Chuck Baldwin: The Pros and Cons of Voting for Rand Paul

chuck baldwin

This was posted to Chuck Baldwin’s FB page:

Rand Paul: Pros and Cons

On Tuesday of this week, Rand Paul made it official that he is a candidate for the office of President of the United States. As I did with Ted Cruz a few weeks ago when he announced his candidacy for President, I want to give readers a preliminary assessment of Senator Paul’s pros and cons. Be mindful, again, that this is a preliminary assessment and is subject to change as more information becomes available.

For those who may not know, Rand’s father, former congressman Ron Paul, and I have been friends for many years. I campaigned heavily for Ron’s presidential campaign in 2008, and again in 2012. I even represented Ron in some notable Republican campaign events during that time. And I also spoke on the same platform with Ron and introduced him in several large rallies. And, after Ron dropped out of the Republican primary in 2008, I was approached by many of his supporters to carry the liberty message into the general election as the Constitution Party’s candidate for President. This I did, and when I did, Ron publicly endorsed my candidacy. Through my friendship with Ron, I had the privilege to meet Rand and, as with his father, I like Rand a lot. Readers need to know that up front.

That said, this preliminary assessment of Rand’s candidacy will be intellectually honest and objective. Readers need to know that, too.


*He is his father’s son

In my opinion, Ron Paul is the greatest U.S. congressman in our country’s history. While we have had several outstanding U.S. House members, no one can match Ron’s incredible record. Without a doubt, Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most preeminent champion of liberty. And you know the old saying: the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I believe that is certainly true with Ron’s son, Rand.

And you can believe that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., believe that, too. As soon as Rand announced his candidacy, neocons such as Senator Lindsey Graham began their attacks against him. Graham went so far as to say that Rand Paul’s foreign policy is worse than Hillary Clinton’s. (That’s because Graham and Clinton are both warmongers, and Rand isn’t.) Rest assured, the GOP establishment will spend the entire primary season trying to make sure that Rand Paul does not receive the Republican nomination.

*Rand’s foreign policy

This is where Rand Paul shines. Like his dad, Rand believes in a constitutional foreign policy. He is opposed to America’s foreign wars of aggression. He is opposed to America’s preemptive war doctrine instituted by G.W. Bush. He is opposed to the Warfare State and all of the entangling alliances that go along with it. In fact, Rand Paul is the ONLY candidate for President from either the Republican or Democrat party that would probably make any significant change in America’s foreign policy.

*Rand Paul is solid on the Bill of Rights and the right to life

Rand Paul is solid on the right to life and the Second Amendment. But unlike the rest of the presidential candidates, Rand is also solid on the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the name of the “war on terror,” politicians from both parties in Washington, D.C., have mostly eviscerated the Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Fourth through Tenth Amendments are mere words on paper. Both Republican and Democrat congresses have gutted them to the point that they are unrecognizable from their original intent. Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights.


*Illegal immigration and amnesty

So far, Rand has been soft on his stance against illegal immigration and Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals. Rand’s principal opponent in the GOP race will be Ted Cruz; and Cruz’s tough stance against illegal immigration and amnesty is very popular with most Republican voters. If Rand continues to take a soft position on illegal immigration, it will give Cruz a leg up with many of the GOP electorate.

*His support for Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell

The decision to support Mitt Romney for President in 2012 cost Rand a lot of popular support. Romney was a Democrat in Republican clothing. Romney’s socialized medicine program in liberal Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obamacare. Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. And Mitt Romney flipped-flopped on so many issues (including the life issue) that he more resembled Silly Putty than he did a serious presidential contender. There was no telling which way Romney was going to bounce next. And Mitch McConnell is the consummate establishment politician. No genuine conservative respects McConnell.

I understand why Rand endorsed Romney and McConnell. He was trying to show the Republican Party that he was willing to work with the GOP leadership. Plus, as the freshman senator from Kentucky, he didn’t want to make a political enemy out of Kentucky’s senior senator (and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader). But endorsing Republican candidates that were fundamentally flawed positionally and constitutionally was something Ron Paul was never willing to do. And that uncompromising commitment of Ron Paul was one of his most endearing qualities. As such, I am extremely honored to be the only candidate for President since Ronald Reagan that Ron Paul endorsed. In my opinion, that says more about Ron than it does me.

When Rand endorsed Romney, it angered untold numbers of principled conservatives. That anger still exists. These folks are worried that Rand will be too willing to work with unprincipled Republicans in the future. This fear is something Rand MUST successfully assuage if he is to unify the base that he needs to win the Republican nomination.

