Chuck Baldwin officially an option for Illinois voters

The following is a press release from the Constitution Party:

Third Party Ballot Access Assured In Illinois

Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin Officially An Option For Voters

Grand Rapids, MI (July 1, 2008) The Constitution Party, the largest and fastest- growing party in the country based on voter registration (Ballot Access News) announced its latest victory in securing ballot access for its popular presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.(www.Baldwin08.com)

“Illinois has just been added to a growing roster of states in which voters will get to make a real choice this November,” noted Constitution Party National Chairman Jim Clymer.

“We’re seeing voters demanding more options. Being told they can only vote for the Republican or Democrat in this race is like telling consumers they can only order Pepsi, not Coke. The two dominant parties have morphed into one and this is beginning to chafe the electorate”, Clymer added, noting: “Chuck Baldwin is on course to shake up the political status quo in November. While voters are seeing that Obama and McCain are virtually indistinguishable on the issues, they’re catching onto Baldwin in a big way”.

Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, a Pensacola, Florida minister, talk show host , author and political columnist, along with running mate Tennessee attorney Darrell Castle are expected to be on the ballot in many states garnering enough electoral votes to upset the election resulting in a win.

27 Responses to “Chuck Baldwin officially an option for Illinois voters”

  1. Ben Miller Says:

    Wow! I am suprised no one contested the Constitution Party’s signatures in Illinois since they did not collect 25,000.

  2. Freelancer Says:

    Amazing. Perhaps no one in the GOP was keeping track of the CP.

  3. Deran Says:

    Or, Illinois is Obama’s home state, and he is so far ahead of McCain that the GOP has bigger worries. Like, retaining a presence in the Congress!

  4. Richard Winger Says:

    The Republican Party has never challenged any minor party presidential candidate’s ballot access. For other office, yes, but not president.

    Democratic Party has done so in 1936, 1948, 1976, 1980, 2004, but not yet so far for president in 2008.

  5. John Lowell Says:

    One would think that Baldwin would be inclined to benefit from Barr’s refusal to deny that he signed a check in the 1980s paying for an abortion for his wife. Pro-lifers uncomfortable with the pro-murder stance of Nader and Obama and the stem-cell curiosites of John McCain and that otherwise might have considered Barr ought not until Barr is prepared to issue a denial it seem to me. That’s a pretty decent chunk of voters, by Gallup’s count as many as 13% of all voters, in fact. Baldwin has an opening here and would be silly not to draw distinctions at this point.

  6. attman Says:

    Nationwide, the GOP is obviously a lot more concerned with Barr - this Baldwin guy isn’t even on the radar screen.

    Anyways, why does the CP keep repeating the “largest third party” claim? Does anyone really take the underlying “evidence” for that seriously?

  7. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Harray, more choices, not less….............

  8. GoNolzOhio Says:

    John,

    pro-murder? Get off it, man. No one cares about an abortion from the ‘80’s and who paid for it. They don’t even care about the living Americans who are dying in Iraq as we speak. They care about $4/gallon gas. Sorry, thats the way it is.

    What you call “stem-cell curiosities” I call science. Watch the effects of Parkinson’s up close and personal, and you might get a different opinion.

    Then again, you might like living in the Dark Ages when Christianity ruled the world. Thank heavens were done with that crap…I hope.

  9. Colt Peanut Says:

    The Illinois Republicans were caught in 1998 using Secretary of State employees on the Libertarian challenge. And in 2002 Republican State Treasurer employees worked on the Libertarian challenge. In 2004, Speaker of the State House and State Party Chair Michael Madigan’s employees were working on the Nader challenge. Those claims made national network news at the time. This was also recently documented in an FEC complaint Nader filed last week(? its on BallotAccessNews) charging that the Democratic Party violated FEC rules while throwing Nader off of ballots in 2004.

    In fact, I believe Nader filed that FEC complaint the same day as he turned in his sigs in Illinois. I doubt the timing was a coincidence and suspect a copy was faxed to a certain Michael Madigan. Nader was smart enough to follow the money, or lack of money in some cases. Amazing how they can pay for all those challenges without some of it showing up on any FEC reports.

