RIGHTEOUSNESS OR REPUBLICANISM

Retakingamerica.com ^ | 2/3/04 | Kelly McGinley

[sauropod]

The CP is anti-Iraq war for dubious reasons at best. The author of this article is wrong.

God can use W. to bring judgment on people that do not believe in Him. He has done it in the past with other peoples and Israel.

Actually, I am surprised the thread has survived this long on the forum.

[Ohioan]

The mushiness you describe is in part a result of the politicians in Washington, not speaking out forthrightly for traditional values. When someone does, there are more than you seem to suspect, who will listen. Why do you think that Conervative talk show hosts have such large followings? Because the truths that they speak, resonate well with people--average people, also voting people.

But we do not have a lot of time. Neither party seems prepared to arrest the flow of those into the country, who have neither identification with the values of the Founding Fathers, nor even with value systems from which the Founding Fathers drew inspiration. Their subjective images are not the images to which we can appeal, with the expectaion of winning them to our perspective, either. (See The Persuasive Use Of Images.)

The clock is ticking against our civilization. We cannot take a lot of time, hoping for a few crumbs from the current crop in Washington. They are not worth our patience, nor our trust. They simply do not march to the same drummer.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[sauropod]

I would not have expected that from Mr. Phillips. Very disappointed.

[dirtboy]

The CP is anti-Iraq war for dubious reasons at best. The author of this article is wrong.

To paraphrase Lindsey Graham, when your site provides a link to Consortiumnews.com, you're up to no good.

Actually, I am surprised the thread has survived this long on the forum.

It's actually sparked a good discussion of the subject without flaming. After all, it something just about every conservative has to work out on a periodic basis. I know there are certainly some days when I wake up and wonder why the heck I bother with the GOP. But under our electoral system, there will only be two major parties, and the compromises are made before the elections in order to create an electoral majority - and until conservatives constitute a majority in their own right, we'll have to keep forming alliances with moderates.

[dirtboy]

Why do you think that Conervative talk show hosts have such large followings? Because the truths that they speak, resonate well with people--average people, also voting people.

I agree there are a lot of conservatives. However, I do not believe they constitute a majority. Hence the current role of mushy middle as kingmaker in Presidential politics.

But we do not have a lot of time. Neither party seems prepared to arrest the flow of those into the country, who have neither identification with the values of the Founding Fathers, nor even with value systems from which the Founding Fathers drew inspiration.

Most of the liberal idiots I've seen were manufacured domestically and not imported.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I'm stating that only a Furher, Caesar or dictator of whatever name can impose a government people don't want upon them.

Answer my question: Are you suggesting that the Constitution Party is composed of Nazis?

[mrsmith]

Don't play the idiot with me.

Instead of running from reality like the author of the article, you should accept the need to educate the electorate. You'll get what they elect.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Answer my question: Are you suggesting that the Constitution Party is composed of Nazis? Yes or no.

[mrsmith]

"we are not looking to elect someone that will "force the people to respect the Constitution.""

But it is the common theme underlying articles like this.
President Bush respects the Constitution- better than the American voter.
It has not been perfectly respected since Madison left office.

The Last of the Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy by Drew McCoy
New York and Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, April 1989.
An accessible book on the later years of James Madison as he fought and lost the battle to contain the "general welfare" clause and other heresies. I don't expect Bush or anyone who could be elected to do any better with today's electorate.

[deport]

All we need to do is look at the results. This isn't rocket science, people.

---

Did you ever nail that one to the wall...... Results you say.... Well then lets take a look.....

Constitution Party [2000]/U.S. Taxpayers [1996/1992]
Howard Phillips, Nominee

2000 ... 98,016 votes ... 0 Electoral College votes ..
1996 .. 182,723 votes ... 0 Electoral College votes ..
1992 ... 43,434 votes ... 0 Electoral College votes

Didn't exist prior to 1992...... and may not after 2004 if they continue their downward spiral.

[sheltonmac]

In the context of my previous post, these were the "results" I had in mind:

Given the fact that Bush has overseen the biggest expansion of government and the most government spending of any administration since LBJ, one could argue that we would be much better off voting in a Democrat as president. Republicans tend to act more like the conservatives they claim to be when the enemy occupies the White House. I'd much rather have the gridlock and government shut-downs of the Clinton years than the burgeoning federal bureaucracy of the Bush years.

But, of course, that's just me. I guess as a conservative I always thought I was supposed to speak out against big government. Is it possible the rules of the game were changed without my knowledge?

[deport]

You mean these discretionary outlays........

Table 8.

---

Discretionary Outlays, 1962 to 2003

---

(Percentage of GDP)

	Defense		International		Domestic		Total
1962	9.2		1.0		2.5		12.7
1963	8.9		0.9		2.7		12.5
1964	8.6		0.7		3.0		12.3
1965	7.4		0.7		3.2		11.3
1966	7.8		0.7		3.4		11.9
1967	8.9		0.7		3.6		13.1
1968	9.4		0.6		3.6		13.6
1969	8.7		0.4		3.2		12.4
1970	8.1		0.4		3.4		11.9
1971	7.3		0.3		3.7		11.3
1972	6.7		0.4		3.8		10.9
1973	5.9		0.4		3.7		9.9
1974	5.6		0.4		3.6		9.6
1975	5.6		0.5		4.0		10.1
1976	5.2		0.4		4.5		10.1
1977	4.9		0.4		4.6		10.0
1978	4.7		0.4		4.8		9.9
1979	4.7		0.4		4.6		9.6
1980	4.9		0.5		4.7		10.1
1981	5.2		0.4		4.5		10.1
1982	5.8		0.4		3.9		10.1
1983	6.1		0.4		3.8		10.3
1984	5.9		0.4		3.5		9.9
1985	6.1		0.4		3.5		10.0
1986	6.2		0.4		3.3		10.0
1987	6.1		0.3		3.1		9.5
1988	5.8		0.3		3.1		9.3
1989	5.6		0.3		3.1		9.0
1990	5.2		0.3		3.2		8.7
1991	5.4		0.3		3.3		9.0
1992	4.9		0.3		3.4		8.6
1993	4.5		0.3		3.4		8.2
1994	4.1		0.3		3.4		7.8
1995	3.7		0.3		3.4		7.4
1996	3.5		0.2		3.2		6.9
1997	3.3		0.2		3.1		6.7
1998	3.1		0.2		3.1		6.4
1999	3.0		0.2		3.0		6.3
2000	3.0		0.2		3.1		6.3
2001	3.0		0.2		3.2		6.5
2002	3.4		0.3		3.5		7.1
2003	3.7		0.3		3.6		7.6

---

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

---

[bayourod]

Yes.

[k2blader]

Couldn't translate your babbling post either.

Have a nice day.

[The_Eaglet]

Thank you for shedding some light on why professing "conservatives" continue to vote Republican and ignore true conservative candidates. You apparently believe - along with your liberal counterparts in the Democratic Party - that a constitutional conservative is the same thing as a fascist.

The problem with your reasoning is that we are not looking to elect someone that will "force the people to respect the Constitution." We are merely looking for leaders who respect the Constitution. George W. Bush has been in the White House for the last three years and has managed to grow government and spend more money than Bill Clinton did in eight.

We need to reject the liberalism of Bill Clinton and his successor who outspent him.