Baldwin Open to Presidential Slot

Chuck Baldwin has just released the following statement:

“I have been pleased to be an active member of the Constitution Party for several years and was honored to have been chosen as the party’s Vice-Presidential nominee in 2004.”

“Should the Constitution Party decide to nominate me as its Presidential candidate in 2008, I would be honored to accept.”

127 Responses to “Baldwin Open to Presidential Slot”

  1. silver Republican Says:

    I’d do it if I were you, CP.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    Silver,

    It seems likely. Baldwin is hated by no one and liked by all. The only people I can see having any problem with this are the Keyes Delegates (which number as little as 4-5 delegates) and the Maine and Michigan CP—both of which seem to like Keyes alot.

    Im actually hoping for Baldwin/Keyes or Moore/Baldwin.

  3. Mike Gillis Says:

    Interesting. He’s not overtly running, but he’s setting himself up as a voting alternative to Keyes at the convention later in the month.

  4. Kevin Thompson Says:

    This is a great day for the CP, and a great day for the country!

  5. silver Republican Says:

    Am I right that its just too late. . . Moore will not run?

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    Moore probably wont. It wouldnt be too late though. Its not too late until April 24th,when we finish casting votes.

    If Keyes brings on Moore as the VP,expect to see alot of people suggesting a reversal. Moore/Keyes would be a great ticket.
    But either way,you’ll see Keyes with a GREAT chance to win,if he brings in Moore.

  7. Jeff Wartman Says:

    When does the CP hold its nominating convention?

    If its after the LP convention, wouldn’t it make sense for the CP to endorse Barr if he gets the LP nomination in Denver?

  8. Travis Maddox Says:

    What do you think the possibility is of nominating Moore anyways for Pres. even if he states he isn’t interested in it with hopes after he is nominated that he takes it.

  9. Mike Gillis Says:

    Wartman, the CP convention is at the end of the month and will be in advance of the LP convention by about a month.

  10. Guy Fawkes Says:

    It’s a shame the Constitution Party will never amount to anything due to…

    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

    I guess the atheists are unwelcome.

  11. Guy Fawkes Says:

    Oh and I almost forgot…

    The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

    That makes me just feel sick to my tummy. Especially after we established firmly in the treaty of tripoli that we aren’t based on any sort of religion.

    Lame.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Guy Fawkes,

    We’ve got an Athiest/Buddhist sitting on our Central Committee here in LA.

  13. Guy Fawkes Says:

    What difference does that make? That only tells me that he doesn’t seem to have rigorous standards of political association by adhering himself to a group that is unsupportive of his belief system. If the purpose of the CP is to reach mainstream Americans, then this type of bold statement will alienate a lot of them. If you plan on staying fringe, by all means keep it. What’s different from the CP and the Libertarians other than this Jesus thing?

  14. Ted Says:

    And if you read a little further…

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.”

  15. Quietus Says:

    What’s different from the CP and the Libertarians other than this Jesus thing?

    That’s what I’d like to know as well.

  16. Gary Odom Says:

    A lot of things that get into platforms get there as the result of close votes. The wording in the CP preamble was passed in 1999 (the convention for the 2000 election) by 3 votes out of 500 or more votes cast. Some people liked and still like it. Some people have accepted it rather than fight about it and some people still aren’t totally thrilled about the wordage. Just like any organization you are going to run into varying opinions on many things. Those who want to be involved in something where everyone elses opinions are a mirror image of their own, they should try something other than politics.

    This gets to be a tired issue, but everyone of every race, religion, ethnic group is very welcome to participate in the CP and, no we are absolutely not interested in establishing a theocracy.

    The CP National Convention is April 23-26 in Kansas City.

  17. Travis Maddox Says:

    “This gets to be a tired issue, but everyone of every race, religion, ethnic group is very welcome to participate in the CP and, no we are absolutely not interested in establishing a theocracy.”

    Agreed, our nation was founded on Biblical principles, no truthful argument will get around that.

  18. NewFederalist Says:

    I see this announcement as positive news for the CP convention. Should be fun to watch!

  19. Red Phillips Says:

    I thought Guy Fawkes was a Catholic. Perhaps GF should research his name sake before spouting off.

    America may or may not be a Christian Nation, depending on what exactly you mean and who you ask. But America was most definitely a particularly Christian country, meaning it was made up almost entirely of Christians (excluding the Indians and Africans of course) and essentially presupposed Christianity. Even the oft’ trotted out Deists and skeptics presupposed a Christian base. Without Christianity America would be an entirely different country. We are first and foremost a particularly Christian country long before we are a pluralistic, diverse country. As a matter of brute history, this is not really disputable. For the village atheists on this board it is really only disputable at an intellectual/philosophical level.

    So any truly conservative party in America is going to wish to conserve the particularly Christian nature of this country or they are not really conserving what America was.

    Gary, do you agree with the preamble, but just don’t think it should be publicly stated? Or do you disagree with the preamble? If so, what parts?

    Anyway, the Chuck Baldwin news is great.

  20. No Longer a Reform Party Member Says:

    To Quietus: “Open borders in a Post 911 Environment” [Go go go, clear thinking Bob Barr!]

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    I suspect the nomination is now Chuck Baldwin’s for the taking, assuming no intervention by Judge Moore.

  22. citizen1 Says:

    Baldwin is probably the front runner now.

  23. Jerry S. Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkc4xF_QSMk&feature=related
    Ron Paul - Pastor Chuck Baldwin endorsement

    Pastor Baldwin is a good man, however

    It’s time to think outside the small box, CP members…

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/25/hipocrisy-now/#comment-2

    BARR-BALDWIN = All time vote and membership record for the CP !
    BALDWIN-whomever

  24. No Longer a Reform Party Member Says:

    Dear Red: Plz protect my spirituality by keeping your [AND ALL] religion out of public administration and politics. The religious icons are already in place—-fine, that’s history and historic.

    New additions of religion to goverance? Knock it off!

    We can be a ‘Christian Nation’ with out a formal Theocracy! Get real, now! Here in the 21st Century! Religion at home and temple!

  25. Jerry S. Says:

    cont.
    BARR-BALDWIN = All time vote and membership record for the CP !
    BALDWIN-whomever 200,000 votes

    Barr is a constitutionalist, a christian and pro-life, he’s been married more than once, but the majority is guilty of that unfortunate occurance.

    Any by-laws which block such a move can be suspended until 12-31-08 by any convention.

  26. Alice W Says:

    I am for whatever that keeps Keyes out of the CP. We don’t want to embrace people who are opportunists and desperate for ballot inclusion. That is ALL Keyes is interested in.
    If he truly was dedicated to his cause he would start off by winning a local election (if he can) and go up from there. He is a malignant narcissist.

  27. Guy Fawkes Says:

    “So any truly conservative party in America is going to wish to conserve the particularly Christian nature of this country or they are not really conserving what America was.”

    Oh man, now more than ever I have to oppose the constitution party. Anyone who mixes religion with politics will be my enemy, as I take the Jeffersonian position on this.

    Whether or not you believe in your fairy tales is your business, when you put it into the platform of a political party it’s another.

    The true heritage of the United States was SECULAR. Not SECTARIAN. The Jesus thing is the worst part, especially because it’s the first thing your platform stands on. You say one thing about how all are accepted, but you might as well place a sign up at the home page saying - ALL NON CHRISTIANS NOT WELCOME.

    Perception is key my friend. The CP will forever be remaindered to the backseat of history as long as this position stands.

    As for Jesus… nice guy… but so is the tooth fairy. At least the tooth fairy gave me twenty bucks.

  28. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Trent, I think Chuck Baldwin would be a good candidate for the Constitution Party. Also Alan Keys and Judge Moore would be interesting nominees for President.” All are Christian Gentleman”. I will be more then happy to listen to them and then make up my mind. By the way I am from Michigan .

  29. Don Hopkins Says:

    Yes, Baldwin is a fine person and probably not hated by anyone! Been to his Church once or twice. BUT, stay home Chuck! Why go to the bother. There has to be a LITTLE reality here. 200,000+ votes? I don’t think so. Very few folks outside of the Florida panhandle have a clue who Baldwin is. At least Howard Phillips had a degree of being somewhat known by conservative nationwide and Peroutka had some personal funds to make a somewhat effort. Baldwin to my knowledge has neither. Moore surely wouldn’t be foolish enough to run under the CP banner and Keyes is a joke. The answer is for the CP to sit this race out and hope Barr is the LP candidate, then endorse him. Won’t happen of course, too many ego problems within the CP. Barr at least has a degree of name recognition and will be able to raise funds for a formidable race. At least we Independents would have someone to vote FOR instead of just writing in Ron Paul’s name on the ballot.

