[The_Eaglet]

An earlier interview from the Jan Mickelson Show features Peroutka commenting on current issues.

[onyx]

A ping before the swarm. :)

[CWOJackson]

Strange...the fail to mention his opposition to our defending ourselves in Iraq.

[inkling]

No mention of Iraq. Of 9-11. Of Afghanistan. Of our life and death struggle with the Islamonazis. Pathetic.

We are a nation at war. This is a time for serious people. We don't have the time to waste on third-party vanity candidates. Wait several years until the grown-ups solve the big problems, then idiots like this guy can get back in the sandbox to play.

[ServesURight]

On December 15, 2003, Michael Peroutka announced his candidacy for the Constitution Party presidential nomination.

(Guffaw!) On the day after Saddam's capture?

Why don't he just announce his candidacy when the New Years ball drop from Times Square?

[upchuck]

Some of his ideas are very admirable. I agree we'd be better off adhering more to the Constitution.

But not now. We've many other things much more important. Like preventing The Hildabeaste's assault on the White House.

[billbears]

Thanks for posting. Read through it and can't find much I disagree with. We have the Constitution Party here in NC, however I do belong to the Southern Party officially now. May be a candidate I would back in the Presidential election

[flashbunny]

Sheesh - you have to include every state in the topic list?

[CONSERVE]

experience as an attorney

This is enough to NOT get a vote from me.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

Judging from the responses on this thread, most FReepers have clearly forgotten the main reason why FR was established.

[Consort]

Will he be the spoiler that the Democrats are hoping for? Another Third Party candidate to repeat what happened in '92?

Michael Peroutka »» anagram »» A chum like a Perot

[JustAnAmerican]

I wouldn't pay the "You are just throwing your vote away" or "You are a fringer type", crowd any mind. The people who are peeved at Bush for all of his socialist and illegal-alien garbage, will not be voting for Bush anyway, which BTW is about 90+ percent of the Independents(33+ percent of the voting public) and a few Conservatives. But that won't stop them from calling you a traitor or Dem-Hugger, remember it's your vote not theirs so their asinine statements mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

And if Bush does lose the 2004 Presidential race, he will have no one to blame but himself. Three years ago if you had written what you did or even mentioned not voting for Bush I would have been all over you, but that was then. Some of us learn, some do not. The ones that have not will momentarily be posting as to how I am not a True Conservative,I am a Dem-Hugger or some other such nonsense, such is life.

[jgrubbs]

I wonder if Peroutka will make a more formal announcement at the Biblical Foundations of American Law Conference, which will be held on Saturday, January 24, in Lancaster, PA. He will be there with Justice Roy Moore, Alan Keyes, Jim Clymer and Howard Phillips.

http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/upcoming.cfm

[ppaul]

Although the chutzpah of the Constitution Party adherents is admirable, they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the preseidential election - or any other election, except for some localized races here and there. What they do have a chance of doing is causing a lot of conservative voters to waste their vote instead of voting for President Bush in the 2004 election, just like Nader caused Gore to lose the last time around. Will the Constitutional Party loyalists pat themselves on the back after they have succeeded in putting Howard "Draft-Dodger" Dean in office, or God forbid - der Hildebeast?

If the Constitutional Party really wants to make a positive difference, they would organize themselves as a faction within the Republican Party and start influencing activity at the PCO and state levels, then they'd be a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise, they'll just be suqeaky wheels regarded as "extremists" and "nut-jobs" with no influence whatsoever, other than as "spoilers" which will cause Republican candidates to lose to democRATS.

[cardinal4]

And yet another parallel from '92..

[DLfromthedesert]

Sounds like he's in the same ballpark as Dr. Tom Coburn , ex-Congressman from Oklahoma, whose book I'm presently reading. "Breach of Trust" about how Republican principles were sacrificed by career politicians who only care about the next election.

[GeronL]

yay

[Clemenza]

I'm sure he will make this a "close race" like the McIdiot/Jeb race in 2002. /sarcasm

[Constantine XIII]

You know, these people would be a lot more effective if they didn't go out of the way to make it clear that they are more dedicated-than-thou to everyone on the right. Well, this in addition to the fact that most (but maybe not all) of these 3rd party candidates all have egos way out of proportion to their actual influence. I mean, how many people in the US even know what the Constitution party is, much less their platform or their candidate?
Yeah, we need to get back to the Constitutional way of doing things, but that won't happen if you alienate 99.9% of the electorate right out of the gate.

This in-your-face crap is irritating no matter who does it. Heck, it is actually more irritating to me when a conservative goes out and makes a martyr-kook out of himself than when the lefties go out and do the same. The CP, LP, and so forth are supposed to be on our side, and thus show that they must have at least some amount of intelligence. They really should know better.

Deep breaths, deep breaths...