contact.ipr@gmail.com


← →

More on Bloomberg-Paul vs. Baldwin-Castle

August 21st, 2008 · 12 Comments

FWIW: A highly placed anonymous source confirms Richard Winger’s contention that the Independent Greens will replace the unlikely Michael Bloomberg / Ron Paul ticket with the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. According to this source, the Indy Greens have “given their word” to the Baldwin campaign, and there are financial considerations at stake, as well. Meanwhile, according to the source, the Indy Greens are loving the attention they’ve been receiving.

See previous stories here, here, and here.

Filed Under: Constitution Party · Green Party · Independents

12 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Hugh Jass // Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    What a bunch of attention whores.

  • 2 Fred Church Ortiz // Aug 21, 2008 at 11:46 pm

    from Fred Church
    to VoteJoinRun@aol.com
    date Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:44 PM
    subject IGP presidential ticket

    Please reconsider your decision to substitute Darrell Castle for Ron Paul. I believe Baldwin would agree to be listed on the ballot alongside Ron Paul. I believe Castle would be willing to take one for the team vis a vis the national Baldwin/Castle campaign. Ron Paul’s spokesman Jesse Benton has indicated they would do nothing to stop his placement there. The national attention your party has been receiving will continue, and the IGP will grow.

    Please.

    -Fred Church

  • 3 Sivarticus // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17 am

    Yeah, encourage them to replace it with Ron Paul/Baldwin or Ron Paul/Barr. McCain would be totally screwed in Virginia.

  • 4 MattSwartz // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:18 am

    They can toot around for attention as much as they want; after gathering all of those signatures (I think they have volunteers doing it) they deserve whatever attention they get. They’re heroic, to borrow Lew Rockwell’s favorite adjective.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing Paul/Baldwin or Baldwin/Paul. Who cares? In the thousand-to-one chance of that their ticket wins, the electors can vote as they see fit. I don’t see a downside.

  • 5 Hugh Jass // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:31 am

    Matt,

    Actually, Virginia law states that the electors must vote for the pledged nominees.

  • 6 SovereignMN // Aug 22, 2008 at 9:40 am

    “Virginia law states that the electors must vote for the pledged nominees”

    Hugh…any idea how they enforce that? Are the electors not afforded a secret ballot that they submit to Congress?

  • 7 Trent Hill // Aug 22, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Im not sure what is going on here. Did the Baldwin campaign pay the Independent Greens to qualify them for the ballot? And if they did, WHYYYYY? its such a terrible ballot-name for a conservative. Ugh.

    Also–Baldwin/Paul should be qualified. It’d kick arse. Even with the crappy ballot-label.

  • 8 Steve LaBianca // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Hugh Jass // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:31 am

    Matt,

    Actually, Virginia law states that the electors must vote for the pledged nominees.

    If this is true, the law regarding electors must have changed since 1972, when GOP elector Roger MacBride cast his electoral vote for the LP’s Hospers/Nathan.

  • 9 G.E. // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    That might be why they made the law.

    Regardless, those laws are of questionable “constitutionality” in the liberal “constitutional law” regime. What are they going to do anyway: Send the faithless electors to Gitmo?

  • 10 Steve LaBianca // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    G.E. – true enough, but in the 11 years I lived in Virginia, I hadn’t heard of this, though my not hearing doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

  • 11 G.E. // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html

    * VIRGINIA – 13 Electoral Votes
    State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)

    “Shall be expected” is pretty weak language.

  • 12 G.E. // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    I’ve lived in Michigan for 30 years, but I just now found out that Michigan is one of just two states where a faithless elector’s vote can be canceled and changed.

Leave a Comment