Posted on 02/19/2004 8:28:43 PM PST by jgrubbs
I think the majority of Americans are not liberal or conservative, and don't pay much attention to the details. These people have never heard of the Constitution Party, and they won't vote for it. They'll vote for the candidate of one of the major parties. An exception would be someone like Perot with LOTS of money and LOTS of media attention. Do you suppose the Constitution Party will get that?
He barely beat a half-witted socialist Democrat who served in the previous administration.
Precisely. Over half the American voters voted for either Gore or Nader. A little less than half the American voters voted for Bush or more conservative candidates.
Most Americans are moderates, and believe the media hype that Conservatives are too mean and hateful. They don't want to be like that; they see themselves as kind and generous people.
Most Americans see third party candidates, on the whole, as Quixotic nutcases, and they don't vote for them. By the time of the election, Peroutka will be lucky if 10% of Americans have even heard of him. During the last election, both Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party were fairly well known, but got very few votes.
A repeat race, especially after outspending said administration, will only further divide conservatives.
The biggest thing dividing conservatives is these "conservative" candidates. One wonders what they are actually expecting to accomplish, since they can't possibly expect to win.
Bush isn't perfect by a long shot, but he sure beats Kerry.
This Saturday, fully aware of the path awaiting him, Mr. Michael Peroutka will announce his candidacy for President of the United States. The decision to run for public office was not an easy one for this soft-spoken man. In his statement of candidacy he notes:
I can see your point there. It was a bit over the top. However from the perspective of doing something so unpopular and still pressing forward with it because he believes in the long forgotten concept of what used to be a Republic nonetheless, I have to give him some credit. It's refreshing to see a candidate that is willing to stand up and say "this is what the Constitution says my job is and that's what I'm doing" instead of the candidate who says 'Vote for me and see what I can give you".
For reasons I've stated above, he's not likely to get a significant number of votes. HOWEVER, if he did get some measurable percentage of votes, the practical result of his candidacy is more likely to be the election of the Democratic candidate, which is exactly the opposite of what he says he wants. Therefore, it's non-productive and most likely to be counter-productive.
It's refreshing to see a candidate that is willing to stand up and say "this is what the Constitution says my job is and that's what I'm doing" instead of the candidate who says 'Vote for me and see what I can give you".
Well, yeah, except that MOST people are more likely to vote for the person who promises them the most - that's precisely WHY politicians make those promises. At least President Bush has kept most of his.
Amen to that and if these guys want to run and actually expect someone to vote for them, they can run in the primary. I'll support them there.
This way they're nothing but spoilers who will get their jollies out of seeing a Democrat getting elected. Makes them feel big, I guess.
Interesting. Never considered a citizen of a respective state allowing their voice to be heard called 'counter-productive'. Much better we continue the popularity contest. Can't let following the precepts and letter of the law in the Constitution get in the way now can we?
Well, yeah, except that MOST people are more likely to vote for the person who promises them the most - that's precisely WHY politicians make those promises. At least President Bush has kept most of his.
Oh yes, remind me in thirty years to write a letter to each and everyone of the politicians that voted, called for, passed, signed, and in any way was responsible for this $530 billion (and growing exponentially) 'healthcare' package that was just signed. I'm so absolutely grateful....
Of course by then it'll probably cost $4 to mail a dern letter but we can't let cost and limitations of the national government as explained by the Constitution get in the way of 'promises' now can we?
I think principle is very important, but if you don't get anyone elected, how are you going to get your policies implemented? I've decided half a loaf is better than none.
If you happened to lose your job, would you work at whatever you could until you could find a new job you liked, or would you sit on your rear and whine about not being able to find the perfect job as you starved and lost all your possessions?
As for Nader's vote tally, heck the man has been running for years. Sooner or later people start to vote for them. We constantly hear about this 'incrementalism' the Republicans are trying to sell as the excuse for expanding and not limiting government. It's the same with the votes. Nader has been doing it over and over. And in some states he's giving a showing that I imagine Democrats and Republicans alike don't appreciate. Somebody is trying to kick them off the top of their hallowed hill with a message out of the ordinary
I'm not saying we'll see some 20-30% runup with a conservative third party this year or even next election cycle. But you have to admit, some citizens of the respective states are getting restless. The Republican party is going conservative when it matters less and less. As this continues, will 'flyover' country be voting solid Republican 25 years from now?
These purists must not have confidence they can win primaries or why would they do this?
Then you agree it is better to have a job that pays some of your bills than to pay none of them while you wait for the perfect job to be offered to you?
I see George Bush as the job which will pay some of the bills right now - because as a practical matter, that perfect job isn't available yet, except in my mind.
Much as the leaders of the nation. To pay lip service to a document and then go about business as usual is not something one should expect from their leaders. Politicians maybe, but not leaders
I have to agree with Greatgrandma here, if these people were running in the GOP primaries, I'd vote for them to send a message to the Republican PTB that I'd like a more conservative candidate. I voted for Keyes in the last two primaries.
I can't vote for Peroutka in the primaries now. I'd give up my right to vote for anyone else (no one else locally running on the Constitution Party ballot).
The other point is, you have 3 congresscritters you can vote for, as well as your state and local politicians. THAT is the place to vote for the hardcore conservatives and really make a difference, because they are the ones who pass the laws and spending bills, and the President doesn't even have a line-item veto, which puts him at a disadvantage trying to cut spending. Remember how Reagan's budget shutdown got blamed on Conservatives?
The president has to be president for the entire country, and we know from the last election (red zones, blue zones, etc) that the country is fairly evenly divided. Barring some combination of candidates to really split the left, there is no way a "true conservative" is going to get elected in the United States right now. Better to take someone who's moderately conservative than to throw it all to the liberal, I think.
So far as Congresscritters go: I heard my own Rep. Jack Kingston say just last week that he'd give the administration a D- on fiscal issues; way too much spending. Jack is one of the better ones - you've probably seen him on Hannity & Colmes from time to time.
However, he loves "bringing home the bacon" as much as any of them, and I haven't seen him turning down any pork barrel stuff that will benefit his district. I'd give him a D on some of that as well, but he doesn't seem to see his own part in it.
This is the same kind of choice. And Bush has given us tax cuts, a partial birth abortion ban, gone after those who would harm us on THEIR soil, not ours, and for this, I applaud AND support him.
The dems are upset about Nader, but Republicans see his candidacy as a possible advantage. The Dems would see this Peroutka guy as an advantage to them. Is that what he wants?
Goldfinch (a conservative grandma :-)
Pragmatic is the key.
We all have ideals, but we're all forced to make pragmatic choices in real life - which car or house to buy, where to live, etc. - because the ideal either doesn't exist, or we can't afford it.
We understand that life works this way, but some people haven't realized yet that politics does as well.
Considering it came from the person who owns and runs the site, I'd say he can say any damn thing he wants to. And as an added bonus, because of the former, he can ban you, too.
So I'd watch your mouth, if I were you.
Yes to that I will agree. However, my personal responsibility and limitation of my power is not outlined in the document that is supposed to be running this nation of states. His is.
The other point is, you have 3 congresscritters you can vote for, as well as your state and local politicians. THAT is the place to vote for the hardcore conservatives and really make a difference, because they are the ones who pass the laws and spending bills, and the President doesn't even have a line-item veto, which puts him at a disadvantage trying to cut spending. Remember how Reagan's budget shutdown got blamed on Conservatives?
Well I will applaud you for that stance. According to some, to even vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot at this level should be akin to treason.
The president has to be president for the entire country, and we know from the last election (red zones, blue zones, etc) that the country is fairly evenly divided. Barring some combination of candidates to really split the left, there is no way a "true conservative" is going to get elected in the United States right now. Better to take someone who's moderately conservative than to throw it all to the liberal, I think.
On that I will agree as well. However, this nation of states is not just red and blue anymore. The issue is that many don't realize, or are being pressured by friends, family, etc. to stay in that red/blue mindset. As I said it won't happen in this election, it may not happen in two election cycles. However sooner or later, either the Democrats will go off the deep end, or the Republicans will move too far to the left, and then no amount of pressure will be able to stop a third or even fourth party from being elected into more powerful positions.
Some say those who advocate a different solution are impatient. I would say quite to the contrary. They are more than patient. Because they realize that while a difference can not be made within a generation, hopefully within their lifetime they will see a change. And they continue to hold out that hope
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.