Will the r3VOLution be divided starting tomorrow? (with my list of pros and cons)

[SeanEdwards]

I'll be voting for whoever I feel has the best chance of beating McCain, which at this point appears to be the democrat nominee. GOP can suck my ...

 

[Bold As Love]

If you write-in Ron Paul your vote will essentially be thrown away. Unless RP registers as a write-in candidate... but he won't do that. I once said what you said - but it's the equivalent of not voting.

A very good point. I had planned on writing in his name. It appears that if I want to contribute to making sure McCain does not carry TX, I only have one other option.

 

[mrchubbs]

Isn't it funny how Ron Paul could unite all of the people in this thread who all seem to have differing views about who to support now? Ron Paul truly is amazing.

I've written about it, and others have too... Ron Paul is one of a kind. There will probably never be someone else like him.

I'm happily going to vote for the Libertarian nominee, unless it is Gravel. In my eyes he's not libertarian (big or small L). Wayne Allyn Root seems like a shyster to me and I really hope he doesn't get the nomination, but I'd likely vote for him if he did because he's at least running on the right message.

I hope it is Bob Barr. I will not write in Ron Paul because that does nothing. It sends no message to anyone other than myself... because no one will hear about it.

The candidacy of Bob Barr (or Baldwin if you can stomach the religious undertones/overtones) should be where we put forth activist efforts, IMO. Barr getting a Ross Perot like 15-20% of the vote would be amazing. I'm not sure that is possible, but even a 5-10% showing (as he's already polling) would help legitimize the LP for future elections. Not just for President, but for local candidates as well. And remember it's not the candidate so much as the message, especially a LP candidate who isn't likely to win anyway. And Bob Barr is running on Ron Paul's message.

I also happen to think it will help Ron Paul in an indirect way to further his message within the Republican Party when up and coming Republicans witness Ron Paul's support during the campaign and then see the candidate with the same message as Paul do well in the General.

It seems that logically the proper choice is either Barr or Baldwin. I choose Barr, because he is the candidate most likely to spread Ron Paul's message to even more people because he is the most well known.


Enjoy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of either Barr or Baldwin. I'm afraid I can't vote for a candidate from such an overtly religious party so I'm probably having to go Barr. I can only hope that he's shaped up since his last stint in Congress.

Isn't this the same thing we've griped about with the Republicans? Being allegiant to a party, instead of to principles? I mean, we don't elect a political party to office, we elect an individual. Don't misunderstand please. I'm sure you're a principled person... it's just the comment about and "overtly religious party" that concerned me.

As far as Baldwin is concerned, he doesn't believe in cramming religion down anyone's throat. A plus on his side is that he also knows how to talk to the religious right and get their attention. I've seen no one take them to task more for supporting unconstitutional wars and stomping on the Constitution, than he has. Folks really ought to read some of his articles on Chuck Baldwin Live.

Once upon a time, pastors used to be at the forefront of fighting for our liberty. Chuck reminds me of that kind of man.

 

[Printo]

Isn't it funny how Ron Paul could unite all of the people in this thread who all seem to have differing views about who to support now? Ron Paul truly is amazing.

I've written about it, and others have too... Ron Paul is one of a kind. There will probably never be someone else like him.

I'm happily going to vote for the Libertarian nominee, unless it is Gravel. In my eyes he's not libertarian (big or small L). Wayne Allyn Root seems like a shyster to me and I really hope he doesn't get the nomination, but I'd likely vote for him if he did because he's at least running on the right message.

I hope it is Bob Barr. I will not write in Ron Paul because that does nothing. It sends no message to anyone other than myself... because no one will hear about it.

The candidacy of Bob Barr (or Baldwin if you can stomach the religious undertones/overtones) should be where we put forth activist efforts, IMO. Barr getting a Ross Perot like 15-20% of the vote would be amazing. I'm not sure that is possible, but even a 5-10% showing (as he's already polling) would help legitimize the LP for future elections. Not just for President, but for local candidates as well. And remember it's not the candidate so much as the message, especially a LP candidate who isn't likely to win anyway. And Bob Barr is running on Ron Paul's message.

