2004 General Election Endorsements
Action America has put off making our endorsements for as long as possible, in the hope that something would change, to keep us from having to make one endorsement that we would rather not have to make. However, the only things that have changed, have solidified the need to make that endorsement, so we will wait no longer.
We are proud to endorse the following candidates for election in their respective races, in the November 2004 General Election. Our endorsements are limited in number, because unlike many conservative publications and organizations, who endorse simply by political party affiliation, our measure is true conservatism, regardless of party. For that reason, we will only endorse those candidates who we are certain will perform up to true conservative standards, which includes, among other things, a deep and abiding respect for the "original intent" of the Constitution and all of its amendments. We also look for candidates who will fight to ensure a sound fiscal policy, that does not include an IRS, but does include free trade, will accept nothing less than the best national defense possible, will make every effort to permanently get the US out of the UN, will work diligently to secure our borders, which means no amnesty for illegal aliens and above all, is firmly dedicated to a limited federal government. There are many other good candidates, who we just don't know enough about or just don't have the time to investigate further. A good place to look for other true conservatives, would be the Liberty Committee Legislation Page. Look at how they voted. As for those listed here, we either know the candidate personally or have researched his record extensively, as well as that of his opponent(s) and know them to be true conservatives on most, if not all issues and know them to be more conservative than their opponents, regardless of party affiliation. Due to time constraints, these endorsements are not as detailed as we would like. If time permits, we will add more information and/or endorsements later.
President of the US: Michael Badnarik (L)
This was a very difficult decision. It came came down to two questions. They are, "Do George W. Bush's positives outweigh his negatives?" and "Is voting for the lesser evil an acceptable option?" The answer, as I will explain, is a decisive, "No".
Although, as Commander in Chief, Bush has been superb, as President, he has done more damage to the Constitution than even Clinton. That's because the Republicans in Congress, who steadfastly blocked the worst of Clinton's anti-Constitution initiatives, now obediently line up to vote for similar and even worse initiatives from fellow Republican, Bush. We must keep in mind that without an intact Constitution, there will soon be no freedoms for our military to defend. Would Kerry be any better? No. However, although Bush is not as bad as Kerry, he still represents a definite net negative for the nation. This brings up the second question.
Many voters erroneously think that by voting for the lesser evil, they are doing something positive. Let's be clear about one point. A vote for the lesser evil is nothing more or less than an endorsement of evil. To put this into perspective, I will use an analogy that came up the other day, in a conversation with a conservative friend. Asking a true conservative to choose between Bush and Kerry, is like asking a person who is allergic to milk products, whether he wants his pizza with or without anchovies. It doesn't matter that he doesn't care for anchovies (in this case, Kerry). He knows that even one bite of the pizza, with or without anchovies, will make him violently sick, because of the cheese (tyranny) that underlies both. The the abiding fact is that, in every case, the lesser evil is still "EVIL".
Badnarik is far from a perfect choice for conservatives and there is effectively no chance that he can win. But, he is acceptable, which is far more than can be said about either Bush or Kerry. If he should somehow, be elected, he will make it a priority to roll back the many unconstitutional gun control laws now on the books, roll back much of the Patriot Act, abolish the income tax and IRS, end the failed War on Drugs and get the United States out of the United Nations. Those positives and more, offset his negatives and create a net positive for the nation. So, the only question is that, since it is so unlikely that he will win, wouldn't a vote for Badnarik be like voting for Kerry or just throwing your vote away? Again, the answer is a decisive, "No". Rather than eat pizza, with or without anchovies, the lactose intolerant diner will go hungry. When an option is unacceptable, it is unacceptable, regardless of what any other option may be.
Both Bush and Kerry represent a net negative for the nation. Both will increase the size and power of the federal government, far beyond constitutional limits. The only difference is whose friends will be the beneficiaries and how fast they will do their dastardly deeds. In that regard, Bush might seem to be better, were it not for his control over the Republicans in Congress. It is because Bush has such control over the Republicans in Congress that Kerry might even appear to be better than Bush, since the Republicans in Congress, who today, meekly follow Bush's marching orders, would fight the exact same big-government initiatives that Bush has managed to pass, if they were to come from a Kerry Whitehouse. It would mean gridlock and after the last three and a half years of unchecked abridgement of our rights, gridlock sounds mighty good.
