Interesting article about the threat to form a 3rd party by evangelicals if they nominate pro-life, pro-gay marriage Guliani. It's an interview with Richard Land, a leading evangelical who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
A serious threat? I don't know. I doubt it. I think when push comes to shove the evangelical leaders would rather win than be right, so they will vote against Clinton by voting for Guliani.
If a third party materialized, however, it would torpedo Republican chances in '08- more than Nader hurt the Dems in 2000. It would be more like what Theordore Roosevelt did to the Republicans back in 1912. Bull Moose Party II
But I still marvel at the inconsistency on one issue when it comes to the Religious Right: Where's the outrage over an unjust war to equate with the outrage over abortion?
From the interview, Land says he cannot vote for Clinton. He compares that vote to voting for a Klansman. He says: "I cannot vote for someone who believes that it's all right to stop a beating heart."
Wanna bet he voted for G.W. Bush in 2004?
3,834 American hearts stopped through his unjustified invasion of Iraq (not to mention as many as 80,000 Iraqi civilian hearts).
Do those hearts count in the Religious Right's moral equation? Or is it really just winning the elections that truly matters?