Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2006: the year of the Constitution Party?
Sierra Times ^ | 5/27/2006 | Tom Kovach

Posted on 05/27/2006 4:31:32 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy

As the "Big Tent" collapses, make way for the true "third" party

According to research that I conducted in 1998, there were more than 400 political parties in America. (That number has grown smaller in recent years, but is still over 200 — far larger than the "mainstream" media admits.) According to research by Richard Winger, the publisher of Ballot Access News, the third-largest political party in the United States is the Constitution Party. Thus, the CP is the true third party.

Statistically, the CP has more members than any political party other than the Big Two. And, statistically, there are more caves in Tennessee than any other state. But, there are not enough caves nationwide to prevent people from knowing that border security is the hot-button political issue across America this year. The issue has been simmering for a long time, and has now reached a boiling point.

But, border security is not the only hot-button issue — especially for conservatives. Abortion is a perennial issue, but the death of Terri Schiavo has demonstrated that C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer were absolutely right about the "slippery slope." That, in turn, has removed many abortion "moderates" from the fence. The party with the clearest stance against abortion is the Constitution Party.

Define "patriotism"

As our nation struggles with the very definition (and name) of the War Against Terrorism, we are forced to also struggle with the definition of patriotism. (Is it patriotic to defend Iraq against insurgents, and South Korea against invasion, and Haiti against true reform — and Bosnia against Christians — while ignoring the "stealth invasion" of our own country?)

Is it patriotic to continue a war that was started without a Constitutionally-required declaration of war? Is it patriotic to continue a war that recently reached its stated objective? (The recent free election of a "unity government" in Iraq provided the final stage of the "regime change" that we sought. And, the revelations by a former top Iraqi general proved that the WMD case was valid.

I've been a strong supporter of the war itself — despite the bypass of Congress — until the recent Iraqi elections. Now, it's time to tell our troops, "Good job, and welcome home.")

Questions about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan (with possible expansions toward Syria and Iran in the near future) have, in turn, forced many people to look away from the television long enough to at least consider studying and discussing the Constitution. That, in turn, has caused a rapidly growing number of people to discover, and embrace, the political party that is based upon that special document.

So, perhaps 2006 really is "the year of the Constitution Party."

Let's consider some facts. In the 2004 presidential elections, CP candidate Michael Peroutka got enough votes to force the national news media to pay attention to the Constitution Party for the first time since its creation in 1992. (Obviously, there had been other "mentions" of the CP, but not recurring coverage — including a CP line on some televised charts of candidate progress.)

Those 2004 elections were so close that some analysts thought that Peroutka could swing the outcome. But, nobody was sure which way it would swing. So, the CP tally was watched closely for the first time.

Fast-forward to January of 2006, and a special US House election in California.

Although CP candidate Jim Gilchrist did not win, he made a very strong showing. Gilchrist, the co-founder of the Minutemen, forced the border security issue to the forefront of a key election in a state with a strong pro-illegal-alien history. And, he came close to winning. That fact was not lost on Republican analysts — who are now trying to "shoot full-auto in all directions" to regain votes that they have lost by compromise.

Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders. (And, their national bylaws prohibit cross-party endorsements — which hamstrings any conservative coalitions. That fact cost me the Libertarian Party's endorsement, which I had sought at their recent state convention in Nashville.) That single fact could cause many Libertarians to jump to the Constitution Party. That migration actually started years ago.

A "Guilt-Free" Option

Border security also creates angst for Democrats — because many labor unions are in favor of open borders, but most union members view illegal aliens as unfair threats to their own jobs. For this reason, many conservative Democrats will not be voting their party line this year. Will they vote for CP candidates? I think so. (In my own case, due to ballot-access problems, I'm a Constitution Party member running on the Republican Party line. That makes me the "guilt-free option" for those that would otherwise never vote Republican.) On my "day job," I'm an interpreter of Sign Language for a school district (and a union steward). Recently, I discovered that my union strongly favors illegal aliens. Most members don't know that; and, the same is true for other unions. I recently provided internal union documents, to be used in an upcoming book by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi. When the book's impact ripples into the union shops, angry members will look for another political party. Many will join the Constitution Party.

