Conservative Christian leaders' willingness to support a third party candidate for U.S. president, if the Republicans nominate abortion-friendly Rudy Giuliani as their pick, is a rash and reckless move.
Think fairly recent past history and flashback to 1992.
Then remember how Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot's third party candidacy split the vote enough to help Bill Clinton win the presidential election.
If third party candidate history repeats itself, the country might be stuck with another member of that dynamic political duo out of Arkansas, former First Lady and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton.
I shudder at the thought.
Columnist Kathleen Parker offers a reasonable human solution to conservatives' dilemna over the chummy with the choice crowd Republican frontrunner Giuliani. The answer is Mitt Romney.
"Romney right for values party," reads the headline on one of Parker's columns that ran on Sunday in the Albany Times Union.
As Parker notes, and I agree, Romney supports traditional values and lives it in personal life. He has succeeded in private enterprise, politics and managed to clean up a major money mess as the CEO of the Organizing Committee for the 2002 U.S. Olympics. Plus, he is now unapologetically pro-life.
Some people accuse Romney of being too clean.
Mr. Clean works well for me. I'll take Romney anyday over a narcissitic former N.Y. City mayor or an overly ambitious carpetbagging U.S. Senator presidential-dynasty-wannabe.
(c) 2007 Marybeth T. Hagan
Crossposting with http://www.mothermayibeborn.com
Romney is not my first choice, but I wouldn't leave the party if he's nominated.
We pro-lifers must make it clear to the GOP that it will win with pro-life candidates, or not at all!
If we don't, where will we find a pro-life political home?
This post seems to switch midstream in its point. You begin by claiming it would be reckless to switch to a third party candidate if pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination. Then you switch to the solution being that of electing Mitt Romney. I don't care for Romney. But that's beside the point. The article's premise was: "What should our response be if Giuliani wins?" - Not Romney.
I don't see how any true Christian could vote for a pro-abortion candidate regardless of their party affiliation. So, if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, I'll not be voting for him. If Clinton and co. take over the White House again, it will not be because I voted for them. We are fooling ourselves that babies will be any safer with Giuliani in charge. At least with Clinton we'll continue to have an energized pro-life opposition...whereas with Giuliani, we'd probably witness the same apathetic response that we've witnessed under Bush for the last 8 years.
Mike,
Perhaps I was not clear in making my point.
It was: "If third party candidate history repeats itself, the country might be stuck with another member of that dynamic political duo out of Arkansas, former First Lady and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton."
The article's solution: Forget a third party and push for a Mitt Romney win over Rudy Giuliani.
Or maybe a Ron Paul win over Giuliani?... The question then comes down to this: If Giuliani wins the nomination much to the chagrin of you and I, do we vote for him in order to eliminate Hillary? I don't think so. Check out Chuck Baldwin's blog on the subject:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070921.html
Marybeth, you still aren't being very clear. It isn't "reckless" to say what one will do *if* Giuliani wins the candidacy. How is that "reckless"? We all know what "if" means. Your implication seems to be that somehow we should tell ourselves not even to _think_ about such a possibility, because that might sap our energy or something like that for pushing for Mitt Romney. (That is, if we can muster that much ra-ra enthusiasm for Romney.) But come on: If we are intelligent people we know very well a Giuliani candidacy is a very live possibility, and it is not only morally but strategically a good idea to tell ourselves and the world what we'll do in that case--and specifically, that we *won't vote for Giuliani*. By labeling third-party voting "reckless" from the outset, you, on the other hand, send the signal that while you like Romney and would prefer him, you wouldn't consider voting third party under any circumstances. Hence, by implication, you'd hold your nose and vote for Giuliani. Maybe that's not what you meant. But it's how any pro-Rudy GOP-er will hear it.
Lydia,
Please allow me to clarify.
Rather than buy into the Rudy-will-win- nomination mentality, I believe that Christian consevative leadership could make better use of their time encouraging followers to push for another nominee.
No one particular candidate has me 100 percent sold yet. But we're talking traditional values voters here. Mitt Romney is the only Republican presidential nominee who best represents -- both politically and personally -- traditional values.
I think I understand, Marybeth: You're saying we shouldn't even _talk_ about what we would do if Rudy won the nomination. That's defeatist, in your view.
But I think it's a tactical mistake not to talk about it. I think we should tell the Republicans loud and clear that we won't stand for a Giuliani candidacy. If we don't talk about it, they'll assume we'll vote for him. We actually can make it less likely that he wins the nomination by making it clear he is unacceptable.