Chuck Baldwin is NOT a libertarian. No one who wants to make gays into second class citizens, ban drugs and gambling, shut our country off to trade and immigration, claim that America was founded as a "Christian nation," say they "respect" Jerry Falwell, claim that the Constitution is divinely inspired, and try to impose Christian doctrine on the rest of society through law can legitimately claim to be libertarian. As such, Chuck Baldwin simply does not endorse Ron Paul's philosophy of libertarianism, and IMO he is unworthy of our support.
The Barr campaign made an unwise decision to back out of the press conference today. But just because he did so doesn't mean he's less deserving of our support. Barr had a voting record in Congress rated "libertarian" over his lifetime by the Republican Liberty Caucus, and he's moved in the right direction on issues about which he was wrong (Iraq, Drugs, DOMA). HE was the one who pushed the Libertarian Party to author the invitation to Dr. Paul to seek its Presidential Nomination (before Barr got into the race), a resolution that also called for the Libertarian Party to open its resources to the Paul campaign (particularly in New Hampshire). Barr endorsed Dr. Paul's campaign early on, and he introduced him at CPAC. I understand why the Barr campaign is upset that Dr. Paul isn't giving him his exclusive endorsement, and it's a sentiment I share.
Switching from Barr to Baldwin simply because Barr backed out of Dr. Paul's press conference symbolizes a morphing of this movement more about a personalty cult centered around Ron Paul than about advancing libertarianism, which is Dr. Paul's philosophy and his message and which he has stated personally many times is what his efforts are all about. Dr. Paul didn't ask for this; we've done it ourselves. We've made this into something that is no better than the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, and for this we should be ashamed of cheapening what Dr. Paul started.
The Barr campaign made an unwise decision to back out of the press conference today. But just because he did so doesn't mean he's less deserving of our support. Barr had a voting record in Congress rated "libertarian" over his lifetime by the Republican Liberty Caucus, and he's moved in the right direction on issues about which he was wrong (Iraq, Drugs, DOMA). HE was the one who pushed the Libertarian Party to author the invitation to Dr. Paul to seek its Presidential Nomination (before Barr got into the race), a resolution that also called for the Libertarian Party to open its resources to the Paul campaign (particularly in New Hampshire). Barr endorsed Dr. Paul's campaign early on, and he introduced him at CPAC. I understand why the Barr campaign is upset that Dr. Paul isn't giving him his exclusive endorsement, and it's a sentiment I share.
Switching from Barr to Baldwin simply because Barr backed out of Dr. Paul's press conference symbolizes a morphing of this movement more about a personalty cult centered around Ron Paul than about advancing libertarianism, which is Dr. Paul's philosophy and his message and which he has stated personally many times is what his efforts are all about. Dr. Paul didn't ask for this; we've done it ourselves. We've made this into something that is no better than the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, and for this we should be ashamed of cheapening what Dr. Paul started.
