Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Christian Right Threatens to Ditch the GOP If the Nominee Is Like Giuliani

By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted November 12, 2007.


James Dobson and Religious Right allies threaten to dump the Republican Party if the presidential nominee fails "family values" test.
Advertisement

Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson emerged from a top-secret, closed-door meeting of the Religious Right in Salt Lake City with some tough talk for the Republican Party: If you nominate a candidate who is pro-choice on abortion, I will walk.

Dobson does not plan to be alone. The New York Times reported Oct. 1 that the FOF head was among a collection of Religious Right leaders who met during a gathering of the Council for National Policy (CNP) Sept. 29. Movement leaders pledged to back a third party if the GOP nominates Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City.

The CNP, an umbrella organization of far-right groups, is normally very secretive about its activities, and talking to the press is strictly verboten. But this time it seemed at least some of the coalition's members were deliberately seeking media attention.

The Times reported that the talk about a third party "emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions" during the CNP gathering.

"Participants said the smaller group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps its most influential member; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians," continued the Times.

The story went on to say, "Almost everyone present at the smaller group's meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that 'if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,' participants said. The participants said that the group chose the qualified term 'consider' because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee."

Although the Times did not identify its source, it seems likely this explosive story was handed to the newspaper with Dobson's blessing to send a not-so-subtle message to the GOP: If you're thinking of Giuliani, think again.

Dobson and Perkins later turned up the heat. On Oct. 4, Dobson penned an op-ed column for the Times, reiterating that the threat of a third party is real.

Dobson said it is "problematic" to "choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure."

"Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles," Dobson wrote. "In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear."

Perkins, meanwhile, sent an e-mail to FRC supporters saying there is "no real desire nor are there active plans to create a third party" but quickly added, "What was agreed upon was what could be called a statement of principle, to the effect that if both of the major parties nominate a pro-abortion-rights candidate we will consider supporting a third-party candidate. ... I do think it is important that our movement draw a line that we refuse to cross."

The Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association promptly piled on. In an interview with the conservative Washington Times, Wildmon implied that the Religious Right may need to hurt the GOP to teach the party leadership a lesson.

"Every six months before an election, Republicans are our best friends, and six days after the election, they don't even know us," carped Wildmon.

He added, "Here's one thing I'll say about Republicans: They may not win with us, but they cannot win without us. The leadership needs to think seriously and long about that proposition."

Such threats and provocative rhetoric underscore that these are unsettled times politically for the Religious Right. As the presidency of George W. Bush winds down, theocratic groups are well aware that a period of unprecedented influence they have enjoyed for the past seven years may be fading away.

Bush, hobbled by an unpopular war and basement-level approval ratings, could always count on the Religious Right for support. In return, Religious Right organizations enjoyed easy access to the White House, the power to screen judicial nominees, tax funding through the "faith-based" initiative, significant input into policy decisions and other perks.

It's a lot to give up -- and the Religious Right does not intend to let it go without a fight.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gop, religious right, election 2008, richard land, james dobson

Rob Boston is associate editor for Church and State.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
3d Party Conservative Candidate?
Posted by: Dadster3 on Nov 12, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GREAT! Well, maybe. Third party candidates are vote suckers from the affiliated mainline candidate. In this case, however, this ordinarily good news has to be tempered by the Democrats unsurpassed ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have a lot of progressive friends, none of whom will vote for Hillary--or any dem that does not pledge to end this war quickly and cleanly. Me too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» well, not necessarily... Posted by: Coleman
» RE: well, not necessarily... Posted by: Intellect
» RE: well, not necessarily... Posted by: radiomorning
Chicken or the Egg!
Posted by: rocketman on Nov 12, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have heard this threat before and it is horrible that a religious group has organized to the point of threatening a political party and an election outcome. Giuliani is probably the best the republicans have to offer - and religious nuts will not hear of it.

It almost seems the more far left nuts become vocal, and the Moores/Rosies etc get a greater voice, the more religious nuts feel threatened. Which comes first? - doesn't matter - religious nuts stand a good chance of ruining this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Big G's prison planet, Posted by: donl51
» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: rocketman
» Horrible? Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Horrible? Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Horrible? Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Horrible? Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Horrible? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Horrible? Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Chicken or the Egg! Posted by: rocketman
Who Dumped Whom?
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 12, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe the Religious Right is still a bunch of psuedo Christian imperialists, but their refusal to back Giuliani suggests an awakening to the reality that the party that told them what and how to think (about abortion, gay rights, etc.) will dump the Religious rads in a second if it means winning an election. The next step is to realize they are not "Christians," and have a revelation on morality and a return to sanity.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Bet on it
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Nov 12, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't believe for a minute that the "fundies"would risk splitting the conservative vote. The more lucid among them realize that they have had a fabulous run with "W" and a little political market correction is inevitable. I mean hell; he delivered them the Supreme court on a plate with rigid ideological votes guaranteed for at least a decade. Its not like so called "family values and principles" are real for heavens sake (sorry I couldn't resist :-). It's all about winning and risking a loss to HillaryClinton is something none would abide. I personally don't see what they are so afraid of. She is after all just another pandering centrist but thats a discussion for another day. Witness Robertsons recent endorsement of Guiliani and "Focus on the Families corporate moves to muzzle Dobson. Nah...they will take there profits, accept have a neo conservative loaf and wait for the next opportunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nature of credulous thugs, consumate liars and tyrannical bullies...
Posted by: reval on Nov 12, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
......... would have been a better title for this article.

