Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) has announced she has raised $26 million in first-quarter campaign fundraising this year (her reported total of $36 million includes $10 million transferred from her 2006 Senate campaign account). Rival presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) nearly matched Clinton with a reported $25 million raised during the first three months of the year, while Democrat John Edwards has raked in $14 million. On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has raised nearly $21 million, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has accumulated $15 million, and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) $12.5 million.

Attorney and former Constitution Party presidential candidate Michael Peroutka says he is not impressed by the record fundraising numbers. He contends that, regardless of the amount of money raised, none of the candidates represent what he calls “the American interest.”

“[T]here is a God — our rights come from Him,” Peroutka says by way of explanation. “The purpose of government is to protect and secure God-given rights. That’s what the Declaration of Independence says ; that’s the American view. None of these candidates, regardless of how much money they raise, represents that view.”

And Peroutka is quick to dismiss Senator Clinton’s fundraising prowess. “You’ve got a candidate who in many ways, from the standpoint of a Christian or a biblical perspective, is not a serious candidate,” he says.

“From an American perspective, from an American view of law and liberty and government — what America was founded on,” he continues, “you don’t have a serious candidate in Hillary Clinton or John Edwards ; and for that matter, you don’t have a serious candidate in Romney or Giuliani or McCain.”

Peroutka believes the only candidate who comes close to having an “American biblical” view of law and government is Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who holds many libertarian views.

Source: Journal Chretien

39 Responses to “Peroutka slams big-money presidential hopefuls”

  1. Anthony Distler Says:

    If Peroutka has a problem, he can run for president himself. Maybe he can can notch around a half of a percent this time.

  2. Joe Says:


    During an interview on Mark Dankof’s America, Michael said that he is not running for President in 2008 - that even if the Constitution Party was in good shape (my paraphrase, not his exact words) he has family commitments that would keep him from running. That jibes with his (quasi-) endorsement of Ron Paul in this article.

  3. Cody Quirk Says:

    During an interview on Mark Dankof’s America, Michael said that he is not running for President in 2008 - that even if the Constitution Party was in good shape (my paraphrase, not his exact words) he has family commitments that would keep him from running. That jibes with his (quasi-) endorsement of Ron Paul in this article.

    =It sounds like he thinks he has a chance to be renominated by the CP again.
    His endorsement of Ron Paul is a bit futile, since Ron will not run in a third-party and Ron doesn’t stand a chance to win the GOP nomination next year.

  4. Joe Says:

    I listened to the interview and he did not sound at all to me like he thought the Constitution Party would nominate him. I do not believe in “chance,” but even if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, that does not stop people from voting for him in the general election.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    This just solidifies that the CP is nothing more than an old-school Democratic-esque, William Jennings Bryant, anticapitalist group of class warriors preaching disdain for wealth and success.

  6. Cody Quirk Says:

    I like William Jennings Bryan.

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    What do you like best about him? His white supremacist thinking? His big-government anticapitalism? His extreme hatred for and denial of all things scientific? His status as the biggest loser in the history of presidential politics? His advocacy of alcohol prohibition?

    There’s a lot to like. He truly was a “Godly Hero.”

  8. Cody Quirk Says:

    If he was a White Supremacist, why was he also against Imperialism? Remember, many American racists then favored imperialism as to civilize the inferior races and cultures.
    Let me guess, it was because of his failure to take a stand against racism in the South at the time? Even though no Democratic candidate could secure the nomination as the Dem. candidate for President then if he criticised the South for it’s racist policies.

    Unlike most losers, he had a lot of respect from many.

  9. Darcy Richardson Says:

    For the record, William Jennings Bryan was the only major political figure in the country who spoke out in favor of the 167 African-American troops of the 25th Infantry, including a half dozen Medal of Honor recipients, who had been unfairly dishonorably discharged by President Roosevelt in 1906 following the famous Brownsville incident.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Ouch, GE takes another major hit.

