Baldwin-Castle upgrade Web presence

If you haven’t checked out Chuck Baldwin’s Web site in a while, you may have missed the debut of its new design. The layout is very slick and stands out from other campaign sites, including Baldwin’s original one, which have sought to emulate Ron Paul’s Terra Eclipse design.

The masthead features pictures of Baldwin and his running mate Darrell Castle, with the tagline, “There is still hope for America – Let the truth be heard!!!” The main page features links to statements on immigration, the “new world order,” and “Baldwin honors our veterans.” The issues page has been reduced to a three-topic comparison between Baldwin and McCain-Obama, with the three subjects being the 2nd amendment, abortion, and veterans.

64 thoughts on “Baldwin-Castle upgrade Web presence

  1. G.E. Post author

    Although I like the look of this site, once again I’m disappointed with my preferred presidential candidate. Where are his statements on the Fed and on foreign policy? He’s emphasizing issues that do not appeal to me and turning his back on the Ron Paul R3VOLution, in my mind here.

    Honoring veterans? No thanks!

  2. Trent Hill

    GE,
    The new website design is a result of our campaign team completely turning over. Our campaign manager and her entire team is now gone,and a new team has taken over. I can assure you that the Fed, the War, and other stuff is going to reappear soon.

  3. Mike Gillis

    I have no problem with “honoring veterans”. I count them among the victims of our insane foreign policy.

  4. G.E. Post author

    The thing I like best about the site is its uniqueness. It doesn’t look like other sites. Of course, neither does Cynthia McKinney’s (which is a total disaster).

    “Honoring veterans” is just pandering to the war state. Honoring them with what? My money? No thanks.

  5. G.E. Post author

    Mike – These candidates are all so bad I’m seriously giving thought of voting for Obama just as an anti-McCain vote.

    This latest stunt by Barr firmly moved him into the “I will not vote for him” category and shut the door on any possibility of me changing my mind, even for a second, again.

    I like some of McKinney but I really am appalled by her racial collectivism. The socialism I can handle because it’s expected. I don’t want my vote to be counted for White Guilt, of which I have none.

    Baldwin is my preferred choice because he “seems” / seemed to be the most principled. But some of those principles are very bad. McKinney and Nader are emphasizing their anti-war creds while Baldwin is accepting endorsements from insane-neocon smear artists.

  6. kalipay

    Issue positions that are much more detailed have been written and submitted to the web developers. Much of the campaign’s time this week has been taken up with preparing for the money-bomb and Chuck-a-thon. Next week should see the completion of the website with a much-expanded issues page, regular news and press release updates, and videos posted on a regular basis.

    Communication to supporters has also increased, with emails going out at least twice a week now.

  7. Fred Church Ortiz

    These candidates are all so bad I’m seriously giving thought of voting for Obama just as an anti-McCain vote.

    Jesus Christ!

  8. G.E. Post author

    Fred – I’m going to vote. I’m going to show up at the polls and vote for Scotty Boman and for some other libertarians. I cannot wrap my head around not voting for president if I’m already there. Voting is an expression of speech, and what do I want my voice to say? A vote for any of the third-party candidates is a vote against the two-party system, true. But it’s also a vote for a lot of bad things, no matter who I vote for. Voting FOR Obama is even worse, but it is the strongest way of voting AGAINST McCain.

  9. Fred Church Ortiz

    Don’t be racist Mike.

    GE- you’re going to miss me & Trent when we get swooped into National Service.

  10. G.E. Post author

    If Obama wins, it won’t be because of my vote. McCain is also for national service. One of them is going to win. (Sorry, Mike).

  11. Mike Theodore

    Wait, when you go to vote, you can choose which offices you want to vote for? I figured that you had to vote for all the races up.

    My closest knowledge of election is helping my brother register, so I have no idea what goes on in those bloody booth’s.

  12. G.E. Post author

    I’m entertaining the notion. Don’t get too excited. But my one vote won’t be much of a “contribution.” I want to make a statement with my vote and making a vote against McCain might be the strongest statement I can make.

  13. G.E. Post author

    A vote for Obama, from me, is also a vote in protest of how horrible the third-party choices are. And THAT is a statement I DO agree with.

  14. Fred Church Ortiz

    If Obama wins, it won’t be because of my vote. McCain is also for national service.

