From the minutes of last Monday’s Operating Committee comes the text of the following resolution to be submitted to the America First National Committee:
Whereas the America First Party is not running a presidential candidate in 2008 because this would be a poor use of resources for our developing party; and,
Whereas many voters would nevertheless like to have guidance on how to vote in the general presidential election; and,
Whereas both Democrat and Republican presidential nominees are greatly at odds with the America First Party’s principles in areas of foreign policy, trade, immigration, and fiscal spending; and,
Whereas it is important that voters not waste their vote by voting for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates who are poised to violate the basic requirements of the oath of office, and who will, if they pursue their stated policy objectives, continue the process of overturning our constitutional government; and,
Whereas there are two presidential candidates which have achieved ballot access in enough states to have a theoretical possibility of winning the presidential election, and which hold positions similar but not identical to those of the America First Party;
Therefore, be it resolved by the America First National Committee:
That voters be encouraged to vote for either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr for President in November.
The Party’s chairman, Massachusetts’ Jon Hill, was recorded as mentioning “troubling inconsistencies in Mr. Barr’s public positions” when a possible endorsement was discussed in a July Operating Committee meeting. He and two other committeemen were not present for the vote on the resolution, which passed 3:1.
6 responses so far ↓
1 HumbleTravis // Oct 1, 2008 at 11:10 am
In order to stay consistent, will the Barr campaign chastise the AFP for “lack of leadership”?
2 darolew // Oct 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Barr will probably ignore this endorsement. That’s also fairly consistent with his campaign.
3 johncjackson // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I have to admit I am not familiar with AFP, but it’s certainly a terrible name for a party- and that alone would make me hesitant accepting an endorsement.
4 johncjackson // Oct 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I read their site a little. Yeah, protectionism, Christian nut stuff, expanding social security, anti-gay..
Nice.
Though they actually would be pretty good with a different name and their platform cut in half. Of course, that would be redundant.
5 Eternaverse // Oct 1, 2008 at 6:31 pm
AFP is the offspring of the buchananist wing of the Reform Party. When they started out they ran a few candidates (vote total wise), but they soon started to fade. If they did run a Presidential candidate he/she couldn’t get on more than 10 state ballots now.
They are pretty much the same as the Constitution Party ( protectionism and ‘chirstian values’) but AFP can’t merge with the CP because it’s platform says it can’t join with any other political party.
6 RedPhillips // Oct 2, 2008 at 7:25 am
I’m not sure why they endorsed Barr … you know because of all that Libertarian secularist nut stuff.
Leave a Comment