Throwing away your vote, is knowingly voting for any candidate who will do more harm than good for the nation, even if he is the lesser evil. As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
There are those who will ask, "What about Peroutka and the Constitution Party?". Although Peroutka's stated positions are almost ideal, for true conservatives, his single issue focus leaves little doubt that if he thought that it was the only way that he could get an anti-abortion law on the books, he would bargain away any or all of his other stated positions and the entire Constitution, to get that chance. A person who places such weight on a single issue, regardless of what that issue happens to be, cannot be counted upon, where other issues are concerned. That leaves only one candidate to the right of center, who can be trusted not to bargain away our rights, for any reason.
It's a tough decision to have to make, but we must endorse the only candidate who is to the right of center and can be counted upon to jealously defend the Constitution, in all cases. That candidate is Michael Badnarik. Though not the perfect candidate, we believe that his positives far outweigh his negatives and therefore, we give our endorsement for President of the United States to Libertarian, Michael Badnarik.
US Congress TX-14: Dr. Ron Paul (R)
A Thomas Jefferson conservative. The strongest supporter of the "original intent" of the Constitution, in all of Washington, DC. and no elected official, in either party, understands the Constitution better. 'Nuff said. We are proud to give Dr. Ron Paul our heartiest endorsement.
US Congress CO-6:
Tom Tancredo (R)
(WITHDRAWN) We had initially endorsed Tom Tancredo, in spite of the fact that he voted for the misnamed Patriot Act, largely because he has since given indication of wanting to reverse a lot of the damage that the Patriot Act has done to the Constitution and our security. In fact, many conservative Congressmen have since stated that they would not have voted for the Patriot Act, had they had a chance to read it, before the vote. However, recent votes by Tom Tancredo have indicated that he indeed supports the Patriot Act, in all of its abusive detail. Let me be clear that we do NOT support his opponent. It's just that we reserve our endorsements only for those candidates who we feel certain will uncompromisingly support the Constitution. It is now obvious that Tancredo does not fit into that category, so we must regrettably withdraw our endorsement of Tom Tancredo.
US Congress TX-2: Ted Poe (R)
For many years, Ted Poe was a law and order judge, who was widely known for his innovative sentencing. He tends slightly toward the current RINO leadership, on domestic issues, but unlike Bush, he is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a vocal advocate of the National Retail Sales Tax. He will support the proposed marriage protection amendment and will oppose blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. We have been unable to get a definitive answer from either Ted Poe or his staff, concerning his position on the most egregious parts of the Patriot Act or sunsets of same. This leads us to believe that he might support the administration's continuing legislative attacks on the Constitution. On the other hand, he may be remaining quiet on the subject, because he disagrees with the administration and needs the financial support that the administration can send his way. Because of this unknown, our endorsement of Ted Poe is less than enthusiastic. Even so, we believe that overall, he is to the right of center, which makes him acceptable, while his opponent, Nick Lampson, is such an unabashed liberal that the only thing positive that we can say about him, is that he is more conservative than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Though there are some unknowns in Ted Poe's positions that present some real reason for concern, he was one of the best judges that the Houston area has ever seen. We believe that his overall effect will be positive. Add in his great reputation and we believe that he deserves at least one chance to prove that he will do the right thing. We give Ted Poe our endorsement.
US Congress TX-18: Tom Bazan (I)
A true conservative, running as an Independent, against the infamous Sheila Jackson Lee. He will put conservatism ahead of party politics. Houston voters will recognize Bazan as a staunch opponent of the Wham-Bam-Tram (occasionally still referred to as MetroRail) and a supporter of mass transit based on needs, rather than politics. Unlike either of his opponents, Tom Bazan has not only studied the issues and is well informed, but he has been active, as a normal citizen, in supporting or opposing many of the same issues that he will be called upon to vote on in Congress. Though he is a proven constitutional conservative, he is running as an independent, because the 18th District will not elect either a Republican or a Libertarian. We think that's a good move. Tom Bazan is a true small government conservative and we are proud to give him our endorsement.
Would you like to have John Gaver speak at your meeting or public function?