The Rise of the Constitution Party!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Retaking the GOP is our best shot.

 

[V4Vendetta]

I voted for the Constitution Party's Nominee in 2004. I sure as heck wouldn't mind doing it again, if Ron Decided to run with the Constitution Party instead of the Libertarian Party!

 

[Churchill2004]

For the love of God, no. Ron Paul has been fully aware of the "Constitution Party" and for good reason has stuck with the Libertarians. The simple fact is that the CP nominated two theocrats in 2004. Men who openly said non-Christians have no place in American politics.

Affiliating himself with the horrendously misnamed Constitution Party is just about the one thing Paul could do to not get my vote. I'm not too worried, though. As the only candidate to speak out against the attacks on Romney's Mormonism, I don't think he'll be abandoning his long and happy relationship with the LP to take over what is in effect a Christian Dominionist party that happens to think that the Constitution should be supported, not because of any deep-seated appreciation of liberty, but because they think it's divinely ordained. What a joke.

Absolutely not.

 

[garrettwombat]

constitutionalists

 

[scbissler]

What do you think about the Freedom Party idea?


Combining the Constitution / Libertarian / Disgruntled Republicans / Enlightened Democrats together.


Some compromise will need to be made, but that's life.

That is exactly what I believe should happen.

 

[Churchill2004]

From the CP's platform:

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

That's a load of crap, and a dangerous one at that. There are no "biblical foundations" to American jurisprudence- it's based on the Constitution and English common law.

They also say they have no problem with the criminalization of what they think to be "offensive sexual behavior".

These people are twisted, and they do not support individual liberty.

 

[hocaltar]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be

I agree with this assessment. The far easier, faster and more productive approach would be to just take over the republican and democratic parties one congressman at a time. We need Ron Paul democrats and Ron Paul republicans running. The grass roots efforts must continue. When ever people ask why you lean libertarian, answer them with something like, "I have no association with the libertarian party I am a strict constitutionalist not one of those libertarians..."

I have put a lot of thought into this, and to me the primary reason we seem to be losing right now is due to the association with the word "libertarian." Many people don't know what it means, don't care, or simply hate it for being different.

 

[mport1]

The Libertarian Party is MUCH better than the Constitution Party.

 

[american.swan]

The Constitution pary has too much GOD in it for me and the LP, whom I've been a follower of for years, doesn't ever seem to do anything. We need a party with balls and one that understands the constitution and the message of freedom. I nominate naming it the Freedom Party and asking Ron Paul to join as it's premier member as soon as he gets elected president.
Na - never mind. Goddam media won't allow third parties to win.

I think we should stay in the GOP and reform it. (vote for easier rules on getting third parties on the ballot)

 

[FrankRep]

The Libertarian Party is MUCH better than the Constitution Party.

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.

Libertarian party of wants open borders and that's a dangerous action right now.

 

[Churchill2004]

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.

How do you get that? Ignoring their insane theocratic platform, the LP is much better established and doesn't have nearly as many problems with internal factions feuding.

Seriously, we're talking about a party that advocates this sort of revisionist, pro-theocracy crap and you're worried about the fact that the Libertarians have a slightly different position on the border than Dr. Paul? (Both ultimately want it largely open, Paul just wants to end the welfare state first) There's also the fact that the Libertarians have proven they're willing to accept a principled candidate who disagrees with them on some issues (Paul on abortion 1988), whereas the CP went so far as to kick out state affiliate parties because they dared to run a candidate who thought abortions might be acceptable in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

 

[Richie]

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.

Libertarian party of wants open borders and that's a dangerous action right now.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=750

More professional? *Chris Matthews HA!*

That source is quite biased, so here's what happened. One of the state affiliates nominated a candidate that wasn't 100% pro-life. He thought abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was at risk. As a result, half of the state affiliates dropped their support of the party.

 

[John P Slevin]

win back the country

it wont make a difference via a 3rd party

infiltrating the GOP makes a greater difference

The R and D parties are actually the same. It's a duopoly.

Actually, many LP members thought infiltration of the GOP a smart move, so they started to do it about 25 years ago. See where that got 'em?

The Republican sell-out of principles actually accelerated while these former LP members spent almost all their time telling remaining LP members they were stupid for not following along and going into the GOP.

There was a reason the LP nominated Paul in '88. The same reason exists today. LPer's would love to nominate Paul (the sane ones anyway). It's because the LP has stood on the same principles.

And, for that reason, it never has been bloody likely Paul can get the GOP nomination.

But all that aside, it's the fight that is important, NOT the nomination, NOT the White House. It's winning back our country that matters.

 

[runderwo]

What do you think about the Freedom Party idea?


Combining the Constitution / Libertarian / Disgruntled Republicans / Enlightened Democrats together.


Some compromise will need to be made, but that's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

It looks increasingly like the Democrats will take the election (eg. voter enthusiasm as measured by turnout so far), which will likely cause the neo-cons to drop the charade and unmask again as the leftists that they are while latching on to the Democratic party. That should release their stranglehold on the ideas that comprise the Republican persona and allow a hyperactive minority of party members to steer the Republican discourse into a more historical conservative channel.

If the Republicans win with anyone other than Ron, of course, then there is no hope for the party.

You bring up a good point. It's like when Southern "conservatives" abandoned the Democratic ship, lurching that party to the left. If the Dems become the majority party for a long enough period of time, we could see Republicans switching sides to play ball with the winners. Most likely the economically populist evangelicals, but hopefully also neocons since they don't give a damn about small government or even like big government. The GOP would have the national political strength of the Democrats in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it wouldn't be dead and it'd be easier to sway back to its true conservative roots. It'll be a while before that happens, though.