    As for Peroutka, it is interesting to note that he endorses Ron Paul who is not a 100% pro-lifer (at least,not federally. Only on a state level.)
    And Ron Paul is against the war on drugs,things they should be legalized.

  11. Jason Says:

    Alright Gents here it is: I’m putting my guards down here. I like Huckabee. I’ve read a lot about him and like most of what I see. There are few questions about some of his methods I find, but don’t we all. As for his taxes; well there is reason for most of them with postive results. I can find the info if any wants to read some of the analysis from writers.

    Aaanway, I like him but I don’t see a lot about him on here and if I am wrong in this then let me know. I don’t care how savage the retorts are. Someone school me as to why he is not a viable Conservative Answer, with much needed change in policy that this country needs.


  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    So now it’s being disputed that WJB was a white supremacist?


    This is complete historical revisionism. I guess next I’m going to be told that Hitler wasn’t anti-semetic.


    He was an ardent white supremacist, possibly the most racist person to ever be nominated by either major party. That’s debatable. But what’s not is that he, along with Horace Greely, was the most socialist.

    WJB was a loser and his ideology is the ideology of loserdom. It villifies financial success and glorifies brutish, mindless labor.

  13. globalist_elitist Says:

    Huckabee is a modern-day WJB, and his nomination would be much to finally sever the unnatural tie between the capitalists and the conservatives.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Jason, while he has some obvious advantages,some are pretty bad.

    In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

    He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).

    He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).

    He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).

    He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).

    Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).

    Governor Huckabee was responsible for a 37% higher sales tax in Arkansas, 16% higher motor fuel taxes, and 103% higher cigarette taxes according to Americans for Tax Reform (01/07/07)

    Under Governor Huckabee’s watch, state spending increased a whopping 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, three times the rate of inflation (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).

    He also is for Amnesty.

    I’d vote for him over most of the others. But Ron Paul is still the best.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Interestingly, I just found out that Liberty PAC (Ron Paul’s Leadership PAC) donated $2,500 to Peroutka in the 2004 Election.
    And the CP’s fundraising abilities are much stronger than I originally thought, resting only about 300,000 below the LP.

  16. Trent Hill Says:

    Although,the fact that over $40,000 of that went to John Lofton really makes me sick.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    And over $30,000 to Scott Whiteman. No WONDER they are such close friends.

  18. Darcy Richardson Says:

    William Jennings Bryan was one of the most paradoxical figures in American history, a man seemingly full of contradictions, but I’m not sure I would go as far as to describe him as an “ardent white supremacist.”

    Expressing sympathy for the 167 African-American soldiers dishonorably discharged by President Roosevelt in 1906, for example, took a great deal of courage, both personally and politically. Almost all of the country’s newspapers sided with Roosevelt. While Booker T. Washington was privately outraged and a handful of others, including Cornell University president Jacob Schurman, bravely asserted that Roosevelt had made a “terrible mistake,” few white politicians had the courage to speak out against that gross injustice. Bryan was one of the few exceptions. In fact, as a result he was sharply assailed by none other than the virulently racist Tom Watson of Georgia, Bryan’s vice-presidential running mate on the Populist ticket in 1896 and a man largely responsible for reviving the KKK in 1915.

    However, in fairness to his critics, Bryan was full of contradictions. While he largely ignored the increasingly powerful Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s, believing that the hooded order would eventually fade from public life, when he was given an opportunity to publicly repudiate the Klan at the 1924 Democratic national convention, he utterly failed to do so. Instead of lecturing on the evils of bigotry and the virtues of tolerance, Bryan was obviously more concerned with party unity and seriously erred in trying to appease everyone. Yet, even his widely-reported defense of the Klan during that raucous convention was hardly a ringing endorsement of that racist organization, especially his concluding sentence: “We can exterminate Ku Kluxism better by recognizing their honesty and teaching them that they are wrong,” he thundered, his voice barely heard above the hecklers, many of whom were outraged delegates who belonged to the KKK.

    For several decades, it was fashionable for scholars to portray Bryan as some sort of rabid white supremacist, but a few of the more recent biographies of WJB seriously question the validity of that description.

