Changing my mind?

No reason whatsoever if it's not a marginal state, Roger

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

If God is truly sovereign in the affairs of men (including elections) and not the pragmatism of man, then there would be no reason not to even if you were in a marginal state

 

If your conscience is truly with a man who wants to naderize the vote and elect Kerry, vote for Peroutka. If your conscience is with a man who wants to give Al-Quaeda and the rest of the terrorists another victory, then vote for Peroutka. If your conscience is with cutting off all foriegn aid to Israel, our ally, then vote for Peroutka. If you don't agree with Bush cutting taxes twice, his war on terror, his PBA ban and Lacy Peterson law, opposition to stem cell research, then vote for Peroutka.

Sincerely,

Joseph Botwinick

 

Forgot to add this: If your conscience is truly against his appointment of Pickering and Holmes (two pro-life judges) to the federal bench, then vote for Peroutka.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'm agreeing with Matt&Stratiotes here.

 

Let me further add that I don't think that voting for someone when you don't think he has a chance of winning in your state and therefore you don't feel as if there will be any real consequnces for your actions, is not really voting your conscience. Now, if you knew that Bush might not win and you were to vote for Peroutka anyway, that would be truly voting your conscience.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No it wouldn't because:

1. Peroutka is unrealistic about how much power he really has and believes he can wave his magic wand and give everybody everything they want overnight. It is pretty typical of someone who has no political experience and has the luxury of criticizing the incumbent without any real understanding of how politics really works.

and

2. If you still believe in the balance of powers, you have to recognize that his I am gonna do it no matter what the other branches of government think attitude is not really gonna work. You need someone in there who is a politician and knows how to work the system for positive change. Bush is that man.

I don't see how a vote for Peroutka is a vote for terrorism.[/QUOTE]

There is a reason the terrorists have been brutally slaughtering Americans and their allies in Iraq What is it? What is Peroutka's policy on Iraq? Answer those two questions and I think it will become abundantly clear to you why a vote for Peroutka is a vote for the terrorists, just like in Spain.

The Israel stand does bother me. However, it is not a "stand alone" policy. The CP platform is opposed to all foreign entanglements.[/QUOTE]

The thing that bothers me the most about CPers is how much they quote bigots like Sobran, Buchannan, and Raimondo in full agreement. They think we are fighting Israel's war. We are fighting every civilized nation's war (including ours) against global terrorists.

I do not want to see Kerry win. That would be an abomination. However, if I can vote in a state where my vote will not have a naderisation effect, why not let the Repulicans know that some of us would like to see a return to the right on their part. That is the real meat of this thread.

My biggest problem with President Bush is his stand on homosexuality. "Soft" would be the best word I could use and that really bothers me. [/QUOTE]

You don't send that message by voting for someone who spouts the anti-war, anti-Israel message of the left. You don't send that message by voting for someone who has no chance of winning in an election that will be close if the polls are any indicator, and electing a war criminal who voted in the senate to give Public Schools the right to distribute the abortion pill to teenage girls without notifying the parents or gaining permission. That doesn't make sense. The way you send a message to Republicans is you target RINOs in local races where and you run true conservatives against them and defeat them or give them a tight race. Even if your candidate loses, the tight race certainly sends a message. Bill Sizemore talks a lot about this on his webpage. Well I got to go to work now. I will try to find a link to Bill's webpage when I get home.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Do you believe that the answer for America is to restore the Republic that our Founders gave us? Do you believe the safest foreign policy is to avoid meddling in the affairs of other nations and to encourage a well armed citizenry at home? Do you believe that parents have the right and responsibility to guide their children’s education? Do you wish to repeal unconstitutional federal programs not concoct new ones?

Wondering about wasting your vote? The answer is that we quit wasting our votes when we stop giving them to politicians who, once in office, move us further from the America we hope for. Use your vote to underline what it is that you truly do want.

 

Recently NewsWithViews.com published an article by Bill Sizemore, “Why the Constitution Party is Going Nowhere”. My first impulse, as Chairman of Oregon’s Constitution Party, was to fire back in anger at Sizemore’s obvious attempt to discredit our party just as election year activity is heating up. Instead, I paused long enough to reflect on how our recently departed and beloved President Reagan handled these things – turning hostile situations inside out, not joining the other guy in the mud.

Well, I reread Bill’s comments and decided that there are some things he says that might help the Constitution Party move toward the success we hope for. Good advice can come from adversaries as well as from friends. Additionally I remembered some political wisdom from another source – “Worry when opponents take no notice of you. It is a sign that you are going nowhere.” The truth is that Bill Sizemore is tacitly admitting that the Constitution Party is going somewhere. It is just “somewhere” that he as a Bush booster doesn’t like.

SOURCE

 

C4K, Another great article I would recomend is "Why a Vote for Michael Peroutka over George Bush Is Not a Wasted Vote" by Michael Harrison

http://daveblackonline.com/no_more_excuses1.htm

 

C4K, I think I feel about the same way you do about this election. I still think I am voting for Bush at this point, but I agree that Peroutka probably better represents my overall beliefs about what needs to be done in our government.

One part of me says to vote for Bush because I in NO WAY want to contribute to Kerry winning the election. Another part of me thinks that if Peroutka takes enough votes away from Bush to cost him the election it might force the Republican Party to re-evaluate how they have drifted away from many conservative positions. Of course that would mean suffering through a Kerry/Edwards administration for at least 4 years.

 

As Jiminy Cricket said to Pinochio:
"Let your conscience be your guide."

 

Peroutka believes that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional and illegal. He is also against all foreign aid including military aid to Israel and including Food For Peace, now being administered in the Sudan, a country that Europe seems to have turned their backs on.

If you are that way, too, there is no reason to hide it. Frankly, I am not like that. I am not a right-winger. Bush has allowed Congress to spend a lot of money without trying a veto (which would have been pointless as it would have been over-ridden), but he has been a good leader in the war against Islamofascism. Kerry is totally liberal and would spend even more and would revert to do-nothing Clintonism in foreign policy.

 

Do what my wife and I will do in November, vote for Kerry!

 

And to add to what Joseph said... no state is a 'safe' state if MTV and Geraldine Ferraro, the GLB groups get the Democrats out to vote.

Now... re read what Joseph said and think of what Kerry will bring to our country and then fill in that ballot.

Diane