Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination
posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They held a “private” meeting on Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the issue, according to Salon and WND. And as with all “private” political endeavors in which “private citizen” James Dobson is involved, the details ended up in the papers as a threat to party leaders not to defy the religious base. Think of it as the evangelical equivalent of Tom Friedman’s dopey “9/11 is over” column in the Times this weekend: social cons weren’t going to subordinate their domestic priorities to the war on terror forever, and so, ironically, with Mr. 9/11 himself possibly heading up the ticket, they’re ready to declare 9/11 “over” for them too by shattering the coalition of hawks.
Shrewd move. The GOP’s already looking at near-certain defeat so evangelicals can walk away without worrying overly much about costing Republicans the election. Plus, the fact that they’re willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on “values” that’s been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq. In fact, if I were Dobson, I’d almost hope Giuliani wins the nomination just so I can play my trump. That sort of power play will inevitably and irretrievably alienate a few centrist conservatives like me but the GOP can afford to shed us. They can’t afford to shed Christians. That’ll mean leftist rule for awhile but eventually the MoveOn crowd will overplay its hand and alienate some centrist Democrats and things will even out. Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long.
Exit question: Who’ll be the “Christian nominee”? Forget Newt; he’s too much of a party man to play Nader to Rudy’s Gore. The WND article mentions someone named Foster Friess, but it’d be stupid to nominate a no-name like that who can’t attract any votes that aren’t being handed to him by Dobson et al. How about Alan Keyes?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 Next »
Christian leaders… let’s see that’ll chalk up about a dozen votes or so. The rest of us will vote our own conscience. I really think the press gives them way too much credit for influencing voters.
ulyses on September 30, 2007 at 9:52 PM
You think evangelicals are going to come out in force for pro-choice, pro-civil union Rudy? Please.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 9:54 PM
What’s lost from the “religious right” will be more than made up with by moderates and Dems who simply will not vote for Hillary, and will feel quite comfortable voting for Rudy. That is why we’ll see more of these “unhappy religious right” stories. They’ll be coming from the left— and advanced by the MSM — because they are terrified — and I mean terrified — of a Rudy candidacy. The importance of the religious right vote to Republican candidates has always been overstated by the liberal media. Ronald Reagan wasn’t a particularly religious man; neither was GHW Bush.
Rational Thought on September 30, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Maybe if they play the Rush card a bit more.
Foster Friess?
Welcome back, AP.
JammieWearingFool on September 30, 2007 at 9:56 PM
You sound like you are resigned to the reign of the Hildebeast.
I don;t think the country can afford 4 more years of those two criminals in the WH.
bbz123 on September 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM
They’re not terrified of a Rudy candidacy. They have more dirt on Rudy than on any other Republican candidate.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 9:57 PM
This proves just how far social cons like Dobson have fallen. They can’t win, so they’ll resort to blackmail.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:00 PM
I’ll make a promise right now: If Giuliani wins the GOP nomination, I will vote third party.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
As a God fearing Christian, I will never knowingly vote for a pro abortionist. I will answer to my God someday and I could not defend voting for a pro abortionist just for mere political expediency.
Add pro homosexual marriage, pro illegal immigration, and anti gun into the mix and I do not understand why anyone would vote for this faux conservative.
rockdalian on September 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
How is it blackmail? They’re voting their interests.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Worse then pink-shirts. It would be a sure bet such a candidate would put and even more pro-choice candidate in the WH. Way to go god-squad!
Limerick on September 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
There is a very simple answer for Republicans for this. Don’t nominate Giuliani.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM
With the cold steel of a Hillary Clinton presidency firmly pressed against my temple? Absolutely. Besides, Rudy’s going to trump Dobson et. al with the pro-Israel card.
Kid from Brooklyn on September 30, 2007 at 10:03 PM
I think that has already begun to happen. Barack and Hillary, while still using nuance to pander to the far left, have at least tried to sound a little more hawkish. Not to mention the Blue Dogs already in existence and the abysmal ratings for a Dem Congress. Honestly, right now there is not a Democrat I could vote for.
SouthernDem on September 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Perhaps, but do they have more dirt because they expect him to be the candidate, or because they are more afraid of him than the others?
Rational Thought on September 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Surely you jest.
SouthernDem on September 30, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I do not understand why anyone (who is a conservative) would vote for this faux conservative.
rockdalian on September 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
I do.