    In other words, the Rs and Ds have been taught a lesson in Illinois by a very few good aggressive activists who knew what they were doing. Attack them right back. It can be almost as hard for the Rs and Ds to cross every t and dot every i trying to kick people off the ballot, as it is for other candidates to protect their ts and is.

    While the Republicans haven’t challenged a Presidential candidate in Illinois, that doesn’t mean they haven’t seriously considered it. In 2004, the Republicans thought Jack Ryan versus Barack Obama was going to be very close and Ryan supporters did seek volunteers for a challenge by email. They didn’t want the LP on the ballot in 2004 and they would have had to kick the Pres. off to keep the LP Senate candidate off. Luckily a good aggressive activist was around. The Republicans had their own problems in 2004 getting Bush on the ballot and switching from Jack Ryan to Alan Keyes.another

    This year, mainly because another one of those good activists is still involved and they had plenty of sigs, they weren’t going to challenge Nader or Barr. The Greens are already on, so having Nader on also serves the Democrats by splitting the Green vote ensuring neither of them will get 5%. And the Rs might as well let the CP stay on to ensure Barr doesn’t get 5% either. Although Baldwin will probably beat Barr in Illinois since the Illinois LP is inept and the CP is more active, so Barr will ensure Baldwin doesn’t get 5%. 5% is important because it can establish an “other” party to some degree. But I digress.

  10. John Lowell Says:

    Gonolzohio,

    Track me down did you, big guy? Sober today?

    A little news for you, ace: I’m interested in an abortion from the eighties and there are just tons of other pro-lifers that will be to. Call me the Catholic Simon Weisenthal if you’d like. Perhaps then you’d have something of the flavor of things. God doesn’t forget these little ones, Gonolaohio, and I don’t either? And while you’re on the subject of not caring, please get the hardiest grasp on how little I care about what you call science. I do care, however, about your noxious religion hating. Don’t ever do that again in my presence, slug, or I’ll simply take you to the cleaners. Dig?

  11. JT Says:

    Lowell: “Don’t ever do that again in my presence, slug, or I’ll simply take you to the cleaners. Dig?”

    Why do you feel the need to threaten people for criticizing a belief of yours? That’s stupid—especially online. You’re not going to do shit about anything, so stop trying to act tough by intimidating people who don’t share your superstitions.

  12. GoNolzOhio Says:

    John,

    Allright, I’ll just ask you point blank: You really don’t think that whether or not Barr paid for an abortion in the 1980’s matters to the average voter, do you? I mean, my dad is a born-again christian and while he might not vote for a pro-choice candidate, he said this issue you bring up would be irrelevant to him. What’s his position now is what would matter to my dad. That seems sensible to me.

  13. Colin Young Says:

    Well, if the CP’s anemic showing at petitioning in IL is any indication, I wouldn’t count on a tidal wave of support for Baldwin in the state. I would be very suprised if any of the third party candidates (Nader included) can compete with Cynthia McKinney in the state, follwing up on Rich Whitney’s 10% of the vote for Gov in 2006 and the Chicago GP convention next week, especially if Whitney ends up on the Green ticket, which is as likely as anything at this point.

    My guess is that IL will be one of the bright spots for Greens in ‘08’, especially with all of the downticket races the GP is running this year.

  14. Ferenc Says:

    John, be nice with people who are not agree with you on abortion.
    I’m against abortion, but today thanks for the dem. and rep. more than 50% of Americans are kind of everybodies own business, period. If any candidates wants to outlaw abortion is a loser. What I like to see, no goverment money for any organisation that has anything to do with this subject. I like to outlaw the so called partial birth abortion, except when the mother life is in danger, and I really like to change our adaption policy.
    If you give up your child for adaption, you loose every right as a mother or father. About Mr. Barr, remember, first he was a democrat, than he become a republican, than he become a libertarian. No thanks.
    I think we all independent and third party members and sympathisers, keep our eyes on every congressmen and senator who vote against the most important issues of today. Illegal immigration, our oil problem, the UN, United Nation,( I called, Nations United Against America ) and others.
    KIck this people out of Washington.

    We can ask GOD for help, but first we Americans must help our self.
    GOD BLESS

  15. John Lowell Says:

    JT,

    How did you put it, JT? You had my e-mail address and you were going to distribute it to whomever you wished and that, to quote you, “you’ll not only sit still for it, but you’ll like it”. Isn’t that what you said? And now you’re here to tell me that I’m not going to “do shit about anything”. I see.