  30. Red Phillips Says:

    “The true heritage of the United States was SECULAR.”

    That’s the fairy tale, Guy “Not a Catholic” Fawkes. So the average American at the time of the founding was a dogmatic modern style secularist before they were a Christian? You keep believing that if it makes you feel better. What we had was actually something along the lines of denominational pluralism. There were hardly any modern style secularist in the 17 and early 18 hundreds. That again is a brute fact of history.

    A Christian should be a Christian before he is an American. A Christian should be a Christian before he is someone committed to secular, liberal democracy. This is why Christianity was so intolerable to Rome and why Christians were persecuted. Because they wouldn’t bow the knee to the secular state. Not because they worshiped a particular deity.

    A Christian can not not mix “religion and politics.” They can not keep their Christianity “out of public administration and politics” without subjugating their Christianity. (Which too many modern Christians do.)

    “As for Jesus… nice guy… but so is the tooth fairy. At least the tooth fairy gave me twenty bucks.”

    He did do this little thing some of us like to call dying on the cross for your sins.

    NLARPM, you said Theocracy, whatever you think that means, I didn’t. I was careful to state that America was a particularly Christian country and a conservative should want to preserve that particularity. However that translates into how to rightly govern is a subject of much debate among sincere Christians.

    I don’t have time to debate the village atheists on every CP thread. We get it. You’re hip and cool and oh so smart, and you don’t buy all the God stuff like the rest of us mental midgets. Trust me. We get it. Are you libertarians? Do CP members and Christians hang out on all the LP threads saying you are all a bunch of Godless pervs?

    The new evangelical atheism, out to save us all from our ignorance. Gotta love ‘em.

  31. NewFederalist Says:

    Don Hopkins- perhaps that is Dr. Baldwins’ plan. Keep Alan Keyes from securing the nomination and then see what the LP does. He could always withdraw after the LP convention and let the national committee decide what to do.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    NewFederalist,

    Dont count on it. Barr has to please one or the other. If he tries to please purist libertarians—he’ll not be of any interest to us. If he tries to please us, he’ll likely fail to gain the LP nomination.

  33. Gary Odom Says:

    Red,

    I personally preferred the language in the preamble as it was prior to 1999, which the CP had adopted from our California platform that went back to 1970. I don’t get all exercised about it, though. The language in the preamble isn’t going to end the war in Iraq, protect American sovereignty, protect American jobs or protect the lives of the unborn.

    What the current peamble does is to satisfy some and alienate others, as you can see from many postings on TPW. I do wonder how members of churches would react if some of their members demanded that support for the Constitution Party be included as an essential tenet of the church’s doctrine.

    To answer your question in another way, you won’t see me involved in any crusades concerning the preamble, one way or the other, at the convention.

    By the way, NOBODY from Georgia has yet registered for the convention, according, to my information. In fairness, we have been informed that your state chairman and perhaps a few others are coming. I certainly hope so.

    GUY FAWKES—Oh please! To say that the heritage of the United States of America is secular is ludicrous! The founding fathers/framers were overwhelmingly Christian and the foundations of the Republic are biblical, even though I myself don’t like hammering on that too much. The founders used their brains as they formed their consensus as to the language in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in order to create unity, but an examination of their writings and language in many state constitutions clearly reveals that faith in God was important to the founders of our nation and that most of them were Christians.

    That does not mean that religion should dominate politics, it’s just historical fact that there are strong Christian roots in the formation of Amcerica. Most issues are secular and a religious background is not required in order to care for our nation or to be considered a patriot.

  34. Guy Fawkes Says:

    “He did do this little thing some of us like to call dying on the cross for your sins.”

    Prove it.

    P.S. I laugh at your concept of sin. Who defines sin? I’m guessing you.

  35. 4Liberty Says:

    Jerry S. - I don’t know that Bob Barr is pro-life. Had he not paid to abort his own child in 1983 there would be one more voter in this world today.

    From a Larry Flynt article:
    In a late-night news conference in California, Flynt released an affidavit from Barr’s former wife, Gail, in which she said Barr paid for an abortion she had in 1983 and that he never objected to it.

  36. Hugh Says:

    I just wonder who Keyes will blame if he does not get the CP nod. He’ll have to blame someone other than himself, he always does. Be careful Trent - he may blame you! His 5 supporters over at his site roast you.

  37. Quietus Says:

    Okay, so what else does the CP have that the LP doesn’t have besides a stronger social conservative stance and a stronger stance on national security?

  38. Red Phillips Says:

    4Liberty, that will have to be addressed, but I don’t think the CP/LP fusion ticket is going to happen anyway. I think about the only person who could pull that off is Ron Paul.

    Guy Fawkes, change your name. The real Guy Fawkes was certainly no atheist.

    “Who defines sin?”

    God.

  39. Ben Miller Says:

    This is quite change from what Baldwin was saying just a few weeks ago!

  40. Matt Says:

    “No Longer a Reform Party Member,”

    Are you Jerry from West Virginia?

  41. Donna Says:

    Thank God for calm CPers like Gary Odom. A voice of true wisdom, with good intellect, and a heart and soul full of passion for this country. He really does “get it”. I hope many readers of TPW get actively involved with the CP, or at least attend the convention to learn about this country and its Founding Fathers. That’s all we will talk about.

  42. Ben Says:

    I cannot support Barr because he is an unrepentant adulterer, and I cannot support Baldwin because he touts his HONOURARY doctorates as if he spent years in seminary or university to get them.

    Writing and giving a speech to a few kids graduating from a small Bible college hardly puts one on the same level as some one who went to college or seminary for over eight years and sacrificed time and treasure to get a real doctorate. I have a DD myself, but I do not request that people refer to me as “Doctor” nor do I sign my name Dr.

    Chuck Baldwin’s parading his DDs as real doctorates is a slap in the face to my colleagues, friends, and family that have real doctorates. I pray for Don Grundmann, DC, but I am not holding my breath. God often says, “NO!” I still can stay home on Election Night which is what I will likely be doing.

  43. SovereignMN Says:

    Baldwin = Statesman

  44. SovereignMN Says:

    Trent, where did you get this release?

  45. Ben Says:

    Whatever Darren, whatever.

    “Woe unto you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces.”—Luke 11:43 (ASV)

  46. Fred C. Says:

    “I don’t know that Bob Barr is pro-life. Had he not paid to abort his own child in 1983 there would be one more voter in this world today.”

    Same goes for Jane Roe. Did Bob Barr claim pro-life credentials prior to 1983? Does anyone want to base their vote on the results of Larry Flynt’s public witch-hunt against Clinton opponents, or what could possibly be a paid statement (Flynt wouldn’t say) from an ex-wife (i.e., presumptive mortal enemy)?

  47. SovereignMN Says:

    Ben, I’m sorry that everybody is not perfect like you and everyone else that left the party.

  48. MIchael Seebeck Says:

    OK, outside view from a Libertarian on the various comments here.

    1. Judge Moore is poison to whatever party he runs under. He might be popular in CP circles, but when the whole Alabama-TC thing was going on he was a national laughingstock. Ditto Dr. Keyes, but for different reasons, and I don’t think the CP can afford his salary to run.
    2. Rev. Baldwin is actually well-known and liked outside of CP circles, especially among Ron Paul supporters since Rev. Baldwin did a lot of stumping and writing in support of Dr. Paul. You might be surprised at the level of support he’d get outside the CP, especially if McCain is still the GOP nominee come Labor Day.
    3. America was not founded on Christian or Biblical principles. In fact. most of our governmental system comes from Solonic principles. See http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html for a detailed explanantion of this.
    4. The major difference between the LP and CP, at least from this LPer point of view, is the religion issue, and even more specifically, how it is applied in terms of the Constitution and government in general (see #8 on social conservatism).
    5. The CP convention is in two weeks in Kansas City. The LP convention is Memorial Day weekend in Denver.
    6. America is not a Christian Nation. We are a nation with a secular government and a predominantly Christian populace. Big difference.
    7. Red Phillips is correct, a CP/LP fusion ticket would only work with Dr. Paul.
    8. Quietus, the LP has a very strong national defense position, but we suck at marketing it. But we also note the inconsistency that we see (not saying it’s right or wrong, just our perception) between liberty and social conservatism.