    While there’s much to criticize and ridicule about Bryan, especially as his public career rapidly deteriorated during his final years — embracing prohibition and dabbling in questionable real estate schemes in south Florida before finally embarking on his crazy crusade against evolution — I’m not at all convinced that he was a racist or a white supremacist, at least no more than any other white politician of his generation.

  19. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well spoken Darcy!

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    Trent, I know how you feel.

    I campaigned for Peroutka locally; putting up dozens of his yard signs all over my town and on the freeways. I even went to a campaign stop of his and shook his hand -UGH!

    However I later washed my hands with bleach and the remaining signs I had I tore up and threw away during the Nevada dispute.

    Though all the ultra-conservative organizations that abhored Bush we’re going for him, the America First Party and the US Independent American Party (not affiliated with Nevada), endorsed him in a show of unity then.

    Of course Trent, these things happen- it happened with the AIP and George Wallace in 1968 and it happen with us again and Jim Gilchrist last year. I should say, in every third-party, when it comes to candidates- expect the unexpected.

  21. globalist_elitist Says:

    This is B.S., Darcy. You know that among the radical leftist agrarians and unionists, etc., the Populist movement that had just recently disipated at the time of Bryan and from which he drew his support (or at least the support of their children) there was a wing of people who supported racial equality. For Bryan to be such a champion of the left, even an omission of support for black equality is a strong signal of white supremamcy, but he more than omitted - he was an active racist. This is revisionism on a grand scale.

    But as Cody says “Well said,” please note that Darcy did not refute any of the negatives I pointed out about WBJ except his white supremacy (which, any way, is a glaring fact). Dennis Kucinich is probably the closest national figure to WJB today, including the racism. Are you a fan of Kucinich, Cody? Do you deny their striking similarities? On which issues do they differ?

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    So Dennis favors Bimentalism and has a bull-moose progressive attiude on the economy?

    And a omission of support for black equality is not equal to publically supporting the supremacy of the white race over all or the race policies of the then South.

  23. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Trent: “the fact that…$...went to…Lofton…makes me sick”
    Cody: “shook [Peroutka’s] hand -UGH!”

    Come on guys, you’re doing the same thing that Lofton and Whiteman did—just from the other side of the aisle: Bigotry, prejudice, portraying others as sub-human or evil just because they don’t have your exact belief set, etc.

    Let’s not overlook every virtue to magnify every fault. I’m sure that if you spent a day in the life of your opponents (and I’m talking to people on BOTH sides), you would be amazed at all of the good that they do.

    Believe it or not (for you guys), they are very valiant men in those good things that they fight for. But also, believe it or not (for them), you are very valiant men in those good things that you fight for. “By their works, ye shall know them.” Notice that Jesus didn’t say, “By their beliefs, ye shall know them.”

    We need to stop pretending to be gods by consigning people to hell because they don’t agree with us on every point.

    “the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart”

  24. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - So it’s the bimetalism that appeals to you, huh? You realize that WJB favored bimetalism as OPPOSED to the gold standard, right? He was right to advocate a freer more floating currency, but he was TOTALLY WRONG to advocate its politicization, which is what he wanted. He wanted Congress to act as the Fed acts now, which if enacted, would have destroyed the economy before Woodrow Wilson ever got into the office. In other words, WJB was more pro-inflation, more anti-gold, and more pro-government control of money than any Fed advocate. And you like that?

    “Bull-Moose Progressive?” If by that you mean marginal tax rates of over 70%, massive over-regulation to choke growth, and trade protectionism to further crush the economy, then yes, Kucinich is a “bull moose.” He’s also a religious freak. You should really join his campaign.