I also happen to think it will help Ron Paul in an indirect way to further his message within the Republican Party when up and coming Republicans witness Ron Paul's support during the campaign and then see the candidate with the same message as Paul do well in the General.

It seems that logically the proper choice is either Barr or Baldwin. I choose Barr, because he is the candidate most likely to spread Ron Paul's message to even more people because he is the most well known.


Enjoy.

I agree. Barr is going to get my vote. He has experience, name recognition, and has reformed views (on drugs & the Patriot act) that fit the conservative-libertarian mold. He can pull in a lot of votes. If he does get over 5%, then the Libertarian Party will receive federal funding in the following election. Barr is exactly what the LP needs to springboard itself onto the political scene in order to become a contender in the future of US politics.

 

[Akus]

I will gladly vote for anyone a Libertarian party presents to me, provided the other 49 states will have that option as well. Even if all three potential nominees are lying frauds, they can't be as bad as Mr. Change and Hope and Mr. Stay in Iraq for 100 years

 

[BagOfEyebrows]

I'm writing in Ron Paul, mainly on principle.

It is my vote - it counts to me - my heart and mind could not give this vote to anybody else. I made up my mind that is what I would do the day I changed my party affiliation to Republican in the summer of 2007, a personal pact I made with myself - this man will get my vote. Period.

Even if a youtube video came out of a barefooted Ron Paul dressed up in a dusty ballerina tutu where he sets fire to a gigantic locked wooden cage full of cute puppies, kittens, racoons and gay pride marchers with hot looking gay chicks wearing nothing but pasties, and then fisted his own throat until he vomitted all over the ashes at the end, it wouldn't matter - he STILL gets my vote - why? Because my vote isn't about him - it's about what he did for my personal journey in this lifetime - how he helped me to understand things better.

The principles - the state and federal constitutions - our freedom and liberty. Common sense stuff. He can't take that back from me now - and I can't give my vote to anybody else but him.

Nobody has worked harder for it - nobody has earned it like Ron Paul has - decades in Congress, saying things that when I read them, or heard them on video, I felt ashamed I never realized, never knew. I cried sometimes outta sadness for how alone he musta felt in Congress. I had never known how hard he was fighting for my freedom and liberty. For all of our freedom and liberty.

And I think of what he's given to the lifetime in front of me - The path he's led me down with his wisdom and courage have changed my life in tremendously positive ways and helped me to understand some issues much better than I thought I did.

In a few circumstances, he completely changed my mind on a couple of subjects, in terms of what the role of government is with them - giving me the logical 'other piece of the equation' I was never told about or 'allowed' to think about and consider. He may not have changed my viewpoint on some things, but he sure changed how I now know and understand they should be addressed. A powerful understanding that Ron Paul's brilliant mind and words have a way of bridging those gaps and bringing logical and compassionate conclusions and compromises that are so sensible.

There's not another candidate of any party that could come around at this moment and give to my life more than Ron Paul has - not this election season, anyways - and nothing Ron Paul does or doesn't do could change what he's given to so many of us. As has been said... this isn't so much about Ron Paul ... it's about the message. But a message that Ron Paul has helped make more tangible, more alive and kickin', more needed now than ever before in the history of mankind.

And it's not about the Constitution(s) - it's about the message. But those Constitution(s) give us a document we can use like a tool. And must protect for all the protection they give to the principles (and the rights.)

Those principles - those instinctual desires for life, liberty, property and the seeking/obtaining/pursuit of happiness... those are just basic instincts - basic logic. Basic life foundations.

I wouldn't vote for Barr - I don't think he understands the logic and compassion of the principles or the state/federal constitutions, based on his own statements, past and current.

When I tell my kids and future grandkids who I voted for back in 2008, I want it to be the man who helped me to understand politics, freedom and liberty and what it meant to their future like no other person ever had. Clarity - that is what Ron Paul gave to me. My vote belongs to him. It will go to him.

