Monday, October 01, 2007
|
|
And the 3rd Party Candidate is ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:16 PM
|
I just got off the phone with a senior conservative consultant who has spent the morning working the phones to social conservative leaders who have pledged not to support a Rudy Giuliani candidacy, should he win the GOP nomination.
According to my source, these conservative leaders have narrowed the field of alternatives.
I'm told that former AL Chief Justice Roy Moore will be the first choice if Rudy is the nominee (there were rumblings about him in '04, but he was talked out of it to run for governor).
... Alan Keyes, according to my source, is the fall back ...
Apparently, they are leaning against running either Gary Bauer or Howard Phillips (Dr. Dobson reportedly voted for Phillips in '96 as the Constitution candidate), though they are on the list ...
The vehicle will most likely be the Constitution Party.
Update - 4:36: Marc Ambinder says "A Third Party's An Empty Threat."
Update - 5:54 - The AP reports that Dr. Dobson "is not yet participating in any planning for a third party ...
Update: 8:38 PM- I had the chance to interview Richard Viguerie, who actually attended the conclave. He tells me Roy Moore's name was never mentioned.
|
|
really don't understand the WOT.
We, as a righteous nation are entitled, expected and obligated to defend ourselves. We must engage in battle when there is no other way to preserve our freedom and our security. We are living is such a time. We must be proactive.
We are not and have never been in perpetual war, Frank. And a propensity to stick our heads in the sand about Islamofascism will never bring peace. |
|
... the number one issue.
But for the reasons that Ron Paul says:
Americans are throwing away their liberty, growing the feddle gummint, and wantonly invading and threatening nations that have neither attacked us nor pose a threat to us, all in pursuit of a false sense of security.
Ron Paul is NOT a pacifist. He believes the military should be used strictly for defense of the US, and not in unjust, illegal, undeclared wars and subsequent nation building. (Gee, remember how GWB promised he would not use the US military for nation building? Yes, those were the lies ... er, I mean, DAYS ... )
Perpetual war never has brought peace, nor will it ever. |
|
... the Christian Right?
Laurence Vance posed just that question in April:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance109.html
He argues that Paul SHOULD be our candidate because:
- Ron Paul is a man of faith.
- he's pro-life.
- he's a believer in family values.
- he's opposed to same-sex marriage.
- he's a patriot.
- he's opposed to unrestricted immigration.
- he's opposed to gun control.
- he's a strict constitutionalist.
- he's opposed to the United Nations.
- and he's the premier advocate for liberty in politics today.
But then Vance asserts that Rep. Paul will PROBABLY NOT be the GOP candidate anointed by the leadership of the Christian Right because, "I think they love centralization more than federalism. I think they love political power more than liberty. I think they love war more than peace. I think they love politicians more than principles. I think they love faith-based socialism more than the free market. And I think they love the state more than God Almighty."
Damning words.
Are they true for YOU? |
|
I will say the same thing that I did in the other room. If Rudy wins the nomination, then me being a conservative Republican, will vote for him in the general election. The Dobsons of the Republican Party is helping Hillary into the Whitehouse by saying they will not support Rudy if he is nominated. What idiots! Sure, I hope a true conservative is nominated, but if Rudy gets the nod from the GOP, then I'll be in line to vote against Hillary.
Kram
http://www.FuzzySnake.com
|
|
|
understand about Paul that you don't - there would be zero leadership from him in the WOT. Too bad for him that it is the #1 issue. |
|
|
Is Hillary behind this? Because she's gotta be loving this talk... I can't wait for the (inevitable now) attack on Rudy as "unelectable," to which there will be a ugly investigation of "top-secret" NeoCon meetings in Salt Lake City, to which only Romney among the presidential candidates was invited... My God, what a disaster. The NeoCon's will apparently shoot themselves squarely in the foot (or, if Cheney's got the the gun, maybe the face...) |
|
Rudy does not have to be the nominee.
Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for someone who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com |
|
|
Ah, Roy Moore, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes... nothing like chucking your vote out the window. This is the problem with Conservatives, we don't realize that politics is not a "all inclusive" game. There is not one candidate out there who reflects what you want 100%. Unless you run yourself, then you will quickly realize what politics is and 25% of your promises will be broken anyway. I get abortion / right to life being a huge issue. But what are you gaining by handing the Presidency to Clinton? How many lives are you saving by doing that? Don't have any illusions that a third party candidate is ever going to win. Please. Man, George Washington was right about a lot of things. It looks more and more like he was right about not having political parties either. |
|
|
|
Cajun Maverick: [Ron Paul's} too socially liberal for CP.
Frank: Ron Paul stands for the Constitutional principles of states' rights and a small, strictly limited feddle gummint. That is NOT the same thing as being "socially liberal."
You might like to know (or maybe not), that Michael Peroutka, the CP's 2004 presidential candidate, endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy back on 20 September:
http://tinyurl.com/2jpd8u
Also, The American View's John Lofton had a 45-minute interview w/Dr. Paul back in August:
http://tinyurl.com/2unftu
Mr. Lofton says:
"In this program I interview Texas Republican Congressman and GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul. We discuss, of course, his campaign and his beliefs about: God, the Bible and government; abortion, does he think it’s murder?; homosexuality and homosexuals in our military; why he stays in the Republican Party; and much more." It's well worth a listen. |
|
I haven't forgotten that if it weren't for H. Ross Perot, we would have been spared the dope from Hope.
I can only say that if there is to be a 3rd party candidate, PLEASE let if be Ralph Nader....! |
|
|
It's not going to happen. The elephant in the room here is Romney, of course. Will the Christian right shoot themselves in the foot over Mormonism. I sure hope not. |
|
Ron Paul is NOT an ideal candidate for the Constitution Party. He's too socially liberal for CP.
The Christian Right needs to look at others in the lower tier... such as Duncan Hunter. |
|
Judge Roy Moore would make a great candidate for the C.P.......And I would certainly vote for him over any of the Top Tier GOP Globalists!.....But,
1. Hillary-Democratic NYNY Liberal.
2. Rudy-Republican NYNY Liberal.
3. Bloomberg-Independent NYNY Liberal.
4. Ron Paul-Constitution Party-Southwest Con.
IS A NO-BRAINER WIN! |
|
|
|