The NY Times reported on Monday that "Giuliani Inspires Threat of a Third-Party Run" by a player yet to be named being supported by certain parts of the Christian conservative movement.

The Times reports that the group having this discussion, which includes Jim Dobson (Focus on the Family), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), and Richard Viguerie (Conservative activist and "direct-mail pioneer", and other leaders of the religious right, would "consider" supporting a third-party candidate if Rudy Giuliani became the GOP's nominee.

Their primary concern, obviously, is Rudy's position on abortion. (Other conservatives also worry about his support for gun rights.)

While it is still very early in the 2008 election campaign, my hope is that these people realize Rudy is the only Republican who has a fighting chance to beat Hillary and that backing a third party candidate to siphon votes away from the GOP is the same as supporting the Democrats whose views are uniformly repugnant to the religious right as well as fiscal conservatives, gun-rights voters, and generally those of us who care about the constitution, liberty, and not having to pay 120% of our income in taxes.

The Republicans learned in 2006 that pandering to the religious right may or may not be necessary to win elections but most certainly is not sufficient. It's only a theoretical question because Republicans in government have not yet demonstrated anything like a commitment to return to low spending, low taxes, etc, but I wonder what would happen if the GOP focused on liberty instead of religion. The focus on liberty, especially economic liberty, would appear to be necessary for the GOP to win, but may not be sufficient. It may be that the GOP needs both religious and fiscal conservatives to win...I'm sure it's the case right now. It's probably a pipe dream to hope that it might ever change, that the party could or would tell Dobson and friends that government doesn't exist to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

That said, in my experience (I haven't done a study on this) voters who consider themselves Christian conservatives would not let someone's abortion position cause them to vote for someone with whom they disagree on everything. Furthermore, most Christian conservatives whom I know are strong supporters of limited government and the constitution and therefore I consider them natural political allies even though I don't agree with them on "social issues".

Still, this is the big risk for the GOP in 2008: Would the selection of Rudy cause religious conservatives to stay home on election day? Quite differently from fiscal conservatives or basically libertarian voters, the religious right is more effectively influenced by people such as have been noted above. When Dobson says "jump", quite a few people ask "how high?" and Dobson knows it. If he tells people not to vote for Rudy, there's a good chance they'll follow his instructions even if it is one of the greatest political examples of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The question is who will move in this game of political chicken...but the idea of someone moving implies that he has room to move. In this case, Dobson has more room to move (i.e. to grin and bear it and at least let his people go out and vote even if he doesn't endorse Rudy) than Rudy does. This is for two reasons: One, Rudy has already expressed views that are as favorable for the anti-abortion movement as someone who is pro-choice could possibly deliver, i.e. his likelihood to appoint judges who would rule against Roe v Wade simply because it was a bad decision, constitutionally speaking, regardless of your appreciation or lack thereof for Roe's effect. Second, one of the main reasons Rudy has a chance to beat Hillary is that he can get independent voters whom, in my view, no other Republican candidate can get. To the extent that he appears to be pandering to the Christian right, he may lose those absolutely critical votes. So Rudy needs to decide whether enough of the Christian right will stick with him in any case. If Rudy must decide whether to focus his marketing on independent voters or on the religious right, he must choose the former.

My hope is that the fear of another President Clinton is so great (as it should be) that religious conservatives will come out and vote for Rudy even if he isn't their idea of a perfect candidate. Until then, it would be wise of Rudy to appeal to such voters in any way he can that doesn't violate his principles and doesn't offend independent voters (especially suburban women). The best way is probably to re-emphasize his support for "strict constructionist" judges (and for the Second Amendment) in the language of someone who supports the rule of law, federalism, and a limited role for the Federal government in areas where the authority should really be with the states. It is a narrow passage to navigate, but it is both possible and necessary for Rudy to get through it if we are to avoid having another President Clinton, government-run medicine, government-run day care, government expropriating corporate profits, and our suffering tax increases that make her husband look like an amateur pickpocket.