Because of Ron Paul, I've met people who have increased that educational experience ten fold, but Ron Paul earned my vote long ago, long before I even knew he had - the establishment might not 'count' my write-in vote, but it IS my vote. It's the only vote I can make - it's based on those principles, facts/truth, logic and compassion, and the law of the land (if not the universe, in terms of survival and happiness itself.)


If Ron Paul doesn't quickly get on all the state ballots he can as a write-in, should he not secure the nomination (which could technically still happen), I absolutely will write his name in, in spite of some technical detail, should that be the case.

My life is by those principles - it always has been, I just didn't know it. Now I do.

Some might want to consider other parties or candidates - I can't. I won't.

Gonna submit this now... I know it's way too long. Sorry for the parts that probably repeat the same thing in different words. I'm tired and apologies in advance for a long-winded ramble of dissent.

 

[berrybunches]

I will not write in Ron because my vote will not be in the final tally of those who threw indy/3rd party votes. If your vote does not have an official candidate it just drops of the radar completely, like it never existed. I hope you guys understand that.
McCain is going to lose by a landslide regardless of 3rd party votes, the Dems are getting a free ride.
TO answer the poster:
Chuck Baldwin:
Pros continued...
Will get the backing of the far right and Christians (JBS, Alex Jones listeners, Pat Buchanan)
Seemingly honest man.

Cons
He is VERY far right an conspiratorial. He says New World Order more than is healthy for a presidential hopeful. He will get Rev. Wright treatment if the media picks up on him.
He has no experience and most people will not vote for him.

But If Mary Ruwart doesn't win I will vote for Chuck.

Voting for Barr in the LP is like republicans voting for Mccain. Its appeasement and compromising of values for name recognition and for the fact he is moderate.
I don't wan the LP to turn into a party of appeasers like the GOP.

The only way I would vote for Barr is if he had a major chance of winning, I would love to help get someone in their other than an R or a D.

 

[hypnagogue]

Being allegiant to a party, instead of to principles?

They overlap slightly in this case. I have no allegiance to any party, only to principles. In this case the principles of another party conflict with mine.

we don't elect a political party to office, we elect an individual.

A fair point. Politics being what they are though, parties do get their hands into things. If Baldwin wanted, he could have run as a Libertarian, and in many ways it would have been politically wiser, but instead he runs Constitution. He must have a reason for that. I had to get over Ron Paul being a Republican too. It's simply a hurdle for him to overcome.

Further, and this is my personal stance, the fact that he was a Pastor does influence my willingness to vote for him. I'd like to be frank here, just so you can understand where I'm coming from. I don't want to ruin this thread with religious bickering. This is simply my position.

What a person believes, regardless of whether that belief is tagged with a 'Religious' or 'Secular' tag, is important to me. It says a lot about how a person thinks, and the kinds of influences they're willing to accept. I do not hold a religious opinion to be sacrosanct anymore than I do an opinion on engineering. I dislike when people are willing to accept beliefs which I find ridiculous, unnecessary, and harmful. I view religion to be these things.

Now, I wouldn't get very far if I refused to deal with any person who held those beliefs, since a large majority of people hold them. I have to make that compromise on a daily basis. However, when someone devotes their life to a practice which I find ridiculous, unnecessary, and harmful, and actively works to spread and strengthen those practices, I can not simply look the other way.

Baldwin is a religious man running for a religious party. Those are two huge hurdles for him to overcome in order to win my support. If it were between him and Paul I wouldn't even bother looking twice, but since it's between him and Barr (presumably) I'd be willing see what he has to say. I remain highly skeptical.

I also take your point regarding the involvement of religious figures at the start of the Liberty movement. I am, however, more interested in moving Liberty into the 21st century, then I am in turning the clock back to 1776. The revolution was not perfect, America was not perfect, the Constitution was not perfect. Things must change in order to thrive. You can not improve without change.

