Baldwin Aims at Youth

Chuck Baldwin’s campaign is, more and more, resembling Ron Paul’s. With the obvious change in rhetoric, the emphasis of non-social issues, and the championing of the non-interventionist foreign policy, Baldwin is quickly becoming a known name amongst Ron Paul supporters. Here in Louisiana, I’m getting calls daily—mostly from my fellow Ron Paul activists—wanting to know more about the guy.

Additionally, in the 60,000 member Ron Paul Student Group Chuck Baldwin is mostly seen as a rockstar, with a couple caveats and reservations. His videos and speeches have gone over well, especially amongst the socially-conservative type Ron Paul supporters and vast swaths of Libertarian Party members have told me that “if ____ is nominated, I’ll vote for Chuck Baldwin”. There is no specific candidate, it ranges from Bob Barr to Steve Kubby to Mary Ruwart,and for vastly different reasons. One thing is clear though, Chuck Baldwin has emerged as a leading contender for the Ron Paul Vote.
An activist out of Shreveport, Louisiana called me two days ago and told me this: “Chuck Baldwin was out there fighting with us. He wasn’t just hoping to get an endorsement later or ‘hoping’ Ron Paul became President, he actually did the work—just like the rest of us.”
And he’s right. By my count, Chuck Baldwin wrote 20+ articles in favor of Ron Paul. These articles went to places like Gulf1, VDARE, WorldNetDaily, Covenant News, News With Views, RenewAmerica, the Greenville-Times Examiner, and The Independent Florida Sun. Mr. Baldwin trumpetted Paul’s name from the rooftop on his live radio show in northern Florida/southern Alabama. He recorded an endorsement of Paul and released it onto Youtube. He recorded an ad that was played in Florida. He spoke to pastor’s gatherings in South Carolina and Iowa. And lastly, he converted almost the entire structure of the Constitution Party into an outlet for Ron Paul. I’d be willing to put that record against any of the other candidates and present it to a Ron Paul voter—and i’d be confident that they would choose Baldwin.

Disclosure: Trent Hill is the National Youth Coordinator for the Chuck Baldwin 2008 Presidential Campaign. His views, expressed here, do not represent the campaign in any official fashion.

83 Responses to “Baldwin Aims at Youth”

  1. Sean Says:

    Wow, Trent, I knew you were dangerous :-)

  2. All Purpose Troll Says:

    Baldwin aims at youth

    Can we have one post without a child porn reference?

    I know all Third Party Watch readers think their kids are really hot and all the perverts want them. Truth be told, most Third Party Watch readers are Libertarian Party members, most of whom are so fug they couldn’t get laid in a French whore house. The pervs don’t even want your kids.

  3. NewFederalist Says:

    All Purpose Troll- is your post intended to be humorous? If so, I really missed it. If not, I really think you would be well advised to check out Baldwin’s background. As to your point about TPW becoming another LP board… I agree.

  4. End the Empire Says:

    I too feel Chuck Baldwin was there in the trenches with fellow Ron Paul supporters. He deserves his share of Ron’s supporters in the general election. However in this year of less than mediocrity from the 2 biggies, Chuck needs to aim higher than the Paul vote. There are millions of American who oppose Insane McSame, B.O. & Hitlery.

    The Ron Paul campaign was exciting to alot of us, HOWEVER we need to remember in the primaries 40-45 people voted for someone else for each 1 vote Paul received. Chuck Baldwin needs to attrack support from the 40-45 people along with the nice % he will receive of the 1 RP voter.

    All CP members need to think “outside the box” this year. Go for the gold ring. Look at ballot access rules for the states, (of the largest twenty states) , that you don’t have access. NY, PA, IL, NJ, GA, ect. Use the new support to help on gaining access in these major states. The most votes are where the most people are, so the CP (at a minimum) needs ballot access in the top twenty most populated states.

    Chuck Baldwin needs to go for the Reagan vote, not just the Paul vote…

  5. Eric Rowe Says:

    I agree, End the Empire. And whatever happened to James Dobson’s possible refusal to support McCain. It seems like Baldwin would be an obvious candidate for him to support, or at least half support (I suppose Keyes may still be in the race). The serious pro-lifers out there do not trust McCain and never have. The life issue has been a mainstay of the Constitution Party. And there’s no reason to downplay it now just in hopes of getting more votes from non-religious people. Baldwin has a lot more votes he could win by playing up the life issue than he could by playing it down in hopes of getting more of that crowd (like most of those in the RP student group) who are either pro-abortion or see it as a minor issue. There are still millions, and maybe tens of millions, of pro-life Americans who see it as a major issue, if not the single most important issue. and for these voters McCain doesn’t make the cut.

  6. John Lowell Says:

    “Chuck Baldwin needs to go for the Reagan vote, not just the Paul vote…”

    Can you imagine the consternation of the age 65 + “Reagan vote” to learn that Chuck intends to do away with their Social Security benefits? You have another suggestion, perhaps?

  7. John Lowell Says:

    Eric,

    “And whatever happened to James Dobson’s possible refusal to support McCain.”

    Dobson is ReichsChurch through and through. He folded on the stem-cell issue at the time of the Bush compromise in 2001, you can count on him to get in line with McCain in the end. Even now, Dobson’s hand picked FRC head, Tony Perkins, seems ready to make the necessary adjustments. Most of the so-called “pro-life” leadership will find a way of rationalizing support for McCain. They are pond scum, no more, no less.

  8. Mike Theodore Says:

    He can try, but he can’t hide his positions on social issues. His position on homosexuality gets me. I clicked that part of his issues page, and those articles in there were scary. I felt like a group of angry catholics was going to break down my door and crucify me for making a wrong “choice”. Presidential?...you decide.

