From the Constitution Party Web site:
Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin Set To Dent ‘Big Box’ Candidates
Grand Rapids, MI (September 22, 2008) Former GOP presidential candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul announced today he is endorsing Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin. (www.campaignforliberty.com)
In a letter to supporters, Paul wrote, “I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.â€
Paul went on to say, “There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored.â€
Baldwin, a conservative commentator, columnist and pastor of a church in Pensacola, FL, campaigned for Ron Paul during the congressman’s run for president. After receiving Paul’s endorsement, Baldwin said, “I am humbled and deeply grateful to Dr. Paul for his support. There could not be higher praise. I am committed to carrying on the Ron Paul Revolution for a return to constitutionally limited government.
The www.constitutionparty.com, is poised to offer voters a viable alternative to the two parties now controlling our government.
Baldwin noted, “Ron Paul’s message resonated with people across the political spectrum. Likewise, our campaign embraces Americans of diverse political ideologies, spiritual paths and socio-economic groups – all who recognize the urgency of a return to the Constitution and the principles of personal liberty that document defines.â€
Baldwin, appearing recently on CNN’s Lou Dobb’s Tonight program was told by Dobbs: (Baldwin’s view on immigration reform issues) was “a good reason to vote for you, I like that reason.” (Click here for a transcript, and HERE for a YouTube clip of the show.)
Baldwin appeared at a recent Washington DC press conference with Congressman Ron Paul. Paul spoke about the need to bypass the two major party candidates this November and instead vote for a candidate such as Chuck Baldwin. See YouTube clip HERE.)
Like Paul, Baldwin has taken a stand against unconstitutional foreign intervention, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both Baldwin and Paul have called for abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve, have spoken out against the recent financial “bailouts†and against unauthorized trade “agreements†such as NAFTA and GATT.
Chuck Baldwin supports Congressman Ron Paul’s ‘Sanctity of Life legislation’,(H.R. 2597) opposing abortion, has received an ‘A’ rating from Gun Owners of America and an “excellent†grade from pro-secure borders group Numbers USA.
49 responses so far ↓
1 kalipay // Sep 22, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for getting this up so fast. I appreciate the good working-relationship.
2 Trent Hill // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Someone beat me to it.
3 johnlowell // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I have not voted since 1992 and I considered Ron Paul a complete shlemeil, frankly, for having cut and run on an independent candidacy last Spring. With his attempt recently to bring about anti-system unity around four principles, however, Paul went a very long way toward redeeming himself in my view. And now his very positive endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. As a Catholic, Baldwin’s unreservedly consistent pro-life message encompassing opposition to pre-emptive war, abortion, and embryonic stem-cell research is a very critical concern to me. And I don’t feel concerned as I might with a McCain nominee that Baldwin’s candidates for the Supreme Court would be apt to require support for the unitary executive so as to insure a future anti-Roe vote. I have no interest in making a Faustian deal which exchanges a Caudillo for an abortion free America. I will give very serious consideration to voting for Chuck Baldwin at this point.
4 WinstonSmith // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I’m still waiting to see if this was true as it was not written by Paul. If true he has killed the Camapaign for Liberty by endorsing a theocrat who wants to deny gays equal rights. Not really all that supportive of Liberty.
Paul is acting like a pouty child who got critcized so he had to do something in return. Nothing more than that really. His endorsement will only matter to the Paul lemmings who can’t think for themselves.
5 paulie cannoli // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Paul is acting like a pouty child
No, that would be Barr.
6 WinstonSmith // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:54 pm
No, that would be Barr.
How did Barr act like a child? He didn’t agree with how it was being handled. Barr had a disagreement and stood up and gave his opinion instead of sucking up like the other 3 on stage.
7 paulie cannoli // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:55 pm
How did Barr act like a child?
Took his toys and went home.
8 Trent Hill // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Barr called 40 minutes before the press conference to cancel,after previously agreeing to come. His national director then HEAVILY criticized Ron Paul as “just trying to sell books”.
9 WinstonSmith // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Took his toys and went home.
Or had a legitimate disagreement with how something was being handled so he didn’t attend. Nobody made a big deal of how they treated his staffers or that he offered Paul the VP beforehand.
10 richardwinger // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:12 am
It is bizarre that on the one hand Ron Paul is helping Chuck Baldwin, but on the other hand he is hurting him in Montana. There are 3 State Supreme Court opinions that say a person may not be forced to be a presidential candidate against his or her wishes. Although Ron Paul asked Montana not to list him on the ballot as the Constitution Party nominee, he could have sued Montana to force the state to respect his wishes. The Bernhoft law firm was willing to handle the lawsuit. But Ron didn’t take them up on it. As a result, Baldwin is off the ballot in the one state in which the Constitution Party ever elected a state legislator.
11 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:19 am
Baldwin wasn’t going to be on the ballot there anyway, the Montana CP is disaffiliated and dislike him personally for events surrounding that split. I fail to see exactly how Ron Paul is “hurting Baldwin” in this situation. For that matter, Baldwin basically agrees that Ron Paul makes a better candidate than himself, and I think there’s a quote or video floating around to that effect. I’m sure if Baldwin wanted to push the issue he would have.
12 Trent Hill // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:19 am
Richard,
I do agree–very bizzare. But–he’s more than making up for it with the endorsement. The several thousand votes they’ll lose in Montana because of that, they’ll gain downticket because of Ron Paul on top of the ticket and the endorsement ensured that Baldwin will more-than cover the spread in other states.
13 Trent Hill // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:20 am
Fred,
That is false. Baldwin WAS going to be on the ballot–and I understand roughly half of the party-leaders in Montana wanted him on the ballot, but the State Chair wanted to put Ron Paul on,and thats a hard arguement to make, Baldwin instead of Paul.
14 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:23 am
My mistake.
15 darolew // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:28 am
The Constitution Party website now hosts both the awful party platform and an endorsement from Ron Paul. It’s fairly comical to see such opposing viewpoints championed in the same place.
16 Trent Hill // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:30 am
darolew,
Iv told them 0234939585485408543958430 times to scrap the platform. They wont. It was forged in a huge platform fight in the 90s and so its nigh-untouchable.
17 G.E. // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:33 am
Trent – Do the CP people know how incompatible the platform is with Ron Paul’s views? Or do they honestly believe that Ron Paul is a pre-capitalist?
18 VTV // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:39 am
The inside scoop on that G.E. is that Alan Keyes and his people staged an invasion on par with the one that the LP had from the reform caucus some time ago to put all that crap in their platform.
19 G.E. // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:40 am
The platform is way older than Keyes’ involvement, VTV.
20 WinstonSmith // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:41 am
VTV,
Barr didn’t stage any type of invasion and neither did Keyes.
The CP is one of the dumbest parties in the country. If it wasn’t for that platform, they would easily be the 3rd largest party.
21 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:59 am
Or had a legitimate disagreement with how something was being handled so he didn’t attend.
What legitimate disagreement? That he had to share the stage and couldn’t have it all to himself?
Talk about childish.
22 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 1:02 am
Barr didn’t stage any type of invasion and neither did Keyes.
Keyes is a neocon tool.
23 Trent Hill // Sep 23, 2008 at 1:13 am
“Trent – Do the CP people know how incompatible the platform is with Ron Paul’s views? Or do they honestly believe that Ron Paul is a pre-capitalist?”
They know he is a hardcore capitalist and simply see this as one of his few faults.
24 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 1:25 am
Yeah, I’ll certainly give the CP this: they are antiwar.
Keyes has few if any redeeming qualities.
25 Thomas M. Sipos // Sep 23, 2008 at 1:50 am
I just trolled the American Independent Party website.
Very curious. No mention of Alan Keyes. No mention of any election. Odd.
26 Sivarticus // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:02 am
This is a great day. Ron Paul has simultaneously given both charlatan Barr and the rotten GOP a huge slap in the face by endorsing Baldwin. That’s the kind of rugged toughness that made me fall for Ron Paul in the first place. Now, let’s see how high we can take Chuck Baldwin. Fourth place and anything over 1% would be very nice, though overtaking Nader after that likely isn’t going to happen.
27 iamanamerican // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:25 am
It’s time to challenge the Commission on Presidential Debates and put Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney side-by-side with McBama!
It’s awesome to see a TrustWorthy candidate that will protect the constitution and the sovereignty of our country.
28 Catholic Trotskyist // Sep 23, 2008 at 5:01 am
Sivarticus, Baldwin will absolutely beat Ralph Criminal Nader, no matter how much Nader wines about the financial crisis, and Baldwin will beat Keyes, Barr and Nader in California with write-in votes. Ron Paul did the right thing by including Nader and McKinney in the anti-system vote, and was probably inspired by my posts on TPW about the Fringe Alliance strategy a few months ago. Like it or not, Criminal Nader is part of the anti-system message. I am also part of the anti-system message, as I am the Ecumenical Supreme Patriarch and Chairman of the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America, a small but fiercely independent new political party which has decided to endorse Barack H. Obama. So John Lowell, I hope you will continue with your consideration of voting for Chuck Baldwin, because in order for the Catholic message of the magesterium to rise up, America cannot become a caudillo nation, as you said. And in order for that to be avoided, McCain must lose, meaning that not only the Catholic trotskyist message must rise up, but also the Christian anti-McCain conservative message. Together we will ban abortion, and defeat the agendas of Christian war-mongering neoconservatism, Islamic fundamentalism, and liberal relativist secular humanism. Amen.
29 Catholic Trotskyist // Sep 23, 2008 at 5:02 am
By the way, something has been bothering me; if Baldwin had known that they could get Paul’s endorsement, shouldn’t they have picked a more high-profile running mate than Castle? Is Castle doing any campaigning? He’s disappearing almost as much as Root! The vice-presidential candidates of the anti-Obama pseudo-left are much more active.
30 johnlowell // Sep 23, 2008 at 6:45 am
Cattrot,
The only thing the worries me about Castle is that he conjures up images of those sterile song leaders at Baptist church services that wear brown suits and in the most stultified and impersonal way call everyone “friend”. One is reminded too of that awful recent picture of Baldwin in a blue suit with his arms crossed. One feels almost compelled to pass Baldwin a warm sweater.
31 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:12 am
It’s time to challenge the Commission on Presidential Debates and put Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney side-by-side with McBama!
It would have been, if Barr was not showing the kind of leadership that Bush showed on 9/11. As it stands, how about electronically staging a five way debate with all these candidates except Barr, and watch him get 6th place?
32 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:13 am
It’s awesome to see a TrustWorthy candidate that will protect the constitution and the sovereignty of our country.
Which part of the constitution allows for limiting immigration (as opposed to naturalization)?
33 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:15 am
Is Castle doing any campaigning?
Yes, I saw him speak in Birmingham.
34 darolew // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:45 am
“Which part of the constitution allows for limiting immigration (as opposed to naturalization)?”
Do you forget? The all-powerful Commerce Clause justifies anything.
35 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm
WinstonSmith // Sep 22, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“I’m still waiting to see if this was true as it was not written by Paul. If true he has killed the Camapaign for Liberty by endorsing a theocrat who wants to deny gays equal rights. Not really all that supportive of Liberty.
Paul is acting like a pouty child who got critcized so he had to do something in return. Nothing more than that really. His endorsement will only matter to the Paul lemmings who can’t think for themselves.”
36 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Ron Paul does tend to be consistant and support the Constitution, but he has always been a self promoter first. Now, I have no problem with people making money or getting rich. But, when you put making money so far ahead of the fight for Liberty that you will actually sacrafice the battle for Liberty just to make a buck, that is low.
In past years, Ron Paul has demanded an anual salary of $100,000 and ownership of all the group supporters’ names and addresses to obtain his support of a group working for less government and liberty.
And despite being quite wealthy, I know of no one who has received a personal donation from Ron Paul for their campaign or group.
Shame on you Dr. Paul.
This endorsement will hurt Ron Paul, it will hurt the C4L, and it will hurt the freedom movement.
37 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Already responded to that nonsense before.
Barr is the one who took his toys and went home because he couldn’t have all the attention to himself.
38 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
No. Ron Paul wanted to be able to claim that all of the 3rd party votes were really his votes. He wanted to stay relevant. Without Barr and the LP in the subservient position he was demanding, he knew that his claim to being the leader of the oppostion would fall on deaf ears.
And this would reduce the profitability of the “Ron Paul” money machine.
Our Founding Fathers swore to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in the fight for liberty.
Dr. Paul seems to have devoted his life to selling his sacred honor to secure his fortune by using the fight for liberty.
39 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm
He wanted to stay relevant.
LOL.
Without Barr and the LP in the subservient position he was demanding, he knew that his claim to being the leader of the oppostion would fall on deaf ears.
Of course.
And this would reduce the profitability of the “Ron Paul†money machine.
Yeah, I’m sure it was Ron Paul’s fundraising that was hurt by this.
Look, I was semi-offered a “pay per comment” deal by the Barr campaign myself, but this is just ridiculous. Please, at least try to post something which is not laughably absurd at first glance.
40 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I know LOL is way overused (guilty), but I meant that literally. I really did laugh out loud.
41 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm
In past years, Ron Paul has demanded an anual salary of $100,000 and ownership of all the group supporters’ names and addresses to obtain his support of a group working for less government and liberty.
And despite Ron Paul being quite wealthy, I know of no one who has received a personal donation from Ron Paul for their campaign or group.
Shame on you Dr. Paul.
42 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Yes, you said that already.
43 Coming Back to the LP // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm
So, while others struggle to raise money to fight against the State, Ron Paul sucks the well dry.
And where did his $35 million go?
Time for an audit.
44 svf // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I was semi-offered a “pay per comment†deal by the Barr campaign myself
How do I get on this gravy train?
45 G.E. // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I was semi-offered a “pay per comment†deal by the Barr campaign myself
How do I get on this gravy train?
You’re being sarcastic, svf… But there ARE paid shills for Barr out there making posts like paulie is talking about.
46 svf // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm
You’re being sarcastic, svf
Not at all… if I’m gonna take all this shit for posting (moderately) pro-Barr stuff on sites like this, I might as well get paid for it.
47 Fred Church Ortiz // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm
How do I get on this gravy train?
You start by not doing it for free anyway.
48 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 4:09 pm
How do I get on this gravy train?
Fuck if I know. Since they never came through with the green, I don’t even know if anyone is really getting paid.
Maybe they believed their own bullshit about raising 40 mil. Or maybe they just thought I would shut the fuck up and not say anything to piss off a potential employer.
Who knows?
Anyway, that’s really as much detail as I’ll give.
49 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh yeah, I did also offer to help them with DC ballot access, which I have a lot of experience in. Needless to say I was never called.
Leave a Comment