How much more solid evidence does one need to understand that these mental midgets are nothing more than power hungry, 12th century-minded cretins?

Rev El
Pastor, WVCSR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That'll Show 'em! Posted by: Sparks56
...Anyone else smell the bullshit?
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 12, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article states that the bastards on the right won't support a pro-abortion candidate, but this old saw has been played before. Here's my prediction: WHEN Guliani the Jagoff IS nominated, the scaremongering tactics will turn up, sounding something like this... "If you don't vote for Guliani... THEN YOUR'RE VOTING FOR HILLARY!" At that point, what passes for logic in the minds of these vapid dolts will go right out the window, and they'll vote for who they are told to vote for. Period. American politics are a staged joke and voting is a fraud. At best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please, shoot yourselves in the foot
Posted by: schnoggi on Nov 12, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by all means, siphon off the votes it would take to put that evil man in power, march them all off after some creationist twit who will pander to your fears. Hell, I might even volunteer for the campaign of whoever they nominate.
Ron Paul in 08, the only real choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your Reporting Is Erroneous
Posted by: slharp on Nov 12, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rob,

I can tell that you didn't really bother to research this information because if you had, this article wouldn't have been written.

Dr. James Dobson, clarified what happened at that meeting a few different times on his national radio program. The NY Times report is erroneous.

Please go to www.family.org and go through the archives and listen to what Dr. Dobson actually said. Trust me, that would make you a better reporter, because what you have written is totally false.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Your Reporting Is Erroneous Posted by: drmflorida
GOP deserves whatever they get
Posted by: kelt65 on Nov 12, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for courting the votes of McJesus freedom family mega churcher McCheeseburger idiots

may all these people just keel over and die already

amen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GOP deserves whatever they get Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» kneeling then keeling Posted by: openhouse
Sad State of Affairs
Posted by: aberdeen on Nov 12, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a very sad state of affairs in the United States, when a candidate of obvious hypocrisy like Hillary Clinton, has a good chance of beating the obvious hypocrites on the other side, mainly because of conservative religious hypocrites, who can't seem to wean themselves from behind their own mommies skirts on the supposed all-important issue of abortion.

Doesn't anyone find it just a little odd that our ever-on-the-ball media doesn't even bother to point out the obvious, that while Jesus never mentioned abortion, he was very clear regarding what the position of his followers should be regarding war and helping the sick and poor?

I've yet to watch, hear or read a supposed "liberal" commentator, who is not deathly afraid to hit the Dobson's and Robertson's of this world over the head with their own Bible. No wonder the conservative entirely wrong has gained such political traction. The obvious New Testament light is on but unfortunately, no one in the liberal steeple is home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sad State of Affairs Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Sad State of Affairs Posted by: vasumurti
» They cant... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: They cant... Posted by: reval
» poor Posted by: openhouse
» RE: poor Posted by: Intellect
» reading the bible Posted by: openhouse
» RE: reading the bible Posted by: Intellect
» Out of context Posted by: openhouse
fool me once shame on you
Posted by: solrev on Nov 12, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would not underestimate the rank and file of the religious right movement. They may have felt a common need a few years ago, but multitudes have realized the deception. They will be more attuned to give unto Caesars what is Caesars and vote in their own personal interest. The Pharisees of the movement may still be trying to gain political power and each is taking their best shot. However, the rank and file did not die by the thousands to overthrow the dominion of the Pope only to sale their souls to the Pharisees of the Christian wrong. They would still like to vote for a President who would represent them and their values, but they will not be so easily fooled by a lip-syncing politician. You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fool me once shame on you Posted by: Intellect
Religious Right Drives Me Nuts
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 12, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They think the Prince of Peace stands for war. Torture is part of war. Pushing a crown of thorns into an innocent man's head at least won't cause major organ damage.

Also conspicuous richness is ok these days, praise Jesus. Lazarus at the gate deserves his fate because ___. Lazarus was a vet.