  9. RealityCheck Says:

    The Republican leadership is again using the age-old fear tactic….”we can’t let the DFL get the white house or we’ll get liberal supreme court justices for the next 4 years…..” yada yada yada…..

    How dare they suggest that with John McCain we can be assured of constitutional supreme court justices…...! They need to recall and acknowledge recent history:

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/31/32726.shtml

    McCain is a traitor to the American people and the Constitution in a multitude of ways included but not limited to the “Gang of 14”.......

    Chuck needs to make it loud and clear that McLame doesn’t measure up in a multitude of ways that the disingenuous leadership in the GOP use as a means to keep the naive loyal…...

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Mike Theodore, im not sure how you claim you “clicked on his issues page”—when that page does not currently exist…

    www.baldwin2008.com

  11. Sean Says:

    He’s probably talking about folliwng the link to chuckbaldwinlive.com and clicking on the link… e.g. www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/abomo.html

  12. Brandon Sharitt Says:

    My problem with Chuck Baldwin is his connection to the Christian right, paticulary his past connections to the Moral Majority.

  13. Brian Miller Says:

    www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/abomo.html

    Whoa. I’m not quite sure what “youth” are going to be attracted to this sort of far-right-wing rhetoric.

  14. End the Empire Says:

    Atheist and Homosexuals are less than 8% of the population, they DON’T elect anyone to anything. True they make alot of noise, but a truth you all need to understand, the VAST MAJORITY of HUMANKIND wish they would return to the closet, close the door and turn off the light !

    90+% Christians in most states elect people to office. You who hate and oppose christians openly will never be elected to anything and the quicker you realize it the quicker you can move on to other hobbies and stop wasting your time on politics. To be successful in American politics a person must be able to work with and be compatible with and most importantly ACCEPTABLE to believing christians. To believe otherwise is to remain a small, small fish in your very small pond.

    Chuck Baldwin would not stop anyone’s SS check that is dependent upon it, he just wants to let the young people out of the SCAM of FDR’s PONZI Scheme…

  15. disinter Says:

    Your attempt to associate Ron Paul with this fascist theocracy advocate is shameful.

  16. silver Republican Says:

    Baldwin is hadly facist. His economics cannot be called corpratist. It annoys me that people use the term facist just to mean bad right wing. Its a very specific ideology.

  17. Red Phillips Says:

    Eric, Dobson will not support McCain. He has said that, and I believe him. The question is whether he will openly support Baldwin.

  18. Red Phillips Says:

    People who think that anything short of 100% pure secularism is theocracy show their ignorance. Baldwin is a conservative and as such intends to conserve the country as it was intended. The Founders were not modern style secularist. Modern rigorous secularism is a novel idea. Therefore, it can’t be what this country was intended to be.

    Remember, people in 1776 and 1787 didn’t have atheistic screeds from the likes of Dawkins or Harris to read, and there was no ACLU to misinterpret the Constitution and write historical revisionist secular histories.

  19. Ben Says:

    Reality Check, just inform them that no matter what, Minnesota is going to Obama on Election Night. It matters not what the popular vote is. A 55% to 45% in favour of Obama still give all 10 of Minnesota’s electoral votes to Obama.

    While a tough concept to sell to the average christian and libertarian voter (most people are electorally ignorant and do not understand the Electoral College), it is important to try and convince them that it is better to stay home or send a message to the GOP that McCain is unacceptable by voting for a third party candidate that better lines up with their own views, esp. a candidate that is strong where McCain is weak. The GOP believes that it has the unconditional support of the “Christian Right” (even while openly insulting Christians and paleo-conservatives), and can continue to march further and further to the left.

    In 2006, when Mark Kennedy had no chance of catching up to Amy Klobuchar, Christians marched dutifully into the voting booth to cast their ballot for Mark Kennedy because they feared Sen. Klobuchar even when there was a better alternative. Some of these people even aspire to leadership in the CPMN and the MNLP.

  20. Trent Hill Says:

    “Your attempt to associate Ron Paul with this fascist theocracy advocate is shameful.”

    First—Baldwin isnt fascist or theocratic. Look at the quote on the front page of his website disinter.
    Second—I need not link them, they are inextricably linked, by their actions, associations, and ideology.

  21. paulie Says:

    Baldwin Aims at Youth

    Ready…aim..fire!

  22. Brian Miller Says:

    Atheist and Homosexuals are less than 8% of the population, they DON’T elect anyone to anything.

    For all your phony statistics, it’s interesting to note that even if gay people and non-believers are “only” 8% of the voting population (a bogus statistic by itself, considering that 7.5% of voters in the GE self-categorize as LGBT alone), that’s a couple of orders of magnitude in excess of the CP’s support. Not to mention, all those gay and nonbelieving people have friends, family, employees, coworkers, and neighbors who will oppose your little pogrom.

    Now mix in the fact that most of America is not a foam-at-the-mouth lobby for theocraZy, and suddenly the prospects look pretty dim.

    I’m sure that the contingent of Ron Paul’s supporters who will go for Paul on account of his anti-immigrant and anti-gay positions may feel at home, but even the majority of his supporters will give you a pass.

    And you’ll have zero chance of capturing a significant share of the youth vote, since most youth reject the bases for your party’s reason for existence—transforming America into a violent and punitive theocracy.

  23. Brian Miller Says:

    people in 1776 and 1787 didn’t have atheistic screeds from the likes of Dawkins or Harris to read

    Nor were there mainstream politicians in 1776 and 1787 to oppose other horrible secular humanist things that you guys decry, such as women as equal voting citizens, and the constitutional elimination of slavery.

