fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
NetPub,
I didn't say that Dr. Baldwin was working for Reagan, I said that Reagan honored him and his church.
That Peroutka would consent to be honored by someone so impure in his political views--shame! Or consider it an honor.
I assume that you are still supporting the Republican party and George W. Bush, who supports all of the liberal policies that were put in place by the GOP leaders of the past, but has removed the conservative policies from the GOP platform and helped the Republican party move to the left on those issues.
I've never said I'm happy with the choice and in fact have written in BB that there are several things I'm extemely disappointed with Dubbya on. We are not confronted with these choices in a vacuum, though. We will have these choices in the midst of a war being waged by a bunch of animals. Our choices include a President who has honorably fought these animals and their allies. And he knows they're animals. And doesn't hesitate to call them animals. He has responded quickly and forcefully to deal with these threats, to the extent possible with the stripped down military handed him by Bill Clinton. Our choice is between him and a spineless liberal Democrat, who would have given us an even weaker military had it been up to him, who has carped and yapped like a Chihuahua, around Bush's heels. That is the choice. Peroutka is not a real choice, he is a distraction from the real choice. He is a "purist" (though, as Joseph B. detailed, his purism is itself bothersome--thank you, Joseph) who, like the Socialist Workers Party, the Greens, and Libertarians, can stand on the fringe and attack an incumbent President who is prosecuting a war against evil. Purists have their value, in reminding us of the principles that major parties should aspire to, but they should work within the major parties and push/pull them in their direction. The liberals and socialists succeeded within the Democratic Party (partly because, as Ann Coulter detailed in Treason, they didn't have to pull the Democrats very far or very hard). Religious and other conservatives have had both great and mixed successes within the Republican Party, but grew too weary too quickly with the effort, an effort that Christians and conservatives find naturally distasteful.
It is a fallen world. Its institutions encourage compromise in a democratic system. The political appeal isn't to a populace guided by the self-restraint and the principles our Founders treasured. It is an electorate that to an increasingly greater extent has its hands out to the government, whose values are daily corrupted by Hollywood and the TV's they gaze at. But they have a history, a heritage, some traces of the moral capital that made them a great people and their nation the last, best hope of mankind.
President Bush has not only compromised, he has sold out some important principles: decreasing the size and role of government, resisting the advances of the homosexual lobby. He hasn't stood as solidly as he could or should against abortion. He could have gotten more if he had made a solid effort to push his own, dominant, Party in a conservative direction. But neither is the government in a vacuum. The media makes every political gain costly by twisting public perceptions.
This election is about a compromise between unmitigated shameless liberalism and socialism, and a President who has made moves in the right direction on a range of issues. A direction that would be reversed by his opponent. The other (and make no mistake, they are the also-rans) parties are not going to move this country in either direction because they have no chance. The choice is between a President who sometimes stumbles, sometimes falters, sometimes is confused over the right course to take on domestic issues, but knows the enemies of his country and has them in his sights (and the sights of those who call him their Commander-in-Chief) and his opponent who will turn and run in the face of his militant enemies who seek our destruction, and who will seek to tug mightily to weaken his country's ability to fight, who will actively advance the agenda of militant feminism, the homosexual lobby, the secular fundamentalists.
Is President Bush the candidate of my dreams? No, but Kerry is the President of my nightmares.
I didn't say that Dr. Baldwin was working for Reagan, I said that Reagan honored him and his church.
That Peroutka would consent to be honored by someone so impure in his political views--shame! Or consider it an honor.
I assume that you are still supporting the Republican party and George W. Bush, who supports all of the liberal policies that were put in place by the GOP leaders of the past, but has removed the conservative policies from the GOP platform and helped the Republican party move to the left on those issues.
I've never said I'm happy with the choice and in fact have written in BB that there are several things I'm extemely disappointed with Dubbya on. We are not confronted with these choices in a vacuum, though. We will have these choices in the midst of a war being waged by a bunch of animals. Our choices include a President who has honorably fought these animals and their allies. And he knows they're animals. And doesn't hesitate to call them animals. He has responded quickly and forcefully to deal with these threats, to the extent possible with the stripped down military handed him by Bill Clinton. Our choice is between him and a spineless liberal Democrat, who would have given us an even weaker military had it been up to him, who has carped and yapped like a Chihuahua, around Bush's heels. That is the choice. Peroutka is not a real choice, he is a distraction from the real choice. He is a "purist" (though, as Joseph B. detailed, his purism is itself bothersome--thank you, Joseph) who, like the Socialist Workers Party, the Greens, and Libertarians, can stand on the fringe and attack an incumbent President who is prosecuting a war against evil. Purists have their value, in reminding us of the principles that major parties should aspire to, but they should work within the major parties and push/pull them in their direction. The liberals and socialists succeeded within the Democratic Party (partly because, as Ann Coulter detailed in Treason, they didn't have to pull the Democrats very far or very hard). Religious and other conservatives have had both great and mixed successes within the Republican Party, but grew too weary too quickly with the effort, an effort that Christians and conservatives find naturally distasteful.
It is a fallen world. Its institutions encourage compromise in a democratic system. The political appeal isn't to a populace guided by the self-restraint and the principles our Founders treasured. It is an electorate that to an increasingly greater extent has its hands out to the government, whose values are daily corrupted by Hollywood and the TV's they gaze at. But they have a history, a heritage, some traces of the moral capital that made them a great people and their nation the last, best hope of mankind.
President Bush has not only compromised, he has sold out some important principles: decreasing the size and role of government, resisting the advances of the homosexual lobby. He hasn't stood as solidly as he could or should against abortion. He could have gotten more if he had made a solid effort to push his own, dominant, Party in a conservative direction. But neither is the government in a vacuum. The media makes every political gain costly by twisting public perceptions.
This election is about a compromise between unmitigated shameless liberalism and socialism, and a President who has made moves in the right direction on a range of issues. A direction that would be reversed by his opponent. The other (and make no mistake, they are the also-rans) parties are not going to move this country in either direction because they have no chance. The choice is between a President who sometimes stumbles, sometimes falters, sometimes is confused over the right course to take on domestic issues, but knows the enemies of his country and has them in his sights (and the sights of those who call him their Commander-in-Chief) and his opponent who will turn and run in the face of his militant enemies who seek our destruction, and who will seek to tug mightily to weaken his country's ability to fight, who will actively advance the agenda of militant feminism, the homosexual lobby, the secular fundamentalists.
Is President Bush the candidate of my dreams? No, but Kerry is the President of my nightmares.