Now, let's look at some statistics. This year, the number of CP candidates nationwide has exploded. There are four Constitutionalists running for the US Senate, and 13 for the US House. There are five CP candidates for governor of various states, and three of them also have CP lieutenant-governor running mates. One of those states is California, where history has proven that Arnold "The Governator" Schwarzenegger is no true conservative. There is also a CP candidate for secretary of state in California, along with several state legislative seats. The lower house of the Utah state legislature has a whopping 34 candidates from the Constitution Party, and there are 12 Constitutionalists running for the Utah State Senate. A similar, but smaller, trend is seen across Pennsylvania, where the CP has its headquarters. This year, although we might lose a race or two, the Constitution Party cannot be ignored.

My sense is that some CP races will be absolute landslides, as the blowback from lax border security hits both halves of the Big Two square in the face. And, because many Democratic incumbents (including my opponent, Jim Cooper) are also vulnerable on abortion and other social issues, voters will be looking for a strong conservative.

If the GOP candidates try to hide under the Big Tent, and seek votes as merely "Democrat Lite," such candidates just might get smothered by the tent's collapse. Americans are tired of compromise; we want leaders that actually stand for something.

And, as the 2006 elections set the stage for the 2008 presidential elections, the candidates that stand the tallest will be the ones that control the 2008 debates. In turn, the presidential candidate that stands firm in the debates, and shows no compromise, will be the candidate that occupies the White House. It will not be enough to be simply "anyone but Hillary." (Although, having organized the first anti-Hillary rally in New York in 1999, and the first anti-Hillary rally in Nashville this past week, that theme is still one that I consider important.)

Americans are looking for candidates that will help to make our country "feel like America again." We are looking for leaders that have the vision of Ronald Reagan, even if they are not from the "party of Reagan." Americans will find those leaders in the Constitution Party.

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and has written for several online publications. Tom has been involved in politics since 1992, is the state PR coordinator for the Constitution Party, and is on the November ballot (GOP line) for the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2006; 3rdpartywastedvotes; chaffee; constitutionparty; cp; cptruepatriots; elephanteatsownhead; fifthcolumn; gerlach; gopisawastedvote; layoffthecrack; nomorerinos; nutcases; onepercenters; pick3rdpartyandlose; pipedreams; preshillaryclinton; putthepipedown; ratsoverruntheship; reagansvision; republicansrlosers; republicanwhiners; snowe; speakerpelosi; thirdparty; wishfulthinking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
Border security has caused some people to look at the Libertarian Party, only to discover that they favor open borders.

And, if one were to delve deeper, one would find there are other Libertarian principals that conservatives find unacceptable.

1 posted on 05/27/2006 4:31:36 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

"2006: the year of the Constitution Party?"
No, but this talk plus stupid talk from the liberal-tarians about a third party might make things just right for a rat take over.


2 posted on 05/27/2006 4:34:57 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer: Fighting to save America from Hillary Clinton..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Interesting. I don't find CP candidates appealing in my state this year but if you have some hopeless Chafee-type RINO up against a Dim on the ticket, it's not a completely unreasonable choice.

When you hate both of the Dim-GOP candidates to the bottom of your gut, tellig people to vote the lesser of two evils is, well, evil.
3 posted on 05/27/2006 4:41:06 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
If people really support these LIBertarian parties... it will be...

"2006: The year satan regains control of both houses of Congress, and leads to one of satan's whores (hildebeast) taking the Presidency in 2008"!

LLS
4 posted on 05/27/2006 4:43:03 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Maybe.
Maybe.
I'll think about it. But my real inclination is just to stay home, and I've already sent Dr. James Dobson an e-mail, urging him to call a voter boycott of 2006 for social conservatives.

I sincerely hope he does. 2006 is going to set the tone for 2008.


