Baldwin Follows up on Announcement
Miller Politics has the latest scoop on Chuck Baldwin:
Chuck Baldwin, who last week said he would accept the nomination of the Constitution Party for president, answered a follow up question for Miller Politics.MP: “Last week you announced that you would accept the Constitution Party presidential nomination but in an interview with Miller Politics published on March 25 you said that ‘At this time, however, I have no inclination that this [running for president] is God’s will for me.’ What made you decide that you should run?”
Baldwin: “I am not ‘running.’ I only want God’s will to be done. After responding to your questions, certain circumstances caused a reconsideration of the ‘inclination.’ I allowed my name to be placed in nominatioin, trusting that God will reveal His will accordingly. There are still a number of obstacles in front of my nomination, which, if they materialize, would close the door. On the other hand, if those who have urged me to place my name in nomination are correctly revealing God’s leading in the matter, then the Lord’s will can be determined in that way as well. God’s will be done. I seek not my own will.”
April 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
A bit much but… Go Chuck, go!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“...certain circumstances caused a reconsideration of the ‘inclination.’”
I suspect those “circumstances” have the initials AK. In other words, some people begged him to run to block Keyes. That is my hunch.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Let us hope that Moore enters the race.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I appreciate Baldwin’s acknowledgement of God’s will. It will certainly be a part of my own presidential aspirations in a couple decades. Baldwin would be a very good component for the Christian Socialist Obama revolution, which will rely on Republican votes for Baldwin, Keyes or Bob Barr in order to offset votes for the misguided heros Mike Gravel and Cynthia McKinney, and the fascist/stalinist criminal Ralph Nader.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Chuck Baldwin is clearly the best man for the job. However, I wish he would more actively seek this nomination as opposed to the passive approach he has taken. This makes me think he probably is not thrilled ab out running, but would rather run than risk a possible party split.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
2008 is a great (and possibly historic) opportunity for the Constitution Party to reach out to conservative voters who feel the R party has left them. We need a candidate who will give it his all and will reach out to voters from now through November. I hope that Baldwin is “in it enough” and realizes that this opportunity is extremely important and that it will take a candidate willing to do the work rather than just go through the motions.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I suspect that Red Phillips is right. An Alan Keyes nomination would probably kill the party. Baldwin almost didn’t have a choice.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Wait, God’s will? I don’t buy it. I’m sure the Keyes gospel train has heavier horsepower right now. Of course its ok for him to say, “God’s will” but AK, well yeah he deserves a different litmus test, right?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Keyes gospel train?
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Closer to: Keyes needing ballot access to keep pulling salary from donations and to keep speaking fees up.
Count his supporters over at the AK site. Pitiful for a national campaign. But indicative of his puny showing so far. Yet he blames OTHERS! Incredible!
April 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
So, let me get this straight. If Keyes wins ( which many would consider a mistake) it won’t actually be a mistake, just God’s will? Do a lot of CP members think Jesus picked GW?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
“I appreciate Baldwin’s acknowledgement of God’s will. It will certainly be a part of my own presidential aspirations in a couple decades…”
BWAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAA! ! ! ! AHA-HAHAHAAAA! ! !
April 17th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
This kind of tripe is the most errant nonsence. Its like pretending that God’s voice is accessable using a weegie board. If God were so simply understood as to reveal Himself though circumstances that Baldwin or any other human being might impose on Him, then Baldwin and I worship different Gods. Perhaps he’s been watching too many Charlton Heston movies. And here, precisely, is what frightens me about the Constitution Party, however inclined I might be to agree with their support of a culture of life and their opposition to war: Their general thrust is essentially theocratic and, worse yet, shot through with the odor of one particular brand of Protestant biblicism. Put your weegie board back, Chuck, and make a decision. The posturing has a bit too redolent of Bill Clinton.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:41 am
John C. Jackson—-not I.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I think Chuck Baldwin does not want to seem to eager for the job. There is actually something to admire about that.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Red Phillips,
I don’t know, it seems just as foot dragging as Keyes refusing to say for sure that he is a CP candidate. I think both don’t want to lose face if they lose the nominee.
I really wish Moore was willing… I think he could have attracked enough Christian Right from McCain to have measured a big blip on the radar…
April 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
My point exactly. RED and whoever else are willing to let a “God’s will” comment slide from their hero, but as to a pragmatic approach from Keyes this is not acceptable? Where are your standards now?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
TC, I really have no idea what you are talking about. My objections to Keyes have always been based on policy and his underlying “Straussian” philosophy and language. I have never criticized Keyes from a secularistic standpoint if that is what you are implying. I don’t think I even criticized Keyes for not announcing for the CP. I said it was a sign to me he was getting cold feet.
I like Chuck Baldwin. I will support him as a delegate, but I think the statement above may be too clever by half. People don’t want someone who seems too eager, but neither do they want someone who seems too reluctant. I think he may not want to be seen as overtly undermining Keyes even though he knows his nomination would damage the party.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
God helps those who help themselves. C’mon Chuck, what ever happened to free will? Run Chuck, run!
April 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Besides Keyes and Baldwin, are there other candidates?
April 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Trent Hill said: “Let us hope that Moore enters the race.”
On Monday Jim Clymer told me during an interview on This Is Politics that he thinks Moore “has pretty decidedly closed the door.”
You can hear the entire interview at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tip.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I just got an email from his organization, and they said more or less he won’t do it unless he thinks it is God’s will. Seems like the major candidates have cold feet!
April 18th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I heard it Ben.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:32 am
When did Chuck Baldwin become the Messiah?
April 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Me, don’t know… probably for some who view Ron Paul as nearly divine.
Personally, if all the candidates are going to play coy, I’m going to push for Moore. He has served the most selflessly and effectively out of all the big 3.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Selfishly, I want Baldwin to be the nominee so I can vote for him if the LP nominates a non-libertarian. Baldwin would pick up a lot of libertarians (either atheists like myself) if that were to happen. But obviously, if Moore were your nominee, you would get a ton more votes. Keyes would also get a ton of votes. But it’s clear that Keyes does not respect the CP platform, whereas you guys apparently think Moore does.
Newsflash for libertarians: To my shock (sincerely), no one I ever talk to has ever heard of Bob Barr. Ron Paul was also a former congressman in 1988 when he ran, and he got 1%. I don’t know why Barr would do that much better.