Comments on: Baldwin Follows up on Announcement

by: G.E.

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:30:55 +0000

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.

by: Sean

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:15:27 +0000

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.

by: Me

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:32:06 +0000

When did Chuck Baldwin become the Messiah?

by: Trent Hill

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:03 +0000

I heard it Ben.

by: Sean

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:26:40 +0000

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!

by: Ben Miller

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:06:53 +0000

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.

by: Sean

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:33:08 +0000

Besides Keyes and Baldwin, are there other candidates?

by: NewFederalist

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:42 +0000

God helps those who help themselves. C’mon Chuck, what ever happened to free will? Run Chuck, run!

by: Red Phillips

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:17:54 +0000

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.

by: Texas Conservative

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:00:00 +0000

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?

by: Sean

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:49:23 +0000

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…

by: Red Phillips

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:23:05 +0000

I think Chuck Baldwin does not want to seem to eager for the job. There is actually something to admire about that.

by: Trent Hill

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:41:24 +0000

John C. Jackson—-not I.

by: John Lowell

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:42:18 +0000

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.

by: BillTx

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:30:20 +0000

“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! ! !