Third Party Watch reports potential “upheaval” within the Baldwin campaign. Our sources indicate that the “upheaval” consists of one individual — Tyler Simms — a Ron Paul grassroots organizer who has allegedly been upset with the alleged “micromanagement” of and “unilateral decisions” made by Baldwin campaign manager Anita Andrews.
According to Third Party Watch, Simms alleges:
People who signed up to volunteer were sent messages to a conference call last night where the new campaign manager Anita Andrews spoke. Chuck came on board and let everyone know he was fully supporting Anita and great things are happening. We were horrified to hear her say that this campaign will not be associating with Ron Paul, nor continuing the revolution, but that Chuck will be his own candidate, and they will be having a different campaign. It appears that this person Anita has taken over the Chuck Baldwin campaign and is hostile to spreading Ron Paul’s message.
A source inside the Baldwin campaign who was on the conference call says that Rev. Baldwin clearly stated his desire to be associated with Ron Paul. Ms. Andrews allegedly said that the campaign needed to reach out to Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson supporters as well.
Mr. Simms may have also been upset over the removal of the Paulesque donation counter from the Baldwin Web site. According to another source, this was done because the campaign was unhappy with the fundraising results (approximately $40,000) thus far.
Simms has quit the campaign and allegedly tried to get others to quit as well. However, our source says no one has followed him — not even fellow Ron Paul grassroots organizer Jeremiah Black, whom Simms recruited to the Baldwin cause.
Baldwin supporter Gary Odom had this to say in an e-mail to IPR:
A campaign without a little controversy is hardly a campaign at all. People who work in campaigns have the passion of being in the arena* and sometimes they disagree about things, and when they do, there can be sparks. Such things may alarm some “cold and timid souls” who shirk from battle, controversy or argument, but they are truly part of the nature of this business and go on in all campaigns. Whether this type of dynamic is occuring within the Baldwin campaign as it moves quickly toward viability, who can say?
It would certainly be the unusual campaign that is free from differences of opinion, between able and well-motivated people, as to what is the best course to be followed for the campaign. Often, talented people will have different views about how best to approach the same objective and generally only one approach can prevail. For it to be otherwise would certainly only breed chaos. The best approach is often never really known and can only be speculated upon and debated long after the event is history.
Chuck Baldwin’s positions remain the same. His friendship and support for the aims of Ron Paul is in no way diminished. He is now a candidate in his own right and he must stand on his own. But let there be no mistake, the Ron Paul Revolution has no better friend than Chuck Baldwin.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Trent Hill // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
An eloquent and truthful statement from Mr. Odom.
2 inDglass // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Thank you for doing this report. The TPW hit piece really ticked me off!
3 G.E. // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I don’t think TPW’s piece was a “hit piece” — the author of the article seemed skeptical of the “upheaval,” and the title did have a question mark in it.
4 G.E. // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:36 pm
But thanks for the thanks, nonetheless.
5 inDglass // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I feel the TPW report was based on speculation and that the Barr supporters over there used it to show their competition in a negative fashion. IPR obviously did a little more research and put a more credible report together.
6 bsharitt // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:43 pm
While he still wants to draw in the Ron Paul supporters, it only makes sense for Baldwin to differentiate himself from Paul. After all, Paul didn’t even win the Republican primary, so he probably wants to expand beyond this. Also, trying to get Huckabee and Thompson supporters isn’t such a bad idea. They make up the really conservative wing of the Republican party, and are not always, by definition, war mongering neocons, and would probably prefer Baldwin to McCain if they knew enough about Baldwin.
7 G.E. // Jun 6, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I disagree, bsharitt. Baldwin isn’t in this to win the presidency. If he could get even 1/2 of Ron Paul’s supporters, that would more than double the best CP effort ever. But in attracting Huckabeans and Thompsonites, he will, at best, make a run at 1/10 of the Paul supporters (i.e. traditional CP voters) and only a few “disgruntled conservatives.” Baldwin’s best chances for 500,000+ votes is to ride Ron Pauls coattails and deviate as little as possible.
8 Trent Hill // Jun 6, 2008 at 8:11 pm
GE,
I dont totally agree. Baldwin should deviate substantially on Immigration, while toeing the line otherwise. The one thing conservatives depise McCain for more than anytihng in the Amnesty Bill. If Baldwin makes himself the Border-Hawk, he has a certain attraction to all of those people.
