114 comments
Rick G.
Rick G.

In the end I wrote in Ron Paul for president. I couldn't vote for a third party with a clear conscience and I knew that would be an exercise in futility. Even though I knew that my vote would not count I had the hope that possibly someone was counting votes out there and would know how many registered Republicans voted for Ron Paul.

Oh, and on the topic of celebrity endorsement, I think a Ron Paul and Ben Stein ticket would be unstoppable... http://benstein.com

Be sure to click on my pic and visit my site. Go to the "News" page for my Ron Paul collage!

Caleb Sanburn
Caleb Sanburn

Thank you Ron Paul for standing up for what America should be. My prayers are with you and will always support you.

Lance Heard
Lance Heard

Eric, I wonder if some of the 2012 strategy is short sighted. For example, history has shown that the strength of the 3rd party is based upon the candidate. Without any cohesiveness or agreement amongst the coalition that would represent supporters of the 3rd party, access in 2012 will be wasted as the Democratic and Republican machines attack the the 3d party and weaken its ability to attract mainstream members of their respective parties. These two issues point to my main concern which is; we need to believe in our group as one that can come to agreement and support one candidate more than we need to spend our energy on access in 2012. Can we form a consesus? Can we find the popular candidate now? If not then access seems pointless in 2012.

Lyndon Olson
Lyndon Olson

Nancy makes several excellent points. As the mainstream media all but ignore Baldwin and other alternative candidates even before the election, it's a safe bet that, after the election, they won't interview a lot of Baldwin voters as part of an in-depth analysis of what drove them. They'll draw their own conclusions, if they notice at all. Who knows--if they do get detailed enough to conclude that Baldwin got support from the left and the right, they could attribute it to the voters not knowing which "Baldwin brother" they were voting for.

As Nancy notes, a clearer way of making your intentions known would be to focus on other options, such as other races in which there are candidates who truly echo Ron Paul's message, pushing for Dr. Paul to be selected as a Cabinet member or top advisor (just as in the presidential race, there's value in the campaign, even if he doesn't get the job), and incessantly pressing elected officials to consider our views on the issues (combined with ongoing outreach to the public on the same points).

I don't think this is an either-or proposition, though. There's still some value to increasing the vote totals for the alternative candidates. Granted, the media might perceive Baldwin voters as Huckabee supporters on steroids, Nader and McKinney supporters as anti-capitalist fanatics, and Bob Barr supporters as ultra-conservatives with an anarchist streak, but it will prompt a certain amount of consideration of what these "protest votes" have in common, which will benefit our efforts in the other areas Nancy suggested. As for voting in other races and not for president, the question of whether or not the media would notice this might be trumped by the comparable shortage of ideal options in the other races as well. If you're fortunate enough to have a Ron Paul supporter running for a lesser office on your ballot, that's great, but should we, for example, agree to vote for any member of Congress who voted against the bailout bill, even if ours is someone we totally oppose on some other issues? Tough call...

In short, though, the best way to avoid sending the wrong message is to put your exact message in your own words, and share it with elected officials, the media, and the public at every opportunity. We owe Nancy a big "thank you" for reminding us that we have other options, and for suggesting some very good ones to us.

It wouldn't be practical here to try to referee the ongoing debate between Randy and his critics, but I was curious about one passing remark from Randy that began with "When 'former' CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv into Ron Paul's back..." Considering how elaborately Randy argues for his position on other points, I was surprised to read such a hostile accusation with no evidence or explanation offered for it. Even those of us who make some effort to keep up with what's happening don't always get all the news about everything. If someone is going to make that harsh an attack on someone, particularly a candidate who stands against the major party candidates in supporting our positions on major issues, shouldn't that critic offer some evidence to justify the charge, instead of just assuming that we're all reading all of the same blogs and agreeing with what they say?

Nancy
Nancy

It is my personal opinion that there's a serious problem with voting for Baldwin. I believe it will set back all the ground we have made with Dr. Paul, because we won't be able to control the media interpretation of the votes. Ron Paulers may be voting for Baldwin for economic and individual freedom reasons and the media, having no way of knowing just why Baldwin got votes, can claim that he got them for Christian Right reasons and then if it comes out that it was Dr. Paul encouraging those votes, then a link will be made, rightly or wrongly, that Dr. Paul is about being Christian Right and anti-gay and goodness knows what else, instead of staying focussed on the economy and the sovereignty of America and the Constitution and all else he believes in. I just can't bring myself to believe that by voting for "someone else" does me any good.

