Why are Christian Conservatives considering a third party candidate? If they are trying to intimidate the top tier candidates and the Republican base, they are making a big mistake.
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.If the conservative Christians are as powerful as they believe, then why can't they put their full weight behind a second-tier candidate who is pro-life (Brownback, Huckabee, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes) and bring them to the front of the tier? If they are so influential in the political arena, they should be able to promote this candidate enough to soar them to the top.
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.”
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.If they don't want Giuliani to be the GOP nominee, then they need to take action and promote a pro-life candidate to the top-tier. Demonstrate the influence they are touting. Why are they fretting about this when they have the ability to do something about it? Are they afraid that if they rally behind a second-tier candidate and endorse him, they will be putting the proverbial albatross around that candidate's neck and insure a nomination of Giuliani, Thompson or Romney?
I say to the Christian Conservative leadership - start shopping in the Republican field, select your pro-life candidate and start marketing. Have faith. Otherwise, you are blowing hot air.
As a conservative Christian, this is my strategy - the one I feel is the most logical.
Quote for the day: “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.” - C.S. Lewis
Right.
Because the 2 (one-and-a-half, really) parties we have are doing such a bamg-up job.
LOL
Robert
The last time pro-life conservative Christian candidates picked the president, we got Bush...twice! Maybe it's time somebody with a little more common sense were picking presidents.
In response to both of these comments, I will say this.
I am not opposed to third parties. I have taken a look at some. I don't dislike what I see. The common factor among people refusing to start a strong 3rd party is not enough people have faith that it would make a difference - i.e., a wasted vote (can you say Ross Perot?). I have pondered that very concern a time or two, when I have been so disappointed in the GOP.
My point in this post is that I don't like a whole group of people trying to leverage "influence" by making veiled threats, when if they have such power to control, they should assert it behind a candidate they prefer. In other words, if you see the writing on the wall, then put up or shut up.
Regarding common sense, perhaps you could suggest a group of people who should choose the president, which candidate they should support and why. It would make for interesting dialogue.
I am conservative, but not due to any religious reasons. I chose to be a Republican, after living among Democrats, because I believe in the conservative concepts of fiscal responsibility, which we have not seen since Reagan, and the need for a strong defense. I also believe we need to keep government small and less intrusive. I believe Republicans have gone a long way out of balance.
The problem with 3rd parties is that the system is so stacked against them that even with enough financial resources it's just not enough (see the previously mentioned Ross Perot).
Also, based on the number of the top tier candidates who showed up at the Values Voter Debate and last weeks PBS/Tavis Smiley debate (ie none)It would seem that the influence of both constituencies in the GOP is nonexistent. Or at least not enough that Rudy McRomneyson can afford to ignore.
On the other hand, I know that I'm not alone when I say that the president that I voted for in 2000 has proven to be a disappointment in nearly every regard except three, his handling of the attacks on 9/11, appointing Supreme Court justices (which I think will be his lasting legacy, not the GWOT) and the tax cuts.
It was enough for me to vote 3rd party in 04.
I remain a Republican but not because I'm religious. I am also a proponent of fiscal responsibility and have been disgusted because this seems to be a principle that most of our Republican elected officials have forgotten. They don't care about the massive debt they create for future generations either.
I am a strong proponent of the 10th amendment.
RM, I couldn't agree more with your comments.
Is Ron Simpson kidding when says he "believe(s) in the conservative concepts of fiscal responsibility, which we have not seen since Reagan"? Ronald Regan quadrupled the national debt!! When he took office the national debt was about $1 trillion, when he was done it was $4 trillion. So much for his fiscal responsiblity.
Ronald Reagan took a page from Roosevelt. He spent money to jump start Jimmy Carter's staglation economy. He cut taxes and built up the military with military spending. He ended the Cold War. But he refused to spend money on stupid stuff. Reagan spent money were it was needed.
PS Anonymous. Stop hiding who you are. If you have an opinion or a rebuttal have the balls to sign your name to it like I do. it irritates me like sand in a bathing suit that some commenters love to say things on blogs where they disagree, yet hide behind the veil of anonymity.
Ron, I'm considering moving to a different commenting tool and anonymity may be removed.
I like the discussion on this subject, so keep commenting.
This Congress has wasted a LOT of money on stupid stuff. I think there was a lot less pork under Reagan compared to recent years.
How far away from its base has the GOP strayed (especially on spending)? Enough that the "kook" Ron Paul and his Constitution message was good enough to raise $5 million dollars last quarter, par with John McCain:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/03/394012.aspx
I agree that the majority of the Republicans have moved away from their base. That is why I love Tom Coburn (I am from Oklahoma) since he has fought the pork and big spending as much as he can.
That is one thing I like about Romney is that as governor he turned the state's budget crisis around.
I think what we need (and I cannot remember the term for it) is the taxes collected the year before determine how much the budget can be. No more can be spent. I also like the idea that instead of a consolidated budget that covers everything under an umbrella, each dept has an individual budget that has to be itemized and approved ahead of time.
PS on my blog I allow anonymous posters because I have friends that will come by that do not blog. I make them initial their replies and delete any that are out of line. I support free speech, they said it, I deleted it. I support free deleting too.
Its All about the courts. Period.
I feel confindent that even tho i dont agree w/ Rudy on everything that he would appoint the right kinda judges to the court. Thats ultimately where the culture war will be fought.
He is not a liberal. Judge him by his enemies, The teachers union, The ACLU, the race hustlers (Sharpton and Jackson) The Media. If those are his enemies how in the hell is he a liberal???
anonymous-
I don't know about that- Bush came through with his SC nominees and he's still unpopular.
Appointing strict constructionists is a good thing but that doesn't separate him from the other candidates as far as positions are concerned.
The third-party pipe-dreamers will once again make the Clinton tag team victorious. And with a Supreme Court likely to need three quick replacements in ‘09, the third party folks will watch as the court becomes a permanent 5-4 liberal majority activist court - for decades. Decades, folks. The America you think you’re going to “preserve” with your third party candidate may become unrecognizable in a very short time. The Roe v Wade you think you’re going to reverse with your unelectable third candidate will seem almost quaint when compared with the “compassionate” euthanasia and the “practical, community-serving, environment saving” limitations on life you’ll be watching get handed down as law by a court determined to see the Constitution as a “living” and flexible document.
Are you saying that if Ron Paul were to win the nomination the you wouldn't vote for him?