Mmmmfff mmmrgh mmmppph….

Oh! The gag is off!

Shrewsbury’s final and official position: the election of John Kerry would be a true catastrophe; the re-election of President Bush would be merely nauseating.

Shrewsbury has stated the obvious with simplicity and elegance. What more could a True Colonial Son add?

Would it also be possible to get the “recent comments” section on the sidebar reactivated so we can see if someone has recently commented on an older topic?

Finally!!!

Great comment, Shrewsbury! The striking thing to me is how completely unhinged the left has become. For the first time, I am seriously concerned that real violence is going to erupt. The Republican rank and file have not resorted responding in kind so far. If the Democrats get away with the scale of vote fraud they are clearly planning, the bullets may very well start to fly.

Nice to see y’all back!

Hi, Carl, Alan Levine, Clark Coleman, Mr. Sutherland et al—

What a treat!!

Carl, let us not forget these words—“Sproul & Associates”! If GOP dirty tricks are as dirty as I think they are, Kerry wins big. The attorneys general of various states are just now looking into this RNC hatchet group. I do not think that the Demos are the only ones who resort to dirty tricks! Tearing up voting registration cards (and there were witnesses) is a felony and quite serious. As bad as busing in minorities in Missouri as was done by the Demos in ‘00 where they were allowed to vote until 10 pm? Possibly worse. Sorry, I can’t remember the link.

If Clark Coleman is around, I’d like to ask him how it’s going over at The CP. Last posting chat we had here many moons ago, he asked me if I had checked Peroutka/them out—instead of writing in Tom Tancredo for President.

All best,

David L.

I can’t argue too hard with Shrewsbury. A leftist like John Kerry would have all the time he needs in 4 years to virtually sell out the sovereignty of the United States down the global river, among numerous other disasters.

The only counterpoint is this: If Bush wins, our long-term fate is probably sealed anyway. A Bush loss might be the last chance to turn the Republicans back into republicans. Our choice is between a short term catastrophe that could be final, and a long term catastrophe that most likely WOULD be final.

There is however the alternative scenario Mr. Auster posted on 9/17:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002566.html
One can only hope, and pray.

On a brighter note, good to be home again. Hope everyone is doing well. :-)

Hi, Joel—

I’ve missed your insights and cogent points.

Kerry missed a huge opportunity in the Arizona debate to skewer Bush and wins some anti-illegal immigration votes (He clearly did not want to upset his radical left base). He had many other chances in the debates to skewer Bush, and declined to. To some of us, the Invasion from Mexico is, along with it’s companion, Islamo- facist terrorism, the two most crucial issues we must face. Bush refuses to face the Invasion. I for one do not believe that Kerry will do anything less than Bush is on terrorism. Kerry has been demagogued on that issue. I know he has called it “a police action” and has said that “the U.N. should be involved”, and other stupid comments. But Kerry does not have ties with the Saudis—as Bush has. Bush has much too easy on the Saudis—where much of Al Qaida’s money comes from.

Kerry has already promised amnesty for illegals in the first 100 days of his presidency. But that is what he has SAID. He may have been doing that for votes sake. Who knows? We know for a fact that Bush is ramrodding amnesty down Congress’s and our throats. We know that will bring millions more. Many of us have had it with Bush, no matter who “the other guy” is. We simply can’t afford four more years of what we just went through. I certainly cannot.

Joel, your perfect comment about “maybe a Bush loss will bring Repubs back to being Republicans” is a mirror of what I’ve been thinking. But, I will never go back to the GOP, so that (what happens to the GOP) is not my fight. I don’t want the RINOs gaining any more power than they already do. McCain will be running in ‘08. No one in the GOP is scarrier to me than John McCain. My thought is, if Bush is defeated, it will help conservatives regain some power—how much, I can’t know. Many of us will be blamed for not supporting Bush. I welcome that. But I live in a Kerry-dominated state, so not voting for Bush wouldn’t make a hoot’s bit of difference.

What I want to know is, “who” is going to become the new conservative leader after the election? And will he be part of the GOP or an Independent party?

In President Bush and Senator Kerry the establishment has offered conservatives a truly wretched choice, almost as bad as in 2000. But we do not have to accept it. Vote for Peroutka, write in Tancredo, honorably abstain - as Kara Hopkins advocates in The American Conservative - but do not soil your vote (and your conscience) by giving it to either of these unprincipled, unintelligent party hacks.

Shrewsbury says a Kerry presidency would be a catastrophe, while Bush’s re-election would be merely nauseating. I don’t entirely agree with him about that. Bush’s administration has been a catastrophe at home and abroad (not to say that a Gore administration might not have been worse; who could know?). Bush’s re-election would be a catastrophe. Kerry’s election might be a lesser catastrophe (which is no reason for a conservative to give Kerry his vote).

Were Bush to win, his and Karl Rove’s style of liberal, ethno-pandering Republicanism would seem vindicated. Bush would likely have a Republican-controlled Congress to enact his idiotic proposals, not least his nation-destroying illegal alien amnesty and third-world repopulation program - for which he could claim a mandate based on the election returns. The GOP’s leftward shift would only accelerate.

Were Kerry to win, the Republicans would probably keep control of one or both houses of the Congress. Kerry would offer proposals at least as idiotic as Bush’s (although he doesn’t appear to have Bush’s mexi-obsession, he is married to a quasi-third worlder himself). Congressional Republicans who are willing to be Bush’s lapdogs would not be so acquiescent for Kerry, and so his evil impulses would be less likely to become law that Bush’s. In addition, the Bush-Rove Republicans would be losers, which might open the way to conservatives’ regaining some influence over the GOP’s direction.

