Posted at Campaign for Liberty
The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral†in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.
I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.
“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. ”
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.
This was linked to by Comedy Central’s Indecision blog.
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/09/23/ron-pauls-endorses-unknown-man-from-unknown-party/
200 comments, an IPR first?
I posted this elsewhere, but if you guys have any questions for Chuck or his VP Darrell, please post them and on that story and I will do my best to get them into the interview tonight on RevolutionBroadcasting.com at 9PM ET.
Andy – Just take a look at this.
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.
I say if Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin permanently severs the ties between the George Phillies brand of “libertarianism” (laugh) and the real thing, then good.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/09/ron-paul-comes-out-of-theocratic-closet.html
Sorry, I forgot not everyone knows what Stormfront is.
Ugh. That’s a racist website. You’ve got to give some warning, man.
Ron Paul also got some support from racists, which is stupid of the racists because neither Baldwin nor Paul support racist ideals.
They are celebrating at stormfront.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=525283
(It was a pingback to IPR).
You caved too easily paulie.
OK, I won’t call them.
Don’t call Ron’s office congressional office!
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!
I’ve never heard of Chuck Baldwin saying anything about using the Federal government to pass laws against pornography, prostitution, gambling, or opposing gay rights.
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.
The pooh-poohing of the Baldwin endorsement . . . NO, the slandering of Ron Paul endorsing Baldwin is now in full swing with the Barr apologists on the LNC.
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!
Galileo, which Huey Long book was that?
Baldwin was asked again about 9/11 in an interview. He didn’t seem to go beyond the re-investigation theme. McKinney is still the candidate for single-issue 9/11 voters.
“154 paulie cannoli // Sep 23, 2008 at 1:15 am
Other issues:
Gambling
Abortion
Prostitution
Porn
Trade
Immigration
Gay rights”
I’ve never heard of Chuck Baldwin saying anything about using the Federal government to pass laws against pornography, prostitution, gambling, or opposing gay rights. Baldwin is for the states deciding on these issues. While he may well support outlawing these things at the state level, keep in mind that he is not running for a state office, he is running for a Federal office, therefore, he would have little or nothing to do with these issues.
“Barr is far from perfect on these, but Baldwin is even worse. No way in hell I would vote for Baldwin. He is a completely proud, unrepentant follower of Jerry Falwell.”
I think that your reaction here is a bit on the hyterical side, but having said this, I will once again say that Baldwin is NOT my ideal candidate either. I’d rather have Harry Browne. I’d rather have Aaron Russo. I’d rather have Michael Badnarik. I’d rather have Ron Paul. I’d rather have Mary Ruwart. I’d rather have Steve Kubby. I’d rather have Charles Jay if he were on the ballot in more states. I’m just saying that out of the candidates who are on enough ballots to theoretically win this election, I find Baldwin to be the least toxic.
Baldwin and Paul are two candidates who’ve had kind things to say about atheists.
Andy – Baldwin refused to directly say he would not support higher tariffs in any circumstances.
“G.E. // Sep 23, 2008 at 2:32 am
You don’t have to go, because he’ll bring church to you. At gunpoint.
That’s not fair or accurate, paulie.”
I agree with GE. Baldwin has actually reached out to atheists. I don’t think that he’s quite the religious tyrant that some people are making him out to be.
I’d trust Baldwin before I’d trust Bob Barr.
On China, tariffs, and abortion, Baldwin takes different stances than Paul (even though he spins his abortion stance as being in line with Paul — Paul took a Bob Bird-like stance on CSPAN before the Rally, making it 100% clear he’s against a national ban).
“Average tariffs are far lower.â€
I’ve heard of some tarriffs being 25% or higher.
Is there some contradiction between those two statements?
“Average tariffs are far lower.”
I’ve heard of some tarriffs being 25% or higher.
“He certainly doesn’t deal with the subject very much. Division of labor, I guess. The Mises Institute does a great job there. But a LOT of his listeners and supporters are morons. Just go to the forums and see for yourself.”
Alex Jones has had economists on his show, including some libertarian economists. In fact, I’ve even heard the Mises Institute mentioned on his show a few times.
His show may not delve into economic theory on a regular basis, but there is only so much time on his show and he’s got a lot of other subjects to cover.
I would put the average Alex Jones listener ahead of the listeners of pretty much any other talk radio show when it comes to knowledge off issues, and they are WAY ahead of the general public.
Dick Clark’s analysis at lpradicals
=======================
(Cleaned from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates\
,_2008#Economic_issues
)
*Slightly worse than Barr on:*
– Immigration
– China (too adversarial)
– Tariffs (very protectionist)
– Veteran healthcare (panders to warhawk nation-worshippers)
– Federal involvement in abortion (favors federal definition of life as
beginning at conception)
*Better than Barr on:*
– Income tax (abolition vs. alternate taxes)
– Social Security (abolition vs. “system of private accounts”)
– Sound money (abolition of Fed vs. “reconsidering the Fed”)
– US involvement in the UN (total withdrawal vs. “[t]he U.S. should push
to roll back the UN’s functions and slash America’s financial contribution”)
They are pretty much the same on other stuff. Baldwin is definitely more radical generally. I am not sure that either one “gets it.”
Dick Clark
preferable to the FairTax fraud supported by Bob Barr
Again, Barr’s “fair tax” is not necessarily the “FairTax” (TM)
Baldwin wants to make big cuts in government and completely eliminate the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the Social Security administration. This is a big net CUT in government, even with the 10% revenue tarriff.
A tariff is a tax. Some agency has to collect it, whether you call it the IRS or something else.
I will do more research to find out more about current tarriff rates, but I’m pretty sure that some tarrifs that are in exsistence right now are HIGHER than the 10% that Baldwin advocates.
