Christian Conservatives Mull Going Third Party if Giuliani is Nominated

[12th Doctor]

2. A legitimate Evangelical candidate with some profile among Christians

Which they won't get, because there isn't anyone with a high enough profile to lead this charge.  Most of the people who would make decent potential candidates are *GASP* Catholic.  And God knows we can't have that, so good luck finding someone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know.  If there is one thing these people have proven, its that they are long on zeal, and short on intellegence.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Good, they made the threat.  Now let them act on it.  If they don't, then they will prove how weak they really are and how they can't get anything done in this country without a party as a vehicle for their unpopular agenda.  If they do go through with it, then maybe the Republicans will finaly wake up and realize that these people aren't our allies, or our friends, and they can't be dealt, nor reasoned with.  Either we are completely beholden to them, or we aren't, if we aren't then let's start by declaring that today.

Lose them and you can start never winning elections.

[12th Doctor]

Good, they made the threat.  Now let them act on it.  If they don't, then they will prove how weak they really are and how they can't get anything done in this country without a party as a vehicle for their unpopular agenda.  If they do go through with it, then maybe the Republicans will finaly wake up and realize that these people aren't our allies, or our friends, and they can't be dealt, nor reasoned with.  Either we are completely beholden to them, or we aren't, if we aren't then let's start by declaring that today.

Lose them and you can start never winning elections.

Yes, because as history as shown, political parties and landscapes are completely static, and we can't simply build a new coalition.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Looks like we'll be having flashbacks to 1992.  Clinton wins due to third party splitting Republicans.

Wrong. Has been debunked many times.

Good, they made the threat.  Now let them act on it.  If they don't, then they will prove how weak they really are and how they can't get anything done in this country without a party as a vehicle for their unpopular agenda.  If they do go through with it, then maybe the Republicans will finaly wake up and realize that these people aren't our allies, or our friends, and they can't be dealt, nor reasoned with.  Either we are completely beholden to them, or we aren't, if we aren't then let's start by declaring that today.

Lose them and you can start never winning elections.

Yes, because as history as shown, political parties and landscapes are completely static, and we can't simply build a new coalition.

So who else are you going to add? Most non-Republicans have been too disgusted by Bush.

[12th Doctor]

Looks like we'll be having flashbacks to 1992.  Clinton wins due to third party splitting Republicans.

Wrong. Has been debunked many times.

Good, they made the threat.  Now let them act on it.  If they don't, then they will prove how weak they really are and how they can't get anything done in this country without a party as a vehicle for their unpopular agenda.  If they do go through with it, then maybe the Republicans will finaly wake up and realize that these people aren't our allies, or our friends, and they can't be dealt, nor reasoned with.  Either we are completely beholden to them, or we aren't, if we aren't then let's start by declaring that today.

Lose them and you can start never winning elections.

Yes, because as history as shown, political parties and landscapes are completely static, and we can't simply build a new coalition.

So who else are you going to add? Most non-Republicans have been too disgusted by Bush.

News Flash!!!!!

Bush Won't Be Running Again

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Doesn't matter. He's tainted the Republican party to too many voters.

[12th Doctor]

Doesn't matter. He's tainted the Republican party to too many voters.

You might or might not recall that there was once this guy named Richard Nixon, and people were pretty disgusted with him and the Rebpublicans, but four years later, we had another Republican President.

So what if we lose one election cycle, or even two.  It would be worth it to be rid of those people.

[12th Doctor]

Plus, more likely, the Religious Right will wake up and realize that half-a-loaf is better than no loaf at all.

[Jake]

Uh, getting rid of a voting block that makes up 23% of the electorate and voted 4 to 1 for Republicans in 2004? In other words, they're a third of Republican voters nationwide.

CNN Exit Poll

And I disagree that they're short on intelligence. Falwell and Dobson have built gigantic empires built on faith based political advocacy. Many individuals may be crazy/irrational, but the leadership (save for Robertson) is very intelligent.

[Democratic Hawk]

And why not? It isn't like he's one of them

Dave

[auburntiger]

And why not? It isn't like he's one of them

Dave

If it weren't for the likelihood of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee, then they might split. But since she is clearly the frontrunner across the board, it'll be a "hold your nose and vote for Rudy" scenario for the Christian right. I am an evangelical who is endorsing Rudy, because of his strong stance on terrorism, despite that I disagree on the issue of abortion. He'd be smart to pick Huckabee as VP. Thompson is a deadweight, and I think my conservative friends will see that Rudy is the only republican who can win, and Romney wont make it either

[12th Doctor]

Uh, getting rid of a voting block that makes up 23% of the electorate and voted 4 to 1 for Republicans in 2004? In other words, they're a third of Republican voters nationwide.

