Conservatives consider 3rd-party run

[Achilles]

Link

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.

Wow. Considering how well 3rd-party candidate typically fare, this almost seems like grasping at straws. Of course the other way to look at it would be to wonder if a conservative-backing is all that's needed to really make this a three party system. Scary thoughts abound.

[mimartin]

Not that I’m going to feel sorry for any of the Republican Candidates and I’d agree with these people’s right to support and vote for whomever they want, but it sounds like they want a puppet and not a President.

 

I don’t agree with everything Obama, Clinton or Edwards stand for and I do plan on reevaluate the two candidates after the nomination, but at the moment I can’t see myself voting for anyone else but one of the three leading democratic candidates. I may not agree with their politics completely, but that will not make me cast my vote for Mickey Mouse.

 

I believe you just have to pick a candidate that is closest to your core values and one that has a chance of winning.

[Achilles]

it sounds like they want a puppet and not a President.

QFT.

[Totenkopf]

Well, like with all things political......there's what you want and what you get. I seriously doubt any third party candidate will end up being that much different in that regard. Frankly, not sure that a third party candidate would get very far anyway. Both major parties seem to cherry pick away the positions they want from such a candidate and "steal their thunder". Besides, I don't see a 3rd party candidate that will get anywhere till you get a sufficient # of them in Congress as well.

[Corinthian]

Well, I'm both pleased and saddened. If they field a Third Party Candidate, it all but guarantees Democrat success. On the other hand, at least there might be a candidate I can vote for in good conscience.

[SilentScope001]

Now, let's calm down. If there is any third-party candinate that will let the Democrats win, it will be Bloomberg.

 

That being said, I think most religious conservaitves don't even know about Guilani's positions, and hence will still vote for him. And even if they do know, they are more fearful of a Democrat victory that they will rather choose Guilani. Yet, a third party candinate can really act as a referendum. If the religious conservatives manage to get a good chunck of the vote, then it shows that they ARE IMPORTANT, and that therefore either the Democrats or the Republicans must pander to them.

 

If they lose, then religious conservatives will be disenchanted with the political process and believe all parties are run by idiots.

 

it sounds like they want a puppet and not a President.

 

...Isn't that the point of nomination? You don't nominate people who are going to go and go against what you believe (except me, but I'm just werid like that).

[John Galt]

I had an epiphany today: the reason that most Republicans are Republicans is that they hate Democrats, and the reason most Democrats are Democrats is that they hate Republicans. All the hard-line conservatives are Republicans anyway, so fielding a Neocon as a third-party candidate would just ensure that a moderate Republican would lose, unless a group of moderates from one party, the other, or a third party did the same thing.

[Achilles]

I had an epiphany today: the reason that most Republicans are Republicans is that they hate Democrats, and the reason most Democrats are Democrats is that they hate Republicans.

And Independents?

 

All the hard-line conservatives are Republicans anyway, so fielding a Neocon as a third-party candidate would just ensure that a moderate Republican would loose, unless a group of moderates from one party, the other, or a third party did the same thing.

Yeah, I think it's clear that this particular flavor of 3rd party candidate would only hurt the Republicans. Hey, has anyone heard from Bloomberg recently?

[mimartin]

If they lose, then religious conservatives will be disenchanted with the political process and believe all parties are run by idiots

You win, SilentScope001, I’d just change believe to know. Well it is about time they knew what the rest of us figured out years ago.

 

...Isn't that the point of nomination? You don't nominate people who are going to go and go against what you believe (except me, but I'm just werid like that).

Not me, I want one with a lot more intelligence than I have and with experience. I want a President that can think for himself or herself, but isn’t afraid to ask for advise. I would really like a President that could inspire me and the rest of the country and planet not out of fear, but with hope.

[Totenkopf]

And Independents?

They hate BOTH, naturally.

 

As most of the hard line libs are really little more than warmed over marxists, maybe there ought to be four parties. One each for the hardliners and then moderates of both parties could reclaim their respective groups. Would be interesting to see what kind of plurality (Clinton won w/only 40+%) would then capture the WH.

[Point Man]

As an unapologetic Christian and a recovering liberal who is becoming more conservative with every birthday, I appreciate the stand these people are taking. I also question the wisdom of examining the entire race through the filter of one lens. Yes, I believe abortion is abhorrent; I do not think it is the only issue to determine one's fitness for the presidency, however.

[Jae Onasi]

Not me, I want one with a lot more intelligence than I have and with experience. I want a President that can think for himself or herself, but isn’t afraid to ask for advise. I would really like a President that could inspire me and the rest of the country and planet not out of fear, but with hope.

 

I'd also like a President who actually understands those of us down here in Real People Land who live in a 3 bedroom house or apartment or some other residence that doesn't cost in the multi-millions, and who worry about things like paychecks, medical insurance premiums, pharmacy costs, the cost of college for our kids, and how little of social security will be around when we get to retirement age.

[Achilles]

As an unapologetic Christian and a recovering liberal who is becoming more conservative with every birthday, I appreciate the stand these people are taking. I also question the wisdom of examining the entire race through the filter of one lens.

The juxtaposition of these two statements would seem like something of a contradiction. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "conservative"? Thanks!

[Point Man]

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "conservative"? Thanks!

I used to think "conservative" meant "reactionary" and "heartless", but now I am tending toward it describing someone who considers the practicality of something as well as whether someone has earned what they receive.

[mimartin]

I'd also like a President who actually understands those of us down here in Real People Land who live in a 3 bedroom house or apartment or some other residence that doesn't cost in the multi-millions, and who worry about things like paychecks, medical insurance premiums, pharmacy costs, the cost of college for our kids, and how little of social security will be around when we get to retirement age.

I would agree with you on all of those with the exception of Social Security, I’ve already come to terms that it will be long gone before I reach retirement age.

 

This reminds me, I want a President that understands that a surplus does not give him/her a license to spend. If they would not have raided the Social Security surplus in the 80s there might actually have been Social Security for future generations.

 

Tax and spend Democrats vs. the spend and burrow Republicans, suddenly a third party doesn’t sound like such a bad idea. Why doesn’t someone come up with the common sense party?

[Achilles]

I used to think "conservative" meant "reactionary" and "heartless", but now I am tending toward it describing someone who considers the practicality of something as well as whether someone has earned what they receive.

So where do you think you would have come down on the civil rights movement back in the 60's if you were alive then and about the same age as you are now? Many of the changes that civil rights leaders were calling for where considered impractical by conservatives. Furthermore, that the "human" status of "Negroes" was still very much in question (despite Jim Crow laws) means that "earned" wouldn't have even been a factor.