Perot was gunning for H.W. Bush? Do you simply mean that Perot took more votes away from Bush than Clinton?
Also, was this factually correct?

Isn't this an attempt to bolster McCain so that the other candidates must swing in favor of the religious right?

I don't know -- there's a highly pragmatic case for a third-party run here.

The GOP's chances aren't looking good -- not at the White House, certainly not at the Senate.

A lot of Republicans are already writing off this election (and many are retiring, figuring things aren't going to be changing for awhile either).

If I were Dobson, I might consider "now" to be the time. Especially if Guiliani wins the primary.

If he honestly believes the GOP candidate can't win anyways, what better time to make a third-party run and make it undeniable how badly the GOP needs him?

If this election is already lost, he doesn't lose anything by running third party -- and gains a lot.

Of course, that also requires Dobson to be pragmatic enough to read the public on 2008, but not pragmatic enough to realize that what he wants is NEVER going to be a winning ticket -- and the Religious Right has gotten good at stealh.

If Giuliani is the nominee, if even 2 or 3% of evangelicals sit on their hands, he is badly damaged in the general election.

I am sure that such a small but very significant core WILL be willing to make that Rudy vs. Hillary tradeoff to spite the Republican party. This group may even be 5 to 10% - in that case, it's won't be very close electorally.

"that also requires Dobson to be pragmatic enough to read the public on 2008, but not pragmatic enough to realize that what he wants is NEVER going to be a winning ticket -- and the Religious Right has gotten good at stealh."

Well, I think he knows it's not a *winning* ticket. It would be interesting to see how many die hard single-issue (or set of issues) voters they actually have, people who would be willing to sacrifice their overall vote for the cause. It might be smaller than you'd think for all the noise they make. After all, I'm sure a lot of their loud mouth political operatives do it for money. Certainly their social service providers do it for the money. I can't emphasize enough enough to you people how straigtened a lot of people are when it comes to bringing home the bacon. (All kinds of garbage has sprung up in the past 10 or so years, and I don't just mean on the religious right). If they don't have someone in the White House the whole gravy train stops cold. No, on second thought, Dobson is smarter than that. He'll take the Republican nominee. He has employees to consider.

Anonymous - your post and other press coverage seems to implicitly, if not explicitly question if there are *any* single issue GOP voters.

That is what has baffled me about Giuliani's coverage - the assumption that there are nearly zero single issue voters who won't protest his candidacy. Of course there are. That's my point about 2 or 3% above.

It's pretty clear that many did not show up at the polls in '96, electing a hated Democrat. They were excited in 2000 by a "truly pro Christian" candidate.

Given the general election math, if even a tiny percentage of GOP voters are single issue, which I assert is certain, then he has no chance -- assuming that '08 will be close like '04 and '00.

I don't think he's bluffing, and here's why.

This is a multi-level problem for Dobson. First, as you say, he's got to do what he can to stop Giuliani getting the nomination in the first place. If he can do that, great for him -- his control over the party is re-established for all to see.

If he can't, he needs Giuliani to lose hard. Giuliani becoming President would be the worst possible thing for Dobson, because it makes him irrelevant to the part of the process he can impact the most -- the party primaries. If he can pull some of his voters over to a third-party run, he can make Giuliani's performance not just embarrassing, but worse than the overall performance of GOP Congressional candidates, suggesting that another nominee might have won.

For his trouble, he gets to spend a few years saying "I told you so" and raising money by selling a new HD-DVD edition of The Clinton Chronicles, then hand-pick the 2012 nominee. Considering the likelihood of a Dem win overall, this is not a bad strategy for Dobson to take, as long as Rudy doesn't ultimately win.

I'll probably get slammed for this -- but did Nader accomplish his goal? Is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party not resurgent? Is this year's crop of Dem candidates not the best in living memory?

I still wish Nader hadn't run. The price we've paid is far too high. But it's interesting to observe that his strategy did, in a sense, work.

I think Rudy is Dobson's worst nightmare. It would be more beneficial to the anti abortion rights, anti gay rights crowd to have a Democrat in office than a Republican who will just marginalize them. This block of voters would find themselves in the same postion that the left wing of the Democratic Party is in today. In theory the correct party is in power but they still aren't heard. This state of affairs makes them seem like the fringe rather than the rational voice.

