Will Third Party Bid Mean a Democrat Victory in 2008?

From the Raw Story:

"If in fact you were to mount a third-party challenge and support a third-party candidate, the result would be a 'landslide victory for Hillary Clinton,'" said Hannity, citing a recent Rasmussen poll that found Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani would lose to Clinton by 16 points if a more conservative pro-life alternative entered the race.

What Hannity's missing is that the Democrat nominee would win over Guiliani, even without a third party movement. Whether it's 6 points or 16 points is irrelevant: the Democrats win either way.

At least with a pro-life, pro-family third party option, people can remain true to their values without compromise, if they want to. And you never know: both parties have done a lousy job lately, so many people across party lines might decide they're fed up with the status quo and opt for something truly new. It's been a long time since a political party came and went...but it's happened before.

I like Hannity, but I think he's letting his admiration of Guiliani's 911 leadership cloud his judgment with regard to Guiliani's liberalism in other areas (e.g abortion, homosexuality).

Me, I'd hold my nose and vote for Guiliani if it was him or Clinton. But many values voters won't make that compromise of their principles. And even if they would, none of us is going to get excited enough to create the synergy a campaign needs to win. A candidate can't win if their core base is so disgusted with their party's nominee that they can't bring themselves to contribute money or contribute time for door-knocking and promoting their candidate to their friends, and all the energy that comes with a popular campaign.

It was this very phenomena that doomed Bob Dole's 1996 candidacy against Bill Clinton and produced a 9-point loss. Incidentally, Clinton STILL didn't gain a majority in the 1996 election, but even if you combine Dole's and Perot's numbers, Clinton still comes out on top. Voters just won't buy a fake liberal (a "moderate") when they can have a real one for the same price.

Guiliani has fallen to 4th place in Iowa, and a Des Moines Register poll reveals the vast majority of Republicans there are unthrilled with his pro-abortion position:

A new poll sponsored by the Des Moines Register newspaper finds former mayor Rudy Giuliani falling to fourth in the first presidential battleground. Additional questions of likely caucus-goers by the newspaper finds 75 percent of Republicans are turned off by his pro-abortion stance.

The only way to ensure Democrats don't win in 2008 is for the establishment to ditch it's support of Guiliani and get behind a candidate that more closely reflects actual Republican values. Some are better than others, but almost all (except maybe McCain) are better than Guiliani. The media isn't going to make it easy to highlight a candidate of solid Republican values, but the media isn't as monolithic as it used to be, either.

The Republican Party platform is a pro-life, pro-family one. A candidate who would leave innocent life and the family exposed to the ravages of a hostile society doesn't deserve a Republican nomination.