    Sorry, but we’re living in the 2000s, not the 1770s.

    Women are citizens and have the right to vote. Black people are not property of white people, but equal citizens. Gay people are equal citizens. Religious beliefs are something for the private and personal domain of voluntary affiliation—not a basis for government policy.

  24. paulie Says:

    Sorry, but we’re living in the 2000s, not the 1770s.

    Women are citizens and have the right to vote. Black people are not property of white people, but equal citizens. Gay people are equal citizens. Religious beliefs are something for the private and personal domain of voluntary affiliation—not a basis for government policy.

    Exactly!

  25. Trent Hill Says:

    “And you’ll have zero chance of capturing a significant share of the youth vote, since most youth reject the bases for your party’s reason for existence—transforming America into a violent and punitive theocracy.”

    News to me. Here’s an anecdote.

    A Keyes delegate from Idaho came and talked to me about the platform at the Constitution Party National Convention. Clearly someone had told him that I disliked the platform,but didnt relate how/why I disliked it. He had a problem with the part where our platform explicitly states that we believe in the Freedom to practice and worship any religion one pleases—he thought our platform should specify that we meant Denomination of Christianity…NOT seperate religions. Within moments, I had utterly decimated his rediculous assertions,and 4 full tables of delegates gave thunderous applause. Not one other delegate said anything similar, but MANY came over to me and talked with me about how Freedom of Religion was of essential importance, but that that DID NOT mean Government-endorsing of Secular Humanism.
    Lastly—Go see Baldwin’s website. There is a quote prominently displayed. He said this during his acceptance speech at the CPNC to DEAFENING applause.
    “It will not just be conservatives or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, people of faith or unbelievers that restore America. It will be individuals from all walks of life, all backgrounds, and all political persuasions who love liberty enough to fight to maintain it.”

  26. Jared Says:

    I disagree with Paul’s immigration stance but I will vote for Baldwin and urge other Paul supporters to do so if Barr is the LP nominee. I’d vote for a libertarian-leaning pro-Constitution CP nominee any day over a questionably maybe libertarian somewhat anti-drug war could be for bringing the troops home wishy-washy LP nominee…

  27. Red Phillips Says:

    “Religious beliefs are something for the private and personal domain of voluntary affiliation—not a basis for government policy.”

    Of course, if I was an Enlightenment liberal I would believe that. But I am not, so I don’t. And neither did the Founders, by and large. At least you have the intellectual honestly to essentially concede this. As you demonstrate, neither were they modern style egalitarians. The “all the Founders were secularists” lie is as much myth making as is the “all the Founders were egalitarians” lie.

    You want to remake the Republic. I want to conserve it. That is what conservatives do, isn’t it?

  28. Trent Hill Says:

    Jared is echoing what iv heard from many Paul-voters.
    If Kubby is nominated, we get a huge chuck of Paul voters.
    If Phillies wins, we get an even larger chunk.
    If Root wins, we get alot of the more left-leaning types.
    If Ruwart wins, we get most of the non-anarchists.
    If Barr wins, we get many who distrust him.

  29. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Atheist and Homosexuals are less than 8% of the population, they DON’T elect anyone to anything. True they make alot of noise, but a truth you all need to understand, the VAST MAJORITY of HUMANKIND wish they would return to the closet, close the door and turn off the light !”

    True, not alot of gay folk in the world. Alot, but we’re not claiming majority. We’re not even trying. Hell, our basic “plot” or “agenda” is just to live life freely. We’re not trying to turn your kid’s gay or something like that. I just wan to live without restriction and opposition. Now you realize that the “vast majority” is not as homophobic as you. I’ve been out for about a year and have never met any hostility. In a pretty homophobic school. The new generation is not as hateful as you. Good luck stuffing religion down there throats when this hate is stuck to it.

  30. mdh Says:

    I’d be a lot more amenable to the CP (especially their candidates in races where there’s no true libertarian) if they got rid of the stupid “porn ban” thing… ;)

    In the end, we need to each individually consider what the difference is between a CP candidate and an LP candidate where there is one of each - such as the presidential race - and try to determine based on the issues which one more closely represents us. For me, the issue of an outright ban on pornography as advocated by the Constitution Party is an affront to the constitution itself, namely the right to free speech and free expression. Even if you disagree on open borders versus closed borders, would you really like to allow the government to jump into the realm of censorship in exchange for closing the border?

  31. G.E. Says:

    Red - The good Founders were Enlightenment Liberals. The others, the Conservatives, were hardcore statists. The Constitution Party and its adherents are almost as intellectually and historically confused as the left-liberals, neocons, and cosmotarian libertines. All camps twist history to grind their ideological axes. Only Rockwellian-libertarians remain committed to the truth, even when it is unpleasant, and even when it does not fit our ideology.

    The CP embraces the Confederacy and states rights, but it support Lincolnian mercantalism. It simultaneously derides “Enlightenment liberalism” while championing its Revolutionary adherents, and nominally opposes Hamiltonian centralism while taking up many of its causes and sharing its opposition to laissez-faire classical liberalism.

    If a CP person thought hard enough, it would make his head spin. Luckily, most don’t.

  32. G.E. Says:

    disinter - It is absolutely absurd to call Baldwin either a theocrat or a fascist. And he and Ron Paul are fast friends. Trent Hill doesn’t need to “associate them”—they associate freely with one another.

