In Fundraising Letter Jim Clymer Throws Big Boulders From His Glass House
Michael Peroutka (on our most recent radio show) and Scott Whiteman (in a recent post in this “Forum”) have commented on Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer’s article on abortion which is on the Web site of the CP. But, to my knowledge, no one has commented on Jim’s undated post-election fundraising letter some of whose phraseology is redolent of the debate in Tampa re: abortion/Nevada. In fact, considering the side of this debate Jim took — the wrong side; see articles on our front page – you wonder how he could use such language (or sign this letter written by someone else.)
In the first paragraph, Jim, noting that the election was a “stunning rebuke” to the GOP, writes: “Unprecedented numbers of conservatives chose not to endorse the GOP leadership’s softness on the life issue,” etc. Yikes! Talk about leading with your chin! Do you really want to heave this gigantic boulder from your glass house, Jim? Do you really want to talk about “softness on the life issue,” Jim? I think not – not after, in Tampa, you voted to keep in the CP the Nevada Independent American Party whose leadership is murderous mush on the abortion issue embracing the Mormon position (because they are Mormons) that it’s allowable to murder unborn children for “life/health” of the mother, “fetal deformity” and if these innocents are in the womb because of rape/incest.
This letter also trashes, correctly, the Republicans for having “betrayed” their base once in power. How so? Well, Jim says that after “running on a pro-life platform,” President Bush, once he gained office, said he didn’t think the culture had changed enough that the American people or Congress would totally ban abortions.
Jim says: “But, on an issue like abortion which is, literally, a life-and-death issue, it is the role of the President to lead the culture and Congress to try to change what they believe, not to passively follow along.”
Well, amen, Brother Jim! Preach it! And it was your role in Tampa, and the role of Howard Phillips, and others, in Tampa, to lead those assembled there and defend the CP’s no-exceptions-on-abortion Platform. But, alas, neither of you did this which was a betrayal of the CP base, so to speak.
Jim also says that he knows what irked more conservative Republicans than any other thing. And this is – what? It is, he says, the fact that (are you seated) the national GOP (no, for this one you should lie flat on the floor) “consistently…puts politics above principle.” Jim adds: “They’ll back any candidate they think can win, regardless of their beliefs or principles” (emphasis his).
In case you missed it the first time, Jim reiterates the necessity of standing for something: “When push comes to shove most Americans still prefer to be led by men and women of principle….We need you and anyone who puts principle above politics to become an active Constitution Party supporter….In fact, I’d like to collect one million signed ‘Voter Commitments to put Principle above Politics.’” In a P.S., Jim asks that the reader of his letter not put it down “without signing your ‘Voter Commitments to put Principle above Politics.’”
Get it? The CP is a party — or so Jim Clymer wants us to believe — that (all together now) puts “Principle above Politics.” But, is it? Were Jim, Howard, others, in Tampa, putting “Principle above Politics” when they refused to defend the 100 percent pro-life CP Platform? No, they were not. To those who say they were, then tell me, please, what “Principle” were they asserting when they refused to defend the 100 percent pro-life CP Platform?
And speaking of “Principles,” the CP says that it is for, among other things, restoring “our law to its Biblical foundations.” But, there is not one word about this in Jim’s letter — further evidence of the CP’s de-Christianization.
Finally, there’s a truly petty slight in Jim’s letter which cannot be credibly excused as a simple oversight. On page six, it is noted: “And the Constitution Party 2004 presidential candidate was on the ballot in more states than the Green Party’s Ralph Nader.”
Hmmmmmmmmm. And who was that masked man, the unidentified, anonymous “Constitution Party 2004 presidential candidate,” the individual whose name does not appear here unlike Ralph Nader whose name does appear? Why, I believe it was Michael Anthony Peroutka! In fact, I am certain it was Michael Anthony Peroutka. I mean, I was in Valley Forge! I saw him nominated! And I saw Jim Clymer see Michael nominated!
Cheap shot, Jim. I’m tempted to say it’s beneath you, sir – but I am not sure this is so.