[siageah]

So the social conservatives/religious right are threatening a third party/candidate run if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination. Is this a mistake? Are they just rumbling to make press for their cause? Another "Nader Effect?" Or is this good for American politics?

If you are a social conservative would you vote for Guiliani or would someone more inline with your own social values be your choice?

[twinzplus3]

Do you have a link? (Not to suggest I don't believe you. . .want to read more about it that's all.)

[mcmama]

Who's the group threatening this? And who do they want to nominate?

Honestly, if the Dems nominate Obama, I think he has enough appeal to a populist streak that it could be serious trouble for any of the republican candidates, even if they are solidly backed. Obama's raised money in small contributions from regular people, and there are a lot of them. However, if they nominate Hilary Clinton, there would be a clear choice of candidates regardless of who the republicans nominate - and a significant third party effort could pretty much assure 4 years of her leadership.

[siageah]

You know I meant to post a link...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...XPNggD8S0M16G2

It is Focus on the Family and others that follow that general line. They feel like the Republican party has abandoned them, so to speak. Guiliani is very socially liberal, Romney is too "flip floppy", Thompson is too much of a strict Federalist (though he is very socially conservative), and McCann has always been thought to be pretty socially "moderate" so to speak.

[twinzplus3]

Hmmmm. . .not sure what to think. As one of those right wingers I do vote for the person who is most in line with my values and I would tend to agree that Guiliani is not it. But to really win, it takes a lot of money and time and I cannot think of who they could possibly nominate that would beat Hillary and Guiliani (or Obama?) I personally am of hte persuasion that the democratic party will win this election and/or I don't think a socially moderate republican can win. Interesting. . .thanks for sharing.

[mcmama]

They are not talking about any solutions, and any third party candidacy from conservatives would assure a win by the Democratic party, regardless of nominee.

[twinzplus3]

Originally Posted by siageah

It is Focus on the Family and others that follow that general line. They feel like the Republican party has abandoned them, so to speak. Guiliani is very socially liberal, Romney is too "flip floppy", Thompson is too much of a strict Federalist (though he is very socially conservative), and McCann has always been thought to be pretty socially "moderate" so to speak.

I just wanted to clarify this. This is NOT "Focus on the Family and others that follow that general line." (Sorry I just got a chance to read the full article.) The article said specifically that Dobson (the focus on the family guy) attended the meeting and spoke out against the idea of a third party nomination as did others who are considered 'along that general line'.

This is some guy I've never heard of who apparently is a political journalist with money who pulled together a meeting to talk about the issues or at least gripe about them. He writes for a conservative digest that I think many (although not all) many evangelical christians might tout as a little over the top.

This is not a serious thing--I doubt there will be a 3rd party candidate based on what I've read in this article. It doesn't sound to me like any of the major christian organizations back it.

[siageah]

Dobson has written that he would waste his vote before he would vote for Guiliani or Clinton. And it was after the meeting in Salt Lake that a representative of Dobson said that he was backing away from the third party idea.

I still think it is an idea that has merit. The Democrats had no choice but to pay attention to their far left side after Nader took a sizable chunk of their votes. The far left is pandered to much more now than before thanks to that. If social conservatives really think their social priorities and values are being ignored, just a threat could be enough to wake up the Republican party.

[twinzplus3]

That's true--he won't vote for anyone at this point. I can't see the good in that though either. It seems to me to be irresponsible honestly.

That's a really interesting take on it. Yikes--had more to write but I'm being told lunch is boiling over. . .I'll be back.

[twinzplus3]

Okay--crisis averted back to the topic at hand. . .will it make the socially conservative hard right wingers feel more heard and represented if there's a third party? What they really mean is a pro-life, anti-gay party/politician and that kind of bothers me honestly.

I will happily give my vote to whoever is most in line with my values and I definitely watch closely policies/statements on abortion and gay rights. I also watch education, economics, foriegn affairs, health care and the whole rest of it. I have a hard time condemning abortion and gay rights but being hunky dory with not taking care of our own or stripping away the rights of parents (education issues is what I'm referring to). It's all important in my book. I would hope that others would feel the same and not just vote for any yahoo that is simply conservative on those two issues. (ducking now) I don't think a 3rd party that is in line with those conservative values will help the Republican party sit up and pay attention at all. but then again--what do i know?