How the CP helps hide the secret sin of liberalism...

Some refuse to see the truth that George W. Bush is a liberal. Some have been blinded by the political machine of the Republican branch of the Demopublican Party and now accuse constitutional, limited government conservatives of being closet liberals.

They are greatly deceived.

[ June 28, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

LOL LOL

[ June 28, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

The Constitution Party is made up of mostly ex-Republican's who have left the GOP because of liberalism. Your post makes no sense. Do you actually take time to read and think about what you post?

 

Daniel,

The purpose of the CP is to Naderize the vote. They aren't worried about winning. They only want revenge and to hurt Bush because he is not an isolationist like they are and refuses to become one.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Nader would be a liberal to the CP, since he called for more "government regulation", like mandatory seat belts.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic

 

Glad to hear what Nadar is up to!

I wonder if the CP members are not former Democrats or members of the old Solid South before the South became two party? In other words, I wonder if they did not first leave the Democrats, become Republicans, and then become isolationists--isolationism being something that the last Republican to hold was Robert Taft, who served as US Senator from Ohio from 1939 until his death in 1953.

 

So many Republicans are only willing to talk about foriegn policy and the "war on terror", because they know that is the only reason they are voting for Bush. The Constitution Party would be still running in November, regardless of wether September 11th ever happend. There are SO many more issues other than the "war on terror" that Bush is not a conservative on that need to be addressed.

If you take out the issue of the "war on terror" and foriegn policy, can you find any other issues that you support George W. Bush?

 

I can and have listed them many times on this site. f you want to know, then do a search. I have no need to really repeat myself again.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Howard Phillips served in the Nixon administration, John Lofton served in the Bush I administration, Chuck Baldwin was honored by Ronald Reagan, Michael Peroutka used to work for the federal government. All of these members of the Constitution Party left the GOP when the GOP started moving to the left and acting unconstitutionally.

 

I was just showing that there are MANY different issues, and that the Constitution Party doesn't "want revenge...to hurt Bush because he is not an isolationist" like you say. An example would be how the Constitution Party supported Pat Toomey in PA before Bush helped Specter win. The Constitution Party runs conservative candidate in the races where there is no conservative candidate. If there was no third-party and I had to choose between Bush and Kerry, I would just stay at home and not vote, so Peroutka hasn't stole my vote from Bush.

 

Bush 1: Wasn't he a Democrat?

Why would a sincere Conservative work for a guy who coined the term attacking Reagan's economic policies as voodoo economics?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I was just showing that there are MANY different issues, and that the Constitution Party doesn't "want revenge...to hurt Bush because he is not an isolationist" like you say. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is true, then why did CP supporters post a link to an article not long ago that was entitled: Let's Naderize the vote? Wasn't that posted on Peroutka's website? I thought that was very telling as to what his motives were: Revenge. They are trying to help Kerry win. Shame. Shame.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The last time I checked Bush I was a Republican in Congress and as Regan's VP. I always said that Bush I was one of Reagan's biggest mistakes. I guess Donald Rumsfeld would be another one of Reagan's mistakes.

 

Bush 1 was one of my MAJOR problems with Bush 2.

My attitude is changing though, thanks in no small part to the scaremongering and irrationality of some CP comments.

 

You must not of read the article, the phrase "Naderize the vote" isn't referring to the fact that Gore lost because of people voting for Nader, but the fact that the Democrats have moved in the direction of Nader in attempts to keep those same people from voting for Nader again. The Constition Party will win, only if it is God's will, but if they don't win, then we can still hopefully send a message to the GOP to start moving back in to the right. There is no doubt that the GOP has moved to the left, they have purged conservative principles from their platform, and they will continue to do that as long as voters blindly support them. I predict the GOP will remove the pro-life plank from it's platform by 2008. How many conservative Christians will still support them then?

 

When Peroutka does lose, and if Bush does win (if he doesn't get Naderized by the CP), will you then recognize it as God's will for Bush to be president?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I guess nothing happens that God doesn't permit, and everything happens for a reason, so I guess God permitted Bush to be elected in 2000 for some reason. I don't believe that just because he won means that is is God's will anymore than I believe that it was God's will for Bill Clinton to win two terms. Regardless of who wins in November we are all in God's hands. I will vote for Peroutka because I believe that he is the best candidate for our Constitutional Republic.

 

Your personal attacks on Mr. Peroutka are very childish. At with least the others on the forum we can disagree like adults.