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

NetPub,

I didn't say that Dr. Baldwin was working for Reagan, I said that Reagan honored him and his church.

That Peroutka would consent to be honored by someone so impure in his political views--shame! Or consider it an honor.


I assume that you are still supporting the Republican party and George W. Bush, who supports all of the liberal policies that were put in place by the GOP leaders of the past, but has removed the conservative policies from the GOP platform and helped the Republican party move to the left on those issues.

I've never said I'm happy with the choice and in fact have written in BB that there are several things I'm extemely disappointed with Dubbya on. We are not confronted with these choices in a vacuum, though. We will have these choices in the midst of a war being waged by a bunch of animals. Our choices include a President who has honorably fought these animals and their allies. And he knows they're animals. And doesn't hesitate to call them animals. He has responded quickly and forcefully to deal with these threats, to the extent possible with the stripped down military handed him by Bill Clinton. Our choice is between him and a spineless liberal Democrat, who would have given us an even weaker military had it been up to him, who has carped and yapped like a Chihuahua, around Bush's heels. That is the choice. Peroutka is not a real choice, he is a distraction from the real choice. He is a "purist" (though, as Joseph B. detailed, his purism is itself bothersome--thank you, Joseph) who, like the Socialist Workers Party, the Greens, and Libertarians, can stand on the fringe and attack an incumbent President who is prosecuting a war against evil. Purists have their value, in reminding us of the principles that major parties should aspire to, but they should work within the major parties and push/pull them in their direction. The liberals and socialists succeeded within the Democratic Party (partly because, as Ann Coulter detailed in Treason, they didn't have to pull the Democrats very far or very hard). Religious and other conservatives have had both great and mixed successes within the Republican Party, but grew too weary too quickly with the effort, an effort that Christians and conservatives find naturally distasteful.

It is a fallen world. Its institutions encourage compromise in a democratic system. The political appeal isn't to a populace guided by the self-restraint and the principles our Founders treasured. It is an electorate that to an increasingly greater extent has its hands out to the government, whose values are daily corrupted by Hollywood and the TV's they gaze at. But they have a history, a heritage, some traces of the moral capital that made them a great people and their nation the last, best hope of mankind.

President Bush has not only compromised, he has sold out some important principles: decreasing the size and role of government, resisting the advances of the homosexual lobby. He hasn't stood as solidly as he could or should against abortion. He could have gotten more if he had made a solid effort to push his own, dominant, Party in a conservative direction. But neither is the government in a vacuum. The media makes every political gain costly by twisting public perceptions.

This election is about a compromise between unmitigated shameless liberalism and socialism, and a President who has made moves in the right direction on a range of issues. A direction that would be reversed by his opponent. The other (and make no mistake, they are the also-rans) parties are not going to move this country in either direction because they have no chance. The choice is between a President who sometimes stumbles, sometimes falters, sometimes is confused over the right course to take on domestic issues, but knows the enemies of his country and has them in his sights (and the sights of those who call him their Commander-in-Chief) and his opponent who will turn and run in the face of his militant enemies who seek our destruction, and who will seek to tug mightily to weaken his country's ability to fight, who will actively advance the agenda of militant feminism, the homosexual lobby, the secular fundamentalists.

Is President Bush the candidate of my dreams? No, but Kerry is the President of my nightmares.

 

Why should we be surprised that politicians have no principles when those who vote for them have none?

 

Jim,

Are you talking about the Consticrat Party who wants to "Naderize" the vote. And then you have Consticrats on this very board who are salivating over the idea of electing Kerry by defeating Bush. Yeah. You guys are full of principles, aren't you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

It amazes me how someone can twist the truth to put words in someone's mouth. I am a Christian Constitutionalist voting for Michael Peroutka because I want Michael Peroutka to win the election in November. I am voting for the best man for the country and know that the results are in God's hands, not mine. I don't know of any Constitutionalist who is "salivating over the idea of electing Kerry". If Kerry wins the election I will trust God to protect us, and I will pray for him as our president just as I have prayed for George W. Bush.

 

Well said, NP. It seems to me that many see politics more as a sport, where you pick your team and root for them no matter what.

 

PA Jim,

Rather than the broad brush, who are you asserting has no principles?

 

NP,

Vox populi, vox Dei?

 

People who defend Bush for doing things for which they would (or have) crucify Clinton or Gore.

 

For example...? I think most conservatives here have repeatedly bemoaned Bush's failures, especially on the domestic side. Many on the right see a better opportunity, however imperfect, to advance our views (not to mention prosecution of the GWOT) by voting for Bush than casting what we see as an effective vote for an unabashed liberal who will sprint in the opposite direction. No, it's not an ideal situation, but it's not a perfect world. While we disagree with your electoral strategy, I don't think you've seen anyone who has suggested voting for the President casting aspersions on your integrity or commitment for your view.

 

The voice of the people is the voice of God?

I'm not sure what you mean in asking your question. Could you elaborate please?

 

Here is a prayer for next CP rally:

...God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are....

 

Wow, do you guys realize the extreme strength of the negative things you post in these discussions?
This is a divisive and unfair way to treat fellow believers. It makes me sad to see it.
None of us are perfect and occasionally throw in stuff that goes over the line for Christians and that's understandable since we're all human, but this is becoming typical daily behavior. (again)
Doesn't it make you feel dirty to go back and see what you say sometimes? I know it does me.
Gina

 

Just my opinion, but here goes.

Politics is like war. It isn't pretty. It isn't always nice (don't believe me? Just go to Washington sometime and watch the proceedings on a normal day at the Captial, or just watch C-SPAN gavel to gavel). That is just politics for you. This is the Politics forum.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Kinda like lawyers, they can fight with each other in court, but have coffee and doughnuts together after the court case is over.

Joseph, want to get together at the local Krispy Kreme there in Jacksonville, Arkansas after the elections in November??

 

Don't have one in Jacksonville. But there is one in Little Rock. Come on up.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It didn't seem to bother the members of the Constitution Party when one of them posted that other people were unprincipled. For weeks the CP has been saying that a good Christian would vote CP. It all depends upon whose ox is getting gored, huh?

 

That's extremely unfair of you cmg. Ask Ken if he thinks I am more lenient with the CP supporters.
Gina

 

That's right. You don't tug on Superman's cape. You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off the Lone Ranger. And you sure don't mess around with Gina!

 

Net Pub,

I'm not sure what you mean in asking your question. Could you elaborate please?

I was referring to your statement that "I am voting for the best man for the country and know that the results are in God's hands, not mine."

If the results are based on the vote of the people, and the results are in God's hands, are you saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God? After I asked the question, I thought that perhaps you meant only that however the people vote God remains in charge.


Gina,

That's extremely unfair of you cmg. Ask Ken if he thinks I am more lenient with the CP supporters.

CMG can certainly speak for himself but I don't think his comment had anything to do with your reaction to how individuals post, only to highlight your point by pointing out how CPUSA posters (PA Jim in particular, as he had just said exactly what CMG was talking about) had done what you complained of. In which case, he was being very fair and quite accurate.

 

That is my goal!