the weeks pass by when I didn’t receive a phone call or mailer requesting I donate further funds to his campaign. A few months later I finally received ONE mailer from the campaign. What took ‘em so long????
Honestly, you have to be in it to win it. Duncan’s lackluster and sluggish fund raising skills have not impressed me at all. I’m inclined to believe he’s in it for a cabinet position and nothing more. I love the guy, but he just doesn’t have the organization to pull this off.
-Roscommon
Okay, I read your rationale for voting for anything with an (R) next to his name.
I don't disagree that the chances of a third-party candidate getting elected are nearly nil, and that a strong third-party candidate generally acts as a spoiler on one side or the other.
I don't expect you'll see it this way -- I'm not really trying to persuade you. But the rationale behind letting one's party lose an election, WHEN OUR PARTY NOMINATES A CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT STAND FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN, AND WHOM WE DO NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR, goes like this:
"I gave up voting for politicians years ago. I realized it was only encouraging 'em."Why should we encourage the party leaders to ignore us over and over? How stupid do they think we are? Well, if we continue to vote for any piece of Shiite that has an (R) on their name, pretty damn stupid, if you ask me.
Now, all that said, I don't expect you to agree, but thanks for listening to -my- rationale.
I think that you might be on the wrong web site. I would bet the bank that at least 60 percent of Freepers are Evangelical Christians.
The whole purpose of voting is to elect somebody. A wasted vote is no vote at all.
Change your hypothetical to “Stalin’s armies were fighting against Hitler’s armies,” and you’ll see that choosing Stalin over Hitler, as the lesser of two evils, is not as absurd as you say.
Politics, like war, is often the art of compromise.
From a Christian perspective, I can respect a complete withdrawal from electoral politics when the candidates are all unsavory. I cannot respect, however, an active campaign for the defeat of a lesser evil, thereby ensuring the elsction of the greater evil.
We are STILL in the primary.
I think most of this thir party throwaway vote push is from Democrat Rham Emmanuel trolls and opportunists who make their living from being an oppressed third party ala nader or constitution party.
It is a 5th Column push to capitalize on the emotions of the primary and pre-empt the post primary unity.
Call me crazy but I don't want that blood on my hands and my principles absolutely will not allow me to vote for a pro-murder candidate regardless of the consequence.
Party whores can compromise their principles all they want, but I can't and won't.
I'm with Dobson on this one, and not because he is leading the charge, but because I've thought along the same lines for the last 30+ years.
We now have a beast that is impossible to unravel and all parties are forced to support it and pour more and more money into it. No one will come out and say it is broken abolish as they fear this is a certain vote looser.
Perhaps, Dobson and Co. should set aside any attempts at relevance and scoot away. Those haters should be dragged by their asses into the public square and hung by the neck until dead, dead, DEAD!!!
On that argument alone I cannot see the difference one or 2 divorces to me are irrelevant they are both one divorce too many IMHO.
There are alot of country dems who are hurting from the loss of textile and manufacturing jobs.
Rudy does not speak to them or their concerns.They don’t trust him.
Hillary frightens them. The best the dems can do is promise them more of Bill if she is elected.
Hunter addresses their concerns which I believe are critical to national security.
Hunter sees it that way, too.
If the GOP does not put a conservative on the ticket, then I will vote for the party with the most conservative running. It's up to the GOP!
Last time I checked, we have a primary system in this country. That system will tell us which candidate the most Republicans want as their nominee. If the country should chose Rudy, he will be the nominee. If the backers of other candidates want to talk their ball and go home, and leave the country in the hands of Hillary, that is hardly Rudys fault.
I think, as of today, the nominee is still a toss up. It will probably be between Fred and Rudy, and at that point the voters, and delegates will decide. I for one will happily cast my vote for either of the two that comes out on top, and I will not call for either to "bow out". May the best man win.
Time for Ron Paul’s doper mujahadeen to drop the terrorist rhetoric for a while. We’re moving into the “Come with us, pro lifers... Dr. Paul is a devout Christian” phase of Operation: Perot II. The NYT just sent out of the bat signal.
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.