Constitution Party presidential possibles
The following is from a Constitution Party e-mail:
As the date of the Constitution Party National Convention (April 23-26 in Kansas City, Missouri) approaches, several prominent Americans have expressed an openness to considering the possibility of seeking the Constitution Party Presidential nomination. Among those are former United States Senator Bob Smith; former Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore; the 2004 Vice-Presidential Nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin; WorldNetDaily. com writer and author of the best selling “The Late, Great USA”, Dr. Jerome Corsi; and former Ambassador to the United Nations, Alan Keyes. This is is not a closed list and it is possible that there may still be others who are considering the possibility of seeking the 2008 Constitution Party nomination.
Additionally, I’ve learned that Peter Vidrine is running as a Constitution Party congressional candidate in Louisiana District 7. His website is http://petervidrine.com/.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:00 am
This year’s third parties are quite star-studded, I see. Between the Greens getting Nader and Cynthia McKinney, the Libertarians possibly nabbing Ron Paul, Bloomberg still hasn’t decisively refused entrance into the race, and this, there sure are a lot of household name contenders.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I am glade that the Constitution Party has so many well known individuals who are considering running with us this next election. Alan Keyes, Roy Moore and Bob Smith are of particular interest to me.
Support the Constitution Party’s National Convention (April 23-26 in Kansas City, Missouri) and be a voting delegate for your state.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
It should be Chuck Baldwin. I see these other figures as Phillies/Root distortions and Milnes/Imperato jokers.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Im wary of Roy Moore, his religious rhetoric is too much for me. Same for Alan Keyes, plus you add in his routine runs for whatever campaign office he can and his outstanding debts—and he’s clearly not my favorite.
Sen. Smith though—is good. Im hoping for Smith/Baldwin.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I wonder if Baldwin would really be interested in running for VP a second time?
Smith/Moore or vice versa would be good and it would be nice to throw Corsi into the mix.
Keyes is a definite no go for me.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I hope the guy in Louisiana can make a splash. I don’t see his info on the CPoL website…or any new info. Maybe this CP candidate is prepared to run a modern campaign and really take it to the rest. I’ll be curious in the results.
Ronald, those names are always mentioned with the CP as candidates. The real trick, however, is getting them to commit. That has always been the real issue.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I have to wonder if the Constitution Party is not misnamed. Here’s a hypothetical question I’d like someone affiliated with the CP to answer: Suppose a well-qualified candidate wanted to run as their nominee, and established beyond any doubt that he or she is a solid Constitutionalist – but also said “Hey, by the way, I am an atheist. I think the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of silly fairy tales for gullible people, and religion is just another word for superstition.” Would that candidate be welcomed, or scorned. And if the answer is “scorned,” shouldn’t the CP change its name to “The Christian Evangelical Party”?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
There is another fellow running in Louisiana in the 8th district—Randall T. Hayes, I believe is his name. He’s mentioned in an article on this site. His website seems a bit ridiculous. It’s hard to make out if he is really serious about running or just plain strange. After viewing his site, I’ll go with the latter.
Any word on these candidates from any CPoL reps?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Jason,
His info isnt on the website yet. It will be soon.
As for those names “always being mentioned”—its sort of true.
But now Smith/Keyes/Moore are all making overtures to the party itself. Instead of the party wooing them, they seem to be more attracted to the party. Keyes has spoken at an executive commitee meeting and a national committee meeting. Moore and Smith, rumor has it, will address the executive committee soon.
Of course,that is rumor.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
David,
I don’t speak for the CP, but I would simply say to you…grow-up. And so what if they do decide not to nominate such a character. More imporantly does any of it really matter?
February 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Trent,
Thanks for the info. It would go a long ways in impacting the CP if they could pull a Smith or a Moore candidacy. You would think either of those choices would make headlines at least for a day. Corsi, too, of course would also spark interest. This guy is remembered for derailing Kerry in ‘04 and you could say a “regular” on social/political nightly shows.
I’ve seen him on at least two last year discussing various issues—illegal immigration, unconstitutional government ect. Smart guy. I heard him talking about the CP and how he is a member and was entertaining the invitation to run as president. Like I said that was last year, and it is my understanding he has since withdrawn the possibility.
Either way, this year could prove constructive if they are finally able to pull one of those names.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Keyes is a hyper Straussian neocon and a Lincoln cultist. He is pro-war/pro-intervention. He would split the party.
