Where does Judge Moore stand on the National Question? HRS

If he is a typical Christian conservative, he will be blind to it.

That’s what I’m afraid of! HRS

I covered Roy Moore and the mess up in Montgomery this past fall for the student newspaper at Auburn. From what I understand, he was considered for the nomination for the Constitution Party, but turned it down.

He is a fine man and not afraid of the heat, as one can discern from his stand on the Commandments. If he took a tough stand on immigration, he could attract even more people to his tent.

He has polarized politics in Alabama, as are current Republican governor Bob Riley is afraid he might run against him in 2006 for the nomination.

Gov. Riley is quite unpopular after his failed tax increase was defeated by the voters on Sept. 9 almost 70-30.

Judge Moore is a polished speaker and has quite a vocal and supportive following for his stand for the Christian values and heritage of this great Republic.

I happen to be one of them.

OK, so we know Roy Moore is courageous and not afraid to take the heat. Now all we have to know is, where he stands on the National Question. Let’s find out, and if he’s mistaken on the issue, or uninformed,let’s educate him!

Judge Moore and President Bush share an attitude of resistance to the law as it stands. The judge is defying a higher court’s order, while the President is ignoring immigration laws passed by earlier Congresses. Both claim the moral high ground.

You can argue that the court’s decision is indefensible while the U.S. Code (at least on this point) is not— I certainly won’t disagree.

But the same entity is ultimately responsible for both the courts and the code, albeit indirectly: the American electorate. If officeholders are either confused or corrupt, it’s because they represent the people!

At VFR, it has been suggested recently that what a Third Party really needs “…is a charismatic speaker and a no-nonsense kind of guy”. Judge Moore is both, apparently.

At this point, I would support him if he ran as the candidate for ANY conservative party. The only question I have is…what to do about Mr. Peroutka? Make him the running mate? How about a Moore-Tancredo ticket? Where is the donor envelope?

To put immigration into the spotlight, you need someone already recognized nationally who will make it his centerpiece. Roy Moore is a regional candidate at best and would be highlighted for the religion/state issue, if highlighted at all. Immigration wouldn’t even register in any media coverage. As for Peroutka, do you really think that he will receive more than one or two *minutes* worth of national coverage during the general election? No. What is needed is a Perot-like figure, someone wealthy, articulate, telegenic, independent, and already nationally recognized to some extent who will essentially turn his campaign into a referendum on immigration.

“What is needed is a Perot-like figure, someone wealthy, articulate, telegenic, independent, and already nationally recognized to some extent who will essentially turn his campaign into a referendum on immigration.”
You’re right Paul. Now let’s find somebody who fits those qualifications ! Who do you suggest?

All I can say to Allan Wall is that if I knew of such a person, I’d put his name on this website. That said, in a way, I do know of at least one person with some institutional backing who has been as steadfast as anyone in combatting immigration, Phyllis Schlafly. She’s not telegenic, probably not wealthy, and likely way too old. But she’s also intelligent, independent, and incorruptible. Had Americans any intelligence, we would have made Schlafly our Margaret Thatcher back during the 80s, keeping in mind that Schlafly is much superior to Thatcher on matters of culture, trade, and the national question.

Yes, if Mrs. Schlafly had had more political skills, been more of a “people person,” she could have been president.

Since none of you can come up with a name, I’ll give you one—but he’s not rich. He;s a former Congressman and a true conservative. I’m referring to John LeBoutellier. However, John would probably resent my mentioning his name as a possible candidate, even in jest. He has the experience, and while I loathe the site he writes for (Newsmax), he’s on our side.

Paul C. feels about Phyllis Schlafly the way I did about Charleton Heston. But age, etc. caught up with him and Paul C. is right—she’s too old, sadly.

Someone will come on the scene to fill the void, and it won’t be neo-cons like John Kasich or other sell-outs. It will be someone with Judge Moore’s charisma. It won’t be a Perot-type, because he was perceived by many the way Howard Dean is seen today (a nut). Americans want stability WITH charisma and WITHOUT the skeletons that would destroy a candidate, and that my friends is a very hard person to find.

Maybe I’ve missed something, but I’ve never seen John LeBoutillier evince the slightest interest in the immigration issue. In fact, it’s hard to tell what he cares about, other than really disliking Bush.

I withdraw the John LeBoutellier for President proposal, with tongue firmly in cheek.