Back in May, we reported that the “Ron Paul Twins” were asking for an interview from the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin. The Ron Paul Twins were popular youtube sensations amongst the Ron Paul grassroots. Well, it appears their request for an interview was granted.
24 Comments
Comments are closed.
Jose C,
So you think millions of men charged into battle on the southern side to protect the slaves of….their rich overlords?
Right.
“Does Paul think the Civil War was fought over slavery? No.”
Vice-President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens answered this when he said:
“. . . our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth.â€
GE,
Agreed. But educating the public cannot be done, exhaustively, on every issue–even Ron Paul recognized this. He spent almost all of his time on the one issue–the War,and his it effected the others.
I think the comparison isvery fair. In both cases, the differences are nothing but nuance to the average citizen,and basically the same position, and explaining the differences would confuse and bore the voters.
The views can be similar but for different reasons. Red’s views are similar to Chuck Baldwin’s, right? In fact, Red’s views are “more libertarian” than Baldwin’s because Red is for free trade. But Red is not a libertarian.
Comparing the Civil War — a non-issue, electorally — and socialist energy policy is not a fair comparison. I bet Ron Paul would have answered the question to my liking, and there are more than just a few people who have my perspective. Besides, the point is to educate the public, not tell them what they want to hear.
“The only challenge I’ve ever heard to his integrity is Trent’s pseudo-assertion that Baldwin may be misrepresenting his own beliefs to appeal to voters — or did I get your comments above wrong, Trent?”
Yes, you got them wrong. Baldwin is not pandering. He’s not changing his views to become more acceptable,or even softening his views. But he is attempting to commmunicate with the general voting public in a way that will not be overly confusing or boring.
For example: Instead of saying “The civil war was a monstrous war of northern aggression that needlessly cost millions of men their lives for littlemore than an economic disagreement”–Paul would most likely say, “We did not need to fight the Civil War. Slavery could have been eliminated peacefully via compensation”.
Now–does Paul believe the first? Definetly.
What would he say to the general public? The second statement. In fact, that is a paraphrase of what he said about the Civil War–its almost word for word. Does Paul think the Civil War was fought over slavery? No. But that issue is very complicated and contrived,and would take a good 15 minutes to explain in full–so Paul framed his statement so that the general voter could understand…even if the statement was actually slihgtly incorrect from a well-informed Constitutionalist’s point of view.
GE,
I dont think that is fair at ALL. Although I tend to agree with your judgement of what is and isnt libertarian, Ron Paul said, “His views are VERY similar to mine” (my emphasis)–and I think that indicates alot.
He is NOT a libertarian–but he definetly has some libertarian leanings.
Jerry S – You and I are on the same page, but I just can’t enthusiastically get behind Baldwin.
Baldwin is not a libertarian. I wouldn’t even say he has “libertarian leanings.” I think he, like Red Phillips (also NOT a libertarian) share some views with libertarians, oftentimes for different reasons. Although the reason behind someone’s beliefs is not entirely unimportant, it is less important than the beliefs/policies themselves. That’s why I would consider voting for Baldwin — that and his obvious integrity. The only challenge I’ve ever heard to his integrity is Trent’s pseudo-assertion that Baldwin may be misrepresenting his own beliefs to appeal to voters — or did I get your comments above wrong, Trent?
Look forward to you two guys’ interview! I’ve been a libertarian longer than some of you have been alive (sadly the gray is invading ), and Dr. BaldWIN is NOT a libertarian. He does have some libertarian leanings however!
I choose to support him this year over others. I can agree with close to 80% of his issues page, hence I CAN support his bid. I do NOT believe the smears accusing him of attempting to install a theocracy. I personally don’t agree with some of the CP’s economic issues or personal choice and privacy issues. Chuck isn’t pushing these, however I imagine he’s for all of them. I will overlook them this time because frankly the letters C I A worry me more than placing tariffs on Chinese JUNK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6LPW0P6Wl0&feature=related
Dr.BaldWIN needs Ballot Access Signatures NOW!
http://baldwin2008.com/states/
Volunteers Needed ASAP to help on ballot access In
NY, NJ, GA, VA, MA, WA, MN, WI, TN, MD, AL, LA, KY, IA, CT, WV, ME, NH, RI, WY & DC
GE,
Once again–I dont think Baldwin misunderstands the issue–he is speaking to the American voters, rather than to you or me–two of maybe a hundred people who would criticize him on using such speech.
High oil prices? What high oil prices? They’re not that much higher when measured in gold. Or even other fiat currencies.
Baldwin needs to read Ron Paul’s books, imo. If he has, he hasn’t taken the lessons to heart.
Baldwin doesn’t appear to understand money as Paul does.
Baldwin maintains that the current recession is caused by high oil prices, while Paul correctly says that it is the debasement or devaluation of our fiat currency that is to blame.
