Oregon CP nominates Chuck Baldwin & other candidates

On Saturday, June 7th, at their statewide nominating convention, the Constitution Party of Oregon (CPO) nominated the following slate of candidates:

U.S. President - Chuck Baldwin
U.S. Vice-President - Daryl Castle
U.S. Senate - Dave Brownlow
U.S House District 1 - Scott Semrau
U.S House District 2 - Rick Hake
U.S House District 3 - Michael Marsh
U.S House District 4 - Jaynee Germond
U.S House District 5- Doug Patterson
Oregon State Treasurer - Bob Ekstrom

CPO Chairman Jack Brown Jr.:


“Oregonians will be facing an electoral crisis this November. While the rhetoric and sound bites between the Republicans and Democrats will be honed to appease their various voting blocks, there will be virtually no discernable policy differences between the candidates of either party.”

One candidate will argue that we need more federal dollars for health care, highways, farms, foreign aid, foreign interventions etc. - while the “other” candidate may argue that we need a little less. But, we can be sure that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will argue that the very premise of our welfare/warfare state is unconstitutional and should be dismantled.

This leaves Oregonians in the unconscionable position of being forced to choose between candidates who have stated clearly that they have no intention of honoring their oaths to defend the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions. A simple coin toss may prove a more effective means of choosing between the “two” parties.”

18 Responses to “Oregon CP nominates Chuck Baldwin & other candidates”

  1. Freelancer Says:

    Ya know… they should consider finding someone for Attorney General. There is only one candidate running. Just a thought.

  2. Joseph Cornwell Says:

    You know, that’s a funny story. Both the Constitution Party of Oregon and the Libertarian Party of Oregon were talking to the same Constitution minded attorney, who both parties thought was interesting in running. Who knew?

  3. Ronald Monroe Says:

    Congratulations to Oregon Constitution Party for putting nine candidates on there ballot for 2008. We in Michigan applaud there efforts to give the voters in there state the right to vote for more then the two parties that control our political system.

  4. Mrs. Brownlo9w Says:

    New candidate runs to Smith’s right…sort of

    http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/06/new_candidate_runs_to_smiths_r.html

  5. Doremus Jessup Says:

    Does this mean that the Oregon CP has RE-AFFILIATED? I thought they broke away from the national CP over the pro-Life / Nevada party thing.

    And where is Mary Starrett on this list of candidates? She was an excellent candidate for governor. Can’t find a spot for her this year?

    PS: A Technicality, but they’ll get you on technicalities: Isn’t Mr. Castle’s first name is spelled “Darrell”? I hope the CPO gets this right on their paperwork.

  6. Prolifer Says:

    Yes, Oregon disaffiliated from the national CP after the pro-life compromise, in which the national CP saw fit to continue the affiliation of a pro-baby murder state party.

    So I don’t know why they would put on their ballot a man who voted to disaffiliate the pro-abort party, but has since been whitewashing the compromise (Dr. Baldwin) and another man that voted to KEEP the pro-abort party in the CP fold (Mr. Castle). Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction….

  7. Don Hopkins Says:

    Doesn’t matter how you spell his name—-the Baldwin/Castle ticket will get nowhere on the Oregon ballot, so its a non-issue. The CP still doesn’t get it do they Prolifer. The “life” of a potentially great 3rd party went down the tube with the Tampa/Nevada vote.

  8. Prolifer Says:

    Don,

    Nope, they don’t get it. The life of the party went down the tube, just like the babies they consigned to the suction machines.

  9. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yes, Oregon disaffiliated from the national CP after the pro-life compromise, in which the national CP saw fit to continue the affiliation of a pro-baby murder state party.

    =Take away the newspeak and it goes like this:

    ...disaffiliated from the national CP after a theocratic minority tried to kick out a state party which coincidently had Mormons as their leaders.

    So I don’t know why they would put on their ballot a man who voted to disaffiliate the pro-abort party,

    = Obviously they finally saw that it wasn’t about abortion at all, just bigotry, pure religious bigotry.

    but has since been whitewashing the compromise (Dr. Baldwin) and another man that voted to KEEP the pro-abort party in the CP fold (Mr. Castle). Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction….

    = And the truth about the goal of kicking out the IAP has set the OCP free.

  10. Cody Quirk Says:

    Doesn’t matter how you spell his name—-the Baldwin/Castle ticket will get nowhere on the Oregon ballot, so its a non-issue. The CP still doesn’t get it do they Prolifer. The “life” of a potentially great 3rd party went down the tube with the Tampa/Nevada vote.

    = Yeah, I guess the continuing growth of the Party, the election of 3 IAP’ers in 2006, and two CP’ers to local office last year, add to that with Chuck on the ballot in Hawaii, I guess you can say that, ever since we decided to keep Mormons in the Party.

    (sarcasm off).

  11. Cody Quirk Says:

    Nope, they don’t get it. The life of the party went down the tube, just like the babies they consigned to the suction machines.

    = Wow, how pathedic to frame your pro-choice crimes on us.

