Montana gun group likes Constitution Party’s Ron Paul

The Montana Shooting Sports Association says “principled” voters should cast their presidential ballot for Ron Paul, but “pragmatic” voters may want to pick McCain, because he’s not quite as bad as Obama on gun issues:

The group gave Republican John McCain a D in its scorecard. Obama got an F. Paul, on the ballot under the Constitution Party banner in Montana, got a A from the group.

Dr. Paul has asked that his name be taken off the ballot, but a spokesman for the secretary of state’s office says that may not be possible, and some counties have already started printing ballots:

“We have received the letter [from Dr. Paul], and we are looking at the law. So far, we are not sure that the law allows for anything to be done about the situation.”

19 Responses to “Montana gun group likes Constitution Party’s Ron Paul”

  1. Tim Rutherford Says:

    The Constitution Party is NOT voting for McCain for any reason. Chuck Baldwin is our man C-Span just bradcast Dr. Ron Paul and Three other Candidates one of which is Dr. Pauls Friend Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

    http://baldwin08.com/Issue-Firearms.cfm

  2. Todd Welch Says:

    Please do not waist your vote and use it to write in Ron Paul. Ron Paul himself has said not to write him in as it would be a waisted vote. Instead he has said to vote for a 3rd party as voting for the best of the worst is also a waist of vote. Please cast your vote for either Libertarian Bob Barr or Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin.

  3. Me Says:

    Who said anything about writing in Ron Paul? It appears Dr. Paul is on the Constitution Party of Montana’s ballot, and the National CP has Chuck Baldwin listed as a “write-in” candidate in Montana.

    http://constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php

    Please do not waste your vote by writing in Chuck Baldwin- vote for Ron Paul!

  4. Free Al. Says:

    A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. He is not running fro president anymore, his name is only on two ballots, and he does not represent any minor party. This is nothing more than a cheap trick by the Montana Constitution party to raise their vote totals. Vote for Barr or write in Baldwin, but don’t let the Montana CP get away with this by giving them your vote.

  5. Porter Rockwell Says:

    This is yet another example of Latter Day Saint hatred in the CP.

    Where is Chuck Baldwin and why hasn’t he totally repudiated this hatred?

    Chuck…Your silence is deafening…

  6. Odd Says:

    Ron Paul is NOT part of the Constitution Party- they put him on their ballot without his request. There are many things in the Constitution party’s platform that is in conflict with the rEVOLution- especially its theocratic attitude.

    Ron Paul is still a Republican and running as a Republican for Congress. Remember, Paul didn’t endorse Baldwin because of his philosophy- he endorsed Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney along with Chuck Baldwin because they are not part of the two party system.

    Voting for Dr. Paul in MN is about as useful as throwing a penny in a wishing well. You may feel good for two minutes, but the next day, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be President. Your ‘protest’ will mean absolutely nothing and will fade into the history of all third party rebellions- nonexistence.

    Change from within.

  7. RobertD Says:

    It’s absolutely amazing, of all people, to hear 3rd party supporters tossing back and forth the mantra of ‘wasted votes’.

    Stop using manipulative words, and start explaining why Chuck Baldwin, if you believe he is the better choice, should get the vote, rather than Ron Paul.

    ‘wasted vote’ indeed. I also am sick of those saying vote “Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr”. The candidates are not similar in any way, why not say “Baldiwn, Barr, Nader, or McKinney”. They were all on the stage.

    Again maniuplation, the attempt to confuse ex-Moral Majority Staffer and Baptist Preacher Baldwin with Libertarianism.

    You can easily guess I don’t like Baldwin. The problem with no-exceptions immigration policy, is exceptions exist.

    Take the case of a 1 month old half American/half Korean infant—dad a soldier serving in Korea, mother Korean…Dad was never told about the pregnancy and returned stateside after his tour was over…Mother gave up the baby to an orphanage…that baby is brought to this country by his adoptive parents. The adoptive parents don’t fill out paperwork on the child. When that child turns 18, he goes to join the military. Being a patriotic american (so he thinks) he wants to fight the war in Iraq.

    Only to his utter shock and surprise, he finds out his parents never filled out his paperwork—- he’s not a citizen.