    All in all, I hope that clears up some misconceptions and presents some outside view. IMHO, the CP would be fine with Rev. Baldwin as their nominee, but not so good with Judge Moore or Dr. Keyes as they are seen as far too radical for the average voter. Rev. Baldwin has the ability to not act that way and appeal to a broader base, and that is to your benefit.

  49. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Obama is the greatest libertarian constitutionalist candidate in this race. He will get rid of the false concept of economic liberty and instill this nation with socialist liberty. He will also support the Catholic Church as it turns from its conservative roots into the new Communist Party. Soon the one-world government of the United Nations and the Catholic Church will take over completely, making the First Amendment the most important part of the new constitution. Amen, alleluiah!
    Praise Jesus, Praise Trotsky, Praise Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul!

  50. Jason Says:

    I’m pretty sure I called this a couple of weeks ago…

  51. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Last year I thought the same thing about Rev. Baldwin, that no one out side of Florida would have heard of him. But this year I have been making contact with several members of the clergy, because I was looking for candidates for our party, all of them have heard of him. I am not sure how that emulates to the general public. As you know he does write a lot for the Constitution Party website.

    Donna I agree with you about Gary Odom. He really does “get it”. I also agree with you we need more readers of TPW to get actively involved with the CP an attend the national convention.

  52. MIchael Seebeck Says:

    “Obama is the greatest libertarian constitutionalist candidate in this race. He will get rid of the false concept of economic liberty and instill this nation with socialist liberty. He will also support the Catholic Church as it turns from its conservative roots into the new Communist Party. Soon the one-world government of the United Nations and the Catholic Church will take over completely, making the First Amendment the most important part of the new constitution. Amen, alleluiah!
    Praise Jesus, Praise Trotsky, Praise Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul!”

    WTF was that, if it wasn’t very poor sarcasm?

  53. Guy Fawkes Says:

    “Who defines sin?”

    “God.”

    Who defines God?

    Red

    Hahah! As for me changing my name, I don’t take kindly to imperialists, particularly religious ones, so I think I’ll keep it. Wow, I wanted to test the waters with the Constitution Party to see if its members were the zealots I figured they would be, and sure enough, they came out guns a blazing.

    The Constitution Party will never win with this angle. Let’s be honest. You wanted me to change my name to be more accurate since Guy Fawkes was a catholic. That’s fair. But I will do so only if you change your parties name to be more accurate. How about the Jesus party?

    Fair enough?

  54. Travis Maddox Says:

    “By the way, NOBODY from Georgia has yet registered for the convention, according, to my information. In fairness, we have been informed that your state chairman and perhaps a few others are coming. I certainly hope so.”

    Shame on you my southern friends. Need to get those Georgians moving.

    I would like to see Baldwin somewhere in the ticket. He is a great man. If Keyes pulled ahead as the nominee leader maybe Baldwin could help balance it out. Just a thought.

  55. Ben Says:

    The CP is schizophrenic. The platform states that they support Jesus and these uSA were founded on Biblical principles, but then the leadership claims that any one is welcome and “religious bigotry” has no place in their party.

    “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked:”—Revelation 3:15-17 (ASV)

  56. Fred C. Says:

    You’re being unfair with them Guy. They already made it clear that their party’s somewhat divided on the preamble and that it doesn’t really effect their program or membership policy, but you’re still lumping them all together with the guy with circular logic issues.

  57. SovereignMN Says:

    I’m sure that Guy Fawkes really wanted to “test the waters with the CP”.

  58. Guy Fawkes Says:

    Well come on Fred, let’s be honest here. The very FIRST thing that they go into in their bylaws is a declaration of Jesus. If it’s a point of contention, then I would say it’s a fairly huge one.

    The name Constitution Party is deceptive in that it makes me think that the allegiance of those involved is to the Constitution, does it not? Imagine what someone must think if they investigate you for the first time, and they read that? At least with the Libertarian Party you understand that the basic premise is a devotion to Liberty.

    I honestly was interested in investigating the CP, several months ago, but now know there is no way I would ally myself with them. As a strict Jeffersonian I must declare myself the enemy of all who consort politics with religion of any kind.

    If their party is divided over their preamble, that must give you some idea of the coherence of their philosophy.

    I would try and give them a better shot than what Red represents, but it is distinctly unfair to those who believe otherwise in their party to be forced to “carry the cross” for those who imperiously stake their politics on the premise of a false god.

    Shame on the Constitution Party for misrepresenting the document of their moniker.

    Long live the Libertarians!

  59. 4Liberty Says:

    5. The CP convention is in two weeks in Kansas City. The LP convention is Memorial Day weekend in Denver.

    The CP does have one thing up on the LP. The CP had the good sense not to hold their convention during the Indy 500!

  60. Red Phillips Says:

    Michael, I’m not sure but I think Catholic Troskyist is poking fun at the notion of political salvation in general and the so-called mixing of Church and state by coming at it from a left-wing angle.

    Donna, from my understanding you are sympathetic to Keyes or at least don’t understand the strenuous objections some of us have. Do you think the War in Iraq and interventionism are trivial or inconsequential issues that can just be swept under the rug? Does not getting upset by the possibility that our Party could be represented by a Straussian? a Lincoln-cultist? an Iraqi War supporter? an interventionist? make one “calm”? If so, then perhaps you don’t “get it.”

    Ben, Michael, et al, there is actually a lot of debate among genuine conservatives about the nature of the “Founding.” Some (Eidsmoe, Barton, Marshall, etc.) argue that America was founded as explicitly Christian. Others (North, many traditionalist Catholic paleos, Gottfried) think it was actually founded on Enlightenment liberal principles, but unlike the secularist they view this negatively, not positively. What is not debatable is that America was founded BY Christians who had Christian presuppositions and all the un-PC attitudes that almost everyone had back then. To what degree America was and is a Christian State is debatable. That America was a Christian country is not debatable. So conservatives should want to conserve that.

    Whoever is right on the nature of the Founding, (I think both are partially right) it is almost impossible to conceive that the average Christian at the Founding considered himself a pluralist and an Enlightenment liberal BEFORE he was a Christian. To the degree that pluralism and religious tolerance was practiced they likely saw it as an outcome OF their Christianity and unique historical experiences (persecution and religious wars in Europe).

    What is distressing is the degree to which people who consider themselves conservatives have actually adopted those Enlightenment liberal principles as their own, and fail to see the irony in that.

  61. Ben Says:

    I preferred the name US Taxpayers Party to Constitution Party, but it was changed when Jim Clymer became national chairman because CP was what it was called in his home state of PA. A future national chairman may request that the party name be changed to one of his choosing.

    “For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.”—James 1:7&8 (ASV)

  62. Fred C. Says:

    Well I’m a Libertarian too Guy and you’re making better points now, but it’s going a little far to say anyone in the CP is being “forced to ‘carry the cross’” when they could just as easily look into and sign up with us, or start their own party if we’re not a fit for them.

    But as ultimately free people are entitled to choose their own ideas and what they base them on, I don’t think you’re exactly taking the Jeffersonian position. While religion shouldn’t write itself into public policy (or vice versa), can you really say people shouldn’t be able to organize themselves behind a platform of their deepest beliefs or candidates that agree with them? If they’re actually intent on only governing according to the constitution, there’s no room for enforced zealotry of any sect, even if they might voluntarily agree to exercise their first ammendment rights in the same way as eachother.

  63. Independent Dan Says:

    Baldwin who???

    Never heard of him.

    Alan Keyes is the man.

  64. Gary Odom Says:

    Ben Says:

    April 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
    I preferred the name US Taxpayers Party to Constitution Party, but it was changed when Jim Clymer became national chairman because CP was what it was called in his home state of PA. A future national chairman may request that the party name be changed to one of his choosing.

