Constitutional Party Candidate: Michael Peroutka '04

Yahoo!!!!!

Thanks for the website link, LadyEagle.

How about that! We'll be voting for the same candidate!!!!!

I know conservative Christians have legitimate reasons to vote otherwise, but, really, just think if 1,000,000 conservative Christians voted for Mr. Peroutka, while I doubt it would cost Mr. Bush re-election, it would certainly get the Republican Party's attention. So even those that want to remain loyal to the Republican Party, but who place principle above party, would do well to consider voting for Mr. Peroutka in order to increase their influence in the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 - if they truly believe the Republican Party can be turned back to limited government principles.

 

Wow! Go to this link and watch this brief video - www.peroutka2004.com/media.republic.01.html

 

I would like to know more about him myself. It shows that Christians and or Constitutional minded people don't just have to settle for the GOP. WAIT do the Republicans care about the Constitution? I will most likely vote for Gary Nolan of the Libertarian party however (who I think is going to win the LP nomination) but I would like to hear more from this man in that I am not in bondage to any political party. Bush and the GOP need a message sent to them in 2004 in that there is a sense they feel invincible because of the Bolshevik candidates running for the Democrats nomination.

 

In perusing the Internet I found someone who said in response to Mr. Peroutka's announcement: "Some of his ideas are very admirable. I agree we'd be better off adhering more to the Constitution.
But not now. We've many other things much more important. Like preventing The Hildabeaste's assault on the White House."

Amazing. Just forget about the Constitution. Let's just keep the Democrats out of the White House.

By the way, here is an interview with Mr. Peroutka. It is rather large and may take a couple of minutes to load if you have a cable modem - http://66.36.228.157:8080/sw_archives/rliberty/rl12-15-03a.rm

 

HE definitely deserves some more looking into.

Although his web site says he'll be running under the Constitution Party banner, I didn't find any mention of him on the Constitution Party web site....

 

Great party. Great platforms. I especially like the idea of taking the US of the UN, and kicking the UN out of the US !

 

Here's some more info - www.politics1.com/const04.htm

 

I have been looking into the Constitution Party ever since I saw one of you mention them. I want to vote for their candidate but they are not yet on our ballot in NC. I wonder if you can write him in and how? I have never done that.

 

Michael Peroutka says, "American foreign policy will no longer include so many foreign entanglements, and the children within these United States will not be committed to engage in a war to "free" any people."

Sure glad the French didn't feel this way during the American Revolution, We'd all still be bowing to the Queen.

 

As I suspected, he seems to lack serious executive experience, either as a cabinet level official under a president, as a governor of any state, or as a head of a major corporation.

He's been involved in the right causes, but I want someone who has a proven track record. I had hoped the Constitution party might run a former governor or former cabinet secretary for President.

Don't get me wrong. He says the right things. Maybe he means them. But it just doesn't look as if he has the experience needed to be President. I hope I haven't offended you Constitution party folks.

 

No offense here but I for one am ready for someone without a track record. I am ready for a different candidate, one who honors God. It would also be nice to see our debt go down for once.

I don't know if this is the candidate, but I am willing to give him a shot so far. I do agree with what the party stands for.

 

Only one problem - Michael Peroutka's positions on the issues is untenable. (See Project Vote Smart where he responded to a questionaire)

MICHAEL PEROUTKA

In the First Place, no President could or should win on such a protectionist platform. The opposite of Unilateralism in Foreign Policy is Isolationism and neither are tenable positions in the modern world we live in.

In the Second Place, his proposed gutting of the Federal Government would destroy the American Economy.

CAN YOU SPELL D-E-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N?

 

Actually I agree with his economic views and think it would benefit the economy. Some of his views fit well within Libertarian Phlosophy.

The problem I see is in his Foreign policy ideas. He is very isolationist. I am not for the US being a Global cop but he takes some extreme views in my opinion. Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, we cannot pull out of it now. We must finish it. The Constitution party's greatest weakness is it's Korean war era view of China and

He also suprisingly supports Federal government involvement in imposing regulations on "spam" emails which is very big Government idea for a Constitution party candidate in that the internet is not a responsibility of the federal government. If the Government gets involved sooner or later we will be paying for emailing.

I agree with him on many things though I doubt he will receive my vote.

 

Thanks for the link.

Just sent him a contribution.

CP should have announced a candidate several months ago.

 

Washington Times article mentions Michael Peroutka:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040104-115113-2153r.htm

 

Only one problem with George W. Bush as president for the last three years - the majority of what he has actually done is either liberal or socialistic.

It's rather hard to believe that someone would state that by the government remaining within its constitutional bounds it would cause an economic depression, Hardsheller.

If this is an indication of economic understanding in America, it's no wonder we end up with presidents like Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

 

Thanks for the links. These were interesting reading.

I like what this guy stands for. I just wish I had some idea of how he would put this into practice based on a voting record of some kind.

I like the idea of regulating spam emails. How much of that do you folks get? I get an insane number of viagra ads and pornography site advertisments. And I've never bought viagra or internet porn. The number of unsolicited junk emails seems to outnumber the real emails folks want to receive by at least 4:1, at least for me. And blocking these folks doesn't work...they just use another email address to send the same junk email.

To me, junk email falls in the category of "consumer harassment," and I do think it is part of the role of government to prevent ordinary folks from being harassed by businesses. And if these fines were actually collectable, the measure would pay for itself. That seems less like "big government" to me than it seems like regulating the modalities of interstate commerce consistent with the Constitution. And I think the federal government built the Internet...so who else would be an appropriate regulator of email traffic? This isn't something the states can really do.

 

I agree with you on the disgusting Spamming and I really do sympathize with you. My FEAR of Government intrusion into the Web is greater than that of the Spammers. I find that certain email services such as Yahoo (I really like Yahoo email do a better job in Spam protection than certain others. It is a irritation BUT I would be more irritated if Uncle Sam started charging me to email.

Certaintly sending viruses is already illegal and already some Internet companies like Compuserve, Prodigy have won law suits against Spammers in court. Pressure your internet provider or email service to do better and maybe they will take these Spammers to court. The Government once they get a toe into anything seem to wish to take it over (The Public Schools are a good example). In many ways I sympathize with you but I do not trust the Government's motives. How much money has the US Post office lost because of Emailing? Would not the government love to charge or tax our emails or somehow put our emailing under US Postal control?