Religious Right bitching, as usual.

[Myroria]

"Conservatives" consider backing a third part candidate

Saw this on Jolt, figured I'd start its own thread here.

Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate.
 
More than 40 Christian conservatives attended a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility, and planned more gatherings on how they should move forward, according to Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail expert and longtime conservative activist.

Rudy Giuliani, who supports abortion rights and gay rights, leads in national polls of the Republican presidential candidates. Campaigning in New Jersey on Monday, Giuliani brushed aside talk of an upstart effort by religious conservatives.

"I'm working on one party right now — the Republican Party," Giuliani said. "I believe we are reaching out very, very well to Republicans. The emphasis is on fiscal conservatism, which brings Republicans together."

Other participants in the meeting included James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family evangelical ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo., and, according to Viguerie, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy group in Washington.

Dobson attended the meeting, but is not yet participating in any planning for a third party, said Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action. Dobson and others spoke out against the idea at the meeting, even though both major parties could nominate candidates who back abortion rights and other policies that conservative Christians oppose, Schneeberger said.

A spokesman for Perkins did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Viguerie would not give specifics of the proposal or reveal additional names of participants, but said President Bush "would not have been elected in '04 without the people in that room."

"There is such jaundiced feelings about any promises or commitments from any Republican leaders," he said in a phone interview. "You could almost cut the anger and the frustration with a knife in that room it's so strong. Because they don't know what else to do, they're talking third party."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

The participants were in Salt Lake City for a separate meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, a group of conservative business, religious and political leaders that was co-founded years ago by Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series of books. Vice President Dick Cheney flew into the city Friday to address the group, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Christian conservatives, who hold considerable sway in the Republican Party, have been deeply unhappy about the field of GOP presidential candidates.

Dobson has said he wouldn't support Giuliani, calling the former New York mayor an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand." Dobson has also rejected former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson as wrong on social issues, and wouldn't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Viguerie said conservatives "are still open" to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but said, "we haven't seen anything that guarantees that he will hold to the positions that he's articulating." Romney has been questioned about his record on gay rights.

However, the proposal to consider a third-party candidate comes from anger that the Republicans whom Christians have helped elect for decades have failed to act on policy issues important to evangelicals on abortion, marriage and school prayer.

"Conservatives have been treated like a mistress as long as any of us can remember," Viguerie said. "They'll have lots of private meetings with us, tell us how much they appreciate it and how much they value us, but if you see me on the street please don't speak with me."

A third-party run would be a long shot, requiring millions of dollars and challenges to ballot access. Such a bid could prove disastrous for the GOP by splitting the vote.

Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, was not at the meeting. But he said no one floating the idea of a third party thinks there's much chance the candidate would win. He considers the proposal a reaction to "moguls of the Republican establishment" who think conservative Christians will support the GOP no matter what.

"A lot of them won't hold their nose and do it," Land said.

Good, I say. Let these "conservatives" have their third party, and us real, small government, anti-intrusion paleoconservatives and libertarians can have our Republican Party back.

[Prydania]

This needs to happen in Canada. We need the Conservative Party back.

[Gulliver]

They do that and the Democrats'll win the election, courtesy of the electoral monstrosity we call First Past the Post.

[Prydania]

They do that and the Democrats'll win the election, courtesy of the electoral monstrosity we call First Past the Post.

I wouldn't say so. I'm willing to bet that if these Christian Conservatives formed their own party they would only appeal to the nuts of the right wing. The majority would still vote Republican.

[Zimmerwald]

Nah.  The majority would do what it's done for the past fifty years.  It wouldn't vote.

[verak]

As much as I dislike Christian fundamentalists, I think I hate progressive/moderate Conservatives more. The only thing the Red Tories have done for Canada's conservative party is destroy its image and our economy.

I would actually prefer a Liberal over a Red Tory/Progressive Conservative

[Prydania]

As much as I dislike Christian fundamentalists, I think I hate progressive/moderate Conservatives more. The only thing the Red Tories have done for Canada's conservative party is destroy its image and our economy.

I would actually prefer a Liberal over a Red Tory/Progressive Conservative

How about we ignore both ends and just go with a Tory?

[verak]

As much as I dislike Christian fundamentalists, I think I hate progressive/moderate Conservatives more. The only thing the Red Tories have done for Canada's conservative party is destroy its image and our economy.

I would actually prefer a Liberal over a Red Tory/Progressive Conservative

How about we ignore both ends and just go with a Tory?

As in a Blue Tory? The populist Tories found in Alberta are the ones I favour most.

[Eientei]

Not surprising.  Funny enough, the prospect of a Giuliani presidency also scares the holy hell out of me, but for very different reasons. 

[Prydania]

As much as I dislike Christian fundamentalists, I think I hate progressive/moderate Conservatives more. The only thing the Red Tories have done for Canada's conservative party is destroy its image and our economy.

I would actually prefer a Liberal over a Red Tory/Progressive Conservative

How about we ignore both ends and just go with a Tory?

As in a Blue Tory? The populist Tories found in Alberta are the ones I favour most.

Those would be the ones 

[Gulliver]

Not surprising.  Funny enough, the prospect of a Giuliani presidency also scares the holy hell out of me, but for very different reasons.

They all fail to thrill me really...

[Insert Standard Anti-FPTP Pro-STV Rant]

[Delfos]

is that a challenge?

[Gulliver]

No. I'm just not going to take up space saying what I've already said before.

[Eientei]

Not surprising.  Funny enough, the prospect of a Giuliani presidency also scares the holy hell out of me, but for very different reasons.

They all fail to thrill me really...

[Insert Standard Anti-FPTP Pro-STV Rant]

Agreed.  But Giuliani really does scare me, with his constant linking of every single issue to terrorism - gun control, education, you name it, he can attribute the problem to terrorism.  I half-expect him to get behind a podium one of these days and blame 9/11 for his corn flakes getting soggy at breakfast that morning.

[Myroria]

I remember Giuliani debating with Ron Paul, and when the Good Doctor told the truth and said that 9/11 was caused because we've been interfering in the Middle East for years, Giuliani denied it, and basically said Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, all you've got to do is look at declassified CIA reports to see the Doctor's right. I just thought it kind of funny that the mayor of New York during 9/11 doesn't know what really caused.

PAUL: No, non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting.

MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 Attacks, sir?

PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They've already now since that time have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

GIULIANI: That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

MODERATOR: Congressman?

PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free, they come and attack us because we're over there. I mean what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?