    That has got to be one of the silliest things I have yet read on TPW. I was on the rules committee at the convention when the name change issue was before the convention. It had to go through the rules committee first. There were many names offered as an alternate to US Taxpayers Party. Of all the reasons that I heard propounded for the naming the party the Constitution Party, that is one that I never once heard mentioned and I was in the eye of the hurricane.

    To think that the party changed its name to suit Jim Clymer, (who probably, like many of us just wished the issue would be resolved somehow, as it had lingered for about two years distracting the party from real political business) is laughable. To assert that the party will breach all principles of marketing and advertising and simply change the name to suit every new chairman in the future is even more laughable. Believe me, one time was enough, if not too many.

    Do people just make this stuff up and pronounce it as fact?

    GEORGIANS: Prove me wrong and register for the convention in droves over the next few days. If I can survive for months or years north of the Mason-Dixon you can handle a few days!

  65. Hugh Says:

    Independent Dan, you need to find a new man. Your man is an also-ran. He’s in the can and full of ham. He has no plan. He has few fans. Wham!

  66. Dave Williams Says:

    Alan Keyes is just what the Doctor ordered for the CP…LOL

  67. No Longer a Reform Party Member Says:

    Dear Matt from Michigan:

    I speak to Jerry ‘bout ten times a year. I am suing both current and former California Reform Party chair[s] John Blare and Valli Sharpe Giesler on unpaid [partisan] debts. I am a Perot, Perot, Nader, Nader voter having been both a Dem and a GOP. I was the third top John Anderson National Unity Party person in Arid Zona in 1980.

    In 2003 California, I was the only person to be the kick off speaker at all three Dump Davis state wide Recall Rallies. Prior to that [December 30th, 2002] three of us with Citizens For A Better Veterans Home [May 1998] stood with a scattering of other Davis haters and protested his swearing in activities in LA County.

    I was the ‘publisher’ [Chair of the National Communications Committee] of the national party print house organ until fired by Nazi John Blare when I and the Editor turned out to be more than ‘stepford’ activists. The next set of publisher/ editor quit after the National Nazis protected the long gone government of Israel over the memories of US Navy personnel. When we tried to publish an article on the murder of unarmed United States sailors on the U. S. S. Liberty by Israel, the story was banned by pro Isreal Reform USA “leadership” [and Israeli Evangelicals] Blare, John Bambey, and John [Citizens For A Better Veterans Home] Coffey.

    Donald Raymond Lake/ [email protected]
    263 Eucalyptus Court, Chula Vista [San Diego Co] 91910
    619.420.0209

  68. Red Phillips Says:

    Gee, I so wish I could be more like Guy “Raging Atheist Despite My Namesake” Fawkes. He is so edgy and out there and smart with his new in your face brand of evangelical atheism. I bet he has read Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens at least twice each. But alas, I am one of those traditionalist left side of the bell curve dupes who actually still believes the Faith of our forefathers. The Faith without which there would be no West (Christendom) for him to run his mouth in.

    There, are you happy? Now learn some manners. In more civil times the faithless and skeptics recognized that Christianity was broadly accepted so in the name of civility and decent decorous behavior they kept their disbelief to themselves. Those who didn’t were generally viewed as troublemakers. Hence the village atheist. Like the town drunk, every village has one.

    We get it. You’re an atheist. No additional points to prove. We really, really get it.

    Now turn the LP into the atheist party and see how many votes you get. You already have to deal with the perception that you are the vice party. Become the atheist vice party. You’ll have the prostitute and John vote all wrapped up.

  69. MIchael Seebeck Says:

    Yeah, maybe the CP didn’t schedule their convention on the Indy 500, but it’s not in India-noplace either (I can say that as a natural born Hoosier!). Besides, they don’t run the race on Memorial Day anymore anyway, which makes it all a moot point.

    I’ll be running the Seebeck 2000 that weekend anyway, which is my own version of the Cannonball Run from L.A. to Denver and back again, with an interruption for the LP Convention. Just over 2000 miles round trip, not counting running around in Denver.

    I hope you enjoy the KC BBQ while there, because unless the Royals are in town, there ain’t much else to do in KC except get mugged on Troost or the Paseo while heading for the art museum. Denver has activities, at least. The LP is even setting up a Rockies game, a rafting trip, and a couple of other gigs around the convention.

  70. Ben Says:

    The Rockies is just NL baseball any way. The REAL MLB is in the AL. Most NL teams have more in common with AAA ball than MLB. :)

    Good luck with that bumper to bumper traffic on I70 getting to your rafting trip. That should give you plenty of time to protest the proposed $20/car fee for traveling west of Denver on I70.

    I’ll be setting at home with my grill or enjoying a nice cruise in my antique car and avoiding the whole charade of political conventions this summer. Aahh! :D

  71. Sean Scallon Says:

    Fawkes was a Catholic and he was trying to blow up the Cromwellian dominated Parliment.

    Even Diests like Jefferson acknowledged the Christian character and influence within the new America. What they did not want was a national church nor a religious test for national office like in Europe.

    Chuck Baldwin will be a fine choice to head the CP ticket this year.

  72. Guy Fawkes Says:

    It is with glee that I watch the spreading of Christianity into the margins of history. Yes, of course I am an evangelical atheist. You see, it is truly “good news” to know that soon man shall be free of the tyrants restrictions on his life through the definition of “sin.”

    Your ecclesiastical dictum based on faith are as dead as your Jesus.

    All hail the new enlightenment, when man is judged on his character, and morality is defined as the good which one does for their fellow man. Long live the Libertarians. In this philosophy, will all find peace.

    May you, and your false religion, rot in the hell that you have dreamed up to torment the poor soulless creatures that evolved before us.

  73. Chet Says:

    Keyes/Moore in any combination.

  74. Richard Says:

    All hail the new enlightenment, when man is judged on his character, and morality is defined as the good which one does for their fellow man.

    hmm, funny, that sounds a lot like Christianity.

  75. kerwin Says:

    Keyes will get voted out like a poor Idol or Dancing With the Stars missfit

  76. Red Phillips Says:

    Guy “I need to study history” Fawkes, you just can’t help yourself can you? The conceit of knowing you are oh so right and the rest of us fools are oh so wrong is pretty heady isn’t it? Please save us from our ignorance you noble soul.

    Ps. 53:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

  77. Guy Fawkes Says:

    And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

    Leviticus 20:18

    lovely…

  78. Don Hopkins Says:

    Chuck Baldwin is indeed a likeable person, but don’t forget that he cost Peroutka perhaps thousands of votes in the South as his running mate because of the flap over The Battle Hymn of the Republic issue with the LOS, SCV and other Southern Heritage members.

  79. Jose C. Says:

    “It is with glee that I watch the spreading of Christianity into the margins of history. Yes, of course I am an evangelical atheist. You see, it is truly “good news” to know that soon man shall be free of the tyrants restrictions on his life through the definition of “sin.””

    It must be a tough time right now. With the upcoming Ben Stien motion picture ‘Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed’ arriving April 18 which exposes the death of academic scientific freedom (unless you believe what the PC establishment believe) it must be a very tough time.

    Scientist, PZ Myers (a part of the establishment) who is atheist and has disdain for those who are believers tries to “crash” a private screening of the movie is exposed, kicked out, and now it is a world wide crisis. Oh the horrors of it all!

  80. Trent Hill Says:

    A thousand votes? You dont say.

    Im glad Baldwin isnt a neo-confederate. He recognizes the right to secession without worshipping the slave-state of the Confederacy, which used war-time powers to violate almost as many rights as Lincoln.

    Baldwin/Moore

  81. Kevin Thompson Says:

    but don’t forget that he cost Peroutka perhaps thousands of votes in the South as his running mate because of the flap over The Battle Hymn of the Republic issue with the LOS, SCV and other Southern Heritage members.

    What was this about - I am unfamilar with this “flap”

  82. Hugh Says:

    Beware, the Keyesters are writing to Moore pushing AK. The Keyesters will bring about 5 or 6 delegates to the convention next week and pretend that their candidate is not an opportunist. I say let Keyes win at least one election - local - before pretending he has any credentials on the national stage where he is a repeat pitiful failure. He’s just looking for a stage and ballot inclusion. If they had that already, they would tell you to “F” off. Ask them over there - “if Alan was on the ballot ALREADY, would you even be considering joining the CP?”
    Opportunistic slugs….