Read the rest of this column on his website

6 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: The Pros and Cons of Voting for Rand Paul

  1. Pete Blome

    Chuck Baldwin wrote this? Quite frankly, I’m surprised. I’ve always looked at Constitution Party advocates as a subset of Libertarians, but this is definitely beyond that simple idea. You have to wonder if the man is being too crafty for his own good.

    First, let me say Ron Paul is admirable, but he failed at the key point. His flaw is the flaw of all those who think they can turn Republican and Democrat Party politics for liberty, when they are increasingly skewed towards state power. Ron Paul inherently endorsed the concept of centralized power and control when he abandoned the Libertarian Party for the established, powerful, moneyed Republican Party. In a push comes to shove in the Republican Party, individual rights will be sacrificed in favor of government power, and he became a willing member of that. That is the history of the last 100 years in this nation, and Ron Paul did his part to move it along, best intentions or not.

    Rand Paul is not his father’s son. Rand Paul loudly proclaimed “I am not a Libertarian.” He refused to help his father get access to speak at the Republican convention of 2012. He endorsed Mitt Romney for President over his Dad the same year. Imagine not getting your son’s endorsement. He is in competition with his father, and Rand revels in the fact he is willing to work the system more to his advantage, where his father had reservations that cost him. However, were it not for Ron Paul establishing his libertarian credentials, as flawed as they are, there would be no Rand Paul.

    Chuck Baldwin’s estimation of Rand’s non-interventionist foreign policy comes under question when one considers he has made an increase in the defense budget of approximately $75 billion a center piece of his campaign. The budget is already bigger than the next 8 countries combined. Interventionism is fostered by more money, not hindered by it. Perhaps Rand was thinking about American business and employment when he pushed for a bigger DoD. The USA is the world’s biggest arms exporter, and it is one of the few industries that government can effectively promote, since private arms sales are so restricted. It is a clear example of Rand working the system to his advantage, and to the detriment of liberty and the long-term interests of the people of the USA. I’ll add that his endorsement of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney is the same kind of cynical calculation.

    Rand is the only candidate who gives more than lip service to the Bill of Rights? For a man who ran for a third party, Chuck Baldwin shows a distinct big party bias. The Republican and Democrat parties have both shown their willingness to uphold individual protections contained in the Bill of Rights, that is, unless the individual actually wants to use them. I am thankful that Rand Paul stood up in the Senate against state surveillance, but he has not been able to forge a coalition of common interest in the Congress against the executive abuse of surveillance, nor has he called for prosecution of behavior that is clearly illegal. He wants to look like the advocate of liberty, not be the advocate of liberty.

    And all this tripe is being pushed by a Constitutionalist? My Libertarian sense makes me wonder what is Chuck Baldwin up to.

  2. paulie

    Baldwin returned to the Republicans a long time ago and the CP is not libertarian. Baldwin is actually relatively libertarian-leaning for a (one time) CP leader/candidate; Virgil is far less so, and the same goes for many other CP members and leaders. Their libertarianish-leaning wing is just a part of the CP, and not the dominant part. And Baldwin was never as libertarian as some people engaged in wishful thinking to make him out to be.

  3. Andy

    Darrell Castle also leans libertarian. When I met Darryl Castle in person he told me that if the Constitution Party did not exist, he would join the Libertarian Party.

    He was running for Vice President on the Constitution Party ticket at the time. I met him after a debate with other minor party candidates. During the debate he said that he opposed the War on Drugs. I asked him if he just opposed the federal government waging the War on Drugs, and if he supported it at the state level, and if he were running for a state office in his home state of Tennessee if he would vote to end the War on Drugs at the state level. He said that he does oppose the War on Drugs at the state level and that if he were elected to a state office in Tennessee he would vote to end the War on Drugs in that state.

  4. Cody Quirk

    Whatever libertarian/populist-wing existed in the CP is either dying, or departing for the LP.
    I’m a good example.

    IMO, even if Castle has noble beliefs, he is a part of the ruling status-quo of that Party that both shelters & tolerates people like Wisconsin’s Riley Hood, or even Don Grundmann, and will attack any positive change or reform that could help the CP rebound from it’s stale decline- yet would hurt the fiefdom and power within the CP that their leaders currently enjoy.

  5. Mark Seidenberg

    Cody Quirk,

    Please expand that thought. I note that the California Secretary of State posts that Don Grundmann is the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of California. Yet on the national
    CP website I note that Gary Odom in the State Chairman of the Constitution Party of California.
    Is there a dispute as who is the chairperson of the Constitution Party of California or do they
    just have two chairman?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California

  6. paulie

    My understanding is that it is actually a separate paperwork filing for a different party with a similar name, and also that Grundmann has abandoned that effort, or at least is no longer promoting himself as the party chair in his internet comments.

Leave a Reply

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