If Not Paul, Then Consider Baldwin

[allyinoh]

I would say the Libertarian Party supported Ron Paul in large ways. They allowed us to use their very sophisticated phone banking system for his campaign...they crossed party line to do this. They provided ACTION not words. TONES

What did Bob Barr do? Can you provide me a link to his endorsement video or letter?

The libertarian party is not Bob Barr... And wasn't Bob Barr a Republican before?

I don't care if people want to vote for Bob Barr, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong or make me feel guilty about not wanting to vote for him.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Everyone should vote for who they want to vote for...and if the Baldwin people would quit the smear campaign of Bob Barr...we woudn't be having to defend him. It's been this way since his name was uttered. TONES

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

The facts are ...Baldwin has absolutely no political experience. He has less than Obama. That can not be denied. Why would someone entertain the thought of running for president when he has never even held a local office? Makes no sense to me that he will get any traction at all. I want some kind of results out of this. TONES

 

[BigRedBrent]

I will endorse whoever Ron Paul endorses. We should not be asking who to endorse, we should be asking who Ron Paul intends to endorse. He is the only one I know of who can unite us in this matter, if not we will continue to be divided on this subject. I wholeheartedly wish that Ron Paul would consider running as vise president with someone to make the decision that much easier.

 

[WRellim]

Everyone should vote for who they want to vote for...and if the Baldwin people would quit the smear campaign of Bob Barr...we woudn't be having to defend him. It's been this way since his name was uttered. TONES

Hey the main problem with Bob Barr... is Bob Barr.

Don't blame the Baldwin supporters. Pick a better candidate next time... one with a lot less baggage.
(And, point of fact, I was seeing a LOT of smears about Baldwin before I ever saw any about Barr.)

 

[allyinoh]

Hey the main problem with Bob Barr... is Bob Barr.

Don't blame the Baldwin supporters. Pick a better candidate next time... one with a lot less baggage.
(And, point of fact, I was seeing a LOT of smears about Baldwin before I ever saw any about Barr.)

Exactly. People have been trashing Baldwin for a while and people like this kid are saying that the Baldwin people are the only ones "smearing" Barr.

To me, bringing out valid points on Barr is not smearing him. He has a voting record that changes as much as the weather.

Sure Baldwin doesn't have a voting record, but there isn't much to "smear" him on except his PERSONAL religion.

 

[stevedasbach]

NO 3rd party candidate is "viable" in the sense of being capable of actually being elected... But campaigning and/or voting for a particular candidate can allow you to both deliver a message to other voters AND with the final tally, "demonstrate" both contempt against the current two party system and "show" your support FOR certain things.

With the Libertarian Party, the general public will think a lot of people support for "Libertinism" (or whatever it's called... some to do with Pot, Porn, Prostitutes & stuff -- most people ARE that clueless, and that message doesn't do much good does it?) -- and the Pols will think it is a count of everyone who is one of those "insane anarchists" who also want to smoke pot, read c. porn & hire prostitutes (because like it or not, that *IS* how they think of the LP).

With the Constitution Party, the general public will at least think it has *something* to do with the "Constitution" (whatever that is... wasn't it some piece of paper written by some dudes like 1000 years ago or something? And you know even if they're THAT clueless it STILL works!) -- and the Pols will understand that it is a count of those "dangerous" people who want that darn piece of paper obeyed (you know... the kind that know about posse comitatus, the "militia" kind of people -- God, Guns & Government OUT of their life.)

Of the two... I'd say Constitution Party definitely sends the better message... even people with really low IQ's (say like GWB) would probably figure it out ( if you give him a few days).

So why does the LP consistently get more votes than the CP?

 

[stevedasbach]

What did Bob Barr do? Can you provide me a link to his endorsement video or letter?

The libertarian party is not Bob Barr... And wasn't Bob Barr a Republican before?

I don't care if people want to vote for Bob Barr, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong or make me feel guilty about not wanting to vote for him.

The actions mentioned were authorized by the LNC, which Barr served on. As I recall, he voted in favor of assiting the Paul campaign. He also voted with the majority that invited Dr. Paul to seek the LP nomination.

 

[WRellim]

So why does the LP consistently get more votes than the CP?