  83. Red Phillips Says:

    Yes please explain the Battle Hymn flap. Baldwin is anti-Lincoln, I know that. No Christian should sing the Battle Hymn because it was written by a Unitarian and is Unitarian, bellicose mush. No Southerner should sing it because it is the “Yankee Fight Song.”

  84. Trent Hill Says:

    Hugh,

    I dont blame the Keyes people for wanting Keyes on the ballot. From the way they see it, Keyes brings something to the table for the CP. They just dont see what the CP is bringing to the table—possibly our best year for ballot-access ever.

    I know of only 4 Keyes delegates. Two from MO, One from here in LA, and Gordon Klingenshmidt from NY.
    Although Ed Noonan just pledged his vote (and possibly all of California’s) to Keyes. I can see a couple of other states going for him—like Missouri and Maine.

  85. Bri Says:

    There are at least two Keyes delegates from Minnesota. Perhaps as many as five. I doubt all of CA’s vote will go to Keyes. Dr. Don Grundmann is from CA and will probably vote for himself. I realise that each affiliate can choose to vote a la Electoral College and the candidate with the most votes can receive all of a state delegation’s votes. It wouldn’t surprise me if Ed chose this option for California’s votes.

    Darren Reck can probably better assess Minnesota’s delegation than I can. CPMN Chair Tammy Houle has been infatuated with Keyes for years, but has become disenchanted with him in the past year or so.

  86. Trent Hill Says:

    Good for the Keyes people! But that is still only 11 delegates—12 if you count Ed Noonan. Even if he DID control all of CA’s—that’s only 65+.

  87. Guy Fawkes Says:

    Knowing what I know now, Keyes would be an excellent choice for the CP. That is of course if the goal is to show the nation you are nothing more than proselytizing mountebanks.

    I remember seeing Keyes speak for the first time at the Republican debate on PBS in Iowa and being so thrilled to see someone have some backbone, and demand equal time, and then he launched on a tirade of how we allowed the judges to drive God out of our schools.

    Oh CP,

    Shame, shame, no one knows your name, and never will.

  88. SovereignMN Says:

    There are 2 solid Keyes supporters in the MN delegation. Myself and the remaining delegation have not publically committed to being for/against Keyes. I believe everyone else is like me…they have reservations about his interventionist and strong central government and are waiting to see if he addresses this prior to making a decision.

  89. Red Phillips Says:

    SovereignMN, what could Keyes possibly do to address that? Announce he has changed his mind? Then will you trust him? Keyes is what he is. It is all there. Read his WND archives.

    Guy “At Least Read the Wikipedia Entry” Fawkes, we’re proselytizers? Coming from you that is quite a laugh. Don’t you got some catching up on Dawkins to do?

  90. 4Liberty Says:

    Michael said - “Yeah, maybe the CP didn’t schedule their convention on the Indy 500, but it’s not in India-noplace either (I can say that as a natural born Hoosier!). Besides, they don’t run the race on Memorial Day anymore anyway, which makes it all a moot point.”

    The Indy 500 is held on Memorial Day week-end every year. The race is scheduled on Sunday of that week-end (May 25 this year) and is right in the middle of the LP convention. The Indy 500 has been held on Memorial Day week-end every year for all of the 20+ years we’ve attended.

    And, yes it will be a hardship financially and emotionally to miss this event.

  91. Old Whig Says:

    I’ve never understood the attraction between atheism and the LP. It seems to me that over the last century atheism is much more agreeable to the omnipotent state than deists. Yes, limit religion to hearth and temple so the state can take over charity and education.

    The hope for something more powereful than the state strengthens the heart for resistance.

  92. Old Whig Says:

    By the way. I would have attended the CP convention this year, but it was scheduled during our (Orthodox) Easter weekend. I hope they don’t repeat that faux pas in the future. There are other Christians out there too.

    O.W.

  93. Shawn G. Says:

    Chuck Baldwin? Are you folks kidding me? He can’t win - he’s not well known enough nationally, and he’s Ron Paul’s twin. You might as well just go ahead and try to nominate Paul then. Those who love true freedom, not libertarianism (where there’s no morality to their “brand” of freedom) must side with folks who are not Libertarians, which means no Baldwin, and no Paul. How is it that so many people allow themselves to be fooled by this byproduct of the 60’s free-love mentality? Wake up people! We don’t want a theocracy, but we must have morality! That excludes libertarians.

  94. SovereignMN Says:

    “We don’t want a theocracy, but we must have morality! ”

    You is your candidate then? I fail to see any instance of Baldwin promoting a theocracy, but he certainly promotes morality. What’s more, he’s one of the few Christian pastors who aren’t afraid to call out fellow Christians for being idolators to the state and Republican party. I’m open to alternatives to Baldwin but right now the choice for CP delegates appears to be Keyes or Baldwin.

    Red said: “SovereignMN, what could Keyes possibly do to address that? Announce he has changed his mind? Then will you trust him? ”

    I can’t speak for anyone else in our delegation. When Keyes first announced I initially said he should do 2 things:
    1) Publically compromise his pro-intervention positions.
    2) Seek public endorsement/approval from an established CP individual like Howard Phillips or Chuck Baldwin. Even if we don’t see eye to eye on every issue, nearly all CP delegates trust the judgement of these 2 men.

    Thusfar Keyes (and his supporters on his forum) have refused to do #1 and #2 has not happened. In my mind the longer he refuses to do these things the less likely my vote can be swayed. Like I said, I can’t/won’t speak for others.

  95. Red Phillips Says:

    Shawn G., Baldwin is an Independent Baptist preacher. He is not a libertarian philosophically, and he is no libertine. Like Paul he is a constitutionalist, a federalist (in the good sense of that term), and a decentralist.

    “He can’t win - he’s not well known enough nationally…”

    No ideological third party candidate can legitimately expect to win, so that can not be the threshold.

  96. Sean Says:

    SovereignMN—Not saying go Keyes, but regarding #2, check out http://www.saveamericasummit.com/candidates.html and then http://www.saveamericasummit.com/people.html. Keyes is on the first page (as one of 4), and Howard Phillips is listed in the bottom third. These seems to indicate HP finds AK acceptable as a potential candidate.

  97. Red Phillips Says:

    Sean, this baffles me. Rumor has it that Howard Phillips does not support Keyes and told him as much. So why the “candidates we like” section of the Save America Summit if Howard knew he could not support Keyes? I think they are trying to have it both ways. Attract Republicans who are upset with the McCain nomination and not scare them off with Ron Paul style non-interventionism, and yet maintain a party that is clearly non-interventionist. I don’t think it can be done.

    The CP needs to clearly define itself as non-interventionist, and let the chips fall where they may.

  98. TexasConservative Says:

    Oh I see Guy Fawkes is spewing his propoganda from the likes of Dershowitz and Dawkins. How many brownie points you get for infiltrating the secret lair of conservatives that is known as Third Party Watch. LOL I’ll be laughing at your secularized ass when AK gets the CP nomination and Comedy Central begins running their constant hate of him, because of course they need their deconstructive fodder to keep zombies like you entertained. AND YEAH ask Dershowitz why he doesn’t debate anymore, and that is because ALAN KEYES tore him up on national TV, and ask DAWKINS to bring his bullshit around again, just like he got rolled on by Dinesh Dsouza.
    April 15 is just around the corner, it’s good to see the movement happen and the delegates confer with each other about AK. Baldwin is just posturing, and if he does make a move, there really goes your CP party down the drain. Only a small compound in Florida knows about him, and compunds arent a good subject in the news right now. AND yeah I know about his fake doctorates, but why are we surprised when almost all preachers are fake now a days. Even if it was a real docotrate in theology—that has to be one of the easiest to receive.

  99. Shawn G. Says:

    Look, I’m not going to rehash the whole Iraq thing- it’s in the past and it’s been argued over 1,000’s of times. What we cannot do is just up and leave- that’s called surrender, or perhaps abandonment, which is the Paul/Baldwin position. Keyes will get us out of Iraq by taking the handcuffs off our troops so that they can win decisively, then come home.

