Oct 06 2007

Far Right Foolishness

Published by at 9:19 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

The Right To Life crowd is ready to help elect Hillary Clinton and make abortion on demand the norm in this country. With 2-3 Supreme Court Justices to possibly place on our high court, and a Democrat led Congress to boot, the far right is about to make the biggest mistake in political history. That’s becase their frustration and arrogance is leading them to bolt from the GOP in a fit of foolishness:

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.

H/T to Powerline for the bleak news (though they do have the wrong link to Rasmussen). It just emphasizes the fact the far right is not in the mood to govern, it is looking for purity. They can no longer pretend they are not the ones destroying the GOP coalition. The have now openly stated they will take their marbles and go home if Guiliani is nominated, even though he is supported by a VAST majority of the conservative voting block (GOP and Independents like me).

The Far Right may be a lost cause. Face it, if they are willing to knowingly elect Hillary by throwing their votes away on the fantasy alibi of a 3rd party candidate then they truly are lost. They seem willing to lie to themselves they had nothing to do with Hillary winning, when in fact they will be the key to her success. They can kid themselves all they want – the rest of us just ain’t buying it. They will not be strong, valued, trustworthy allies if they do this. And they seem hell bent on doing this.

It is just stunning these people could even contemplate such a move, especially given the crippling damage it would do to their pro-life causes. Abortion on demand is just the minor travesty that would result. Endless factories of human embryos being harvested for spare parts will bring us a future too similar to that in the movie The Matrix to comprehend. It is not beyond the realm of reality that we could one day have more embryos in factories waiting to be harvested than in mothers waiting to be born. This is the brave new world these people would help shepard in if they turn their backs in a pique of frustration. The only thing I can do is pray for these misguided people. Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.

16 responses so far

16 Responses to “Far Right Foolishness”

  1. WWS says:

    I know quite a few people who have a very evangelical/religious view on politics, and I find these stories to be very overblown. When I talk with them, they would much prefer someone other than Giuliani to be the nominee, but they also realize that in this election voting for someone they differ in in some points is still worth doing if it saves the country from Hillary – and it is clear now that she WILL be the Dem’s nominee. Most of this is coming, in one way or another, from James Dobson who I’ve known of for about 30 years now and who fancies himself to be some kind of protestant pope. His major concern now, as always, is how to make sure people continue to think of him as “important” and how to preserve his own percieved political power base. By making noise now, he hopes to induce the eventual nominee, even if it is Rudy, to kowtow and make some serious concessions to him. (personally, I think Dobson’s biggest objection to Rudy is that he knows Rudy will tell him to take a hike)

    Dobson’s problem, of course, is that first he is NOT some “protestant pope”, and a vanishingly small number of voters will actually do what he says, and second he has no potential 3rd party candidate to actually support. The theory of some unnamed perfect candidate is all well and good, but in reality there has to be a real person there to hold up the mantle. Nobody is on the horizon to fill that role right now.

    One subtle point is that I think it is an error to confuse the evangelically influenced voters with those who are characterized as “far right” voters. They are both part of the (now fracturing) republican coalition, but there are important differences. One of the big differences is in regards to the immigration debate, where a committed evangelical will never fail to see the majority of those coming across from Mexico as dedicated Christians and thus as brothers and sisters in the faith who should be defended. (a hard core far right voter will curse the evangelicals for this view)

    I would go so far as to say that anyone who does not see these people as Christians first and foremost does not deserve the lable of evangelical, because that’s the biggest faultline between this group and the rest of the right wing coalition. This is a fundamental imperative of an evangelical’s faith – that other believers must be helped, no matter what.

    In fact, there is a little publicized outgrowth of this view that is occurring in almost every Texas town I’ve visited, and small towns more than large ones – if a newcomer (is it worth fighting over whether they’re called undocumented or illegal?) joins any pentecostal church, Church of Christ, or many of the other smaller evangelical offshoots, then the local church will find him guaranteed work and safe housing, and protect him and his family as much as possible. When you drive through the poor areas of small town Texas today, you will see local spanish language evangelical churches on almost every other block – it’s one of the biggest religious movements I’ve seen, and it’s amazing that it seems to be happening totally under mainstream society’s radar.