  16. John Lowell Says:

    Gonolzohio,

    A significant improvement in tone, gonolzohio. That’s good, very good.

    Well, with all respect to your dad, we simply don’t form judgements about how people might act or feel by projecting out on them the opinions of one individual, eh? Much better to rely on the data of sociology, or, in this case, political science. And the science isn’t on your dad’s side. We’ve already looked at that. And additionally, the question the check raises is as much the fact of blatant hypocricy as it is the possible formal moral complicity in an act of murder anyway. Barr, when he is alleged to have signed this check to pay for this abortion, was an acknowledged leader in the House on pro-life questions. So, enlarged, the question becomes is Barr a hypocrit in addition to being complicit in an evil act? If your dad isn’t concerned, as I suspect most pro-lifers will be, with the possibility of voting for an accomplice to murder alone, perhaps he will be if he were to think of it in terms of being bilked. I mean if you’re not 100% pro-life perhaps you’re an outraged consummer.

  17. GREEN DAD Says:

    I know this has nothing to do with the article and so I beg your forgivness. Today We are sending a message by donating to Bob Barr. Won’t you join us?
    This is our first money bomb. So far at 7:35 pm we have raised today $30,000 Please contribute if only $25 for a good cause at http://www.bobbarr2008.com

  18. Cody Quirk Says:

    Peroutka wasn’t on there in 2004. Baldwin will do better.

  19. C B Says:

    Colin Young Says:

    July 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
    Well, if the CP’s anemic showing at petitioning in IL is any indication, I wouldn’t count on a tidal wave of support for Baldwin in the state.

    I would not count CP out in illinois,votes are what counts and we managed 20,000 write-in votes for gov in 2006,the most in illinois history.we can produce when needed

  20. Freelancer Says:

    Oh, yeah. Didn’t the CP Governor candidate get like 19,000+ write-in votes?

  21. GREEN DAD Says:

    John Lowell still beating a dead horse. John’s an abortion

  22. Stefan Says:

    John Lowell: I have read that Barr’s ex-wife was very sick (had cancer or something like that) and was very afraid of her life and the pregnancy, so she asked her husband for an abortion and he agreed. Now we do not know the exact circumstances, but it could very well have been that if she continued with the pregnancy, she could have lost her life (and the baby). As a pro-life person, I can certainly understand such a situation. Barr effectively decided for pro-life, e.g. the life of his now (ex) wife, or do you think it would have been better to risk her dying?

  23. Richard Winger Says:

    Colt Peanut has lots of good information in his comment. However, he (or she??) talked about splitting the minor party/independent vote in Illinois so that no one is likely to get 5%. But it is immaterial to Nader whether he gets 5% (for ballot access purposes in Illinois) because he is an independent, not the nominee of a minor party. And even for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, getting 5% for either president or US Senator is somewhat valuable, but not as valuable as one might think. If either the Libertarian or Constitution Parties got 5% for either president or US Senator, that would get them ballot status in 2010 but only for statewide office, not district and county offices.

    Meanwhile, since the Greens got over 5% for Governor in 2006, they are safely on the ballot for all offices (statewide, district and county) not only in 2008, but 2010 as well.

    As to the small number of signatures the Constitution Party got in Illinois this year, they would have had a lot more, but most of their signatures were collected on forms that had the wrong date of the election. So all that was wasted effort. They threw those signatures away and started over.

    As to Nader’s complaint against the Democratic National Committee for failing to report its expenditures in 2004 (their expenditures to keep him off ballots), Nader filed that complaint with the FEC on May 30, but he didn’t publicize it until almost a month later. He wanted to make sure the FEC staff acknowledged that his complaint was correct as to form, etc., before he trumpeted it.

