Saturday, October 23, 2004

Once more into the breach

Back to politics already.

I am part of a Yahoo Group that isn't specifically about politics, but the subject comes up regularly. It seems that every Presidential election, someone pops up and explains why it would be bad/wrong/wicked/sinful to vote for the Republican Candidate. Now, these folks aren't supporting the Democrats, either. They are promoting the candidate for the Constitution Party (formerly the US Taxpayers Party). This year, the candidate is Michael Peroutka.

Although I certainly sympathize with the Constitution party and agree with much (but not all) of its Platform, the folks who try to tell me I'm being sinful because I'm supporting President Bush get under my skin.

Bush has been less than ideal, but any rational and realistic analysis of Election 2004 will acknowledge that either George W. Bush or John F. Kerry will be elected. I don't see it as selecting the lesser of two evils. I see it as selecting the better candidate. One of whom is flawed in a few areas. The other of whom is the anti-thesis of EVERYTHING I believe in.

Constitution Party advocates don't like to be told to be pragmatic or realistic. They would rather toil in futility while maintaining some bizarre concept of political purity than actually accomplish that which will be the most desirable realistic outcome.

Part of what got my juices really flowing this time around was a letter I was forwarded by one of my long-time internet friends. I am posting the text of the letter in its entirety.


Constitutionally Correct Peroutka

By Howard Phillips

The Constitution Party, then called the U.S. Taxpayers Party, was established in 1992, with its goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical common-law foundations. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush shares that goal.

Both President Bush and Senator Kerry have voted for or signed into law more money for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, more money for homosexual activist groups, more money for the United Nations, more money for foreign aid, more money for federal intervention in education, not to mention the biggest budgets and budget deficits in the history of our Republic. Neither Bush nor Kerry has supported “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore and his Constitution Restoration Act to prohibit reliance on foreign law and deny federal judges the authority to restrict our acknowledgment of God. Both men favor amnesty for illegal aliens and policies that benefit Communist China to the detriment of U.S. national security.

You and I know these things, but most “conservatives” plan to vote for George W. Bush. Some say the reason they plan to vote for Bush is judicial appointments. But that argument lost its validity when President Bush intervened to prevent the nomination of Congressman Pat Toomey over pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter in the recent Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary. If Senator Specter is re-elected on Nov. 2 and the GOP holds its majority in the U.S. Senate, Specter will become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, situated to act in collaboration with his liberal Democrat soul mates to prevent the confirmation of pro-life judicial nominees—and positioned to argue to Bush, if he is re-elected, against the appointment of judges who are comprehensively opposed to abortion. For these reasons and others, it is specious to vote for George W. Bush on the basis of supposed advantages for our side with respect to judicial confirmations.

Moreover, just as Senate Democrats have blocked Republican judicial nominees, the GOP majority in the Senate can—if they summon the will to do so—block nominees by a President Kerry. Of course, only three GOP Senators voted to oppose the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Only nine voted against Stephen Breyer, and no Republican Senator voted against confirming either pro-abortion David Souter or pro-abortion Sandra Day O’Connor. The positions of both of these nominees were a matter of public record when the Senate placed them on the Supreme Court of the United States.

But there is a greater reason that many conservatives are reluctant to vote for the Constitution Party’s Michael Peroutka. It is fear of the “Bogey Man,” and John Kerry is the Bogey Man of 2004. George W. Bush is presented as “the lesser of two evils,” and Bogey Man John Kerry is characterized, perhaps accurately, as evil incarnate.

Kerry personifies the antithesis of what most conservatives believe, but he is only the latest in a long line of Bogey Men who have diverted us from putting our Republic back on a constitutional track. In 1992, most conservatives were understandably frightened by Bogey Man Bill Clinton and voted against me when I offered then, as Michael Peroutka does now, a constitutionally correct alternative to both major parties. Despite your votes for Bush the Elder, the Bogey Man won in 1992.

Bogey Man Bill Clinton reappeared in 1996 and, once again, most conservatives rejected the only candidate who offered a Christian, constitutional plan of action and invested their votes in Kansas Sen. Bob Dole. There were some exceptions. Jim Dobson declared after the fact that he had cast his vote for Howard Phillips. Of course, despite conservative support for Dole, Clinton won again in 1996.

Last time, Al Gore was the Bogey Man and, once again, conservatives rejected the Constitution Party nominee in favor of George Bush the Younger. In 2000, the Bogey Man lost, but what did it profit America to have elected the “lesser of two evils”? Would we have had the unwise, unnecessary, unconstitutional war on Iraq if Gore had been elected? I doubt it.