    I don’t know enough about Baldwin to tell you what he IS, but he isn’t a theocrat or a fascist. The CP is mercantilist and contradictory. It’s general outlook seems to be “let the federal government do everything it is officially authorized to do in the Constitution and let the states establish pseudo-theocratic tyrannies by popular consent.” And while I want to vote for a president who would NOT use the fully authorized powers of the federal government (i.e., I want one who would veto protectionist policies passed by Congress, etc.), the fact is that Baldwin and the CP platform, on a federal level, are better than any of the alternatives by a hundred miles.

    But let’s hope Mary Ruwart wins.

  33. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E., the paleocons are the only ones who are willing to tell the sometimes ugly truth. The Founders were not modern style PC liberal egalitarians. It is all those who attempt to retrospectively impose modern notions on them who are being dishonest or wishful thinkers. I am a free trader in general, but the Founding Fathers were primarily mercantilists because that was what most people were back then. The Wealth of Nations was not published until 1776. Ludwig von Mises wasn’t born until 1881. The Founders could not have been Austrian Economists. The Constitution does not allow for a lot of governmental meddling in the economy and was then somewhat by default “pro-free market.” But people weren’t free- marketers at the time in a modern libertarian or Austrian sense because those ideas hadn’t been popularized yet. People generally either favored free trade or protectionism based on their regional self-interests.

    The Founders certainly did endorse some elements of liberalism, but they were not, in general, overtly hostile to religion as were their French counter-parts. And they were not egalitarians.

  34. Sivarticus Says:

    I’ll be deciding between Baldwin and the LP candidate without a surprise third party run by Ron Paul himself. That said, I’m thankful every single day the CP decided to nominate this man instead of egoist trash Keyes. It’s just hilarious to see all these quasi-Marxist fools hurling fascist and theocrat around. I’d bet most of them are in the lefty camp, for Obama, Nader, or the Greens.

    Even if what they say about Baldwin and the CP were true, it’s astounding how they believe the overwhelming majority of youth are these ultra-progressive politically correct warriors. By high contrast, most young people born in the ‘80s I’ve ever gotten into political conversation with hate PC garbage as a result of Clinton’s reign during their upbringing. They laugh at Al Sharpton, mililtant feminists, and call each other homosexuals as a slur. No, most of them don’t like the evangelical right, but they don’t like gays forcing their tolerance courses on Kindergarteners either.

    So long as he is for Constitutional liberties and against the war, Baldwin has a very good shot at capturing youth votes, even if he is a little on the social conservative side.

  35. Ben Says:

    I think you will find many leaders in the CP that have no love for the South. Howard Phillips’ views on Lincoln are no longer in the majourity in the CP. You are from Georgia and, yes, there is a strong LoS presence in many of the CP’s Southern affiliates. However, I think you will find a different idea of what “state’s rights” means to members of many of the northern or western CP affiliates. I think you would even be appalled at some of the comments I received from CP contacts in some Southern states when I suggested attending their annual March for Life bearing a Southron Cross or even Bonnie Blue.

  36. G.E. Says:

    Red - I did not say the Founders were “modern style PC liberal egalitarians.” They certainly were not.

    Alexander Hamilton and his ilk were mercantilists. But his opponents were largely free traders. Even George Washington had famously kind words for free trade.

    The Constitution DOES allow for too much, far too much, meddling in the economy. That’s the honest truth. It DOES reflect the mercantilist, pre-Wealth of Nations, understandings of the time.

    Jefferson and Thomas Paine were most certainly classical liberals, and Jefferson was somewhat hostile to religion. Paine was a rabid atheist.

    Libertarians are not egalitarians, and neither were the Founders. The Founders I hold in high regard were most certainly liberals and not conservatives. The “conservatives” of the time were classical conservatives—Hamilton fits that bill. And while even Hamilton had more good qualities than virtually every politician to live since Grover Cleveland, the fact is that where the Founders were illiberal, it was in the classically conservative, authoritarian Lincolnian/mercantilist sense. So the Constitution Party either needs to embrace the classical liberal elements of our history, or it needs to outright reject them an embrace Hamiltonian/Lincolnian conservatism. Right now, it does the latter in practice and the former in name.

  37. G.E. Says:

    Red - But make no mistake about it: The truth is that the Founders, in the aggregate, were not hostile to religion at all, although a fair share saw the value in having a separation between church and state. The only issue at hand was that the union would not have an official religion. States were free to have their own customs and practices regarding official religion, etc. That is the truth.

    Ben - Are you talking to me? I’m not from Georgia, but Michigan. It does not surprise me to learn that the CP is not entirely anti-Lincoln, as it should be. After all, I do not think there is much rigorous intellectualism behind the CP platform, nor could there be anything resembling a coherent philosophy through which history can be viewed. Conservatism is nothing but an attitude, and predictably, the CP platform is more reactionary than it is even constitutional. I see several modern-liberal principles within the CP platform.

  38. SovereignMN Says:

    Ben: “I think you will find many leaders in the CP that have no love for the South. Howard Phillips’ views on Lincoln are no longer in the majourity in the CP.”

    I disagree. I have yet to encounter anyone in leadership who speaks highly of Lincoln. In MN I know of nobody in leadership that is pro-Lincoln.

  39. Ben Says:

    I apologise, GE, I thought Red had made the comment about the CP being pro-CSA. There is at least one former USTPMI chairman that probably would have been very pro-Keyes were he at the 2008 CP convention. I could be wrong because I do not know his opinion on the “war on terror.” I have met a lot of people in the CP that only oppose the Iraq War and the “war on terror” on procedural grounds, no formal declaration of war. Otherwise, “viva la Empire,” they say.

