Mark Dankoff-good to hear from you. I make it a point, generally, not to come on this site anymore, but made an exception today. Will look up show.

Sunday, April 27, 2008 Campaign2008 /The Kansas City Star

SURPRISING NOMINEE VOTE!

The Constitution party chooses Chuck Baldwin to run for president over GOP-Jumper Alan Keyes… By Steve Kraske, The Kansas City Star

Meeting in Kansas City on Saturday, the Constitution party tapped talk show host Chuck Baldwin over former ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.
The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes’ higher national profile. Known for his fiery stemwinders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican party this month to join the Constitution party, which stands for limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

But Baldwin’s roots in the Constitution party run deeper.He was the party’s 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking.

Still, the two waged a fierce battle in the days leading up to the vote, described as the most contentious in the party’s 16 year history. Baldwin wound up winning easily, 384 to 126. The Missouri and Kansas delegation basically split their votes between the two.

“They just rejected the most qualified man to be president”, said Tom Hoefling of Lohrville, Iowa, who is Keyes’ national political director. “Chuck Baldwin will have no impact on this election whatsoever”.

But Baldwin backers said the party was committed to remaining true to its values and growing itself from the inside. That approach will better sustain the party over the long run, said delegate Thom Holmes of Chandler, Okla., even though Keyes might have drawn more votes.

In his acceptance speech, Baldwin said his presidency would be committed to halting abortion and illegal immigration, the streamlining of the federal government, the tapping of oil reserves in Alaska that would lead to a return of $1.50 a-gallon gas prices and withdrawl from Iraq.

Baldwin pledged not only to pull out of the U.N., but also to push the international organization out of the country. He said he would phase out the Internal Revenue Service and end the paying of personeal income taxes. He said the country should return to the gold standard.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
To reach Steve Kraske call 816- 234-4312 or send e-mail to:
skraske@kcstar.com————————————————————————————————————————-

courtesy of …..........Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.) USAF

National Veterans Coalition,
Constitution party…www.nvets.org

They were mostly Keyes activists. If you go to the forums of the Keye’s campaign site, you’ll see encouragement of how to be a delegate in the CP. The ones who voted Keyes who weren’t activists stayed w/ the party (e.g. Alaska)

The choice of Castle as the VP was made by Baldwin and it wasn’t without controversy. The delegation would have preferred Mary Starrett (my choice) or Scott Bradley from Utah but ultimately we submitted to Baldwin’s wishes.

Baldwin can pull a sizable segment of Ron Paul supporters, especially if the LP goes with a left-leaning candidate. Keyes would have had none of that.

I got to meet Red Phillips and Trent Hill this weekend which was nice…and yes, Red Phillips is smiling.

By the way, why didn’t Montana have any delegates to the CP convention, even though they have the state senator Rick Jore?

Hopefully Alan Keyes will take the hint and get out of politics for good. How many more rejections do you need from the voters? His supporters are more than welcome to create their own party dedicated to him, maybe even create their own church and build a temple compound if they like. His supporters and welcome and encouraged to stay in the CP. Given the fact that several states did not send delegates to the convention and that there are plenty of nascent local CP organizations they could easily run on their own by joining up, they can play an important role in shaping the future of the party instead of crying over Keyes’ loss in the same way a jilted boyfriend cries at his girls’ picture.

Had Alan Keyes fully rejcted the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act and interventionism and called for fundemental changes in U.S. foreign policy, maybe he would have been accepted as the party’s nominee. It’s true there are not a lot of differences between Keyes and CP members on many issues. But that’s the rub isn’t? He couldn’t reject the war because it would invalidate his whole belief system. It would be a rejection of everything he’s stood for over the years, every thing he’s learned from his past mentors. Ergo, he could not do it. So all those chiding the party for not being pragmatic enough, I ask you, would the Democrats be pragmatic enough to accpet an anti-abortion candidate on their ticket and the Republicans vice-versa? Will Libertarians be pragmatic enough to support a candidate like Mike Gravel who has called for world-wide government? I don’t think so. Was Keyes prgamatic enough to change his views that could have won him the nomination? (It’s good bet he doesn’t know the meaning of the world).

There are some things a party can be pragmatic about and some things it cannot, because it destroys the rationale for the party’s existence. The CP is not GOP-lite. To nominate Keyes would require party members to repudiate its true conservative, Constitutional beliefs all in the name of political expidency. Given the fact Mr. Keyes has run three losing Senate camapaign,s three losing campaigns for the GOP presidential nomination and shown himself to be neither an effective manager of said campaigns, nor a very good politican, I have no idea what possible political gain the CP would have if Keyes was nominated.

The CP has gone through a lot of growing pains recently. It got rid of people who wanted to tear the party apart for purely sectarian reasons. It fended off a takeover attempt by a neocon opportunist. Hopefully now, with its nominee in place, the party can draw in and inspire more activists, build more state parties and take in the disgruntled of the GOP to a party of true conservatism.

He was a Professor that ended up having future Bush Admin officials in his classes. He supported intervention, but didn’t even concentrate on International Affairs. He was a specialist in Political Theory, and concentrated on interpretations of Classical political theorists.

What makes a Straussian? Students? I’m a “grandstudent” of Strauss. The chair of the Poli Sci Dept at my school (I was a Poli Sci major) got his Ph.D. from UChicago and was a student of Strauss. My Prof was an ardent anti-interventionist and wanted Bush impeached. I was taught by a former student of Strauss, so does that make me a “grandstudent”? LOL.

BTW: I think Gravel is pro-choice, so the CP will never accept him and he will also never run with them IMHO and has also indicated he is not interested in a VP slot.
Obama has said we are religious as we are bitter….does not sound so christian to me…
Please pray for the pope as well as for Ron Paul.