Barrwatch: Life After Ron Paul

Daniel McCarthy, an American Conservative editor and former Paul campaign blogger (and occasional reasonoid), raps Bob Barr on the knuckles for instigating the Paul endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.

I don’t think Paul wanted to choose between Baldwin, who faithfully supported Paul’s Republican presidential bid earlier this year, and Barr, the nominee of the party whose ticket Paul had headed in 1988. But Barr’s behavior forced a decision, and the Libertarian Party is the loser for it.

McCarthy lays blame at the doorstep of Russ Verney, the Barr campaign manager whose occasional appeals to disgruntled conservatives—praise for George Bush's leadership on 9/11, for example—have done less to make Barr look mainstream than to infuriate the very active anti-Barr internet armies.

The Libertarian Party's Andrew Davis writes at the party's web site about the difference between them and the Constitution Party.

For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God's law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government.  Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God's law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.

The news isn't all bad for Barr. He has won a lawsuit to remove placeholder presidential candidate George Phillies (who ran for the LP nomination and came in behind Mike Gravel) on the Massachusetts ballot. The state party had gotten ballot access by collecting signatures for Phillies, but when Barr got the nomination the state fought his attempt to replace Phillies' name with his. It caused (of course) friction within the party, as Mass Libertarians like Arthur Torrey threatened never to vote for Barr, and as Phillies put out press releases as a presidential candidate on two state ballots. (He and Barr are both on the New Hampshire ballot, for similar reasons, although Barr is trying to get Phillies removed.) He's also put out statements detailing (and subtly attacking) Barr's campaign spending.

Meanwhile, Baldwin supporters, giddy at the Paul endorsement, are promoting a September 26 moneybomb for the candidate. I wonder if they really want the attention. Digging into Baldwin's columns and public statements reveals a candidate who's far more, let's say, Kirchick-able than Paul ever was. See this, from 2002.

There is another part of the story regarding sexual predators that is not being discussed: the large numbers of young girls today that are themselves sexual predators!

This MTV generation has lost its innocence and virtue, and girls seem to be the ones leading the way. Furthermore, the days are gone when we could depend on mothers and fathers to jealously guard the purity of their own daughters. Today, it seems fashionable for girls to dress and behave like prostitutes. The moreflesh that is exposed, the more everyone (including the girl's parents) seems to like it. Whereas girls were once the prey, they are now the predators. The damning influence of pop culture icons such as Brittany (sic) Spears and Madonna has created an entire generation of girl predators.

I would eagerly read an essay on this topic: "The best thing Ron Paul could have done for his 1.2 million voters was wait until September to make an endorsement, endorse four third party candidates, then change his mind and endorse Chuck Baldwin." If you want to take a crack at it, put it in the comments.

Comments

wombat | September 23, 2008, 9:23am | #

One religious nutter endorsing another religious nutter. Paul lost all credibility in my eyes by flanking himself with Cynthia McKinney and Nader.

Episiarch | September 23, 2008, 9:27am | #

I can't believe people are doing this level of fractionation. It's unbelievably simple: if you are going to vote (which I refuse to do), vote for Barr. Is he perfect? Of course not. But he's saying the right things and representing libertarianism in a visible way. Anything else is 100% grade-A motherfucking stupid.

Sausage Swingin' Libber | September 23, 2008, 9:31am | #

I love Ron Paul . . . but I am not going to follow his endorsement of Baldwin. Epi is right . . . if you are a libertarian, your only logical choice is Barr. he's not my favorite spokesman for the cause, and some of his past statements are as distasteful as Baldiwn's. But notice I said past - he is a convert, and we should welcome any covert who honestly believes in freedom.

jtuf | September 23, 2008, 9:31am | #

I try to follow a political version of Hippocrates' "first do no harm". I put more effort into promoting the perfect rather than dennouncing the good. For example, I'll tell people, "I like Barr. If he advocated trippling immigration quotas, he would be even better." That addresses his imperfections while still promoting the good policies (lower taxes, ending the drug war, protecting privacy, ect.) that he stands for. After all, our presidential campaign is mostly about having a person to advocate our platform.

Tom Walls | September 23, 2008, 9:48am | #

Where did Baldwin say you could meet those girl predators?

Lane Honda | September 23, 2008, 9:53am | #

I am a robot. I like robots. I have a robot vagina. I will vote for whoever Ron Paul tells me to. beep-beep.

Episiarch | September 23, 2008, 9:53am | #

The moreflesh that is exposed, the more everyone...seems to like it

Uhh...yeah, obviously.

Whereas girls were once the prey, they are now the predators

Good, I'm sick of doing all the work.

Mark g. | September 23, 2008, 9:54am | #

why in the world would you vote for a fraud like Barr. He voting record is the antithesis of what a Liberatarian should be. If you vote for him, you might as well vote for McCain. Our movement has been negated, but the voices are becoming angry.

Ryan | September 23, 2008, 10:01am | #

Barr is nothing but a GOP operative trying to divide the liberty movement. How an ex-CIA agent who voted for the patriot act got to be the Libertarian pick for President I'll never know. I was planning on voting for Chuck as soon as Paul dropped out of the race. I just hope this will wake up the Libertarians and realize he is a terrible choice. Barr should have never acted as if he was better than the other 3rd party candidates. It was about agreeing on 4 important points and showing people there are better choices.

Paul | September 23, 2008, 10:01am | #

Barr is CIA and was sent in as a Trojan horse in the Libertarian party. So far he's done well in throwing a wrench into the works.

Dakota | September 23, 2008, 10:10am | #

I still like Badnarik, I'm going to write him in. END THE TYRANNY OF ZIP CODES!!

FatDrunkAndStupid | September 23, 2008, 10:11am | #

What a Libertarian should do is realize that both Barr and Baldwin are flawed candidates, neither of whom comes even close to filling the shoes of a Ron Paul or a Harry Browne. Face it- for most people this election cycle the choice is between the lesser of so many evils. For the lucky few, myself included, we don't have to compromise. The Boston Tea Party is on the ballot in Florida so I can vote for a true libertarian candidate with pride. But for most of you, compromises will have to be made. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably vote Baldwin over Barr, but I can see how others might go the other way. Anyone who suggests the case is open and shut between the two of them either way is out of their minds.

chris | September 23, 2008, 10:13am | #

I'd rather choke to death then vote for Barr and I WAS a libertarian. I have concluded the only way to get a free society is to put the Libertarian party as the sacrificial lamb on the alter of socialism and sacrifice it to the gods of collectivism, and in return we will be delivered a free society, it is the only way. ALL the libertarians needs to wake up! I was one and rip up my card and ate it in a form of commune. When you look at groups that make a difference they all had to leave their own party and vote against for on single issues to get what they want, if you left the libertarian party and voted on single issue of liberty you would get more of what you want, the longer the libertarian party lives in it denial the longer they won’t get what they want. It’s really ironik that the party with the idea of competition can’t invent it self to take on a little upfair competition……it needs to die the sooner the better.

creech | September 23, 2008, 10:13am | #

This all started to come apart when RP decided not to run as an Independent or accept the LNC's offer to be the Libertarian candidate.
Now the liberty movement is running in four different directions, inspecting in minute detail the platforms, past indiscretions, etc. of each others' candidates. I'll hold my nose and vote for Barr and hope his vote total is high enough to be noticed and allow the LP to put this episode behind them. Politics is about compromise; Paul and Barr are not the best players.

madmikefisk | September 23, 2008, 10:16am | #

Personally, I'd call getting Ron Paul to disassociate himself from the LP to be a net benefit to the movement, if you ask me.

wombat | September 23, 2008, 10:26am | #

If what you mean by "libertarian" is "not so veil Christian theocrat" then Baldwin's your man. Barr has the opportunity to make the LP look sane for the first time in a long time. And yet libertarians are just falling over themselves to throw him off the bus for not being ideologically pure enough or for flogging him for changing his mind in the face of evidence. It's almost like they enjoy having a persecution complex.

Warty | September 23, 2008, 10:26am | #

I've been caught by predatory girls, and I can safely say that it's awesome. I don't know what this whiner is whining about.

freedom@realnh | September 23, 2008, 10:29am | #

While I disagree that politics is about compromise (it never should be), I'll be voting for Barr since the Libertarian Party stands more for what I believe in. I'm not voting McCain not just because of McCain - it's because the Republican Party itself no longer holds its own ideals, and have basically become leftists.

Episiarch | September 23, 2008, 10:31am | #

It's almost like they enjoy having a persecution complex

Almost?

I've been caught by predatory girls, and I can safely say that it's awesome

The best part is when you realize you're getting hunted, and you realize that you like it.

LibertyMark | September 23, 2008, 10:35am | #

Someone mentioned Harry Browne... With the current cast of characters, memories of Browne bring back good feelings for me.

He never got the vote totals we would have liked, but he was a gentle and insightful man who taught me different ways of thinking about things.

And, he begat a movement that may actually get something done as opposed to this pie-in-the-sky thing Paul is trying to do. (And I love Ron Paul!). Browne's intellectual heirs are working to repeal the Massachusetts income tax and replace it with nothing. Remember Browne saying that?

Small and focused, I think, is what we need.

The Angry Optimist | September 23, 2008, 10:36am | #

as Epi said, but I have to echo, libertarians seem to delight in being the poor, persecuted minority. I think that (and this analogy is particularly apt) a bunch of libertarians are like shy nerds: they wouldn't know what to do with a woman if they caught one. It seems that libertarians are actually fearful that they might be influential, which just lends itself to contrarianism rather than libertarianism.

ChrisH | September 23, 2008, 10:50am | #

How an ex-CIA agent who voted for the patriot act got to be the Libertarian pick for President I'll never know

Hmmm... having a message, organizing, using political skills. l/Libertarians seem to never get it, that this works -- like elementary school kids watching a cheap magician -- "How did he get that quarter to come out of my ear?!"

I'll reluctantly vote for Barr. I hope we get a better candidate next time.

It will be interesting to see where he goes AFTER the election. Our ex-Repub candidates of '76 and '88 both went back to the Republican party, making us feel "used", like by some predatory girl. No, strike that. It wasn't "used" in the good way.

Stefan | September 23, 2008, 10:56am | #

McCarthy hits the nail on the head.
Weigel got it wrong again...how many times now!
First) Paul has NOT endorsed four candidates. He has recommended supporting either of the four main third party candidates and he was NOT talking about his own supporters.
It was clear most RP supporters would support Barr or Baldwin. And is it not better that those that thought of voting for Obama would rather vote for Nader or McKinney instead? They are clearly more libertarian - on FISA, Patriot Act etc. than Obama.
Paul was also not planning to announce support for Baldwin either. It was more Barr and his campaign's snubgate that lead to this. If Barr had a difference of strategic opinion, he should have voiced and communicated with Paul after the meeting, but it is clear he has not.
The LNC's behaviour was also not pro-active or contributed to anything.

Baldwin is personally much more libertarian than the CP platform, although also he is not 100% sounds on all the issues. Paul's support does not mean he agrees with everything. Baldwin is no religious nutcase. It is simply ignorant to say that.

Paul has been successful in expanding the movement and build bridges and a coalition-building. You cannot isolate yourself and consider yourself holier than thou and all the other parties as understanding 0 about liberty. This is an arrogant position, not libertarian one.

Supporting a candidate does not mean one subscribe to ALL his or her principles or statements.

Invading a country under false pretenses, saying God lead you to do it etc. is real religious nuttiness and when that person is your president then it is really scary!

Stefan | September 23, 2008, 11:09am | #

madmikefish: very true! The LP is seen as quite a nutty and anarchistic political party and their history on the Iraq war is far from perfect or principled libertarian.
The C4L is much bigger than the LP (or CP) and in ideas, the Republican Party as well. Paul's past LP connections has been a hindering in getting some support, based on the perception of the LP as a libertine party. Paul had to say he is a conservative during the primaries. His forced indication of support could help him a lot - unintentionally perhaps - in getting the future support of evangelicals. Substantial support from evangelicals, without adapting their whole political agenda (e.g. with regard to homosexuals etc.) in the future is the missing integredient that will make the campaign for liberty a dominant and lasting movement.

Citizen Nothing | September 23, 2008, 11:30am | #

Nostalgia for Harry Browne. Hmmm.
Remember the rhetorical beating he took at the hands of L. Neil Smith and his ilk?
Nothing ever changes in the LP. Perhaps if the Baldwinites and Tea Partiers really make good on their promises, we can finally get down to business.

LongTimeLibertarian | September 23, 2008, 11:35am | #

I've been in the LP and known Dr. Paul for 3 decades. He is a sincere, kind, gentle man and a true supporter of the Constitution. He was a good Libertarian Candidate.

However, I have never thought Ron Paul was a complete Libertarian. He was always a little bit too "Conservatarian."

In fact, it seems to me that the "new and improved" Bob Barr is possibly a little more Libertarian on the issues than Dr. Paul is these days. And Barr is certainly a better politician, which confuses some people.

Dr. Paul alienated many people by being too abrasive and emotional during the 1988 LP campaign. He couln't draw a lot of support. He is better these days, but he still angered some people because his non-Libertarian views seemed inconsistant and hypocritical during his recent Republican campaign, and he wasn't able to explain everything as well as he should have.

Bob Barr is doing a much better job of reaching out to new people and introducing them to the Libertarian Party. He is getting more media coverage than any previous LP nominee.

Ron Paul's endorsement of Baldwin will send a few of the conservative, theocratic wackos over to the Constitution Party. And it will be good to see, that in the end, Baldwin endorsed by Paul will still get less than 0.3% of the vote.

And Finally, ... No LIIBERTARIAN and no true supporter of Liberty could ever support a party of Christian Ayattolahs masquarading as supporters of the Constitution. These people are dangerous supporters of Theocracy - a kind of Christian communism.

I will be voting for Bob Barr for President.

Google and Donate:

Bob Barr
Libertarian for President
2008

NotABarrFan | September 23, 2008, 11:52am | #

I can't believe H&R would post this without checking the facts first! Where is the PUBLIC statement from RP himself? RP was on TV twice yesterday and a couple times this morning and said nothing on this. I do not believe as many do that this is just a CFL staff member who took matters into their own hands.

PLEASE CALL RP's office numbers and INSIST RP comes out with a PUBLIC statement endorsing Baldwin TODAY so these nut cases can stop pretending he doesn't support the CP and Baldwin. Here are the numbers: 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!

miche | September 23, 2008, 12:24pm | #

a bunch of libertarians are like shy nerds: they wouldn't know what to do with a woman if they caught one

I know what to do with caught women. For a small fee I'll teach my nerdy libertarian friends the secrets...

James Maynard | September 23, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Ludicrous. I've just lost a huge amount of respect for Ron Paul. Sorry, but Baldwin has never managed to get himself elected to ANY office at any time. That, in my book, disqualifies him from running for President. The most powerful job in the world is NOT an entry-level position.
And, yeah, the "Bible trumps the Constitution" zeitgeist of the Baldwin campaign scares the be-jebbas out of me.

Barr '08
Jesse '12!

JM

Eric H | September 23, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Not a huge fan of Barr or Baldwin. I was quite upset when Barr missed the press conference because I saw it as a missed opportunity. Most Paul supporters are smart enough to vote intelligently on their own, and I think many missed the point of the C4L press conference to strike at the 2-party system. I doubt there were too many Paul supporters that saw that event as an endorsement for Nader or McKinney. Barr's no-show really dampened the message that C4L was trying to send. It was a gamble, and it backfired (something anyone should have been able to predict).

As a fervent Paul supporter who is new to the liberty movement, I will say that the official endorsement means very little to me. The same considerations are still in play. I wouldn't vote for Barr, but I would consider voting his way for the sake of the LP and a legitimate continuation of the movement. I wouldn't vote for the CP, but Baldwin is worth supporting for his stance on the Fed. I don't expect either to win, so I figure a vote for the LP will help advance the party, which might be more beneficial in the long run. However, in the unlikely event that either one of them appeared able to make a dent in the status quo, I would rally behind them.

Eric H | September 23, 2008, 12:42pm | #

On the other hand -- what is one thing the Paul endorsement might accomplish? Perhaps it will persuade some who were dead set on a write-in vote for Paul to cast a vote that will actually count as a blip on the radar.

iamanamerican | September 23, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Thanks Bob!

