Constitution Party Selects “Mr. Smith”
The Belgrade News, in Montana, apparently ran the following article on May 2nd, which was then picked up a number of small online and print publications. It fails to realize the most significant part of Chuck Baldwin’s possible constituencies: Ron Paul voters.
Baldwin won’t be wooing the Religious Right, either, by playing the Christian card. The pastor, a prolific writer (Chuckbaldwinlive.com features his columns.), often criticizes the sycophantic tendencies of his church-going brethren who have habitually supported Wall Street-enabling, wire-tapping, debt-enlarging Republican administrations.
I was excited to see Chuck Baldwin comment on what sort of electoral strategy he’ll be persueing,even if it is a short statement.
For now, his strategy is to hit the cyber streets with his message via a “significant” internet campaign.
Most importantly to all of our readers here, the column comments on “Wasted Vote Syndrome”
Americans who are disenchanted with the two-party system will welcome the competition that a Chuck Baldwin candidacy brings, but isn’t a vote for a third party a wasted one?Baldwin responds: “A wasted vote is to vote for someone who won’t represent your views or convictions.”
Now that’s straight talk.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The Constitution Party is the logical home for Ron Paul voters—folks who want to close the borders, ban abortion, end college-study visas for middle easterners, and vigorously pursue federal anti-gay legislation.
I encourage Ron Paul supporters who agree with him on those points to find their home in the CP.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Brian,
End college-study visas for middle easterners? Where did you get that?
As for Federal anti-gay legislation, I’m sure Baldwin would disagree with that.
Nonetheless—feel free to spout BS from the top of your lungs if need be.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Miller,
Close the borders? Or protect them? Is it ludicrous to request people must pass through security before entering the USA.
Ban abortion? Was this a principle Paul spewed himself? Or would that a state right.
End college-study visas for Middle Easterners? First, you are referring to a commercial that stated “terrorist nations”, in which case you wrongly group the whole Middle East as “terrorist nations”. Secondly, Ron Paul’s campaign is idiotic to say the least, though Paul has advocated stricter security via visas through student visas.
Anti-gay legislation? What is anti-gay legislation? The Defense of Marriage Act, in which marriage is defined by the state rather than the Union. Not too homophobic to me.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Restricting Muslim immigration is an entirely reasonable idea. They can’t engage in terrorism if they are not here. This is a much better and more humane policy than bombing them in far off lands. Restricting immigration and disengaging from the Middle East would do more to protect us from terrorism than any number of wars in the Middle East.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
This paleolibertarian/anarcho-capitalist is already considering voting for Baldwin if the LP doesn’t Restore ‘04 or nominate a libertarian or a constitutionalist for president.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Hugh Jass,
It seems that the CP is going to benefit either way. The Reform-LP people (who are particularly strong in Texas) have saidrepeatedly they’ll vote for Baldwin over a Radical-LPer. Radicals are saying they’ll leave the party if Reformers win over.
I suspect its alot of humbug. Neither group will abandone what they’ve worked so hard for. Especially after the Boston Tea Party was such a success.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I was going to reply to Brian Miller’s comment, but it’s pointless. He’s a deranged neocon—there’s no hope for these people. I think we all should ignore him and hope his death comes swiftly before he reproduces or otherwise spreads his verminous ideas.
Red Phillips – The central planner in you emerges. How do we choose the body of dictators who controls our private property and hiring decisions (i.e. racial immigration restrictions)? Sounds like Socialism to me!
May 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Nonetheless—feel free to spout BS from the top of your lungs if need be.
WHY SO DEFENSIVE TRENTSTER? CAN’T A SOM BITCH SAY WHAT HE WANTS WITHOUT YOU NANNY STATE COCKSUCKERS KICKING HIM IN THE TEETH?
May 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
But I’ll take Chuck Baldwin’s constitutional socialism (with a touch of Lincolnian Nationalism, to boot) over anything offered by the likes of Phillies, Barr, W.A.R., etc.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Evil Dick,
If that is indeed your name or demeanor: “som bitch” can say anything he pleases without a “nanny state cocksucker” kicking him anywhere. In fact, from thesafety ofhis home office, I see no reason why “Som Bitch” should face any retribution whatsoever.
Nonetheless, i’ll play along with your game. Let’s assume that I did verbally kick Brian Miller in the teeth for his comments. 1.)Neither Baldwin nor I want to “close the borders”. Secure the borders? Yes. Once thewelfare state is shut down,we can re-evaluate that position. 2.)Ban Abortion. Yes, I want to stop murder. You got me there. Im a nanny-stater who wants to government to defend life. 3.)End college-study visas for…anyone. This is not something that Baldwin supports,nor do i. The reason I asked Brian where he got this is because im genuinely interested. I suspect “his ass” is the correct answer. 4.)Federal anti-gay legislation. Baldwin wants to seperate government from marriage. Period.