9 G.E. // Jun 6, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Yes, and lose others (namely me), but I’m expendable!
10 SovereignMN // Jun 6, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The TPW ‘article’ was a hit piece without a doubt. Why didn’t I hear of this site sooner? As always, I’m the last to know.
11 G.E. // Jun 6, 2008 at 8:44 pm
One reason is that until Stephen Gordon reassumed the reins at TPW, mention of IPR was banned. They posted an article under Austin Cassidy’s name and he couldn’t even post a comment saying it wasn’t him!
Luckily, Gordon’s back in charge and things are a little more on the up and up there now. But the world’s big enough for both sites, especially when there are some not-quite-arms-length connections between TPW, its editors, its ownership, and the Barr campaign.
12 Trent Hill // Jun 6, 2008 at 9:11 pm
GE,we were linked to by the Nashville Post–pretty cool.
13 inDglass // Jun 6, 2008 at 9:29 pm
TPW is listed on the Bob Barr site under “Bloggers for Barr.”
14 harveywards // Jun 7, 2008 at 11:46 pm
This proves that cool heads do prevail. I now know which news sourse to rely on for fair coverage. I just scratched two off my list.
I am toughening up for more political misinformation though.
God has guided me to this campaign, no man will change that.
15 tsims // Jun 8, 2008 at 11:32 am
hey trent i thought you agree to retract this and remove…why is this still here.
16 G.E. // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Mr. Sims - Trent did not write the story, I did. There’s nothing to retract. If you’d like to have your side of the story known, send me an email and I will print it.
17 tsims // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:31 pm
jason,
Who is 3rd party watch?
get the picture?
Tyler
18 tsims // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Do you know someone over there and have started a story at both places?
19 G.E. // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:40 pm
This story was posted in response to the Third Party Watch story. The parts I assume you find objectionable (the long text quote) is directly from TPW.
20 tsims // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:47 pm
No..everything in your article is hear say and objectionable. Likewise on the TPW one, that has historic references from ronpaulforums on anita involved from many months ago.
This definitely is marking you both off the list of credible online news sources if you cant research this and find this out.
You make huge leaps in your post, it is very scary, you never being a first person in the campaign, or directly involved in the real issues, you know nothing about. I would hope you would want to close this out and not get involved so that others can move on at this time.
This helps no one to stir up yellow postings, similar to yellow journalism.
21 G.E. // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I make no leaps. I asked Chuck Baldwin campaign workers, they answered questions, I reported. That’s how it works.
22 G.E. // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Oh wait… Now I see that you’re alleging that I planted the story at TPW. Wow. Absurd.
23 tsims // Jun 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm
So you saw a controversy, asked questions, and wrote up this..hmm…
What did jeremiah say when you talked to him?
I know you never contacted me.
Trent knows how to do that by the way and i know he posts on here so would be very easy to do.
24 G.E. // Jun 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I don’t Jeremiah or you. I asked the people I knew within the campaign. You’re right — I should have asked you.
25 jeremiahblack // Jun 9, 2008 at 9:26 am
Hello all. This is Jeremiah Black who is named in the above article. I would like to state, on the public record, that at no time, and in no way has Mr. Simms attempted to get me to quit the Balwin Campaign or lure me away to any competing causes or candidates. I have been a Constituion Party fan since Howard Phillips, and will continue to be one. If anything, it was Mr. Simms who recruited me to the Ron Paul campaign. And Tyler Simms and I did great work together for Ron Paul, and hopefully we will continue to work together for Baldwin to the fullest of our respective abilities. Although I am a grassroots media director, I personally like to stay out of a lot of the day to day “politics” of political campaigns, but if there is a fly in the ointment of the Balwin campaign, it certainly isn’t Mr. Simms. It was great working with him for Dr. Paul, it will be great working with him for Chuck Baldwin in whatever capacities we are able.
Baldwin and the Constitution Party 2008!
- Jeremiah Black, NY, NY
26 G.E. // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:27 am
Thank you for offering your side of the story, Mr. Black. We did not state the story as fact, only reporting what our source said.
Leave a Comment