Because he looks and talks tough.
That’s about it.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
If Rudy wins the nomination, it shows they no longer have the same level of control over the party as they once did. Instead of threatening to bolt, why not try to convince others that your point of view is the correct one?
This cheap tactic shows intellectual weakness – they aren’t even trying to convince others to agree with them. All of their power is in their spoiler potential.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Why? Because a minority of the party isn’t happy with his pledge to merely nominate strict constructionists without talking the talk about the preciousness of life?
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
But it’s a moral issue for them. They find the pro-choice position unconscionable. How can they pull the lever for it?
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Why? Because a minority of the party isn’t happy with his pledge to merely nominate strict constructionists without talking the talk about the preciousness of life?
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Yup. (And for me as he is a Sanctuary City Mayor)
And – There is basically no way that Giuliani could appoint any strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court, even if he wanted to which I very much doubt, as democrats will almost certainly have a majority in the Senate come 2009. They have a majority now and the “math” almost guarantees them a few seats more in the next election.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
No there is more to it than that, otherwise they would be all over Fred Thompson.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Screw that. Simple solution is for Rudy to form his own third party.
Meryl Yourish on September 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Because the alternative is so much worse. There is no question who they’ll vote for if it’s Clinton v. Giuliani. They’ll come out in droves to keep her out of office.
SouthernDem on September 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
He’s attractive to people like me, who will vote for someone who isn’t a social conservative. I’m a former liberal, remember? Now I’m a centrist. I like the center. I don’t care for the right or the left–like most of America, I want balance.
Meryl Yourish on September 30, 2007 at 10:11 PM
They’re hoping that people will be so afraid of splitting the GOP vote that they will unify around the Magic Redneck.
pedestrian on September 30, 2007 at 10:12 PM
We’re doomed. Dooooooommmed!
This thing is Hillary’s to lose, and she ain’t gonna lose it (the MSM and the Chi-Comms won’t let her lose). I knew the “Christian Right” and the other single-issue types would torpedo the best chance Republicans have to keep Hillary out of the White House, sooner rather than later. Sorry for the pessimism, but I’m suddenly in a funk about this election, and I don’t know what’s going to pull me out of it at this point.
aero on September 30, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Honestly, I can’t put myself in their shoes on this one. I’m pro-life, but think they’re being idiots on this one. The abortion issue is in the hands of the judiciary, and it seems to me (based on his Judicial advisory committee) that Giuliani would choose better judges than any Democrat.
The inability of social conservatives to grasp this simple fact is inexplicable.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:13 PM
You are probably right. The best thing for the pro-lifers would be a Guiliani presidency because he would put judges in that would eventually throw Roe vs Wade back to the states for citizens to sort out. 8 years of Hillary appointed judges and the Roe vs Wade decision will stand for another 30 years.
Irony.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Ah, the squishy, ever moving center. Way to take a stand, Meryl.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM
A little off topic,Drudge says tonight is his last Drudge radio show!
canopfor on September 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM
1. Christian conservative third party ain’t gonna happen.
2. Giuliani as GOP nominee isn’t gonna happen either.
3. The Dobson & Co. “blackball” threat is a bit of unnecessary grandstanding. Duh.
4. Romney will be the GOP nominee. He’s a handsome multimillionaire who has been cultivating Christian conservative grassroots leaders for at least 2 years, and has the Iowa caucuses wired tight.
5. Dobson & Co. are uncomfortable with Romney, thus their little temper tantrum. But Dobson & Co. were comfortable with Dubya and, with few exceptions (e.g. 2 Supreme Court justices), his administration has been a disaster for conservatives — NCLB, Medicare Part D, Abramoff scandal, the 2006 election debacle, “Shamnesty.” There is thus plenty of reason to mistrust the basic political judgment of Dobson & Co.
Ali-Bubba on September 30, 2007 at 10:15 PM
It’s third-party time, baby. We reach out to the Lieberman Democrats and turn this mother out.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
With whom as the candidate?
aero on September 30, 2007 at 10:18 PM
I wouldn’t bet on that if I were you. Dobson has already proven that he doesn’t understand politics. He may be a very intelligent man when it comes to family psychology but his faith prevents him from understanding the realities of politics. He and other evangelical leaders like him will find a political dark horse and vote their consciences on him while splitting the conservative republican vote giving
Hillary a enormous advantage.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Are you sure about that? You can’t trust someone who says one thing but believes another.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Allah, I have always been skeptical of Guliani. My personal gut feeling is that he is a big “good ole’ boy” of the GOP and there’s no way he is going to be conservative by too many stretches. He’s got the high powered law background and that really makes me skeptical. But Dobson is really having one unfounded hissy fit. Christians have a hard time getting people to volunteer for the nursery let alone a President in the White House.
