“A group of prominent social conservatives say that if Rudolph Giuliani is the Republican Party's presidential nominee, they will consider bolting the party and fielding a third-party candidate.”

I was listening to NPR the other day (yes, I know, I know) anyway the story was on the risk or supposed threat of the Christian conservative right threatening to split off to a third party if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination due to his views on abortion.

Story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14869664

I hadn’t heard of this scenario before by any other news organization and didn’t realize what this was suggesting until I listened closer.

Would the religious republican right abandon the (pro-choice) Republican Party nominee (if that turns out to be Giuliani), splitting what is an uncertain conservative base as it is, making the way for a Hillary Clinton White House victory?  ???

I can’t believe this, doesn’t make any sense (maybe I'm too naive). Is the abortion issue so important that they’d let in the arch enemy of all conservatives, Hillary Clinton (who is pro-choice); just to avoid having a pro-choice Republican in the Oval Office? I’m not debating abortion vs. pro-choice, and not spouting Repub vs. Dems views here just trying to gauge if this story has any merit (was this some weird NPR propaganda?) and if this could actually happen.

I don't think Giuliani's views should split the Republican vote, but you never know. I really don't see them switching to Hillary nor an independent who has virtually zero chance of winning.

There are so many more important issues when choosing who to vote for than his/her stance on abortion. IMHO it shouldn't even be a political issue. Also, it doesn't matter where you stand - roughly half the country is going to disagree with you no matter if you are "pro life" or "pro choice".

Ant

I can’t believe this, doesn’t make any sense (maybe I'm too naive). Is the abortion issue so important that they’d let in the arch enemy of all conservatives, Hillary Clinton (who is pro-choice); just to avoid having a pro-choice Republican in the Oval Office?


Sure they would!

Look at it this way.  The Republicans have already lost the next election.  There are therefore two scenarios:

1) The theocrats cement their takeover of the Elephant party in 2008.  Giuliani's ousted.  They lose the Presidency (60%/40%), but they lose the House/Senate by 55/65 margins.  They own almost half the American political establishment, and the millions of dollars of lobbyist dollars (and billions of dollars of government contracts) that come with it.  Theocrats stay in the game for 2012.  Elephant Congressmen/Senators, who value their jobs, play ball.  Hijack complete.

2) The theocrats fail to take over the Elephant party in 2008.  They split for a third party.  Giuliani loses (60% Clinton II/20% Giuliani/20% Christaliban), and the Republicans again lose the Senate by the same 55/65 margin.  The theocrats turn back to the Elephant party and say "If you don't want the same thing to happen in 2012, let us take over the rest of the party.  We can guarantee you another 20 points and make the race competitive again.  Either that, or we just let your party go the way of the Whigs.  Extinction (no more lobbyist dollars ever!) or theocracy.  Play by our rules or don't play at all.  Your call."  Theocrats again stay in the game for 2012, or the Elephant party dies.  Elephant Congressmen/Senators, who value their jobs, play ball.  Hijack complete.

This isn't about abortion, it's about power.  But you've already figured that part out.

That's sad, but so true...

The party of Lincoln and Goldwater is dead....  It's now the party of Karl Rove and Pat Robertson....

Then again, the Democrats have fallen pretty far in their own right.  I just hope they're smart enough to favor gun rights and switching affirmative action to a class-based system rather than a race one.  Those 2 minor changes would improve the Democrats' appeal big time.  Supporting the gradual privatization of Social Security would be a nice change as well.

I rather doubt it will split the party.

If you polled most Republicans, I am sure that you would find that Abortion ranks much lower when compared to such topics as run-away spending, military, and national security.

Personally, I would find it hard to vote for a President that avowed to eliminate abortion.  However, I would look favorably on a President that made limited restrictions on it (banning late-term abortion, reducing government paying for abortions, etc).

And even if a President was 100% against abortion and tried to ban it, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court would ever allow that to happen.  No more then if a President was 100% in favor of legalizing marijuanna.  To me, people going around screaming "So and So is going to take away a woman's right to choice" is just another scare tactic, and a perfect example of negative campaigning.

That's sad, but so true...

The party of Lincoln and Goldwater is dead....  It's now the party of Karl Rove and Pat Robertson....
Lincoln and Goldwater?  Krikey!  Even Tricky Dick Nixon is glaring down from his good Republican cloth cloud, and gnashing his teeth:  "I should have pushed Prescott Bush overboard when I had the chance!"