    I do agree that the CP and some of its affiliates are very reactionary. One CP chairman states on their website that their CP affiliate worked hard to get initiative and referendum in his state. What’s that statement about two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner? Too often, I believe, the CP platform has been used as a tool to get voters or members.

    I remember one CPMN convention where the death penalty plank was up for revision. The reason? The person proposing the change thought it would bring an acquaintance of hers into the Constitution Party if we changed it. The person making the motion to amend the platform actually agreed with the plank at the time.

    I have to chuckle about reports from the CP Nat. Con./Comm. about a platform fidelity requirement and discipline proposal. Howard Phillips is putting on a great show for some folks that think the CP’s motto “Principle over Politics” can mean something. The fact that the motion was defeated at the national committee meeting and tabled at the convention means it will never see the light of day again, but the naieve and trusting actually believe the CP is showing progress and is somehow deserving of my support once again.

  40. Ben Says:

    Darren, ask Ken Lucier his opinion of Lincoln and the War Between the States, and his membership and position in Sons of Union Veterans. Also, have a chat with Robert Barnett about Lincoln. I doubt that you have talked with many of the Mormons in the CP. I think you will find a rather disturbing opinion about Lincoln and the War Between the States. Again, you will find that there is a big difference between different individuals in the CP and their interpretation of state’s rights and why it isn’t spelled out better in the party platform.

    BTW, leadership in the CP is not limited to those holding a title and wasting time at meetings. Find those pulling the strings of the marionettes in many affiliates, and you will find some pretty strong Lincoln backers. Besides, the CPMN is hardly a representative sample of the CP as a whole, and why I thought it was worth salvaging for over a year.

  41. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Why doesn’t the CP just join the LP? They can have their “morality caucus.” The GP should also join the LP and create “the free market environmentalism caucus.”

  42. J.R. Says:

    The Alaskan Independence Party Chairman has just announced that she will honor the AIP commitment to place the CP nominees (Baldwin/Castle) on the Alaska ballot line this year!

    P.S. Why don’t the LP & GP members join the CP?

  43. Ben Says:

    Maybe we can all join the GOP and have those caucuses too. The LP can be the “pot-smoker caucus.”

  44. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Exactly Joseph. You are finally understanding the Fringe Alliance Strategy, at least partially.

    The founders were worthless anti-socialist pro-slavery barbarians, and their pictures should be burned in effigy. I am glad that Chuck Baldwin is running and hope he does well, because he will allow OUR HOLY LORD GENERAL BARACK H. OBAMA TO CAPTURE THE WHITE HOUSE! BARACK H. OBAMA WILL TAKE THE BEST PART OF THE MARXIST LEFT AND THE EVANGELICAL RIGHT, TO CREATE THE CATHOLIC SOCIALIST EVOLUTION.

    Send forth your spirit O LORD, AND RENEW THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Amen.

  45. Afi K. James Says:

    I’m voting for chuck baldwin, he’s the next ron paul.

  46. Cody Quirk Says:

    Ben, not all minds think alike.

    In every political party, there are people with different opinions about history etc. Yet no matter what our different backgrounds or beliefs are, we are united for restoring our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, the main goal of the CP.

  47. Ben Says:

    Cody, I never said all minds think alike in the CP, and was pointing out that very thing. To call the CP a party favouring a confederate model, alas, is simply untrue. Howard Phillips and many people that joined the CP because of his involvement have/had a very pro-confederation philosophy. However, from what I can glean from Bill Shearer’s writing and statements, he had more of a centralised philosophy of government maybe more in line w/ Hamilton or Adams. Those especially sympathetic to Bill Shearer tend to have more of a Unionist bent. That is just my observation from my time in the CP, and now taking more of an outsider’s view of the current CP. From what I can gather, Clymer is more Unionist having a Pennsylvania Mennonite upbringing.

  48. End the Empire Says:

    Afi K. James Says:

    May 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
    I’m voting for chuck baldwin, he’s the next ron paul.

    Cody Quirk Says:

    May 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
    Ben, not all minds think alike.

    In every political party, there are people with different opinions about history etc. Yet no matter what our different backgrounds or beliefs are, we are united for restoring our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, the main goal of the CP.

    AMEN Brothers !

  49. Yank Says:

    Where is the ass in the CP? Where?

  50. Hugh Jass Says:

    Here’s my thinking about the general election:
    -If Gravel or Phillies win the nomination, I will vote for Baldwin.
    If Root wins the nomination, and continues to flipflop on the war, I will vote for Baldwin.
    -If Kubby or Ruwart win the nomination, I will vote for them.
    -If Barr wins the nomination and Restore 04 fails, I will vote for Baldwin.
    -If barr wins the nomination, Restore 04 passes, and Barr retains a consistent libertarian position in the campaign, I will vote for him.

  51. Andy Says:

    GE said: “The CP embraces the Confederacy and states rights, but it support Lincolnian mercantalism.”

    I’ve noticed this contradiction with the Constitution Party and always wondered about it myself.

  52. Andy Says:

    Trent Hill said: “and vast swaths of Libertarian Party members have told me that ‘if is nominated, I’ll vote for Chuck Baldwin’.”

    Trent, you can count me as one of those Libertarian Party members. Depending on what happens in Denver I just MIGHT end up voting for Chuck Baldwin.

    One thing you Constitution Party people out there need to keep in mind is ballot access. The Constitution Party is likely to appear on less ballot than the Libertarian Party. For example, the deadline for ballot access petitions in Texas is almost up and to my knowledge the Constitution Party has no chance of making it on the ballot there. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party already has ballot status in Texas.

