Ron Paul continues to shake things up by endorsing a third-party candidate for president:
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.In a longer speech, here is an interesting remark asserting that evangelicals vote their eschatology:
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
Paul suggests "there is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored." Considering the issues of peace, civil liberties, debt and the Federal Reserve, Paul makes a convincing argument.
However, although McCain is far from perfect, on the issues of abortion and the sanctity of human life I see a real difference between the leading presidential candidates, a difference we've attempted to highlight during the last few days. To be fair, Chuck Baldwin supports Congressman Ron Paul's 'Sanctity of Life legislation',(H.R. 2597) opposing abortion and takes positions similar to Paul on many other issues.
But will Paul's endorsement make a difference and will his supporters vote for Baldwin? And, has the addition of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket reduced the impact of Paul's choice for president?
I have to say that while I admire those who vote purely for the candidate of their choice, there really is such thing as a wasted vote. No politician is perfect--including McCain, Palin, and Baldwin--and a vote for a third-party candidate in this electoral system might as well be a vote for Obama.
It is very unfortunate that Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. This can have no good consequences. Remember, third party candidates NEVER win presidential elections (not even ex-President Teddy Roosevelt who ran such a campaign in 1912 and lost). They are a dead end, a waste of time and a distraction from the candidates who can win.
Chuck Baldwin has some good ideas, no question, but realistically all he can do is take votes away from John McCain and Sarah Palin and make it statistically more likely that Barack Obama will take power, which would be severely damaging for most of the causes that Baldwin and the Constitution Party hold dear. It would be catastrophic for the cause of protecting unborn children from unlimited lethal criminal violence.
Chuck Baldwin cares about the rights of unborn children but his campaign for President shows that he is willing to put their lives in danger for the sake of making the kind of strong philosophical arguments he feels the major party candidates won't make. Making good, strong moral and economic arguments is very important, but not if it is potentially putting millions of human beings at risk.
If you care about unborn children, vote ONLY for pro-life candidates who can actually win. A pro-life candidate who cannot win and can only weaken a pro-life candidate who can win is a danger to our movement.
Let me be very clear:
DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES.
The ONLY realistic way to have a hope of stopping the killing of unborn children is to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin at the top of the ballot and for pro-life Republicans for Senate, House and all state and local offices.
I have to say that although voting the lesser of two evils appears to be a persuasive argument, voting for McCain because he will does a little less damage to the Constitution than Obama doesn't seem productive. Yes, no politician is perfect, but voting for McCain or Obama when one desires someone with principle and respect for the constitution is a vote to continue the slide towards socialism and fascism. The last eight years should be ample proof for this argument.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams
That's all I have to say.
This type of "wasted vote" ideology is what got us stuck in the two party system to begin with! Can't you see how the two major parties pander for the evangelical vote? We DO NOT matter to them. It's all about the votes you can bring in November!
The Constitution was damaged more under the Republican leadership in the last eight years than a Democrat would ever have got away with.
Why do Republicans talk such a good game about smaller government, lower taxes, etc; but when it comes to governing we have more government, more national debt, and just as many babies aborted as we did at the beginning.
Democrats wouldn't do any different, just more and faster.
Ron Paul actually introduced legislation to stop abortion and no one in the Republican leadership did anything.
Actions speak louder than words. The Neo-conservative's have control of the Republican party and sadly, the Christians are fooled into supporting them. This all bodes ill for our Constitution, sovereignty, and future.
So once again I'm asked to hold my nose and vote for McCain....No Thanks...I already did that when I voted for Bush I, Dole, Bush II and where did it get a true conservative and what happened to our country...more socialism and fascism.
In the next four years I'll proudly tell anyone who I voted for and why.
I will continue to educate and wake people up to this fraud of the two parties. The Republicans can either stand and deliver on the principles that supposedly they are for or let the Democrats dominate government for another 40 years.
I supported Ron Paul and I will now support Chuck Baldwin. In the future, I will only support Candidates that defend the Constitution in record and principle not simply with lip service.