Then again, the Democrats have fallen pretty far in their own right.  I just hope they're smart enough to favor gun rights and switching affirmative action to a class-based system rather than a race one.  Those 2 minor changes would improve the Democrats' appeal big time.  Supporting the gradual privatization of Social Security would be a nice change as well.


I hope the Chistianists split off from the Rudypublicans and form a third party, the End-Timers' Party.  Then I hope they draft Alan Keyes as their candidate.  I would simply die to see a three-way debate among Rudy, Hillary, and Ambassador Keyes.  It woud be SUCH a gas!

Don't fret over what positions the Democrats might or might not take.  Rest assured no matter HOW terribly the GOP seems to be mucking it up, the Dems will sink their own boat.  It's like they used to say about the Palestinian Authority, the Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I've been a registered Democrat ever since I first registered at 19 and voted for that dweeby Michael Dukakis.  This time I'm registering independent.  I am finding it surprisingly hard to leave "my" party, but at long last it is my civic responsibility to do so.  They aren't doing the job!  Hate to quote The Donald, but "You're fired!"
::)

If you polled most Republicans, I am sure that you would find that Abortion ranks much lower when compared to such topics as run-away spending, military, and national security.

A lot of the ones in my Bible Belt state of NC are freaking obsessed with abortion.  It's why they elected Elizabeth Dole to the Senate.  I would agree that true conservatives would prioritize the 3 things you mentioned, but neoconservatives don't seem to have a problem with runaway spending -- look at Iraq.

The greatest flaw in the mainstream conservative mindset right now is that interventionism is the way to go.  As soon as they realize that interventionism is the fastest route to big government, they'll return to their small government ideals.

Personally, I would find it hard to vote for a President that avowed to eliminate abortion.  However, I would look favorably on a President that made limited restrictions on it (banning late-term abortion, reducing government paying for abortions, etc).

And even if a President was 100% against abortion and tried to ban it, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court would ever allow that to happen.  No more then if a President was 100% in favor of legalizing marijuanna.  To me, people going around screaming "So and So is going to take away a woman's right to choice" is just another scare tactic, and a perfect example of negative campaigning.


True...  but we really do need to legalize marijuana.

A lot of the ones in my Bible Belt state of NC are freaking obsessed with abortion.  It's why they elected Elizabeth Dole to the Senate.  I would agree that true conservatives would prioritize the 3 things you mentioned, but neoconservatives don't seem to have a problem with runaway spending -- look at Iraq.

The greatest flaw in the mainstream conservative mindset right now is that interventionism is the way to go.  As soon as they realize that interventionism is the fastest route to big government, they'll return to their small government ideals.
Libertarians are true "small government" folks for better and for worse, but they've been marginalized.  Ronald Reagan was NOT a "small government" guy.  He was a tax-cuts-for-the-rich guy.  The mantra of "small government" since Reagan has amounted to little more than tax cuts for higher income folks and cuts in social services for poorer folks.  Mushrooming defense budgets, exploding deficits, and rampant corporate welfare were A-OK.  Authoritarian schemes from the failed "War on Drugs" to the brainless Tipper stickers for rock albums also got the stamp of approval.  Interventionism is the core of the neo-con movement, not because of concern for human rights/liberty, but because it's great for corporate profits.  The libertarian ideasls of maximium individual freedom and minimal government intervention are simply "quaint" to the bigwigs. 


True...  but we really do need to legalize marijuana.

I agree because I think the prohibition is at once ineffective, authoritarian, and wasteful.  It's the worst of both worlds.  My issue with pot is this: The people who most want to smoke it--teenagers--are the ones who stand to lose the most from smoking it.  I don't have kids, but if I did I certainly wouldn't want them smoking pot.  Thus, I can understand why a lot of parents don't want pot legalized.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want my kids drinking either--and it's illegal for teens to drink--but they do anyway.
:-\\

If you've ever seen the movie "Traffic," you'll know that legalizing and regulating a substance makes it harder for kids to get.  It's much easier for kids to get pot than alcohol or cigarettes.

That would change if pot was legalized.  Plus, we could tax the hell out of it like we do with alcohol and tobacco.

If you've ever seen the movie "Traffic," you'll know that legalizing and regulating a substance makes it harder for kids to get.  It's much easier for kids to get pot than alcohol or cigarettes.

That would change if pot was legalized.  Plus, we could tax the hell out of it like we do with alcohol and tobacco.

Sure thing.  When I was in high school it was easier for me to get a dime bag than a bottle of booze.  I didn't have to buy a fake ID or find somebody to go buy it for me or whatever.  There were a few reliable dealers at school and you'd just meet them in McDonald's parking lot after school.  No prob.
8)