GOP Third Party Split Gaining Momentum
By Ken Taylor Posted in Archived — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Dr. James Dobson an Evangelical Christian leader has been hitting the Hannity shows stating his view concerning a third party run if Giuliani, Thompson or McCain were to receive the Republican nomination for President in 2008.
When questioned concerning the distinct possibility of a third party run virtually insuring the election of the Democrat nominee which will most likely be Hillary Clinton, Dobson stated that it does not matter because of the reasons he cannot support the candidate mentioned and that a third party run, if backed by Conservative Christians could win.
Rasmussen polled this week on this very subject. According to the poll if a third party like that in which Dobson is suggesting were in force for the 2008 Presidential run, 27% of GOP likely voters stated that they would vote for a third party rather than Giuliani. In a three way race with an unannounced conservative candidate in a third party, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Clinton wins with 46% to Giuliani's 30% and the third party candidate 14%.
In a head to head match up between Giuliani and Clinton the race at the moment is a statistical tie. The poll did not place Fred Thompson in the mix except in showing that among likely GOP voters 48% view Thompson as the most conservative candidate running.
World Net Daily is running an article that supports Dobson's position on a third party candidate stating that the GOP has compromised and that further compromise on the abortion issue, which is how many see a Giuliani candidacy doing, will make no political difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.
Giuliani has repeatedly stated that if elected he would nominate Judges like Alito and Roberts who are strict originalists concerning the Constitution and whose conservative views would be against pro-choice matters that come before the court. In actuality the Supreme Court is the only area where a President has any authority on issues like abortion, and Giuliani's pledge to nominate conservative Judges also states his position on this issue as President.
Once again the situation concerning how Fred Thompson will play into this mix as far as polling is concerned has not been figured because at the moment Giuliani is the front runner in most polls. Thompson though is NOT pro-choice and he too has stated that Roberts and Alito type Judges would be his nominees. He was President's Bush's choice to steer both Alito and Roberts through the nomination process when both were appointed to the Supreme Court.
If Dobson's move toward a third party is successful, (so far no candidate has expressed a desire to run), and Clinton is elected it is most assuredly that liberal Judges like Ginsberg will be appointed to the Court. There are two liberal Judges who are talking about retirement now who are waiting for the out come of the 08 election to decide whether to stay or retire.
Additionally other issues like taxation, national defense, border security, socialized health care just to name a few will fall to the disastrous policies of Hillary Clinton. The supposed lead candidate for the third party run, Mike Huckabee, has flatly refused to even be considered splitting from the GOP and has indicated that if he does not win the nomination he will support the party nominee. So the only question now is whether Dobson can find a candidate.
One issue voters are dangerous to the GOP and especially in light of who those one issue voters may possibly place into office. One can only hope that this momentum will fade and that no candidate will accept an offer from Dobson and his supporters to run and insure the election of a liberal Democrat ESPECIALLY Hillary Clinton.
Ken Taylor http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com
Not to the certain leftward tilt of SCOTUS for the next 30 years.
Not to war on terror.
Not to the expansion of entitlements.
Yours is simply a foolish statement. Eight years of Hillary - and only a complete dunce would think she would be defeated in '12 - will set a liberal court in stone, will put appellate court judges in place who make the Ninth Circus look conservative and will expand entitlements - national healthcare - and kill tax reform.
Oh, and you can kiss off the FMA. Roe will never be overturned. No further restrictions on abortion will happen and I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious move to repeal the ban on partial birth abortion.
But hey, that damn Rudy won't be President!
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
On the other hand, if a pro-choice candidate becomes a GOP president the GOP loses viability because Christian conservatives no longer feel the party represents them. Now you have a party that loses much of its base, and loses elections from here on out (not just for the next 4 or 8 years).
Preventing a Rudy presidency may be the best way to protect the party from disintigrating.
I don't support the 3rd party silliness of Dobson. But I won't support a candidate who does not uphold conservative AND republican principles, no matter what party he claims to represent.
In short, I believe Rudy damages the party more than Hillary, because Rudy might permantly alienate a sizable portion of the base.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
is more important than the probability that we will have a court favorable to pro-life rulings with Hillary. For at least the next 30 years.
And it's more important than agressively pursuing the WoT and the war in Iraq. And it's more important than standing up to Iran and Syria.
And it's more important than putting conservatives on the lower courts who will be serving to 20 to 30 years.
