It’s a sign of the decline of conservatism. www.d-n-i.net had a good piece on this entitled pseudoconservatism. So long as slogans, leader-worship, militarism, and one-size-fits-all classical liberalism masquerade as conservatism we are doomed. Republicans have both legislative chambers and the presidency. Look how little has been accomplished. And look at how many active steps backwards have transpired.

Anyone interested in Michaerl Peroutka as an alternative candidate might look at his website. He has recently updated his “issues” page, so he has a more comprehensive statement of his positions.
http://www.peroutka2004.com/theissues.html

I’m not impressed by Peroutka’s statement on the Iraq war. He says he opposed it because we should not be going abroad to reform other countries. That would be a fine argument, _if_ the political reformation of Iraq had been our main reason for going to war. But of course it wasn’t. Our primary reason for going to war was our concern about WMDs in the hands of a rogue tyrant whom we had already been in war with. Yet Peroutka does not even MENTION that fact. He acts as if the ONLY reason we went to war was to democratrize Iraq.

To misstate so grossly the issue which has been the number one national issue for the last two years makes Peroutka look very poor in my eyes.

Yes, if my vote were going to put Mr. Peroutka over the top, I might really be worried. However, he seemed to focus on whether Iraq was a significant threat to the USA more than the question of nation building in his policy statement. I continue to believe that Saddam either (A) moved the WMDs out of the country right before the war, or (B) retained design and production capabilities, and continued to develop delivery capabilities, while destroying the old stockpiles that had grown stale, because the production capabilities were sufficient to come up with significant weapons in a short time, anyway.

Even so, it all remains to be proven, and it is not exactly beyond the pale of reason to state that Iraq was not a big threat to the U.S. I think it would actually be quite easy to make the case that Iran was a bigger threat to the U.S. through its support of terrorists outside its borders AND its nuclear program. Peroutka does not go overboard as the paleocons do on the subject, and he does not drag in their mantras about Israel and the neocons.

Mr. Coleman’s construction of Peroutka’s statement is apt. Peroutka is arguing from the assumption that Iraq did not present a near-term threat, and that assumption is now arguable, though I would disagree with it. It’s also true that Peroutka didn’t strike any of the offensive notes of the anti-war right.

Peroutka addresses the issues of WMD in the section on the “war on terror.”
Admittedly, he doesn’t discuss the broader issue of the war on terror in this section, and other than criticizing Bush for faulty intelligence and suggesting that the way we went to war (i.e., without an official declaration of war by congress) was illegal, he does not explain why the intelligence was faulty or how to correct the problem (other than an apparently non sequitur suggestion that following correct procedure, i.e. requiring a declaration of war) might have avoided the problem).
On the other hand, this section is much broader than it was, say, a month ago, and hopefully, he will expound on exactly where he thinks that things went wrong in the coming days.

Peroutka is very uneven. He makes statements about the war on terror, some of which I like, some of which, even though I don’t like, are at least not unreasonable or vicious. But then he comes out with a thoughtless irresponsible remark like this:

“That is, I fear, what we have in the case of Iraq. We should get the troops out now.”

Right. We should just pack up and leave. Turning a country, for which we are at least temporarily responsible, over to utter chaos, encouraging our enemies, and demoralizing and betraying our allies.

I get the impression that Peroutka has some good general traditionalist principles, but that he’s not a man who has thought much about specific issues. It’s a typically American trait, and it’s especially typical of third-party candidates, who are, after all, quintessential Americans: Mouthing big principles, but lacking the ability and knowledge to apply them prudentially to concrete situations.

To return to the sheer cluelessness of Bush and his advisors, the 9/11 Commission’s hearings (inquisition?) taking place now have been very revealing. Bush allows rabid leftist Clintonites like Jamie Gorelick and Ben Veniste on the commission and then acts surprised and hurt when they predictably turn the whole affair into a partisan circus blaming Bush for the intelligence failures and simultaneously deny the much more extensive systemic failures under Clinton. Of course, one of the major underlying cuses - the non-enforcement of immigration laws and the open borders dogma - is completely off the discussion table.

Once again, we are faced with the sickeningly familiar scenario of leftists attacking with Republicans unable or unwilling to fight back. The Republican party is finished, I’m afraid. The cowardice of the Republican leadership in this episode is simply amazing. The blind boosterism of the folks over at Lucianne.com may well be an act of desperation - they might know on some level that Bush is going to lose.

I can’t remember which “witness” it was, but a few days ago there was at least one fellow who testified that it is impossible to be considered on war footing while the borders are wide open and unidentified illegals by the millions are allowed to roam the streets. Of course, there was no follow up. I suppose, after Osama’s secret army of thousands has infiltrated across the mexican border and detonated small nuclear devices in our fifty largest cities, then maybe even Bush and few Democrats will get a clue.

In addition to immigration, another topic that is off the table is the anti “racial profiling” regulations. As far as I’ve heard, they haven’t gone near that. Yet of course it is of key importance. Also, if you listened to Phillip Zekillow’s (sp?) grim recitation the other day of the mess of the FBI in the ’90s, there was also a fleeting hint of racial preferences. He said that people were being promoted to the important position of analyst in the FBI not on the basis of ability but of career service or some other extraneous factor. I couldn’t help but think that he was referring obliquely to affirmative action.

They need to put Steve Sailer on that commission.

Here is another point to ponder for “Bush boosters” or anyone who would even consider voting for him, from Michelle Malkin’s latest column today: “In March, the Bush administration ordered Harris County, Texas, to provide all voter registration and election information and supplies, including the voting machine ballot, in Vietnamese as well as English and Spanish.”