  53. disinter Says:

    Bill O should run for CP prez. He fits right in:
    http://video.236.com/services/player/bcpid1544603017?bctid=1549643823

  54. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E., I have never said the CP was a classical conservative or paleo party philosophically speaking. It is generally paleo from the standpoint of supporting the paleo issues cluster - trade, immigration, and foreign policy. But it is not a consistently or consciously illiberal or anti-liberal party. Trent’s paean to pluralism being a good example. Most CP’ers come to the CP from the “mainstream” conservative movement. Hence, they bring with them all that baggage. CP rhetoric and even the platform is peppered with liberal rhetoric and idiom. It is almost impossible for a modern American to not think like a liberal. I know I used to. It has to be trained out of you. So I agree that they are often inconsistent and the platform is inconsistent, but who isn’t these days?

    Dividing the Founders up along a classical conservative v. classical liberal perspective is tricky. Those who seem very classically liberal in some ways, such as Sam Adams and Patrick Henry, were also some of the most religiously devout and favored an established church. Other “liberals” such as John Randolph, were very much aristocratic agrarians. The arch-Federalists like Hamilton, may seem more conservative because they favored something closer to monarchy, but they could also be said to favor something that presaged the modern unitary state that was ushered in by the French Revolution. (Some of their instincts like the distrust of the masses were conservative.) The anti-Federalist such as Henry were actually more conservative in a sense because the decentralization and divided sovereignty they favored was actually more reminiscent of medieval polity.

  55. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Andy, form a Libertarian caucus in the CP. Don’t be a jackass.

  56. SovereignMN Says:

    Ben, the fact that the CP just nominated pro-Confederate Baldwin over pro-Lincoln Keyes by a 3 to 1 margin at the national level is proof enough for me that your statement about pro-Lincoln views being in the majority is completely absurd. Just because most members of the CP do not meet your standards of purity doesn’t mean they’ve all joined the dark side. Good luck in Colorado.

  57. Jake Featherston Says:

    I think Chuck Baldwin is great. I’m an active Ron Paul supporter here in Northern California, and if Bob Barr fails to get the LP nomination, I will definitely be voting for him (assuming the California AIP doesn’t replace him with Alan Keyes, that is, which would be a terrible thing to do regardless of Bob Barr’s status).

    Chuck Baldwin is closer to my views than Bob Barr, but I want to have a chance to support the biggest, right-wing 3rd party candidate since George Wallace in 1968.* Bob Barr has got one quality that Chuck Baldwin sadly lacks: He has the chance to get enough votes to spoil the election for that horrible neo-”conservative” nitwit John McInsane! And that’s good enough for me. I want the GOP to know that their worthless party nominated a worthless candidate who went down to defeat because an alliance of libertarians and paleo-conservatives rejected the greater-of-two-evils. That’s right; even Barack Obama is better than that awful war mongering poltroon from Arizona. I said it, and I’m glad I said it!

    *I don’t count Perot. Other than for his opposition to NAFTA, I’m not sure what his appeal was (other than that he wasn’t a member of those two awful parties that win all the elections, I suppose). Like John McInsane, he didn’t strike me as psychologically qualified to be President anyway.

  58. Ben Says:

    I never said that pro-Lincolnism was in the majourity. I said that Howard Phillips’ own beliefs on Lincoln and the CSA were not in the majourity as they once were. There is still a strong under current of pro-South sympathy, but I think there is a significant minourity in the CP that subscribe to a more Hamiltonian view of America rather than a Jeffersonian model.

    The fact of the matter is that the Southron movement is rapidly moving away from a “restore the Constitution” mentality to a pro-secession mindset as the Pax Americana begins to fall apart. When the LoS was formed in the mid-90s, the idea of somehow working within the current two-party system to bring about relief to the South prevailed. By the late 90s and early half of this decade, there was a belief in a third party supplanting one of the majour parties. The argument was whether that was with a Southern Party to take over the state governments or via the Constitution Party to elect a pro-South President and Congressmen.

    I now see a significant minourity in the Southron movement that believes the break-up of these united States to be inevitable and the foundation must be laid for an independent South. I predict that the belief in an independent South (the South will rise again) model will prevail as more and more respected leaders within the LoS and other Southron organisations adopt and espouse that view.

  59. Sean Says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020724.html

  60. RealityCheck Says:

    Ben, for someone who can find almost nothing favorable to say about the CP, you sure spend a lot of your time monitoring/critiquing every little thing that goes on in the party….one would think you would spend your time on more rewarding pursuits…..perhaps maligning them is rewarding to you…..

  61. Old Whig Says:

    Yank, it’s painfully obvious that you aren’t getting any. And the fact that you’re constantly posting about it on TPW probably explains why.

    O.W.

  62. Ben Says:

    Whatever, Tammy, whatever.

  63. Ben Says:

    Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.—Matthew VII:6

  64. Chip Says:

    “Atheist and Homosexuals are less than 8% of the population, they DON’T elect anyone to anything. True they make alot of noise, but a truth you all need to understand, the VAST MAJORITY of HUMANKIND wish they would return to the closet, close the door and turn off the light !
    90+% Christians in most states elect people to office. You who hate and oppose christians openly will never be elected to anything and the quicker you realize it the quicker you can move on to other hobbies and stop wasting your time on politics. To be successful in American politics a person must be able to work with and be compatible with and most importantly ACCEPTABLE to believing christians. To believe otherwise is to remain a small, small fish in your very small pond.
    Chuck Baldwin would not stop anyone’s SS check that is dependent upon it, he just wants to let the young people out of the SCAM of FDR’s PONZI Scheme…”

    Even though I check Third Party watch on a fairly regular basis, I seldom, if ever post here. However, I felt the need to respond to this post, as well as some of the others on this thread

    I am not going to argue with your statistics, as I am not sure that “atheist and homosexuals” are less than 8% nor am I entirely sure Christians are 90% of the population. However, both statistics seems somewhat believable, and that’s beside the point. First, you seem to be arguing that is ok to discriminate against homosexuals and atheist, because they are a minority. That is incredibly fallacious logic, as well, as disturbing.