I feel like I just don't have a choice for President but luckily for me I have a Congressional choice where I live - a guy that is running for Congress on the Ron Paul platform, inspired by Ron Paul and I believe our efforts should be thrown into voting in Congress Reps and Senators on even the local level (State Congress and Senators) on the Ron Paul platform and making constant emails and phone calls to all of them constantly long after Nov 4th to let them know how we want them to vote. I just feel like no matter what we do on this Presidential election we won't be heard unless we had a huge turn out of ballots that voted for all the local stuff and left the Presidential part blank. Do they report on that if it were huge? Would there be a report of 5% or 10% of the people who voted but left the presidential part blank?

I am also pushing both the Obama and McCain camp to select Dr. Paul as Treas Secr for their cabinet and at the very least, an economic advisor. It just seems like something that CAN be done - not the accomplishment of, but the pushing. Let the Obama camp (assuming he wins) get hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls asking for the appointment of Dr. Paul. And let that hit the news. Why not marches with signs calling for the appointment of Dr. Paul to a cabinet position regardless of who wins? Why can't that be all over the news and airways? Let whoever the winner is be shamed and targeted by a substantial % of the American people want fiscal conservatism. I vote for pushing for Dr. Paul for a Cabinet position and that will make the news more candidly and flagrantly than voting someone who reflects Dr. Paul on some issues but not others and therefore, all our votes could become misinterpreted. Just a thought. Interestingly for me, I will be overseas for a long time starting right after the election so I'll get to hear what the international community thinks of all this.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

[Randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP. [/Randy]

No, the CP isn't. They only say it shall be required (of him shall be much required). It was Baldwin's web-site that claimed we must "commit" to "almighty god". His words, not mine. They also are using a forked tongue when they claim we can determine for ourselves but then tells us what we must determine. (may each of us determine for ourselves–and commit to Almighty God).

[Randy]You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party,[/Randy]

Right after I vote for Nader even though I don't want any of the policies he says he wants.

[randy]Nobody’s asking you to “commit” to the CP.[/randy]

However, Baldwin's web-site says you must "commit" to a view of God that I do not hold true. The Cp's site implies that you must be willing to go back to the "Christian Foundation".

[randy]If the Crusades had never occurred, you’d be living under Sharia law right now[/randy]

Maybe. If the attitude during the Crusades continued and my relatives survived not fitting in (Scottish Irish), then I probably would be killed either by the Roman church or a Calvanistic protestant. I wonder, is OBL simply a reincarnation of John Calvin or Pope Urban?

[randy]Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.[/randy]

Oh really? That is not the image the press gives of Palin's or Bush's religious beliefs.

[randy]The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow “superior” when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.[/randy]

I know. When did I claim secular governments were "superior"? I don't remember doing so for 30 years at least.

[randy]we’re not interested in compromising our beliefs[/randy]

The reason I was impressed with Ron Paul is that he is willing to work with others. It is ok to disagree with RP, but I'm afraid the CP will take a radically different approach. One that will make these last 8 years seem like paradise.

Randy
Randy

[Fausticus]wow, good job…keep it up. You’re doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.[/Fausticus]

I haven't discredited myself at all. In fact, I've corrected false representations about the CP made by you and others here. You have yet to successfully refute anything I've said.

If you oppose the CP's religious beliefs, fine. Don't vote for Chuck Baldwin. I bear you no malice for that.

But at least present some in-depth intellectual arguments, rather than making cheap-shots and false representations.

Fausticus
Fausticus

wow, good job...keep it up. You're doing a better job discrediting yourself than any opponent could.

Randy
Randy

[Fluidly Unsure]The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin’s web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.[/Fluidly Unsure]

The only people that the CP "requires" to accept their ideas, is those people who wish to join and become officers of the CP.

Like any other political party, we expect our members to be faithful to our platform.

Under no circumstances does the CP support forcing any non-members of the party to accept their Christian faith and party platform.

You can vote for Chuck Baldwin without having to join the party, and quite frankly we don't care what your personal beliefs are.

Your grossly mistaken belief that the CP is somehow going to try to force all Americans to become Christians and adhere to the CP platform, is quite naive.

[Fluidly Unsure]The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.[/Fluidly Unsure]

Nobody's asking you to "commit" to the CP. Voting for Chuck Baldwin is not a "commitment", any more than my past votes for both individual Republicans and Libertarians is a "commitment" to either of those parties.