Average tariffs are far lower.
It’s accurate on some of the social issues mentioned above. So far no one had provided evidence he deviates from CP or Moral Majority on those. He was proud of his involvement with Fallwell and the Moral Marority as of a week and a half ago. Has something changed since then?
Andy – You can’t really place a 10% tariff on things. Based on what? It’s impossible to calculate and there will always be lobbying, etc., for preferential treatment.
Foreign goods already have transportation costs added to them. Anything on top of that is protectionist, in my book.
That’s not fair or accurate, paulie.
“We don’t have a 10% general tariff, or the even worse tariffs advocated in the Constitution Party platform.”
I will do more research to find out more about current tarriff rates, but I’m pretty sure that some tarrifs that are in exsistence right now are HIGHER than the 10% that Baldwin advocates.
Baldwin wants to make big cuts in government and completely eliminate the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the Social Security administration. This is a big net CUT in government, even with the 10% revenue tarriff.
I don’t like tarriffs because they are just another tax, but a low revenue tarriff without the Federal Reserve and fiat currency, the IRS, and Social(ist) (In)Security, is certainly preferable to what we have now, and it is also preferable to the FairTax fraud supported by Bob Barr.
I found out that Constitution Party Vice Presidential candidate Darrel Castle is in favor of Fully Informed Juries. I don’t know for a fact if Baldwin is in favor of Fully Informed Juries or not, but I wouldn’t be suprised if he is. I do know that Bob Barr is NOT in favor of Fully Informed Juries (and yes, I know that Wayne Root is).
Just because Baldwin is a Pastor, it doesn’t mean you’ll have to go to church.
You don’t have to go, because he’ll bring church to you. At gunpoint.
Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury!
OK, I’d go for that.
N O . B O R D E R – – N O . C O U N T R Y
Sounds good to me. How do we get there?
Barr is for open borders. What about amnesty?
I wish.
Barr’s platform is against regulating migration across borders and intervening with freedom of trade and travel to foreign countries.
You mean the LP platform? Not as solid as it was or should be again, but better than Barr’s and a damn sight better than Baldwin’s on those issues.
Barr is not for open borders, nor amnesty. That’s too bad.
No borders = no state = no war. You can have a country without having “the state,” which is evil. Read some of the books recommended in Ron Paul’s THE MANIFESTO.
Thanks Barr for showing your true colors at Paul’s press conference!
Just because Baldwin is a Pastor, it doesn’t mean you’ll have to go to church. No doubt he is more trustworthy than Barr, and hey, you can’t call Chuck Baldwin a flip-flopper.
Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury!
.
N O . B O R D E R – – N O . C O U N T R Y
.
Barr is for open borders. What about amnesty?
Barr’s platform is against regulating migration across borders and intervening with freedom of trade and travel to foreign countries.
= OPENDEBATES.ORG =
Not quite the same statement as “upholding their right to.”
How about upholding their right to rape your wife or steal your child?
I’m not for upholding any such “rights,” even if I don’t want a federal government strong enough to protect me from states which would exercise them.
paulie – No level of “the state” has any just authority, but the federal government does NOT have the authority under the Constitution to STOP states from making these laws.
Well, on trade he’s different.
Slightly better. Still protectionist.
He doesn’t say anything about Panama, etc.
So until we know otherwise, he agrees with his party’s platform?
What about the other issues mentioned?
They are both wrong. No level of government has any such authority.
Well, on trade he’s different. Even though I couldn’t get him to outright refute the platform. He doesn’t say anything about Panama, etc. Constitutionally, states and localities DO have the “authority” to ban drugs. This is Barr’s position, too.
Specifics?
Baldwin deviates from the CP platform, paulie.
Holtz is a very good writer, but TPW’s claim as a “news” site is completely bogus when they break the news of the endorsement in such an anti-Baldwin way.
Holtz notes @ TPW
As noted last week, Chuck Baldwin’s message includes:
*
“restoring American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundationsâ€;
*
opposing “any legal recognition of homosexual unions†or “legalized adoption of children by homosexualsâ€;
*
carrying out “the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-bornâ€;
*
“upholding the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugsâ€;
*
“upholding our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenityâ€;
*
requiring that tariffs on “foreign imports†will not â€be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United Statesâ€;
*
“a moratorium on immigrationâ€;
*
“the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panamaâ€;
*
no “foreign entity†should be allowed to own any U.S. assets, including real estate, stocks, bonds, or Treasury notes.
As a Ruwart partisan, I will admit that Badnarik sans 2006 mess would have been the best candidate for 2008.
I would have preferred either Ruwart or Kubby to Badnarik, and any of the three to Barr.
We already have tarriffs right now! You are acting like tarriffs don’t exsist right now and this is not true.
We don’t have a 10% general tariff, or the even worse tariffs advocated in the Constitution Party platform.
Other issues:
Gambling
Abortion
Prostitution
Porn
Trade
Immigration
Gay rights
Barr is far from perfect on these, but Baldwin is even worse. No way in hell I would vote for Baldwin. He is a completely proud, unrepentant follower of Jerry Falwell.
Barr wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with the FairTax.
Baldwin wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing.
False. Baldwin wants to replace it with a 10% tariff.
Barr is open to a flat tax or sales tax, not necessarily THE “FairTax.”
As a Ruwart partisan, I will admit that Badnarik sans 2006 mess would have been the best candidate for 2008. Following his principled ’04 run, he could have easily piggybacked the Revolution to several million votes… Especially if enough CP defectors could have helped Keyes win that nod.
Mary Ruwart would have been a better candidate. Bring back Michael Badnarik, he would have been better as well.
Yes, but Kubby would have still been better than both of them.