    And yet you seem to condone voting for either of them. So far, the difference I see is that Obama will send someone directly to Iran to bully them before calling in an airstrike, while McCain would just do it. I’m not sure whether acting like they cared would be better or worse for policy in the long run than just being a blatant warmonger, but it’s pretty appalling that you would consider giving your vote to people that condone slavery and empire.

  15. G.E. Post author

    Which of the candidates do not condone slavery and empire?

    I don’t think “considering” something is “appalling.” That’s a good way to shut out ideas.

  16. Mike Gillis

    If you want to make a statement, just write in “Fuck you!” on your ballot for president.

    At the very least the elections office employee who counts it will remember it and likely tell someone about it.

  17. G.E. Post author

    If you want to make a statement, just write in “Fuck you!” on your ballot for president.

    Excellent idea! Seriously. I just might do that.

    I made my comment about Obama somewhat facetiously, just to illustrate how thoroughly unsatisfied I am with the choices I have. But now that I’ve been forced to defend it, I can say that the differences between any two statist candidates are only by matters of degree. Obama supports national service? So what? Baldwin and Barr support coercive taxation. Same end. Obama supports empire? So does Barr. Should I care that much that Baldwin wants to turn internal aggression only against Americans (and Mexicans) rather than the rest of the world? Does Baldwin even plan to emphasize his anti-war creds now that he’s flying high with neocon-wannabe Cori’s endorsement?

    I like the FUCK YOU! plan. I wonder if the crooks would count the rest of my votes, though.

  18. Fred Church Ortiz

    Which of the candidates do not condone slavery and empire?

    Good question. But some are clearly worse than others, especially the ones that are unfortunately going to get the chance to put it into action.

    I don’t think “considering” something is “appalling.” That’s a good way to shut out ideas.

    In reaction, I was appalled. Couldn’t be helped.

  19. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Undoubtedly the best choices at the ballot are going to be the third-party candidates. I’d consider votes for McKinney, Baldwin, and Nader to be principled anti-establishment, anti-war votes. A vote for Barr…well, we shouldnt get into that.

    but voting for Obama will NOT be considered “anti-McCain”. You are an anti-war voter from Michigan–it will be taken as a token of support for Obama.

  20. G.E. Post author

    but voting for Obama will NOT be considered “anti-McCain”. You are an anti-war voter from Michigan–it will be taken as a token of support for Obama.

    Yes, it’s too bad that the Democrats didn’t nominate Kerry again. NO ONE ever voted FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush. I could have felt much better about a Kerry vote.

    Writing in “FUCK YOU!” is my new plan. I can’t help but laugh whenever I think about doing that. AWESOME idea, Mike Gillis!!!

  21. G.E. Post author

    Fred – I was mostly being hyperbolic to illustrate my displeasure with the choices I have. Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin are not the culprits here, of course — they are good candidates for their core constituencies. The fault is on Barr and the delegates who surrendered to his coup in Denver.

  22. Trent Hill

    “Does Baldwin even plan to emphasize his anti-war creds now that he’s flying high with neocon-wannabe Cori’s endorsement?”

    Baldwin will have a serious presence at the Rally for the Republic, our nation’s premier conservative anti-war rally this year.

    Dr. Ron Paul accepted the endorsement of Michael Scheuer. Scheuer, though critical of the war in Iraq and how it has been handled, is far from a non-interventionist. He calls himself a “prudent interventionist” and beliefs we should escalate Iraq to an All-Out war.

  23. G.E. Post author

    Baldwin was very good at the Revolution March. I might vote for him yet. Or McKinney or Nader. But at least I have a write in for “FUCK YOU!” on the backburner. This has made me very happy.

    Other potential: Maybe I’ll stage an official write in campaign for myself. It would be hilarious to get just one vote or maybe two (my wife). I just need to get electors from each of the congressional districts to make it happen.

    This thread was severely hijacked: Chuck Baldwin’s site looks really good, to reiterate that point.

  24. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I’d check with Richard Winger–but im fairly sure they’ll disregard the rest of your votes if you do that. I know that here in LA the Secretary of Statism got in trouble for disregarding votes that had “joke write-ins” in one race, (i.e., Mickie Mouse, Donald Duke)

  25. Fred Church Ortiz

    Are you going to be there Trent? GE? Maybe Mike G, since Nader’s thing is 2 days later?