Corsi is a “big name,” but it would take a whole lot of convincing for me to believe he is a non-interventionists. I know others have said that he supports the Party’s platform of no undeclared no-win wars, but that is not particularly helpful to me. Is he philosophically a non-interventionists? All his articles on Iran the nuclear menace just make it very hard for me to believe he is now a Ron Paul style anti-interventionist. (The conservative and Constitutionalist imperative.)
Smith is a retread and would just reinforce the image that the CP is the home of GOP cast-offs. Is Smith a non-interventionist? I have no reason to believe he is. He endorsed hyper-interventionist Duncan Hunter in the primary. As a Senator, was he a Constitutionalist or was he just conservative by today’s watered down standards?
That leaves Baldwin and Moore. I know I could support Baldwin, and I am almost certain I could support Moore. I would just need to know Moore’s position on foreign policy.
It disturbs me that some interventionists are even being considered. The Party should no more entertain nominating interventionists than it would pro-aborts. I am not suggesting a “small tent” with very rigid litmus tests. I just think the whole intervention/non-intervention issue is a real no-brainer. Non-intervention has won the day on the dissident “far right.” Pro-war blood lusters who are angry at Bush for not invading more countries and being more ruthless belong to a different movement.
Mr. Nolan, the CP believes that the American society they are trying to conserve is a Christian one. With Christian roots and Christian presuppositions. So while a Constitutionalist could theoretically believe as you say, I would suggest that a conservative who actually wants to conserve things can not. If Americans by all accounts were more overtly Christian and devout in the past, calling them silly and gullible would hardly be conservative. It would be radical.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“Thanks for the info. It would go a long ways in impacting the CP if they could pull a Smith or a Moore candidacy. You would think either of those choices would make headlines at least for a day. Corsi, too, of course would also spark interest. This guy is remembered for derailing Kerry in ‘04 and you could say a “regular” on social/political nightly shows.
I’ve seen him on at least two last year discussing various issues—illegal immigration, unconstitutional government ect. Smart guy. I heard him talking about the CP and how he is a member and was entertaining the invitation to run as president. Like I said that was last year, and it is my understanding he has since withdrawn the possibility.”
You were wondering about Randall Hayes—he seems to mostly only be interested in a paper candidacy. The other guy, Vidrine, seems to be serious about running though.
Both Smith and Moore would bring much higher percentages and much more money. Moore would possibly be able to capture a couple deep south states if he ran all-out. Smith could possibly capture New Hampshire and a couple deep south states under the same circumstances.
Corsi is brilliant,and I think he’ll refrain from running because he’s more valuable as a writer and speaker.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Red,
While the CP is non interventionist it would most likely not have a problem nominating someone who was with them on 95% of the issues. Did you read Bob Smith’s essay on the CP website? I was a Duncan Hunter supporter and still consider myself in favor of some intervention but i am and same goes for Smith, in no way a neo conservative. The Ron Paul people are always trying to get pro war people on their side saying that we agree more than we disagree. It works vice versa too.
Moore/Smith 2008
February 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
If Judge Moore runs a campaign that builds on Ron Paul’s effort to try and restore the Constitution, he’ll do fine and perhaps get the CP over the 200,000 voter barrier given that McCain is the GOP nominee. If he runs a campaign that basically says “YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL UNLESS YOU ELECT ME!” then he will not do very well.
I’m no expert on Alabama politics but it never struck me that Judge Moore campaigned as an overt sectarian. Yes he would like to have the 10 Commandments on the wall of his courthouse, well the 10 Commandments are carved in stone at the Supreme Court too, so what’s the difference, he would ask and where in the Constitution does it say I can’t have the 10 Commandments in my courtroom? Ron Paul could ask the very same question.
Of this list, Moore is probably the best candidate and Chuck Baldwin too, either or. Keyes and Corsi are neocons and Smith is a charlatan who played CP officials back in 2000 and left them high and dry to be the Senate Public Committe Chairman. Is that someone you can trust?
February 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I’m from Alabama. Moore did not personally campaign as an overt sectarian, but many of his supporters presented him that way. The state media did, as well.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:32 am
The CP? ahahaha Right wing SO-CON’s should just stay in the GOP…the party they hijacked and wrecked! Oh wait a minute, I’m sorry, it’s just a natural progression to spread out and take money like all of the 2,000 different church brands promoting; “My religion is better than yours, we’re more conservative than you, only our church can get you to heaven.”