And it's more important than allowing 1/6 of the US economy to be absorbed into a federal government entitlement program. And it's more important than dramatically expanding the current raft of entitlements.
For starters.
OK.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Do you really think Rudy will appoint judges that have a completely different view of the Constitution than he does? Rudy believes that legal abortion is a right.
I happen to consider Rudy a much smaller leap that any of the others (with the possible exception of Fred, who I would put on par with Rudy).
1. Rudy has a judicial advisory group headed by Ted Olsen who is one of the top conservative legal minds in the country. The rest of the group are on par with Ted. If Rudy, who worked the Reagan DoJ and knows most of the conservative judicial candidates, listens to anything Olsen and Company says to him, his nominations will not just be fine, they'll be superior. That reflects my confidence in Olsen.
2. Rudy is shrewd enough to understand that he's GOT to keep the base together to the extent it's possible in order to govern successfully and in order to get reelected. The two places he can really shine are the GWoT and judges. And I think he'll shine in both those areas. I really think he will be substantially better than GWB overall on judicial nominations, because I don't think he'll let the Senate (McCain, etal) run roughshod over his lower court nominees and he won't put up with crap from the Ds on potential SCOTUS nominees - who I don't think will be "consensus" nominees in any definition of the word.
3. Legal abortion as a "right" isn't the issue with SCOTUS nominees. The issue is whether Roe is bad law and should be overturned. If it is - and I think Rudy's nominees would so vote because of the likelihood of their views on the Constitution and precedent, thank you Ted Olsen - then the issue goes back to the states. You're not going to get better than that if James Dobson picks the nominees.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I would think that an intellectual conservative would find Rudy hard to swallow simply on the grounds on his understanding of the constitution. Rudy has said that the reason he supports taxpayer funded abortion is because abortion is a constitutional right. He thinks Roe was rightly decided and further, he thinks that anything that's a constitutional right must be funded by the government. I suppose he thinks the government should build churches and mosques since we have freedom of religion and buy everybody some land since we have a right to property.
1) If Olson was a candidate I would vote for him. Remember that Bush Sr. had legal advisors that had strong conservative cred. It didn't matter. Now I'll grant that Rudy might be more likely than HRC to nominate originalists or strict constructionists to the bench, but my vote isn't based on the pragmatism of that issue. As a matter of conscience I can not vote for someone (even the lesser of two evils) who proclaims to be pro-life. I understand and conceed the argument that it is, in a sense, a vote for HRC. But I will not face my maker explaining that I voted for someone with a pro-infanticide record.
2) I don't buy that Rudy would be beholden to the base. After all, our current president didn't feel beholden on hot button issues like illegal immigration, spending, and the giant health care entitlement he brought forth.
3) I understand and agree with the distinction between Roe as a right and the issue of bad law. I'm just not sure Olson would be nominating the candidates. I think Rudy might, or Fred, or Mitt, or John, or any of the guys that get in. Not their advisors.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Ditto to mbecker..because he speaks the truth. The GOP and Dr. Dobson will not be able to recover with 8 yrs under HRC because we will be attacked and attacked again by the terrorist, this time with maybe some WMD's. As I've mention in other post, Pro Life and SC nominees are outstanding issues that should be ranked high on any conversative agenda (mine included) but with a caveat. Not this time around. Another day YES but the stakes are too high NOT to put SECURITY of our country at the top of the list.
In my humble opinion, any of the top 3-5 candidates will satisfy my SECURITY concerns and I strongly believe the pro life and SC issues will also be resolved but to get wrapped up in these issues and under estimate our security challenges are wrong. HRC will roll back so many of security programs that the terrorist will be foaming at the mouth to get to us, both here and abroad. I don't want that on my shoulders and if that happens...the finger pointing will start and it will point directly to Dr. Dobson and his group of supporters. This time we're talking about lives of not only the "unborn" but entire cities.
You get a sense from Dobson that perhaps his political power is more important than taking the course that reduces the most abortions. I hope I'm wrong but if Rudy becomes the nominee and he pulls votes away from the GOP, then he WILL be clearly as guilty of promoting abortion as a liberal Democrat who votes Hillary. This is harsh but one can't ignore the obvious election calculus, which is so clear that I won't assume it away for anyone on RedState.
One can commit sin through omission as well as commission. Conservatives hopefully will search their heart and realize they propose to commit a sin of omission by not voting GOP in 2008.
Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming
Your point on sins of ommission is a good and valid point. But I think you miss something.
Remember that decisions based on a faith need not be calculated or even pragmatic (take matyrdom for example). We are called to not sin proactively (as in voting for a pro-infanticide candidate in my book). The fact that another pro-infanticide candidate is worse on the issue makes no difference. A vote for evil (even the lesser of two evils) is still evil. The sin of ommission is not wiped out by casting a "less" sinful vote that is still sinful.
I agree with the logic and the practical value of your argument. But purely as a matter of faith I believe I am not allowed to vote for a candidate whom I might reasonably expect will further the pro-infanticide agenda, no matter how sinful the alternative is. Christ says that he who is not with Him is against him.
In other words, someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to choose between renouncing God or going down to a local store and shoplifting an item. Any practical person would choose one of the alternatives and rationalize (fairly enough) that it is reasonable to take the lesser of two evils AND to save your life. I am not arguing the practical or the logical. My prayer would be that I honored my Lord by choosing to do neither and accepting what comes next.
This is an extreme example (and not meant to portray HRC or RUdy in such a light by any stretch). But if the election came down to a Hitler and a Stalin I would not vote. Sure Stalin killed more people with his purges, or sure Hitler was a genocidal freak who was at war with us. I just wouldn't vote.
All that said, Dobson's attempt at a third party is stupid. It has no chance for one. For two it serve to punish the GOP as an intent (whereas withholding a vote may have the intent to do no evil as I intend). And third it makes it sound like he is the spokesman for Christianity (which he is not).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
How many presidential elections in a row did the GOP lose after Nixon resigned?
I think you're way overestimating damage here.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
or the votes of any conservative. If he did, he would have a more conservative platform.
He (as well as Mtt and Fred) believe they can win by getting a large chunk of the middle - perhaps they can, I wish them the best. But the three of them ignore conservatives at their own peril - when will the GOP wake up, grow a pair, and take 5 or 6 giant steps to the right?
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
These third party people should burn in hell if they give another Clinton the keys to the White House.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
This is a commonly cited misconception that should be put to rest:
"In actuality the Supreme Court is the only area where a President has any authority on issues like abortion"
Actually I think he has far more impact with policy decisions such as the mexico city policy, signing/vetoing federal abortion legislation, directing DoJ policy in the area etc. And those have actual immediate impact whereas the supreme court, and overutrning Roe in particular, is a only the first step in a long term strategy to have major policy impact.
will happen for the pro-life movement. Let Hillary nominate the next three justices and you've got legal abortion, and potentially limited ability to further limit abortion (where will Kennedy come down with three very liberal new justices?). In addition, my opinion is that if you liked the Warren Court, you'll love Hillary's court.
There is way too much at risk beyond the perception that electing Hillary to get at Rudy to be a one issue voter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The Supreme Court is the only truly MEANINGFUL area where a president can affect abortion policy.
Are there other areas? Sure, but they are minor in comparison to the heavy lifting that needs to be done on the court.
And according to Hannity, at least, Giuliani has said that he will not change the Hyde Amendment or the Mexico City policy. He has also at least said that he supports banning partial birth abortions.
I think that Giuliani needs to go a step further and make a pledge similar to the one that Romney made when running for governor of Massachusetts - "There will be no change in social policy under my administration. It will neither become more liberal nor more conservative, and I will veto all bills that do either because there are more pressing issues facing the nation that we should be united behind as a nation than the social issues that splinter us."
I think that social conservatives would be pretty happy campers to have an 8-year detente on social issues coupled with the promise of strict constructionist judges and justices. Especially if Giuliani has a social conservative stalwart as his VP that he had been using to shore up his right flank for that time period.
While there are areas that the president does have influence on abortion policy, they are limited at best. The Supreme Court is where we have to win in order to have any meaningful reform on the issue.
is that he's tossing Thompson and McCain in the mix.
I don't agree (who knew) with not voting for Rudy in the general, but at least I UNDERSTAND IT. I mean Rudy is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc.
But why the beef with McCain and Thompson?
You'd split the GOP and hand Hillary the White House because of CFR? That's just plain silly.
It makes me wonder if Dobson has deluded himself into thinking that a 3rd party has a chance to win.
I *like* Dobson a lot in his normal role, but I think he's completely flipped out here on the third party thing (as oppossed to people like Neil Stevens here at Redstate who are specifically against Guiliani).