The two establishment candidates offer conservatives only a choice of catastrophes. All the more reason to boycott them. In tactical terms, though, a Kerry win might be the lesser catastrophe for conservatives (I repeat, just to be safe: that reflects no credit on Kerry, whom I could never endorse for anything). HRS

I agree with Howard Sutherland. (May I say that I am glad to see him back.) I would add the comment, however, that I don’t think the choice is any better than that in 2000. In fact, this is the worst choice in my lifetime with the exception, perhaps, of the 1960 election. Bad as these men are, neither is an out and out crook or the chose candidate of the Mafia, although Nixon and Kennedy were undoubtedly of greater intelligence than either Kerry or Bush.

My personal feeling is that the best bet for conservatives looking for an alternative to Bush/Kerry is to vote for Peroutka this election, and then try to get a better third party candidate next election. If the Constitution Party is flawed, then a good showing for it might enable a better conservative third party to emerge in 2008, or at least might force the G.O.P. to seek out ways to corral the disaffected voters back into the fold.

While Mr. Sutherland’s argument is very powerful (as they almost always are), I have to disagree with his position that a Republican congress would suddenly grow a backbone under a Kerry administration.

The Republican control of congress is only by a slim margin. The true situation is that the Democrats are very nearly the de-facto rulers of congress thanks to the presence of so many leftists who happen to bear the little “R” next to their name. At least 30 congressmen and several senators are Reublicans in name only. Take a look at the records of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Lincloln Chaffee, Orin Hatch, John McCain, etc. - lust to name a few.

Contrast this with the Democrats. How many pro-life, nationalistic Democrats are left? Precious few. If the Democrats had any sense (a remote possibility at best), they would have nominated Zell Miller. Bush would be toast - supposedly the great over-riding dream of the majority of the Democrat faithful (“Anybody but Bush”) - supported only by a few mindless Bushbots like those on FreeRepublic.

If you wish to see what a Kerry administration would be like with a Republican congress, just look at Clinton’s from 1998 to 2001. Lots of tough-sounding rhetoric accompanied by surrender after surrender. I end up agreeing wth Shrewsbury insofar as I think we have a better chance of rendering Bush ineffective than we do Kerry. In an ideal world, Mr. Auster stated it wonderfully - he wished there was a way whereby both of them (Bush and Kerry) would lose.

I honestly wish that the CP, or whoever desires to replace the degenerate shell of the Republican party, would concentrate on building a party by electing members of state legislatures, then congress - before attempting a run a candidate for president. The day the CP starts persuing this kind of hard-nosed, practical strategy will be the day i abandon the Republcians forever.

Carl’s point is well-taken. I implied more optimism about Republican congressmen than I feel. The names he lists belong in a police line-up of traitors, along with many others. That said, Republicans had some success restraining the worst of Clinton’s excesses. With a Democratic president, they might have some inclination to resist. My presumption is that President Bush’s second-term legislative proposals would be just about as bad as a President Kerry’s, and that a Republican Congress would be supine for Bush.

I think the Constitution Party is pursuing Carl’s suggested strategy, in addition to running a presidential ticket. The value in the presidential run is that it gets the party’s name and platform exposure that nothing else can. HRS

I will write in Tom Tancredo’s name for President on 11/2.

I was at FAIR when he spoke there on 10/2. That speech was awesome!!! If you’re afraid of another 9/11, Tom’s your man. He knows that Bush is never going to do much of anything to keep out vermin like Mohammed Atta.

If you love America, don’t just sit out the election — write in Tom Tancredo!

I will write in Tom Tancredo’s name for President on 11/2.

I was at FAIR when he spoke there on 10/2. That speech was awesome!!! If you’re afraid of another 9/11, Tom’s your man. He knows that Bush is never going to do much of anything to keep out vermin like Mohammed Atta.

If you love America, don’t just sit out the election — write in Tom Tancredo!

It is good to see Mr. Sutherland’s posts again—I feel as though I were back in school, listening to the master!

I actually agree with him as well as Carl and others regarding “who” to vote for. I was going to write in Tancredo. I have changed back and forth a few times on the issue. Ultimately, I believe, it is “a personal thing”, like prayer—between me and the Great Pollster in the sky. I used to be concerned about “who” conservative friends and posters were going to vote for. Now, I am of the liberal mind that each should vote as he/she chooses and the heck with what anyone else thinks. In 2000, I disliked Gore so much, I held my nose with one hand and voted for Bush—against my better instincts, as I knew he was no conservative. I don’t know if Gore would have been worse. It’s hard to know if we’de have had a 3.5-year recession that for all intents and purposes should have and nearly ruined me, financially. It’s hard to know if Gore would have sent troops to Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would have invaded Iraq, but again, who knows?

I will not be making my 2000 voting miscalculation again, next week. Bush MUST lose. Why? The Border, our security. He will never go against his big business donor friends. Kerry? Who can say. Kerry will have an unfriendly Congress and probably won’t be able to pass much of anything, “honeymoon” or not. I believe we have a better chance at shutting down the Border and deporting illegal aliens with Kerry. As long as Bush is around, amnesty will be in the air.

Nice to see you posting again, Alan Levine!