[Fluidly Unsure]BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.[/Fluidly Unsure]

Nobody's trying to win you over. You're flattering yourself if you think either of my previous posts were in any way directed toward you.

By the way, the primary purpose of the Crusades was to resist the Muslim takeover of Europe. If the Crusades had never occurred, you'd be living under Sharia law right now, if you hadn't already been killed for being an "infidel".

I told the simple, verifiable truth about numerous major secular governments of the 20th Century. If that offends you, I'm not sorry.

The sadly mistaken notion that secular governments are somehow "superior" when it comes to securing personal liberty, is quite simply laughable.

Especially in light of the overtly secular and brutal dictatorships of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro etc.

[Fluidly Unsure]The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like “while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there”.[/Fluidly Unsure]

Thanks, but we're not interested in compromising our beliefs, just to satisfy the whims of those who are opposed to some of those beliefs.

Compromise was the downfall of the Republican Party, which is now merely a mirror image of the Democratic Party at the leadership level.

Not surprisingly, both of those virtually worthless parties are secular in nature.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

The platform statements are more than just reiterating general principles. It (a conglomerate of CP and Baldwin's web sites) demands that you accept the idea of a redeemer and take the responsibility to commit to it.

The general principles you quote are not unique to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The CP states that we must go back to the Christian principles, not the general principles you use. Just as I can only commit to the last 5 of the 10 commandments, I cannot commit to the CP with a clear conscious.

BTW, you are not going to win me over by equating my beliefs to Atheistic dictators anymore than I would if I claimed the CP wanted to return to the principles that drove the crusades and ended-up burning many at the stake.

The CP, IMHO, would do well to emphasis the positive aspects of Christianity but equate them to Christianity no more than claiming something like "while it was the vehicle used to get there, it is not the only vehicle that will get there".

Randy
Randy

[Fausticus]"Hear hear. The CP can’t use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians…that’s just speaking with a forked tongue. If you’re for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform."[/Fausticus]

You're clearly misrepresenting the Constitution Party (CP). Please show us where any candidate or official of the CP has claimed that the CP is "as libertarian as the Libertarians".

The CP stands on its own merits. We're not Libertarian Party (LP) wannabes.

Last time I checked, the LP officially supported a policy of "open borders". In the age of international terrorism/criminal syndicates/drug dealing, Red Chinese encroachment in the Western Hemisphere etc.--"open borders" is a policy of national suicide.

With its "open borders" policy, the Libertarian Party stands against American sovereignty and liberty. Which is why I don't stand with the Libertarian Party.

When "former" CIA agent Bob Barr rammed a shiv in Ron Paul's back, Ron very wisely endorsed Mr. Chuck Baldwin, a man eminently more principled than Bob Barr.

Randy
Randy

[Lyndon Olson]"Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group’s Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don’t be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you."[/Lyndon Olson]

Very well said and quite true, Lyndon. Some people have a knee-jerk fear, bordering on paranoia, of devout Christians in government. However, the secularism these same people advocate doesn't have a very good track record:

Soviet Regime of Lenin and Stalin (both militant atheists)--Secular and officially atheist--Approximately 45 million people murdered. Millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc. Shut down church-operated private schools and destroyed thousands of churches in Russia and occupied countries.

Nazi Regime of Hitler (who was bitterly anti-Christian)--Secular--Approximately 10 million murdered, and tens of millions more died in the world war the Nazis precipitated. The Nazis shut down all church-operated private schools in Germany, and destroyed thousands of churches in occupied Europe and Russia.

Fascist Regime of Mussolini (a militant atheist who publicly attacked Christianity)--Secular--Entered into a complete politico-military alliance with the Nazis, and collaborated in many Nazi crimes against humanity, as well as perpetrating many of their own.

Red Chinese Regime of Chairman Mao (a militant atheist)--Secular-- Murdered at least 60 million people, millions more incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

Regime of Pol Pot (a militant atheist)--Secular--Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

Regime of Kim Il-Sung (a militant atheist)--Secular--Approximately two million murdered, with many others incarcerated in prisons and slave labor camps, tortured etc.

The 20th Century was "The Century of Secularism" in governments around the world, and tens of millions more people were murdered, enslaved, imprisoned and tortured than in any other century in world history.

The blood of well over a hundred million people is flowing from the hands of the apostles of government secularism.

Of course, the advocates of secularism will propose a false dichotomy of "It's got to be either secularism or theocracy".