Look, I don't like the "wasted vote" mentality as much as anyone else. In fact, before McCain chose Palin as his running mate, I was seriously considering sitting the election out.
But the truth is that those who are striving for the sanctity of life and a culture of life in America NOW HAVE AN ADVOCATE in Sarah Palin.
Please do not throw that away! Does anyone want a repeat of what happened when Ross Perot ran? Is it worth it, considering the alternative (Obama and Biden)? If we had a more moderate Democrat running, maybe I would understand voting for a third party candidate. But Obama is no moderate, not even close.
That is true, you might as well vote for Obama.. or McCain.. which ever person fits your moral convictions or political views more.
However, I am not sure one should abandon voting for the person who best fits them, especially if that person is in a 3rd party. The lesser of two evil is still evil, and your vote means that you are willing to be held accountable for the action you vote cause.
So, vote for a major party, or a 3rd party, just don't throw away your own morals and views in the process.
John McCain...pro-life...I don't think so, Read this and try to explain McCain's record.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080822.html
Following up on Anonymous' last reply (7:54), I want to say this: A vote for Baldwin steals a vote from McCain, one less vote against Obama.
Ask yourself this: Can you go to sleep at night on November 4th knowing that your vote directly resulted in the widespread murder of millions of babies?
It may sound unfair, but the truth is Obama has PROMISED that the FIRST thing he would do in office is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would annihilate every abortion restriction created over the past 35 years.
Principles are important but not all principles are created equal. The principle of defending the defenseless unborn trumps everything else. Period.
"How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are "pro-life"? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use "pro-life" rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is--it works." Chuck Baldwin
so what I'm reading here is that voting for a wasted Baldwin vote is like killing babies. That's real christian of you. What hypocrites. The Republican party wants to go around the world engaging in the anti-christian pre-emptive war theories and you have the audacity to call a Baldwin vote a wasted vote to help Obama. I will pray for you all. Wake up Christians and see that Ron Paul wants to define life as beginning at conception and your so-called Republicans are more concerned about spreading democracy by killing. It makes me want to scream.
You should change your slogans to pro-life for american babies and bomb the muslim babies.
I agree the Republicans are not as good as I would have them be. This is why we should hold their feet to the fire after the election and make sure they do the right thing. Organize to take them down in primaries in 2010 and 2012 if they fail us.
The Republicans (or at least conservatives) did not control the House and Senate in a meaningful sense. The narrow majorities and the liberal abortionist Republicans meant that pro-life conservatives were still in the minority. We need to elect large Republican majorities to really win this struggle. In the meantime we must do all that we can to advance the cause. Letting Obama and the Democrats win is absolutely devastating.
At a minimum, we need a Republican President and Senate so we can get (hopefully) good Supreme Court appointments and overturn Roe vs. Wade and begin the process of reducing violence against unborn children and ending the abortion holocaust.
I'll never waste my vote on McCain. I'm voting Baldwin!
I'll grant you one thing Joe, you had it right the first time. Republicans did control the House and Senate and President, but not Conservatives.
McCain IS a Republican, but he's NOT a Conservative. So I will concede you make a convincing argument. But Conservatives need to quit trying to argue that McCain is a solution and make the argument of "holding their feet to the fire" as you put it. Trying to make McCain
what he's not only weakens your argument.
Palin may be a much better Conservative than McCain, if so flip the ticket and run her for President. If you think a Vice-President is going to influence policy, you are showing a lack of historical research of the record of Vice-Presidents. They are essentially cheer-leaders for the policies of the President. Sadly, it seems all Palin is going to do is have her Conservative principles compromised and end up a neo-conservative for the sake of getting elected. She's on the ticket for window dressing for McCain to use as cover.
Watch what this produces....more government, higher deficits and in 4-8 years another fake Conservative to vote for as the lesser of two evils versus another socialist Democrat. This formula is getting pretty old.
