This will be fun to watch:
Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph W. 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.
The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative networking group. Participants said the smaller group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps its most influential member; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians.
Almost everyone present at the smaller group’s meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,” participants said.
The participants said that the group chose the qualified term “consider” because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee. The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the Council for National Policy meeting and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the smaller group intended to publicize the resolution.
A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major share of Republican primary voters, including more than a third of voters in Iowa and South Carolina.
But the threat is risky for the leaders of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters might still back a supporter of abortion rights like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are more concerned with other issues, like the war.
The results of this split would be DEVASTATING for the current GOP. It would essentially be the end of the coalition, and, from my perspective, it would be a good thing. I worry about an unfettered Democratic majority for the obvious reasons, but for several years now, my entire focus has been the destruction of the Republican party I helped to create. This would be a large step in the ‘right’ direction.
jcricket
Sign me up. Let us have three parties. Democrats, Libertarians and the Rapturists (the remaining Republicans after “independents”, “fiscal conservatives” and “moderates” split into the first two parties).
I enjoy the prospect of the fundies coming out “swinging”. Let’s see how well their agenda fares when it’s the only thing the Republicans run on.
whippoorwill
One big difference, maybe the biggest difference, between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is that Dems tend to be a bottom up entity and the Repubs top down as far as policy goes. Dems can do all sorts of silly things, particularly expanding government, but Dem voters will not tolerate for a minute the abuses on the Constitution and senseless war such as we’ve seen from Bush and his Lemming republicans.
Zifnab
So, let me get this straight. Either Republicans run Giuliani- arguably their best shot at even approaching the White House, and the most likable of the top four Republican Contenders. And the fundies bolt the party.
Or Republicans nominate a smuck like Romney or McCain or *giggles* Thompson, and get walloped even harder in the polls than they would have under Giuliani, but they keep their Jesus-wing of the party.
Is there any way Republicans walk away in November without being completely, humiliatingly defeated?
scarshapedstar
Well… aside from the fact that the Democrats voted in lockstep for Constitutional abuses and senseless war.
The Other Steve
The Democrats are worse.
cleek
but wait, i thought the Dems were the party of vocal activists purging the heretics from the party?
KCinDC
Scarshapedstar, I have my doubts about whippoorwill’s rosy view as well, but you have a strange definition of “lockstep”.
As for the point of the post, I’d rather the Democratic presidential candidate beat the Republican straight up, with no third party interference, to show a strong rejection of the Republicans. But I’ll take what I can get. If a conservative third-party candidate does run, I’d hope that the Democrat would still be able to get a majority and beat the Republican and Constitution Party (or whatever) candidates combined.
The Other Steve
Actually it’s fascinating that Dobson’s big problem with Giuliani is he’s pro-choice.
And not that he married his cousin, and had his girlfriend over for sleepins at the Mayor’s mansion while still married.
The Other Steve
Clarification… The sleepin occured with his 2nd wife who was not his cousin.
Or was it his third? I just recall it was not his cousin.
and then there is the whole issue of Giuliani’s mob connections to be explored. When he was a prosecutor, he’s known for going after the mob. Was he really going after the entire mob, or was he trying to take out one family to benefit another family? Do we need to hire Leonardo Dicaprio to find out?
Jess
A classic example of the dangers of riding the tiger…
whippoorwill
The Dems that voted for the Iraq war resoulution were scared worms. But in both houses combined a majority voted against it. Since that time, up until 9 months ago Dems have been out of power and since that time have done everything they could short of a cold turkey cutoff of funds for the war. They have very thin majorities in the house and senate and nearly no republican help. It you believe they should cold turkey the funding with troops in the field then you have a point. On most days I don’t favor that because it has the chance of putting GI’s at risk. This recent vote on allowing more surveillance was an abomination, I agree, but it expires in 4 months.
Ask yourself this question. If Al Gore or any democrat had been president for the past 7 years do you honestly think we would have invaded Iraq and suffered the breaches of the constitution we’ve had under Bush. I don’t think so. The dems are far from perfect and too often cast their votes out of fear of the republican smear machine. But I firmly believe we will see better days with a dem president and congress, at least for near term. If you don’t think so then vote republican.
Evinfuilt
The one thing that keeps me sane while thinking about the Democratic Party controlling all the branches is a simple easy thought.
They don’t all act as one entity. They aren’t one giant bloc.
Their main downfall while trying to end the Republican attacks is their strongest asset when running the Government. There is no chance in hell that the next president will have a rubber stamp congress to go along with him.
They are “currently” open to debate within themselves. Heck, I’d say the current Democratic party is more diverse Right/Left than Democrats/Republicans of the 70s and 80s.