People like Dobson and any other of the “clery” ought to stick to clerying. The pew peeps should be able to make up their minds and do as many of us do: look and listen and research. Don’t be a lazy voter. Get involved. Don’t be a robot. I will never vote for someone just becasue some clergy says so. I’m saved 25 years now but I can also make my own political decisions. I still like Mitt.
auspatriotman on September 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Dobson et. al. are becoming more interesred in power politics than issues.
For social conservatives, the most important issue is the make up of the courts.
Rudy may not mouth the right catch phrases, but if he appoints strict constructionists then it doesn’t matter.
Remember, Reagan was “right” on values and we got O’Connor and Kennedy.
Bush 41 gave us Souter.
Where would social conservatives be now if those nominations had been better vetted?
billy on September 30, 2007 at 10:19 PM
LOL – Maybe Rudy should pair up with Lieberman as the third party ticket.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I think they will if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee. She is in many evangelical circles The Great Satan.
SouthernGent on September 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
While mayor Rudy had the opportunity to appoint Conservative judges to local benches. Alas, he did not take the opportunity. Judge a man by his actions, not his words. This rino is pandering.
rockdalian on September 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I am a conservative independent. I don’t really like anyone in the running now. What I would really like to see is someone like Michelle Malkin run for President. I wouldn’t care which party she ran under. I would vote for her in an instant – even as a democrat.
WildBillK on September 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM
It couldn’t win but that wouldn’t be a bad ticket, actually.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM
There. Fixed it for you.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Welcome back, AllahPundit.
Mcguyver on September 30, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Why would he say it AND not be apologetic for his pro-choice view? I am not on his staff so it is just an opinion.
Unlike Fred he is not waffling on what he supported before but now supports.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:22 PM
We do take a stand on issues. It’s simply a matter of not being hardcore social cons but still being fiscally conservative and for strong defense. I support the war in Iraq but I don’t see all the fuss on issues such as gay marriage. We have our positions but they are neither completely left or right. Who are you to say we can’t take the best of both sides as we see it?
To disregard the centrists is perilous at best.
I’d prefer it if we just took our party back, but I’m open to options.
SouthernDem on September 30, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Thank you. Exactly right.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Very true.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Allahpundit,good to see you on the site,hope you feel better.
Okay,third party talk again,what a way to throw a screw into the up coming election.If this gets pushed were heading
to Ross Perrow Part 2,and this crap is going to put Hillary in power,by playing lets split the vote!
canopfor on September 30, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM
While the divisiveness on the social aspects is impossible to ignore, I simply cannot fathom the Evangelicals handing the presidency to another Clinton. The hatred of that name is palpable.
SouthernDem on September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Oh, come on! You’re not centrist, are ya? You might be on moral/social issues, but there’s no way you can like big gov’t and Nanny Staters.
We really need to move into a small gov’t/big on liberty type movement and relax some on the morality police stuff…the morality police types are just the other side of the Nanny Staters coin, and really, that’s what Dobson and those types want, to use the gov’t authority as a sledgehammer against sin and vice.
Bad Candy on September 30, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Third party is too confusing for most voters, and people will go with a known “evil” rather than risk an unknown factor.Any splintering at this time is an advantage to Billy and the Beast.
bbz123 on September 30, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Never underestimate the ability of my fellow brethren in the evangelical movement to make a foolish self deceived decision based on moral convictions.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 10:29 PM
It’s third-party time, baby. We reach out to the Lieberman Democrats and turn this mother out.
Allahpundit on September 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I believe that Republicans can only win if they refocus the “war on terror” away from Iraq and get more of a Teddy Roosevelt populist and less of a Rockefeller wall street message.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Who said I wanted Thompson or Romney to get the nomination?