5 posted on 05/27/2006 4:44:02 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
If it is the Year of the Constitution Party then the Celebrations will all be renamed:

The Year of the Liberals!


6 posted on 05/27/2006 4:44:32 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
No, but this talk plus stupid talk from the liberal-tarians about a third party might make things just right for a rat take over.

And if it walks like a rat and talks like a rat, it's STILL a rat....

even if there's an 'R' after its name.

7 posted on 05/27/2006 4:45:15 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a * legal entity *, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

2006 is NOT 2008.
No president will be elected in 2006, and the best spur to conservatives for '08, might be to kick some of the RINO deadwood out of the way in '06.


8 posted on 05/27/2006 4:46:17 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
"2006: the year of the Constitution Party?" No, but this talk plus stupid talk from the liberal-tarians about a third party might make things just right for a rat take over.

You're exactly right. Besides, the idea that the Republican Party under George W. Bush doesn't have a strong position on abortion and that the Constitution Party would do better is laughable.

The Constitution Party is, among other things, virtually pacifist regarding the War on Terror. In objective terms regarding their effect, not their intentions, that makes them, as George Orwell said about the pacifists of his day regarding the Axis, objectively pro-Islamofascist.

9 posted on 05/27/2006 4:47:04 AM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Two words:

Runoff elections

I need to know that I'm not electing demokkkrats when I vote for a third party candidate. Until then, it will never happen. We need runoff elections, i.e. a guarantee that nobody will ever hold a public office with less than 50% of the vote, and that nobody will ever need fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot.

10 posted on 05/27/2006 4:47:38 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes

If 2006 goes VERY badly, there might as well not BE a 2008. Do you realize what the 'ruling' party from both houses could do to election laws, funding, etc. in just two short years. It wouldn't even matter that GW is president. There are many actions that could be taken over which he has NO control......


11 posted on 05/27/2006 4:48:53 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes
You would think that the social conservatives would care about what Judges that our President might appoint to the Courts *maybe even the SCOTUS* during his final 2 YEARS of his term. And what a Rat controlled Congress might do to the type of people that he will be able to nominate. Throw your little hissy fit now, and hopefully you'll all come to your senses before the midterms. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind when I read these immature rants. We have RINOs from some states because the people in these states are NOT conservative and they WILL NOT elect a conservative. Deal with it.

We need to target the Blue and Purple states and run good candidates against all RINOs and Democrats.

12 posted on 05/27/2006 4:52:36 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
>If people really support these LIBertarian parties... it will be...


The Constitution Party is not like the Libertarian Party. The CP is very conservative on social issues. They oppose illegal immigration.

If some vote for candidates outside the Rep. Party, it's because Congress and the President moved left. I will vote CP if the republicans don't move right soon.
13 posted on 05/27/2006 4:59:06 AM PDT by coffeebreak (Judicial liberalism is destroying this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Is it patriotic to continue a war that was started without a Constitutionally-required declaration of war?

I'm so very certain that Al-Qaeda had Robert's Rules of Order in mind when they did

THIS!!!

The CP are pacifists. Screw them. There are no political parties which support me or my fellow soldiers in the field. I'm staying home.

14 posted on 05/27/2006 5:10:25 AM PDT by Old Sarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
When you hate both of the Dim-GOP candidates to the bottom of your gut, tellig people to vote the lesser of two evils is, well, evil.

"The lesser of two evils is still evil"- Alan Keyes.

Here in Illinois we have a choice for Governor of the current dim Governor Blagojevich or Judy Topinka, the biggest rino to come down the pike.

Disgusting choices.

15 posted on 05/27/2006 5:24:45 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
2006: the year of the Constitution Party?

2006: the year of the Constitution Party collapse and destruction of the greatest country on earth. We can thank the 62 morons in the Senate.......

16 posted on 05/27/2006 5:26:44 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (Say what you feel, those that matter don't mind, those that mind don't matter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Libertarian=Libertine


17 posted on 05/27/2006 5:28:01 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
We have RINOs from some states because the people in these states are NOT conservative and they WILL NOT elect a conservative.