  24. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    The only thing wrong with what you report of the facts in the Barr abortion situation, Stefan, is all of it. The former Mrs. Barr, in an affidavit at the time of the Barr’s divorce, when speaking of the reasons for the abortion, never spoke of health concerns as definitely influencing her decision to abort. Rather, she spoke of health concerns only in the conditional, that there “might” - not would - have been risk to her health had she not had the abortion. So before we get out the crying towel, lets get the facts straight: The reports of the presence of some kind of life-threatening disease as being decisive in Mrs. Barr’s decision to abort, by her own statement, would seem patently false, probably the product of some spin mechanism in Barr’s campaign apparatus. In any case - and this is quite important, Stefan - the question I raised had to do with whether Barr signed a check paying for the abortion, not whether Mrs. Barr was justified by health reasons in having it. Barr has always maintained - and he did so in an affidavit of his own - that he never “encouraged” the abortion. Yet we have an abortion, the wife’s statement that Barr paid for the abortion, and reports of the existence of a check bearing Barr’s signature paying for it. And of greatest concern is why it is that Barr can’t or won’t deal with the question of the check forthrightly. Larry King asked him about the check on television in 1999, and Barr was completely unresponsive. The existence of a check with Barr’s signature on it is critical, Stefan, because it would establish that Barr did, in fact, pay for the abortion and at a time that he was holding himself out as “pro-life”. In the terminology of moral theology, it makes him “formally complict morally” in an evil act. It also makes him a 24 carat phony. The man’s running for president, not ward leader, Stefan. He has a chance of influencing the outcome of the election decisively. The public is entitled to know if he misrepresented himself as to his posture regarding abortion in the 1980s, and that certainly every bit as much as it was regarding Bill Clinton’s draft situation or the possibilty of George Bush’s having received favored treatment by the Air Force.

  25. Colt Peanut Says:

    Thanks for the clarifications Richard. Nader wouldn’t benefit from getting 5% other than having more standing to further challenge Illinois’ laws. The Greens getting 5% this year for Pres. would qualify them for 2012 statewide only ballot positions if they do not get 5% for Gov in 2010, so they would stand to gain like the LP and CP and the other one?

    A suggestion for the lawsuits being filed in Illinois on the 5,000 versus 5%. What if an independent candidate won? The law says they would still need 5% to run again in two years, while the Rs and Ds would need much less. I’ve not seen that angle presented, and like usual, there is no justification for it.

    An incumbent independent US Congress Representative could have to get over 10,000 sigs in 90 days to run again, while his R and D opponents would need about an 1/8 of that amount. That was one point Lee v Keith missed.

    I’m all for keeping ballots from being cluttered with incumbents, but not like that.

    The Constitution Party and Libertarian Party both had affiliated write-in candidates in 2006. Stufflebeam mopped the floor with the LPs effort after the LP Convention voted not try to run a candidate and their state committee somehow endorsed a write-in.

    Whitney’s success will not translate for their Presidential candidate in 2008. Topinka versus Blagojevich created the best opportunity third parties have had to get votes and ballot access in Illinois for at least 30 years. The Greens were able to take advantage of that. The LP dropped the ball and the CP wasn’t ready yet.

    With all of them on the ballot it will be very interesting to see how it turns out. State bragging rights are up for grabs.

  26. Stefan Says:

    John,
    do you believe all the media spin? You know I have seen it being reported that it was his ex girlfriend (e.g. not ex-wife), which is a lie, and that he “encouraged” it, while one cannot see any evidence of this, if in fact it really happened. If it happened, I think you are splitting hairs with wordplay ” might” and “”would”. “Might” does indicate a possibility. DO you really want to speculate about an issue Barr has probably forgotten about the - details - and/or if he remembers everything, would understandably not want to talk about a very deep personal issue where there is perhaps a lot of deep personal feelings. One can speculate about various possibilities, that his wife did not disclose that it was an abortion (e.g. a health check etc.), that she told him there might be a possibility that she could die and he has no way of verifying such an issue and in such a situation you still trust your spouse, his ex-wife
    also felt very unsure about the affect on her health etc. These are all possibilities. For one, I would leave it between God and him and his ex-wife.
    I do respect people’s privacy, especially with an intense personal issue. Also, it happened in the 1980’s. Would you remember every detail of what happened 20,30 years ago? Normally one remembers the good experiences and forget the bad/negative experiences.