Who’s handing anything to anybody? The people who vote for Hillary will [perhaps] put her in office. It’ll be unfortunate if it happens, but I’m not going to throw my beliefs and principles out the window just to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not anymore.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Yeah. Surpized the heck out of me. I have been listening every Sunday night. Not that he’s really that good but there isn’t anything thing else on that mixes it like him. I listen to a lot of streaming and Sundays is slim pickens. Anyway, wonder if he and Ann have anything going?
auspatriotman on September 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I consider myself an evangelical and I would vote a pro-choice candidate as long as he or she was strong on national defense and terrorism.
terryannonline on September 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Heck, we might as well split the right into three or four parties at this point. The result will be the same: President Hillary. We are already fractured enough to constitute multiple right-wing parties because too many of us won’t bend on our pet issues for the sake of the greater good. The fact that conservatives tend to be highly principled people is both a great strength and a great weakness for us.
aero on September 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Have fun explaining that to your maker in the afterlife, my fellow believer.
Some things are more important than election results. You of all people should know this.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
The old if you don’t pick the guy or gal I like, I’ll take my vote home sentiment. Puts you and Dobson in the same company. Maybe a new acronym for the splintered GOP – WINOs; Winners in name only.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:35 PM
How dare you.
There is only one thing God cares about, and it’s not your opinion on abortion or social conservative issues.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Have fun explaining that to your maker in the afterlife, my fellow believer.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Good point.
I am an atheist and would be worried enough just having to explain it to myself.
If I also had to worry about explaining it to “The man”, like wow!
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:38 PM
No, AP, but it won’t be because that self-important clown Dobson tells us not to. Once again: I AM an evangelical Christian, AP, and I know a great deal more about what me and my peers think than you.
Dobson’s good for some issues, mainly when he sticks to his game which is faith. Politics — not so much. Some of us evangelical G-dbots actually are capable of forming a political thought without calling 1-800-WWDOBSONDO first. Not to mention that quite a few of us are getting mightily sick and tired of men of G-d (or so they say) polluting the Word with their politics.
And what’s this with “certain defeat for the GOP?”
Sure, if Rudy McAbortionBradyGayMarriage is the nominee you just might have a point since it’s bloody hard to tell the difference between him and the Hildebeest on issues that matter, but he really isn’t the only candidate, you know.
Not to mention that without the nod from the NRA which he won’t get, he’s toast.
Deal with it.
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM
It would be admirable if it weren’t so foolish. You would watch from the sidelines while a communist like Hillary ascends to run your country. Yeah, that’s smart.
SouthernGent on September 30, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Aw knock it off, Slu. Really. They won’t endorse a candidate that they don’t agree with, so they’re resorting to blackmail?
I guess it’d be “blackmail” for the NRA to refuse to endorse the Hildebeest too?
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I voted for bush twice and he keeps trying to screw me with shamnesty, and no matter how many time the people say Not again, it keeps getting pushed.
I voted for Arnold and now he is turning into another back stabbing rhino pos.
I should have voted for McClintock who had a track record that was really conservative. But I buckled because I thought a win was what it was all about. Win loose or draw I’m voting for the person who I believe is the best, not just the one that can beat the witch.
My vote isn’t for sale just because the turd sandwich is better then the giant douche.
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 10:42 PM
We’re doomed. Dooooooommmed!
Rest easy. I really believe 08’s gonna be a big surprise. I have many, many Democrat friends, and not one — not one — plans to pull the lever for Hillary. They like Rudy, though, and not because they perceive him to be a liberal in RINO clothing. Bottom line, people want a prez who’s going to fight the bad guys, and who will fight them by killing them if necessary. I do believe, however, my Dem friends would pull for her over Mitt (too slick), and maybe over Thompson (too good ‘ole boy, though at the bottom of the ticket under Rudy I think he’d work). I tell ya, the liberal establishment fears Rudy far more than Rudy fears the evangelicals.
Rational Thought on September 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
This really has to be a primary issue. That’s what they’re for. I think the saber rattling about a third party is for show: it’s their way to state their position in the strongest possible terms. I can’t imagine the “herd” is listening too much. Who is in this cadre other than Dobson?
A Hillary/Rudy contest leaves strong pro-lifers like myself in the most unpleasant of quandries. I still think we hold our noses and vote for the party, rather than sink the ship. This “I’ll stand before God someday” is nonsense and foolishness, IMHO. I can’t quote chapter an verse but there was an OT convert to Judaism whose job was to hold his king’s arm when that king went to worship his idols. This covert asked (Elijah–who was it?) to pray that the Lord would look with understanding on his position and not judge him when he was forced to enter with the king before the idols. Same could be said of polling booths.