Which is NOT true. Like the America created by our founding fathers, it can be a government based on GENERAL Judeo-Christian principles like "Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Which is NOT the same thing as establishing a theocracy and official state religion of Christianity, which the Constitution Party opposes just as strongly as the secularists.

Lyndon Olson
Lyndon Olson

Maybe a more accurate assessment of this isn't exactly in line with either side. It's understandable that some would be skittish about the religious comments from the Constitution Party, or even Chuck Baldwin as an individual, depending on the context. But it's unlikely that their choice of words is evidence that the party is a group of would-be dictators, trying deviously to use enough religious verbiage to rally the troops, but not enough to admit to everyone else what they're up to. More likely it's a product of a group of well-meaning Christians who have a high regard for liberty and integrity but haven't fully thought through the proper role of government in a free society. But, to be fair to Baldwin and his supporters, they do seem to have thought this through about 100 times more intensively than 99% of Democrats and Republicans.

I hope that Constitution Party supporters continue to ponder this issue, and engage others in discussions about it. Likewise, I hope that those who are uncomfortable with the group's Christian rhetoric will realize that this is not a bunch of Karl Roves and Tom Delays, hypocritically trying to pull one over on us. Please don't be so jaded by the tyrants and the phonies that you become paranoid about all references to religion; it is possible for someone to have devout beliefs, and even be quite open about them, and still not want to use government to force any of them on you. Let's keep a healthy discussion going; if we're reasonable about it, everyone benefits.

Fausticus
Fausticus

Hear hear. The CP can't use all their religionist verbiage and still claim to be as libertarian as the Libertarians...that's just speaking with a forked tongue. If you're for the separation of church and state, then leave the church stuff out of your platform.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

Mr Peroutka,

I hope you didn't think I was claiming you would establish a "theocracy". I never used the word. However, what their web-site claims to want to implement sounds similar to what many, if not most, think of as a "theocracy".

If the CP wishes to dispel people's thoughts along those lines then they may want to take down the statements such as “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations”.

Then there is Baldwin's statements. His references to a redeemer reeks of the religious arrogance of a revealed religion- something I find offensive and threatening to say the least. His call to commit to Almighty God sounds like the verbage used by monotheistic religions that all must bow down to their vision of God and nothing else. Those words are not damning in and of themselves and only show a potential for a government lead by religion. But when you combine Baldwin's words with the CP's statements, the potential becomes a solid threat.

Bottom line, if there is a misunderstanding about the CP's position then it is their own fault. They are providing everybody with enough ammo to shoot anything the party says.

Where you fall in all of this, I don't know. Your emphasis on a creator could be deistic enough to be acceptable. While I haven't done enough research on your position, I am sure of the CP's and Baldwin's self-proclaimed positions and find them to be unacceptable.

Randy
Randy

The claim that the Constitution Party (CP) supports the implementation of a theocracy, is absolutely false. CP leaders addressed this bogus charge four years ago:

"I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false—a complete canard."

--Michael Peroutka
Constitution Party 2004 Presidential Nominee

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

I would also like to respond to an article referred to; "the great conservative hoax" by Lew Rockwell.

To imply conservatives believe in preemptive warfare is misleading. Both our military actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan started as self-defense. They morphed into something else later on, but it started as a self-defensive measure because of the actions of 9-11, Sadam's past support of terrorists, and Sadam's refusal to pay attention to the treaties he signed.

With the exception of the 4th of July, the only time I know of that conservatives are "wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state" was when we were reacting to warfare against us. Sometimes humans need a little cheer-leading.

We do not condemn civil liberties any more than liberals who want to take away our right to smoke, eat, or drink what we want. Conservatives do not casting aspersions on religious liberty,

Ok; many conservatives herald the jail, the electric chair, and brute force as the answer to all of society’s problems. Those ideals must be fought. But not all conservatives believe so and the actions of the conservatives that don't do not lead to actions of those that do as Mr Rockwell claims.

Yes I hate (fear is a better word) the left because it proclaims the state as the answer to all evils. That is why I call them "statists".

If some conservatives love the past more than liberty, then they are not alone. Look at the "progressive" movement that wants to avoid all change (except in political propaganda) and shield us from the effects of our freedom. At least they have a holistic hatred towards change that includes animals, the climate, and minerals.

I still say an attachment to nationalism only happens on July 4th, and the dislike some have towards self-determination is dwarfed by other positions on the political spectrum.

When he says they "thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy", is he talking about the Constitution Party?