    Thanks to simpletons like you that refuse to compromise, especially in the South Dakota state government, there are more babies going down the suction machines thanks to your efforts of rejecting any stepping stone or leg up on stopping abortion.

    How can you sleep easy?

  12. Prolifer Says:

    Going good, hey? How many states is the CP going to have ballot access in this election?

    As far as your religious bigotry, get over it. The issue was pro-life. Just because your Mormon church says it’s OK to kill babies in certain circumstances and people disagreed with it, doesn’t make them bigots. But I guess the truth is hard for you to handle, so the constant charge of “religious bigotry” is the best you can do every time you are confronted with the uncomfortable truth.

  13. Cody Quirk Says:

    Going good, hey? How many states is the CP going to have ballot access in this election?

    = More then Peroutka had.

    As far as your religious bigotry, get over it.

    = Why can’t you get over the fact that the CP will not be exclusive as to who it welcomes in it’s membership and not be totalitarianistic and unconstitutional in controlling the state parties? In fact, why are people like you still bleating about Tampa after 2 years?

    The issue was pro-life.

    = WRONG. If it was about life, then the LDS Church and its beliefs wouldn’t be the focus, or even brought up on TAV and other groups you inhabit.

    Just because your Mormon church says it’s OK to kill babies in certain circumstances

    = Like to save the mother’s life for one.

    and people disagreed with it, doesn’t make them bigots.

    = But kicking out a state party over the simple ‘personal opinions’ of its former Chairman seems to smack of a lack of rationality and logic. You guys just needed a excuse to try to start purging Mormons and others out of the CP, so you set your sights on Chris Hansen.
    Its also funny that it wasn’t the first time the IAP was targeted for explusion.

    But I guess the truth is hard for you to handle, so the constant charge of “religious bigotry” is the best you can do every time you are confronted with the uncomfortable truth.

    = Need I bring up the overwhelming evidence for my argument? As I have done time and again here?

    I think Reed’s article here should do…

    http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm

  14. Prolifer Says:

    = Like to save the mother’s life for one. [Cody Quirk]

    Hmm…. what are the other reasons for which your church says it is OK to cut off the arms and legs of babies, and crush their skulls?

  15. Cody Quirk Says:

    Hmm…. what are the other reasons for which your church says it is OK to cut off the arms and legs of babies, and crush their skulls?

    = Funny how the Church is anti partial birth abortion.

    http://www.kaisernetwork.org/reports/1997/04/a970414.4.html

    Hmmmmm.

  16. Prolifer Says:

    So, the best answer you can give is that the church is anti-partial birth abortion? Are there any other instances other than “Like to save the mother’s life for one” that your Mormon church allows babies to have their arms and legs cut off? Why can’t you give a straight answer? Makes me wonder what other exceptions your church allows for, but you don’t want to say so.

    Is this an accurate portrayal of your church’s position on cutting off the arms and legs of babies and crushing their skulls?

    “The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother.”

    Can you give a straight answer? Does your church say it is OK to kill a child for the sins/crimes of his father (rape), or if the child is handicapped?

  17. Cody Quirk Says:

    So, the best answer you can give is that the church is anti-partial birth abortion?

    = The type of abortion you were discribing was partial birth abortion, and No, there’s more to it.

    It doesn’t favor abortion, period, unless it IS necessary, which in over 95% of cases, it is not.

    “For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.”

    =From Elder Dallin H. Oaks

    There’s also these articles of interest…

    http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c79b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

    http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=dfae535cedb1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

    In fact the LDS Church also has its own Family Services that serves as a excellent abortion alternative and deals with child adoption.

    http://www.providentliving.org/ses/birthmother/wecanhelp/0,12266,2181-1,00.html

    Your lack of intelligence on the LDS Church’s record of life is deeply disturbing.

    Are there any other instances other than “Like to save the mother’s life for one” that your Mormon church allows babies to have their arms and legs cut off?

    = The above listed are several samples that just killed your argument.

    Why can’t you give a straight answer? Makes me wonder what other exceptions your church allows for, but you don’t want to say so.

    = Why can’t you admit that your kind have played a part in continuing legal abortion in America, thanks to your ignorance and hate.

    Is this an accurate portrayal of your church’s position on cutting off the arms and legs of babies and crushing their skulls?

    = Again the Church does not favor partial birth abortion. Your portrayal is nothing but a sick fantasy of yours.

    “The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother.”

    Can you give a straight answer? Does your church say it is OK to kill a child for the sins/crimes of his father (rape), or if the child is handicapped?

    = NO, the matter is left to the women’s Bishop AND God Himself to decide that in each case. The Church does NOT automatically call for abortion in cases of rape/incest or for the mother’s life.

    BTW, thank you for showing here that the Tampa matter was all about the LDS Church and not Chris Hansen, Your rabid bias has also killed your argument against the IAP.

    And FYI, Utah suceeded in outlawing abortion, especially 3rd trimester abortion, in the early 90’s until the US Supreme court struck it down. Are you sure LDS are not Pro-Life?

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    Anything else to add?

Leave a Reply