Look at the diversity from the Clintons on the right to Kucinich on the left. Then compare it to all the look alikes in the Republicans (well Ron Paul is different, but he’s alone.)
Zifnab
:-p That’s a hard pill to swallow. If we cut off funding, will Bush act like a petulant child and try to throw unarmed, unarmored troops into combat anyway? Will he just tell everyone to fuck off and start lobbing nukes into Iran? I don’t know.
The framers never designed the Constitution or the US Government to function properly when half the guys in power are acting like total nuts and the other half are too afraid to stop them.
But if you think NOT ending the war will somehow spare American lives… that’s a big gamble too. Welcome to everyone’s favorite game “Lose / Lose”.
The Other Steve
Not alone. He has the Stormfront guys on his side, for some reason?
RSA
It always surprises me how long the coalition between big-business Republicans, social-conservative Republicans, and libertarian Republicans has lasted. The social conservatives basically get thrown a bone every once in a while (I imagine they expected some social
progressregress from 2000 through 2006, when they controlled all three branches of government), but in general they hear only happy talk. The libertarians are in natural opposition to the social conservatives, at least on social issues, and to big business except on the issues of regulation and taxation (subsidies, defense spending, and bailouts, not so much). Will we see a break now? Maybe. I wouldn’t discount the Job-like patience of Dobson and crew, no matter how much they whine.whippoorwill
With Bush, I wouldn’t put anything past him. But that’s not what I was talking about. The military and especially the Army is about 80 percent bureaucracy which barely functions in peace time let alone the chaos of a war zone. If you jam up the bean-counters in the rear with shuffling funds it runs the risk of front line grunts not getting what they need when they need it. And I agree, right now it’s lose/lose for everyone involved.
David Hunt
The idea of the Republican Part splitting in the 08 election has appeal, but I don’t believe that it will happen. I think what was really going on at the meeting in that article is Dobson and his cohorts planning on how to bring the Republican Party to heel, either by holding out for concessions on social issues (*cough abortion cough*) from Gullianni and/or by throwing their support behind a more palatable canidates in the primary. It’s a threat, not an attack.
Dreggas
This’ll be better than watchin pro-wrestlin’
Richard Bottoms
Best line you’ve written.
Joe Max
Which is why I prefer them to Repugs.
Lockstep is the dance of despots.
Zifnab
Perhaps. And its a threat that can really only work in the primary. Dobson can tip a candidate in a few key states like South Carolina and Florida, so I’m sure he wants Guiliani to at least pretend subservance. Romney and McCain have both kissed the Godfather’s ring. But if Guiliani is as stubborn as he can be, I can definitely see a situation in which Dobson gets his back up high enough to break the party in an attempt to bring it to heel.
I think Dobson would rather reign in the minority than serve in the majority, as he’s had too much of the latter recently.
Jake
I don’t like the idea of single party rule, but since we survived an unfettered GOP majority I don’t see the harm in giving the Dems a turn. There’s no way in Hell it can possibly be worse than the bullshit we had to put up with under the reverse situation.
Tsulagi
The Rapturists going Nader? While I’d really like to think they’re that stupid, and would so love that comedy, don’t see it happening. The Jesus for Huckabee party. Snowflakes for Brownback. Make it happen, Dobson, and I got a check for your guy.
Yes, see John Kerry 04 campaign. He just knew it’d be flowers and candies on the road to the WH because the other guy was a retard. Played rope a dope rather than fighting so the other guy and those cheering him wouldn’t get mad and call him names. See Dem Congress 07. As I recall, in 04 retard beat the dope on the ropes.
Bubblegum Tate
Yes: The Democrats’ ineptitude
Gus
How about Judge Roy Moore for prez?
D-Chance.
The Christcons are going nowhere. This is just pre-primary posturing. If the anti-Christ himself were to appear and run as a Republican, Dobson and his gang would support him if it meant defeating Hillary. Right now, they’re just wanting some TLC from the power-players.
Llelldorin
We know exactly what will happen if the Dems control everything–we saw it in 1992-1994. The Democratic coalition only barely holds together in the worst of times–give the Dems real power, and every faction of the Democratic Party (and there are at least five) will immediately demand that their issues be addressed first.
We Democrats don’t really need the Republicans to gridlock us. We have an autogridlocking system. You can see why–at the moment, John Cole and Barbara Lee are supporting the same party. Having one party be the Grand Alliance of Everyone Not Totally Mad is sort of neat, but it doesn’t make for lockstep (or even hugely effective) governance.