"That is what has baffled me about Giuliani's coverage - the assumption that there are nearly zero single issue voters who won't protest his candidacy. Of course there are. That's my point about 2 or 3% above."

Well, I don't think we really disagree that much. A 2 or 3% single issue religious right wing vote is not a hell of a lot. They make more noise than that, maybe, being politically active and having an audience with Chimpy. Certainly people like Dobson are looking to build their 2-3% die hard constituency. I think the jury is still out on that one. Maybe it depends on whether or not anyone bothers to appeal to their other interests.

I voted for Nader in 2000, so I kind of feel their pain. And personally, I liked Al Gore just fine. Hated the way everyone tried to make him over. Huge improvement over Clinton, frankly. (Total sneaky sleaze ball. So not worth it).

Ben, correlation is not causation. I don't think the connection you propose is even remotely true. It's all external circumstances and demographics.

I'll probably get slammed for this -- but did Nader accomplish his goal? Is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party not resurgent? Is this year's crop of Dem candidates not the best in living memory?

I think it has more to do with the Democratic win in 2006, and with Edwards dragging the other candidates somewhat to the left, than any desire to reach out to the Naderites. Heck, in the 2006 campaign, the Democratic establishment didn't even want to run on the war until Ned Lamont proved it was possible. Historically, throwing an election doesn't seem to get people the kind of attention they're looking for.

...electing Bush was the primary purpose of Nader's campaign.

I'd appreciate some elaboration on this unsupported but interesting assertion.

"[A] pro-choice Republican winning would be a disaster for the forced pregnancy minority . . ."

I am confused. Which Republicans (please name names here) advocate "forced pregnancy"? Does anyone have a link?

Republicans as a class are loathsome, but to accuse them of advocating rape is beyond the pale (except perhaps for those clerics who coddle kiddy-diddling priests, whose victims are mostly too young and/or too male to become pregnant).

"...electing Bush was the primary purpose of Nader's campaign."

I'm no supporter of Nader, but this struck me as well. To my mind it's totally false. If you saw the documentary on Nader (sorry but I've forgotten its title) you'd know that it just isn't true.

To this day I don't think Nader can face what he really did. If that had been his object, he wouldn't mind saying so.

Left this comment at my.com as well, but:

I think Scott's right on this--Dobson will back off this bluff if Rudy is nominated. There will be two, maybe three occasions in the next administration when the president's views on abortion are relevant: when Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg retire. Justices Roberts and Alito haven't officially weighed in yet, but the chances are pretty good that Dobson only needs the president to throw him a bone once to get five anti-Roe votes. Chances are a lot better for Rudy doing that than Hillary. If I'm Dobson, I think I can stomach a nominally pro-choice Republican (who's already sworn up and down he'll nominate, wink wink, "strict constructionist" judges) for the sake of getting that one appointment I need. (The backroom deal would likely be: we'll go with you this time as long as you agree to appoint a pro-lifer when Justice Stevens steps down. Renege and we'll be coming after you in the '12 primary with guns blazing.)

Giuliani is an anomaly among Republicans in many ways--there simply aren't a lot of pro-choice Republicans with any name ID. To the limited extent that federal abortion policy will even matter after Roe goes down (the sweeping bans won't get through any Congress that we're likely to see soon), the slate of Republican primary candidates in future election years will be dominated by pro-lifers no matter what happens with Rudy this year.

"the slate of Republican primary candidates in future election years will be dominated by pro-lifers no matter what happens with Rudy this year."

I don't know. Maybe. For some reason I can't seem to get my panties in a twist about the evil Christians. I still think that it is easier to elect a not hardline Republican in the general election for the simple reason that men think they have a right to fuck, and they promote it all the time. (And, oh the cute little mouth pieces they use, too). If they thought they could win without the head-fake to the sexual morality base, they certainly would. Guiliani/Romney are a test drive, I think. It might be getting a little to hot for the boys. They're going to go for some more of that mendaciousness they saw Clinton getting away with, pretending to care about society's downtrodden while signing no strings attached trade deals, etc. It seems to work. People are suckered all around. But, you know, buy off Hillary and Obama in case they need to jump ship, etc. Things will change so fast, you won't know what hit you. But, you'll have the right to fuck, alright. Don't worry about that one.