Comments on: The Third Party Question http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/ Holding Our Noses So You Don't Have To Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:35:06 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Devin Castles http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/comment-page-1/#comment-18608 Devin Castles Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:21:53 +0000 http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/#comment-18608 Many social conservative leaders have indicated a willingness to endorse Rudy if he's the party's eventual nominee or have at least softened their resistance to a Rudy nomination. I think there is no chance they will mount a third party challenge that has any discernible impact on the election. The real question is whether there will be significant apathy or discontent among social conservatives to dampen GOP turnout in key presidential states, and possibly have ramifications for Republicans lower on the ticket as well. Many social conservative leaders have indicated a willingness to endorse Rudy if he’s the party’s eventual nominee or have at least softened their resistance to a Rudy nomination. I think there is no chance they will mount a third party challenge that has any discernible impact on the election.

The real question is whether there will be significant apathy or discontent among social conservatives to dampen GOP turnout in key presidential states, and possibly have ramifications for Republicans lower on the ticket as well.

]]> By: MJN http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/comment-page-1/#comment-18538 MJN Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:58:24 +0000 http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/#comment-18538 I do not think that Giuliani can be trusted in his promise of the type of judges that he will appoint. He has proven to the world that his family could not trust him to keep his marital vows. Also, the types of judges that he appointed in the past should be the best indicator of the types of judges that he would nominate. In my opinion the the conservatives like myself in the party should not support him at all! As for Brownback..... he is a traitor to the Pro-life cause if he backs Giuliani. If he does this he is a total hypocrite! His supporters care about life issues even if he sells out and will not follow his endorsement, if he suggests Giuliani! It just won't happen! The party needs to unite and either get behind Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Of course both have problems to overcome to bring voters to support them. I prefer Mitt Romney, but then my top issue is cleaning up Washington DC and I do not have a problem with his religion. Mike is a good man, but he isn't sound on economie issues and seems weak on the war too. But at least we can all see that Thompson is not the answer! Hopefully Fred will drop out soon too. I do not think that Giuliani can be trusted in his promise of the type of judges that he will appoint. He has proven to the world that his family could not trust him to keep his marital vows. Also, the types of judges that he appointed in the past should be the best indicator of the types of judges that he would nominate. In my opinion the the conservatives like myself in the party should not support him at all!
As for Brownback….. he is a traitor to the Pro-life cause if he backs Giuliani. If he does this
he is a total hypocrite! His supporters care about life issues even if he sells out and will not follow his endorsement, if he suggests Giuliani! It just won’t happen!
The party needs to unite and either get behind Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Of course both have problems to overcome to bring voters to support them. I prefer Mitt Romney, but then my top issue is cleaning up Washington DC and I do not have a problem with his religion. Mike is a good man, but he isn’t sound on economie issues and seems weak on the war too. But at least we can all see that Thompson is not the answer! Hopefully Fred will drop out soon too.

]]> By: The Sleep Thief http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/comment-page-1/#comment-18507 The Sleep Thief Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:38:34 +0000 http://rightsfield.com/2007/10/27/the-third-party-question/#comment-18507 Strict constructionism is known by most thoughtful people to be a transparent facade for anti-abortionism. But I think it's becoming clear that the question is whether it is ENOUGH of a facade to give Giuliani the necessary wiggle-room. He has obviously decided he can appease the right by claiming to be a pro-choice strict constructionist, taking advantage of the fact that in strictly philosophical terms the two ARE compatible. So the right are now asking themselves, or should be: who is being played here? I personally think the strategy may work because Giuliani IS planning to sell out his pro-choice principles under the guise of a judicial philosophy. That kind of scares me, because in the general election he can keep claiming to be pro-choice to win moderates, who won't figure out that his strict constructionism, if adhered to, makes his personal willingness to keep abortion legal meaningless. It will however be fun to watch those people on the right who think, like we do, that all this jurisprudential mumbo-jumbo is a bunch of bs, and that if you are pro-life you should just say so. It will force the constructionists to admit the whole idea is just a meaningless code in order to re-assure them. Strict constructionism is known by most thoughtful people to be a transparent facade for anti-abortionism. But I think it’s becoming clear that the question is whether it is ENOUGH of a facade to give Giuliani the necessary wiggle-room. He has obviously decided he can appease the right by claiming to be a pro-choice strict constructionist, taking advantage of the fact that in strictly philosophical terms the two ARE compatible. So the right are now asking themselves, or should be: who is being played here? I personally think the strategy may work because Giuliani IS planning to sell out his pro-choice principles under the guise of a judicial philosophy. That kind of scares me, because in the general election he can keep claiming to be pro-choice to win moderates, who won’t figure out that his strict constructionism, if adhered to, makes his personal willingness to keep abortion legal meaningless. It will however be fun to watch those people on the right who think, like we do, that all this jurisprudential mumbo-jumbo is a bunch of bs, and that if you are pro-life you should just say so. It will force the constructionists to admit the whole idea is just a meaningless code in order to re-assure them.

]]>