CNN Exit Poll

And I disagree that they're short on intelligence. Falwell and Dobson have built gigantic empires built on faith based political advocacy. Many individuals may be crazy/irrational, but the leadership (save for Robertson) is very intelligent.

The Republicans are the party that will not bow to terroristic threats...

unless, of course, they come from the religious right in this country.

[StateBoiler]

And why not? It isn't like he's one of them

Dave

If it weren't for the likelihood of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee, then they might split. But since she is clearly the frontrunner across the board, it'll be a "hold your nose and vote for Rudy" scenario for the Christian right. I am an evangelical who is endorsing Rudy, because of his strong stance on terrorism, despite that I disagree on the issue of abortion. He'd be smart to pick Huckabee as VP. Thompson is a deadweight, and I think my conservative friends will see that Rudy is the only republican who can win, and Romney wont make it either

If the Religious Right do that, fine for them. However, I will remind every last one of them til the day I die they supported a person that believed in abortion for President.

Look, I am Christian, and I believe abortion is wrong. But I do not base my politics around that, partly cause I realize abortion will always exist regardless of my opinion of it. It's why I think everyone that donates money to pro-life and pro-choice groups are idiots. What are you donating your money for? Do you honestly think your donation is going to make abortion illegal or keep it legal, respectively? We had a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President from 2001-2006, did they do anything to make abortion illegal? NO!

So why do we waste so much time talking about it? Because if abortion was ever made illegal permanently, the Religious Right and groups like NARAL would lose a major source of their fundraising income. The cynical part of me sometimes wonder if congressmen and these groups get together in "a smoke-filled backroom" sometimes to game out their strategy when funds are running low so they can fan the flames and receive more money. It's far more profitable and electorally beneficial for Republicans for them to always have abortion legal, cause it'll always ensure they can rope in a few saps that think their money is making a difference. Likewise for Democrats and the threat of abortion being made illegal.

So if the Religious Right, a cluster of groups that have profited handsomely from said arrangement, support a person that is for abortion, they really have no purpose for existing in my opinion. Abortion to the Religious Right is not like an "oh, by the way" issue, it is one of THE issues. People donate money to the Religious Right based on them standing for Christian principles. That is the only reason they even exist to start with! You don't pick and choose where your core principles apply. There are things in this world people should be principled with, doesn't matter if you're a fascist or a socialist or a moderate. Otherwise we end up with these Third Way or 1984-type politicians that stand for nothing except for anything that will help them retain power. The Religious Right have chosen their principles, they should stand next to them or just dissolve.

By the way, I don't delight in gotcha stuff. But the Religious Right, if they do support Giuliani, will truly have a "the Emperor has no clothes" moment for the movement.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 Giving gays equal rights isn't giving them special rights. All it is is giving them the same rights that other citizens enjoy.

2 America has seperation of church and state so what the bible wants isn't what's going to happen. Same goes for tracts by Dobson.

3 No they don't. Perhaps you could stop accusing gays/bisexuals of being pedophiles. Liking other men and wanting to have sex with children is not even remotely the same thing.

4 Disgusting. The senators you listed are all extremely horrible people and have a strong opposition to extending basic rights to gays.

[StateBoiler]

I am gone to ignore this person who clearly does not want to have open debate.  I will only talk with likeminded Christian conservatives and Republicans so as not to offend our delicate liberal posters here with truth. 

Scenario:

Mayor Giuliani is nominated at the Republican National Convention next year after winning the primaries and getting the most delegates.

Will you, NOLIBS4USA, vote for:

Choice 1: a pro-abortion Republican that has divorced twice (including one to his second cousin), is known for dating other women while still legally married, lived in an apartment with two gay friends temporarily, and as Mayor did nothing to change his city's status as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants,

Choice 2: or a third-party candidate to the right of Republicans, probably the Constitution Party candidate, that shares your views on abortion, immigration, gay rights, and family values in practice?

Just a straight answer of Choice 1 or Choice 2 will do.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Good god man have you even read NOLIBS's posts?