Alan
@David Hunt,
I agree. It ain’t gonna happen. It will take a generation to root out the social-con virus from the GOP. Right now, every conservative pundit pushes the social-con agenda. Rush Limbaugh’s definition of conservatism begins with the abortion issue. Ann Coulter’s book title, “Godless” was determined over abortion. Laura Ingraham’s recent book is about social issues.
The reason social-cons would support someone as flawed as Gingrich is because he pushed their social agenda while in Congress. My “pro-life” Representative, back in the day, complained “enough is enough” when the Gingrich lead congress had over one hundred votes over the abortion issue. It is all the GOP is about.
I didn’t realize this until the Shiavo fiasco. I had my head in the sand. Since then I came to realize the GOP’s control of our government was like finally going to bed with the women of my dreams and finding out she has a fucking dick. In power the GOP wasn’t anything expected. They were incompetent big spenders. While they should have come up with ways to reduce the power of government via limited regulation and a simplified tax system, they instead tried to corner the ‘K’ Street lobby. WTF! And the only thing the GOP would do is pander to the social-con issues.
I’ve been a Republican my whole life and never took the social-con agenda serious. Even back in Reagan’s day, U.S. News’ “Washington Whispers” quoted the Reagan WH that the GOP was not the Religious Right’s Party. But since that time they’ve been busy. They’ve filled practically every Party rank with their own. Today you are hard pressed to find any major “conservative” web site that’s not somehow aligned with with the RR. Look at Townhall’s ownership. It’s a frigging religious organization masquerading as a conservative site.
Their whole Social-Con agenda is a contradiction to the idea of “limited government.” I agree with John, the GOP must die. But it will be a long drawn out death.
Krista
Highly doubtful. What do Dobson and his ilk love even more than their own righteousness? Their pocketbooks and their influence. And Rudy’s pro-choice stance aside, it’s not unlikely that he’ll find some other way to pander to those bastards. It’s also a pretty sure bet that those guys know that if a Dem takes the White House, the Religious Wrong won’t even have a breath of influence in policy any more.
grumpy realist
Nah, this is Dobson posturing: “we’ll take our marbles and go home!” He wants a public assurance from Giuliani that he’s Not Really Pro-Choice, I Just Played One To Get Elected In NYC. Given the flip-flops Giuliani’s already done and the flip-flops from the other candidates sucking up to the religious nuts, I’d say Dobson’s not unrealistic. What will be fun if Rudy gets his back up about this, realizes his (tenuous) possible hold on women and independents goes way, way down if he caves in to Dobson, and acts….well, in Rudy-like ways.
That’s when I’ll really get the popcorn. A drag-down, outright fight between the Religious nuts and Rudy? Can’t wait.
Alan
@Grumpy,
If Rudy panders to Dobson like that he’ll lose my primary vote. It is because he’s a slap in the Social-Cons face that I support Rudy.
Pb
So what else is new.
NickM
Focus on the Funds et al are professionals and this is a play for more power – nothing else. Dobson and friends aren’t bolting unless they know the Republican candidate is doomed anyway and they need to take the credit for dooming him. That’s a long way off. Right now it’s about squeezing the party for more power and money. In this environment, when they need the base more than ever, do you have any doubt they’ll get it?
whippoorwill
Very well stated Llelldorin. It ain’t purdy and it’s called DEMOCRACY.
Bruce Moomaw
It might be “fun to watch”, but the defeat of the Republican solely because a conservative third party bled votes of him would be every bit as much of an outrage against small-‘d” democracy as Nader’s deliberate sabotage of the 2000 race was. I suppose if it happens again, we might actually get a bipartisan consensus for a runoff system in federal elections, which is WAY overdue.
DragonScholar
Actually this could well be what’s needed to get us out of two-party lockstep. The Republicans fragment into two parties. The Democrats sail into power, but with less worry that not electing them will let in the Party Of Crazy, more people will start looking at the Greens.
I’m a Democrat, but frankly I wonder how many people are voting Democrat ONLY out of fear of the Party of Crazy. In my moments of self-introspection, I admit that’s part of my motivation.
grumpy realist
When I consider the number of times my votes have been purely “the lesser of the two evils.”….
The only Presidential candidate I ever voted for because I actually wanted to was Anderson. Now THAT dates me.
Zifnab
The Greens got co-oped by the Rethuglicans as the Spoiler Party back in ’00. Since then, Nadar has – thankfully – come more to his senses and lowered his ideological horse a few pegs. Unfortunately, he’s also been more-or-less booted out of the party. Too little, to late, but there you go.
