I don’t agree with this line of thinking. If I vote for Ron Paul I’m not voting for the entire Republican Party, I’m just voting for Ron Paul. If somebody votes for Dennis Kucinich, they are not voting for the entire Democratic Party, they are voting for Dennis Kucinich. I see the candidate as being more important than the party label.

“The president also does have some say on these issues, as DC is governed by Congress and the president has to sign the bills. ”

Yes, Baldwin could sign bills that effect these issues in Washington DC, and I’d disagree with him on most of these bills. DC is a small place, people can move out of it and some of it should probably be given back to Maryland. So while Baldwin MIGHT sign some bad bills that effect people living in the District of Columbia (although he’d likely sign other bills that would be good for DC), I see this as being less bad than forcing these bills on the people residing within the 50 states.

“Baldwin has in fact called for a federally enforced ban on abortion,”

IF abortion is murder (which one can make an arguement that it is), then there is a pro-liberty arguement against abortion. Whether or not the federal government should be involved with it is a seperate issue.

“and has made migrant-bashing his number one campaign issue.”

Some migrants deserve to be bashed. It depends on who the migrant is. If a migrant committs acts of aggressive force or fraud, then by all means they should be bashed. Some migrants are indeed good, freedom loving people, but some of them are not, and those that are not should not be coddled just because they are migrants.

“Since he is vanishingly unlikely to win, what matters is not so much what level of government he wants to enforce such laws, as the tone he sets. The more votes the CP gets, the more the Republicans will kowtow to the religious right in order to head off the CP at the pass, and Republicans have shown no restraint in using the federal government to enforce their moral views.”

Republicans could also cow-tow to the Constitution Party on issues where they are pro-liberty, such as gun rights, opposition to the welfare state, opposition to the United Nations, opposition to unconstitutional wars of aggression, etc…

“Trade is most certainly a federal issue.”

If Baldwin is going to call for a general tarriff, I’d prefer it if the rate was lower than 10%, let’s say 1%-5% would be less toxic in my opinion, but a 10% tarriff isn’t THAT bad compared to 25%-50% tarriffs that I’ve heard from other candidates.

Baldwin is not perfect, but he’s the best protest candidate who is on enough state ballots to theoretically win the election.

http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/09/23/ron-pauls-endorses-unknown-man-from-unknown-party/

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=62961422&blogID=435347817

I know for a FACT that Alex Jones is not racist or anti-Semitic. But if “some” of Ron Paul’s followers were…. A LOT MORE of Jones’s are. Which makes no sense because Jones goes further out of his way to alienate them than Paul did.

Ron Paul also got some support from racists, which is stupid of the racists because neither Baldwin nor Paul support racist ideals.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=525283

(It was a pingback to IPR).

It is against the law for his congressional staffers to discuss who he supports for President or any other aspect of his non-congressional business.

The Campaign for Liberty is his official political (campaign) organization. The people who work there are his political staffers. They speak for him regarding political issues. Here is that number: 612-559-6742.

Stop bothering his congressional staff!

His party’s platform does, and as Phillies likes to point out, when you vote, you are voting twice: once for the candidate, once for his party.

The president also does have some say on these issues, as DC is governed by Congress and the president has to sign the bills.

Baldwin has in fact called for a federally enforced ban on abortion, and has made migrant-bashing his number one campaign issue.

Since he is vanishingly unlikely to win, what matters is not so much what level of government he wants to enforce such laws, as the tone he sets. The more votes the CP gets, the more the Republicans will kowtow to the religious right in order to head off the CP at the pass, and Republicans have shown no restraint in using the federal government to enforce their moral views.

Trade is most certainly a federal issue.

How, as a governing board, does the LNC go from inviting Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination, to chastising him for endorsing Baldwin is simply crybaby reaction.

Personally, I’m somewhat saddened by this endorsement . . . not because Paul didn’t endorse Barr . . . that would have REALLY saddened me, but because I thought that Ron Paul should have remained uncommitted to all candidates.

However, this idea that Ron Paul has marginalized himself as a congressman, which has been expressed by an LNC member (and agreed with by another) is just sour grapes. Heck, if that were true, he would already have marginalized himself by not endorsing McCain! Pure ridiculousness to assert that Ron Paul has
been marginalized by an endorsement of a non Republican.

Oh, and by the way, such LNC members are also saying that Paul is not libertarian . . . this coming from Barr/W.A.R. apologists!