I would hope and expect that the evangelicals would come out in throngs to vote against Hillary, just about no matter what, and maybe offer a few pleas for clemency if it comes to having to vote for Guliani.
Now if you vote for him in the primary, it’s straight to hell of course. /sarc
TexasDan on September 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I’m pretty sure God wouldn’t be all that thrilled with me for voting for someone who’s pro killing babies. But hey, that’s just me.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I’m a conservative independent….
WildBillK on September 30,2007 at 10:21PM
WildBillK:When ever we find out who will be the Republican
nominee,will you vote for that Republican!
canopfor on September 30, 2007 at 10:44 PM
That’s not what I have an issue with. This is:
If you believe someone’s salvation is based on their political opinions, then you’re sadly mistaken.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Welcome to the dark side, my friend.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I wont have to explain anything to him, he knows the truth of what I said. As for some things being more important than election results, no they are not. There is no evil under the sun that is greater than he who sees an evil thing done and does nothing about it.
Making a useless and futile gesture of rebellion only serves to ensure that the greater evil is done. Politics is the art of compromise. Most of my fellow evangelicals have yet to grasp the brutal reality of this situation. They are stuck with the little leaven leavens the entire loaf mentality.
The brutal truth they need to grasp is that politics is of the world. If they abdicate the political realm to the world then the world the live in will be worldly. It will not embrace any of their values on its own. They either engage in the politics of compromise or surrender outright.
Choosing a fringe perfect candidate is neither compromise nor surrender, but a suicidal tactic. It ensures that the body politic as a whole receives no input at all from those of evangelical faith.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Did I mention that we’re doomed?
aero on September 30, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Um, that’s not what I meant at all.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:48 PM
The old if you don’t pick the guy or gal I like, I’ll take my vote home sentiment. Puts you and Dobson in the same company. Maybe a new acronym for the splintered GOP – WINOs; Winners in name only.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I would rather have all that than have “abused woman syndrome” where I just pick the guy who won’t abuse me quite as much.
I know that Rudy has better legs than the HildaBeast™, but other than that, not much difference to me.
OK, well Rudy’s laugh does not sound like that of a demented turkey. There is that too I suppose.
If Rudy gets the Republican nomination and wins he would most likely get the nomination again in 2012. If HilldaBeast™ wins we get another chance in 4 years.
MB4 on September 30, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Then why mention the afterlife?
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I have to say, if Rudy has a strongly pro-life VP, the promise of a pro-life successor coupled with a viable anti-Hillary candidate may well be enough to win the evangelicals over.
To tell you where I’m coming from, I am an Anglo-Catholic who places abortion as a priority issue, along with the War on Terror. I am unwavering, but I am also pragmatic. I would rather have a pro-abortion candidate who is willing to work with us – Rudy already flip-flopped on partial-birth abortion for us – than an unabashedly “pro-choice, pro-woman” monster, who will fill Supreme Court vacancies with more Leftists.
Damian G. on September 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Let me see. I’m a Christian. I’m very pro life. Rudy is not my first choice. BUT,,,, if it were between Rudy and Hitlery,, or any Democrat,, it is Rudy. Happily I would vote for Rudy. I would vote for Ron Paul over Hitlery. I would vote for a diseased green pig over Hitlery.
JellyToast on September 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Wait, I’m confused. Are you talking about Rudy’s stance on abortion?
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Foster Friess, who I’d never heard of before, has a website. I was reading some of it and he comes across as much more conservative than even Fred, which makes him my kinda guy. Lack of name recognition can in some ways be a positive, no baggage. But the problem is, that if he ran it would split the conservative vote and insure victory for whoever the Democratic candidate is, it would be Ross Perot all over again.
I like Allen keyes a lot and I would vote for him without a second thought. But he got crushed in the Illinois race because he got in too late and I think that would work heavily against him in a Presidential run. He in fact did run for President at least once before, but he had no major backing and they wouldn’t even let him into the debate. Normally the leftist would have cried racism but of course Mr. Keyes is a conservative so their silence was deafening.
Maxx on September 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Don’t give any ideas.
terryannonline on September 30, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Sorry, Slu. I didn’t read that one until after I posted the previous one. I see what you mean now and you do have a point, although I still wouldn’t call it “blackmail”, I’d call it stupidity instead.
It’s not like there are NO GOP candidates that AREN’T pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, so it would make more sense for them to endorse one of those. At least it would be more intellectually honest.
On the other hand, if a Northern Pro-liberal RINO like Rudy does win the nomination, there’s nothing intellectually dishonest in them endorsing a third party candidate. But let’s get to after the primaries first.
Misha I on September 30, 2007 at 10:52 PM
sorry i meant….
don’t give me any ideas.
terryannonline on September 30, 2007 at 10:53 PM
That’s pretty clearly what Newt is betting on. I think that’s the real reason he decided not to run. He knows this election is a lost cause for Republicans. He wants his shot at Hillary in ‘12, after she’s had a chance to make everyone hate her who doesn’t already. He pretty much said so in his press conference yesterday–he said he’d see them (the reporters) in four years to “talk about this again.” Or something like that.
Newt in ‘12! Where’s my bumper sticker?
aero on September 30, 2007 at 10:53 PM
LOL.
I would disagree with having a chance in 2012 against an incumbent Hillary. They were the best at consolidating power and using it during the nineties. Expect no less in the new millenium. Unless the economy was completely in the tank and all our embassies were being held hostage it would be very rough climb for the GOP candidate.
Bradky on September 30, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Probably. I sure won’t vote for any democrap runing now. About the only one I would even consider would be Lieberman. And I doubt that I could bring myself to vote for him. I have never voted for anyone other than a Republican for President.
WildBillK on September 30, 2007 at 10:54 PM
One better.
TexasDan on September 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Did I nention that we’re doomed?
aero on September 30,2007 at 10:47PM
Yes aero,it’s called splitting the vote.
canopfor on September 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
thanks , where is the bar.
wb AP hope your feeling better .
Mojack420 on September 30, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Rudy’s pretty much Joe Lieberman with an ‘R’ next to his name. If you’ll vote for one, I don’t see why you wouldn’t vote for the other.
2Brave2Bscared on September 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM
-
OK, the suspense is killing me. What is that one thing He cares about? I figure if I can nail that it will simplify my life enormously and I won’t have to sweat all the other things on my mind now.
Herikutsu on September 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Your right… and it made me laugh with glee !
Maxx on September 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Heh. When it comes to the afterlife, I think God is more concerned with whether you’ve accepted Christ than with your opinions on political or social issues.
Slublog on September 30, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Yes you are confused and it shows. Rudy’s stance on abortion is in my opinion pretty bad, but it pales compared to Hillary’s stance on socialism. This is truly a case of the lessor of two evils. Do not allow yourself to be deceived, You are choosing between the two. If you choose not to decide, you still are making a choice.
If you vote for someone who isn’t the GOP nominee you are voting for the Democrat nominee make no mistake about that. Thats how our system works, there will be no third party candidate elected. You either grasp how the system works and work with it, or those that do will make the decisions for you.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Yes. Exactly because of that.
You’re an empiricist. Do the math. Don’t like it? Maybe you’ll like living under a regime that wants to control your choice of home air freshener.
At the worst case, one side is willing to stand up to martinets like Ahmedinejad, and one of them isn’t. I’m sorry if you don’t like our take on sodomy or marijuana or the Pledge of Allegiance, but we don’t care how many gallons your toilet tank holds, how many watts your light bulb carries, or how big your pint of beer runs.
Wow. Groups want to use political power to enact their agenda. Stop the presses. I’m every bit as pissed at Dobson as you are for this stunt but get some perspective: Christian Conservatives are not running on a platform of embracing anarchy and appeasement. It’s a refreshingly binary choice, AP, and you know it. It’s utter relativism and multicultural BS versus an admittedly somewhat narrow vision of America–and the freedom it represents–as a City on a Hill.
Despite Dobson’s tantrums, you and Ace and I all start from the same place:
Me included. Our conflicts are at the extreme periphery. Your conflicts with Hillary and co. are fundamental–even though they might be more fun to party with, they’re wayyyy wrong.
And you know it.
see-dubya on September 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Exactly the point I was getting at when I told AP that there was more involved in this decision than Dobson and company voting their consciences.
Maybe not intellectually dishonest, but still pretty stupid.
doriangrey on September 30, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 Next »