Now—you point to whichever position I just outlined that you consider to be nanny-state, insteading of creatingstrawmen (like Brian Miller) or defending them (as you have/are).
May 5th, 2008 at 2:04 am
He’s a deranged neocon—there’s no hope for these people. I think we all should ignore him and hope his death comes swiftly before he reproduces or otherwise spreads his verminous ideas.
Oh dear. Well I think this post sort of indicates why I’d prefer the CP take these folks ASAP —we cannot have them firing off this sort of comment “in the name of the LP.”
Close the borders? Or protect them?
Close them. He ran ads in several states pledging to do that.
Ban abortion? Was this a principle Paul spewed himself?
He’s in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and failing that, some sort of arrangement that would make womens’ uteruses property of their respective state governments—to be regulated based on “local community standards.”
End college-study visas for Middle Easterners? First, you are referring to a commercial that stated “terrorist nations”
What, pray tell, is a “terrorist nation?” Ronnie never explains this. It’s nice populist fodder for the “kill da Muzlahmics” folks, but not very libertarian.
Anti-gay legislation? What is anti-gay legislation? The Defense of Marriage Act, in which marriage is defined by the state rather than the Union. Not too homophobic to me.
If DOMA says that “marriage is defined by the state rather than the union,” then why does DOMA preclude the federal government from recognizing Massachusetts same-sex marriages for any purpose?
Oh yeah, because it also creates a federal definition of marriage that is imposed on the states. Ron Paul’s DOMA means that the federal government overrules the definition of marriage as Massachusetts sees it, and imposes Ron Paul’s view of what it should be—using federal power.
Again, all these issues are very consistent with the CP —but not at all with the LP.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:10 am
What do Constitution Party members think about Reagan?
May 5th, 2008 at 3:58 am
“What do Constitution Party members think about Reagan?”
Depends on who you ask. But the vast majority will tell you that his rhetoric was better than his actions.
A majority will say, “Even his rhetoric sucked.”
May 5th, 2008 at 8:46 am
You are joking, right? The Constitution Party is predominantly the home of hateful Christian extremists cut from the same cloth as the Taliban. Libertarians have little in common with them beyond some tempered support for the Constitution because it would allow for a government marginally less invasive than the one we have now. Libertarians however know that a cultural change is necessary for the development of real liberty, that people are going to have to both learn to embrace self responsibility and tolerance of others. The “Constitutionalist” in the CP, on the other hand, merely see the Constitution as a means to reestablishing a framework of state rights that will allow for a greater imposition of Christian theology at the local level. This will mere replace today’s secular fascism for a future religious fascism—and that is most certainly NOT what Ron Paul is all about.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
“What do Constitution Party members think about Reagan?”
Howard Phillips had an interesting comment: Reagan was a true conservative, but was hands off, and a bunch of Bush’s people got placed in prominent places, so much of Reagan’s policy was really Bush’s, and only stuff like standing strong on the soviet union / SDI was truly the unwavering brainchild of Reagan…
May 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Miller – The CP would no sooner have me than would your neocon wet-dream of what the LP should be. I’m for free trade, open and free immigration, capitalism, and I’m an atheist. I also think gay people are swell.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“hateful Christian extremists”
You take good marching orders from the left Tharms. Make sure you throw out the word “hateful” or some variation thereof at every opportunity.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
GE,
You’d be welcomed into the party as much as anyone else. Free trade and capitalism wouldnt be a problem, as thats exactly where I sit.
As for gay people, I dont want government involved in marriage at all. I dont care what they do, as long as they do it without demanding special rights.
Open immigration, alll that means is that you probably couldnt run for office (although you probably still could).
You know the athiesm thing is BS. We just ran an athiest-buddhist here in LA.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
If Bob Barr is the nominee of the LP, look for the Ron Paul vote to go to him. 1 million, maybe 1.5 million.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Michael,
The RP vote is only about 1 mill.
But it doesnt matter,that wont happen. Go browse RonPaulForums—more than half of them are for Baldwin.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Trent – Hold on. I’m also for fully legalized gambling; pornography (adult, of course!); prostitution; drugs and booze, etc., in MY STATE. I largely see eye to eye with the CP when it comes to what the federal government should do, but not at the state or local level at all. That’s why I can support Chuck Baldwin, but while I appreciate your hospitality, I think you should join the LP, instead of the other way around.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Red – The real “hateful extremists” are the neocons and their liberal enablers. Where they are Christian (allegedly), I guess they are “hateful Christian extremists.” Your friend Alan Key(n)es would seem to fit the bill.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
GE,
fully legalized gambling isnt a problem in my state, nor is pornography, prostitution, drugs or booze. Of course the guys in Michigan probably feel differently.