    And it’s worth pointing out one reason that this is effective is that, in small town Texas, these are the churches that most of the sherriff’s dept officers and local officials belong to. One of the things that gives me hope about the situation societally (who knows about the politics) is something that probably will surprise people from the more lily-white areas of the country, including the gated enclaves of the well to do that abound in modern suburbia. And it is simply this – in the border states, full integration is much farther along than is ever portrayed, and it is at the point already that it can never be turned back. Privately, much of the city and state apparatus is working in their favor because that’s in everyone’s best interest, and that includes the police departments and the sherriff’s departments. (covering all rural areas) Nobody I’ve ever met thinks much or cares much about what the Feds want or do – they’re never around except in a couple of high profile cases a year. Otherwise no one ever sees them or hears from them.

    And what the real people realize is that this is not that big a deal – people are intermarrying as people always do, and the blending is going on as it always has. This wave is being absorbed like every other wave has been, and in a few years they’ll be indistinguishable from everyone else. And America, as always, will endure and prosper.

  2. Terrye says:

    Krauthammer says that when push comes to shove these folks will not repeat the mistakes of 1992. Let’s hope this is true.

  3. Terrye says:


    I grew up in Oklahoma and those are the churches that were most likely to come to the aid of people in need.

  4. crosspatch says:

    I would say first that Hillary is going to make SURE there is a third party candidate to drain off Republican votes just as they did in both of Bill’s elections. Bill wasn’t particularly popular, he never got as large a percentage of votes as George Bush did in either of his elections.

    Any Republican that votes for a third party candidate is a moron in my opinion and isn’t sending any “message” to anyone beyond “I want Hillary to be President but I don’t want to vote for her directly”. It is a “passive aggressive” move.

  5. owl says:

    WWS……thanks for telling what it is really like on the ground in TX . I have been shouting from the beginning that it is much, much too late for what the Malkin/Tancredo’s dream about. At least 20 years too late. You gave voice to it beautifully and explained that they are much closer to Pugs than Dems. Unfortunately, the Pugs have created real damage with this group. All for nada. Not one thing was really accomplished but to drive away the new voters that liked Bush by the BDS pundits. We still have the same problems but now they will be ‘fixed’ to the Dem’s benefit.

    Yep, those good hearted, kindly Christian Dems will swoop right in and offer compassionate help for an entire voter block. Sure.

    Why oh why do the Pugs keep doing this to themselves?

  6. owl says:

    Crosspatch…..I assume that is where Ron Paul came up with that money?

  7. Terrye says:


    When I was a kid growing up in the southwest there were parts of Texas that were predominately Spanish, that was a long time ago.

    After all people forget that a couple of centuries ago, the Spanish owned the place. That influence may be getting stronger now, but it never left.

  8. The Macker says:

    Good Post and comments!

    The time to decide is the primaries. After that, the die is cast.

  9. crosspatch says:

    I am going to state a core political belief of mine right here and right now. Americans are of every political stripe. Communities in different regions have different values. What is right for Tulsa is probably much different than what is right for San Francisco. People of ANY political stripe should have a place they can live in peace and not have someone shoving their political and moral values down their throat. Communities should be free to enact laws that reflect the values of that community without interference from Washington DC.

    What that would mean to me, in the context of abortion rights, is to eliminate this notion that the federal government in Washington DC dictates how communities must treat the subject. I would rather see individual states free to set their own policies on the issue, or even individual counties within a state such as Nevada does with prostitution laws. People would then be free to “vote with their feet” and find a place where the laws suit their own personal political and moral values. Liberals would live in a liberal community with liberal laws. Conservatives should be free to live in a conservative community with those values reflected in their laws.

    What I can not stand right now in American politics is this notion that laws must be made at the federal level that dictate some set of values to be enforced nationally. I don’t care if they are conservative or liberal values. This is *exactly* the notion that the founders worked so hard to convince people would not happen with our government. They worked very hard to convince people that the new government would not run roughshod over people’s rights.

    People seem to be such political “busy bodies”. They won’t rest if someone in some other state is doing things differently than they themselves would do. I wish we would just stop it. Pay attention to your own community and your own life. Mind your business. People need to pay more attention to how they live their own lives and quite trying to tell other people how to live theirs.

  10. poodlemom says:

    If Dobson & crew are hellbent on this move, hopefully Rudy will be able to pull “Reagan Democrats” as well as Independents to balance it out.

    I moved back to NE Pa after living 30 years in Georgia. When I first moved to Ga there were almost no Republicans holding any office. Over the years, the Dems have become so radicalized, traditional Dems such as Zell Miller have felt cut adrift. They haven’t changed their party affiliation, but they don’t vote in lockstep for Dem candidates. One thing is certain, they despise the Clintons mightily…..especially Hillary, moreso than Bill.
    Yes, Ga. is in the bible belt, but I’m not sure Dobson or Gary Bauer can persuade all Christians to support a third party candidate KNOWING that would put Hillary in the WH.

    What I’ve observed here in Pa has me cautiously optimistic. If anyone other than Hillary is nominated by the Dems, then the Dems will stay within the party. If Hillary is nominated, many of them will go to Rudy.

    One other observation is the number of Dem men who say they won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They aren’t saying they wouldn’t vote for a woman, just not Hillary.

    I pray that Rudy is our candidate because I believe he is the only ‘Pub who can beat Herself.

  11. The Macker says:

    A third party, without a dominant candidate, would be futile, so I think this is just posturing to pressure Republicans to consider the other candidates, like Romney, McCain, Huckaby and Thompson.

    It’s still early to say Giuliani would be the strongest bet and it might be a mistake to write off the 28% of the Party that are values voters.

    Also, I’m not sure Rudy would be smarter against terrorism than Romney or McCain. And folks that question his values will also wonder if he will honor his pledge to appoint originalist judges.

  12. Terrye says:

    I think crosspatch is right on here.

    macker, I am afraid the Democrats will make sure there is a third party candidate. I think the Democrats know how to play Republicans. They did it with immigration and they can do it with this.

  13. Terrye says:

    And while I will vote for almost any Republican, I think the values voters have made a mistake by threatening people. They need to put their money and their endorsements behind another candidate, rather than trying to blackmail their way to success.

  14. crosspatch says:

    If you look at Pennsylvania in a county-by-county election results map you will see that the vast majority of the state was Bush country, same with other so-called “Blue States” like Illinois.

    Here is a map that illustrates what I am talking about. The only reason the Democrats won as many electoral votes as they did are that these states are “winner take all” states meaning the most populated counties carry the entire state. It doesn’t matter what someone in central PA votes, the votes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are all that count.

    Electoral votes should be broken out by Congressional district. Overall winner in the state should get two electoral votes (that represent the electoral votes represented by the state’s two Senators) and then one electoral vote per each Congressional representative district according to how the votes in that district went. That gives rural voters a say in the elections. Currently they have none, for all practical purposes.

  15. hnav says:

    It is truly sad and misguided Mr. Strata…

    I see the foolish often, who fail to see the big picture.

    They really are insane, to consider empowering the likes of Hillary Clinton and Company again.

    I recently read this ignorance…
    That’s the Last Straw For Me — Impeach the Bastard

    Some simply are ‘stuck on stupid’.

    And many Conservative Pundits have themselves to blame, for so much hyperbolic cynical nonsense.

    We best get our act together.

  16. The Macker says:

    Good comments, all.

    I, too, will support any Republican over HC.

    And “winner take all,” in the states, is a democratic travesty.”

    I’m not sure “blackmail” is the right word for opposing an in-your-face candidate. Only one group is asked to make all the concessions and just for the dubius claim of electability.