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    Its not that they didn’t have our belief set Yosemite.
    I neither know, nor care, about Lofton/Whiteman/Peroutka’s religious beliefs. I have heard they are Calvinists, and don’t doubt it. I also know next to nothing about Calvinism itself. I don’t think Peroutka is going to hell, nor have I even given that thought before you just mentioned it.
    I simply believe him to be wrong on the issue of disafilliation. My statement, “the fact that…$...went to…Lofton….makes me sick” is the same as saying it makes me sick that Karl Rove got some of my money, or whomever. I GROSSLY disagree with their political beliefs, and don’t feel wrong in expressing that. Mind you, I can work with alot of people with whom I disagree. To be sure, I am in the CP, which I disagree with on several issues. The difference being, I will cooperate with anyone on an issue which we agree on, as long as they are civil. I do not find Lofton, Whittman, or Whiteman to be civil. I find them to be damaging to the cause of Constitutionalism. And I oppose them with the same vigilance that I oppose MUSLIM fundamentalists who wish to remove women’s rights.

  26. globalist_elitist Says:

    If it makes everyone feel better, I can state with relative confidence that NONE of you will be going to hell.

  27. Jason Says:

    Thanks GE….

  28. globalist_elitist Says:

    Of course, I can say the same for Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, GWB, etc.

  29. Trent Hill Says:

    That. Was actually rather humorous.

  30. Cody Quirk Says:

    Denis is a religious-freak?

    What religion specially? New Age?

  31. globalist_elitist Says:

    I believe he is a Catholic who also enjoys the New Age fruitiness. One thing is for sure: He is not an atheist nor a secularist. Separation of church and stete is not high on his agenda.

  32. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Trent, I’m sorry if I kind of combined you and Cody into one person in my arguments. I can see the sense of what you were saying.

    I was just starting to see the discussion going from reasonable criticism of your opponents to demonization (which they have done too), but I realize that Cody’s was more obvious. I respect both of you guys for all of the good that you’re doing in the world.

    I’m not trying to act like a thread moderator or anything—just trying to constructively criticize one of your methods which will, by its nature, only serve to divide the conservative pool further, rather than unite it. The more we freedom fighters hate each other, the more freedom we will lose.

  33. Timm Knibbs Says:

    Ron Paul has introduced several time legislation that would give an unborn child the same protection as a child who has been born.

  34. Cody Quirk Says:

    I believe he is a Catholic who also enjoys the New Age fruitiness. One thing is for sure: He is not an atheist nor a secularist. Separation of church and stete is not high on his agenda.

    =I don’t go for anything New Age.

  35. John Chance Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    April 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
    This just solidifies that the CP is nothing more than an old-school Democratic-esque, William Jennings Bryant, anticapitalist group of class warriors preaching disdain for wealth and success.

    Nice to know undercover anarchist has company in the truly stupid and inane comments section. Wonder if UA and GE are one and the same??

    The old school Democractic—yada, yada-are based on decentralized Jeffersonina, so in a sense, yeah, guess so. If we have a disdain for wealth/success, guess we mised Peroutka’s when we had him as our front man in 2004. Oh, and Howard Phillips, Jim Clymer, etc-all men of moderate wealth and success. lets not forget Bill Shearer either. As far as capitalism, who says this economic viewpoint is sacrosanct??

    ‘Capitalism does not produce too many capitalists, but too few”
    -GK Chesteron

    How, with big box businesses, tied in w/big box Party’s, was he right!

  36. John Chance Says:

    globalist_elitist Says:

    April 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
    If it makes everyone feel better, I can state with relative confidence that NONE of you will be going to hell.

    um, gee thanks “god”

  37. Winston Smith Says:

    I think I can agree -UA and GE are likely 1 and the same. Something about the inane pedantering.

  38. Trent Hill Says:

    Winston, John,

    UA and GE are indeed one and the same person. UA stated a while back that he was changing his handle to GE.

  39. globalist_elitist Says:

    I abandoned the undercover_anarchist moniker because I am no longer undercover, and I never was an anarchist.

    I took the globalist_elitist name from the great Chuck Baldwin.

    I also post as unrepetentant_archcapitalist elsewhere.

    WJB /= Thomas Jefferson. WJB = Dennis Kucinich, to a tee.

Leave a Reply