Baldwin should take the Constitutional route.
PEACE
Steve
GE, im going to see what I can do.
What the heck, screw “apprpriateness.” If you and Baldwin are game for that kind of interview, I would post it at both IPR and LFV. The interview would be non-combatative, respectful, etc., with the purpose and line of questioning designed to give Baldwin a chance to make his case to libertarians. He already has the full support of the CP, which he should.
Trent – I think it’d be better if I interviewed him for Last Free Voice, which would allow me to take the role of a potential advocate of his campaign, rather than an objective standpoint. I would try to let him make his case to libertarians who aren’t happy with their candidate, but I don’t think the “perspective” would be appropriate for IPR.
And he wants to release the two Border Patrol agents that shot a guy in the butt when he was fleeing from them. The agents where found guilty of break the law. Why doesn’t Chuck support the rule of law? Is it because it was later found that the guy fleeing was trying to smuggle drugs, or is Chuck for shooting everyone on the border?
And he wants to force all of the small business owners in America to do the government’s job of securing the border by acting as border agents in checking the ids of all of our workers.
“If you do not come out and say “the government needs to sell its lands to the highest bidder and let the market decide how those lands should be used†then I think it is safe to assume he’s talking about a national-socialist energy policy of regulated use and leases to corporate drillers. Is this not what he’s saying? When he says “we†need to drill in Alaska and the Dakotas, what does he mean by that? Because I got the impression that he meant the same thing that McCain and Barr mean.”
Yes, I think if you put the question to Baldwin that way–he’d say sell it off to the highest bidder. Honestly though, i’d like you to ask him yourself. Im planning on getting an interview with him for IndPoliticalReport.com
As for the abortion question–Baldwin is 100% pro-life, and says so very honestly. He also says he’d “use the bully-pulpit of the presidency”. He doesnt say that he’ll sign Executive Orders or anything to stop abortion,or that he’d support legislation to do so–although to be honest I suspect he’d support National Legislation to end abortion over the alternative (status quo).
should be “no better” instead of “no worse” above.
To be clear: Since coming to the logical reasoning that abortion is the initiation of force, I do oppose it. I oppose it more strongly as pregnancy progresses. I think that all but the earliest-term abortions are legalized infanticide, but the real problem is the cultural acceptance of the act, and passing a law won’t fix that. Regardless, there is no authority for the federal government to regulate the definition of life or impose unitary cultural values on the several states. This is horribly centralist and no worse than big-government liberals who did the same thing with Roe.
Yes, Trent, I understand that.
He said “close” the border several times. I think he means literally close it.
I’m not asking him to be a perfect libertarian. I’m asking him to (a) be a perfect CONSTITUTIONALIST — that I can expect; and (b) not be a total Lincolnian on economics.
True or false: There is no enumerated power in the Constitution to define when life begins, define what’s a child, or “defend” life.
As far as the energy issue: He said “we” and “our” a lot. If you do not come out and say “the government needs to sell its lands to the highest bidder and let the market decide how those lands should be used” then I think it is safe to assume he’s talking about a national-socialist energy policy of regulated use and leases to corporate drillers. Is this not what he’s saying? When he says “we” need to drill in Alaska and the Dakotas, what does he mean by that? Because I got the impression that he meant the same thing that McCain and Barr mean.
To be clear: I’v never pitched Baldwin as a perfect libertarian candidate. I’v simply pitched him as the best alternative to Ron Paul and the most libertarian in the current field.
“He uses the term “close the borders†— not “secure,†but “close.†What of that, Trent?”
My guess would be–slip up. I’v heard Ron Paul say the same thing,but its obvious Paul meant “secure”.
“Supports a socialized energy policy; energy autarky. Inexcusable and totally unconstitutional. Lincolnian. We, we, we, we, we.”
Where did you get that? Baldwin supports the rights of the states to determine where their resources go and wether to open drilling in their states–but Alaska and North Dakota have already demonstrated their willingness to do so, if not for Congress.
Hmmm….
“We’ve accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq” — paraphrase. Really?
Supports a socialized energy policy; energy autarky. Inexcusable and totally unconstitutional. Lincolnian. We, we, we, we, we.
The federal government doesn’t have the authority to define what a “child” is. I thought Baldwin was a constitutionalist. This is not in the enumerated powers and an “act” would not make it so.
Supports “federal protection” of the right to life. There’s no such thing. There is no such enumerated power. VERY LIBERAL view.
He uses the term “close the borders” — not “secure,” but “close.” What of that, Trent?
How does “closing the borders” and restricting trade = a message of “freedom”?
The Ron Paul Twins did a great job conducting the interview, but Baldwin came off harshly centralist and absolutely horrible on economics.