I watched an interesting secular movie last week entitled “There Will Be Blood.” A subplot covers the topic of religion from the ‘sheep’ to the ‘healer’ to the ‘realist’. In the end the ‘healer’ got his.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:46 am
Baldwin’s writing has been amazing as of late. I do hope he wins the nomination, with Moore as his VP.
As for the others… what’s the point of a third party if you run more of the same? They’re better than McCain, but that’s not saying much.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Alan Keyes is a neocon nutjob. I’d never vote for him.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Of those listed above, Chuck Baldwin is my favorite.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Run, Chuck, Run!
February 12th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Pastor Chuck Baldwin is the only potential CP possibility who has a crystal clear picture of where this country is headed and where it should be headed. In fact, his understanding of the Ron Paul movement is “spot on.” As for a running mate, it would be nice to find a “fresh” face with the correct principles and character, and who would be a true statesman in his/her understanding of things political.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Im wary of Roy Moore, his religious rhetoric is too much for me. Same for Alan Keyes, plus you add in his routine runs for whatever campaign office he can and his outstanding debts—and he’s clearly not my favorite.”
=You have every reason to be wary Trent: he and Peroutka are good friends and has been on his radio show many, MANY times.
Roy had the chance to run in 2004 and would’ve gotten good publicity, but he passed off that good opportunity. I think I will go for Bob Smith.
“Here’s a hypothetical question I’d like someone affiliated with the CP to answer: Suppose a well-qualified candidate wanted to run as their nominee, and established beyond any doubt that he or she is a solid Constitutionalist – but also said “Hey, by the way, I am an atheist. I think the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of silly fairy tales for gullible people, and religion is just another word for superstition.” Would that candidate be welcomed, or scorned. And if the answer is “scorned,” shouldn’t the CP change its name to “The Christian Evangelical Party”?”
= I would like to answer your question with another question; why didn’t a simpleton like you not read the part in our preamble that says we are against religious tests and welcome ALL into the party?
If a athiest wants to run as a CP’er and agrees with our platform, then the person is welcome to do so.
However if that person wants to use their campaign, or the podium, to bash Christianity or a certain faith, then that person will definally not get enough votes to be nominated as our candidate.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“My religion is better than yours, we’re more conservative than you, only our church can get you to heaven.”
=The CP doesn’t promote any Church.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I could vote for any of the above except Keyes. He is strickly a election profiteer.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“If a athiest wants to run as a CP’er and agrees with our platform, then the person is welcome to do so.”
Our candidate in the 6th District—Randall Hayes—is an Athiest.
If he’s right on the issues, though, he’ll recieve our nomination.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I hope so.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“=You have every reason to be wary Trent: he and Peroutka are good friends and has been on his radio show many, MANY times.”
Actually Cody—im beginning to think im wrong.
Roy Moore really ISNT as “hyper-christian” as I thought. Iv read his literature, his speeches, and they sound like Howard Phillips. And I dont care about him being on the American View—-Bryan Malatesta has been on there too and so has Ron Paul!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Smith had the chance in 1999. He got publicity for leaving the GOP but then went crawling back for a committee chairmanship. Then he couldn’t even get reelected in his own state. No one cares about him anymore, so I don’t see why a few well-written articles should make him a hot commodity. Ditto for Keyes – his perpetual running (with no success) make him either a laughingstock or ignored by everyone. Baldwin is great, but I think Moore would be better to kick-start things due to name recognition. I agree with some of the comments above … if Moore (or any CP candidate) runs another preach-to-the-choir campaign then it will not be heard above the noise threshold of the campaign. We have to communicate with the public on issues they care about. And there are plenty, and it can be done in ways they will listen to. I’m not holding out too much hope for that, since I’ve preached that to the staffs of the last several CP campaigns and we haven’t done it.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Trent and Cody, I didn’t realize there was a secular wing of the Constitution Party. We can’t have anyone talking about Christianity and the Bible without which there would be no West and no America now can we. Good grief. No wonder this country is headed toward a liberal secular Hell. Even the farther right conservative party toes the liberal secularist line. I think it would be a disgrace if the CP nominated an Atheist.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Mitch, I don’t hold Smith losing his seat against him. He lost because the treacherous Republican Party ran someone against him because they care more about party loyalty than they do principle.
