On the flipside of the political coin, I was just wondering what conservatives think of Peroutka. http://www.peroutka2004.com/

Basically, I just have all the same questions that have been asked of liberals in regards to Nader.  Will his choice of running mate make you want to vote for him?  Is a vote for Peroutka a vote for conservative ideals or is it a vote for Kerry?  I saw a news item (probably put out by Peroutka,) recently, that said he'll probably get on more state ballots than Nader -- if he accomplishes that, will that make him a bigger threat to Bush than Nader will be to Kerry?  Do you wish he'd drop out and support Bush?  Election aside, just evaluating what he stands for and the direction he wants to take the country,  what do you think of him?  If you knew it wouldn't hurt Bush in your state, would you consider voting for Peroutka just to send a message that you like what he's saying? 

I don't think he matters.  The gulf between Peroutka and Bush is a lot narrower than the gulf between Kerry and Nader, at least domestically speaking. 

The Constitution Party platform claims America has not business being the world's policeman.  However, most foreign entanglements are pushed by U.S. business interests.  The Constitution Party doesn't seem to understand this.  They say they want reduce government and expand private property rights.  Yet, the private interests are the ones using the Pentagon as their risk-free client, and the private interests are the ones pushing to force third world governments to be pliable to exploitation by U.S. business.  Corporate executives know this, and Republican legislators know this.  When they say "reduce the size of the federal government" they mean "tear down social programs that benefit the people."
Pat Buchanan is a much more prominant "isolationist" voice than the Constitution Part, and he's been marginalized for the same reason.

I agree with Maxwell.  I have never heard of this guy until now, but every party has a nominee, even though they won't get on any ballots.  The mountain party, constitution party, fascist party, socialist party ALL have nominees.  Will they get on ANY ballots?  Hell no.  Nader is well known unlike this guy, and Nader will probably besides David Cobb with green be the only 3rd party/independent candidate on any state ballot.

IF he gets on any ballots he could take some votes from Bush, but thats a big if.

As to what these people seem to advocate (I didn't read the site thoroughly), sounds like a combination of 19th Century Social Darwinism, fundamentalist Christianity, and a bit of fascism thrown in.

Sounds a hell of a lot better then the democrats of the green party (which both SUCK.)  But using the democrats' ''logic'', a vote for Peroutka is a vote for Kerry.

Sounds a hell of a lot better then the democrats of the green party (which both SUCK.)  But using the democrats' ''logic'', a vote for Peroutka is a vote for Kerry.



?????????????  What does this mean  ????????????????

What are "the Democrats of the Green Party"?

What are you refering to?

I agree with Maxwell.  I have never heard of this guy until now, but every party has a nominee, even though they won't get on any ballots.  The mountain party, constitution party, fascist party, socialist party ALL have nominees.  Will they get on ANY ballots?  Hell no.  Nader is well known unlike this guy, and Nader will probably besides David Cobb with green be the only 3rd party/independent candidate on any state ballot.


Actually, in 2000, it was the libertarians who got on all 50 ballots, not the green party.  I don't know if Badnarik is as popular as Browne was (I knew a lot of people who broke party lines to vote for Browne because of his social platform,)  but the party seems very well organized, so I would guess they'll be on all 50 state ballots again, this November.  The green party, made it onto only 43 ballots, in 00 and the constitution party wasn't far behind.  They made it onto 42.     

I asked about this particular candidate because I've seen his name bandied about a bit, recently, as a possible spoiler for the Bush campaign.  I always shake my head and roll my eyes when I see people asking whether it's tempting for me (or others like me) to vote for Nader --  the gap between his politics and mine is so wide and his focus so narrow,  that I can't imagine what it is I'm supposed to find so tempting.  I'm thrilled he's on the ballot because I want voters to have a choice -- and I don't think Nader had any effect on the election because if the people who voted for Nader wanted Gore in office, they'd have voted for Gore.  If Nader hadn't run, they might have abstained or voted for another third party or independent candidate.  So, seeing a narrower gap between what Peroutka and his party espouse and what I hear, every day, from the people in my almost entirely conservative town, I wondered if that smaller political gap might actually make him tempting, on some level,  to some conservatives and lend some small measure of credence to the news items I've seen.   

Sounds like he's probably about as tempting to mainstream conservatives as Nader is to me. 

-- and I don't think Nader had any effect on the election because if the people who voted for Nader wanted Gore in office, they'd have voted for Gore. 



Thank you!!!  The statement of the century.  A poll on C-Span said half of Nader's supporters wouldn't have even voted had he not been on the ballot.

IF he gets on any ballots he could take some votes from Bush, but thats a big if.

As to what these people seem to advocate (I didn't read the site thoroughly), sounds like a combination of 19th Century Social Darwinism, fundamentalist Christianity, and a bit of fascism thrown in.

That's the Republican party too, but both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to Big Business, and Big Business is the biggest consumer of Big Government.

Don Carlos wrote:?  What does this mean  ?

What are "the Democrats of the Green Party"?

What are you refering to?
It means that Greens are just would-be Democrats.