It's true in my state (Illinois) I vote for and support conservative candidates but I am clearly in the minority. I believe that is the case in all states that have large cities that dominate the political scene of the entire state, cities that are enclaves of the "gimme something for nothing" crowd.

It's true in Mass, N.Y., Calif. and Illinois. Look at who we have as U.S. Senators in those states.

18 posted on 05/27/2006 5:34:43 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Here in Illinois we have a choice for Governor of the current dim Governor Blagojevich or Judy Topinka, the biggest rino to come down the pike. Disgusting choices.

I have happier choices: a strong anti-illegals and Club For Growth freshman congressman, certain to win his seat. And a fake conservative Dim to defeat for the Senate.

I don't go for punishing the House for what the Senate did. But some of you just don't have good choices. You should look for ways to get conservatives elected elsewhere in the country. We have some good races this year. Club For Growth has some good Reagan-Gingrich conservatives and they're 6-1 win-loss so far for 2006.
19 posted on 05/27/2006 5:41:04 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

So, perhaps 2006 really is "the year of the Constitution Party."



Only in Tom's mind.


20 posted on 05/27/2006 5:43:16 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37
BINGO.
21 posted on 05/27/2006 5:48:05 AM PDT by Fudd Fan (DemocRATs- the CULTURE OF TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

And, if one were to delve deeper, one would find there are other Libertarian principals that conservatives find unacceptable.
_________________________

Such as support for abortion, legalization of psychedelic drugs, homosexual marriage, radical isolationism, unrestricted trade, and unrestricted control of the environment by government.
The Libertarian party is not founded on (US) Constitutional authority. It is a radical left wing variation of Marxism.


22 posted on 05/27/2006 5:48:14 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Do you realize what the 'ruling' party from both houses could do to election laws, funding, etc. in just two short years.

If the Dems take over in 2006, they'll waste the next two years impeaching Bush, and get nothing else done.

23 posted on 05/27/2006 5:49:13 AM PDT by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
… Throw your little hissy fit now, and hopefully you'll all come to your senses before the midterms. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind when I read these immature rants.… Yeah. That's gonna make me eager to support the GOP. Maybe you could list for me a few of the successes the social conservatives have received for their 26 years of sincere, loyal support of the GOP -- since the first election of President Reagan. Honestly it seems to me as if our issues are always on the back-burner, and your post shows exactly the attitude that causes it -- AND how likely you are to push our issues in the future.
24 posted on 05/27/2006 5:54:53 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Frankly that doesn't scare me as much as you might believe. Nor does it seem very realistic.


25 posted on 05/27/2006 5:58:51 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes; Common Tator
I don't support the Partial Birth Abortion law comes to mind, does it? How about nominating strict contructionists judges? Those aren't important?

Vote as you please, but I will give you a piece of advice from Common Tator: If conservatives stay home and don't vote, those who are elected will be beholden not to conservatives, but to moderates. You will then find candidates moving leftward to satisfy those dependable voters. The end result will be that the Republicans move leftward, and you will get less of what you want.

And, of course, if the democrats regain power you will get NOTHING of what you want and a whole lot of stuff that you don't want at all.

26 posted on 05/27/2006 6:04:00 AM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

No, but this talk plus stupid talk from the liberal-tarians about a third party might make things just right for a rat take over.
And if it walks like a rat and talks like a rat, it's STILL a rat....

even if there's an 'R' after its name.

Hear, hear!!


27 posted on 05/27/2006 6:04:24 AM PDT by Humble Servant (Keep it simple - do what's right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I saw a bumper sticker recently:

Satan 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?

28 posted on 05/27/2006 6:04:54 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Don't forget Wisconsin. We have a few counties dictating the entire state and our senators suck worse than yours.
29 posted on 05/27/2006 6:12:08 AM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

"If conservatives stay home and don't vote, those who are elected will be beholden not to conservatives, but to moderates. You will then find candidates moving leftward to satisfy those dependable voters. The end result will be that the Republicans move leftward, and you will get less of what you want."

