Ron Paul today endorsed Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin.
Paul made it clear that he was responding to Bob Barr’s criticism for “remaining neutral†by supporting the four significant alternative candidatesm, specifically mentioning Barr’s failure to appear at Paul’s unity event “by canceling his appearance “forty minutes before the pess conference started…To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.” He continued:
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.
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.
Good job, Barr! You turned what could have been a united front and your idiocy made it backfire on you.
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!
Dear Not A Bar Fan I:
Flimsy, flimsy, flimsy!
Come on, I had one [ONE] wife and she was told after a rough pregnancy that her life would be in danger with pregancy number two.
SO CALLED DOCTOR Ron Paul said that in his file of over 12,000 patients, not one needed an abortion.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. My real life experiences contradicts his, greatly. Duh!
oops, Donald Raymond Lake, San Diego County
NotABarrFan is trolling this same response all over the place.
I suspect Bob Barr was “instructed” to derail the growing threat that a unified coalition of third parties represents to the Doupoly, by attempting to undermine Ron Paul’s press conference and the alliance that it was meant to announce.
It was an extreme action to take, since he was in position to influence the LP for a long time to come, but now he will be forever viewed as the faux libertarian that he is…Barr outing of himself represents just how afraid the status quo is of the movement that Ron Paul is building. At this point,t he most important goal for the campaign for liberty should be the take over of as many congressional seats as possible between now and 2010!
I wonder why this was only on a Virginia C4L blog and not on the main C4L blog? I’ll wait until I see it there.
Um, nevermind, it’s up now. I agree the writing style is different, so I wondered.
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.”
Please do not take my word, call yourself, do some research, email the congressman or the CP. Prove me wrong, please!
As if an alliance of a theocratic White pastor and a liberal Black women needed to be sabotoged.
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.
NotABarrFanII – I guess its ok to kill your fetus if its threatening your life.
I am pro life. I am also pro-choice. I don’t think its the government’s decision, and I’d rather not finance your baby’s welfare through DC if you don’t want to raise it.
Of course, a RESPONSIBLE person who’s been told they shouldn’t get pregnant, WOULDN’T GET PREGNANT.
Richard you keep talking about abortion, but you’re the only one. Try to keep it on-topic, eh?
I, much like NotABarrFan, seriously doubt this is real. It does not seem like Ron Paul’s style at all. My guess is some CP fanatic is trying to pull a fast one and trick Ron Paul’s supporters into making a firm decision to support Baldwin, and the truth will be revealed too late to stop the presses or the rumor mill or allow those that have formed an opinion to feel comfortable changing their minds.
wow this is bad news indeed and in fact Verney’s strategy backfired. Verney thought he could use the same strategy he used with Perot. I thinkj this will be devastating. I cannot vote for Baldwin as much as I want to since I don’t believe in how the constitution party mixes religion so much in politics. As a Jew, there is no room for me there as I am clearly not wanted. So for me it’s still Barr and maybe Nader as my backup in case Barr keeps pissing me off. I’m trying real hard to look at the big picture and still vote for Barr as I think the Libertarian Party with success in this election can go far next time and really and truthfully become an alternative for the average American
From the end of that article:
“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 am sure Mr. Winger is quickly working his many fine sources to get to the truth, meanwhile call the numbers provided and decide for yourself!
For those of you who have concerns about Baldwin and religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZB8SlPnTE
Keep in mind that Baldwin doesn’t support every single thing the Constitution Party platform says. He campaigned for Dr. Paul and he stands for the cause of Liberty much more than Barr does. Barr voted for the Patriot Act, voted for the Iraq War, and fought hard for the Drug War for many years. I find THAT much more disturbing than Baldwin’s being a Pastor.
I think Ron Paul’s coming off looking rather petty by spiting Barr this way.
Maybe he’s dealing with a lot after Hurricane Ike, given that it hit his home congressional district pretty hard.
Although I agree with Paul on most issues, frankly, after encountering a lot of Paul supporters I’d rather have them causing grief in the Constitution Party or the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party.
Perhaps Paul is doing Libertarians a favor.
That’s a good point, Casual Observer. Maybe the silver lining is that all the kooks will flock to the Constitution Party. We have enough characters in the Libertarian Party as it is.
I don’t think there was any spite intended from Barr towards Paul. Those who see it don’t understand that there’s no force in the universe that will ever make Bob Barr stand on the same stage as Cynthia McKinney and talk about how they agree. You just don’t understand Georgia politics. And I’m not clear on what the “united front” was supposed to actually accomplish anyway.
The Constitution Party, believes that the nation was founded on the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” and is a republic rooted in “Biblical law”. Right there you’re placing the goals of a particular vein of religion above all your other goals, including any claims you have of supporting personal freedom. If “Biblical law” and the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” is interpreted as requiring restrictions of some form on your freedoms (such as gambling, which the CP believes is harmful and wants to see restricted), then so be it.
I don’t care what the CP folks *say* about freedom- the fact is that if they believe that the core foundations of the Constitution are sourced from Biblical law and their god, then those end up being the ultimate arbiters. I’m sure they love freedom, but I’m also sure that their ideas of what constitutes freedom and mine are quite different.
And if Ron Paul thinks that Baldwin is the best choice (or the best choice to tick off Bob Barr), he’s cutting off his nose to spite his face and hurting the movement for freedom over some petty garbage.
“Maybe the silver lining is that all the kooks will flock to the Constitution Party.”
Yep. Let the CP have ’em. Of course, they’ll all come back once they realize there’s no beer at the parties over there 🙂
Well,if this isn’t real, someone had better tell the folks at dailypaul….
Hate to break it to you but we do have beer parties.
I find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul would endorse some one he won’t be voting for. Ron Paul lives in Texas, Baldwin isn’t on the ballot in Texas and Ron Paul doesn’t think casting a write in makes much sense.
When did Paul say casting a write-in vote did not make much sense? He may have said something simular in reference to writing-in Ron Paul, but that would be because he will not be a registered write-in cadidate. If you can please post a comment where I can find this at this point alledged Paul statement.
Paul is a ninnyhammer
when will Paul address the fact that his state, Texas has ridicoulously hard rules to get on the ballot?
I agree with Dr. Paul in endorsing Chuck Baldwin. He is the only true conservative candidate that is running for the presidency. In addition, he is not a CFR member.
I want my money back (the $500 I gave to the Ron Paul for President Campaign). Supporting a perceived fringe kook will do little more than cement Paul’s mainstream image as a fringe kook. Very disappointing.
You libertarians make me chuckle. The fact remains that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr, and who Ron Paul endorses is none of your concern. Frankly I’m not surprised anyway, considering how he snubbed Paul and then had the audacity to “invite” Paul onto the ticket (kicking Wayne Allyn Root to the curb). Barr is an idiot.
Interesting, two new interviews last night, three scheduled for today, and not ONE mention from Ron Paul himself about this endorsement. I think it is very disrespectful of his staff to put words in the man’s mouth when he isn’t willing to say anything himself.
Want to know the truth? Call (202) 225- 2831 or 979-285-0231 or his chief of staff’s office at 202-225-2831 (ask for Tony). Encourage Ron Paul to take a stand, be the man, and publicly support Baldwin for President!
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!
Eric:
Hillary’s staff says she is supporting Obama, Lieberman’s staff is saying he supports Mc Cain, RP’s staff is simply saying the TRUTH, that RP doesn’t have the balls to support anyone. Do not call the CFL since they are the ones who falsely put out a rumor and tried to give the man something he appears to have misplaced. Call the office numbers and INSIST RP comes out with a statement endorsing Baldwin TODAY so these nut cases can stop pretending he doesn’t support the CP and Baldwin. Here are the numbers again:
202-225-2831 or 979-285-0231 or his chief of staff’s office at 202-225-2831 (ask for Tony).
Get them to tell you the TRUTH that RP does support Baldwin TODAY! He is scheduled to be on TV at least two more times and he can clear the air NOW!
Has this truly been verified? Has anyone actually asked Ron Paul if this is true?
I want to know if he backs him or not…..?
who cares really. If an endorsement from 1 person can change your vote that’s pretty sad.
More so if that endorsement comes from a Republican
The Campaign for Liberty site has an MP3 posted of an interview Ron Paul had in LA today. About 12 mins into the interview he was asked about the endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. Here it is from the man himself.
The endorsement is for real.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=592
NotaBarrFan said:
“Please, RP doesn’t support this. What happened to Freedom of Religion? RP did not just find Jesus and forgot about the Constitution.”
Well, I guess one might argue about whether Wicca is a religion, but Bob Barr made several attempts during the ’90s to have the practice banned in the Armed Forces. Doesn’t seem like he supports freedom of religion, either, yet the Libertarians chose him as their candidate.
At least Chuck Baldwin is honest.
“Bob Barr made several attempts during the ’90s to have the practice banned in the Armed Forces.”
Untrue. He wouldn’t allow people to have Wiccan headstones and he probably wanted to not have Wiccan chaplans, I don’t remember exactly on the last point, but he certainly did not advocate the banning of a religion.
some of you guys are ignoring the importance of God-given rights. If they are not God-given and cannot be taken away, then they are assumed granted by governent which can take them away. To perpetuate liberty, then this is important, and Christian principles are what are laws are based on. I know it sounds old fashioned, but when you are trying to protect liberty, this is a critical point.
“Christian principles are what are laws are based on.”
Basic Christian concepts, maybe, but not the religion itself.
Whenever the founders and framers mentioned “God” or “the Creator” this did not automatically equate to a reference to The Father of Jesus. These were generalized references to a higher power, which allowed them to refer to whatever the reader may consider that higher power to be.
I acknowledge and understand your point, though.
Dear Anonymous, I only have one source and I should have two, but when the Founders spoke of false religions, they were referencing any religion other than that of Jesus of Nazareth. All but Jefferson and Franklin believed in the God of the Bible as One who had a personal interest in the affairs of man. The source is David Barton. I am sure the mere mention of his name will have people flocking in vehement disagreement or agreement. Dear Katie, you make a lot of sense and we welcome more of you on here that do. Too often the postings turn into “the CP is for a theocracy, etc, etc.” There was only one theocracy in history and when the 1,000 year reign starts, there will be another. At this time we just need to keep our hand on the plow and don’t look back….
Craig, regardless of what each man may have personally believed, they were trying to unite colonists that had a wide variety of beliefs behind the promise of liberty and justice for all. Many of the colonists held beliefs that truly were Christian in nature, but there were a wide variety of denominations that did not degree on many fundamental religious issues. I’m sure if it was the intent of the framers to construct a nation that was bound to religious doctrine then this would’ve been codified in the actual legal documents they produced. Instead we find little or no reference to religion in these documents, and the primary reference to God is the profound point made in the Declaration of Independence that we each have natural rights simply because we are alive. That our very existence grants us each the sovereign right to control our own destinies, and that our lives and our fates are not to be dictated or decided by Kings, Emperors, and Despots.
Of course that was supposed to say “denominations that did not agree.” I started phrasing the point with “disagree” and botched it during editing.