Less toxic, yes. But toxic is still toxic. Like Chuck Moulton said, the CP’s platform would guarantee an instant depression.
If you say so.
I like him either way, but I’d REALLY like him if he were solid on economics.
He certainly doesn’t deal with the subject very much. Division of labor, I guess. The Mises Institute does a great job there. But a LOT of his listeners and supporters are morons. Just go to the forums and see for yourself.
“And that’s despite the fact that even after Ron Paul’s endorsement, I’d still be more likely to vote for Barr than Baldwin.”
We already have tarriffs right now! You are acting like tarriffs don’t exsist right now and this is not true.
Baldwin’s 10% revenuen tarriff is far less toxic than the FairTax that Bob Barr supports. n
GE, I don’t think that Alex Jones is really a protectionist. e He’s a constitutionalist who favors the constitutionally authorized tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes to fund the constitutional functions of government, so I see him as supporting a revenue tarriff which is not necessarily the same thing as protecitonism.
I’ve listened to him for several years and I think that he understands what government is, as in the use of force, he just doesn’t think that anarchy is realistic, which is a view that is held by many Libertarians.
A frequent guest on Alex Jones’ show is Walter Burien (of http://www.CAFR1.com ) and I’ve heard Alex endorse Burien’s plan for eliminating ALL taxation (as in including tarriffs) and running the constitutional functions of government off of dividends on already exsisting government investment funds. If he were really so in favor of protectionism, then why does he endorse eliminating all taxes?
Alex Jones endorsed Michael Badnarik for Congress and he had Badnarik on his show as a guest several times. He’s had other Libertarians on his show over the years such as Harry Browne, Carla Howell, Michael Cloud, and Aaron Russo. He’s also had Marc Stevens on his show and he sells Marc Stevens book “Adventures In Legalland” ( http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com ) which gives the anarchist-libertarian view.
I know that Alex Jones was a guest speaker for the Longhorn Libertarians which is the campus Libertarian Club on the University of Texas in Austin. I’ve heard the audio from that speech and in it Alex said that Libertarians are the smartest, nicest, and best organized (minor) political party in the country. Alex Jones also spoke at this Distinguished Libertarian Speakers event that has held somewhere in Texas.
I think that Alex Jones is certainly more libertarian than Bob Barr as well as many of the “Libertarian Lites” who are in various positions in the party right now.
Not true. He wants tariffs to replace the income tax, which are more regressive than the income tax. And he’s never refuted the neanderthalic platform of his party, which is worse on economics than the Green Party.
“And that’s despite the fact that even after Ron Paul’s endorsement, I’d still be more likely to vote for Barr than Baldwin.”
Why the fuck would you vote for Barr or Baldwin?
Barr wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with the FairTax.
Baldwin wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing.
Baldwin supports a real investigation into 9/11.
Barr toes the official statist line about 9/11 as if it doesn’t have any holes in it that are big enough to fly a 747 through.
Barr is a fomer CIA employee and I wouldn’t be a bit suprised if he is still working for the CIA (or some other group) to sabatoge the Libertarian Party.
Baldwin is a preacher and doesn’t have nearly the skeletons in his closet that Barr does.
Baldwin may not be perfect – I’d have prefered Michael Badnarik or Mary Ruwart – but I’d trust him way before I’d trust Bob Barr.
Andy – Trent says Jones is a protectionist, and that’s certainly true when it comes to immigration (which is entirely inconsistent with his other views, btw). He has videos at his site that have the kind of idiotic anti-Fed, untrue B.S. (not made by him, but still…) that led me to defend the Fed for a year before reading Ron Paul.
VTV, Hugh – Of course Gravel wouldn’t have made the same mistake. But Paul probably would have just outright endorsed Baldwin if the LP nominated a leftist.
70 G.E. // Sep 22, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I’ve been listening to Alex Jones for a few weeks now, and although he’s not good on economics, everything I’ve heard him say has checked out. He makes connections that may or may not be true, but the facts he deals in — at least in my experience — are rock solid.
I’ve been following Alex Jones since 2001. Alex Jones is pretty damn solid on facts and issues. I don’t think that he’s bad on economics. He’s not an anarchist because he doesn’t think that anarachy is possible, so he’s more of a constitutionalist/minarchist. He’s officially an independent, but I’ve heard him refer to himself as a libertarian, a constitutionalist, a freedom fighter, and a true conservative.
In addition to being a good source of information, Alex Jones is also quite entertaining as a radio host. I consider him to be the best talk show host in the country right now.
I’m not surprised. Barr sure is fracked now, though. Not that he doesn’t deserve it.
However, I’m still not voting for Baldwin. The conspiracy theories, the protectionism, the religion, the anti-choice abortion position, the awful party platform, the stance against foreigners owning property in the U.S., the anti-immigration — it’s just too much. I’d rather vote for a socialist like Nader — at least my vote would be for someone who I’m confident is fully sane.
As a 12 year member of the Libertarian Party, here’s what I’ve got to say to the Bob Barr campaign, GO TO HELL!!!!!
Fuck Bob Barr and fuck his campaign staff!
You people have seriously damaged the party that I’ve been working to build for 12 years.
Mary Ruwart would have been a better candidate. Bring back Michael Badnarik, he would have been better as well.
I know him pretty well, and I would not say he is arrogant. He is very confident. And he is also kind of impatient. I can’t really blame him.
He often gets people who talk down to him in the political spectrum who seem to forget that they are talking to the guy who ended the draft, and read the pentagon papers, etc.
It is possible to disagree with him without him flipping out.
Although Gravel is unlibertarian on a handful of issues, at least he always made an effort to court Ron Paul’s supporters. He probably wouldn’t have made the same mistake Barr did, but given his arrogance, I wouldn’t put it past him.