    When I spoke of the Libertarian issue, I meant specifically within the CP. Dr. Paul and Mr. Baldwin, like them or not ARE Libertarian in their views. They see no responsibility, no compelling interest in the public good possessed by the federal government on issues like marriage, abortion, and homosexuality. I argue that the government, at all levels does have a vested, compelling interest in defending the nuclear family (the basic building block of society), and marriage (the focal point of the nuclear family) and in protecting life (without which no other rights mean diddly squat). That’s the difference between social conservatives like myself, and Libertarians like Dr. Paul.

    Isolationism, for those who don’t know, was effectively ended as a viable policy in this country by the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, Pres. Jefferson wasn’t being an isolationist/non-interventionist when he send the US Marine Corps to Tripoli to defeat the Barbary pirates. It is not a viable foreign policy. I’m all for not getting entangled in most countries problems, but there are cases when we can, and should act.

    Most importantly here folks, I take umbrage with the idea that no third party candidate can legitimately expect to win. Do you folks not know your history? There has been at least one other time in American history when a third party candidate did win - the election of 1860. The Whigs put up a candidate, the Democrats split between two candidates (north and south) and the Republican party, then an upstart party, yet one of principle- that formed out of their opposition to slavery, put up a candidate. That Republican party candidate won- his name was Abraham Lincoln.

    The time is ripe for another third party victory - the left is split between Hillary, Nader, and Obama. A large portion of the Republican party, the conservative base is repulsed by John McCain and will either vote third party or stay home. But you have to have the right candidate, someone who can unite all conservatives and Christians behind him/her to win. That man, I believe must be someone like Dr. Keyes. Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, for example, are too divisive because no military or foreign policy conservatives will vote for them. Baldwin is also not well known outside of certain circles. I say that Dr. Keyes, even if it’s been negative in some instances has been all over the media in the past and people have heard his name. It’s time to stop playing around like the CP is some political country club where people go to protest and complain, and roll our sleeves and fight to win this one - to win our country back!

  100. citizen1 Says:

    Howard Phillips does not support Alan Keyes for the CP nomination and neither do I, but if he is the nominee I will not have a problem voting for him in Nov. He is just not the best candidate for the CP. Anyone who says Baldwin is not a good candidate because he cannot win just doesn’t get it. If the goal was to nominate a candidate that could win reguardless of issues we would nominate Obama.

  101. Cody Quirk Says:

    The CP is schizophrenic. The platform states that they support Jesus and these uSA were founded on Biblical principles, but then the leadership claims that any one is welcome and “religious bigotry” has no place in their party.

    =

    “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

    -Matt. 7:1

    I see no hypocracy here. Our Nation’s Constitution prohibited Religious Tests and maintained Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment, which the CP sustains in the Preamble.

    Both Christianity and Religious Liberty are compatible. Too bad such Pharisees cannot understand that.

  102. Ben Says:

    Shawn, do you know why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Were you aware that Roosevelt set up a naval blockade on Japan and used executive orders to equate trade with Japan as offering aid and comfort to the enemy? It was the US’ direct intervention against Japan and its lend-lease programme that gave the Japanese no choice, but to bomb the US naval base at Pearl. Roosevelt wanted nothing better than to find an excuse to go to war with Japan and egged them on like the bully this country has been for decades. This garbage about how non-interventionism is bad foreign policy is bunk. Seems to work quite well for Sweden and Switzerland, and worked for these united States for over 100 years. Your Manifest Destiny globalist position is what is outdated. It smacks of ancient Rome and Greece, and not a civilised culture. Regardless of who the CP nominates, McCain will not win and neither will any third party candidate. The next President will be picked in Denver at the DNC and every one that follows politics realises this. If the CP nominates Alan Keyes, they will be no worse than the GOP that they criticise. The platform will officially become nothing more than an irrelevant “public relations document” that hacks spend hours arguing over placement of periods and candidates ignore with impunity.

  103. Red Phillips Says:

    Shawn, I said an ideological third party could not win a presidential election and I stand by that barring Divine intervention or some sort of political meltdown. By ideological I mean a party that is consciously to the right of the GOP (like the CP) or consciously to the left of the Dems (like the Greens). This is an unfortunate thing, but America is decidedly centrist. A centrist candidate could possibly win or a candidate that supports a mix of popular issues, but not if they are viewed as “extreme” either left or right. (Perot could have won if he hadn’t flaked out.)

    Ron Paul is more philosophically libertarian than is Baldwin, but Paul is a rightist or paleo libertarian. He is not a left libertarian. Both are totally solid on life. I am not sure what you are objecting to. Howard Phillips, Peroutka, and many CP members object to the Constitutional amendment on marriage because they think it would be a dangerous precedent to allow the Government to define marriage and outside its jurisdiction. Marriage is by nature between a man and a woman and can not be otherwise, any more that water can be dry. Not everyone agrees, but this is a rightist objection to the amendment. It is not moral relativism or even live and let live libertarianism.

    Yes we can and must withdraw from Iraq ASAP. The invasion and war is unjust and our remaining there compounds the injustice. We need to un-handcuff the troops so they can “win” you say. Pre-emptive war is barbaric and un-Christian. So we are to fix the problem by being more ruthless? So what will that be, barbarism squared? We can’t “win” because there is nothing to win. Win how? What does win in that mess even mean? You lecture me because Baldwin (a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist preacher) is too “libertarian” on moral issues yet you seem to think it is OK to preemptively kill people just to be on the safe side or spare you the psychic angst of thinking we “surrendered.”

    I wouldn’t go as far as Ben and say that Japan had no choice but to attack us, but FDR clearly intentionally meddled us into war. This is a plain matter of the historical record. Non-intervention has not been tried by the US. It is nothing but mindless boilerplate to just repeat mantra like that “it won’t work.” What country, prey tell, is poised to invade us? Canada? Is China sending their Armada?

    And you get your last paragraph exactly backwards. Pro-war “conservatives” are by and large going to do what they always do, vote Republican. They will buy the same anybody but Hillary/Obama/Kerry/Gore etc. line that they always buy like the good little sheep that they are. The people on the right who are free-agents who we are actually vying for are overwhelmingly anti-intervention. You can not get their votes with an interventionist.

  104. G.E. Says:

    Red - I hate to disillusion you, but I’m not sure Ron Paul is “100% solid on life,” at least not how most CPers would define it. He is against criminalization of the “morning after pill,” for example, and his been ambivalent on privately funded stem-cell research. I’m also not so sure he’s against abortion in extreme circumstances—i.e. incest, rape, severe complications—although he is against it “as birth control” from conception.

    FYI, even though I’m an atheist, I do agree with most everything you say. Our disputes have been more over “epistemology” and other nitpicks. I would strongly consider casting a vote for Chuck Baldwin if the LP does not nominate a thoroughly libertarian candidate (someone other than Ruwart, Kubby, Smith), but I do not think Baldwin is “libertarian”—and that has nothing to do with his stance on abortion. Unlike Bob Barr’s clueless assertion to the contrary, an anti-Roe, pro-federalist, pro-life position is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

  105. Shawn G. Says:

    Red and Ben,

    First of all, you guys seem to have bought into the lie that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. That’s totally wrong. Do you not remember Salman Pak or Saddam’s reward money to the families of terrorists? Yes, he had WMDs, and there is ample evidence for anyone wiling to see it. Yes, he did have ties to Al Qaeda, and again the evidence is there. So we did not go into Iraq preemptively. And while Congress did not expressly declare war, they did give the Pres. the power to act in Iraq. That is legal folks. The President as the Commander in Chief does have the power to send troops into action without the consent of Congress, going all the way back to Jefferson and the Marines in Tripoli. But this is all in the past, why do we have to rehash all of this all of the time?

    And I will not support a candidate who simply wants to throw up our hands and leave Iraq - yes that is surrender - telling the terrorists that they won (just like Vietnam) because he doesn’t like the fact that we’re there or the circumstances surrounding it. Regardless of how it happened, we’re there - deal with it. We have to see this thing through to the end and allow the Iraqi people to get used to deciding their own fate and becoming strong enough to do so. To simply pull out now is absolutely irresponsible and would lead to a far less stable Middle East than there is currently.

    Go ahead and sit there and tell me that what I’m supporting is complete interventionist policy when you have no idea where I stand on this beyond Iraq. First, as I stated, Iraq was not interventionist - we had just cause for going there. Second, I do support blanket interventionism - we never should have been involved in Haiti or Bosnia (at the very least if we were going to be we should have something far sooner). But we do have to be proactive at times - the true followers of Islam want nothing more than to destroy our society and to kill all of us. And they make no distinctions between our soldiers or innocent civilians, or even infants.

    Red, I think you misunderstand those of us patriotic folks who see the use of force as a necessary evil at times, much like any type of government is a necessary evil. We’re not pro-war. I don’t want to constantly be at war, but I know, like Reagan did, that peace will only be achieved while we are strong to defeat any potential attackers. I personally hate war, but sometimes it is necessary. And I, along with many others, cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain.

    I think there are far more of us who are to the right of McCain than you give us credit for. And this time, I believe we can win. But not by nominating someone who’s positions (in particular on Iraq) are the same as the democrats (that’s the point).

    Ron Paul does not have a 100% pro-life voting record, you’re right there. He voted against a bill making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion.

  106. Shawn G. Says:

    Ben, if you’re so sure that we can’t win - if you’ve swallowed that lie so hard, then why are you bothering to discuss the issue of who should be a third party candidate here? Why does it matter if we can’t win? Why not just throw up your hands and go hide in a cave until Christ returns because surely, there’s no hope then? C’mon.

    If you like the politics of Sweden and Switzerland so much, feel free to go there. Noone’s stopping you.

    Tell me that I’m outdated and bot civilized if you will, but isolationism did die with Pearl Harbor - we no longer have the great oceans as protection. As for nations that are a threat to us- pay attention to China with her military buildup and ability to hit us with weapons now that Clinton gave her a number of our technological secrets and Bush is allowing the sale of supercomputers to her. Also pay particular attention to Russia - Putin’s still in charge, he’s former KGB and taking away freedoms daily while trying to return her to her former military glory. And of course, let’s not forget “I’monajihad” in Iran, and Chavez in Venezuela. Don’t think that we are simply safe just sitting here trying to “live and let live, man”. We aren’t.

  107. Texas Conservative Says:

    WHAT THE HEE-HOEEE?

    Sweden and Switzerland? So your telling me that the US had nothign to do with their so called wonderful government of today? Yeah, our dead boys over there on European soil during WWII give those Euros the chance to shake their collective spoiled fingers at us today! AND warfare is not limited just to military action, it comes in economic form, and ideoligcal form. INFLUENCE is influence. We battle this everyday, BUT let me remind you all that our battle is against any influence that tries to undermine the US model of an active commerce. We share common enemies, but we disagree on “interventionism”

  108. PVBLIVS Says:

    “Both are totally solid on life. ” regarding Baldwin and Paul. Probably true about Baldwin, but not true re: Paul. If you check out: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm, you’ll see that Ron Paul

    • Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
    • Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion
    • Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
    • Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research

    Isn’t it also interesting how Ron Paul opposes a Marriage amendment but finds an amendment for School prayer as necessary?

    • Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.

    Or how about his small government philosphy? He’s not consistent on that - he sponsors pork but votes against it??? I saw Russert eat him alive on this issue:

    • Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district.
    • No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district.
    • Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry.

    All I’m saying: is RP supporters, get off your holier than thou high horse. RP wasn’t all he was portrayed to be. Just as Barack Obama isn’t a great uniter and inspirer of change. Here’s a hint—its called marketing.

  109. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “The Rockies is just NL baseball any way. The REAL MLB is in the AL. Most NL teams have more in common with AAA ball than MLB.”

    Whatever. At least in the NL we don’t need to pinch-hit pitchers with washed-up has-beens in the DH. Besides, AL is more like Single-A ball.

    “Good luck with that bumper to bumper traffic on I70 getting to your rafting trip. That should give you plenty of time to protest the proposed $20/car fee for traveling west of Denver on I70.”

    First of all, Ben clueless, the trip is up US 6, not I-70, and that’s assuming that it even happens at all. Rafting is dependent on the water level being just right, and this year the mountain runoff is insane, so the water elvel may likely be too high to raft in.

    And the toll fee is a good idea if they implement it right. The locals are just bitching NIMBY.

    “I’ll be setting at home with my grill or enjoying a nice cruise in my antique car and avoiding the whole charade of political conventions this summer. Aahh!”

    So why are you here then? TPW is for the hard-core politicos, not the barbeclues…

  110. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “The Indy 500 is held on Memorial Day week-end every year. The race is scheduled on Sunday of that week-end (May 25 this year) and is right in the middle of the LP convention. The Indy 500 has been held on Memorial Day week-end every year for all of the 20+ years we’ve attended.”

    Funny, as a kid I saw it on MEMORIAL DAY itself, not the WEEKEND! It was THE thing to watch or go to on Memorial Day, not the days prior.

    And don’t EVER lecture a native-born Hoosier about either of our state sports!

  111. 4Liberty Says:

    I did not dispute that the race had been held on Memorial Day. Since about 1971 the race has been held on days other than Memorial Day. Not always on the Sunday of the week-end either. The race used to be run on bricks too - but change happens.

    I’m afraid to burst another of your bubbles - but Indianapolis has only had one sport since Knight left the state!

  112. Alicia Says:

    Just anybody but Keyes please. I will leave the Constitution Party if he is the nominee

  113. 4Liberty Says:

    You will be welcome to become a Libertarian! ;-)

  114. G.E. Says:

    PVBLIVS - Are you a fascist? Ron Paul isn’t, and neither are most CP members. All of those “anti-life” things you cited about Ron Paul deal with the fact that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no constitutional authority to pass those laws. You are aware of the Constitution, right?

  115. PVBLIVS Says:

    G.E.
    Studying the Constitution. Thanks. Love it. Would die for it.

    How do you define fascist? Perhaps being called a fascist by you is a compliment.

    So if RP uses “the federal govt has no authority to pass those laws” as a criteria for voting, explain why RP voted for commercial human space flight industry , and also explain why he proposes 4 Billion in pork… knowing it will pass despite it later voting against it. Especially when those aren’t ENUMERATED powers. My point is RP is a human (and inconsistent), and not a saint or messiah or savior, like his followers seem to think.

    P.S. And if RP is prolife why doesn’t he support a pro-life amendment, it seems a small thing given that he supports a prayer in school amendment?!

  116. PVBLIVS Says:

    I’m not sure I made myself clear so let me summarize:
    The Ron Paul fans seem to think they can point out the faults of every candidate that isn’t in the RP crowd, but ignore and explain away the faults of their own guy. In essence they seem to look at the splinter in the opposing candidate’s eye, why ignoring the log in their candidates eye.

    Yes Keyes has problems. Yes Baldwin has problems. Yes Ron Paul has problems. Yes Corsi does. Yes Moore does. (No doubt I’ve neglected some) The interesting thing is they will alienate different groups of people—it’s just a fact of life.

    I am a delegate to the CP Convention, and I haven’t decided who I will vote for. Baldwin is out for me because he is arrogant, divisive, and majors on the minors. Yet, for those faults, i will take him if he is part of the CP ticket. Why?

    Barack Obama has the support of two media Billionaires: Bloomberg and Murdoch. Hillary has strong Soros ties. McCain has strong Soros ties. In essence, the average american is not represented. And each of the major presidential candidates is supported by a billionaire who will warp our Constitution and government into their own image. Any of the prospective CP candidates are an improvement on the situation, because for their faults they love America, the Constitution, and would seek to move our Great nation in a better direction. My guess is RP / Baldwin supporters will not share such a view…

  117. Shawn G. Says:

    PVBLIVS has a great point here. It’s worth noting that Obama is also funded in part by Soros - he’s gonna be fine if any of the three he’s backing win.

    I couldn’t have said it better than you did PVBLIVS.

    On the issue of states’ rights, let me make thing perfectly clear. There’s more than just the Paul/Baldwin side of that story. In Mr. Paul’s case, he’s the “state’s rights” argument as an excuse to vote against things that he morally should have voted FOR. Even the state’s rights argument used doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

    But you’ll say, what about the 10th Amendment and states’ rights? I am fully cognizant of the 10th Amendment. But to be as adamant that everything last little thing not spelled out specifically in the Constitution is solely the purview of the states, as most Ron Paul supporters I’ve met are (and as Dr. Paul says he is), is to be dishonest. That is not telling the entire story.