We have traveled farther down the wrong path with a Republican president and Congress than we would have if we had experienced gridlock with a Democratic president and a Republican majority in the House and the Senate.

As president, Michael Peroutka would end federal intervention in education, cut off federal funding of Planned Parenthood and homosexual activist groups, withdraw from NATO, the UN, NAFTA, WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF. He would seal our borders, cancel the George W. Bush-Vicente Fox treaty to pay Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico, expel illegal aliens, end all foreign aid, withdraw from Iraq, oppose the Patriot Act, fight all forms of socialized medicine, and appoint only judges who are 100 percent against abortion. Peroutka would abolish the IRS and replace the income tax with a revenue tariff. He would recognize the threat posed by Communist China and rebuild the U.S. Navy, which has dropped from 600 ships under Ronald Reagan to fewer than 250 today.

If conservatives don’t vote for what they believe, they will never get what they want. Losing as slowly as possible means we still lose. Going over the cliff at a supposedly slower speed still means we are going to crash.

A vote withheld from both the Democrats and Republicans weakens that which is wrong and strengthens the cause of that which is right. Any vote cast for constitutionally sound, Biblically based policies hastens the day when, should God will it, we can witness the restoration of the Republic. It is not for us to decide elections, but rather to determine where we shall invest our precious franchise. God alone determines the outcome, and He blesses those who trust in Him.

Michael Peroutka is the only constitutionally correct choice in 2004. Let’s not let the Right go wrong again.


The part I bolded in the text of this letter from Howard Phillips tells me that he (and Peroutka) would rather have John Kerry as President than George Bush. I find that absolutely incredible and repugnant. Howard Phillips knows that Michael Peroutka will not and cannot win the Presidency this year. Just as he knew he, himself would not win in 1992, 1996, & 2000. He also knows that if Peroutka managed to siphon off whatever percentage of Conservative voters they might get beyond the Third-Party fringe, that will hand the election to John Kerry.

Now, let me make myself clear. I believe that God has already chosen and ordained who will win this election, but I also believe that we have an obligation to use our votes wisely. In this election, the wise choice is not a "protest" vote for Peroutka, but a Principled vote for President Bush.

I have the solution for the Disenchanted. Many of the Constitution Party folks I know have no idea how the Republican Party actually works. I do. I am a Precinct Chairman and a former County Vice-Chairman. I've been to three State Conventions. The Republican Party really is a grassroots organization.

If all the folks who moan and complain about the errors in the Republican Party would get involved at the Local level of the Republican Party and work for change, it would be much more realistic and happen much more quickly than it can with the Quixotic escapades they currently promote.


oso diablo said...

Your friend, Rod Martin, made a comment recently that has stuck with me, and seems so wise in its simplicity. It was along the lines of this:

Here in America, we build our coalitions before the election.

That said, a few true believers in Texas can afford to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, if they desire. Don't you think?

The Calvinator said...

Yes, because of the Electoral College, in states where the outcome is not in doubt, a vote for Peroutka does not help Kerry. I was considering voting for him, but decided against it. The "protest" vote wouldn't have an effect unless the percentage got large enough to risk the election.

Pieter said...

"If all the folks who moan and complain about the errors in the Republican Party would get involved at the Local level of the Republican Party and work for change, it would be much more realistic and happen much more quickly than it can with the Quixotic escapades they currently promote."

I thought I'd point out that my parents were involved in the GOP grassroots for a good couple of decades. I was involved in it for several years...I attended county central committee meetings, Republican women meetings, California Republican Assembly meetings, etc. I campaigned for Bush, and even more actively for Bill Simon (the GOP nominee for governor of CA in 2000 - among other things, I was the youth liaison for his campaign in my county, and was able to speak with him one-on-one multiple times, including the time during the recall election when he opted to personally call me and spend 15 minutes explaining to me why he'd endorsed Arnold Schwarzenegger over McClintock). I campaigned for a local Republican candidate for the Board of Supervisors, and for one for Assessor. I spent large amounts of time in the company of the local Republican State Assemblyman, and the Republican State Senator. I met and spoke with our GOP congressman multiple times. I was founder and president of a (rather successful and lucratively funded) Young Republicans group.

I'm now a Constitution Party member and I'm voting for Peroutka.

You're telling me I haven't given the GOP grassroots a try? Yeah, right. I think it's more like I gave them a try and eventually got so sick of the GOP establishment (who, I know from my experiences in the GOP, couldn't give a fig about the grassroots except when it comes to getting the heavy lifting done) betraying us that I got smart and left the GOP.

The Calvinator said...

Maybe so, but I stand by my contention that you ar emore likely to get your goals accomplished and more quickly through the Republican Party than by tilting at windmills.