    Exceptions like this and many others exist. The very idea, that you take a person who only speaks English and deport that person, under current law, for 10 years, back to their birth country—-basically sending them to die, because the young american patriot actually doesn’t speak any Korean, and would have no way to survive there.

    You say, but that is an exception! DUH, YES IT IS. Baldwin is talking about against being reasonable about exceptions when he says NO EXCEPTIONS.

    I much prefer enforcing the law, and examining special cases as special cases.

    That idiot doesn’t. And as long as my 8 year old daughter is still technically Ukrainian, I cannot endanger my family by supporting this idiot.
    Unlike the example I gave above, I am trying to fill out all paperwork, but the USCIS is still not capable of processing all paperwork in a timely manner, and they put people into ‘out of status’ category on a regular basis. Do you really think any parent is going to send their child to live in another country, just because USCIS cannot process papwerwork on time, and idiots like Baldwin exist?

  8. RobertD Says:

    p.s. my example above about the 1 month old baby, is true, except the person found out about his citizenship status around the age of 40, when he went to apply for a government job.

    I changed the story slightly to a person who wanted to be a soldier in Iraq, at age 18, because anything can happen in this world. Point being, exceptions usually need to be looked at, rather than ignored.

  9. Frank Says:

    It is my understanding that since Ron Paul has withdrawn from the race in Montana, that any votes for him will not be counted. Thus a vote for Ron Paul will be somewhat of a wasted effort. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News would know for sure and can correct me if I am wrong.

    And yes, there is a strong dislike for the Latter Day Saint (Mormon people) by a small but vocal group in the Constitution Party. However, that has not stopped the Mormons from supporting Chuck. Percentage wise his strongest support will come from Utah followed by other western states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada where there is a significant Latter-Day Saint presence. On more than one occasion, Chuck has come to the defense of the LDS people in the CP and that has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. When he came to Utah in early July, 900 people turned out to hear him speak. According to Rick Jore, it was the LDS people that pushed him over the top in his race for the state legislature in Montana. The LDS people are used to being slandered a lot by others, and have learned to pretty much take that in stride.

  10. RobertD Says:

    Guys remember this, both your parents can be American Citizens…and you are not a citizen if you are born outside the United States.

    But you say, if both of my parents are Americans, I can become a citizen easily…they just have to apply….its never turned down…children of american citizens can become citizens….just apply.

    DING DING DING DING DING DING

    correct, the key phrase here ‘the just have to apply’, and during that application period you are an illegal. You may, almost automatically, become legal, but for a time, you are illegal.

    And if there is no exception, then Baldwin wants to deport you.

    No exception means you deport minor children, even if neither of their parents actually live in the country you are sending them to.

    Deport you to some country where you were technically born, but you have no knowledge of the language, culture, and that country doesn’t recognize you as a citizen either.

    What a freaking moron, of course, you have to have processes in place to protect people while the application is in process.

    Under current law, you cannot drive in most states, you cannot work, in any state…the punishment for being out of status, even though in some cases, its no fault of your own whatsoever.

    And what about asylum? The process is currently one where you have to apply, and during the application period, guess what YOU ARE ILLEGAL. We throw out all asylum seekers until the application is approved? Guess what? That defeats the whole purpose of the system, if you do that.
    Some pro-democracy activists have applied for asylum in the U.S. because they would face certain death if sent back to their home country. You really want to send them back to die first, approve their applications only post-mortem?

    People who know nothing about this process, want to ship you to some foreign country. What mean spirited people

    I know you hate mexicans, but that isn’t the ‘exception’ in immigration…when he says ‘no exception’ he’s saying even in extreme cases, never use any of your own judgement.

    Guess what, USCIS mostly doesn’t use any common sense already. To make that even worse, is astonishingly ignorant.

    And this guy wants you to confuse his moral majority values with libertarianism….its just astonishing.

    If anything I hope people understand this man is not Libertarian.
    You may agree with his moral majority values…I respect that.

    Yes, I do, but be honest about it, get your votes, based on your real support, not by confusing people into believing you are something or somebody that you clearly aren’t.

