Redstate

I actually don't really know who Bob Smith is (and it's such a distinctive name!), but Keyes is a perennial loser and demagogue, and Moore is most prominent for willful subversion of his former post as a Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Are these really people that you think I would want to vote for?

Just what kind of people would you want to vote for?

Bob Smith was a terrific conservative from I think NH.
But Alan Keyes a demagogue? Roy Moore "willful subversion of his former post"? Did you get that at the Daily KOS?

However! I am being intentionally negative about these guys. They don't have good reputations with the general populace.

I would vote for Keyes if he were a Republican candidate for a race I could vote for. However, that says very little about Keyes. I sincerely doubt he would win. He hasn't yet. And, we are discussing the possibility of a third party run. As to his status as demagogue: that came up on Medved's show around 2004. IIRC, Medved asked Keyes if he felt that was an accurate description, and Keyes agreed that it was. From what I've seen, Keyes gets into a race to stir the pot. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't seem to win him races.

As to Moore, he violated laws on the basis of his position. It may not be an entirely fair description of his actions, but I'm not sure it's inaccurate. He's really not somebody I'd want to vote for. Seems like he's already lost at least one electoral contest since being kicked off the bench, too, but I'm too lazy to look stuff up this afternoon.

As for Bob Smith, I really can't say as I know anything about him. That doesn't bespeak of an inspiring candidate, whatever his ideals.

I'm really not talking about any of them as people. Keyes, in particular, seems to catch more flak than he deserves, though that seems to be about the role he's staked out. What I'm talking about is what appears to me to be the public perception of them, and what that would mean about the sort of people who would put them forward as a candidate in an already tight race.

(And, Daily KOS? Har, har. It is to laugh. I have a television and a radio. There is a local newspaper. I have plenty of ways to suss this stuff out that don't require trucking with the loons, and only a few that require trucking with libs at all.)

Moore attempted to run for Governor of Alabama in 2006. He attempted to primary Gov. Riley, and it didn't work out too well.

that you could learn to use the FLIPPING Reply To This feature on this website so SOMEONE might have an idea WHO you are replying to?

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

absentee

You don't get to pick what rulings you want to follow; I guess if SCOTUS rules that the second amendment protects an individual right to guns, liberal judges should feel free to ignore it in the future because they happen to disagree?

Roy Moore is a disgrace both to the legal profession and to conservatives everywhere.

His website today basically states that there likely won't be a brokered convention, he likely won't be the nominee, and will not run 3rd party. He will stay in the race to get his message to more people and will run for re election in congress.

I can't imagine those 2 parties running the same candidate. If my understanding is correct the CP thinks the position of the founders would minimize seperation of church and state- or at least let Christian thought have a greater influence on the state. The LP on the other hand would awk at the thought of religion influencing the government and would alienate the proportionally large amount of athiest in the party it their candidate did indeed hold the formerly stated view.

But on second thought, both parties do place great influence on limiting the federal government. If neither major party is providing them an option for that (like over the last 7 years) then they may be rallying around one issue... broad as it may be.

"You've apparently wandered onto a conservative blog by mistake. You'll find plenty of people who agree with your views on Judge Moore on the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos blogs."

You'll also find plenty of people here that are willing to put aside their personal feelings and realize the law is the law, whether you like it or not. Roy Moore was and is an incompetent boob. However, I guess under your standard William Pryor is also a liberal who belongs on DailyKos; after all, he's the one who prosecuted Moore, saying that the rule of law had to be followed one way or another.

You're pimping third party candidates on a REPUBLICAN website.

"Livin' the dream. I'm going to Disney World." Super Bowl XLII MVP, Elisha Nelson Manning

You're pimping third party candidates on a REPUBLICAN website.

Huh? I made it a point to say that I am not advocating voting third-party.

Go look at the other blog entries I've posted. I've made it quite clear that I believe that any of the GOP candidates would be "better enough" than any of the Dems to warrant conservative support, including John McCain.

If anything, I hope the Constitution Party nominates the weakest possible candidate. I fear that if they nominated Moore, he would siphon off precious votes in the South and in certain red districts in other states.

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

These three long years of confusion and despair, but now I know! Or, you know, I could find that Moore's actions overstepped his bounds and his refusal to respect the decision of the court does not smack of respect for the Constitution, or the institutions founded thereon.