If we really want to change things, send a message to the Neo-conservative highjackers of the Republican party and vote for Chuck Baldwin.
John McCain, Conservative....hardly...some quotes right out of John McCain's mouth:
“In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade”
–John McCain, on Roe V. Wade
“By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the godd%^&*$ fence if they want it.”
–John McCain, on immigration 2/07
“The first thing that I would do is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and several others and say, ‘We’ve got to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track.’”
–When asked the first thing he would do if elected President, 3/00
“John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We’ve been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it.”
–When asked if he would entertain being Kerry’s VP if asked, 3/10/04
“Just by coincidence, Senator Teddy Kennedy and I, in the last couple of days, after several months of negotiations, have reached an agreement for an immigration proposal that we will be putting out next week, … our proposal is along the lines of make them pay a fine of a couple thousand dollars, make them work for three years, and after three years they can get in the back of the line for a green card and then eventually become citizens.”
–John McCain on Immigration
Quotes about McCain:
“The thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
– Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known McCain for 35 years.
“The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises — at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him.”
–Ann Coulter
“I’d rather slit a vein than vote for John McCain.” Nice bumper sticker. Many conservatives aren’t just saying “No” to John McCain. They’re saying, “Hell, no!”
–unnamed woman at GOP event
“I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don’t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they’ll continue to send money home.”
–Juan Hernandez, Hispanic outreach director for John McCain
“Mexico first!”
–Hernandez
Yep...real Conservative we got for a candidate.
"Remember, third party candidates NEVER win presidential elections"
Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate who won and this led to the demise of the failed Whig party. I know Chuck Baldwin may not be Abraham Lincoln, but he might be laying the foundation for someone who will come afterwards.
With out of control government spending and low approval ratings for both parties it's only a matter of time before a third party wins and one of the other two falters.
They both basically represent the same thing - big government. A party that is serious about limiting the federal government should eventually be able to shove one of these parties aside since I beleive a large portion of the population believes in this.
Third party votes are not wasted anymore than all votes which aren't in a 50-50 swing state are wasted. To the contrary, a decent sized voting block for a third party might lead politicians to change the positions & actions a bit to appeal more to these voting blocks.
[Editors Note: this comment has been promoted to an entry entitled Chuck Baldwin Comments on Reactions to Ron Paul's Announcement]
If Baldwin thinks that Republican control of the White House and Congress means we could have overturned Roe v. Wade, Baldwin has no business running for any office, much less the presidency.
Justice Stevens found "penumbral emanations" in the U.S. Constitution when he wrote the decision in Roe. That means that only another Supreme Court decision can overturn Roe. Even if an amendment to the Constitution were drafted by Republicans at the height of their power in Congress, they could not have gotten enough support from Democrats to make it an amendment to the Constitution (2/3 needed).
Thats what the people clamoring for supporting McCain are using as an argument to convince Pro-life voters to vote Republican, Anonymous. Chuck Baldwin accuratly points out that the Republicans didn't even try to overturn it. The Supreme court also found that "seperate but equal" was legal, doesn't make them infallable and "penumbral emanations" doesn't close the door on the issue. The Supreme Court is not the final say on the Constitution, The people are.
Expressed this way, of course, penumbral emanations are one angle to treat the ordinary way common law is made. A bunch of judges declare rulings in specific cases based, allegedly, on rules of law that are really full of tensions and ambiguities. Those cases then become a new body of law, and a judge at a later time reconciles a rule out of them. That rule appears in new cases and new situations. Repeat, ad infinitum.
Shake up the shysters! Demand your representative's support for The Sanctity of Life Act 2007 HR 1094 (fist submitted 2005 as HR 776) How many babies might have already been saved had we "Christians" been behind this legislation instead of playing politics???
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1094::
CHUCK BALDWIN supports HR 1094.
CHUCK BALDWIN is in the world not of the world, where are you?
Stand for biblical truth and trust God for the rest!
In Jesus' precious name we pray for the strength to submit to you, Dear Lord. Amen.