CP has been gaining ground on LP in every just about election cycle:

1992 VOTES PCT
Libertarian (Marrou)......................290,087 0.28%
Taxpayers (Phillips)...................... 43,369 0.04%

1996 VOTES PCT
Libertarian (Browne)......................485,798 0.50%
Taxpayers (CP) (Phillips).................184,820 0.19%

2000 VOTES PCT
Libertarian (Browne)......................384,431 0.36%
Constitution (Phillips)................... 98,020 0.09%

2004 VOTES PCT
Libertarian (Badnarik)....................397,265 0.32%
Constitution (Peroutka)...................143,630 0.12%
​

Truth be told, NEITHER party has much to brag about, but (taking to consideration that MANY of those years had a plethora of OTHER party candidate's stealing the "fire" so to speak -- Perot in 92 & 96, Buchanan in 2000, and Nader in 2000 & 2004 -- and that definitely affected other 3rd parties.

But even still, the CP has been gaining ground on the LP (which is down significantly from it's "peak" in 1980 when they drew NEARLY a million votes, and the only time they broached the 1% mark). Even Ron Paul only drew a bit over 400,000 and 0.5% in 1988 on the LP ticket.

And the CP's progress is even MORE impressive when you realize that the LP has ballot access in nearly every state, whereas the CP had only 36 states in 2004 (and has had to expend more effort just getting on the ballots.. and hence less on campaigning).


Despite all of the "big talk" about Barr getting 5% that seems VERY unlikely -- and even if he does breach 1% it will be more attributable to RP's run and Barr's oddball "noteriety" than it will be a vote of confidence in the LP (and besides, they've broached 1% before and then nearly faded away within a few cycles).

If the RPRevolution splits along the fracture lines I think it will, the the CP Baldwin has a MUCH bigger pool of voters (Evangelical Christians) than the LP Barr ticket does (Libertarians, Atheists, and ?). And if the CP improves it's ballot access in new states and draws a substantial portion of the RP supporters, they could feasibly gain a lot of ground, potentially overtaking the LP's spot.

So to my mind, it's kind of like buying stocks -- just because stock A was up 20% last year -- doesn't necessarily mean it won't "drop" 10% this year. It's all a gamble.

Cheers!

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Barr already is polling 7% and the republicans who don't like mccain will vote for Bob Barr. If James Dobson were to endorse Chuck Baldwin...that would be significant for the CP. Ya'll really should be working on James Dobson. I don't know why Dobson hasn't done so...I remember last year when Dobson met with the chair of CP to discuss supporting a third party. Wonder what's up with him now? It makes me irritated that he is remaining silent. Surely he isn't going to go mccain or obama. Why won't he just take a stand? TONES

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

My suspicion is that Dobson doesn' t really like limited government...he wants federal legislation on abortion and gay marriage..so he's bad on the Constitution stance. I was mad at him for not endorsing Ron Paul. He ended up pushing that dummy Huckabee...I cancelled my subscription from Focus on the Family because he did that. Down with Dobson for being against LIBERTY. I think I just answered my own question lol ...TONES

 

[mtmedlin]

And you're just (yet another) FDR 'shipper...

I arrived at my conclusions concerning FDR completely independant of and long before anyone even knew of Lew Rockwell.

FDR did NOT simply make "poor choices" -- he systematically F'd over the previous system of constitutional government in this country, period.
My "snarky comment" was a MIRROR to a "snarky comment" of your own made only a few posts prior.

So you can stick your personal insults (all violations of forum policy) where the sun don't shine.

And again you say nothing to the accuracy of the quote, typical. He didnt do anymore then every other president within the last century, its just popular to nail him because he did it in larger quantities and considering he was in office for longer then any other it is expected. Overall, you still wont acknowledge that you made a smart ass comment about a quote that is truthful in every sense and did so as retaliation because I think your boy is a assclown for using DR. when he didnt earn it.
Also, where the sun doesnt shine....what are you 3. Fucking say, ASS already. I freaking love you late comers and the cry about forum rules. I was here before and will be here long after you lose interest.

 

[mtmedlin]

You should take your own advice and extend the same courtesy towards Dr. Chuck Baldwin. Instead of disliking him because you have problems with the political party he associates with, why not consider Dr. Baldwin's own personal views on the issues? I think once you do that, you'll find that he's very similar to Congressman Paul, unless you don't like Dr. Paul just because he's associated with a party that believes it's okay to openly acknowledge God in public...