If a Republican runs on a liberal platform, with a liberal track record, and I vote for him, he will take my vote as acceptance of his posture and conduct. He will not get sworn in and say to himnself, "BOY, I'D BETTER CHANGE MY WAYS", now, will he?


30 posted on 05/27/2006 6:13:49 AM PDT by Humble Servant (Keep it simple - do what's right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; 9999lakes; Common Tator
I don't support the Partial Birth Abortion law comes to mind, does it? How about nominating strict contructionists judges? Those aren't important?

Actually, no. This is a matter of national survival. If the WH is able to pressure the House into accepting amnesty, then GOP House members are toast. There are people who were not just precint workers in '04, but actual electors, that would be supporters of articles brought by Dem House managers in '07.

31 posted on 05/27/2006 6:14:13 AM PDT by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

This move is GUARANTEED to elect Democrats to a majority. If any fringe party needs to be strengthened, it is the Greens. The Greens drive the dim candidates to the left and make the voters aware of dim "core values". The best way to insure more conservative policies by Republicans is to make our majorities LARGER so that there will be no need to enlarge the tent.


32 posted on 05/27/2006 6:15:07 AM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

OK Miss Marple -- That's Good.

And the strict judicial appointments Are Good -- Those are presidential appoinments of course, and 2006 is NOT a Presidential Year. VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION!

I have NOT been very impressed with GOP support generally, and the post earlier "hissy fit", is exactly what I'm talking about. Heard that attitude before. I think THAT attitude expects me to keep voting for republicans, and to keep being satisfied at the end of the benefit line.


33 posted on 05/27/2006 6:15:34 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes

I even think that attitude should be evicted.


34 posted on 05/27/2006 6:19:44 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Expecting 100% perfection out of anything in life is even stupider. No one gets 100% of what they want. People need to quit acting like petulant children and realize this. On Judges appointed alone, Conservative should be fighting tooth and nail to help the Republicans to win.

Take Prop 187. A piece of Legislation that would of done a great deal to stop this Illegal mess. A Leftist judge simply imposed his personal Leftist dogma and overturned the will of Californians.

Our suppose some miracle happens and the US House Republicans win the fight on Illegals and get their strict enforcement bill. Guess what. The day after the Law is signed, the ACLU and La Raza and a bunch of racists "Immigrant support groups" are going to go to one of their tame judges in San Fransisco or Boston or wherever and get an injunction to stop the laws from being enforced until years of legal battles are fought out all the way up to the Supreme Court. Judges, Judges, Judges. The Judges appointed in the next 4 years, especial to the Supreme Court are vital to our survival as a nation. 7 of 9 Justices were born in the 1920s. They are NOT going to be around much longer.

Trowing a temper tantrum because you do not get ONLY 100 % of what YOU personally want TODAY so the Leftist get to appoint those judges would be an incredibly foolish thing for anyone truly "Conservative" to do.

35 posted on 05/27/2006 6:32:51 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The is no right to commit Treason in the 1st Amendment .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bimbo

I disagree. They will do everything they can to subvert, facilitate corruption, and hijack the election process. Through these acts, felons, illegals, will be able to vote, as well as multiple fraudulent voting will be allowed. Don't put ANYTHING past a Democrat. He will do ANYTHING to control your life....


36 posted on 05/27/2006 6:38:15 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes

I hope you're right, but there are a lot of things Congress can do against the President's wishes besides overriding a veto (which GW seems wont to do). Remember Slick Willie firing EVERY US Attorney in the US the day he took office? Congress can hold EVERYTHING having to do with funding hostage to get what it wants and the Repubs ALWAYS cave... Mark my words...if they win 2006, they've got 2008, 2012, 2016 and so on.....


37 posted on 05/27/2006 6:41:27 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Gaffer

OK I'll mark your words, and you mark mine.

2006 is the wake-up call to GOP Presidential Candidates. If the call doesn't come, they distance themselves from conservatives and run in the center.