    We all know his voting record is not as nearly perfect as Dr. Paul’s, but consider this: Barr approved the Iraq invasion under the WMD and immediate threat issue. Four months after the invasion, as soon as it became clear no WMD have been found, he turned against the war.. FYI: He was against the immoral Vietnam war. Now you have “christian leaders” like Pat Robertson endorsing pro-abortion Giuliani, you have christian family leaders like Dr. James DObson - a respected man - who is for the Iraq war, still all these years, apparently rejectiont he christian just war theory, or is he simply a fool? Think about all the death and destruction, all the CHristians that had to fled Iraq etc. etc. One can make a statement that these two men as hypocrats. I am not even talking about
    John Hagee, who propogate attacking Iran and write a book about “Jesus not coming to earth to be the Messiah”! This is an absolute blasphemy. I really do not know how such a person can call himself a “christian”. That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, our saviour is the very basis of the Christian belief. There can be a difference on many other issues (like women as preachers for instance), but this is a crucial issue, the essence of CHristianity. And then you have the Rev. Billy Graham endorsing a warmonger, womanizer, unethical, lier, flip-flopper John McCain! I mean what is wrong here….

  27. John Lowell Says:

    Stefan,

    Lets take your remarks one at a time.

    “do you believe all the media spin? You know I have seen it being reported that it was his ex girlfriend (e.g. not ex-wife), which is a lie, and that he “encouraged” it, while one cannot see any evidence of this, if in fact it really happened.”

    Its precisely “media spin” that I wish to avoid, Stefan. I have been interested solely in matters of objective truth: Did Barr sign a check paying for abortion his ex-wife is said to have had, period.

    “If it happened, I think you are splitting hairs with wordplay ” might” and “”would”. “Might” does indicate a possibility.”

    Again, I am interested in matters of fact: Was the former Mrs. Barr at death’s door and would she have been pushed through it without the abortion, or was she simply casting about for a rationale to mitigate the moral impact of what she’d already decided to do. The facts would not seem to indicate that Mrs. Barr would have died had she not had the abortion, Stefan.

    “DO you really want to speculate about an issue Barr has probably forgotten about the - details - and/or if he remembers everything, would understandably not want to talk about a very deep personal issue where there is perhaps a lot of deep personal feelings.”

    Again, we’re working from facts, not speculation, Stefan, and I really don’t think Barr has forgotten about anything. It is clear in extemis that he doesn’t want to talk about it, however.

    “For one, I would leave it between God and him and his ex-wife.”

    Oh, there can be no question that, ultimately, the matter will come down to being between Barr and God, and Barr’s ex-wife and God. But why leave out the one party that always had the very most intense interest in the outcome, the little one that was dispatched? That little innocent already knows what it is that God thinks of the matter, of Barr and his ex-wife, doesn’t he, Stefan?

    “I do respect people’s privacy, especially with an intense personal issue.”

    Most commendable, Stefan, but the man’s running for President of the United States. The American people have a right to know if they’re electing an out-and-out phony.

    “Also, it happened in the 1980’s. Would you remember every detail of what happened 20,30 years ago? Normally one remembers the good experiences and forget the bad/negative experiences.”

    Yup, I would have remembered, particularly something this consequential.

    “Now you have “christian leaders” like Pat Robertson endorsing pro-abortion Giuliani, you have christian family leaders like Dr. James DObson - a respected man - who is for the Iraq war, still all these years, apparently rejectiont he christian just war theory, or is he simply a fool? Think about all the death and destruction, all the CHristians that had to fled Iraq etc. etc. One can make a statement that these two men as hypocrats. I am not even talking about John Hagee, who propogate attacking Iran and write a book about “Jesus not coming to earth to be the Messiah”! This is an absolute blasphemy. I really do not know how such a person can call himself a “christian”. That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, our saviour is the very basis of the Christian belief. There can be a difference on many other issues (like women as preachers for instance), but this is a crucial issue, the essence of CHristianity. And then you have the Rev. Billy Graham endorsing a warmonger, womanizer, unethical, lier, flip-flopper John McCain! I mean what is wrong here….”

    Not sure how this item gets inserted into the Barr abortion question, Stefan, but you’ll most certainly not get an argument from me about the content. Those you describe here are some of the leadership of what I feel comfortable in describing as a kind of latter day Reichs Church. Not unlike most of their opposite numbers in the mainline Protestant churches, these impostors have so ideologized the Christian faith as to make it unrecognizable.

Leave a Reply