Your right about reaching out. They just need to do it by pitching the right issues, not watering their message down. If McCain is the GOP nominee, as he almost certainly will be, then every other word out of the nominee’s mouth should be amnesty or immigration related. He should hit hard some of the populist issues like the NAU, the TTC, globalism in general, corporate welfare, etc.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Smith had the chance in 1999.
=With Pat Buchanan as the RfP candidate, I don’t think so!
February 13th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Trent and Cody, I didn’t realize there was a secular wing of the Constitution Party.
=There shouldn’t even be a Theocratic wing either.
Read the Constitution!
We can’t have anyone talking about Christianity and the Bible without which there would be no West and no America now can we. Good grief. No wonder this country is headed toward a liberal secular Hell. Even the farther right conservative party toes the liberal secularist line. I think it would be a disgrace if the CP nominated an Atheist.
=Good, because I rather have a atheist then a religious nutjob as our nominee anyday!
And I rather have people like Trent as the leaders of our Party, then people like you.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Cody, you are manifestly ignorant about the CP. I quote it’s platform:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. [...] This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. [...] The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. [...] The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. [...]
We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy. [...] The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. [...] No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. [...] It is our responsibility to be prudent, productive, and efficient stewards of God’s natural resources. In that role, we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply [...] All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. [...]
February 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“...This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here…”
“...The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles…”
You actually think I’m that stupid?!
F**k you!
February 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
tsk-tsk…you two. Cody don’t go fishing for bait, you’ll live longer
If I can make an honest and friendly comment about the CP in general. First, I love them, I’ve supported them in the past and I will always want to see them do good. But, pragmatism trumped my idealism when it came to the CP. They have potential as it is a principled party and uniquely American, however, I must say they will need to come towards the middle on certain issues by being a bit more inclusive and not appear so religious and fringed.
I know, I know, there are no religious test and all are welcome but people join a political movement in a free country generally for political purposes. It’s only in unfree countries where religion/political freedom is pursued together. People want change in government, not reformation and religious unity.
Notice I didn’t say occupy the middle on certain issues, I said come towards it which will still put them in the Right. Furthermore, I didn’t say become a big tent, I said be inclusive by doing away with the religion first overtone and rely more heavily on liberty, American traditions (which in it self encompasses God and Christianity) and constitutional government (again, gives glory to God).
I like the idea of religion being important to the CP, call me a heretic but I don’t think it should be the benchmark. I hope all of this is received with sincerity.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“Trent and Cody, I didn’t realize there was a secular wing of the Constitution Party. We can’t have anyone talking about Christianity and the Bible without which there would be no West and no America now can we. Good grief. No wonder this country is headed toward a liberal secular Hell. Even the farther right conservative party toes the liberal secularist line. I think it would be a disgrace if the CP nominated an Atheist.”
There is no religious test in our party. And he’s actually a buddhist-influenced Athiest. He WILL get my vote,and our endorsement. Count on it.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Notice I didn’t say occupy the middle on certain issues, I said come towards it which will still put them in the Right. Furthermore, I didn’t say become a big tent, I said be inclusive by doing away with the religion first overtone and rely more heavily on liberty, American traditions (which in it self encompasses God and Christianity) and constitutional government (again, gives glory to God).
I like the idea of religion being important to the CP, call me a heretic but I don’t think it should be the benchmark. I hope all of this is received with sincerity.”
Jason—Agreed. That’s why some of us are pushing Sen. Smith instead of others—he isnt a religionist. And he’s catholic, so he’ll bring in lots of different people with different opinions, especially about Religion. Furthermore, these changes start on the local level. We’re implementing them here in LA by having virtually no religious language in the platform.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“That’s why some of us are pushing Sen. Smith instead of others—he isn’t a religionist.”
Well, thanks for that bit of honesty. At first I couldn’t understand the appeal of Smith. Now I guess I do.
Many of the more overtly religious members of the CP self-purged and left the party after the national party failed to boot out the Nevada party for having a candidate/leader who was pro-exceptions on baby killing. If those who remain are now out to stick it to the “religionists,” whatever that means, then that does not bode well for the Party.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“Well, thanks for that bit of honesty. At first I couldn’t understand the appeal of Smith. Now I guess I do.