But if the Wake up call does come, they look hard to the Right, and run to the conservative Base. Mark My words.


39 posted on 05/27/2006 6:44:42 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

It doesn't matter if a RAT takes over. There's not enough difference between the political parties over issues that matter.

So, we get Hitlery for four years, if the nation can survive Carter, we can survive her.

I'm ready for a change. Maybe the Consitution Party is one to something.


40 posted on 05/27/2006 6:46:50 AM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Just keep Pat Buchanan out of it and it might succeed over time.


41 posted on 05/27/2006 6:47:11 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: what_gives

Searched his name, which gave several Web-sites. Choose the political site {I forget it's name, but you'll find it.}, and went to the place in the site that says "Contact us".

I'm sure there's a phone number and snail mail address to, but I sent the e-mail.


42 posted on 05/27/2006 6:47:20 AM PDT by 9999lakes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; FerdieMurphy; cva66snipe
If this year is the "year of the liberals", it is because of the Republicans in power and their record level socialistic and globalistic spending. This could become the year of the Constitution Party where conservatives replace liberal Republicans and Democrat incumbents with conservative Constitutionalists along with other non-incumbents (including non-incumbent Republicans, independents, and Libertarians).
43 posted on 05/27/2006 6:50:15 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes

Tom says he is running for Congress in the 5th District against Jim Cooper. Okay, I live in the 5th District and have not seen any campaigning, rallies or fundraisers for this mystery man and his obscure party.

How can you win if you don't run? Writing net articles won't get er done.


44 posted on 05/27/2006 6:50:46 AM PDT by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

In fact his anti-Hillary rally wasn't even held in the 5th District..year of the Constitution Party my arse.


45 posted on 05/27/2006 6:52:05 AM PDT by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
"We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation." -- Constitution Party Platform

That doesn't sound like a pacifist to me.

46 posted on 05/27/2006 6:54:06 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 9999lakes
Done! I just hope my "predicted nightmare" doesn't come true. I've been a conservative Republican ever since I was old enough to watch those two "a$$holes" on TV everynight predicting disaster in Vietnam (THEY made it happen).

I thought things improved greatly in 94 and 2000 and 2004 with GW, but I think he's made some bad mis-steps with illegal immigration and his refusal to veto spending increases. I'm at the point I will vote against BOTH Georgia Senators AND my Congressman simply because I haven't heard them speak out enough against what's going on with illegals. Chamblis is a calculating sleazeball politician and Johnny Isaksson hasn't ever met a public post he wouldn't run for.

If someone like Herman Cain or Zell Miller comes along, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. At least they (or those like them) won't stand talking to you saying one thing while pissing down your leg when you aren't looking.

47 posted on 05/27/2006 6:57:13 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
conservatives replace liberal Republicans

Specifically what races do you see this happening? In the Senate, there are no RINOs that are going to be replaced by conservatives. If Laffey beats Chafee in the RI primary, we will have a liberal representing RI in the Senate instead of a RINO. In Chafee's case (ACU rating =12) that is fine with me. But there are no other Senate races where there is a conservative still running against a RINO.

Your efforts are too late to effect the 2006 races, except to elect liberals.

48 posted on 05/27/2006 6:59:05 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

No, the constitution party continues to be the party of the wasted vote.

If they were serious, instead of being loyal Moby useful idiots, they would form a "constitution caucus" and work to change the republican party from within.

If the constitution parter were anything but a bunch of fringe left overs they would have the organization and manpower to go into the primaries and caucuses to make their votes and voices matter.

As it stands now, a vote for the constitution party is a vote for Hitlary, Kerry, Algore, Edwards, BJClinton, Reid, and Pelosi.


49 posted on 05/27/2006 7:01:41 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lemura

Bush hasn't really appointed any strict constructionists either. Roberts and Alito had record and rhetoric of defending Roe v. Wade or abortion legislation, and Alito's first supreme court ruling cancelled the sentence of a convicted rapist.


50 posted on 05/27/2006 7:04:10 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson