Posted on 01/02/2007 9:25:56 PM PST by TBP
http://conservativepresident2008.blogspot.com/2006/12/constitution-party-to-select-candidate.html
The Constitution Party, a conservative third party founded in 1992 to serve as a possible ticket for Pat Buchanan to run on, plans to have nominated its candidate for President by July 2007, World Net Daily reports.
The party held a national committee meeting last weekend where Howard Phillips, who is the party's founder and three time Presidential candidate (1992, 1996 and 2000), told World Net Daily "The time has never been better for a third party dark horse candidate to grab the White House."
Phillips said that the party will nominate candidate next year and among the possibilities are: Jim Gilchrist, former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Pastor Chuck Baldwin and World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi.
I see nothing non-conservative about that at all. It is simply non-support of the State. However the candidates suggested by the Constitution Party have little to no respect for federalism either so I won't be voting for them for President. Of course as a conservative, my stance is there should not be a popular election that affects who is sworn in for President either. Same for the Senate
Terrorism and Personal Liberty America is engaged in an undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy (terrorism), a war which threatens to be never ending, and which is being used to vastly expand government power, particularly that of the executive branch, at the expense of the individual liberties of the American people.
Gee, I think support for individual liberties (1st Ammendment, 2nd Ammendment) over expandd government power (campaign finance laws, gun control laws) is one of the key ideas of American Conservatism. Don't you?
Perhaps what you are unhappy with is the "undeclared war with an ill-defined enemy". I agree that is a poor choice of words. The resolution Bush sought is on a par with those other Presidents have historically used to involve us in foreign wars. The enemy is not "terrorism", but it is politically incorrect to say "Islamic Fascism" as we saw. Bush is a politician so has to pay attention to this.
So I can see how you see some warning flags in the language, but the policy being advocated is core-conservative. Liberals do not advocate support for individual liberties. They support group rights (affirmative action, gay marraige) and government power.
The "war on terrorism" is serving as an excuse for the government to spend beyond its income, expand the Federal bureaucracy, and socialize the nation through taxpayer bailouts of the airlines, subsidies to the giant insurance corporations, and other Federal programs. As for this it is sad but true. FedGov did bail out the airlines. If they had allowed the employee owned attrocity United to fail all the others would have been healthier. As it was they let them bankrupt, screw their pension holders, and the reverb effect has gone through the whole industry. Mostly taxpayers will be paying off retired pilots and mechanics through the (socialist) Pension Guarantee Board.
I don't think these examples are proving your case. But again, what is your definition of "conservative".
Please take your rant elsewhere.
Oh dear..........you are B A D.
"Please take your rant elsewhere."
It amazes me when people do this. You posted initially an (entirely unsupported) assertion that the views expressed were 'liberal ideas'. Jack Black has offered (what you call a rant) but to my eyes is a coherent argument for why he believes this not to be the case, including a whole lot more actual reasoning than you supplied.
And your response is 'take it elsewhere'. Elsewhere? A conservative discussion board is not an appropriate place to discuss what should be seen as conservative principles?
Why post your view if you won't or can't back it up, or if it is not to be challenged?
I told my daughter to keep her house on Grand Cayman.
Undeclared war against an undefined enemy is LIBERAL.
Trust YOU.
LOL-LOL-LOL.
Is that a *rim shot* --- I think it is!!!!
"Undeclared war against an undefined enemy is LIBERAL."
What? That's not even close to making sense.
The above is an opinion, not a political view.
She's lived there for 15 years. Always room for mama, (I hope).
Thank you Michael Savage...
Voting third party always elects a democrat.
So I guess you gop party loyalists have your work cut out for you, if you wish to attract the independint vote..........
But cannot win.. the deck is stacked against Any 3RD PARTY..
What to do?..
UNless there is a Civil War I think we're screwed..
"WE" meaning any of the right wing out there, REMAINING...
Finding a republican that will/would TURN DOWN a government check has become extremely remote..
Republicans and Conservatives are most all socialists.. Pity..
No matter how they grunt and squeal they are pigs for government largess..
Poor logic.
Typical of the "Any Candidate Except the one that can Win" crowd.
Where do you get your information? A little documentation is necessary to back up your....facts?.... I think it is time to challenge the Rinos. It's now or never.
I have no use for these people as I recall their campaigns during 2000 and 2004. They were trying to convice all of us that Bush is a greater threat than Gore or Kerry. I used to be stupid enough to send these cowards my hard-earned money. I want my money back.
It is obvious that intellectualism is not something you are real interested in at the moment. And the Constipation Party is just the kind of place you can go to meet people who think along the same fragmented lines as you do.
So please, do go there.....the sooner the better.
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.