G.E. can you admit this much? Mike Gravel would of never made this mistake either?
Of course, the LP really lost out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity when the CP proved to be more principled in nominating Baldwin over their own version of Bob Barr, Alan Keyes. That sealed the fate that Paul would not be endorsing the LP nominee.
I don’t get it.
Brian – Come on, now. You know that Chuck Baldwin is not on the same page as Ron Paul on every issue. Paul was going to stay neutral, but Barr forced his hand. If Mary had been the nominee, then Paul would have remained neutral.
Ron Paul is the #1 advocate for pure free trade in the entire world. Baldwin’s a protectionist.
Ron Paul is pro-life, but clearly against a national ban. Baldwin spins Paul’s words into making him sound like they’re on the same page.
Paul makes no effort to speak to “traditional marriage” voters. Baldwin has a page dedicated to them.
I could go on. There’s a LOT wrong with Baldwin. But Barr forced Paul to make the endorsement by insulting him and his followers. And Mary Ruwart would have NEVER done that. If you want to tell yourself that this same scenario would have played out had Mary gotten the nomination, go ahead and deceive yourself. But I don’t think you can possibly mean that.
So you are suggesting that the Revolution is not a good or libertarian movement?
That’s how Barr’s long fall started.
I never suggested that I expected Ron Paul to endorse Mary Ruwart after she lost the nomination. What I suggested was that if Chuck Baldwin is Ron Paul’s idea of a proper heir to the R3VOLution, then heir to the R3VOLution is not a title devoutly to be wished.
Forty is smack dab in the middle pc . . . Eighty would be a good long life.
I’m kinda hurt that GE wanted out so fast, I was going to ask him to lead the invocation at the formal intervention.
I know Knapp was ordained at the Universal Life Church like me (Dec. 20th 2001), so maybe we could share duties.
I had a bad run-in with the LP after the whole snub-gate BS where they were very, very condescending, so I’m biased.
I highly doubt your run in was with the LP. Perhaps the national office or some local members in your area, or some LP member online? We are diverse bunch.
Geeeeesh. A few hours away from the old tube and the sky is falling . . .
That’ll teach you, sorta-middle-agedish man.
No Paulie, I said that, not RP. Didn’t mean to imply he did.
I had a bad run-in with the LP after the whole snub-gate BS where they were very, very condescending, so I’m biased.
Geeeeesh. A few hours away from the old tube and the sky is falling . . .
Travis – thanks. We do our best without a copy editor and without any significant budget!
Fuck you LP, bunch of jackasses.
Not at all what Dr. Paul said.
Assuming, of course, he even said it.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Awesome. Smoke that you emBARRassment. Bunch of fucking amateurs. Paul won’t even refer to Barr by name anymore. Awesome.
Depending on access, it’s either Baldwin or Nader for me.
HA. Fuck you LP, bunch of jackasses. Keep going the way you are and EARN the title of retarded younger brother of the GOP.
Brian Holtz – You expect Ron Paul to endorse a person who isn’t a candidate for office?
My convention speech was proven correct today. The LP didn’t nominate Mary Ruwart, and as a result, its permanently lost any claim to Ron Paul’s Revolution.
Once again, the radicals sought consensus and broad appeal. The other factions, left and right wings of the Reform movement (best definition I can muster) are more interested in internecine war.
Another comment I endorse
http://reason.com/blog/show/128950.html#1088616
GG,
TPW is Babarr central. You know that. Why would they cover an endorsement that hurts “The Libertarian candidate” ( Paul refers to Barr in the way Bill Parcells used to refer to T.O. as “the player.”) and he helped cause.
This is what happens when I come home late…
That’ll teach you, young man.
I guess Ron Paul didn’t agree with Jason Seagraves that “Dr. Mary Ruwart is the logical heir to the Ron Paul rEVOLution.â€
Since Dr. Ruwart is not on the ballot in the general election, Dr. Paul has to choose from the existing candidates.
He prefers Chuck Baldwin to Bob Barr. That does not necessarily mean he would have preferred Baldwin to Ruwart.
Notice that he still has good words for the LP despite Barr’s actions.
*borat accent*
TPW staff: haha, we don’t type what we don’t see. haha.
😀
F.O.C.,
Fair enough. Than/then might not be that “stupid sounding.” It just really sticks out when I read it. Probably a petty nitpick.
I find it interesting that Third Party Watch is not covering Paul’s endorsement.
Paulie,
http://reason.com/blog/show/128950.html#1088599
This is what happens when I come home late…
It is a crying shame that Baldwin isnt on in California or Pennsylvania. But I still bet he challenges Barr.
I guess Ron Paul didn’t agree with Jason Seagraves that “Dr. Mary Ruwart is the logical heir to the Ron Paul rEVOLution.”
I happen to like George a great deal, Seth. I just don’t like his politics.
Seth says my “crime” was reporting something Phillies said on the list, and then says that I’ll now get my news “second-hand” by not being on the list that I wasn’t supposed to be report things from in the first place.
Yeah.
I suspect that George Phillies will continue to send me news, directly, as he’s been doing since Denver. If he chooses not to, then my heart will go on. I would be completely shocked if Angela Keaton blackballs me for dropping off the precious list — and virtually all of the news I’ve reported from her has been sent directly, too.
Regardless, your assertion that these latest antics have been my “rudest” yet shows a very poor appreciation for my anthology of work.
It’s too bad the state Libertarian Parties where Baldwin isn’t on the ballot couldn’t dump Barr and endorse Baldwin.
Btw, George’s dislike of Paul isn’t news, for anyone following LP politics for the last few years… but paraphrasing an email comment (and a poor paraphrase at that) is just childish. Your whiny about the email list was what I reacted to, not commenting about George commenting about Paul. Your dislike of George certainly is on record already.