Seriously, I agree that there should be nothing illegal or objectionable about the display of the Ten Commandments on state or federal property. However, I'm not a representative of any arm of the state, and not bound to uphold its laws, in addition to obeying them. Moore lost the argument in the courtroom, and then attempted to use his position as a shield against the consequences of actions he undertook to circumvent the law. I don't dislike Moore because he wanted to put the Ten Commandments on the court premises, I dislike him because he attempted to exempt himself from the rule of law, and did so gracelessly, to boot.

I don't see that as a partisan judgment, nor as a controversial one.

Since I already have a headache, I imagine I'll be ignoring this thread the rest of the evening.

"That's a bogus argument because such a ruling would be entirely constitutional. So liberal judges would have no valid reason not to follow it."

I'm glad that after hundreds of years of constitutional interpretation, precedent, and research, you, Mike Griffith, can now be considered the final arbiter on what rulings should be followed and what shouldn't. Give me a break.

I'm glad that after hundreds of years of constitutional interpretation, precedent, and research, you, Mike Griffith, can now be considered the final arbiter on what rulings should be followed and what shouldn't.

Now we're talkin!

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

Nobody has any idea what you are replying to if you don't use it. And you can add me to the "Roy Moore is a publicity seeking boob" list. Alan Keyes has sunk to about the same level at this point. He seems to have decided that making unsuccessful bids for office sure beats working for a living.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

was ridiculous and had no foundation in the Constitution whatsoever.

Why wasn't it appealed and overturned, Mr. ConLawyer?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

America is governed by the rule of law, and one cannot ignore a court order when one disagree with it. When we do this, we are only lending credence to our philosophical opponents. Besides, such a ridiculous ruling should have been promptly appealed.

I'd vote for him.

Running for POTUS, he's an empty suit just like Mike Huckabee.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

It doesn't matter whether the judgment against him was right or wrong; we do not get to pick and choose what laws we want to obey. We have a system, and he played in that system and lost, and then decided he wasn't going to deal with the consequences. If people are allowed to just flout whatever ruling they disagree with, we might as well not have a judicial branch. Again, your position won't be reconcilable if we get a conservative majority on SCOTUS and the 9th circuit decides that their opinions are "wrong" and ignore them.

pieces of legislation manages to get through the Senate?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

By the way is Franz conceding or is he still going to fight at a brokered convention.

already have more than enough committed votes to win.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I mean I Can't imagine Franz wanting to have to rely on Huck.

where they come from. And Franz isn't giving anything away to get them. It's a mind control thing.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

any of Franz's delegates would have to be committed!

The truth is, even if you don't intend that, a vote for the Constitution Party is an endorsement of kooky conspiracy nuts.

Someone who pulls up the vote totals the next day can't reasonably conclude anything else.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...please learn to use the "reply to this" button.

As for everything else, if you want lawlessness that is up to you, but I've had it with this conversation and with being ad hominemed as a "weak-kneed, spineless Republican." Enjoy hawking your disgraceful loser of a judge, who is nothing more than an embarrassment to the party. The guy is a laughingstock and the less of his type the better.

As for everything else, if you want lawlessness that is up to you, but I've had it with this conversation and with being ad hominemed as a "weak-kneed, spineless Republican." Enjoy hawking your disgraceful loser of a judge, who is nothing more than an embarrassment to the party. The guy is a laughingstock and the less of his type the better.

Why don't you post this kind of nonsense on the Daily Kos and ACLU blogs, where you'd find unanimous agreement with your views about Judge Moore?

The vast majority of House Republicans at the time did not find Judge Moore to be an "embarrassment"; rather, they voted to block federal funds from being used to carry out Judge Thompson's patently unconstitutional order to remove the TC display, and they also passed a bill that would have prevented federal judges from issuing such rulings in the future (Dems blocked it in the Senate).

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

nonsense.

First of all, for all intents and purposes, the "Constitution Party" doesn't exist on the ballot in any (or at least the vast majority) of States. And they won't raise the money and manpower to get on the ballot either.

Second, your three "Big Names" are pinheads, one and all. If they have any name recognition (outside of their personal KoolAid circles) it's negative. They won't be overcoming that any time soon. Or any time at all.

Third, it takes money to run for President. None of these guys can raise it. Mostly because the slice of people you're talking to who would be supportive of their effort is so freaking small, if they contributed the max you'd still get nothing.

Fourth, specifically with respect to Roy Moore, I don't give a rip what the vast majority of House Republicans at the time think of Roy Moore or his Quixotic cause, the guy is rightfully viewed by the American people - at least those who know anything about him - as a complete, total moonbat.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"First of all, for all intents and purposes, the "Constitution Party" doesn't exist on the ballot in any (or at least the vast majority) of States. And they won't raise the money and manpower to get on the ballot either."