I’d still vote for Nadar in Texas, and I’d throw my support behind any liberal 3rd Party candidate I thought should earn my support. Gore didn’t lose Florida because of a 1000 votes to Nadar, he lost Florida because of 100,000 votes to Diebold. No one force people to vote for Nadar, and its a total bullshit myth that all Green Party voters are just Democrats who got distracted by something shiny at the ballot box. A number of those Green Voters could easily have just skipped the election entirely. And, unless I’m mistaken, none of the SCOTUS judges ruling on the recount cast a ballot for Nadar, so his hands are clean there too.
What will be truly interesting is not whether Dobson really jumps ship. It’s how many Evangelicals just decide to sit this election out because the nominee just doesn’t get them motivated. Like the Nadarites, the Dobsonites don’t just mindlessly pull the ballot for the guy closets to their side of the aisle. They’ve got standards, and if you don’t meet their standards, there’s a good chance that even Hitlery won’t scare them to the polls if the alternative is just Hitlery-Lite (I mean, for Christ’s sake between Hillary and Guiliani – they’re both from New York, they’re both flaming liberals, and they both dress like girls!)
So that’s the game. Not whether Dobson runs off and start the Jesus Party, but whether the GOP can keep God’s Chosen firmly in their corner. Because denying one doesn’t forgo the other.
sglover
Ummmmm….. This is parody, right? Even if you try to ignore the Jackass’ pathetic conduct through the entire Bush tenure, it’s a little hard to see Serbia, the abortive Haiti expedition, Waco, and the “Effective Death Penalty Act” as ringing victories for Liberty and Constitutionalism.
Tim F.
Maybe, but they’re worked up about Rudy! for a reason. Giuliani really hates the fundies. No Republican since Reagan has had the balls to spit in the RR’s face, but Rudy is more than enough of an arrogant prick to tell them to bow down or piss off.
I wouldn’t say this about any other candidate, but I have a feeling that Rudy will tell them to take a walk and they really will.
Alan
Funny, I didn’t know Diebold had anything to do with the 2000 election. FWIU, it was up in Duval County where ~20,000 punch card ballots were thrown out. This due to double voting because in order to see all the Presidential choices the voter had to turn the page (ballot box Darwinism).
sglover
Just to be clear, the destruction of the Republican Party in its current form is a practical necessity. The GOP’s become a toxic combination of fascistic fever dreams and military-industrial scheming.
Chris Johnson
I would LIKE to see the Democrat win without getting a majority.
This country was supposed to be based on people struggling with each other politically and having to deal with each others’ issues, without playing the mandate card and saying ‘I win! I not listen to you now, cos I win!’
Having no majority could be the best ADULT thing to happen to this government. Compel people to deal with each other instead of Sumo wrestling.
As for the fundies- it is a very funny conceit that they are really playing politics and will roll over on moral issues to keep power. If you expect this, what you don’t seem to understand is that you’re SATAN and not to be made deals with. If the fundies can’t totally control the discourse they’re not going to haggle. If they’re seriously betrayed- and for years now there’s been both the sincere fundie factions embarrassing everybody, and the cynical factions using the fundies for votes and never intending to obey them at all- if they’re seriously betrayed there’s nothing stopping them from quitting politics entirely and, say, stockpiling weapons. They could decide they’ve lost faith in the government itself and start trying to run things as enclaves. Organizations, even towns and cities, where federal rules don’t apply in practice and religious rules do. I can think of a lot of places where this could happen and not be very newsworthy..
pharniel
Chris – that sort of thing can and does happen, but it usually burns out in less than a generation, either due to self-desctructive infighting or the more popular economic pressures.
you either have to take the mormon route of taking over all of a towns officals or create a new town. and just go ask the 7th day adventists, mormons and other groups how well that worked out for them.
the sure fire method is to build enclaves in the middle of nowhere and prey you never need anything from the outside world, because if your’e a self-sufficent enclave, you’re a threat to Wallmart and other companies that need a robust and modern economy. And Wallmart will fuck your shit up.
Blue Jean
I dunno, Chris. Junior Bush was elected (ahem) without a majority, and it didn’t make one dent in his arrogance. Or his administration’s.
Why don’t they nominate Ralph Nader? He’s already helped an anti-choice President get elected twice. And, like them, he’s old, he’s grouchy, and he thinks he’s God’s gift to the electorate. The Dobsons get a famous face for their campaign, Ralph gets money for his next attempt to be the new Harold Stassen, and everybody’s happy.
Justin Slotman
Didn’t this already happen?
(Sorry. My BDS is flaring up….)
D-Chance.
Rudy is pro-life, so I don’t know why the Christcons are all up in arms.
Up is down, in is out, left is right and black is white. It’s a bizarro world in politics.
Although I do reserve the right to revise and extend that remark…