    Next, you seem to use the argument that because 90% of Americans are Christians they would some how gravitate towards Baldwin’s positions on social issues. Just because 90% of Americans are Christians do not mean they share Baldwin’s view on social issues. Even if they do that does not mean they want legislate morality.

    As far some of the other posts go I do not enough about Baldwin personally to call him a “theocrat.” I will say though, from general experience with the Constitution Party there are definitely some theocratic elements to it. They are closely aligned with the Christian Exodus movement, which openly seeks to create a theocracy in South Carolina. There are other examples of I can think as well.

    And for Red Phillips, I take it you are not familiar with the Jeffersonian Bible or any of our third President’s thoughts on the Christian religion. Some of his quotations on the Christian religion could probably rival the “atheistic screeds from the likes of Dawkins or Harris” (although Jefferson was of course a Deist, not an atheist).

  65. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Even though I check Third Party watch on a fairly regular basis, I seldom, if ever post here. However, I felt the need to respond to this post, as well as some of the others on this thread”

    I hear ya. I would break a 50 year vow of silence to yell at this guy.

  66. Red Phillips Says:

    “And for Red Phillips, I take it you are not familiar with the Jeffersonian Bible or any of our third President’s thoughts on the Christian religion.”

    Chip, one Founder does not the Founders make. Yes, I am very aware of Jefferson’s views. But he was in the vast minority. Read A Worthy Company by M. E. Bradford.

  67. andy Says:

    Chuck could probably do a good job getting a good part of the Ron Paul voters and even the Mike Huckabee social conservatives to join his bandwagon. There are also a lot of other disenfranchised conservatives out there he would attract as well. He needs to get things up and running though. His website baldwin2008.com should be up and running by now with his issues and viewpoints posted so I can lead people there. But this not so…. This guy is nothing but good for keeping the Ron Paul Revolution/ movement alive into November….

  68. Chip Says:

    “I hear ya. I would break a 50 year vow of silence to yell at this guy.”

    Yeah, I try not to argue with people on the internet, but this post just kept grating on me all day.

    “Chip, one Founder does not the Founders make. Yes, I am very aware of Jefferson’s views. But he was in the vast minority. Read A Worthy Company by M. E. Bradford.”

    Yes, I am aware that one founder does “not make the founders make.” Regardless, Jefferson was a pretty significant founder (one of the main authors of the Declaration of Independence, Third President, etc.) whose views you were conveniently not mentioning. I see Madison (an Unitarian!), the father of the Constitutions, views are also not mentioned in your any of your thoughts on the founding fathers.

    Here are just a few quotes from him on his opinion on the matter of Church and State, as well as religion:

    To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itsel

    The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity

    Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together

    n alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against…...Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance….....religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.

    Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.

    Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history

  69. Andy Says:

    “andy Says:

    May 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
    Chuck could probably do a good job getting a good part of the Ron Paul voters and even the Mike Huckabee social conservatives to join his bandwagon. There are also a lot of other disenfranchised conservatives out there he would attract as well. He needs to get things up and running though. His website baldwin2008.com should be up and running by now with his issues and viewpoints posted so I can lead people there. But this not so…. This guy is nothing but good for keeping the Ron Paul Revolution/ movement alive into November….”

    I don’t know who said this, but it was not me.

  70. Paulie Says:

    Presumably, someone else named Andy. There are a lot of y’all.

  71. G.E. Says:

    Red - I think you’re parsing pretty finely here. I think it is fairly easy to break the Founders into largely “liberal” and “conservative” camps, with the liberals being the true heroes—Sam Adams, Jefferson, Paine, Henry—and the “conservatives” being the less heroic (Washington) to the downright evil (Hamilton, John Adams). Yes, you can pick at little elements of Jefferson or Henry or whomever and say that they don’t fit with classical liberalism, but that is being disingenuous. Virtually no one ever perfectly embodies an ideology.

    I think you are giving “hostility to religion” far too great of an emphasis in classical liberalism. Who could be more classically liberal than Adam Smith? But I’m not aware of any such anti-religion hostility on his part. While a “liberal” attitude towards religion, ranging from anti-dogmatism to outright hostility, may be “classically liberal,” it is not the end-all, be-all, and not nearly as important as hostility to the monarchy, free trade, etc. In fact, you have to cut the anti-religion people some slack here, Red. For in an era of church-state cohesion, one could not easily be anti-state without also being anti-church. These anti-church folks are not the same type of person as the rabid atheists (who make me ashamed to be an unbeliever) that populate TPW and sully every CP thread.

    That all not withstanding, your comments were interesting and provided some evidence for your point. But I can’t help but think you’re doing exactly what I said from the onset—presenting the facts in a manner that suits your conclusion, rather than starting out objectively. Sure, you can make an argument that Jefferson was not a classical liberal, but a sensible jury would find him guilty of that charge every single time.

  72. G.E. Says:

    Red says “one founder does not the founders make.” Okay. Throw Jefferson under the bus. Now what about Paine? The CP must surely reject him in his entirety. Pretty soon, you’re left with Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, etc. You can have those bums!

