These ideas floating about for a third party pro-life candidate if
Rudy Guliani wins the republican nomination are self destructive and
unprincipled. If you really want a pro-life candidate now is the the
time to ensure he's on the ticket. By giving him the nomination.With as many as 6 supreme court justice appointment possible over the
next 8 years, a democratic president, and a democratic congress, the
far right risks losing the abortion battle permanently. This is
particularly strange as the most important strategic asset in the
pro-life battle, judicial appointments, will likely have a
historically high turnover in the next 8 years and all the Republican
candidates have promised to deliver the appropriate judicial style.
Strategically subverting the Republican candidate and handing the
Presidency to a Democrat and risking Democratic control of all three
branches of government is beyond foolish. It's so obtuse that the
claim of voting on "principal: seems dishonest.It's time to grow up. Running a third party pro-life candidate is by
far and away most damage you could do to the unborn.
Conservatives Consider 3rd-Party Run
By RACHEL ZOLL – 5 days ago
Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate.
More than 40 Christian conservatives attended a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility, and planned more gatherings on how they should move forward, according to Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail expert and longtime conservative activist.
Third Party Disaster WatchFrankly, I hope that the members of this group follow through on their threat. Not necessarily because it would result in the election of a Democrat, which it incidentally might.
No, my interest in seeing the Religious Right shorn of its influence and power is entirely spiritual, not political.
For nearly three decades now, beginning with the formation of the Moral Majority by Jerry Fallwell in 1979, Religious Right politicos have presumed to speak, if not for all Christians, then for all who label themselves evangelicals. (Although a Lutheran, I classify myself as an evangelical because as the root word, evangel, implies, I believe in the Good News that all who turn from sin and believe in Jesus Christ will live with God forever.)
I've heard this rational in a few places and I think it's wrong. First, I don't think it will purge the Republican party of the religious right's influence. In fact it will strengthen, as if a third party stunt results in the election of Hillary Clinton, the lesson will be clear: appease the religious right or face electoral disaster! Secondly, it's not worth enduring Hillary Clinton generally. It's just not.
Third Party Disaster Watch
Indeed, a new poll out from Rasmussen today says that more than a quarter -- 27% -- of Republicans would vote for such a pro-life third-party challenger. What's particularly interesting about this poll is that it offers GOPers this choice while explicitly naming Hillary and Rudy as the major party nominees -- suggesting that even the specter of a victorious Hillary wouldn't dissuade many Republicans from going third party.
Third Party Disaster Watch: Good News:
"No, I think a third party only helps elect Hillary [Clinton]," the ordained Baptist minister and staunch conservative told The Washington Post on Thursday. "I don't see that being a good strategy for those who really care about pushing a pro-family, pro-life agenda."
