Bush's court jester

Personally, I have no interest in sending the Republican branch of the Demopublican Party a message. I've reached the conclusion that PA Jim is right; the Republican branch is beyond rescue from its leftward gallop. I truly expect in 2008 that the Republicans will nominate a pro-abortion presidential candidate regardless of the outcome this year.

Let's not send a message, let's send a candidate to the White House on January 20, 2005 - Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.

"Our job is to raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair, recognizing that the event is in the hands of God." - George Washington

 

I would be happy of Peroutka got a few electoral votes.

I would be ecstatic if he actually won.

Of course, being libertarian, I'd probably be unhappy with a lot of things he'd do, but at least I could trust him.

 

Where's Pastor Larry with his "Bush is pro-life becuase he will appoint strict constructionist judgs" line?

 

Most of the Supreme Court was appointed by "conservative" Republicans.

Another GOP fantasy down the tube.

 

I'm not ballfan but I'll say this:

I feel a lot more secure about my grandchildren's safety with George W. in the White House than Kerry.

Kerry has proven by his anti-defense voting record, his anti-Iraq war sentiment, and his Pro-UN policies that he is not in favor of a strong U.S. Military.

In the present war on terror this attitude would lead to a vacuum as far as maintaining a strong military presence around the world - a vacuum that China would gladly flow into.

 

I am here ... just looked in at this thread a minute ago. I don't know what the answer is. What I do know is this? Kerry will not nominate any pro life judges. Peroutka will not nominate any pro life judges. Bush has said he would. Last I check Gonzales is not Bush, nor does Gonzales have the authority to nominate any judge. This was a private dinner, which means that no one can verify what Farah is saying. That doesn't make it wrong. It simply is unconfirmed. Bush may appoint pro abortion judges. Who knows? We have his record ... that he appointed prolife judges. We have the statements of Kerry who has told us what he will do.

Your choice is very simple. You can cast a vote to help John Kerry get elected, and help stack the courts with pro abortion judges. Or you can help Bush get elected, and have the chance that prolife judges will be nominated. If Bush nominates pro abortion judges, then he does what Kerry would do anyway. If he doesn't, then he does what Kerry would not do.

Once again, this is a simple equation ... very simple ... unfortunately, too simple I guess ...

But the constant repitition in here by people with nothing knew to say is getting old ... Aren't there any live horses to beat?? Something someone actually knows something about???

 

One of the fatal flaws in your argument, Pastor Larry, at least for a people like me, is that you assume that if I did not vote for Mr. Peroutka that I would vote for President Bush. Your assumption is flawed as I would not vote for President Bush if Mr. Peroutka was not on the Arkansas presidential ballot. I would either vote for someone else, write in someone else, or simply skip that race.

The other fatal flaw is your equating a vote for Mr. Peroutka as a vote for Senator Kerry. That is patently untrue and you insult Peroutka supporters when you make such an outrageous, false statement.

 

NP,

As far as strict constructionist, everyone except a few people on here seem to know what it means. I agree that we will have to see if Bush lives up to it. Gonzales is working for the president and should do what Bush tells him. We will see. We do not have to wait to see what Kerry or Peroutka will do.

Ken,

Neither is a flaw. To avoid a vote is irresponsible IMO, when you have a reasonable choice. Secondly, I did not equate a vote for Peroutka with a vote for Kerry. What I said was that a vote for Peroutka will help Kerry get elected. These two things are tied together. You tried to separate them. For a Christian to vote for someone who has absolutely no chance of getting elected is, to me, bad stewardship. It is worse than playing the lottery. At least in teh lottery you have a one in a billion chance. Punching Peroutka has worse odds than that. And there is a whole lot more at stake. My statement was neither outrageous nor false. It was, in fact, the true state of affairs. I have many times said I wish someone like Peroutka was a viable candidate. I wish he would do what is necessary to become one. I have no problem with those of you who support him helping him get the word out. But when election day comes, we have to live in reality. Bush or Kerry ... those are your choices ...

 

Yes, there are but personally I am refraining from using any heavy political artillery against the Demopublicans until after Friday.

But remembering Ronald Reagan this week has helped to emphasize to me just how far left the Republicans have moved since his presidency. And how far left the Democrats have moved from the time that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat decades ago.

 

So, Pastor Larry, if you moved to a town where only a Catholic church and a Lutheran church existed and 99% of the citizens attended those two churches because they think of those as their only choices, would you attend one of those two churches or would you try to establish a Baptist church? And if you tried to establish a Baptist church would you attend the Catholic or Lutheran church while you were trying to establish a Baptist church?

 

Speaking of horses, this is a completely different animal. It is so irrelevant and unconnected to the issue at hand.

 

Since I am not running, I am going to have to vote for someone who disagrees with me. I would rather have a good candidate, but there are no good candidates who are electable. Some of Peroutka's positions are definitely untenable. I have not compromised my principles at all. I hold firmly to Christian principles, one of which is that the church is not the state. Our problem is not our political climate; it is our church climate.

As for strict constructionists, sometimes judges dont' tell the whole story. Sometimes they change. That is life and it is chance you take. Strict constructionists are opposed to constitutional rights for abortion. Do a search on strict constructionists and you will see what it means.

But regardless of whoever Bush appoints, they will be better than whoever Kerry or Peroutka will appoint. And once again, folks, sorry to be the bearer of bad news ... but we live in reality. We don't get to live in a fantasy world. Sorry ...

 

Translation: Your analogy is so poignant that I have absolutely no defense against it, no way to counter it.

 

Personally, I'd just go to the Catholic church.

 

You need work on translation too apparently. To compare churches with political candidates doesn't even deserve a response. Use an analogy that makes sense and then we can talk. Were I in that situation, I would follow the NT and start a Baptist church. That is a matter of biblical command. Politics is a whole different matter ...

 

Since I am in a situation where neither branch of the Demopublican Party adheres in governing to conservative principles, I am following my conservative principles in supporting the building of a conservative political party.