    The Founders themselves were divided on the power level that the federal government should have. Otherwise, how do you explain the “Federalist Papers” and the “Anti-Federalist Papers”? They were also the authors of those 4 primary clauses - 1) the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment, 2) the “general welfare” clause, 3) the “necessary and proper” clause, and 4) the “commerce” clause, that allow for some latitude by the federal government in expanding its power. Yet Paul supporters seem to claim a monopoly on the truth of states rights, while only providing one part of the whole story.

    I’m for reducing government as much as possible, but not to the extent Mr. Paul is. To eliminate everything he wants to would be to cripple our nation and compromise what security we have. We tried operating under a system where each state was autonomous in almost every area. It was called the Articles of Confederation and it was an unmitigated disaster

    Debate these issues all you want, but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers were not in agreement on this, so how can you “states rights” advocates be so adamant that YOU are?

    If the Congress doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to protect its citizens very right to life, not to mention marriage and the nuclear family (the most basic building blocks of our very society itself), then pray tell, who does? We simply cannot have 50 different little countries running around each with their own laws on so many important issues, or we’ll have the chaos we did under the Articles of Confederation and might as well just just go back to being under British rule.

  118. Richard Says:

    Baldwin and Keyes or Baldwin Moore would be a great ticket
    I’d like to see Mike Peroutka again Baldwin I think would make a good run and if Moore does join the Constitution Party you’ll see a lot of votes from Alabama, and I hope a lot of Churches will back a Baldwin ticket, the Church does seem to wake up to the facts about the Republican Party, they back only Republicans no matter where the runners stand is even if the candidate says he or she is for Abortion, the ones that are against Abortion in the GOP will back the ones that are for baby murder

  119. Shawn G. Says:

    Richard, what’s wrong with Keyes/Moore, for example?

  120. Shawn G. Says:

    Hugh, the same could be said for Chuck Baldwin, and a number of other candidates that the CP has put over the years who haven’t won squat before, so please don’t make yourself look so hypocritical.

    Red, if you can’t see “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” as anything more than a Yankee fight song, then shame on you, especially if you call yourself by the Name of Christ! That is about Christ’s return and triumph that one day will come. Open your eyes.

    Mr. Seebeck, you’re wrong, America was founded on biblical principles, including the 10 Commandments and the idea that mankind itself, in its natural state, is evil and needs to be held in check (the most essential element of the Constitution being those checks and balances between the branches). Red, we agree on that…

  121. Red Phillips Says:

    Shawn, read the history of the Battle Hymn. It was written by a Unitarian. They don’t believe in the deity of Christ, so how could it be about His return? It is more about the social gospel being carried out at the point of the sword. Check out this link.

    http://blog.texasls.org/?p=50

    The Articles of Confederation were not an “unmitigated disaster.” There were problems that needed to be fixed, but we would be MUCH better off today under the Articles. There is no way we would have a three trillion plus budget if we were still under the AoC.

    And you are wrong. BOTH the Federalist and the anti-Federalist agreed that the federal government could only do those things specifically listed. The anties argued that the Constitution was insufficient to restrain the federal government. And the Federalist argued that they didn’t need to worry because the feds couldn’t do what they were not authorized to do. Both sides agreed that the feds could only do those thing specifically outlined. (Of course, in hindsight, the anti-Federalists were entirely justified in their fears.) This is a matter of the historical record. Unfortunately, it is also true that they rather quickly began to ignore this, but the intent of both sides is clear. (A case could be made that some Federalist were being intentionally deceptive.)

    The 14th amendment is INVALID. Your reading of the general welfare and commerce clause is the same as the libs who babble about a “living and breathing” Constitution. The “necessary and proper” language does not expand any power, but I do think that that language is problematic. Another good reason to be an anti-Federalist.

    Baldwin is out for me because he is arrogant, divisive, and majors on the minors.

    PVBLIVS, are you kidding me. Baldwin is arrogant and divisive? What?

  122. Paul Greenawalt Says:

    Hello I am from Michigan also. I prefer Keyes too but however I am sure we can all agree our choices must be senseable to beat the big dogs and big names is what is needed to be on the ballot.
    Whoever the choices ends up being needs to be a different clear choice from liberals McCain. Obama, and Clinton

    Keyes President / Pastor Baldwin VP would be a nice ticket also

  123. Paul Greenawalt Says:

    Also another GOOD thought if Pastor Baldwin is still endorsing the CP and votes are still going his way anyways then we don’t need his name on the ballot just his endorsement from a political science standpoint.
    If we got Keyes with somebody else who can actually help get more votes than Baldwin then we need to do that so we can help push up our voter counts so we can then build on our focus getting more votes and winning.

    Please don’t get me wrong Baldwin seems nice and if he is the most powerful VP potential canidate that we have left then let’s go with him but if there is any other higher potential choices such as moore for VP THEN baldwin as a endorser. Bob Smith may be more powerful to get more votes than baldwin???

    Baldwin can go back to his church and do what his mission is in life to minister to the gospel of Jesus who is the Christ. and still endorse the CP since they only got 200,000 votes in their last run.

    Lets get a chance to win here : )

  124. Shawn G. Says:

    Red,

    Are you kidding? Nowhere does the Constitution justify such a budget deficit, nor does it justify national debt and I never said that it did. I never said that I viewed the 14th Amendment that way, just that there historically HAS been disagreement over the power level the federal government should have. If you’re going to talk about that, then you should at least bother to tell both sides of the story - that’s all I’m saying. I stand by my statement on the AoC - they WERE a disaster. 13 different states who all had their own agendas, 13 different sets of rules for everything, 13 different currencies, none willing to work the others. Oh yeah, THAT’s what you think was so great? Imagine how bad things would be if we had 50 different states who all disagreed on everything and always looked only for their own self-interests rather than the good of the whole! That’s what you’re advocating. I fail to see how that’s any good.

    Hey Red, Jefferson was the one Founder who was a deist, who didn’t believe in Christ’s Deity either, nor any of the supernatural content of the Bible. So should we discard the Declaration of Independence, and anything else he wrote? How narrow minded and short sighted it is to think that God can’t use even those who hate him, like Satan for example, who incited the crowd to push for the crucifixion of Christ, to accomplish His purposes.

    Even if it was intended to be about “social justice” by the author, it is not viewed that way today by hardly anyone so why make it an issue?

    Paul, I agree with you, we need to give ourselves the best chance of succeeding, the best chance to win. This is first time since 1860 that a third party actually truly does have a chance to win, but not if we’re not serious about trying to win.

  125. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAFR Says:

    Regardless as to WHOMEVER gets the C.P. nomination….
    THAT NOMINEE will still have a good chance of garnishing millions of votes (which will help build the C.P. even more, state by state) or outright WINNING the election.,with so many other parties running,...just on the IMMIGRATION & BORDER ISSUE alone!

    ALL the other parties and candidates WILL IGNORE THE IMMIGRATION issue. THAT is a given! This year can be a real banner year for our party.
    The C.P. does have ally’s…that at least give us fair mention…in the news..
    Lou Dobbs …Glenn Beck…George Putnam, WND…and others.
    Coupled with anti-McCain republicans, Christian conservatives, blue-collar anti-free trade job workers, discruntled democrats, independents, Vietnam vets against John McCain,, anti-illegal immigration activists, and the rest of the ‘masses’ who stumple upon what the C.P. is all about,.....will all add to the ‘prarie firstorm’of discontent across this country. AS LONG AS THE C.P. MAKES THE BORDER & ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ITS NO.1 ISSUE, IT WILL RIDE HIGH. -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF

    National Veterans Coalition
    Constitution party…www.nvets.org

  126. Shawn G. Says:

    Larry,

    I sure hope you’re right sir, but I do think selecting the right candidate is crucial. Foreign policy and military conservatives will not vote for folks like Baldwin - that’s one reason why he can’t win. Keyes is the man to get the job done, and begin getting America turned around!

  127. PVBLIVS Says:

    “PVBLIVS, are you kidding me. Baldwin is arrogant and divisive? What?”

    Yeah, sorry for the delay. I am serious what I said. Baldwin has no problem making claims about what other people believe theologically. That is a very divisive thing to do, and I essentially incorrectly viewed him as a mouthpiece of the Constitution Party (e.g. like the Mouth of Sauron), but am glad to realize he is not (otherwise, I wouldn’t have joined the Constitution Party).

Leave a Reply