Now we learn that the religious right might be faithless in 2008. They might actually exercise some leadership if they keep going too far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

religion/politic
Posted by: donl51 on Nov 12, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'don't see where the church, any church or any religion has any right whatsoever of being a threat to any political party or candidate,...for or against for that matter,the best way to stop this is for its beleivers to tell their churchs that their vote is their right and their private matter,..Church wish to be politically involved? then church should absolutely be a tax paying organization like any other business....PS ..I'm an atheist religion is a cult,no differant than any other cult!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I was wondering about that, too Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: religion/politic Posted by: vasumurti
Family values test?
Posted by: mercury613 on Nov 12, 2007 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a joke. Those "Christians" don't know the meaning of that term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.
Posted by: Blakley on Nov 12, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If these times were what one would call 'normal', I'd say we should maintain our values. THESE though are NOT NORMAL TIMES ! We want to defeat Hilliary we must maintain a united front against her thinking. We are in a time of WAR and must set aside our differences and unite behind those for our country and its literal survival. Let me be very specific our REAL ENEMY is or are the radical Mid-Eastern forces who want to KILL YOU !
In WW II we let homosexual men fight and die for our land and many did so in valiant ways. We must be ONE NATION UNITED to defeat our common enemy, then after THE WAR is over we can then go back and discuss principles of correct living.
If the 'ship is sinking' folks ya don't quibble over differences we must unite keep the ship of state afloat and get to safe moarings.
I don't agree with Rudy G. on many issues but for my heart Right Now he is : AMERICA'S MAYOR AMERICA'S PRESIDENT !!! Dr. Dobson for Americ's LIFE Please do not endorse a third party the moral debate is for later not Now !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Mr. Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Mr. Blakely Posted by: Turiye
I have had it with you Ron Paul idiots.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 12, 2007 5:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul advocates:

elimination of the FDA-Great, we can all die or get sick from drugs manufactured by unscrupulous drug companies with no restraints.

home schooling-keep your little automotons from learning anything beyond your narrow interpretation of the Bible. Creationism anyone? Idiots. Keep your little brats controlled and STUPID.

No handgun control-that is one way to control crime-shoot anyone you don't like. I hate George W.---hmmmmm.

Low taxes and low spending-like on highways and infratructure? Like George W. Bushit always claims to support? Yeah, right.

End social security. Like during the depression, when the poor wandered the streets? this country has the lowest savings rate in the WORLD. You really think people will save for old age? In your dreams.

It is the conservative Texan Republicans who funded endless wars and dragged this country to the depths of despair. We don't need another stupid Texas Republican in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Homeschooling Posted by: LeeAnnG
jmp3954
Posted by: jmp3954 on Nov 12, 2007 8:46 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dobson sounds like very much like all you puritanical leftists who still defend voting for Nader even though you were a principal factor in bringing us the worst President in the history of the Republic. Hilary and Barak are not perfect, but they're the best we can expect, so you better just shut up and get with the program. Would you rather have Giuliani in there - Bush with brains?

Of course if Dobson's crew really does bolt to a 3rd party candidate it might not make any difference if a few hardcore lefties stay home or vote for their own crackpot; Hilary might even have a shot at Texas if that happens.

But I wonder how much influence Dobson, Perkins, etc. actually have with rank-and-file Christian conservative voters. Would they actually follow him out of the GOP, knowing that the Antichrist herself would then become President? This is the danger for the Democrats of a Clinton/ Giuliani matchup - he could well be competetive in blue states in the Northeast and West Coast that Democrats have been more or less able to take for granted in recent elections, while benefiting from the religious right's utter revulsion at Hilary. That's why I'm inclined right now to think that Obama would have a better chance against hizzoner.

It's still early, though. Something could well turn up that wrecks Guiliani's run - perhaps fallout from the Kerick (sp?) scandals.

Stay tuned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a chance
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 13, 2007 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the so-called Christian Right will vote for whatever Republican pig is nominated, Dobson or no Dobson. And with Robertson's recent endorsement of Amerikkka's Mayor, this has all become moot.

Giuliani is Robertson's dream candidate. Ol' Pat could give a flying fuck about abortion, gay rights, etc. What he is truly interested in is the candidate who will continue to slaughter more Muslims and Arabs for Israel. This Rudy will gladly do, and one look at his advisory staff, which includes luminaries of hate and supremacism like Podhoretz and Pipes — and the rest which read like a Who's Who of Israel-firsters and frothing Likudniks — one can feel pretty comfortable that Robertson and his Christofascist troops will fill the voting booths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary-Haters
Posted by: Jo1028 on Nov 14, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the folks who hate Hillary - ought to think for a minute about who deserves to be responsible for cleaning up the horrible mess that the Bush administration has made of this country and repair the damaged relationship with the rest of the world: Guiliani's a mafia-pansy, Romney will turn it all over to the corporations, Huckabee and co. will turn it all over to the self-righteous wingnuts - Only the tough as nails, bitchiest, detail-focused mama has a chance to turn this all around - think about. She can take their money, drink their liquor, and then vote against them. She deserves the chance to do it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary-Haters Posted by: opeluboy
Spirit of hate
Posted by: mrhappy on Nov 15, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm seeing a spirit of hate in too many political discourses all across the political spectrum. Is it really necessary to use profanity and attack people's faith? Is it really necessary to use terms like "idiots" when referring to those we disagree with? You may think you're preaching to the choir on these boards so it doesn't matter, but you're on the internet, and the whole world can see the hatred that you are employing in your political discussions. You're not going to convert anyone to your ideology by being so offensive. Some of you may want to change your approach and engage in civilized discourse, rather than simply venting your anger and frustration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spirit of hate Posted by: TruePatriot5