If You Say You Get It But Do Nothing Then You Do Not Get It

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by KenH, May 31, 2004.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    By Michael Anthony Peroutka:

    At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Virginia, near Washington DC, a supporter of mine met and talked with an older man, a conservative from Connecticut wearing a Bush-Cheney sticker on his lapel. My supporter listed a number of my differences with President Bush --- that he has given us unconstitutional, big spending, debt-ridden Big Government and done a lot of other unconservative things.

    Every time my supporter mentioned an unconservative, even un-Republican thing Mr. Bush has done, this man agreed, saying “I hear you.” But, he said, he was not about to vote for anybody other than Bush-Cheney.

    This man’s remedy for the unconservative, un-Republican things the President has done was to suggest that Mr. Bush and the Republicans be disciplined --- his word --- for their political heresy. But, who is to discipline them, he was asked, since these political heretics now control the Republican National Committee, the Congress and the White House?

    The Bush-Cheney man said nothing.

    The Bush-Cheney man also said that instead of voting for me, conservatives should try to take over the Republican Party. But, of course, this has been the argument of some people for more than 40 years. And where has it gotten us? Nowhere, basically. In fact, people calling themselves conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and they have given us the biggest Federal Government ever with the biggest budget deficits ever!

    I tell you this story because there’s a moral here.

    If you’re a Constitutional, conservative Republican who knows in his heart that it’s true that the Bush-Cheney Administration has given us anything BUT a Constitutional, conservative, Republican Federal Government --- and you vote to re-elect Bush-Cheney --- then you are NOT really a Constitutional, conservative Republican.

    If you agree with my criticisms of the Bush-Cheney Administration, and say “I hear you,” but still vote for them, THEN YOU DO NOT HEAR ME.

    The best, most effective way to discipline unconstitutional, unconservative, Republicans IS TO VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

    And remember: You NEVER waste your vote when you vote for what’s right.

    - LINK
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peroutka is wrong on this one. It is possible to "hear his point" and still vote wisely for someone who is an electable viable candidate. It is possible to vote for someone that you do not agree with completely, while acknowledging disagreements. All things told, it would be better to take over the Republican party completely. That way, you already have the infrastructure in place. There are a lot of people who would love to vote the republicans out of office, but not at the price we would pay for it. Wisdom is always a key ingredient that is too often missing.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Like the liberals such as George W. Bush, Arlen Specter, et al, are going to let that happen.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    If everyone so vocal about the constitution party got involved in the Republican party, along with the conservatives already there, there is a very good chance it would happen. The problem is that people are bailing and taking the easy way out rather than fighting for it.
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Frankly, Pastor Larry, I've fought within the Republican Party for years. The problem is they do what they want to do which is rarely in the interest of the American people.
     
  6. Sspinko52

    Sspinko52
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Lady Eagle! Amen! But it's not just the Repubs...it's both main line parties.

    And honestly Pastor Larry, there's no way that its easier to just bail out in this situation. It's going to be an uphill battle to change the way things are in the political system. Easier? No way! It's easier to just go with the flow and swallow whatever we're given like "good little Americans". I'm not at all trying to sound disrespectful nor unpatriotic. The real fight is in saying "things have got to change, and we won't stand for status quo any longer". That's fighting. Our nation is heading away from godliness quickly, and we as believers had better wake up, stand up and fight with our votes and our voices (as well as in our prayer closets). Unfortunately, most of us will just sit back and accept what we're given and continue to choose from the "lesser of two evils".
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Years ago, in high school, I got involved in the Republican party a bit. I quit because I had better stuff to do and different priorities. The party only does what the party allows to be done. If there were vocal uprisings at the grass roots level all across, then it would change. Those vocal uprisings aren't taking place. So instead, there are some good conservative people who could make a difference who go to a third party that has absolutely no voice at all and no national recognition. If people want the CP to be a legitimate party, start at the local level in city and state races and work from there. With enough work and enough years, you might get national party status.

    When I say the easy way out, I mean they don't hvae to stand and fight anymore. They don't have to worry about showing up and counting for something. The reality is that they have gone and joined a bunch of malcontents (and rightly malcontent) who can now stand back, vote for a "non-candidate," say I didn't promote Bush, and whine at the top of their lungs, all while not doing anything to change the situation. Going to a third party is dumping thimbles of water on a forest fire. You can claim you are doing something, but it is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. I don't say that to be rude, but think about it. In 6 months, this election will be over. The CP will still likely be unknown and non-existent on the national scene. On election night, no one will be talking about the showing of Peroutka. And for all your work, you will have John Kerry and an opportunity to say "I am not responsible." Truth be told, you will be partially responsible ... and when pro abortion candidates are nominated by President Kerry, you can raise your hand and say you helped him out.

    The alternative to choosing the "lesser of two evils" is contributing to the election of the greater of two evils. And unfortunately, we have to live in reality.
     
  8. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    And when pro abortion candidates are nominated by President Bush, you can raise your hand and say you helped him out.

    I still vote for conservative GOP candidates when they are on the ballot, I call my Congressman on a weekly basis. When I call Washington they know my on a first name basis I call so much. When I voice my outrage at my GOP congressman supporting un-constitutional spending, they brush it off, because they know they have bought the votes of the people that don't care about the Constitution, so they can ignore the conservatives. I wish it reforming the GOP from the inside would work, if I believed it were possible I would be working towards that, but I don't believe it is possible.

    When I organized a rally in Sanford, FL back in 2000, when they were not going to count the military absentee ballots we had speakers from the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. We joined together, opened in prayer, listend to the speakers and marched through the streets. You could tell the people's hearts were in it.

    The next week the GOP organized a "rally". They came in, sat around waiting for the news media, took everyone's "yard signs" and gave them some "homemade signs" out of their truck and passed out American flags. When the news media arived, they had one person give a speach, as soon as the cameras cut off, they loaded up the truck and left.

    The GOP doesn't care about the grassroots conservatives, they care about their agendas and their organized "photo ops", they ignore conservatives like Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, etc. and they will ignore the "little people" as well.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush may nominate pro abortion candidates. But there is a greater chance that he won't, based on both what he has said and what he has done. Kerry has promised the opposite. He will not nominate pro life judges.

    In other words, with my way, the unborn have a chance; with your way, the unborn have no chance. Now, which is better??
     
  10. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about Bush's support of Specter over Toomey knowing that Specter will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, and has vowed to block any pro-life appointments to the bench?

    Many pro-life activists also place great hopes in President Bush’s ability to put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, with a large number of them voting for Bush in 2000 for this reason. But President Bush is not likely to positively influence the Supreme Court with his power to nominate judges. Pro-life President Reagan appointed the pro-abortion Sandra Day O’Connor to the court and the elder Bush appointed the liberal David Souter. The justice who wrote the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Harry A. Blackmun, had been appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon. Considering Mr. Bush’s public admission that "I have no litmus test on that issue [abortion] or any other issue" for Supreme Court nominations, there is no reason to expect that this president will possess greater acumen for selecting justices for the court than his Republican predecessors.

    The main contribution George W. Bush can make toward ending the crime of abortion in the United States is to use the presidency as a bully pulpit to explain: (1) Basic biology proves that human life begins at conception; (2) abortion is the deliberate killing of the most innocent human lives; and (3) the people need to pressure Congress to exercise its power to prohibit the Supreme Court from hearing abortion cases (see sidebar). Put simply, President Bush can be most influential by using the prestige of his office to tell America how wrong and destructive abortion is — and how Congress can help put an end to this senseless slaughter. Unfortunately, he seems completely unwilling to do this.

    SOURCE
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    With respect to Bush's support of Specter, most believe that it had to do with Toomey's chances in October. Whether right or wrong, Bush made a decision that maintaining control of the Senate was a necessary thing. I don't think Specter will chair the Senate Judiciary. That is Hatch's position I think, and I haven't heard that he is giving it up. I disagree with his support of Specter, but I still wonder if all the CP'ers who abandoned the Republican party in PA had voted for Toomey if he would have won anyway? THey had a tremendous opportunity to make an impact, and my understanding is that a lot of them stayed home and refused to vote. They gave up a chance to make a difference becasue they were bitter and disillusioned. I don't know how many stayed home, but I know that Toomey didn't lose by much, even with Bush's opposition. The evidence shows that a lot of people in the Republican party, at least in PA, don't like Bush's overall direction. There was a great opportunity for change that was passed up.

    Secondly, some of the judges of Republicans have been disappointing. All of the Democratic judges have been disappointing. In other words, with my the unborn have a chance; with your way the unborn have no chance. Now which is better??

    His litmus test is strict constructionism, which everyone (almost) knows means prolife. The Dems and the NARAL are scared to death of strict constructionists because they know what it means. It seems that the only people who don't are the ones supporting Peroutka.

    As for Bush's influence, I agree that he needs to take a bigger role in this issue. But again, we have to deal in political realities, because that is the world we live in. We do not live in a monarchy. We live in a democracy and a leader has to be able to lead. There is a shift in America going on right now in these areas. But to rush that shift by illtimed and illadvised comments could be a huge setback. Change takes time ...

    [ June 01, 2004, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  12. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Explain to me how a strict constructionist would think that the federal government is the best judge of the way local public schools should be run.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have any idea. That wasn't the subject of discussion.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry to disappoint you, Pastor Larry, but:

    Grassley Won't Budge: Unless something extraordinary happens, liberal Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) will succeed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) as Senate Judiciary Chairman next year (if Specter wins reelection). This worries conservatives because Specter, who is pro-Roe v. Wade, helped scuttle President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987.

    One scenario for stopping Specter envisions Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), who is now Finance chairman, taking Judiciary instead. Grassley has seniority over Specter, but would have to relinquish his Finance chairmanship before taking Judiciary. He had "thought about it a lot," Grassley told HUMAN EVENTS last week, but decided against it. Such a move, he said, would disrupt all the work he's done so far on tax and finance issues. "It would be a waste of the taxpayers' money for me, after doing all this work on Finance, to step aside," he said. "Then we'd have to start all over again."

    - LINK


    So do you now want to join the rest of us who hope that Senator Specter is defeated?
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not opposed to Specter being defeated. I wish all the CP people in PA had had enough sense to vote for Toomey in the primary. Then we possibly wouldn't be facing this problem at all. But it would be a disaster to give the Senate control back to the Democrats. If it is true that Hatch will not chair the Judiciary (we will have to wait and see) ... and control goes to the Dems, then the chair will be Leahy, who is a few bricks shy of a load in many categories. And Specter is far better than Leahy.

    But I have never opposed the defeat of Specter.
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you lay the blame in the CP voters in PA, but not with the President who campaigned against Toomey to make sure Specter won.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not at all ... I am simply making a point about the big picture. Bush shouldn't have campaigned for Specter. He was wrong to do so. It was an bad choice on his part.

    But there may have been a chance to make a difference anyway. That chance may have been passed up by those who complain that the Repubs are too liberal. They had a chance to vote a very conservative Republican in and decided to take a pass ...

    In the big picture, when people sit home when they have a chance to make a difference, their complaining about the outcome sounds pretty foolish, to me ...

    As I said before, I don't know the numbers of the CP in PA, but Toomey lost by 15,000 votes or so as I recall. I asked before what the numbers of the CP were in PA and no one wanted to volunteer that info and I couldn't find it. If there were 15,000 CP'ers in PA who decided not to vote in the Repub primary, they have absolutely nothing to whine about. They have no leg to stand on. They are spectators who ought to keep their mouths shut, IMO ... simply becuase had they shown up, they could have had what they wanted ... a pro life senate candidate who believes what they believe. They could have shown up and sent that message to Bush that they claim the Repubs won't send ... The sitting President would have lost a significant race and taken a huge hit on credibility from teh right if they had shown up. But they didn't ... they stayed home ...

    When you don't show up, you ought to shut up.
     
  18. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is PA an open primary state? Can voters who are not registered Republicans vote in the Republican primary?
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't one have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary in Pennsylvania? If so, and if I lived in Pennsylvania, I would not registered as a member of a liberal party that I do not support.

    Thus, your criticism of any CP members who didn't vote for Toomey, if there were any, is totally off the mark. If the primary system was like Arkansas where we do not register by party and can vote in any party's primary, then your criticism might have some validity.
     
  20. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page

Loading...