*snicker*

= OPENDEBATES.ORG =

Dave Phelps | September 23, 2008, 1:08pm | #

I voted for RP in the primary and I am disappointed in this endorsement. I would have voted for RP on the LP ticket and that is what I was hoping for. But with all of Barr's failings I still will be voting for the LP ticket. I am pissed that Barr has managed to throw away the opportunity to get the RP army behind him and revitalize the LP.

Mark | September 23, 2008, 1:20pm | #

I like some of Paul's Ideas. however the majority of people who are following him are trapped in the cult of personality. That doesn't make it evil. Just prone to falling apart once the figurehead is gone.

The Libertarian Party is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean it can't become functional, but you'll need to convince a large number of people with money to help push things forward. Get a coherent ground game going and from there move up.

There are enough people who don't like the government handout errr bailout that if the Libertarian party could push hard enough, they'd catch the attention of some people who'd otherwise ignore them. Particularly when you look at the abject embrace of socialism from the Republican party. Small Government Conservatism is dead in the major parties.

Barr isn't perfect, but he's better than any of the other candidates, and that's with his past history in the republican party.

(and I was one of those people who cheered when Barr lost his Congressional Seat, the Irony is not lost on me)

Andy White | September 23, 2008, 2:04pm | #

I still think all six of the candidates, Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nadar, Obama, should be allowed into the debates.

HLM | September 23, 2008, 2:22pm | #

I've posted on Hit & Run for sometime and have been arguing that Ron Paul is a social conservative NOT a libertarian. Most people decided not to believe me. Now he endorses a fanatical fundamentalist theocrat who wants to make God's law the supreme law of the land -- anyone want to say Taliban? What this endorsement did was say nothing about Baldwin but lots about Ron Paul, the conservative who used libertarian rhetoric to part millions from gullible libertarians.

There is no good reason for him to endorse Barr, Barr is awful. But there are many reasons NOT to endorse Baldwin. But Ron Paul agrees with Baldwin. The CP anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-free trade agenda is Ron Paul's agenda. Most people neglected Paul's own conversion from mainsteam Episcopalian to fundamentalist Bapitst. And with his religious shift to extreme Right his cultural values followed. Ron Paul sold out libertarians a long time ago -- he was a bit iffy back then even but has become far worse since.

June Genis | September 23, 2008, 2:22pm | #

I will still cast my ballot for Bob Barr this November, but only because it is the only way to cast a vote in favor of the Libertarian Party. Although I have supported Ron Paul along the road this far, including his decision to endorse all the candidates which signed his agreement, I can not cast a vote for theocracy over secularity. I have therefore written to Ron Paul saying that I can no longer contribute financially to his efforts least my money go to support what I do not.

Not to vote is to not be counted. It fails to send any message to the powers that be that their reign is coming to and end. All true libertarians should hold their noses and vote for Barr this November while making very sure at the same time that it is clear we are voting not for the man but what he represents.

Robert | September 23, 2008, 2:33pm | #

I just find what most people in this thread are posting to be a riot. It's so funny, the contention over such trivia, I hardly know where to start commenting, so I'll just mention one thing:

I and a great many others viewed Harry Browne's entry into politics as an insincere and cynical repudiation of what he'd stood for previously because he'd run out of B.S. on the lecture circuit otherwise.

Robert | September 23, 2008, 2:45pm | #

Ach, now I'm hooked!

Most people neglected Paul's own conversion from mainsteam Episcopalian to fundamentalist Baptist.

What do you think the essence of Episcopalianism is? It's the unification of church & state! The sovereign is their pope.

While I disagree that politics is about compromise (it never should be)

How could it possibly be otherwise? Politics concerns the peaceful working out of differences, which is practically the definition of compromise.

And all this concern about splitting the libertarian vote -- it's like arguing that one should glue together 2 grains of sand on the beach so they'll stand out.

And everyone saying the other's candidate is flawed: you're all correct.

Kolohe | September 23, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Where did Baldwin say you could meet those girl predators?

hier

I've been caught by predatory girls, and I can safely say that it's awesome. I don't know what this whiner is whining about.

You were in great peril. Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.

svf | September 23, 2008, 2:54pm | #

I've posted on Hit & Run for sometime and have been arguing that Ron Paul is a social conservative NOT a libertarian. Most people decided not to believe me. Now he endorses a fanatical fundamentalist theocrat who wants to make God's law the supreme law of the land...

You win.

Seth | September 23, 2008, 3:21pm | #

The LP should buy Bob Barr a one way ticket on the midnight train back to Georgia. What a fracking idiot this man is that he thought he could extort an endorsement from the unbuyable Ron Paul. I weep for the loss of libertarian opportunity, but seeing Barr get his comeuppance is sweet consolation.

And what of the Constitution Party's Christianist agenda?

If the Constitution is followed, their Biblical rule set can't be imposed at the Federal level anyway, which is exactly the point that Dr. Paul was making all along about a great many issues. Sure, Texas and Alabama may turn into Christianist Afghanistans, but you don't have to live there. In the meantime though, California, Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, and a lot of other places can become a lot freer with the scourge of an anti-constitutional faux-Federal (read unitary) government off their backs.

And, it's all academic anyway. It's not like the LP or the Constitution Party are or were going to have any significant impact on our rigged election system in the first place. The coalition the Paul was attempting to, and hopefully has, put together has much greater long-term potential for creating true opposition to the entrenched system.

Dan | September 23, 2008, 3:56pm | #

Ron Paul's otherwise-demonstrated support for liberty aside, his endorsement of Baldwin -- and by extension, the "Constitution" Party -- is disappointing. I supported RP in the GOP primaries, but I did not sign up to obey every pronouncement of Paul. Neither Barr nor the LP (platform) are 100% to my taste, but both are considerably better for genuine liberty-lvoers than Baldwin and the CP. Barr and his campaign certainly didn't handle the RP Press Conference event well, but RP endorsing Baldwin is the equivalent of a political "snit fit." I expected better of Paul.

Cynthia | September 23, 2008, 4:28pm | #

Baldwin is not a politician--so vote for whomever you like the best. You idiots sound like high school voting for prom queen or most likely to succeed! Dr. Paul is a man of integrity and everything I've read about Baldwin says the same. Why would you vote liberitarian when the rules have changed---the president has become king no matter what the platform says. You need to vote for a man you can trust. Remember Dr. Paul would never endorse on the grounds of friendship but the constitution---he believes Baldwin is that man--a man true to his word.

cadaver dog | September 23, 2008, 5:09pm | #

Ah, but who do the Paultards have to blame for RP's endorsement of Rep. Don "Nowhere" Young? We must find someone. The Great Prophet can never be wrong.

Syd | September 23, 2008, 5:41pm | #

The damning influence of pop culture icons such as Brittany (sic) Spears and Madonna has created an entire generation of girl predators.

This is a problem?

paul | September 23, 2008, 6:09pm | #

Let's not fight here. The only question we should ask ourselves when voting is who will best defend the constitution... Let's not bicker about things that divide us. We all probably agree we are going the wrong way. We have to get back to our roots and defend liberty at home. Any of the 3rd or 4th party candidates accomplish that light years ahead of the "2" anti american candidates... Lets talk about moving that forward and not fighting with each other...

Liberty1611 | September 23, 2008, 6:09pm | #

I was waffling between Barr and Baldwin. I am not a huge fan of Barr and his closet-internationalism, etc. Baldwin, obviously is not perfect or terribly credible. However, I will support Baldwin and find Barr's treatment of Dr. Paul appalling.

BTW: What Baldwin wrote in what was supposed to be a shocking quote is SADLY TRUE. One important distinction to make between those of us who are committed Christians and personally VERY conservative and old fashioned, but believe the government is the wrong vehicle for encouraging morality, and those Christians who try to achieve at the end of a federal gun what they have failed to achieve through preaching the word.

RustyJohn | September 23, 2008, 6:11pm | #

Wow, and one wonders why the Libertarian Party can not make any headway in national elections? If I were an average American voter reading the postings on this thread I would think the Libertarian party and most Paul supporters were crazy.

My dream- a candidate that believes in limited government AND fossils.

Dubious | September 23, 2008, 9:06pm | #

"All true libertarians should hold their noses and vote for Barr this November"

I've heard this over and over. It's no better than sheeple going to the booth to pull the lever like a robot for a Republicrat.

Whatever happened to "I vote for the person, not the party"?

Anthony D | September 23, 2008, 10:10pm | #

"If I were an average American voter reading the postings on this thread I would think the Libertarian party and most Paul supporters were crazy."

The average American will never read this post, hear of the kooky Dr. Paul's endorsement of the christofascist Baldwin, know who Dr. Paul is, give a rats' ass about the Campaign for Liberty, ever heard of the Campaign for Liberty, etc, etc, etc...

GC | September 24, 2008, 3:02am | #

Ron Paul was the first major party politician I could respect & who shared my ideas in regards to many issues. While Baldwin is a bit to religious for my taste -- it's just silly rhetoric to say he wants a theocracy. Due to the respect I have for Ron Paul, and that the Constitution party shares many goals I believe in, I will now be voting for Baldwin in this election -- as I want Ron Paul's endorsement to mean something. Voting for Baldwin is the best vote to keep Ron Paul as a strong force (if that matters to you). And yes, in this day and age -- having a recognizable personality behind your cause does count. Keep the Revolution strong: unite behind Baldwin.

smh | September 24, 2008, 5:58am | #

I hate to say it, but Baldwin's quote about the MTV Generation falls under the "harsh, but true" category for this 23 year old Hip-Hop fan. So many parents today want to be their kid's friend instead of their parent, they're buying their 8 year olds hot pants and their 10 year olds thongs. Then they wonder why their little girl was going out to meet up with some creep she met online. Well, I have news for you. Not all of the guys on "To Catch A Predator" are rapists. In fact, many of them have stated that they've had sex with very young girls many times in the past. Consensually. Things are not hunky-dory in Suburbia. Be parents, dammit. Let your daughter act like a teenager when she's a teenager.

DenisL | September 25, 2008, 4:14am | #

Let me get this straight.
95% of Americans are STILL going to vote for the two candidates, McCain/Obama, who want to give $700 billion+ of taxpayer money to the rich private bankers in NYC. I sure hope this is not correct. Any of the 4, including Nader, McKinney, Barr OR Baldwin, would be 10 times better than McCain/Obama. These 4 pledged to balance the budget, get out of the Middle East, repeal the Patriot Act and investigate the Federal Reserve. The 4 “non-major” party Presidential candidates are sane. McCain/Obama and the folks in NYC and DC are not thinking clearly. Folks this is an emergency. The status quo is VERY wrong & it has NEVER before been this clear. Please think about it. The fates of our families depend on us getting this one right. It is NOT your ordinary normal elections.

Danny | September 25, 2008, 11:25am | #

I am still a x conservative & Ron Paul supporter. After seeing the gop. for what it truly is I will support Baldwin. I had hoped all the third party canidates could be united to one goal of breaking the two party system. This is what paul has tried to do & has some success. We must realize that their are many trying to stop this. Barr is out.

James | September 25, 2008, 12:19pm | #

It's amazing to me that people will vote for a candidate based on the party they are in. Please vote for the candidate who represents what you believe the most, not the party. If you vote for the party, you'll continue to be controlled even if it is a third party.

Isn't it obvious that if Ron Paul ran as a third party he would get more votes than probably all four 3rd party candidates combined? He did raise $35 million dollars in a quarter.

So this being the case, he's trying to free your minds from supporting parties in general. Libertarians often reach high places in congress or the Senate then instantly turn into Republicans and Democrats for a reason. The third party is the trick to get you voting for Republicans and Democrats in disguise.

I personally think Barr is a wolf in sheeps clothing. The Constitution Party is not perfect (God laws) but we're not voting for the Constitution Party. We're voting for Chuck Baldwin who has supported and agrees with Ron about everything from what I've heard.

This is a called for endorsement and we'll look back at this in six months time and realize again like every time that Ron Paul was right.

Willie | October 1, 2008, 10:21am | #

People who are true free thinkers are not libertarians. A free thinker chooses a candidate that best represents his values and beliefs (in the hope that they will act on those beliefs when elected), and the party be damned. Choosing a candidate only because he is a Libertarian Party candidate is not free thinking, it is following the herd. I choose Baldwin because he believes as I do. I choose my candidates not some party line. It requires more work and thinking, but my country is worth it. I hate voting for the lesser of two evils and then wake up after election day and wonder why is there so much evil all around me.