Jason, aka G.E.:
That ‘list’ (aka the large cc: list that you objected to be included on) includes a large variety of folks, including LNCers, former LNCers, former candidates, reporters/bloggers (thus your inclusion), and others.
You are clearly too foolish to realize when you are being trusted by a large number of diverse activists working together (a rare enough event itself), and your wish to no longer be trusted and included will be respected. And already has.
1) I didn’t “predicted the imminent collapse of IPR”, only that you’re going to get your news secondhanded. I’m sure other IPR posters will continue to get the ‘inside scoop’ at times.
2) The list isn’t a secret society, unless of course you believe folks like Alex Jones… oh wait, you do, never mind.
Paulie, you likely weren’t included initially because of your fallout with the AB. Nothing personal (at least in my mind)
Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin is the only candidate from a FEC- recognized party to challenge the official story of the tragedy of 9-11.
Representing the largest and fastest-growing third party based on voter registration (Ballot Access news), Baldwin joins the growing list of military, scientific and other well-credentialed experts who agree,’the government’s account of what happened that day simply does not pass the smell test’.
Baldwin, poised to attract voters who will not cast their votes for either ‘Big Box’ party candidate in November said, ‘All across America voters are telling me, ”I am afraid of Obama and I don’t trust McCain’.
Baldwin added, ‘More and more people want answers . They want to know about government corruption, our loss of liberties and yes, what really happened on September 11th. The heartache this country endured won’t be cured, but it will give us answers to some basic questions about why our security, intelligence and civil defense measures failed and why so many aspects of the government’s version have been shown to be lies’.
Sorry, no LIHOP/MIHOP here. Not to say he’s not.
“Not a Barr Fan” sez @ LFV
Jesse (Benton) is a bad boy and now is in a lot of trouble according to Ron Paul’s COS:
Tom Lizardo
Chief of Staff
Phone: 202-225-2831
Jennifer Bailey
Scheduler
Phone: 202-225-2831
Rachel Mills
Press Secretary
Phone: 202-225-2831
Ouch, Fred.
You are right that I always can use some introspection and self-improvement, but I am happy with my independent mindset and independent-oriented party — poor articulation and all.
Orvetti says Jesse Benton posted it.
The CFL’s blog says Jesse Benton posted it.
And I really hope Ron Paul did not write this, and that an UNPAID C4L staffer wrote/typed this up. I am not a stickler for grammar, but I hope I can read past the first paragraph ( of the quoted text) without encountering the most annoyingly common and stupid-sounding mistake of all-time.
It doesn’t read like Paul wrote it, though I disagree that then/than is stupid-sounding. In print it’s easy to catch, but it’s practically imperceptible in speech. Maybe this was sent out DNR.
http://baldwin08.com/Issue-911.cfm
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633 (McKinney and Nader are #62 and #67, respectively)
Pastor Rod Parsley is full-fledged MIHOP, not Baldwin.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
Google Pastor Rod Parsley!
Parsley for President!
President Parsley!
Anyone want to guess how long and IF TPW even reports this!!
Thanks IPR for your great reporting.
And I really hope Ron Paul did not write this, and that an UNPAID C4L staffer wrote/typed this up.
Orvetti says Jesse Benton posted it.
I pretty much agree with Andy Craig’s comment on reason ( tReason, as GE prefers).
Which comment, where exactly?
I have not seen any evidence that Baldwin is MIHOP, but as his website shows, he does question 9-11. I’m pretty sure that Cynthia McKinney is MIHOP, on the other hand.
Again, I’m still waiting to hear definitive proof either is MIHOP or LIHOP for that matter.
So far I have determined they are both pro-investigation.
Vin: If your party’s platform is any indication of your views, you had plenty of reasons. Your inability to articulate them is a side matter, and one that probably requires some introspection and self-improvement on your part.
And I really hope Ron Paul did not write this, and that an UNPAID C4L staffer wrote/typed this up. I am not a stickler for grammar, but I hope I can read past the first paragraph ( of the quoted text) without encountering the most annoyingly common and stupid-sounding mistake of all-time.
I pretty much agree with Andy Craig’s comment on reason ( tReason, as GE prefers).
I have not seen any evidence that Baldwin is MIHOP, but as his website shows, he does question 9-11. I’m pretty sure that Cynthia McKinney is MIHOP, on the other hand.
Sorry, I’ve confused Chuck Baldwin with Pastor Rod Parsley.
They both look and sound alike.
Conquering the Spirit of Debt (is on google video)
Sorry, I’ve confused Chuck Baldwin with Pastor Rod Parsley.
They both look and sound alike.
Conquering the Spirit of Debt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3051024550497129264&ei=jyjYSP7-Nafi-QGtn73JAg&q=Pastor+Rod+Parsley&hl=en
For a long time now, I never had a good response for when people would ask me why I wasn’t supporting Ron Paul. Now I can say that I could never support someone who endorsed a man who I am so ideologically opposed to in nearly every way.
Where is the proof that Baldwin is a full-fledged MIHOP Truther?
Wow. And here I thought FDR was pure evil.
“Mainstream history acknowledges that conspiracies have run nearly all of the world’s societies throughout the last 10,000 years. To suggest that this suddenly stopped being the case in the 20th century is insane.”
While at the bookstore, I found dozens of mainstream history books that describe conspiracies or alleged conspiracies:
1) Vasari’s “Lives of the Artists”, published in 1565, alleges that Massacio was killed by a conspiracy in 1428 (at the age of only 26!).
2) Chaucer was killed in a political conspiracy by Henry IV in 1400.
3) Tycho Brahe was killed in a conspiracy in 1601.
4) Merriwether Lewis was murdered in 1809.