Their web site claims that they were on the ballot in 36 states in 2004.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Fourth, specifically with respect to Roy Moore, I don't give a rip what the vast majority of House Republicans at the time think of Roy Moore or his Quixotic cause

Yes, that's obvious. Why do you even bother posting on a conservative blog? Why don't you go to the Daily Kos's blog or the ACLU's, where your views on Judge Moore and conservatives in general will be much more at home?

Personally, I think it says a lot that most House Republicans backed Judge Moore at the time. And let's remember that we're only talking about a few years ago, not ancient history (2003-2004).

the guy is rightfully viewed by the American people - at least those who know anything about him - as a complete, total moonbat.

That's odd, because polls showed that a solid majority of the American people felt the Ten Commandments monument should stay where it was. Polls in Alabama were consistently 70-80 percent for Judge Moore's stand on the issue. And, as mentioned, most House Republicans backed Judge Moore, to the point of passing legislation (1) that would have blocked federal funds from being used to carry out Judge Thompson's ridiculous order and (2) that would have prohibited federal judges from even being able to rule on such cases in the future. But your liberal friends in the Senate blocked both bills, which I'm sure makes you happy.

The only one drinking kool-aid on this issue, and pink kool-aid at that, is you. But, you're welcome to your Rockefeller Republican/ACLU view of Judge Moore. I just don't agree with it.

Here are some articles you might to check out, when you're finished with your daily ACLU brief:

http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/oct03/Eidsmoe-10-08-03...
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.conservativeusa.org/JusticeRoyMoore2.htm
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Christian/RoyMoore_Inquisition.htm
http://www.radioliberty.com/nldec03.htm

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

Be here longer than three weeks and learn up on who you are calling a pink kool-aid drinking Daily Kos Rockefller Republican.

Mbecker has about 100% more credibility on EVERY issue than you will. And if he doesn't want to deal with it, he could always ask for an intercession from Franz and you'd have your head bit off.

Here's a further hint... YOU (and nor do I for that matter) don't get to define someone else's conservatism.

And he's 100% right about Moore anyways... he's about as electable as Pat Buchanan.

...now has the nomination [essentially sown up].

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

you've been here for only a short time and have firmly established yourself as both a clown and asshat.

Why don't you make an point of just shutting up for a little while, get acquainted with the site, then post. If you can't do that then all the evidence indicates you've probably exceeded your half-life here.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

that you're an idiot, but others above me have done it for me and you've reinforced the obvious.

With respect to Moore, I, and probably most here support having the 10 Commandments in all sorts of buildings. What I, and probably most of us, don't support is Moore defying a court order.

You will likely never understand that and you are wasting your time here.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"With respect to Moore, I, and probably most here support having the 10 Commandments in all sorts of buildings."

I keep toying with the idea of hanging up the 10 Commandments on my classroom wall (next to a Ronald Reagan portrait).

P.S. Isn't tenure fun. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

P.S. Isn't tenure fun. :)

FDT's Principles

This is because their top candidates are completely nuts. I covered them in a recent fronter. One is a NAU nut, the other is an Income Tax nut.

An "NAU nut"? With such views, you really shouldn't be quoting Barry Goldwater in your signature. You might read Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative and see what he said about the UN and threats to American sovereignty. I'm reminded of the fact, also, that back in his day the Republican establishment routinely called Goldwater "nuts" and "extreme."

I guess you'd better alert the press that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are also "NAU nuts," since they have both spoken out against the North American Union. Sources on the NAU are readily available. It's not like this is being done in some dark corner. Most of it is being done out in the open.

"An income tax nut"? Now, just what is "nuts" about wanting to abolish the income tax? We didn't have an income tax until 1913. If we were to abolish the income tax today, the federal government would still be able to operate at the funding level that it had in 1996. That wouldn't be the end of the world, would it? I seem to recall that in the 1990s conservative Republicans routinely said the federal government was too big and too costly. Two of the GOP presidential candidates advocate abolishing the income tax, by the way.

Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm

You're just pointing out these 3rd party alternatives and vigorously defending them as "big name" true conservatives and anyone who points out their blatant flaws are weak-kneed, liberals at heart, who just don't get it.

But you're really hoping McCain can pull it off in November... *wink* *nudge* [click my ron paul supporting link in my signature] *nudge* *wink*

The fact that you all but admitted to believing the NAU conspiracies is just, well... wow.