At least Rockwell didn't condemn conservatives because they are heartless and don't care about the welfare of others. That is the only part of the article that makes sense to me.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

Informative but misleading. It skims over the threatening ideas I read at both Baldwin's web site and Constitution party's site. Just because they call themselves constitutionalists doesn't mean they support what I read when I read the constitution.

Baldwin and his party are both nightmares waiting to happen. They seem to want to return to the system of government common before John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. While I don't think I've read them actually saying this, but what I have read implies that they believe the government is not an institution of the people that can be altered by the people when the people find it necessary. They seem to think that government is an institution of God and to disagree with it is to disagree with God. If Baldwin has any chance in this vote, I hope I am wrong.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

I've been thinking about the statement that "The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration."

For the reasons enumerated above, I do find the constitution party to be a major threat. And I don't see McCain or Palin to be anymore than holding different "values" than I do. The only place I can see that being a problem is stem-cell research.

But to use a person's religion as a pivoting factor in and of itself is a major threat. Yes, politicians will make decisions based on the value system they hold as true, just as you and I would. But as long as the government isn't forcing their version of worship on others then it shouldn't matter.

Edward
Edward

Lance,

If you want to punish Barr or Baldwin, then don't send him any donations...that's what I did after Barr angered Ron Paul by not showing up at his 3rd party press conference...I didn't send him a penny after that...but I still voted for Barr in order to help the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

Let's suppose that Ron Paul has a change of heart and decides to be the 2012 LP nominee...do you want him to have automatic ballot access or do you want him fighting the courts, the 2 party system and wasting his campaign cash to get on the 2012 ballots? And if Ron Paul strongly endorses the 2012 LP nominee, do you want that nominee fighting the courts too?

If you reply please talk about 2012.

Lance Heard
Lance Heard

Edward, ins't not voting for barr and Baldwin punishing the nominees for the positions they took against Ron Paul and others like him who were trying to do more thatn just promote a Libertarian agenda?

Edward
Edward

To Eric and those writing-in Ron Paul's name,

The third party candidates may not have a chance, but the 2012 liberty candidates need your 2008 vote. Not voting for Barr or Baldwin is equivalent to punishing the 2012 Libertarian or Constitution Party nominees who need your 2008 vote plus thousands of others to get automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. I don't think that it is fair that if I don't vote for Barr or Baldwin, the 2012 LP or CP nominee will have to fight the courts and 2-party system to get on the 2012 ballots.

I voted on Monday....and I wrote-in Ron Paul on the ballot...but not for President...I wrote him in for Florida State Representative District 106...I had to choose between voting for someone named Richard L. Steinberg or doing a write-in.

So now I can say I have voted for RP

My vote for President went towards helping the 2012 LP nominee get ballot access.

Lance Heard
Lance Heard

After reading this I have decided to write in vote for Ron Paul. I also want to say that all of the posts I read only confused the issue for me, they did not help in any way. I can only assume that the posts were to state personal opinions. I wanted those of you who posted to have that feedback.

Fausticus
Fausticus

I greatly admire Ron Paul's eloquence in the defense of economic freedom in the US...but I feel very frustrated that he would endorse a church-and-state candidate seemingly just to spite Bob Barr. It seems very irresponsible and divisive. After all, the group with momentum, the third largest political party in the nation, is the Libertarian Party. Why not rally behind its nominee? Barr is the best proponent of libertarian ideals of all the candidates running for President, so it would make sense to make your choice based on that, not on the fact that Ron Paul put a one line endorsement of the other guy in the last sentence of a letter.

Look, we all know that none of these people have a chance at getting elected - Barr, Paul, or the 'Constitution' party. So doesn't it make sense to try and consolidate our votes behind the one most likely to garner the most votes anyway?

Eric Martin
Eric Martin

None of these third-party candidates have a chance, so let's vote for the best; take a stand. Vote for Ron Paul by writing him in.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

Heavy heart because we have to vote the least of 2 evils? With the except that my heart is about 10 years younger, we are on the same track.

JD4x4
JD4x4

Well, here I am on the deadline day in my state for a write-in candidate to register as such (for it to be actually counted and not discarded).

My heart is the heaviest it has ever been in my 57 years on the planet because Dr. Paul is not on my sample ballot. Ironically this situation is somewhat at odds with what I think Dr. Paul believes.

I must now vote the lesser evil. But on what level of "evil"? The candidate that I agree with THE MOST is not an 'official' option so my vote will TRULY be thrown away this election year!