5) King Tut was murdered.
6) John Lnansing (who attended the Constitutional convention) was murdered in a political murder in 1829.
7) Huey Long was murdered by FDR in 1935.
8) Galileo was framed in 1633.
9) Paolo Foscarini, a defender of Galileo, was murdered in 1616.
10) Alexander the Great was murdered in a political conspiracy.
11) There are many questions surrounding the death of Christopher Marlowe.
12) Julius Caesar was killed by political assassins.
Good Job, Babar!
I can’t vote for Baldwin, but I sure aint voting Barr either.
The list is a secret society (unbeknown to me) and is by invite only. They don’t even ask you if you want to be on it, they just start spamming you.
paulie – Apparently, they viewed IPR as the contra to TPW, i.e. a Libertarian Party organ for the “other” side. Now they, or at least Seth, upon seeing we can’t be used for that, is wishing our demise! hahaha!
G.E. can you give me that email list so I can join it?
Whoops. Meant to close out the italics after “country.”
inDglass,
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are bat-shit insane, too, probably with a fair degree of overlap with Alex Jones’ fan base.
…
These are also some of the most aggressive activists in the country.
Yeah, they’re too</i< aggressive. I don’t think anyone has told Ron Paul supporters about the “soft sell.”
We are not going to die when McCain or Obama get elected president, our society and economy will probably continue progressing and growing in the long-run despite government intervention, and returning to a gold standard or a gold-exchange standard, given the current structure of international forex and other financial markets, will probably not remedy many (or any) of the problems facing America in the future. Saying that the opposite of any of the above is true is simply unsupportable by anything I’ve seen. I’m a libertarian because I think the world could be a better place, not because I think it’s completely going to hell.
They’ll see my comment here, and either invite me or not.
I guess you aren’t cool enough, paulie, to be on the list. And I don’t think I’m the one to put a word in for you.
Drats. I’ve lost my seat at the LP pity party “exclusive insider” club. Now maybe instead of wading through B.S. emails I can … make money for my family! Heaven forbid!
Oops, I did it again! And I’ll keep doing it until you people TAKE ME OFF THE LIST.
Put me on the list instead.
Dammit. I’m no Ron Paul fan, but in the wake of Snubgate I went ahead and joined Campaign For Liberty to show solidarity with the four-point joint statement. Now I’m trying to figure out how to get out (not because he didn’t endorse Barr — can’t blame him for that — but because he did endorse the most anti-freedom candidate he could find).
No way. It’s millions. Tens of millions, even.
Oops, I did it again! And I’ll keep doing it until you people TAKE ME OFF THE LIST.
Uh oh! Apparently I wasn’t supposed to report on George Phillies’s email rant against Ron Paul.
Seth the Reform statist Cohn admonished me and predicted the imminent collapse of IPR:
The same goes for me, G.E. Everything from him that I have researched has checked out.
When it comes to the conspiracy allegations he often makes, it is more difficult to prove, but I believe he is right. Mainstream history acknowledges that conspiracies have run nearly all of the world’s societies throughout the last 10,000 years. To suggest that this suddenly stopped being the case in the 20th century is insane.
“NotABarrFan” @ BAN
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/22/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/#comments
# NotABarrFan Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Ron Paul just now gave a speech about re-opening his Lake Jackson office. Call him now at 979-285-0231 and find out the truth yourself!
PS — And no he did not give any endorsements during his speech.
I’ve been listening to Alex Jones for a few weeks now, and although he’s not good on economics, everything I’ve heard him say has checked out. He makes connections that may or may not be true, but the facts he deals in — at least in my experience — are rock solid.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023001.html#more
“The fact that Baldwin is in Alex Jones tinfoil-hat territory is supposed to be a *good* thing?”
Hundreds of thousands of Americans believe that 9/11 was an inside job and feel that is an important issue. Hundreds of thousands more are libertarians. Over one million voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. There is obviously a great deal of overlap, but the combined endorsements of Alex Jones and Ron Paul tap into over a million potential voters. These are also some of the most aggressive activists in the country. It is time for the Baldwin r3VOLution.
More details from “NotABarrFan” at LFV:
September 22, 2008 at 6:19 pm8 pauliecannoli
So, has anyone called the 202 number, or reverse directoried it for that matter?
September 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm9 Peter Orvetti
It’s Ron Paul’s House office number.
September 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm10 NotABarrFan
Called the office at 4:47 pm right after I first read about this. The lady who answered, Jane or Jeanette, said she already has received a lot of calls and said that Congressman Paul did not endorse anyone and referred to his official statements on the matter about backing third party or don’t vote at all… yadda yadda yadda.
They only wish he would finally come out and take a stand (any stand) and frankly so do I. But having a volunteer or staff member at the CFL take matters into their own hands is not responsible and make Ron Paul look foolish. I hope they fire this blogger ASAP and clear things up or releases an official statement signed by Congressman Paul with a press conference so we can see him say it himself. This is not RP’s style and for sure not they way he writes or speaks. Shame on the CFL and the CP!
Now call the CP and what do they say? “we are aware on certain web sites there is a mention of an endorsement by Ron Paul, however we have not received anything official to date.â€
Please do not take my word, call yourself, do some research, email the congressman or the CP. Prove me wrong, please!
paulie, I already predicted that last week. I had the odds as 9-1 back then. Now, I think it would be appropriate to raise it to 3-1.
Want to know the truth? Call (202) 225- 2831
Whose number is that?
PS — Of course if this was true you would expect it to be on the CP’s web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ but it’s not. A call to the CP will also bring you closer to the truth!
Well, they may not have had time to confirm it yet, much less issue a press release. So what?
Fine. It’s a bet.
As I said, it’s not what I want to see.