This talk of wasting one's vote on a third party candidate is pretty silly unless you live in one of the states where it's going to be close. Has one of the nominees of the Big Government Party (which has two wings, the D's and the R's) visited your state since the "coronation" conventions? If you haven't seen McCain, Obama, Palin, or Biden in your state, it's not in play this November and you can vote 3rd party with a clear conscience. If it were close in my state, I'd hold my nose and vote for McCain, but I will not face that dilemma where I live.
"Let me be very clear:
DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES."
When I see lines like this, I have to laugh.
You may not have had a civics class but let me explain something to you about Presidential elections in America and how it really works. The Presidential election will be decided by a small number of states and these states will be decided by a small number of people. If you think a third party vote is a waste, then exactly how is a vote for Obama in Texas or a vote for McCain in California going to fact or in? The answer is that they do not. Most states have already been conceded, meaning that every vote for the other candidate is a "waste" according to your definition. I live in Las Cruces, NM a town of about 75,000. We receive regular visits from the candidates as they fly into El Paso (a town of 750,000), they don't campaign in Texas and move right to Las Cruces because the candidates know not to spend their time and money on a state that has know who will get their electoral votes.
For some reason voters are content with less choices. If we had two choices for beers or cars, their would be a revolt. Even Miss America has 50 contestants. Why is less choices in politics a good thing?
As an avid Ron Paul supporter, I cannot support Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution party for two reasons:
1. IMO truthers hurt Ron Paul's campaign more than any other thing, including lack of media exposure. On various Pro Paul websites that I visit, these truthers now support Chuck Baldwin. I will never support a candidate that has these kooky supporters again. They gave him a bad name and ironically Ron Paul does not agree with them. I will never “get in bed” with truthers again.
2. The second reason is because of the Constitution party itself. It certainly has a great name after all who can argue with the constitution?
But after further review, have you read their preamble:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”
Sorry I can’t support a party that in effect excludes non Christian members and I am a Christian.
JDC-- http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble:
“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States."
Beautiful! Thanks JDC. Yet another reason to stand in support of Chuck Baldwin AND The Constitution Party.
Obviously I disagree with Stevens' tortured reading of the Constitution and only cited the "penumbral emanations" as the basis for Roe, however flawed this basis is.
Of course change comes from the people, but we live in a democratic republic, not a pure democracy.
If you disagree with the Supreme Court's power (which, by the way, I do), you'll have to figure out a way to overturn Marbury v. Madison, which has been around for, oh, 205 years.
John McCain pro-life? LOL. He voted for Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also has repeatedly voted to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars as well as overseas abortion providers. John McCain is all lip service to the pro-life movement. Four years of John McCain will not save a single unborn life.
So, the srgument is that we should not vote 3rd party because 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance to win... Perhaps they don't stand a chance to win because WE are too busy playing politics, trying to align ourselves with the lesser of two evils.
Thought: What if those who go by His name were to actually vote in accordance with Godly principle, and then trust God with the results? Perhaps we just talk about God and don't really trust him with important things like, elections.
Look at the alternatives for President this year. Ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance. If the Lord brings forth a man who is following Him, in wisdom and in truth, should we ignore him? If we do, what does this say about our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
"You shall know them by the fruit they bare" ... If a man SAYS he's against abortion but refuses to sign on to to legislation that would actually impact this tragedy[HR 1094]...? If a man SAYS he supports life AND backs up these words with support for life-saving legislation...? We must stop playing party politics (leaning on our own understanding)and begin to listen to the simple truths the Lord has given us.
May He draw us nearer to Him, may He make us more willing to submit our will to His. In Jesus' name. Amen
I'm disappointed to see Ron Paul reacting so emotionally. I mean, the phrase "unsolicited advice" sounded pretty bitter. I would have thought those two would have managed to have cleared the air by now.
I don't like the role of Ron Paul's staff in this. If the reports of their behavior are true, then they behaved deviously -- and I expected better from them.