Im glad you appreciate the hospitality. =)
I’ll not be joining the LP though, pro-choice + open borders + anarchism = not something I can get behind.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“not something I can get behind” .. .however, i don’t think it would hurt if LP and CP helped each other out on ballot drives!
May 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
According to Minnesota law and possibly others, those signing two petitions for the same office end up making both signatures invalid. According to Minnesota law, signing a petition sheet for an independent candidate is the equivalent of voting for said candidate in the September primary. As an example, any one signing my 2006 US Senate candidate petition could not also sign for my Green opponent or vote for a candidate in the GOP, DFL, or IP primary.
One was not barred from voting in the primary for another race, say Congress or local non-partisan, but they could not legally vote in the US Senate primary in September 2006. One of the reasons that other parties cannot help each other out on ballot drives.
In Minnesota, at least, the LP and CP leadership have encouraged people to gather signatures for each other when they did not have a candidate, ex. had Sue Jeffers not changed her mind and decided to run in the GOP primary for Governor, individuals in the CP were prepared to gather signatures for her to be the LP’s candidate for Governor. LP and CP by-laws prohibit the endorsement of another party’s candidates in a partisan race. However, some of my best support in 2006 actually came from Libertarians because they did not have a US Senate candidate.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Ben, thank you—that is very informative…
May 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Trent – You’ve constructed a straw man. The LP is most definitely not “pro-choice” in the sense you’re talking about (pro legal abortion). The official party stance, shared by every member but the odious Phillies and others like him, is anti-Roe V Wade. As for state legislation against abortion, perhaps pro-lifers are in the minority, but it is a growing one. I don’t know too many people who are converted to the “pro-choice” side, but plenty (myself included) who go the other way. But you already know that.
As for “open borders”—that is a debated position within the LP too. Most, from my perspective, accept the need for border security. They just reject quotas and central planning and they respect property rights. There are others in the LP who are just as radical (and just as wrong) as you on this position, too.
Anarchist: I’m not one, and neither are the majority of libertarians.
So what you’re saying is that you refuse to associate with the LP based on a few beliefs held by a few members. I knew a guy in the Michigan CP who told me he was turned off by overt racists and anti-Semites he encountered at the national convention. So by your own logic, no one should associate with the CP unless they are racist and/or anti-Semite. Or more reliably, you have members (assuming at least two stuck around) who are total f-ing neocons (Keynsians). Then again, so do we (Brian Miller, etc.)
May 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Trent – You need to read your party’s platform (as well as that of the LP).
On Drugs: “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.”
Although the “right” to restrict drugs is delegated to the states under the Constitution, so too is the right to restrict religion and speech. I do not support the “rights” of states to restrict any of the above (although I do oppose the federal government preventing them from doing so). What’s more, the CP turns interventionist in its calls for the federal government to “stop the flow of illegal drugs” into the U.S., and to use what Ron Paul calls ACTS OF WAR —embargoes and sanctions—to stop the peaceful commerce that the founding fathers prescribed as our foreign policy. Boo!
Gambling: “Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.”
B.S. And I don’t gamble, btw.
Porn: “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 federal government should enforce obscenity laws? Where in the Constitution is this power enumerated?
You know… After reading through the CP platform, I’m finding lots of areas where it is not very constitutional at all. In fact, it takes a liberal view of the Constitution (referring to “xth Amendment rights” and seeming to accept the liberal notion that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, etc.). It’s all quite Philliesian, in fact.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I DO gamble. haha.
Trust me—im quite aware of the many problems with the CP platform,and with the party. I view them as less trouble than the LP’s though.
With all of that said—you know im a friend to the LP, GE. And in fact, I care for parties very little,and for individuals much more. By the time this election season is over, i’ll have voted for a couple Republicans, a couple constitution partiers, and two libertarians.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Why must we spend so much time attacking a third party, that we can agree with their POTUS candidate over 70% of the time? The Dems and Repubs sure are larger, much easier targets. I guess it’s because this is TPW and not major party watch, hence we can’t “comment” on the majors as easily.
Chuck Baldwin will get his share of Paul supporters, but he needs to be after Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter and ALL anti-McCain people to vote for him also. They out number Ron Paul voters considerably! The large conservative vote in America needs to learn who Chuck Baldwin is and where he stands on the issues.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
End the Empire – I have a hard time seeing Baldwin attracting odious Romney supporters. Why not Giuliani supporters too?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Yea, Romney supporters I dont see—except the large contingent of mormons that voted fofr him.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:36 am
So would the Montana CP place Chuck Baldwin on their ballot? How about the Oregon CP?