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

    Trent, thanks for a wonderful article and comment on Chuck Baldwin.
    Chuck really has proven himself worthy as a long time Ron Paul trooper.
    His campaign will spread like a wildfire on the plains, as his fellow Ron Paulers catch on, plus other folks who will never vote for McAmnesty McCain under any circumstances, whatsoever. THEY ARE OUT THERE!
    MANY OF THEM! When they know patriot Ron Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination (the power elite CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) in those GOP smoke-filled rooms at the GOP convention who really control everything at the leadership level) then, Chuck and Darrell will be our only logical choice! Ron Paul and his courageous troopers will be at the GOP convention to really make all the GOP neo-cons feel uncomfortable, along with all the McAmnesty McCain supporters (fools)..just with their presence
    and thunder.
    Thunder? Yes thunder! The Ron Paulers will show loud and clear their dissatisfaction with the big phoney McAmnesty McCain, with guerrilla battles with GOP establishment officials at the upcoming convention, just like they have at previous county and state conventions. These Ron Paulers hope to demonstrate their disagreements with phoney McAmnesty McCain, vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul more control in the GOP, in the long run. We, in the Constitution party wish them all well. Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle of the Constitution party will continue to carry the torch where Ron Paul left off. AS far as former congressman Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party is concerned,he has NOT got the LP nomination yet. He has NOT got the LP nomination all wrapped up. Many in the LP do NOT trust him.
    Barr is a “johnny-come-lately” to the LP. Barr expects to be crowned in glory! (Sounds like the LP’s version of the Constitution party’s own ‘wannabe’ Alan Keyes!) Thank God the CP did NOT nominate Keyes!
    I say “devine intervention”! The CFR republicrats are sweating! They know we in the CP are a big threat to their agenda and the Ron Paulers too, who will refuse to go away.

    -Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF
    National Veterans Coalition,
    Constitution party…www.nvets.org

  74. Red Phillips Says:

    G.E. the Founders and the “Founding” are a mixed bag. Some paleos agree with you. They see the American Founding as entirely corrupted by liberalism. (Mostly the traditionalist Catholics who think America is too hopelessly Protestant.)

    I am not on of them. Clearly, there was much liberal rhetoric. But the liberal rhetoric was not matched by the facts on the ground. This is especially true of the aristocratic and agrarian South. My beef with liberalism is not the political ideas such as separation of powers, etc. Much of that I agree with. The problem with liberalism is that it renders a traditional society completely unable to defend and preserve itself. All tradition, custom, religion etc. must be sacrificed on the altar of abstract philosophical principles. So the issue is not the relationship of church to state per se. The issue is the importance of and actual belief in Christianity. It is very hard for me to view devout Christians such as Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry as primarily liberals. They were supporters of the very thing many liberals most wanted done away with.

    BTW, Adam Smith was a skeptic but he kept it pretty toned down as you had to back then. His Theory of Moral Sentiments is a perfect example of an Enlightenment attempt to find universal moral truths without overtly resorting to God.

  75. Red Phillips Says:

    Chip, like I said, read A Worthy Company. The vast majority of Founders were orthodox (small o) Christians. This is a non-disputable fact of history. And most Americans at the time were orthodox Christians. A Christian understanding/world view was presupposed. Cherry picking examples to the contrary will never change that.

  76. Trent Hill Says:

    “Now what about Paine? The CP must surely reject him in his entirety.”

    I heart Paine. Henry too.

  77. Chip Says:

    “Cherry picking examples to the contrary will never change that.”

    And neither will making over-generalizations about a diverse group of people, and ignoring or minimizing examples to the contrary.

    I don’t dispute that a good number, very possibly a majority, of the Founding Fathers were fairly religious Christians. That doesn’t change the fact that several key founders (the pen of the Revolution, Father of the Declaration of Independence, Father of the Constitution to name a few) were not. And also, the fact that a “vast majority of Founders were orthodox (small o) Christians” does not support your assumption that they therefore opposed secular government and held your world view (as Christians are not a monolithic group).

  78. Old Whig Says:

    I think some folks are making over generalized statements about another rather diverse group. Constitution Party supporters.

    O.W.

  79. Timothy Yung Says:

    Well there is a diverse group of Chuck Baldwin supporters I am a very libertarian supporter. I am against some of the Constitution Party platforms(the anti-gambling one and the government role in regulating decency) however I am also against the pure-libertarian open borders and pro-choice view. It more important to support the best person rather than a particular party.

  80. Trent Hill Says:

    Timothy,

    I’ll echo you. I have disdain for at least 4 of the CP’s planks. But I support Chuck Baldwin.

  81. Andy Says:

    “I am against some of the Constitution Party platforms(the anti-gambling one and the government role in regulating decency) however I am also against the pure-libertarian open borders and pro-choice view.”

    Neither of which are pure libertarian views.

  82. Trent Hill Says:

    Andy,

    Yes they are. The anarchists and “radicals” are all pro-choice and open borders. Its mostly the Reformers who are pro-life and non-open-borders.

  83. Robert Says:

    Jefferson was not a diest. He was a Christian and a founder of the Virginia Bible Society. The so called “Jefferson Bible” is not historically understood. First, it was never called the “Jefferson Bible” and second, it was simply of compilation of the “red letters” of the Gospel. Jefferson’s purpose was to have a cheap mass production printing to be able to spread the news of Jesus to the indian population.

    As President, Jefferson sucessfully fought to obtain federal funds to send clergy into the wilderness to preach to indians as well. (Where is that in Art. 1, Sec. 8?)

    I have seen many of the so called anti-Chrisitian comments assocaited with Jefferson. In general, they are taken WAY out of context. Jefferson was not a Calvinist and did have some not so nice things to say about Calvinism. This is what is misunderstood and leads to the false charge of dieism.

Leave a Reply