[Stranger in a strange land]

guys i'm sorry but this isn't gonna happen. They may say dumb things, but when it comes to politics, christian conservatives are smart. True, there's likely to be lower turnout for rudy in 2008 than for bush in 2000 or 2004 because Rudy isn't one of them. But to expect a wholesale boycott or a major 3rd party run is probably too much to expect. The CP might get 1% of the vote instead of the .3% or so that it normally gets, but it won't have a huge effect on the election. Who knows though, it could swing a couple of states.

Imagine if it swings Florida. How sweet would THAT irony be?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

They're talking about running Alan Keyes.  How serious can they be if they're considering Alan Keyes?

[StateBoiler]

I started to suggest you turn up your sarcasm detector, but let's pretend instead we never had this conversation.

I noticed it was sarcasm, but just put in a source for people who that would offend.

After all the vitriol mudslinging from various parties that have nothing to deal with this thread, my question still stands:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

What happened to all the posts in this thread by Nolibs4usa?  Has his account been deleted or something?

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm pro-life (the three exceptions aside), but it wouldn't the priori reason in casting my ballot. A Democrat with my views would fair better than a Democrat who didn't share them. But I'd still likely vote for most Democrats over most Republicans

Giuliani? No. Doubt he'd be the closest to me on economic issues. I can't vote anyway so its moot. It does matter to me, who the next American President is, however. Giuliani insulted us Brits at the 2004 RNC

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Giuliani? No. Doubt he'd be the closest to me on economic issues.

So your economic views are to not meet with farmers if they aren't multi-millionaires that would pay your demonized estate tax?

[Democratic Hawk]

Giuliani? No. Doubt he'd be the closest to me on economic issues.

So your economic views are to not meet with farmers if they aren't multi-millionaires that would pay your demonized estate tax?

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Once the fundies realize that Mormonism actually has more in common with their wacky fudamentalist views than they thought, they'll rally behind Flip Romney.

[auburntiger]

And why not? It isn't like he's one of them

Dave

If it weren't for the likelihood of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee, then they might split. But since she is clearly the frontrunner across the board, it'll be a "hold your nose and vote for Rudy" scenario for the Christian right. I am an evangelical who is endorsing Rudy, because of his strong stance on terrorism, despite that I disagree on the issue of abortion. He'd be smart to pick Huckabee as VP. Thompson is a deadweight, and I think my conservative friends will see that Rudy is the only republican who can win, and Romney wont make it either

If the Religious Right do that, fine for them. However, I will remind every last one of them til the day I die they supported a person that believed in abortion for President.

Look, I am Christian, and I believe abortion is wrong. But I do not base my politics around that, partly cause I realize abortion will always exist regardless of my opinion of it. It's why I think everyone that donates money to pro-life and pro-choice groups are idiots. What are you donating your money for? Do you honestly think your donation is going to make abortion illegal or keep it legal, respectively? We had a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican President from 2001-2006, did they do anything to make abortion illegal? NO!

So why do we waste so much time talking about it? Because if abortion was ever made illegal permanently, the Religious Right and groups like NARAL would lose a major source of their fundraising income. The cynical part of me sometimes wonder if congressmen and these groups get together in "a smoke-filled backroom" sometimes to game out their strategy when funds are running low so they can fan the flames and receive more money. It's far more profitable and electorally beneficial for Republicans for them to always have abortion legal, cause it'll always ensure they can rope in a few saps that think their money is making a difference. Likewise for Democrats and the threat of abortion being made illegal.

So if the Religious Right, a cluster of groups that have profited handsomely from said arrangement, support a person that is for abortion, they really have no purpose for existing in my opinion. Abortion to the Religious Right is not like an "oh, by the way" issue, it is one of THE issues. People donate money to the Religious Right based on them standing for Christian principles. That is the only reason they even exist to start with! You don't pick and choose where your core principles apply. There are things in this world people should be principled with, doesn't matter if you're a fascist or a socialist or a moderate. Otherwise we end up with these Third Way or 1984-type politicians that stand for nothing except for anything that will help them retain power. The Religious Right have chosen their principles, they should stand next to them or just dissolve.

By the way, I don't delight in gotcha stuff. But the Religious Right, if they do support Giuliani, will truly have a "the Emperor has no clothes" moment for the movement.

I agree with you that Rudy would not likely get most of the RR in the PRIMARY. What I was saying is that if he were to win the GOP primary and Hillary the Dem primary, is that they would indeed "hold your nose and vote for Rudy", because the very last thing the RR wants to see is Hillary Clinton as commander in chief.