This is good news, imo. Separate the wing nuts from the religious hypocrites and results in the next election won't even be close.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007 ... ty-effort/

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.

Many Democrats, including Senator Clinton, are doing their best to soften the edges of their support for abortion rights, emphasizing they favor policies that might reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

But participants in the group that endorsed the resolution said they reached their position hearing an assessment of the state of the Republican primary from Mr. Perkins, who acts as a point man in Washington for the movement. Mr. Perkins told them that Mr. Giuliani could plausibly win the primary if he carried Florida, which is also a state with many conservative Christian voters, and now was the best-chance to stop any momentum behind the campaign.

Interesting news, LW, I hope they do it. What I'm thinking too is that this might be the beginning of multiple parties, because I don't think the Dems are going to hold the progressives after 2008 if Hillary Edwards Obama whomever doesn't pull the troops out of Iraq pronto. If the religious wingnuts jump the Repugs' ship, maybe the peace/green/etc folks will tell the Dems seeya.

I wouldn't object to it, I'm not a Democrat as it is, and the leadership isn't listening to people like me or the majority of those tending to vote that way. Or even a lot of the Congress people.

So we'll see, maybe this is just a blip on the screen but I really think two parties only and the idea of democracy just don't go all that well together. People need choices all along the spectrum of thought, not just, as Waking Life says, the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.

The more I type this, the more I realize how sick I am of all this. The leading bastards in Congress don't seem to give a damn for the War in Iraq or the poor in the US and everywhere in the world. There are good folks in DC but there's either not enough or they are not figuring a way to bust through the wall of special interests and evil.

If it's Hillary on the top of the Dems ticket I'll hold my nose and vote. But I don't think I'm alone in thinking things are changing the if Hillary does win, she better fear for her office from day one if she doesn't come in and do the work of the people. End the War. Eat the Rich. End the needless suffering in this world. Convince us she means it.

Yeah, cen....

Good point concerning the usefullness/future of the current two party system.

As far as Hillary is concerned, I absolutely will not vote for her. (And that's coming from a person who looks forward to electing a female prez.) She not only voted to authorize the iraqi fiasco, but still stands behind that decision. Hillary is more interested in polls and appearances than doing what's right or necessary, imo. From her multiple appearances and wide coverage in our faire state during the last year, I've come to see her as a phony washington insider and there are enough of those in the beltway already..

lw

I have to agree with your assessment of Hill, lw. Not only did she support the war and still does, she is a major socialist nutcase. Her attempt to have the govt take over health insurance is only the tip of the iceberg. I read the other day she wants the govt to issue a $5k bond for each child born. And who is going to pay for that?

Cenacle, if you vote for Hill you are voting to continue the war along with her. The demos are rotten to the core and I for one am not going to play the lesser of the evils game any longer. Green all the way!

I like what I hear from Obama, so far. And Richardson supports the right to reefers...

Over heard in da local convenience store yesterday.....

customer: Are those rolling papers transparent?
clerk: The clear ones, there? I'm Not sure if they're transparent or not. I'll have to open 'em up to see......
customer: Never mind, I'll settle for the clear ones.

lw

I truly hope more parties form and elect candidates at all levels.

The coalitions that form the present 2 parties are awkward and illogical amalagations.
More discreet separation makes more sense to me and is far more honest.

(I know honesty has no legitimate place in politics or public office, so don't admonish my idealism, please.)

I salute your idealism, winder, and wish more people had it. Camelot fell because of corruption at the top and the same thing has happened over and over ever since. Our politicians are little more than bought and paid for whores who sell out to the highest bidder. Lobbyists are legalized bagmen. The public wants reform but the politicians don't so it never happens. About once every few years they announce it all has been cleaned up but they put new loopholes in the bill to replace the ones they close.

I don't see any new brooms on the horizon. Obama sounds good but he is not rocking the boat. Hill-billy is more of the same old dirty politics with radical socialism tossed in the mix. When you elect Hill, you get Billy.

A viable third party is the only hope for cleaning things up.

Italy and Canada manage to function, one much better than the other, with >2 political parties. Italy even tolerates, gasp, socialist parties. Canada even manages to survive separtist notions without violence seen in Ireland for decades. We could learn something or two from other neighbors to the north.

I want term limits. Enough with perpetual privilege. SERVE, if you must, then GET THE FUCK OUT. In a nation of 300 million people, there must be more than 550 people qualified to fill the elected offices.

Term limits are good, many states have them. The trouble is that the entrenched powers that be do not want any radical change. The news media is in their pocket so the public is not adequately informed on the issues. We have been told several times already that it was all cleaned up and nothing has actually changed with any of these so called "reforms". Only when the public becomes sufficiently arroused will any meaningful change take place. Even then, it will be mostly smoke and mirrors.

Federal funding of elections has been sidestepped to avoid the spending limits. That means all political candidates are beholden to special interests. This is unacceptable. We need to ban all political contributions. That means only the rich will be able to run so that has a drawback too.