 

[virginia4liberty]

Even if a youtube video came out of a barefooted Ron Paul dressed up in a dusty ballerina tutu where he sets fire to a gigantic locked wooden cage full of cute puppies, kittens, racoons and gay pride marchers with hot looking gay chicks wearing nothing but pasties, and then fisted his own throat until he vomitted all over the ashes at the end, it wouldn't matter - he STILL gets my vote - why? Because my vote isn't about him - it's about what he did for my personal journey in this lifetime - how he helped me to understand things better.

Wow I couldn't say it any better myself.....

I had no idea write-ins wouldn't count unless they file with the state as a write-in candidate.
http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/Election/Results/2004/Nov2004/Write-In-Candidates-recap_of_votes.htm
Just for reference I found these write-in results at the state of Virginia's election board website from the 2004 presidential elections and it says each filed with the state to be a write-in candidate.

I still can't really vote for either the LP or CP nominee. Barr has too much bagage, voting for Patriot Act and being for the war on drugs, don't trust him. To me the CP seems to almost be a Theocracy, cannot vote for that. I really want to vote for Ron Paul but if my vote won't be counted that doesn't solve anything, its like I stayed home and did nothing. I might in the end hold my nose and vote for the LP nominee hoping they will get over 5% and in 2012 will have a better nominee with federal funding; and maybe the Ron Paul Republicans will have some pull in congress by then to reshape the Republican party and influence those elections. Who knows maybe in 2012 Rand will step up and follow his fathers footsteps......

 

[Joseph Hart]

Just An Attempt To Seperate Us!

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Why are we creating MORE political parties anyways?

We only need one in America

Republic of America, anyone......

get rid of the dem, 3rd party indie runs and lets take back the gop like we should.

 

[majinkoola]

Establishing viability for a 3rd party would be huge for future elections. That's what my vote is going to be used for.

That's my reasoning for not voting for a Constitution Party candidate. I think Baldwin is a great candidate, but the Constitution Party has no shot of ever becoming a viable party. It only appeals to disgruntled conservatives, really.

So even though immigration is a top issue for me and I'm absolutely opposed to open borders, I'll probably vote LP to help them achieve viability. If Barr could somehow get double digits (I know it's not likely but possible), that would open up so many doors for the future.

I'm not going to do something solely so I can pat myself on the back, like vote for RP where his vote won't get counted. I'm still holding out hope RP has something up his sleeve for this general election.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Getting the country back under a Republic is not simply a Ron Paul vote. Ron Paul is the messenger remember that.

I would like to know, from anyone for that matter what the benefit would be in building up 2nd or 3rd parties as far as the constitution goes anyways.

Why would we for one, allow the gop to continue to go to shit then try and create another party in hopes of bringing that one back under what the old republican stances used to be.

Why not call it gop 2.0 then.....

I just don't get this at all. Think LONG TERM, not who we can get to 15% in a lib 3rd party run for this ONE election this ONE year.

Any thoughts would be appreciated as well.

Establishing viability for a 3rd party would be huge for future elections. That's what my vote is going to be used for.

That's my reasoning for not voting for a Constitution Party candidate. I think Baldwin is a great candidate, but the Constitution Party has no shot of ever becoming a viable party. It only appeals to disgruntled conservatives, really.

So even though immigration is a top issue for me and I'm absolutely opposed to open borders, I'll probably vote LP to help them achieve viability. If Barr could somehow get double digits (I know it's not likely but possible), that would open up so many doors for the future.

I'm not going to do something solely so I can pat myself on the back, like vote for RP where his vote won't get counted. I'm still holding out hope RP has something up his sleeve for this general election.

 

[FindLiberty]

I like Mary Ruwart the most - based on principle.

Too bad Bob Barr doesn't have a longer track record of supporting LP principles (,e.g. MPP) - is two years long enough to trust him now? I don't want the LP to turn bad, "go to the dark side of the farce" and end up like the GOP, 'cause it's a one way trip with NO HOPE of redemption or reform (,i.e. recent RP delegates VERY unwelcomed).

The OP asked about dividing the RP revolution... I hope not !!!

If you have ever attended an LP national convention (especially nomination process) you must know ANYTHING can happen ...right up to the last minute!

 

[majinkoola]

Getting the country back under a Republic is not simply a Ron Paul vote. Ron Paul is the messenger remember that.