I hate to see the liberty vote go all to hell, that's all. And it has....
I too am a Christian but the Constitution Party disturbs me.
I have no ill feelings towards Baldwin be I've got to vote the Libertarian direction.
Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Alan Keyes are all trying to do what they believe to be the right thing. I really wish they would try to stay within the confines of the Republican Party and try to reform it as best they can. We have two and only two political vehicles in this country which can win and form a government. Isn't it better to try to reform and improve the Republican and Democratic parties, if it can be done (not easy, but I believe it is possible), rather than become involved with small parties which really cannot win, not in the foreseeable future. I believe that this has just fractured our vote, with most of it in the Republican Party, some in the Democratic Party and smaller parts of it spread around the Constitution, Libertarian and American Independent Parties.
Does this really help the causes we believe in?
To vote for a party or a person that does not support your views and values is like saying that it is OK not to. Vote your convictions and when the world and the American people see on TV on November 4 that a third party got a large percentage of the vote more eyes will open. In 2012 the door may open wide enough for a third party or an independent to win or get close to winning. It will only happen IF we vote for the best candidate not the lesser of two evils or the one that will win to keep the other out. How will change ever happen if we keep up this failing ideology?
All the best!
HonestyFreedom
"So remember, the only way to waste your vote is to vote!"
--Penn Jillette
Chuck Baldwin will not take any votes away from McBama. Chuck Baldwin will get the vote of the people who would not vote for either big box party candidate. He will give people who don't vote because they don't like their choices, a reason to vote.
Sarah Palin is just a trick to get all the evangelicals to vote for McCain. Whats sad is how quickly and easily the trick worked. People have them self fooled into believing that they are going to vote for Palin, but in reality they are really electing McCain.
For those that think voting for Chuck Baldwin is a wasted vote because you don't think he can win, tell me this. If you vote for McBama and he loses, was your vote wasted?
Also Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate who won and he was not even on the ballot in 9 states.
And finally, how long will you be held hostage to voting against your conscience because you are afraid of the boogey man who will get in if you vote with it?
My vote is owned by no party. I will not vote for McBama. I will vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. A man who is 100% pro life, no exceptions.
Martin Luther said "to go against conscience is neither right nor safe"
He was right.
Stop voting out of fear and start voting in faith.
Obama simply scares pro-life and conservative voters to McCain. Perhaps this was an anticipated strategy.
As pointed out by Chuck, conservatives have always had a tough time with McCain - I recall Hugh Hewitt saying,
"In this election year, Democrats won the day, largely because of the failed track record of the GOP."
"Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations from receiving a vote. "
And John Hawking's blistering commentary that got him blackballed by the RNC: Put very simply: John McCain is a liar. He's a man without honor, without integrity, who could not have captured the Republican nomination had he run on making comprehensive immigration a top priority of his administration. Quite frankly, this is little different from George Bush, Sr. breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes pledge," except that Bush's father was at least smart enough to wait until he got elected before letting all of his supporters know that he was lying to them.
Palin has energized those whose in McCain only that he is not Obama but is she enough?
It does no good to vote for a man who is "100% pro-life no exceptions" if he cannot win. The idea is not to vote for the person with the best philosophy, but to vote for the person with the best philosophy from among those who can win.
Only John McCain and Sarah Palin, among all the candidates, are in a position to do anything at all to stop the killing of unborn children. If you want to end or reduce abortion violence, the only hope is with John McCain and a Republican House and Senate.
There is an option open to a simple majority of each house of Congress that I have not heard being tried:
the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the national (aka "Federal") courts except for a rather short list spelled out by the Constitution (and that list does not include "privacy"/abortion). That would leave it to the states to decide individually. Has that ever been tried with regard to abortion?
Just wondering about the historical record...
ro
BUT all of the collective years of Republican/Pro-Life influence has resulted in a bunch of empty rhetoric and no action to change the law.
Honor God and vote for the godly man - God will take care of the rest.