So, I'll hope against hope that on election day Dr. Paul's name will magically & electronically appear as a write-in 'choice' when I actually cast my ballot. I'll have to make my decision only then.

millanza
millanza

Sorry, not buying it. I'll still write-in Ron Paul. It's only one vote, but it's my vote.

heckYes
heckYes

I voted Chuck Baldwin! He may not win, but he definitely is the best choice up there. Everyone should always vote their conscience

Klint
Klint

I don't see how Ron Paul can support Chuck. Read Chuck's trade policy ideas

"A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs"

I know Ron Paul is a big follower of Austrian Economics. This line of economics and Chuck's policies are fundamentally opposed. Has Chuck ever heard of comparative advantage? Do nations trade or do individuals? Is a tariff on imports a restriction on individual liberty? Does Chuck really think we should put a tariff on bananas large enough so that we can grow them in the US where you would need a greenhouse to do so?

Other than having a poor understanding of basic economics the Constitution party is mainly on board with individual liberty.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

Thank you Edward.

After rereading the comments, your statement "If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself." gave me some hope and another path to look for so I did some research.

Unfortunately, what I found was contradictory to itself and I'll have to ponder it.

In one paragraph, he emphasizes a natural law and man's Creator. His inclusion of Redeemer worries me though.

"Our Constitution (along with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) was formed, framed, and founded upon the eternal principles contained in Natural Law, which proceeds forth from man's Creator and Redeemer. No people in human history have ever been so blessed as the people of the United States to inherit such a legacy. Such a heritage serves only to heighten our own responsibility, as "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."
http://www.baldwin08.com/ARTICLE-Baldwin_A_Salute_To_Our_US_Constitution.cfm
Paragraph 5

The very next paragraph can be taken different ways.
"On this Constitution Day of 2008, may this generation of Americans live up to its responsibility to valiantly bequeath to our posterity the same legacy of freedom that was so bravely and miraculously bequeathed to us. For the sake of freedom, for the love of our children, and for the safety and security of our republic, may each of us determine for ourselves--and commit to Almighty God--to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He may be invoking a Deistic interpretation of God, but considering the party he is coming from I doubt it. The statements can be used by any of the monotheistic religions of the middle east but completely excludes everything else.

He also does not say what should be done to someone who ignores their "responsibilities" and does not "commit to the almighty God". That is a red flag to me.

So far, Chuck Baldwin looks to me like he is against the freedom to express religious beliefs without repercussions. I say this as someone who is not against God-- my days as an Atheist ended years ago along with my partying days. I say this as someone who is not against the constitution, just this particular interpretation of it.

So far, I haven't seen anything that changes my opinion. However, this does make me wonder if Sarah Palin is as big a threat. More research is necessary.

Fluidly Unsure
Fluidly Unsure

I can't get past the statement describing the constitutional party. (2nd paragraph in the section "The constitution party".)

"Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations"

And the 5th principle is rather subjective. We can only guess what their interpretation will be. But combined with the paragraph quoted above, you have a recipe for disaster.

"5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;"

To some of the writers above; whose interpretation of history do you accept? Have you read any letters of the founding fathers? Do you consider an unofficial letter of intent to be more binding than an organizations authoritative bylaws? Have you ever read history of the church during the 16th century? Are you twisting "origin of species" because of today's neo-fundamentalists like Shermer?

Someone once said (in more explicit terms) that you don't need to eat a full platter of excrement to know it's not filet mignon. The plate in front of me is too disgusting for me to look at much less put in my mouth.

I will vote for whoever fits best in my own opinions and I will not blindly vote with one party or against two. Both are blind and ignorant votes.

Dan
Dan

I just looked up where the Constitution Party stands on the "Issues", listened to the vids, read the wiki, etc...

2nd Amendment rights? Check.
Abolish the Fed? Check.
Repeal the 16th? Check.
Oppose illegal immigration? Check.
Kill NAFTA, GATT, etc? Check.
Stop supporting UN? Check.
Cut foreign aid? Check.
English as our Official Language? Check.
End Social Security? Oh I'm getting happy now...
Election reform? Keep it coming!!!
Ban porn? Silly issue to make a stand on... good luck with that.

Good enough for me: I'm in.

Seth
Seth

I'm still voting for Dr. Paul unless he can be directly underneath the future president. Chuck Baldwin is good but Dr. Paul is the George Washington of this revolution!!

Mrsdonut
Mrsdonut

Dr. Ron Paul is still getting my vote!

