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!

http://framingtheworld.com/videos/ronpaulbooksigninghome.html

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?

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.

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.

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.