The Splintering GOP Base

Cancel7

Banned
And another reason for the democrats not to nominate Hillary Clinton. This could be the election that breaks up the always-fragile coalition built under Reagan between the economic conservatives and the religious conservatives.

I believe what is in here also applies to Mitt Romney. They are either going to field a third party candidate, splintering the gop base vote, or they are going to stay home.

The only thing that might get them out? Hillary Clinton.

September 30, 2007, 2:38 pm
Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort
By David D. Kirkpatrick

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.
In recent polls by the Pew Research Center, Mr. Giuliani has received a plurality of support from white evangelical Protestant voters despite a rising chorus of complaints from Christian conservative leaders about his liberal views on social issues and his unconventional family life. Some players in the movement not present at the meeting may be open to Mr. Giuliani as the lesser of two evils.
Rev. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network, for example, has provided relatively generous coverage to Mr. Giuliani and his campaign. Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate and a Republican primary candidate eight years ago, said that, speaking by phone to the meeting, he urged the group to proceed with caution. “I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Mr. Bauer said.
Still, he added, “But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life— and if we nominate some who is hostile on one of those three thing it will blow up the GOP.”
In response to the Christian conservatives, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Mr. Giuliani, saying, “Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs.” Calling Mr. Giuliani strong on fighting terrorism and “fiscal discipline,” Mr. Sessions said Republicans want a candidate who “can beat the Democratic nominee.”
For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ves-consider-third-party-effort/index.html?hp
 
I have to restrain fits of giggles when I think about religious conservatives pulling the lever for Giuliani.

Still, there can be no doubt: a Hillary candidacy will be a great gift to the right. It would be like throwing them a life preserver when they're about to go down for the last time...
 
I have to restrain fits of giggles when I think about religious conservatives pulling the lever for Giuliani.

Still, there can be no doubt: a Hillary candidacy will be a great gift to the right. It would be like throwing them a life preserver when they're about to go down for the last time...

And it's reflected in all polls, that's what drives me crazy. It's as if the democrats are engaging in magical thinking, which is what got us into Iraq.

It's going to be a cakewalk.
 
It's unfortunate that liberals don't have the courage to seriously consider third parties.


Its not lack of courage.

Can you imagine if one third of Dems voted Green this elelction?

Think of the outcome of that?

Its not fear it common sense not to vote third party unless the third party can provide a REAL alternative.
 
You can't really blame them.

Our voting system - if you think about it - isn't mathematically correct. It only REALLY works with two pieces in there. All nations that use it have, after time, and because of necessity, dwindled down to two, or even one, parties.

And that's all I'll say on the subject ;)
 
Hey! Stow it sister! Give us republicans some credit. We never really liked Bush. All I have to do to win the general election, is to remind republican voters why they voted for Bush in the first place: At least he's better than Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Edwards/Dean/Obama. You don't think I can get republican voters to forget those "Morals Matter!" signs they waved at the 2000 GOP convention? Think again!

Now, I’m not worried about losing fundamentalist evangelicals. All I have to do is remind them of the War on Islam...ahem, I mean the war on terror. And Democrats, be warned: don’t even try to bring up my leadership on 9/11. Yes, I know that my staff advised me to put the City’s emergency command center in Brooklyn instead of the WTC -- and as a result of the attacks, we didn’t have a command center to coordinate operations from on 9/11. But, I wanted a command center in WTC which was close to the mayor’s office and so I could walk to it. Do you know how HARD it would have been for me to walk to Brooklyn in high heels, and a fancy evening dress? Female republican voters will especially sympathize with that predicament, and cut me slack. So there!


Cheers,

Rudy
 
Rudy you call yourself a New Yorker?

Any New York woman will tell you, you always keep your heels in your briefcase. You trek around new york in your sneakers or your flip flops, putting your heels on only when you arrive at your office.

Try not to be stupid ok?
 
Its not lack of courage.

Can you imagine if one third of Dems voted Green this elelction?

Think of the outcome of that?

Its not fear it common sense not to vote third party unless the third party can provide a REAL alternative.

It makes a world of sense when the party you're voting for isn't doing what you voted for them to do. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place and no matter how disrespective and dismissive your party treats you, all you can do is relax and just take it.

It's why your party can't figure out how to get out of Iraq by 2013 now, even though they were elected to get them out as soon as possible.

It's why your party just voted to give Bush the "rattional" to attack Iran, just as they gave it to him when he attacked Iraq, then claimed "they were fooled" .. when in fact the only ones who are really getting fooled are people who keep voting for them.
 