Many of the more overtly religious members of the CP self-purged and left the party after the national party failed to boot out the Nevada party for having a candidate/leader who was pro-exceptions on baby killing. If those who remain are now out to stick it to the “religionists,” whatever that means, then that does not bode well for the Party.”
We’ll not get into the Tampa debate, mainly becuase its been so rehashed over the past couple months, neither side is likely to convince anyone. But clearly we’re on opposite sides of this.
My point about choosing an anti-religionist is this: Smith can grow the party. Peroutka, for example, did not campaign nationwide (and was not capable of doing so) and did not expand the base. Smith will do both WHILE raising more money and raising name identification. All of which we desperately need. As a VP, he’ll likely get Jerome Corsi/Chuck Baldwin/Roy Moore—-all of whom would then be primed as a more “pure” CP candidate for President and now with a higher name recognition.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Cody, are you disputing the accuracy of my quotes of the CP platform? Saying “the CP doesn’t promote any Church” is about as relevant as saying the “the CP doesn’t promote any particular minister or priest”. I repeat my quote of the CP platform:
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. [...] This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. [...] The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. [...] The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law [...]”
February 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I wanted to respond to a few issues raised in the earlier comments:
(1)I do not believe that I actually fit the definition of a “paper candidate.” My understanding is that a paper candidate does nothing more than put his name on the ballot, usually only as part of an effort to make sure his party is represented in every district in every election. I have done a bit more than that and I have broader motives. I may only be a protest candidate, but I think my candidacy has enough substance to avoid the “paper” adjective.
(2)A commenter mentioned the ridiculousness of my website. I explained that here: http://www.latinwenches.com/2008/02/about-silliness.html
As to the question of whether I am serious about running. My campaign is satirical; it is serious in a humorous way. I know some people won’t get my humor or my point, but this is how I chose to present my opinions. If you require politicians who take themselves very seriously, you should not have too much trouble finding them. Of course, you can also go to the trouble and expense of getting on the ballot yourself. Then, you can run as solemn a campaign as you wish.
(3)I have known many conservative atheists. There is no inconsistency there. In spite of the theocratic tendencies of some members of the Constitution Party, it is still the party whose platform comes closest to my own beliefs.
I simply don’t believe in the supernatural aspects of Christianity and I am not going to proclaim a belief that I don’t actually hold. I know I am in the religious minority among CP members. I don’t mind.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Cody, are you disputing the accuracy of my quotes of the CP platform?
=Yup, you took it completely out of context. Your argument has failed.
Saying “the CP doesn’t promote any Church” is about as relevant as saying the “the CP doesn’t promote any particular minister or priest”. I repeat my quote of the CP platform:
=Christianity has hundreds of different churches, which church is it promoting?
BTW While the founding fathers opposed religious tyranny, they still based our government on a judeo-Christian philosophy.
Our next platform will clear some of this up.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Why doesn’t the Constitution Party nominate the same person as the Libertarian Party? I think Bob Barr would be a pretty good fit for both parties.
February 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I am running for US Representative in Louisiana’s 7th district. I will be running as a Constitution Party candidate, and this will be a real campaign. Yard signs will be coming in this week, and an “Official” Press Release will be made this week. Obviously, I will be depending on a grassroots campaign, and need the help and support of all freedom loving Americans. Please check out my site (It is still being worked on, but about 80% complete) and feel free to critique. My campaign email is p_e_t_e_r@p_e_t_e_r_n_o_w.c_o_m (remove underscores)
February 26th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Look to 2012. In 2008 the option of voting CP needs to be made known to the US voters. Bob Smith’s name recognition makes sense but only to grow the party in 2008. We are a divided nation over social morality much the same as in 1850’s. As then political success hinges on finding a non-threatening middle ground. Recognition of the rights of all American’s to their beliefs, even non-beliefs is paramount to success – while espousing the basis of the Judeo-Christian political view of issues.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:32 am
The CP platform is what it is because of who we the members are what we believe. But we are too few. That platfrom needs to be seen in a light of being GOOD for one and all.
“Nothing is better for thee than me.” Sort of.
An Obama campaign with the added value of something to say.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Common Sense Government is good for everyone. Vote with a clear conscience and pride. Vote CP.