  26. G.E. Post author

    Trent – I don’t think they will. I was thinking about it: I instantly run my ballot through a counting machine when I’m done voting. My votes are recorded then (at least, supposedly). My vote for “FUCK YOU!” will be tabulated as a write-in vote, electronically. I assume that they then go through and count the write-in votes later. I can’t believe they could vindictively uncount my other votes after they’d already been counted.

  27. darolew

    I would say national service is a good deal worse than the level of coercive taxation that Baldwin/Barr support. (Then again I say this as someone young enough that Obama’s/McCain’s national service plan(s) might have significant bearing on, so my opinion might be biased.)

  28. Trent Hill

    Fred,

    I might be there. I should know by monday or tuesday if I’m going. I’d really like to.
    If anyone else from IPR is going, we should meet up.

  29. Trent Hill

    darolew,

    GE only deals in absolutes. The LEVEL of force doesnt matter,only that it was initiated. It is a common problem for anarchists.

  30. johncjackson

    I don’t care for Baldwin but I don’t get the outrage over “honoring the veterans”‘, especially since Ron Paul is known for the same type of “pandering.”

  31. G.E. Post author

    I’m not outraged over “honoring veterans.” I’m dismayed that that’s one of THREE issues he choses to emphasize.

  32. langa

    The LEVEL of force doesnt matter,only that it was initiated. It is a common problem for anarchists.

    Not this anarchist. I think national service is far worse than taxation. Furthermore, I would never consider voting for Obama or McCain (or Nader or McKinney, although neither of them will be on the ballot in my state anyway).

    On the veteran thing, I think the key is whether they were drafted or volunteered. I feel sympathy for the former, but not for the latter.

  33. inDglass

    Great idea, put something other than a legitimate candidate in the write-in box, so that you waste more of the state’s time and resources and give them more reason not to count write-in votes.

  34. G.E. Post author

    How is that a “waste” any more than a write-in that would be counted is a “waste”? It’s very presumptuous of you to judge what expression qualifies as legitimate and what qualifies as a “waste.” If you don’t like it, then agitate for the abolition of taxpayer funded elections. Until then, I have every right to vote however I want to.

  35. Deran

    I almost always end up writing in for some of the offices, especially if there is no independent or third party candidate.

    I have to object to the appropriation of the term “anarchist” and “anarchism”, but libertarian capitalistss. I understnad that based on a straigh dictionary definition this might work, but historically, anarchism is a tendency on the Left. Going back to the Paris Commune, or there abts.

    And historical anarchists have had both pacifist and actionist tendencies. Think of the Durruti Column and the CNT in the Spanish Civil War. Not to mention the Wobblies here in the US, they never backed down from a fight, and there use of direct action to support strikes was a key to how they were so successful in the teens and 20s.

    And as for not wanting to help war veterans, to me it’s a matter of compassion, not whose money is used. I’d rather the tax money was jsued to provide opportunities for trades other than soldiering, but once they’ve been sent and injured, I feel (even as an opponent of imperialist wars) an obligation to try and help make those people whole again.

    Besides, from a financial sense (if we are to be strictly amoral and vulgar), it is much much more cost efficient to help vets as soon as they are home, than for them to end up swelling the homeless and addicted populations.

    I’m sort of with G.E. in the alck of enthusiams for the candidates I’ll have on the ballot here in WA, and I’ve toyed with writing iin Gracie Allen. She was a brilliant and very funny woman, who did run for rpesident, in ’36 I think, as a ongoing skit on her and Burns’ radio show, but people actually wrote her in. And a write in vote for a dead Gracie Allen, seems as good as a “Fuck You”?

  36. darolew

    “I have to object to the appropriation of the term “anarchist” and “anarchism”, but libertarian capitalistss.”

    Yet another reason why — even if I did oppose all government — I’d never call myself an anarcho-capitalist. It simply isn’t worth the trouble fighting with the socialists over the legitimacy of the term. Even if legitimate, “anarchist” has nothing but negative connotations to nearly everyone, making a poor choice of words to begin with.

    I’ve always been baffled with the amount of importance terminology has on political theory. A rose by any other name…

    “I’m sort of with G.E. in the alck of enthusiams for the candidates I’ll have on the ballot here in WA…”

    To my knowledge, Nader, McKinney, Gloria La Riva, and Róger Calero all made it on the ballot here in WA, thus far. Brian Moore was trying for it, but I don’t know if he made it. None of those candidates left enough for you?