If they were the only two candidates on the ballot, I would vote for Barr.
Fine. I’ll take that bet.
I just fear that you’re seeing what you want to see, rather than what is.
I’ll win.
Are you really that eager to lose five dollars?
I got five on it.
Paulie,
Without access on CA or TX, I just don’t think it’s possible.
Barr has the advantage of ballot access AND name recognition.
While I would love to watch him go down in flames and while I’m heartened by the way that the Paul campaign has secularized the CP, quite a bit, I just think that Baldwin topping Barr in votes as incredibly unlikely.
Phillies said it in an email to a group of whiny libertarians that I’ve somehow been subjected to even though I’ve asked to be removed and was never asked to be included.
Please add me to that list, though.
My bet’s on Baldwin, despite the poor ballot access.
And that’s despite the fact that even after Ron Paul’s endorsement, I’d still be more likely to vote for Barr than Baldwin.
Beating him out in states where they’re both on the ballot would be good enough for me.
Phillies said it in an email to a group of whiny libertarians that I’ve somehow been subjected to even though I’ve asked to be removed and was never asked to be included.
Whatever the endorsement, Baldwin doesn’t have a shot at knocking Barr out of fourth place.
Without ballot access in big states like TX and CA and a number of others, Baldwin just doesn’t have a prayer of getting more votes than Barr.
With the Paul endorsement and his ballot access, I could see Baldwin defeating McKinney, but not Barr.
George Phillies is cheering Paul’s endorsement, calling Paul a racist, homophobic, bigot, etc.
An educated guess, or has Phillies actually commented on it somewhere?
I’d like to see proof that Baldwin is a MIHOP Truther. Paul has stated he would not endorse any such people.
OK I admit I am not a Barr fan, but I am voting on the LP line this year. Why — first read the CP Platform. Then look at how many states the CP will be on the ballot. Only the LP is big enough to get out the message of Liberty!
Please, RP doesn’t support this. What happened to Freedom of Religion? RP did not just find Jesus and forgot about the Constitution.
No sir, my firm belief is he is not even aware that one of his staff members wrote this very poorly written blog. Check out what Dr. Paul said on CNN Late Edition yesterday and then explain why he would change his mind about endorsements overnight?
Sorry, I am not buying this after seeing him in 1/2 dozen interviews. In fact, this illegitimate blog posting is enough to make me not support the CP at all or any of its candidates. Shame on you!
Want to know the truth? Call (202) 225- 2831
PS — Of course if this was true you would expect it to be on the CP’s web site: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ but it’s not. A call to the CP will also bring you closer to the truth!
George Phillies is cheering Paul’s endorsement, calling Paul a racist, homophobic, bigot, etc.
LP – Ron Paul = George Phillies = A JOKE
Galileo,
I think your assessment is right, but McKinney was one of the earliest, and continues to be one of the most prominent, voices for investigations and getting at the Truth surrounding 9-11. Certainly no one else in Congress had the cajones to stand up to Bush and Rumsfeld the way that she did.
It’s a difference between what one says and what one does, and in the case of 9-11, McKinney has talked the talk AND walked the walk. Baldwin may be an eloquent speaker, but what has he actually done?
McKinney’s psrters have the word TRUTH on them 4 times as big as her name, and her campaign website is votetruth08.org. Plus her press advisor is John Judge. How much more Truthiness do you want from McKinney?
The only way to get more investigations and congressional hearings is to convince more people like me who are LIHTCN (Let It Happen Through Criminal Negligence), that we need to get to the bottom of 9-11. Baldwin is just going to scare people off, frankly.
P.S. I am a big fan of all those fancy syrups at IHOP, but there are not too many in the NYC metro area, sadly.
2008 PETITIONING FOR PRESIDENT
(updated September 16, 2008)
TOTAL STATES ON THE BALLOT
Libertarian Party Green Party Constitution Party Nader (Indep.)
44 32 37 46
View State-by-State Chart
http://www.ballot-access.org/
The CP has 37 states so far, the LP 44.
He has taken the third party with the best ballot access and sent it’s ticket straight into the ground.
Hell, even the “best ballot access” title is now up for grabs.
“IHOP=International House of Pancakesâ€
Ha! That’s a good one!
IHOP=WTC7?
I’ve seen hour long videos of Baldwin ranting about 9/11 and the New World Order.
Are any of them online?
Don: Yes.
And, they told my mother that too. She’s fine though, and so am I, thanks.
… meaning to say, in so many words, it is now Ron Paul marginalizing himself and his C4L by embracing a truly “fringe†candidate and platform.
Given that Ron Paul has far more supporters than either the LP or CP do, no.
Ortiz,
‘Holy Mother of Christ’
—–was that REALLY necessary?
And Ron Paul, a OGB- GYN whom
claims that out on 12K patients,
NOT ONE needed an abortion.
I had one wife [ONE] and had she
gotten pregnany again, the doctors,
THE REAL DOCTORS, said it might
kill her.
Zero out of 12,000.
One out of one.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I revoke my endorsement of Nader… I need to think now. If Baldwin has a shot to beat out Barr… I just want to see Barr get fourth (or worse).
… meaning to say, in so many words, it is now Ron Paul marginalizing himself and his C4L by embracing a truly “fringe” candidate and platform.
I don’t quite get it… doesn’t really seem like Ron Paul’s style to be so spiteful and short-sighted. Maybe one of the C4L guys penned this press release.
Oh well, everyone loses pretty much. Ron Paul loses credibiliy, Barr loses RP’s flock, and Baldwin loses as soon as people look into his past writings and the CP platform.
So much for the “year of the libertarians”. Bah.
Ortiz,
“HOLY MOTHER OF CHRIST!”