  11. Impeach Bush Says:

    I guess the “Paul nuts” can’t move on. Speaking as a Ron Paul supporter during his campaign, I can say that I have moved on, and the rest of you should too. Writing in Ron Paul or voting for him on one of the two state ballots he is on is not how we are going to achieve liberty people. We need to work together as people if we want to achieve anything.

  12. spinnikerca Says:

    I saw a press piece this morning saying the Constitution party is keeping Ron Paul on the ballot, that nothing in the law says they have to ask his permission, and that it is party business and they can pick whomever they want to pick.

    I love these guys!

    Makes me want to move to Montana…..

  13. Ben Says:

    RobertD, among the many instances you have outlined is why in 2006 I could not in good conscience make “illegal immigration” a part of my campaign for US Senate. I firmly believe that Dr. Paul has the best plan for solving the perceived “illegal immigration” problem. Take away the welfare benefits and a marked fewer number of people will be entering the US.

    The rest of the people wanting to come to the US will be political dissidents, refugees, and just hard-working folks wanting a better life. I also believe that there will be fewer “unwanted” jobs if lazy Americans had to choose between slinging guts at the packing house or starvation. With laws that require US citisens and aliens to receive the same wages, employers prefer to hire US nationals and, in particular, local boys.

    Too bad that too many people clamouring about “illegal immigration” are more concerned about their own Social[ist] Security “benefits” than about “job losses” or a “lowered standard of living.” The Baldwin campaign’s decision to make “illegal immigration” a cornerstone is just one of many reasons that I plan to stay home on Election Day.

  14. Allen Says:

    Paul has withdrawn his name in Montana. When Paul lost the primary MSSA endorsed McCain and other Republicans. Now the group is flip flopping.

  15. Justin Offermann Says:

    All this talk about wasting your vote is foolish and detrimental. Then again, my vote’s going to be ‘wasted’ any way you slice it since I live in New Jersey, which Obama will win handily. Since I won’t vote for him, it doesn’t really matter what I do, so I’ll go ahead and vote my conscience, which means I’ll be writing in Ron Paul. Unfortunately, under NJ election law, write-in votes are only tabulated if it could have an effect on the electoral outcome, which is unlikely. Add to that the fact I’ll be not only casting a write-in vote but also doing it absentee, and the chances of my vote actually mattering are pretty much nil. So at this point, I’ll be doing it just for the sake of conscience.

  16. PatB Says:

    RobertD – you are an alarmist and completely incorrect about your idea of what Baldwin (and Ron Paul among others for that matter) mean by removing exceptions to the citizenship clause. They want to remove the natural born citizen idea, meaning that someone who just happens to be born on this soil is a citizen of this country. And when you say that a child born overseas is not an american, even if thier parents are American, your absolutely wrong. Yes the parents have to apply, but they apply for a social security number just the same as any parent does for a child born in the USA. my daughter was born in France, she’s a citizen. All i did was apply for a SSN, no “exceptions” needed. I’m an american, I fill out the birth cirtificates and SSN applications, and she’s a citizen.
    Be wary of RobertD, he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
    I don’t suport Baldwin, but for different reasons, accurate reasons anyway. At least base your decision on fact and not alarmist hype.

  17. Donna Says:

    And yes, there is a strong dislike for the Latter Day Saint (Mormon people) by a small but vocal group in the Constitution Party.

    Just to set the record straight, this “small, but vocal group” who expressed their hatred of Mormans, are no longer in the Constitution Party. Thank God! They all dis-affiliated years ago. Now these state parties have re-built and are bigger and stronger without these religious zealots. Some Mormans are in leadership.

    The CP is a political party – it is not a Church. It would be nice if you all got that thru your thick skulls.

    Just like the LDS, CPers are used to being labeled. If you don’t like the CP, then join the LP. The CP is not for everybody, but it sure provides a comfortable place for those of us who want to participate in the political system without compromising our principles.

  18. Porter Rockwell Says:

    Donna:

    You are wrong. The nominee of your party was a leader in the hate LDS crowd. Tell us Donna, who’s side were you on in Tampa?

  19. Me Says:

    According to the list at the bottom of the article found at this link-

    http://www.constitutionpartyoregon.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=109&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

    -there were no delegates from Missouri voting in Tampa.

Leave a Reply