  37. Mike Gillis

    Well, clearly I’m more than happy voting for Nader, otherwise I wouldn’t have been his statewide ballot access coordinator.

    But as a fellow Washingtonian, this election is going to SUCK for us. With the new stupid “top two” primary, Ralph is the only third party candidate I’ll get to vote for in the general election, as most offices will have the same duopoly, but no alternatives.

    I think I’m going to use the write in option more than once.

  38. Mike Gillis

    According to the Sec of State in WA, we have to choose from:

    Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, La Riva and Harris (stand-in for Calero).

  39. G.E. Post author

    Deran – Anarchists are against the existence of a monopoly state. The difference between individualist anarchism and collectivist anarchism is a difference in opinion of how people will (or should) behave in the absence of a state. But I hope you don’t consider yourself a left-wing anarchist, because you’re always and forever for empowering the state! I will gladly join with left-wing anarchists in opposing the state at all levels.

  40. langa

    “I have to object to the appropriation of the term “anarchist” and “anarchism”, but libertarian capitalistss. I understnad that based on a straigh dictionary definition this might work, but historically, anarchism is a tendency on the Left. Going back to the Paris Commune, or there abts.”

    Hey, it goes both ways. You guys on the left not only coopted the term “liberal”, which used to mean what’s now meant by “libertarian”, but also the concept of “class warfare”, which originally referred not to capitalists vs. workers, but rather to rulers vs. subjects. So I think we’re owed a little compensation. 🙂

    Seriously, though, in order to avoid confusion, I’ve thought of using something else, like perhaps “panarchy” (since there would be many competing legal systems). However, that would probably cause confusion as well, and require the same kind of explanations that it would ostensibly be aimed to avoid.

  41. langa

    “Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, La Riva and Harris (stand-in for Calero).”

    Wow, you guys have quite a plethora of choices. Here in GA, I think Barr is the only independent/third party option.

  42. Trent Hill

    We’ve got alot in LA, too.

    I think we’re supposed to have like 9-10 options for president.

  43. darolew

    “But as a fellow Washingtonian, this election is going to SUCK for us. With the new stupid “top two” primary, Ralph is the only third party candidate I’ll get to vote for in the general election, as most offices will have the same duopoly, but no alternatives.”

    Indeed.

    But with lovely options like Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire available, who needs third parties, right? (sarcasm)

    Seriously, whoever ends up running against Sam Reed, I’m voting for them.

  44. Mike Gillis

    I think I’m going to go for a new record on Election day with the top two.

    Last year, I used the write-in option on my ballot 15 times. 15 times I wrote in “None of the Above”.

    This year, there are alot more seats up for grab and alot fewer palatable choices in the general election.

  45. Mike Gillis

    Back on the subject of campaign websites – why are there so many McKinney websites and which ones are official?

  46. G.E. Post author

    I know of one: RunCynthiaRun.com, and I think that’s an official one. My guess is others exist because that one is so god-awful.

  47. G.E. Post author

    Interesting: That site has a far-right appeal to it. Anti-Fed right at the top. Anti-NWO. A link to the Constitution (somewhat laughable coming from her). Judging from Web sites, I’d pick McKinney over Baldwin!

  48. G.E. Post author

    The funny thing is, if I decide to vote for McKinney, meatspace people will think that I haven’t fully converted!

  49. Mike Gillis

    I think the second one is owned by a Truther that works for her. I think the first one is still the official site.

    The second one looks ALOT better.

  50. Trent Hill

    Im assuming the first is the official. But there is like,3 official sites. I suppose maybe they are ALL official?

  51. chinese_conservative

    Okay for real even if the Baldwin campaign has a bad team they should stick with it. They keep changing the damn website that none of them have been good. Just keep the team and the same website until the election.

  52. Melty Rox

    “coup in Denver”? It was a fair elimination runoff vote. So none of the candidates were spectacular and it wound up Republican Lite. That’s democracy

  53. Chris Cole

    I notice that no one mentions an intention to vote for Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party. I’m curious whether there is something that people don’t like about him.
    http://www.cj08.com

  54. G.E. Post author

    Won’t be on the ballot in most states. Won’t be an official write-in in most states. The Michigan BTP is one of the more active BTPs (at least judging by press releases, etc.) and yet, last I heard, they only had two people who had agreed to put their names on paper as electors. Seventeen are needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *