On September 5, the ballot-qualified Constitution Party of Montana submitted its presidential elector candidates to the Secretary of State. The party informed the Secretary of State that its electors are pledged to Ron Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice-president. Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.
Excellent news! I’ll be very happy if Ron Paul is on both Montana and Louisiana ballots this election.
Wow! Some friend of Chuck Baldwin Ron Paul turned out to be!
If Chuck Baldwin’s miffed at all, he can take it up with Paul personally next week. I doubt it’ll happen.
Is Ron Paul opposed to abortion in all cases? I would guess not. They opposes someone because he’s not pro-life enough then pick someone even less pro-life.
Lucky stiffs!
In CA I was hoping he’d sign the form allowing write in votes, but this makes it sound iffy….
Actually, the Constitution Party of Montana is unaffiliated with the national Constitution Party. They, along with the nine other state affiliates, disaffiliated themselves from the national party over a dispute over abortion. Since then, some of the state parties have reaffiliated, but the Montana party remains independent.
Good point Conquistador.
Ooooo, is RP going to go up on the ballot access chart?
Conquistador, that is correct, but none of the state parties I know of “reaffiliated.” Rather, the national party sent their field director into those states to start up entirely new parties with mostly entirely different people (so much for a grassroots movement).
Though they deny it, the CP has been a mess for several years now.
Actually Tim you are wrong. I for one in the State of Arkansas left the Republican party and when I found out the CPA had disaffiliated, I all by myself restarted the party with no help from anyone at national. I also know that Missouri did the same. In fact I dont think Gary Odom went to any state but California and he is from California. Get your facts straight.
Imagine the havoc that can be unleashed if someone with the name Ron Paul files as write-in. I think that in a few states, he gets the votes that people cast for Ron Paul.
John J. Kennedy probably proved that strategy effective in 2004.
Watch CNN, MSNBC, and the other networks gloss over the fact that 25% of the Montana vote went to Ron Paul when they announce the results of their McCain/Obama contest.
Wow. Amazing.
My prediction: Ron Paul takes 10% in Montana and 5% in LA.
Mr. Anon, your idea about someone else named “Ron Paul” filing as a declared write-in for president in multiple states, so that the states are forced to count “Ron Paul” write-ins, is creative! Are you going to follow up and try to find such a person?
Finding a Ronald Paul or Ron Paul from Texas would be even better.
Tom, the point remains that you and the other newbies are not the same groups, and therefore didn’t “reaffiliate.” As to how many state parties national started, I don’t know exactly. Apparently not Arkansas…
Nah.. i’m pretty busy this fall and calling people who have some form of Ron Paul as their name isn’t too high on my list.
But for all we know, James Ronaldo “Ron” Paul will be our next President. 😉
The placing of Ron Paul on the ballot in Montana is due to the fact that the MT Constitution Party has broke from the National Constitution Party and was a local grassroots move.
Ron had nothing to do with it, except to say that he neither would endorse or oppose it.
Dr. Paul is not throwing off his support of Chuck Baldwin, Research before making defamatory statements about Ron Paul !
I checked and there is a Ronald E Paul that lives a couple of towns over from me. Should I call him or wait for Trent to contact all the Ron Pauls in TX?
Haha. I will NOT be contacting any Ron Paul’s–period.
Maybe we could find a Ron Paul in TX to be a write in for Prez and a Ron Paul from somewhere else to run for VP. In some states maybe we could find Ron Pauls to be the electors for the Ron Paul/Ron Paul ticket.
Tom, the point remains that you and the other newbies are not the same groups, and therefore didn’t “reaffiliate.†As to how many state parties national started, I don’t know exactly. Apparently not Arkansas…
= And those new parties are doing better then the old ones. Illinois is especially doing better without Angela Wittman.
This only proves that Baldwin will not be a factor this year. Paul would get more votes then Baldwin in Montana, and that could be another reason for the switch. Its good though to see Constitution Party members supporting Libertarians, like Ron Paul.
Go Ron Paul Go.
PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢ : the singular integral solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt in proportion to a circulation.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKLS63299020080828?rpc=401
By Krista Hughes
FRANKFURT (Reuters) — Major central banks are working on new rules to bolster global liquidity flows in times of crisis by accepting assets denominated in foreign currencies, a Group of Ten central banking source said on Thursday.
They aim to address calls made more than two years ago for them to cooperate more — a recommendation that was issued again in a Financial Stability Forum (FSF) forum report in April.
Under the changes, commercial banks could be allowed to use euro-denominated collateral to borrow dollars from the U.S. Federal Reserve and submit dollar-denominated assets as guarantees for European Central Bank liquidity operations.
“The assets would have to be of high quality,†the G10 source said. “No firm decision has yet been taken.â€
If there weren’t an inherent degeneration of “quality†(credit-worthiness) as interest irreversibly multiplies debt into insoluble debt, why the scramble to find further credit for existent assets? m.m. ”
Well, we see already that to MSM financial commentators things are not only getting out of hand but out of head too. mms
Go Ron Paul Go!
Go Montana Constitutional Party Go!
Dr. Paul is 100% Pro-Life. As an OBGyn, he has delivered over 4000 babies and declares that he has never had to perform an abortion to save the mother’s life. He is the author of the Sanctity of Life Act in Congress and has also issued his statement on his Christian faith. http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
“But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do.”
Ron Paul’s and Chuck Baldwin’s positions are IDENTICAL. They’re just percieved differently.
“Is Ron Paul opposed to abortion in all cases? I would guess not. They opposes someone because he’s not pro-life enough then pick someone even less pro-life.”
Keep whistling that tune, Cody.
No objective observer would conclude that the CP is doing better today than it was doing four years ago. But those interested in spreading propaganda for their party, well- what would one expect…
Tim,
Baldwin will likely score more votes than Peroutka and be on just as many ballots lines. In fact, he should’ve been on more,if not for the neocon Alan Keyes.
RE: CP disaffiliations in 2006-2007. Most of the groups that “disaffiliated” amounted to little or nothing. It has probably been a mistake to even give some of them credit for still being affiliates by the time they made their bold “disaffiliation” announcements. Much stronger affiliate parties have been established in Ohio, Missouri and Arkansas. There is a good start with the new New York affiliate. The 2008 ballot access campaign has given the CP new leadership in Alabama and Maryland which will hopefully lead to re-establishing affiliates in those states.
Oregon and Montana were much different situations as they were ballot qualified parties with something to offer and respect and we treated them accordingly. The Oregon CP is enthusiastically pro-Baldwin in 2008. The Montana CP leadership has made its decision…now they will have to deal with the rank and file in their own state.
And by the way, Ron Paul had nothing to do with this. His permission was not needed, solicited or given in Montana.
I do wonder how Mr. Martin of Montana reconciles his willingness to place Ron Paul (who is a great man and without a doubt the greatest congressman of our time) on the ballot with the fact that there are many, many pro-abortion atheists across the country who vigourously support Dr. Paul. If one Mormon chairman in Nevada (who is, by the way, no longer the Nevada state chairman) supposedly having less than adeqaute pro-life qualifications made the whole national CP unpallatible for him, how does he explain his new association with all of these “evil” people who support Ron Paul? It is interesting that guilt by association works at one level, but not the other?
And yes, the Constitution Party is in far better shape than it was in four years ago, because at that time there was a festering problem that did cause some turbulance in the ensuing years, but there are no such problems lurking at this time.
Look, the CP is only 16 years old, is still a work in progress and as anyone in their right mind and with any experience in politics would understand, it will most certainly go through growing pains and it has. To expect otherwise displays incredible naivete. The objective fact is that all of the states where there were disaffiliations and that have been reorganized are doing far better than they were before.
I wonder why they don’t get Mary Starrett as VP, would be better than Peroutka IMHO.
Gary – I haven’t heard that the new New York affiliate for the Constitution Party has done anything worth mentioning. They don’t have a website (other than the pagelink on the national website, listing the new coordinator’s name), they got even less signatures than the old affiliate got for Peroutka 4 years ago and they haven’t even chosen a state party name for themselves yet as the old affiliate still holds the New York State Constitution Party name. Until the Conservative Party of New York dies out, and they are slowly doing so, or until New York outlaws fusion, which it vaguely talked about doing several years ago, there aren’t enough conservative voters in the state for the new affiliate to have a chance.
I would agree that our progress in NY has been less than in the other states where there had been re-organization after “disaffiliation” and that has been somewhat personally disappointing so far for me, (and for which I probably need to take some responsibility) but some things do take time and this looks like one of them.
Our new affiliate most certainly does have a name–The New York State Constitution Party. They were represented at our National Convention. There was no signature drive (although there was a serious meeting attended by many members of the NYSCP and representatives the national party in Manhattan to consider the matter) because it was determined that we would need $100,000 to be successful and the money wasn’t available at the time.
The Constitution Party of New York disaffiliated
and they have gone their own way. While our new group has, I confess, not burned up the track, the CPNY never accomplished anything other than put up a website and have leaders (Joe “Liberty,” for one) who advocate that women should not participate in politics.
We will continue to build the Constitution Party in New York through the New York State Constitution Party.
To Steffan:
Surely you jest! While Mary would be a fabulous candidate in her own right, she is a very strong supporter of Chuck Baldwin and never would have considered doing such a thing. Would have complicated her job as Chuck’s media coordinator.
But yes, she would be a far stronger candidate than Mr. Peroutka and maybe someday in the not so distant future she will get a chance to show it, if she is willing.
Gary Odom – I do wish you luck in New York State as I would like to see the national Constitution Party have an active presence in the state. However, I still maintain that the Conservative Party, which has been hijacked by the Republicans and has pretty much become just a second ballot line for them, needs to dissolve in order for you to grow. There just aren’t that many conservative voters in the state to support two parties and the majority of the members of the Conservative Party don’t realize their party has been hijacked. If they do, it’s with tacit approval since they don’t think a minor party can win any elections. Unfortunately, that’s not the way members of the Conservative Party used to think. By the way, when you do get a website for your New York affiliate, pass me the name so I can post it on my site. (www.nysthirdparty.com/)
That link you provided does not say Ron Paul opposes abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, only that he has never performed an abortion for any reason. To be fair though, I don’t know where the Constitution Party stands on that issue either. Does the Constitution Party support the right to abortion when the mother’s life is in danger?
They claim that situation never exists.
Attention RON PAUL, or anyone who can actually contact and talk to Dr. Paul directly:
If you really want to help America this year, you should quickly get your name OFF all ballots for the fall election. You should also maintain your neutral stance and not endorse any candidate.
Instead, you should use your new organization: Campaign for Liberty to sponsor Presidential and Vice Presidential debates in the fall.
You should establish the requirement that any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to be elected be invited – that would be 6 this year.
You can hold 3 debates for Pres and one for VP.
Your organization has enough members, big name friends, money and clout to pull this off and get it on national TV, if you are neutral and independent.
It would be an embarrassment for McCain and Obama NOT to participate.
This would make you and the Campaign for Liberty heros to many Americans, all across the political map. The majority of Americans want just such debates to happen, according to polls.
Please think about it.
Please do it.
Please hurry.
Everyone, please contact Ron Paul any way you can. This is an opportunity too good to miss.
The name game on ballots can be particularly effective at times. In 1976, a man named Robert E. Casey was elected Pennsylvania State Treasurer because people thought they were voting for State Auditor Robert P. Casey.
A few years ago in Memphis, a guy with the last name Ford ran for Judge and did virtually no campaigning, but was elected because of the Ford brand name in Memphis, even though he had no relations to those Fords.
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle484-20080907-07.html
In the above link, it describes how Dr. Paul’s electors could effectively be on all fifty state ballots. All that would be necessary would be for Barr and Baldwin electors to pledge that they will vote for Ron Paul in the electoral college, and promise to withdraw in states where they are weaker than the other candidate.
Dr. Paul needs to take the high road now. He’s out of the election. He can be a statesman as well as an advocate for Liberty.
Dr. Paul needs to focus his attention and energy on promoting fair media coverage and inclusion in debates for all 6 candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to be elected in the Electoral College.
He should get off all ballots and sponsor a series of debates inviting all 6 candidates for Pres. and VP.
The Campaign for Liberty could be the sponsoring org. He has enough big names from Tucker Carlson, Jessie Ventura, etc. to promote the idea. McCain and especially Obama couldn’t refuse.
This would help open up the system for all future elections.
What makes you think McCain and Obama wouldn’t refuse, Coming back to the LP? Also, Dr. Paul has played no part in either Montana or Louisiana. Since Dr. Paul is poised to take more votes than Barr or Baldwin would in those states, what reason does he have to refuse?
This is getting crazy! First of all, Ron Paul is not registered with the MT Sec of State as a member of the Constitution Party. Second, writing him in is a wasted vote because he is not running as a write in candidate. Third, other that the abortion issue, this is the only other constitutionally related subject that Jonathan Martin (MT state chairman) is trying to address since he became state chairman.
Montana does have a law that says you can’t run for the same office on two different party lines. Wouldn’t that apply here since Ron Paul was already defeated as a Republican. Baldwin won’t be on the ballot in Montana.
Ron Paul isn’t running for anything. The Montana Constitution Party slate is running for the Electoral College, and they just happened to have pledged their hypothetical support toward Ron Paul.
No declaration or signature??? What kind of fineline does Ron Paul want to walk, now????? Will Montana allow this???
That aside ———– Win win win win!!! I know most people who voted against anybody in recent elections will drop their allegiances (except for the Obamaites) and will vote you some electoral votes in November! (Well, I don’t want to jinx it, but try your hardest, everyone!!!)
Hugh Jass Says:
September 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“What makes you think McCain and Obama wouldn’t refuse, Coming back to the LP? Also, Dr. Paul has played no part in either Montana or Louisiana. Since Dr. Paul is poised to take more votes than Barr or Baldwin would in those states, what reason does he have to refuse?”
Answer:
Dr. Paul has gained a huge following and a great deal of respect in the media. There are many in the media, and many well-known national figures who would support including all 6 candidates who can theoretically win enough electoral votes in a series of nationwide debates. Recent polls have indicated that a majority of the public at large supports this as well.
By using the high ground of his Campaign for Liberty, and if he is NOT a candidate and has endorsed NO candidate, then Dr. Paul will come into the arena with an unbiased, objective stance, supported by the masses and opinion makers and an organization with the funds to sponsor and obtain nationwide coverage for 6 way debates.
The existing National Debates Commission, or whatever it’s called, is dirty, biased and will not bend its 15% barrier to democracy. But, if Ron Paul takes the high road, he can, and WE can, smash that barrier and smash the National Debates Commission.
By setting up a major forum, on a major network, nationwide, the candidates would recieve major coverage. If either one of the D or R candidates refused to attend, but the other came, then he would look foolish and “chicken” indeed. And if they both refused, the others would have a field day attacking them and putting themselves in a good light by comparison.
True, both McCain and Obama could refuse to attend, but if either is behind, he wouldn’t pass up the chance for extra exposure and then the other would be forced to attend.
This is the best opportunity we have ever had for such a breakthrough. It would benefit not only all third parties, it would benefit all Americans. And it is popular. It is what the people want.
And Ron Paul would benefit as well. He would be as a statesman doing something for all Americans. And they could see that if Dr. Paul is this sincere and serious, then he must be about other issues as well.
Dr. Paul could only be on the ballot in a non serious way in a few states this fall. He will look foolish no matter what happens. He will be seen as a spoiler. He will be seen as a stubborn, old fool who doesn’t know that he has already lost. It will hurt his reputation, damage the cause of liberty and squander a REAL chance to make a lasting change on elections in America.
Please Dr. Paul,
Take your name off all ballots.
Endorse no candidate.
Turn the Campaign for Liberty into the greatest unbiased, all inclusive, fair and balanced debate sponsor in history.
Thank you.
Neither major party candidate will EVER debate with other party candidates. It is a lose-lose situation for them. It gives credibility/attention to the very people they do not want to give any credibility/attention to. Add to that the strong possibility of being out debated by one of the other candidates. That is a risk that neither will take under ANY circumstances.
Candidate or not, Paul is not neutral in this race, nor can he be percieved as such. Whether he endorses anyone or not, he will be most supportive towards those most strongly for liberty. Which emphatically excludes all but Baldwin or Barr.
He may well support such a debate, but he can’t in good concience moderate it. I hope this debate happens, but it will have only four participants and will at best be covered by C-Span.
O.W.
Ron Paul can’t and shouldn’t moderate, but his Campaign for Liberty can be the sponsor and get on a major network nationwide.
unproductive, divisive madness…… (see also: Louisiana)
Don’t forget, Paul actually beat McCain in the Montana caucuses, and got 20% in the state primary. I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul got 10% in Montana, and that would certainly tip its 3 electoral vote to Obama.
The Montana presidential primary didn’t count, but it was a two way race with McCain.
Gary Odom opines:
I do wonder how Mr. Martin of Montana reconciles his willingness to place Ron Paul … on the ballot with the fact that there are many, many pro-abortion atheists across the country who vigourously support Dr. Paul. If one Mormon chairman in Nevada (who is, by the way, no longer the Nevada state chairman) supposedly having less than adeqaute pro-life qualifications made the whole national CP unpallatible for him, how does he explain his new association with all of these “evil†people who support Ron Paul?
Mr. Odom is not serious, is he?
Does Mr. Odom really believe that by placing a certain candidate on the ballot, the Montana CP is actually “associating” with any and all supporters of that particular candidate? How absurd.
Placing a candidate on a ballot, a formal association does not one make.
The Montana CP did not desire to be officially affiliated with any national party that is made up of state organizations that elect and prefer pro-abortion state officers and candidates, and therefore it chose to disaffiliate itself from the National party.
Mr. Odom now attempts to mischaracterize Montana’s choice of placing Ron Paul on the ballot as somehow being akin to entering into a new formal association with all of those atheist pro-life advocates (whoever they are) and others.
Ludicrous.
Even after placing Paul on the ballot, the CP Montana is a totally independent state party organization. It has no obligation whatsoever to the national CP. It is not associated or affiliated in any way with any other organization, including any atheist pro-life groups or peoples.
Still, even with the decreased participation in the primary and the inevitability of McCain’s victory, Paul still managed to get 20,000 votes, which was several times the total third party showing in Montana 2004 put together. As of 2004, 20,000 votes will get Paul 5% of the vote. I wouldn’t be surprised to find several anti-McCain Republicans, anti-war Democrats, and third-party members voting for Paul as well.
I must say, even though the Montana CP is wrong with regard to self-defense, this was an excellent political move on their part, and will likely improve the chances of CP candidates down the ballot in that state.
My above comments should be amended as follows:
“atheist pro-life” should be amended to “pro-abortion atheist”.
The main point though remains the same.
Cody Quirk says: “And those new parties are doing better then the old ones. Illinois is especially doing better without Angela Wittman.”
Dear Mr. Quirk,
I am so flattered to have left such an impression upon you that I am often in your thoughts… Now, please tell us exactly what the Constitution Party of IL is doing and how is it better than when I belonged? Thank you.
RRHeustisJr, if a doctor removes an unborn baby that is developing in the mother’s fallopian tube, thereby causing its death, should he be punished?
I have marched for Ron Paul in D.C., I have rallied for Ron Paul at the Rally for the Republic, I have introduced a true hero to many who bring up the issue of politics, and the opposition to the recent bailout. I agree 100% with Ron Paul’s values, and I will be proud to write his name on my Pennsylvania ballot! I am done with voting for the two evils! We need real change, dramatic change, and restoration of our constitutional values. Ron Paul has opened my eyes to the reality of our fixed election process, and I will support Dr. Paul even after the last vote is cast. I believe in miracles, and remain optimistic about our future. Despite the half of a million dollar party AIG held with our taxpaying bailout dollars-I know that Ron Paul is doing his best to defend us. He is one man doing the impossible. The more we realize this, the more we can learn how to defend our rights, and prevent future political cons-jobs. Wake up America! Join the revolution before it’s too late. Take bake your country from special, and foreign interest!
Liberty Campaigner,
Mike