Theo, been a while.
No I dont need to extend the same to him because he is running on a platform, which represents his supposed beliefs. As long as they have a stated course of defining marriage in their version of the biblical sense, I cannot in good conscience support him. gay marriage and plural marriage should be protected every bit as much as any other type, according to the constitution. It is our government that made gays and polygamists a minority by restricting their rights as to whom they may marry. If Baldwin will change the CP platform to stating that the government has NO right to regulate marriage and that it is a practice best held sacrid between two people, or two people and their god, then I will have fewer problems with him.
Ron Paul outwardly stated that his parties platform was wrong and that he would change it. MR. Baldwin has not done the same.
The real problem that you and I get into is that you always think that it is about me not wanting God to be a part of anybodies life. Its not. I want god in as many peoples life that want it AND I want it out of as many peoples life that do not want it. The only way this can happen is if the governement stays fully neutral and in no way legislates the gospel.

 

[WRellim]

Barr already is polling 7% and the republicans who don't like mccain will vote for Bob Barr. If James Dobson were to endorse Chuck Baldwin...that would be significant for the CP. Ya'll really should be working on James Dobson. I don't know why Dobson hasn't done so...I remember last year when Dobson met with the chair of CP to discuss supporting a third party. Wonder what's up with him now? It makes me irritated that he is remaining silent. Surely he isn't going to go mccain or obama. Why won't he just take a stand? TONES

Have you ever read anything Baldwin has written -- specifically the stuff he has written about Dobson?

If so you wouldn't even ask that question.

 

[Bison]

Dobson is too busy trying to figure out how he can justify voting for McCain and retain any credibility at the same time.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Dobson voted for McCain? Well.. I'm done with that guy. He's a phoney, period. I have read some of Chuck Baldwins essays but not all of them. I always liked what he said about Ron Paul. I guess Dobson and his influence with the christian base is off the table then. Too bad...but obviously Dobson is getting something out of Mccain / republican party or he's just stooopid. TONES (or maybe his buddy Huckabee will be the VP pick)

 

[Theocrat]

Point Taken

Theo, been a while.
No I dont need to extend the same to him because he is running on a platform, which represents his supposed beliefs. As long as they have a stated course of defining marriage in their version of the biblical sense, I cannot in good conscience support him. gay marriage and plural marriage should be protected every bit as much as any other type, according to the constitution. It is our government that made gays and polygamists a minority by restricting their rights as to whom they may marry. If Baldwin will change the CP platform to stating that the government has NO right to regulate marriage and that it is a practice best held sacrid between two people, or two people and their god, then I will have fewer problems with him.
Ron Paul outwardly stated that his parties platform was wrong and that he would change it. MR. Baldwin has not done the same.
The real problem that you and I get into is that you always think that it is about me not wanting God to be a part of anybodies life. Its not. I want god in as many peoples life that want it AND I want it out of as many peoples life that do not want it. The only way this can happen is if the governement stays fully neutral and in no way legislates the gospel.

Okay. Though I disagree with you about the marriage issue, you're entitled to your opinion, my fellow freedom-fighter. However, I would think Dr. Baldwin, being the Constitutionalist that he is, would recognize that marriage has no jurisdiction on the federal level, and thus as President, he would relegate it to the States. Click here for his party's position about that.

 

[Theocrat]

Qft

Dobson is too busy trying to figure out how he can justify voting for McCain and retain any credibility at the same time.

+666

 

[mtmedlin]

Okay. Though I disagree with you about the marriage issue, you're entitled to your opinion, my fellow freedom-fighter. However, I would think Dr. Baldwin, being the Constitutionalist that he is, would recognize that marriage has no jurisdiction on the federal level, and thus as President, he would relegate it to the States. Click here for his party's position about that.

problem is that particular answer is sidestepping the issue. even the state should not be allowed to deny a persons rights or in this case, give rights to one group over another. at that point the supreme court would have to step in and make it right. then fallwell or robertson would call out the court as being activist...which it isnt...it is a function of their branch.

 

[MMolloy]

problem is that particular answer is sidestepping the issue. even the state should not be allowed to deny a persons rights or in this case, give rights to one group over another. at that point the supreme court would have to step in and make it right. then fallwell or robertson would call out the court as being activist...which it isnt...it is a function of their branch.

The Constitution Party is consistent with the view of the founders about Rights: Rights are not given to anyone and groups can not have rights. Rights are inherent to the INDIVIDUAL and can not be taken away.