Online poker is interstate by definition. If the federal government pulled completely out of this issue, states would have difficulty controlling it. Baldwin is on record as desiring the states to have the right to control all gaming. So, one would conclude that he’d be very likely to support legislation prohibiting interstate gaming under the guise of preserving states’ rights.

However, that’s just a supposition on my part. To verify, I looked for similar issues. Internet pornography is very similar structurally in terms of how it can be controlled at an interstate level. I checked the CP platform on the issue. It addresses the interstate issue by calling for federal legislation prohibiting online pornography.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography

“With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.”

“Is it possible that the A for Barr and the F for Baldwin has been influenced by Root’s connections within the industry? Mutual back-scratching is an old innovation, but I know for a fact it’s still practiced in Vegas.”

I wrote the guide on my own. I was not influenced by anyone at PPA or anywhere else. Root’s grade is pretty straightforward. He supports this right strongly. He’s written about it, and the article is prominently on his website. Barr is strongly with us as well.

The post above shows the results of my research on Baldwin’s position. Additionally, his campaign has not responded to my repeated inquiries on his position. All of this, combined with the hostile Constitution Party platform, combined to make the rating an easy determination.

He didn’t merely utter this. He wrote it in an article that’s on the Constitution Party website. Here are some quotes:

http://www.constitutionparty.net/news_print.php?aid=36 : “Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?” Keep in mind that he didn’t write, “Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble”. Rather, he wrote, “Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling”. That’s the key. He’s imaging (and advocating) a country where the majority collectively assert rights over individuals in the area of all gaming. So long as this is at the state level and not the federal, Baldwin is happy.

From http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin239.htm , by Baldwin: “George Barna summarized his findings by saying, “Faith makes very little difference in their [Christians] lives: believers do not train their children to think or act differently [from the world]. It’s no wonder that they [Christian children] grow up to be just as involved in gambling, excessive drinking, and any other unbiblical behavior as everyone else.”

From http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin380.htm : “Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants or criminals? Can you imagine a country that did not glorify, much less sponsor, gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and a limited federal government?”

From http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12718 : “Beyond that, our nation has become addicted, yes, even obsessed, with sports, leisure, and gambling! Sports celebrities are more than icons, they are gods! Leisure is more than a pastime, it is the greatest motivation for living. It seems that all people dream about is having the financial ability to retire. By retirement they mean living a life without responsibility, duty, or obligation. In other words, a life of total self-absorption. And since most are unwilling or even incapable of earning such a life, gambling is the preferred method of obtaining this ultimate life of irresponsibility.”

From http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/060117: In our once great America, virginity and chastity were popular virtues, and one could live to old age and never be exposed to the abominations of homosexuality and adultery. There was a time in this great country when, except for a few certain morally corrupt large cities, the most egregious gamblers hung out in bingo parlors, and anyone who even whispered his or her support for state-sponsored gambling would be run out of town on a rail.

I prefer the Institute for Justice, and the ACLU does some harm — but far, far more good.

And remember, the ACLU has defended the Right as well as the Left.

I was not inferring that Baldwinh had changed his mind at all–only telling you what he said to me about the ACLU. Perhaps his statements to me, or his written statements about the ACLU, were unclear or incomplete–but one of them is incorrect.
I will say this–Baldwin has always been a Federalist on things like Gambling and such–but Ron Paul made him PERSONALLY more libertarian.

That, coupled with Barr’s flaws, makes Baldwin viable for me.

My other question is this: is it possible that the A for Barr and the F for Baldwin has been influenced by Root’s connections within the industry? Mutual back-scratching is an old innovation, but I know for a fact it’s still practiced in Vegas.

Trent Hill is a well-known Baldwin supporter and IPR’s CP correspondent. Your comments, Steve, seemed to indicate that LIBERTARIANS were giving Baldwin a pass while crucifying Barr.

The question for Rockwellian libertarians is: Is Baldwin a potential choice? His divergences with libertarianism are many and obvious. It is acceptable for a CP candidate to be anti-gambling, so long as he doesn’t call for federal regulation. Traditionally, the LP has held its candidates to higher standards. The point of defending Baldwin is to point out that, to play devil’s advocate, there would be no difference in the way Barr or Baldwin would govern on the issue of gambling, even though at first glance it might appear otherwise. And that brings us back to the CIA, foreign policy, the Fed, etc., issues where Baldwin IS superior to Barr.

Baldwin doesnt want the Federal government to regulate gambling, and therefore deserves exactly what Barr got, an A.

Comment #2:

The CP’s argument is largely libertarian

Comment #10:

I believe Baldwin is an extreme localist on the issue of gambling,wanting it to be regulated (or unregulated) by cities and towns.

Id even be willing to bet that Baldwin himself is not against gambling.

The rest of this thread is mainly just discussion of these points. I’m just saying…

Trent – So… You’re saying he’s had a Bob-Barrian change of heart on these issues? He clearly indicated the world would be better without the ACLU or legal gambling, by encouraging his followers to “imagine” a world without them. Even the NEA, as much as I detest them — I don’t oppose their right to organize. I’d prefer to say, “Imagine a world where education is provided by the free market, and unions have no special legal privileges.” As for gambling: I imagine a world where I’m never forced to participate in gambling, and that’s the world I live in. That’s good enough for me. I prefer to imagine a world where my neighbors are free to do as they choose, so long as they do not infringe on my rights!