Dobson wants someone to ask him to please support them for the nomination. He wants them to have to kow-tow. The only aspect of Thompson or McCain's stated positions on values issues that he can horribly object to is the fact that they haven't asked James Dobson to put a cute, little gold star on their nose. He's miffed because no one will respect his authorite'.
Freedom Fighter in Occupied VA
push him around.
Repeating- I can enthusiastically support FT for president, and will. My concern is his ability to win. Polls will answer part of that, but they have to be post-debate polls, and obviously they are not available yet.
Post debate polls? I am sorry to break a bit of political reality but a CNBC debate at 4PM eastern time is not going to affect the polls.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
It raises doubts about his other stands.
"One issue voters are dangerous to the GOP and especially in light of who those one issue voters may possibly place into office."
What does this mean?
Huckabee has said he won't run. I can't imagine Romney, Thompson, or McCain doing it. I guess the highest profile candidate would be Brownback? Not a chance.
Mr. Potato Head, Mr. Potato Head, back doors are not secrets
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think Dobson should put himself forward as the third party candidate. Let's give him the chance to test his political muscle by risking it all himself.
If Dobson's antics and power play tactics to recapture the GOP into the party of his reflection fails and he develops a third party, it will certainly mean political oblivion for him and the religious right. If Hillary is elected POTUS because of a third party split off the GOP there will be no forgiveness for Dobson and friends.
Maybe then he can return to his family ministry and do it God's way instead of falling for the seduction of political power. God's means of changing a culture is by preaching the gospel and winning hearts and minds not by pulling the levers of political power. Constantine and the history of the church up until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the religious wars shows that clearly.
The GOP is and must remain a big tent with a conservative foundation. Even if Giuliani is elected there are enough conservatives in the rest of the party that we can continue to push a conservative agenda. The pro-life movement will not be dead, but instead will have to refocus.
The bigger issue is that we need to win over the hearts and minds of the American people to a conservative vision of society. That will come when we show we can govern properly, that we have the best solutions to the problems we all face, that a conservative government maximizes freedom and opportunity without neglecting real needs, that we can keep America safe from external threats of terrorism, and that the values that have made America strong from the founding to today are reflected in the conservative values and leaders of the GOP.
Even if Giuliani veers off of a clear conservative vison the GOP can recover. In fact a Giuliani administration would give Newt time and reason to rebuild a strong conservative message. Another Clinton administration would give conservatives a stronger foil, but do unbelievable damage in the meantime. I would rather reform a party's misstep than have to undue the long term damage Hillary would inflict.
As an evangelical Christian I would like to say goodbye to Dobson now before he really screws things up.
"The bigger issue is that we need to win over the hearts and minds of the American people to a conservative vision of society. That will come when we show we can govern properly, that we have the best solutions to the problems we all face, that a conservative government maximizes freedom and opportunity without neglecting real needs, that we can keep America safe from external threats of terrorism, and that the values that have made America strong from the founding to today are reflected in the conservative values and leaders of the GOP."
This makes no sense. We're supposed to believe that Giuliani leading the Republican party into a paradise on earth will somehow convince people to become pro-life, when he himself is pro-abortion???
I do agree with you about the need to win over hearts and minds on pro-life issues. That's just one reason why a promise to appoint good judges (not that I believe for a second Giuliani would appoint judges with beliefs so contrary to his own) is not good enough. We need a President who can help win those hearts and minds. Giuliani would set us back on winning hearts and minds.
My point was unclear. What I mean is that the pro-life movement- both the politicians and grass roots organizations -would be able to differentiate themselves from Giuliani by showing how his position doesn't do enough. So they could continue the work of winning the hearts and minds of the public as they are now doing through ads, abortion alternatives and introducing proper legislation.
I agree one downside would be that Giuliani would articulate a pro-choice position that ultimately undermines the pro-life position. The fact that he is a Republican would alter the contours of that debate, but the essential arguments would stay the same.
We have to make the case to the American people and not rely solely on a political stategy if we really want to end abortion.
can go have their Nader moment. Hopefully they will then be shunned by the right the way Nader is despised by the left these days.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Adam, if the Republican party nominates Rudy Giuliani, we'll have bigger problems on our hands than that sideshow.