I'm writing him in because I can't lay my head down at night knowing I voted for someone with whom I do not share the same beliefs with. (McCain or Obama)
I want those Washington insiders and the people who look at the ballot to know that there are people out there that try to fool us in to thinking there are only two choices in this race. I want them to see that Dr.Paul's message has been heard and that we are not 'undecided' in this election. My decision is made- Dr. Paul for President.

steve
steve

It doesnt matter who you vote for..They are not going to win.Just as long as you vote for someone other than dem/rep.We are sending a message that we are tired of the same ol bs.We need to make the citizens aware of the scam being played on the American people(or world for that matter)Govt is to big and way out of control.This will take time to get the corruption out of our govt.Just keep telling people whats going on.Stand up and let your voice be heard or slowy become a slave to the powers that be.

Richard Philips
Richard Philips

In regards to Mr. Brennan's post.
Who cares about "Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" anyhow.
We have our own Constitution and I go by that not the united nations!
My 50 cents.
Richard age 61

Brennan
Brennan

It is my humble opinion that Chuck Baldwin is a good man, but we must remember not all great men make great leaders. He does not have the fire that Ron Paul has, and he is too adherent to his religious life for me. To be against abortion is all right, if you have the right reasoning behind it. To be against gay marriage is not right, as every gay couple should be treated as any other normal citizen. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
"Chuck also believes that the values of marriage between a man and a woman are very important. Values are something young people need and want. They need to know that the people in charge are willing to adhere to a set of values that put them first and foremost."
Is that stating that gay married couples have no values?
I myself am not gay, although i respect people's freedom to live their life the way they want, and not depending on how any certain religion or country states how they should live and what they can and cannot do(except things that hurt others of course, but gay couples don't hurt anyone else.) Unless, one might argue that they hurt their adopted children. If that is the case, argue about gay couples' right to adopt and not their right to marry.
My 50 cents.
-Brennan N., age 15

Justin Daniel
Justin Daniel

Thank God there is someone out there who still believes in what America was meant to be. No one who has ever ran for President has spoke and acted with more conviction and passion than Ron Paul. I wish you were still in this fiasco election Mr. Paul, but whoever you endorse will get my vote. Although, I can't wait until 2012. The main problem I see is our mass media, or as I call them, the destroyers of individual thought. I don't have an exact percentage poll on the mater, but I'm willing to bet at least 75% of Americans aren't even aware they have a third choice in this election. Why? Fox News, Cnn, and every other mind controling, upsurd News station out there. If this was really a democracy, every canidate would have a chance to debate the issues in front of a nation wide audience. Instead we have a corney, media based monopoly between two scripted bafoons. Thats what we get, instead of a man who can speak his mind with passion at a moments notice who is RON PAUL! P.S.-SOCIALISM SUCKS!

MountainDoc
MountainDoc

Thank you Dr. Paul for all the work you've done for restoring the constitution, and hence protecting the people with it. I never thought an endorsement would sway my vote one way or another, but after seeing how principled you truly are, I'll be voting for Baldwin. After listening to his speeches, its clear his zeal for the constition and freedom burns just as deep as Dr. Paul's.

For those who are worried about a theocracy because Chuck Baldwin is religious should take a hard look at his speech to the JBS 50th year aniversary. He has no plans to publically force people to worship the way he does, or even at all - and he makes that statement. I'm a firm believer that religous liberty (and also the decision to abstain) should extend to everyone, even politicians =).

True faith is going to affect the way a person lives their life or governs, and thats ok so long as they uphold the constitution, don't overstep the constitution, and allow others to make their own religious decisions. Public displays of faith (or lack there of) by an individual shouldn't be disdained as impinging on the rights of those of different religions or those who have no religion, but instead should be seen as the purest form of expressing the own right to religious freedom.

Cheers!

J.Oftedahl
J.Oftedahl

I was voting for ron.....but I will change to Chuck. I am 27 years old from MN....and as a young voter in this election...its important that in the next 20 years we can look back and see how a movement began.....all great things have small beginings ( I learned about that when my son was born prematurely and has blossumed into the fighter he is today)....and that is why I want my son to understand how in 2008 there was a movement to VOTE for a movement....so that in 2012...5% turns to 15% and in 2016 it tunrs to 45% ..until finnally in 2020...we can look back and say we all threw the rock.

Edward
Edward

In Colorado they will only count write ins in the event of a recount. Until then, you can ask till you are blue in the face and it won't be done.

