Against Michael Peroutka

| | Comments (3)

A lot of conservatives think there's something morally superior about voting for the Constitution Party candidate over President Bush. I think that's a big mistake. Anyone who takes that view should view the arguments against voting for that party or that man before making a final commitment. I realize that Bush isn't exactly the arch-conservative's friend when it comes to spending, immigration, abortion (among those who think anyone who does anything that stops short of complete abolition is equivalent to winking at murder), and other issues, and many Christians think his language doesn't reflect Christian views on a few matters. I've defended a vote for him against such charges (along with defending him on some of them), but there's information directly about the Constitution Party and their candidate that anyone should know about before considering Peroutka a genuine option. I'd much rather have John Kerry as president than this nut. [Thanks to Tulipgirl for the last link.]


Hard to believe that you can call Peroutka, a man with such solid and foundational views of our country, its roots, and how the the government should run so as to follow it's own rules of law and to be bound by them, a "NUT". Here a man of integrity that turns down federal funds for his campaign because he doesn't believe it is constitutional. Here a a candidate that understand the value of human life! You're right that he is not a socialist and is opposed to the welfare hand out state that exists and all others just accept. The only way to change our county is to go back to what it started out to be...A free and moral people. I'd be interested as to which of his views or platforms he endorses that you find crazy?

It's more that he's an extremist. Did you read the post I linked to from earlier? That's where my main arguments are. I don't think he's wrong that we ideally wouldn't have a lot of the programs we have. What I think is nuts is his view that we can just remove these things without a very slow weaning process. People need to be gradually moved toward not needing (and not assuming others have) social programs for society to get to a place where there aren't any left. I firmly believe that it would be disastrous to our country to implement the Constitution Party's platform, even though I in principle agree with many of the things they hold to be ideals. They're ideals, though, and Peroutka doesn't realize that.

I do think some of the ideals are just plain bad ones, e.g. their stance on immigration, which seems to me to be a way to cater to nationalists who at the very least border on racism. There's a strong contingent within the Constitution Party with very scary views on race. Little Geneva is a good example. I won't link them, but they can easily be found with a Google search. They've been ridiculing me a lot lately, with all sorts of nasty names. They're not very nice people, and they're a good deal of that party's support.

His views reflect the FOunders, if ya have a problem with that, too bad

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04