The Myth of Republican Conservatism

CMG is right, in a way, since I think that the label "conservative" has lost its definition.

Conservativism used to mean a stand for lower spending, smaller guvernment within counstitutional bounds, outlawing abortion, and a foreign policy of non-intervention and strong defense.

Today, most of those who call themselves "conservatives", CMG being an example, defend higher spending, larger government, one-world interventionist foreign policy, and tinkering with a few technicalities on abortion.

Orwell was probably right...all you have to do is re-define the terms, and people will follow you into slavery like a bunch of sheep.

 

NetPub, talk to Ken about staying on topic. You Bush-haters don't want to talk about your guy Peroutka because he is a space alien in politics. He is not conservative. Peroutka is far-right. As Ken pointed out, the last GOP platform to be isolationist was 1936. After that Wendell Wilkie, from Indiana, led the GOP into the same war policy that FDR held although Wilkie was a bitter opponent of the domestic New Deal. My position is very much the same as Wilkie, whom my uncle campaigned for. Wilkie was wildly popular in Indiana.

You missed several days conversation, NetPub, because of the hurricane. Frankly, I don't know what you think that I don't understand, but I followed this issue of an illegal war very closely during Viet Nam, and I remember it as an issue during Korea. The only other party to consider the war for survival against Islamic terrorism as illegal is the Communist Party. That is the reason that I say Peroutka is a space alien. By the way, has Peroutka released his military records and his financial records?

 

Ha! Half right, Pennsylvania Jim. Depending upon your definition of constitutional bounds, we probably agree domestically. Bush did start a new doctrine of sorts--sort of a half-step--about war and peace. However, there were daily attacks on the US in the no-fly zone, which had been in place for ten years. How long should we have endured that? Also, Iraq had violated UN resolutions, and contrary to what Kerry says, Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger and other countries. So your opposition to the war is ill-founded and following Peroutka's plan would lead to defeat.

Contrary to your statement, I do not defend higher spending and bigger government. I have been fifteen years against the size of Indiana state government and always for a smaller federal government. I am not a one-worlder (those are Democrats) and I am against abortion although I feel that in cases of self-defense, a lady should be allowed to abort the seed of a rapist, whom I believe should be given the death penalty.

Peroutka wants to eliminate all foreign aid--something no national Republican has ever advocated to the best of my knowledge. President Eisenhower started the Food For Peace program 50 years ago. Peroutka wants to go back to the 1820s manner of counting electoral votes; I have never heard anyone else advocate that; it would allow for even more corruption in voting in crooked districts like East Chicago, Indiana, and Gary, Indiana. At least the state can say that it does not know the truth about those two cities but it does know who won the state. I don't see the need for a change.

I have already discussed Peroutka's war policy, but I implore you to read this letter:

http://www.jewishindy.com/article.php?sid=3672

 

CMG, I read the article. It simply takes all of the neocon propoganda at face value and repeats it. Not impressed. The "to my sons" gimmick is a bit odd, if I were to write to my sons I would send it in the mail, not post it in a newspaper...no big deal, though.

How anyone who truly likes small government can stomach Bush simply amazes me.

 

So you don't care if we lose the war or if we cut and run? You better ask Allah to be with you.

 

There is nothing we can win in Iraq. Never was.

As to terrorists who threaten us, and especially those who plotted on 9/11, we should be going after them instead of the nation of Iraq.

 

So you don't care if there is another Nine Eleven or a mushroom cloud over the USA, you just want to come home and wait until the other shoe drops all the while figuring that the odds are that it won't touch you?

 

Wow, I said that we should hunt down the terrorists and you conclude that I don't care if there is another 9/11.

Impeccable logic, CMG. No wonder you are so easily taken in by guys like Bush.

 

With all due respect, I don't think the Constitution Party cares about anything but power. Peroutka really stunk on Medved. Peroutka overplayed his hand. He looked cold-blooded.

 

Michael Anthony Peroutka is the one who showed up poorly educated when he was soundly defeated by Medved on American history. I think that the unreality of your platform is the reason that I call your party a group of megalomaniacs. I can't see that any of you cares who lives or dies as long as you elect Kerry.

 

All we have is your word on how either person did in this debate and your word ain't worth much, if anything, church mouse guy.

 

CMG cannot back his claims up. He'll just keep making them.

It's a shame, though, that Medved apparently did his best to attack a rother in Christ who is doing all he can to make a difference in American politics.

All depends where your ultimate loyalty lies.

 

Glad to see that we are back to the real, kinder, gentler Ken.

 

CMG,

It isn't too kind of you, either, to make false claims and judgements about Peroutka and the CP. If you had anythnig to back them up, it wouldn't be so bad. But you simply make things up, and then duck out or change the subject. That's what's frustrating.

Now, if you would just be positive all the time like Ken and me, it would be better.

 

You called me ignorant so I just replied that Peroutka showed himself to be poorly educated in American history when Medved started discussing the Founding Fathers. I used to think that you were polite in comparison to the other CP posters, but I see that you, like your party boss, cannot handle it when someone disagrees with you. Peroutka's statement that you quoted was uncalled for just because the debate did not go the way that Peroutka wanted. He sounded like a poor loser.

At any rate, NetPub, I do not think that you are the moderater here. All you want to do is bash Bush, and you think that turnabout is unfair play. I would have admired Peroutka a lot more if he had admitted that he got stumped a couple of times and that he lost this debate. When he made his personal attack on Medved--whom you yourself have never heard of--he did not act very presidential. By the way, Medved's book ten years ago was a major work about the entertainment industry. Perhaps you do not pay attention to cultural issues or perhaps you are too young to have mastered the current scene.

 

Get up to speed. Medved is not a brother of Peroutka's because Medved is a Jew. The debate was on issues of the CP Platform, and not personal issues as you imply. It was a debate between a Republican and a Constitution Party member. I would like to impress upon you that Republicans are strong for Bush and strong against the Constitution Party platform. The sooner you guys take the personal element out of this debate the better for you. I for one am getting tired of hearing how much better you are than other men.