I would like to know, from anyone for that matter what the benefit would be in building up 2nd or 3rd parties as far as the constitution goes anyways.

Why would we for one, allow the gop to continue to go to shit then try and create another party in hopes of bringing that one back under what the old republican stances used to be.

Why not call it gop 2.0 then.....

I just don't get this at all. Think LONG TERM, not who we can get to 15% in a lib 3rd party run for this ONE election this ONE year.

Any thoughts would be appreciated as well.

Did you read my post? I said the purpose of my vote is long term. What would a McCain or Obama vote mean long term? Nothing.

If a Libertarian at the top of the ticket gets double digits, that will put to rest the idea that the Libertarian party has no chance. And there's a difference between recent success by third parties and what this would be. The Green Party is far left on every issue, and like the Constitution Party, has no crossover appeal. There never was really much organization to the Reform Party.

That would help L's in races all over the country, and help shift the other parties toward libertarianism as well. If an incumbent Dem votes for the war and against civil liberties, the L candidate could pick those voters off. If an incumbent R votes for big gov't, the L candidate could get those candidates. With the two party spectrum both parties can do whatever they want and demand votes for fear of the other party.

I'm not saying that we should take our attention off of the RP congressional candidates. I'm going to be spending about every free moment of the next 5 months campaigning for Lawson. All I'm advocating is doing something useful with your vote.

 

[american.swan]

One thing that is pissing me off... everyone here should know this one simple fact and they don't:

If THEY can tell you who is electable they have already won (controlled) the election.

ANYBODY on this forum who says they can't vote for someone "because they can't get elected" SHOULD BE SHOT

AMEN!!

 

[Bradley in DC]

Stormcommmander, it's been said by just about everybody, Barr& Viguerie is a no go.

Yet somehow Barr wins all the polls here (except for the good doctor himself, of course).

 

[LibertyEagle]

TYou can not improve without change.

It depends on what that "change" is. And my comment about pastors was not to suggest we should turn back the clock, but remind that pastors used to be at the forefront of liberty, not promoting empire and big government like some do now. By the way, this campaign has focused a lot on reinstating the Constitution and the founding principles of liberty. Do you consider that "turning back the clock" too?

It still seems to me that we are choking on our own words. We criticized Republicans for being loyal to the party, rather than to principle. We criticized them for not realizing they vote for an individual, not for a political party or what the elite controlling that party at the top, dictate. Now are we going to turn around and vote for a "party", instead of looking at the individual and judging him/her by their own merits? I certainly hope not. Because if we do that, we'll all go back to the same little party-induced slots, that we were in before the Revolution started.

Maybe I just don't understand, because for me, if I could, I'd do away with ALL political parties and make each person stand on their own two feet. Then, we'd be forced to judge them as individuals, as we should've in the first place. Given that I don't have that authority, and our system is setup so that the 2 major parties are the only ones who end up in debates, I'm for taking the Republican party back to true conservatism. I'm not sure how many people remember this, but traditional conservatism is libertarian-conservatism. And it ain't nothing like what you see from those running around these days wagging about their "conservatism". (Think Ron Paul) Back in the 60's, the libertarian-conservatives rose up and got the majority in the Republican party. This was back in the days of Goldwater, Sr. We can do it again. Only this time, maybe we'll all be smarter and not be asleep and let the big government socialists take over, or lose sight of the fact that political parties are inanimate objects.

Political parties are only a vehicle to get a candidate heard, or shut out, as the case has been. They shouldn't be looked at like candidates themselves, with a set of principles and beliefs. That is how we got in this problem to begin with and then people furthered it by voting for the "party", instead of for the individual.

 

[familydog]

If you want to establish third parties as mainstream in America, the way to do it is not through just supporting them. The system is set up against them. You need to get rid of the electoral college first.

If I disagree with Jefferson on anything, it is the need for political parties at all. You will never find a bigger advocate of political parties than he.

But for the sake of making this movement successful, we will need to all get behind the same candidates. If not, we are all wasting our time.