Careful, Ortiz, Baldwin’s Protestant and may not understand. 🙂
BizARRe emBARRassment
Pastor Baldwin, eh? maybe Ron Paul DID write “those newsletters” after all…
One way for the Barr campaign to GUARANTEE that Ron Paul actively campaign for Baldwin would be for the Barr campaign to further piss off the Hon. Ron Paul. I’ll bet Shane Cory is writing an explosive news release right now.
Will somebody reading this at BarrHQ please jump him if he is doing that? Gordon, I’m talking to you.
We’ll figure out how it’s justified under the non-initiation of force principle afterwards.
Great. Ron Paul and his supporters deserve someone who takes the threat posed by the amero and the NAU more seriously than Bob Barr….
I once again say, I still don’t feel that this was a “mistake”. Bob has now managed to alienate all the new voting base that the LP delegates who were telling me to vote for Barr were claiming they were trying to court. He has taken the third party with the best ballot access and sent it’s ticket straight into the ground.
Maybe it’s time that the LP members start leaving the party for the BTP and the CP depending on what they prefer.
“IHOP=International House of Pancakes”
Ha! That’s a good one!
BIHOP = Barr Is Hoppin’ Mad!
The lesson here is to speak the truth about 9/11, rather than to be anal-retentive about it.
A fitting end to “Shmendrik Gate” and the candidacy of Bob Barr. Such a schmegeggie, Barr.
The fact that Baldwin is in Alex Jones tinfoil-hat territory is supposed to be a *good* thing?
“McKinney is LIHOP, Baldwin is MIHOP.
McKinney is probably MIHOP in private, but only Baldwin is openly MIHOP.
Do you have references handy on that?”
I’ve seen hour long videos of Baldwin ranting about 9/11 and the New World Order. He’s a fantastic public speaker.
I have never seen a MIHOP statement from McKinney, only LIHOP. I could be wrong, though.
LIHOP = Let It Happen On Purpose
MIHOP = Make It Happen On Purpose
I wonder if this will cause the Bob Barr campaign and apologists for Barr’s action to admit what a colossal error it was.
It is encouraging to know some people still believe anything is possible. The answer is no.
LIHOP=Let it (9.11 attacks) happen on purpose
MIHOP=Made it happen on purpose
IHOP=International House of Pancakes
I wonder if this will cause the Bob Barr campaign and apologists for Barr’s action to admit what a colossal error it was.
That said, I’m glad the blog entry made clear that Ron Paul still supports the LP even though Barr treated him like dirt.
Chalk one more brilliant move up for Russ Verney, on par with the way he treated Jesse Ventura when the latter was a sitting Reform Party Governor and exploring a presidential bid.
But will he campaign for him? Or make this endorsement more public than just one blog entry?
One way for the Barr campaign to GUARANTEE that Ron Paul actively campaign for Baldwin would be for the Barr campaign to further piss off the Hon. Ron Paul. I’ll bet Shane Cory is writing an explosive news release right now.
PEACE
Steve
LIHOP? MIHOP?
McKinney is LIHOP, Baldwin is MIHOP.
McKinney is probably MIHOP in private, but only Baldwin is openly MIHOP.
Do you have references handy on that?
“What about McKinney?”
McKinney is LIHOP, Baldwin is MIHOP.
McKinney is probably MIHOP in private, but only Baldwin is openly MIHOP.
For candidates trying to raise awareness, its what you say that counts.
Down with the LP!
You might notice that even in making the endorsement, Dr. Paul says good things about the LP and wishes them well.
Bob Barr really blew it!
He’s delusional about his own standing. Rather than respectfully accepting whatever degree of support he could get from Ron Paul–whose general endorsement of third-party / independent candidates was very pro-democracy–he thought he could bolster himself by insisting that he was in a class of his own. Of course he has very little hope of doing as well as Nader in this election, much less of garnering more support than Ron Paul has. But in his own mind, apparently, he’s a cut above the rest, irrespective of what all the polls say.
Exactly.
Will Paul even be able to vote for him? Is Baldwin a qualified write in in Texas?
Yes.
Don’t be surprised if Baldwin gets more votes than Barr.
The way this is going, Barr could come in sixth.
Missing that press conference had to be the dumbest move of what has been a tragicomically mismanaged campaign.
Bob Barr really blew it!
He’s delusional about his own standing. Rather than respectfully accepting whatever degree of support he could get from Ron Paul–whose general endorsement of third-party / independent candidates was very pro-democracy–he thought he could bolster himself by insisting that he was in a class of his own. Of course he has very little hope of doing as well as Nader in this election, much less of garnering more support than Ron Paul has. But in his own mind, apparently, he’s a cut above the rest, irrespective of what all the polls say.
Will Paul even be able to vote for him? Is Baldwin a qualified write in in Texas?
Down with the LP!
Up with the LP. Down with Starr’s and Barr’s party.
I have to say I am not surprised.
Am I honor-bound to vote Baldw9n now? I think I might be.
To the LNC: GOOD JOB!
Down with the LP! Down with the LIARS who said there would be no fallout from Snubgate. You are ALL miserable pieces of trash.
Baldwin is the only full fledged 9/11 Truther running for president
What about McKinney?
HOLY MOTHER OF CHRIST!
Baldwin is the only full fledged 9/11 Truther running for president and now has the endorsements of Alex Jones and Ron Paul.
Baldwin is also a great public speaker.
Don’t be surprised if Baldwin gets more votes than Barr.
I’m still voting for Barr, though.
WOW!!!
Ron Paul supporters – If I were you, I would take a look here before voting for Baldwin:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/libertarian-reform-leader-tells-paul-supporters-to-check-out-cp-platform/
Good fucking job, Bob Barr. You pushed the most prominent libertarian in America to support a fucking theocrat with your childish antics.