There is a possibility that, this being a wide open race with no incumbent President or VP running, we could have a 5 way race with the victor winning with less than Bill Clinton's margin of victory in '92. On the Right, you could have Guliani as the GOP nominee, Ron Paul as the Libertarian candidate and then someone running on behalf of religious conservatives (Tancredo?). On the Left, you could have Hillary and then Nader running again. Nader hates the Clintons almost as much as most Conservatives do. It could be an interesting race and, I think, a healthy excercise for American democracy. I know that the two party system has served us well for some time, but is it really a bad thing for people to have choices? Do we really all need to compromise and rally behind someone that we really don't believe in just to avoid the greater of two evils?
If we voted in a different manner, like say approval voting (a pet bloggy-horse cause of mine), then 3rd parties might have a chance, but one vote first-past-the-post makes a 2-party system inevitable.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
The electoral college is a winner take the state system. Multiple parties would just split the vote so that the majority candidate in each state would get the states electoral college votes. It really favors two party system.
The Dems have enough unity to pull together behind one candidate. Do we?
I know that the two party system has served us well for some time, but is it really a bad thing for people to have choices? Do we really all need to compromise and rally behind someone that we really don't believe in just to avoid the greater of two evils?
That's the way the system works. A 3rd party candidate has zero chance of winning. If we went with a parliamentary system, 3rd parties would thrive as they do in other countries. Looking at those places where this occurs, though, I can't say that it looks like any kind of an improvement.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
than splitting the vote in the election and guaranteeing a Democratic victory.
It is a sure way for social conservatives - of whom I am one - to lose influence in the Republican party.
That Rasmussen Poll showing a third party candidate getting 27% should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Polling with generic parties has little usefulness. People with replace that generic term with their own ideal candidate.
Remember in 2003 when we saw polls showing Bush losing to a generic Democrat? Then when Kerry got the nomination, Bush then surpassed him in the polls.
Does anyone really think, say, Pat Buchanan would get 27% in a three-way race against Rudy and Hillary? Replace the generic third party with an actual name, and then the poll might be useful.
As an anyone-but-Giuliani Republican in this debate, I totally agree with you about the 27% number. I don't believe a third party candidate would get anywhere near 27% of the Republican vote.
But, I do think 27% on that poll shows a real, widespread and significant antipathy towards Giuliani. Maybe a pro-life third party gets 10% or only 5% of Republicans. That's still a significant number of votes in a close election. Even if only a small fraction of that 27% actually abstain or vote third party, I cannot imagine them donating money or providing active grassroots support.
"In actuality the Supreme Court is the only area where a President has any authority on issues like abortion, . . ."
Definitely mistaken. There are a number of pro-life issues that come up every session of Congress. Here's are the most important votes according to National Right to Life Committee in the Senate in 2006-07:
1 - Regulation of so-called "grassroots lobbying" groups
2 - "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007" (S. 5): passage
3 - Medicare prescription drug price controls (S. 3)
4 - Health coverage for "unborn child" (SCHIP)
5 - Banning funding of organizations that support coercive abortion programs
6 - Boxer Amendment to overturn pro-life "Mexico City Policy"
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/home/
If you follow the link you'll see that there are plenty more legislative issues, and this doesn't even begin to cover the administrative issues that concern right to life issues.
I believe abortion is wrong, I believe in the constitution, I believe in federalism and I believe in a hawkish foreign policy.
However the constant need to make everything in this party about abortion is appalling. I'm not pro life and I'm not pro choice, I'm pro law and pro constitution - and I feel Rudy is the same way. I like the judges Bush appointed, and I'd like the ones Rudy or probably any rebuplican would appoint. If eventually Roe was overturned, I'm ok with that. I think the constitution clearly left this to the states and Roe is clearly judicial legislation.
If Roe was overturned, I would certainly not back any federal ban on abortion, because I believe in states rights.
Abortion is too decisive of an issue, there will always be legal abortion in this country. We're not going to "pull one over" on the liberals and democrats.
I would never have any child of mine aborted, and I would never encourage anyone to have an abortion. I think its disgusting. However in order to actually reduce the amount of aborted babies we need to stop this wild goose chase of closing every abortion clinic in America, and we need to start encouraging safe sex practices, adoption.
We need to stop the distraction from issues such as our disastrous fiscal policy, our need to win in Iraq.
We need to stop defining our candidate on some sort of abortion litmus test and start defining them on their ability to lead. Dobson himself could be president, but if he can't lead he won't accomplish a damn thing in terms of defending life. Rudy is a leader.
why doesn't Dobson just put his money and influence behind a true blue conservative?
Thats the smart thing to do. Since the Primaries are 3 months away and Rudy is not yet the nominee.
For Dobson, this is a lose-lose situation. If Rudy wins, he loses. If Rudy loses, the cause may be lost.
Then again, if Hillary loses the War, abortion and Gay Marriage are both illegal under Sharia Law.
While I know that The Atlantic is full of liberals, Marc Ambinder had a very interesting take on what Giuliani ACTUALLY means when he says "constructionist" judges.
It's not what pro-lifers want.
"By the way: as Giuliani as has said, his "strict constructionists" might well preserve Roe v. Wade, which means that Giuliani employs the phrase to describe judicial orientation, rather than outcomes, which is how the phrase plays in politics"
Giuliani employs the phrase [strict constructionist] to describe judicial orientation, rather than outcomes, which is how the phrase plays in politics
Anybody claiming to support strict constructionist judges that thinks it is about outcomes, rather than judicial orientation, is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about. Strict constructionist outcomes is practically an oxymoron.
As for "how the phrase plays in politics", well yes in the political circles of liberal morons, I suppose that's how it plays.
It's not about outcome-driven adjudication. It's just that for thirty years, many legal scholars -- including liberal pro-abortion ones like Larry Tribe -- have argued that Roe itself was an exercise in judicial arrogance. That Roe is not supported by the Constitution in ANY textual sense or theory of legal interpretation including strict construction. (Well, other than "I wear a black robe so I make the rules")
Therefore, it is taken as given that if you apply strict construction, you cannot uphold Roe vs. Wade.
Rudy believes otherwise. However, he still uses the phrase "strict constructionist" -- which obviously means something different to him that it does to me, Larry Tribe, and the Republican Primary electorate -- as a magic incantation, to make it appear as if he really isn't all that different from the majority of said electorate.
For those that disagree with me and Larry Tribe on the consequences of strict constructionist for Roe, please describe, in one paragraph each, how to take the actual text of the Constitution as amended, and justify Roe v. Wade, its companion Doe v. Bolton, and the (now-controlling) Planned Parenthood v. Casey, using principles of legal interpretation consistent with strict construction. Pay special attention to the words "trimester", "viability", "privacy", and "health exception" as used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the amendments awarding power to the Federal Judiciary to prescribe health care policy throughout the several states.
Note: Griswold v. Connecticut is NOT part of the constitution. Minus 10 points if you use the words "penumbra", "emanation", or "stare decisis". Minus 5 bajillion points if you use the phrase (sweet) "mystery of life".
I don't think it can be done. Therefore, if Rudy thinks "strict construction" allows a non-activist, non-outcome-oriented justice to uphold Roe vs. Wade, then it is Rudy that "is either a liar doesn't know what he's talking about". So when he, and his supporters, tout his support for (what he calls) "strict constructionist" justices, I get the distinct sense I'm being taken for a ride...
I think you are right on the argument here. I haven't studied Rudy's statements, but it seems the argument over "constructionist" judges has to do with how they treat precedent. That was the big question put to Roberts in his confirmation as to how he viewed stare decisis. I am not a lawyer, but I think the treatment of precedent should mostly depend on how the precedent was reasoned. If it was poorly reasoned and even if considerable case law has built up since that decision, we should be free to overturn those decisions that are not constitutional no matter how firmly embedded they are in subsequent decisions.
The problem is that the courts have seemed reluctant to be radical (relating to the origin) enough to deal boldly with past mistakes.
I think Dobson and Companies plans are the following. He knows that he doesn't have a strong candidate this time and they figure sit if they sit it out or put up a third party candidate and if they lose because of the third party then the republican party has to beg them to come back. The religious right then controls the republican party and they push moderates and economic conservative out. But he will there 3rd party candidate be Alan Keys or Gary Bauer?
Holy cow! Are we going to be doing this type of BS for a another year?
Dobson needs his fix. He only comes out every 4 years to get his (and his org.) face in the news. He always tells us that he only speaks for himself when he talks politics. We are giving him way too much credit. His influence is great but the People know what electing her means.
To me, she is a loser for the Dems and is only being called "formidable" by Republicans out of professional courtesy and a strong desire to face and crush her.
Look, Newt talked about this today; she is hanging herself. This loooong drawn out campaign season will prove fatal for the Dems. She is introducing a new program every week each one more expensive than the one before. I agree with Newt; just run ads during the general election that basically says "See how much a Hillary presidency would cost the American People" and focus heavily on the type of Justice that would be appointed by Hillary....voila, she's toast. Dobson's crowd pulls the lever for the GOP and he goes on FOX and reaffirms that he only speaks for himself when discussing candidates.
Lets stop flattering Mr. Dobson. He is a good man but really; can we move on?
"The Hunt for a RED NOVEMBER"
http://federalistfred.blogspot.com/
I am writing this because I am deeply concerned about some recent developments between Dr. James Dobson and the Republican Party. Dr. Dobson has essentially said that he intends to turn the up coming election over to the Democrats, namely Hillary Clinton. He plans on supporting a third party candidate, thus splitting the conservative vote. In an interview on Fox news, he said that he will not support or vote for any of the top candidates because they don’t share 100% of his conservative family views. I encourage you to watch the interview at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDKGK_9Pm6A) or read the entire interview at (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300457,00.html). At this point and time the top candidates are Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain. All of which Dr. Dobson, for one reason or another, has said he would not support. He has also influenced others to join him. Dr. Dobson had a large meeting of at least 50 other influential Christian leaders who voted unanimously to follow him. This group could hand the election over to the Clintons for another 8 years.
As most of you know I strongly support Fred Thompson (www.fred08.com). He is by far the most Christian Conservative; Family; and Pro-Child candidate there is and has an eight-year senate voting record to back it up. Yet Dr. Dobson is taking a very strong stance against him. This is the letter he wrote about him:
“Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote.
"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Fred Thompson, to his credit, stated, “ I won’t dance to any body’s tune”.
As a response to Dr Dobson’s letter I started my first Blog to tell others the truth about this issue. You can read it at (http://federalistfred.blogspot.com/). It is ironic that Dr Dobson risked loosing his FOTF non-profit status with the IRS to support Bush yet won’t support a better candidate in Thompson.
As for Giuliani, he defiantly does not stand for pro-life. Yet, he says he intends to appoint conservative judges, and he will support strong defense & conservative economics. McCain has very shaky economics but strong defense and leans to the conservative side of family issues. Romney has said that he is now pro-life and has a strong economics history as governor of Massachusetts. However, for most evangelicals his Mormonism is a real concern. (I don’t believe his Mormon faith disqualifies him for the presidency.) The truth is that any of these candidates would be superior to Clinton.
I learned the hard way when Bill Clinton was running the first time. Wanting my vote to count I voted for Ross Perot even though I was sure he wouldn’t win. I didn’t like either Bush or Clinton for president, thus voting for “None Of The Above”. In reality someone is going to win. I learned that we have to pick the lesser of two evils sometimes or get the worst picked for us. We all need to unite and back a candidate that has a realistic chance of winning or face another eight years of the Clintons.
I am going to pray for wisdom and the Lords hand on this nation. Then I am going to send an e-mail to (http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_...) and postal mail to Dr. Dobson asking him to consider what the long term consequences a Clinton presidency will have on the Family and the unborn. I am asking everyone to do the same. In addition, if you would send this e-mail to all those who stand with us as family and pro-life supporters, it could make a big difference. Shane
Dr Dobson at Focus on the Family
(street address not required)
Colorado Springs, CO 80995
Dobson has not said he's voting against Thompson, Romney, or McCain in the general. He has refused to endorse them in the primary. That's a far cry from vowing to not support them in the general. He's only pledged to do that to a candidate that's not antiabortion. I count only one such: Rudy.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So it's just your ASSumption that he won't support Thompson, McCain or Romney in the general then. Got it.
objects at rest tend to stay at rest.
I have linked to his statements on this.
So lets think this through. If he is able to snuff out Rudy there is nothing to prevent him from getting the candidate he really wants.
In other words if you start doing something people expect you to keep doing it.
Now I have given you my reasoning on the matter. Where is yours that he will back them over his chosen candidate.
Or try it another way, He hasn't shown the willingness to compromise and has made statements that indicate quite the opposite. Where does the leap of faith come from that this will change ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
We need to elect a candidate that can bring the GOP back to its place as the party of values.
...but this is Earth*.
Blam.
Moe
*What? It was a great flick!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If any of the judges on the SCOTUS *really* were "strict originalists concerning the Constitution" They would have burn ed all 342 pages of the Patriot Act before the ink was dry.