I truly respect Ron Paul, but I don't know if I can go through with voting for Chuck Baldwin based on his party's views. I will have to look further into what Mr. Baldwin has to say and see if he truly follows along those party lines. If we all based our votes on the actual party, none of us would have tried to vote for Ron Paul in the first place because of what the Republican party stands for today. I think we should vote for the PERSON not necessarily the party itself.

Lyndon Olson
Lyndon Olson

There may be states that follow a different procedure, but generally a write-in vote will be counted only if the candidate or someone representing the candidate files paperwork with state and/or county election officials certifying the candidacy and asking that such votes be counted. I'm not sure if someone could do this on Ron Paul's behalf without his approval, but it might be worth a try. If anyone does utilize this option, I wouldn't quit after the first "no" response from someone answering the phone at the Department of Elections; this might be a low-level bureaucrat offering an impromptu guess as if it were gospel (oops--sorry if I offended anyone with a "reference to religion" there!). Either way, it might be advisable to check the law in your home state (this should be available online, probably under "Revised Statutes").

In 2000, infighting in the Arizona Libertarian Party resulted in a renegade group going to state election officials and somehow persuading them to list their chosen presidential candidate as the national Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in Arizona, instead of Harry Browne, who was on the ballot as the LP nominee in every other state and the District of Columbia. In an amazing display of either colossal incompetence or philosophical insanity, the national LP declined to take any steps to ensure that write-in votes for Harry Browne would even be counted in Arizona. I cast a write-in vote for Harry Browne anyway, knowing that, at best, this might serve as a thought-provoker for one poll worker, since the only alternatives were to vote for someone not even claiming to be Libertarian or voting for a "LINO" usurper whose only political writings I could find didn't rise above a bunch of self-indulgent ramblings that didn't address the issues.

From a philosophical standpoint, fortunately, those of us who want to express our libertarian ideals at the polls have better options this time than I did that year, though it does seem at this point that they're all a step down from voting for Ron Paul. Especially in light of McCain's and Obama's votes on the bailout, it seems advisable to vote for whoever you consider to be the best non-major party candidate whose vote you can confirm will be counted, and be ready to sound off in detail to anyone who will listen about why you made that choice. There will be some merit to raising the cumulative vote total of all candidates who are outside of this bought-off "two-party system" which is foisted on us as if it is etched in stone forever, yet isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. Let's do what we can to end the "self-fulfilling prophecy" (Yikes! Another religious metaphor! Forgive me!) that voting for anyone but a major party nominee is an exercise in futility. One vote is one vote, regardless of whether it is cast for a candidate who the pollsters give a "chance" to win or not. Make yours count by casting it for the person who best represents your views.

David
David

Regarding Christianity of politicians: Anyone who tries to deny that our Founding Fathers were not mostly self-avowed Christians has not read history. That did not make the government they formed a theocracy, however. Please stop throwing that word around so lightly, then. The Constitution Party does not represent nearly as big a threat to our religious freedom as a McCain/Palin administration.

Regarding voting 3rd party versus grassroots GOP reform: I and my local Ron Paul meetup group are still working actively to reform the GOP at our level, showing up at meetings and voicing our opinions, getting ourselves elected as PCO's, and readying C4L candidates to run for higher offices in future elections. It's a slow process, and we don't expect to have GOP candidates that are in line with our principles in place in time for this or even the next election. But that doesn't mean we give up, and it doesn't mean we have to accept McCain either.

I was planning to write in Ron Paul, but somebody said above that it would not count. Is a write-in vote counted differently, or not at all? I will have to research whether that is true before I decide. If so, I guess it will be between Barr and Baldwin, and I don't think it matters much which one. Either is a vote against the establishment, by which I hope to help send a message, but in the long run, I still believe the only real hope for change is by reforming the major parties.

The current ruling party has worked for several decades to achieve the control they have, and I believe it will take at least several election cycles for us to undo it, if not decades. We've barely begun. Vote your conscience, but don't let it stop you working for change everywhere you can.

Jenna
Jenna

I am very disipointed on Ron Paul. I am used to Dr. Paul being an informed candidate and the champion of our constitution. By supporting the constitution party he has been reduced to just another tagline reader. If you look at the manifesto of the Constitution party it is clear to all that they want to control the country by forcing Christianity into legislation. This is not liberty. This is theocracy! Shame on you Dr. Paul.

Seth
Seth

All I know is that Ron Paul's message is meant to unite the people of America for freedom. That includes people of all religions as long as they want to support constitutional rights. And that's it!! If you want division, just go back to Obama and McCain.

Trackbacks