It is the reason that I am far more likely to vote Libertarian than I am Republican in this next election. It is my goal to remove the cancer that infects the party by showing my displeasure. This does not mean I must vote Democrat, but it certainly means that I don't have to vote Republican...

I am sick of the people who swear to uphold the constitution ignoring that 'piece of paper' or assuming it is fungible solely because they wish to get rid of annoying pieces that get in the way of "progress".
 
It is the reason that I am far more likely to vote Libertarian than I am Republican in this next election. It is my goal to remove the cancer that infects the party by showing my displeasure. This does not mean I must vote Democrat, but it certainly means that I don't have to vote Republican...

I am sick of the people who swear to uphold the constitution ignoring that 'piece of paper' or assuming it is fungible solely because they wish to get rid of annoying pieces that get in the way of "progress".

It's too bad liberals don't have this political courage.
 
Hey! Stow it sister! Give us republicans some credit. We never really liked Bush. All I have to do to win the general election, is to remind republican voters why they voted for Bush in the first place: At least he's better than Gore/Clinton/Kerry/Edwards/Dean/Obama. You don't think I can get republican voters to forget those "Morals Matter!" signs they waved at the 2000 GOP convention? Think again!

Now, I’m not worried about losing fundamentalist evangelicals. All I have to do is remind them of the War on Islam...ahem, I mean the war on terror. And Democrats, be warned: don’t even try to bring up my leadership on 9/11. Yes, I know that my staff advised me to put the City’s emergency command center in Brooklyn instead of the WTC -- and as a result of the attacks, we didn’t have a command center to coordinate operations from on 9/11. But, I wanted a command center in WTC which was close to the mayor’s office and so I could walk to it. Do you know how HARD it would have been for me to walk to Brooklyn in high heels, and a fancy evening dress? Female republican voters will especially sympathize with that predicament, and cut me slack. So there!


Cheers,

Rudy

More millionares than ever before. :clink:
 
Umm the terror of having another Republican president....
Damo has nothing to lose as the republicans will lose anyway....

I am voting for ron paul in the primary :)
 
Umm the terror of having another Republican president....
Damo has nothing to lose as the republicans will lose anyway....
Hmmm.... And in the last election?

We have a good chance of setting a minority into their place in the party, and letting saner heads take control. I, for one, will help that along.
 
It is the reason that I am far more likely to vote Libertarian than I am Republican in this next election. It is my goal to remove the cancer that infects the party by showing my displeasure. This does not mean I must vote Democrat, but it certainly means that I don't have to vote Republican...

I am sick of the people who swear to uphold the constitution ignoring that 'piece of paper' or assuming it is fungible solely because they wish to get rid of annoying pieces that get in the way of "progress".

But you know the R candidate has very little chance of winning and or doing the country good.
 
But you know the R candidate has very little chance of winning and or doing the country good.
It depends on if they are a RR candidate, or if they are the fiscal conservative type. I refuse to vote for a candidate that continues on the same path of anti-gay get out the vote idiocy.
 
It depends on if they are a RR candidate, or if they are the fiscal conservative type. I refuse to vote for a candidate that continues on the same path of anti-gay get out the vote idiocy.

Oh don't worry, according to this article, now that the democrats are in the majority, the republicans are going to "win back the mantle of fiscal discipline
and limited government." Until they get back the majority anyway. Also out? Acting like it's okay that there are 47 million uninsured: "It's no longer permissible for us to think 47 million Americans being uninsured is okay," Senator Martinez said.

Now, they at least have to furrow their brows and try and look pained when anyone mentions the 47 million. So, there is a big turnaround!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001617_2.html?hpid=topnews
 
It depends on if they are a RR candidate, or if they are the fiscal conservative type. I refuse to vote for a candidate that continues on the same path of anti-gay get out the vote idiocy.

So, from now on you'll be voting for someone other than Tom Tancredo?


;)
 
So, from now on you'll be voting for someone other than Tom Tancredo?


;)
Tom doesn't run on anti-gay. This only shows a minimal idea of what he is about.

here: http://teamtancredo.org/

Read his site, see how much he talks about homosexuals. There isn't even one article about it.

He does rather heavily promote border security, but talks zero about homosexuals. If you note the hot button religious issues appear to be missing from his campaign...

Hmmm....

Maybe your winky was simply uninformed.
 
Back
Top