Peroutka Pro-Life Ad

I also see that he has appointed prolife judges while president of the country. So here is the scenario. With Kerry, it is an absolute certainty that he will appoint pro abortion judges. With Peroutka, it is an absolute certainty that Kerry will appoint pro abortion judges. With Bush, there is a chance, however slight that chance might be.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush and Kerry are identical on everything else (something far from true), this issue alone is a reason to vote for Bush over Kerry or Peroutka. There is at least a chance for pro life judges. There is no chance with the other two. </font>[/QUOTE]I just do not feel right in voting for the lesser of two evils, which is what a voting for Bush is doing. He is a liberal Republican who's agenda is damaging the U.S. to the point of causing irreparable damage. When you take into consideration Bush's views on abortion, perverts, and illegal aliens, I do not see any difference with Kerry, with the exception that Kerry does not try to present himself as a "conservative" like Bush does. But, if you feel good voting for Bush, go for it.

 

I agree with Terry on this. And, BTW, Peroutka will not take my vote from Bush. I would not even consider voting for Bush.

 

So, both of you would willingly give up to 4 SCOTUS nominees to a professed abortion supporter?

I don't understand that. Why would you do that, when you have a chance to do something else?

Terry, you say that He is a liberal Republican who's agenda is damaging the U.S. to the point of causing irreparable damage. When you take into consideration Bush's views on abortion, perverts, and illegal aliens, I do not see any difference with Kerry, with the exception that Kerry does not try to present himself as a "conservative" like Bush does. And then admit the same thing about Kerry. But we know there is a difference on judicial philosophy and appointments. So, if all else is equal, is not the next 20 years of SCOTUS worth making the right choice? Would you really rather have the judicial activism of Kerry appointees or the strict constructionism of Bush appointees? Which do you believe will be better for the country?

It is almost as if you since you think the country is going the wrong direction (and I agree in a lot of ways), you will go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can't understand that mindset.

Ken, you have outlined the scenario in which I might consider voting for Peroutka even now. But Michigan is likely to be close.

 

www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=4199

 

Larry, I do not share your belief that Bush will appoint pro-life candidates to the Supreme Court. I think that Bush is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Therefore, I WILL NOT be voting for Bush or Kerry. I will either vote for Peroutka or I will not be voting at all.

Ken, it is my understanding is that Peroutka is not on the Texas ballot, I am not sure how to write in his name if we are using electronic voting machines. Do you, or anybody else know how this can be done?

 

In our precinct we have electronic machines. For the particular office that you are voting for, you simply write the name in a slot at the upper right of the panel, and push the button that says "write in". For example, the choices for President will be "Kush", "Berry", "Nader", "Write In".

It works, I've done write-ins and went back after the election and checked, and they were recorded.

 

Terry,

Michael Peroutka is a certified write-in candidate in Texas, which means that any votes for him will be counted. If you need to know how to write him in, contact Brian Malatesta at [email protected] or call 1-866-CPTEXAS.

 

But he already has appointed pro life judges.

Do you share my belief that Kerry will appoint pro abortion justices? Is at least the chance not worth it, especially in view of 20 years of SCOTUS rulings?

Bush nominees will be less likely to legislate from the bench.

 

But he already has appointed pro life judges.

Do you share my belief that Kerry will appoint pro abortion justices? Is at least the chance not worth it, especially in view of 20 years of SCOTUS rulings?

Bush nominees will be less likely to legislate from the bench. </font>[/QUOTE]I choose to vote with more certainty than to pick between Bush and Kerry. I don't think that either one of them will do a good job at governing our country on any front. It is like choosing whether you want to be bitten by a water moccasin or a rattlesnake.

 

Or, Terry, as a political cartoon I saw summed it up showing Mr. Kerry as the Alien and Mr. Bush as the Predator with the line: "Whichever one wins, we lose."

 

Not in judicial appointments though. There is great certainty about who Kerry will appoint. There is great certainty that Peroutka will appoint nobody. With Bush, there is a chance. Honestly, I cannot understand what seems to be the lack of seriousness about this issue. We complain about abortion and rightly so. But when there is a chance to take steps in the right direction, the most vehement opponents of abortion on this board are passing that chance up. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Since every day that we get closer to the election it becomes more certain that President Bush will be elected, regardless of how many of us vote for Mr. Peroutka, I don't see us passing any chance up at all.

And we'll see if anyone resigns from the U.S. Supreme Court and we'll see if you Bush supporters or we Peroutka supporters are right about whom Mr. Bush appoints.

 

Bush is a big part of the problem with abortion. He champions the pracitce of saying little and doing less; just enough to keep pro-life votes (some, not mine), but not enough to save one baby.

If we don't put our feet down, this will continue to be the practice.

With 3800 innocent humnan beings murdered every day, we need action, not cheap political games. I've had enough and will no longer support it.

 

And if you can persuade a few people to join you, we can give 4 supreme court nominations to John Kerry, who has promised to appoint pro abortion justices. How is that "no longer supporting it"? That is contributing to it.

 

Either Bush or Kerry will keep the abortion bandwagon rolling. I've seen what "conservative" judges appointed by Rppublicans do, and I'm not a sucker for them any more.

As to persuading a few people, I just yesterday had confirmation from about three people that they are switching to Peroutka.

If it became a majority, I suppose you'd follow.

 

I have long said that if Peroutka was a serious candidate who was electable, I would seriously consider voting for him. I would love to have a legitimate alternative. But my conscience will not allow me to cast such a wasteful vote with so much at stake.

 

Maybe he's not electable because so many people follow your logic. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

 

Jim,

Isn't it easier though to be a part of the problem and complain, instead of being a part of the solution?

Wasted or not, Peroutka has me vote.


Jim

 

Funny thing is, it's as easy to vote for one candidate as another. It's just the push of a button, in my area. No vote is more wasted than one for a man who promotes what you don't want.