" Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Ron Paul, said that his boss does not plan to recommend supporters to champion Barr

Ron Paul said he would not get in between Barr and Baldwin.

Chuck Baldwin has no political experience.
The Constitution Party has a contradictory combination of beliefs in its platform; look at this mess:

Pro-capitalism/individualism + no women in the military, no gambling, no free market or recreational drugs = NOT pro-capitalism and individualism

For the war on drugs + against the war in Iraq = sometimes for the use of force via holding elusive principles of government force.

pro- Capitalism(western)(rational self-interest) + pro-Christian(middle-eastern)(preaches altruism) = ZERO

anti-gay marriage + Anti-NWO = A VERY UNIQUE COMBINATION OF BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are expecting Ron Paul's "marching orders" will get people to vote Baldwin as if they do not have brains to think for themselves and see how ridiculous and fringe and rare these combination of beliefs that Chuck Baldwin and the CP hold; AND HOLD VERY STRONGLY. Ron Paul doesn't beleive in marching orders he believes in the individual's use of reason.

Irony.

That anyone would envy Barr's coverage and not characterize it as a "MSM blackout" is funny/ironic to me.

Barr's coverage is so much less than Ron Paul's coverage ever was (did you see any Libertarians in any of the debates so far?) and we called Dr. Paul's coverage a "MSM blackout."

I guess I should be encouraged that Libertarians are now envied. It beats pity!

IMissLiberty

Different people have different opinions. I have a very low opinion of Bob Barr. Barr seems like a concieted old guy who represents himself, although I could very well be missing something. I believe people need to take a closer look.

He "kind of" represents the United States Constitution. I especially notice this because I've been an especially strict constitutionalist since 1977.

For quite some time I've observed Robert Barr on C-Span. I like a lot of what he stands for. I just don't think he'd make a good president.

Chuck Baldwin, on the other hand, would be an exceptionally good Chief Executive Officer.

--Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa

Let me preface this by saying there are similar threads saying the opposite (promoting Barr) that are also somewhat inappropriate. But they're not ripping candidates, which is in violation of the Forum Posting Guidelines, which state "don't trash other candidates...Keep your focus on the good and the positive and on hope."

Specifically, this thread is bogus. How is Jesse Benton saying that Ron Paul doesn't plan to encourage supporters to back Barr newsworthy? He doesn't plan to do the same for Baldwin, either. Time and time again we've heard that no announcement would be made until St. Paul or later.

This thread distorts the facts to make it look like Paul supports Baldwin but not Barr -- when in fact he supports both.

Then again, I've come to expect this sort of intellectual dishonesty and overall shadiness from Steve Parent.

Take this recent, self-indulgent thread he created to get the title "Dr. Steve Parent resigns from revolution broadcasting" on the front page. How is that relevant to Ron Paul? How is such a thread anything more than an attempt to promote oneself further. And in that thread, Steve Parent takes it further by saying:

The negative attacks on my personal integrity by a very select group of people have also attacked the integrity of www.revolutionbroadcastin... and has become a burden on the radio station and I will no longer allow this to happen.

These same people have made vicious claims against revolution march and some have even tried to encourage you to sue Ron Paul among other things.

I didn't see all the attacks on Steve Parent (just some of them), but some of them seemed to be raising legitimate questions. And I've seen Steve Parent engage in some less-than-savory tactics. These two threads are along that line.

So anyone who has called into question the integrity of Steve Parent is also attacking a radio station and "these same people" are against the march? Some are trying to encourage "you" to sue Ron Paul?

This is how a respectable person responds to criticism? By screaming "vicious character assassination!!!!" and then turning it around by accusing any critic of trying to bring down the movement and even referencing a fringe wacko or two that suggested something asinine like suing Dr. Paul?

Have you no shame, sir?

In your self-promoting thread, you write:

I have said for months that you may not like the people you are working with and they may not like you but we are all supposed to be on the same team and we should all be working together but some just can't do that. Some people that claim to be for this revolution just refuse to work with others even though others have made every attempt to work with them for the better of our cause.

Sometimes you just need to start cutting people loose and actually work with the group of people that will work together and build from there.

Yes, we are supposed to be on the same team. So stop crying foul when you're obviously promoting yourself. Stop attacking other candidates with misleading word-twisting in an attempt to argue that Dr. Paul supports Baldwin but not Barr (and anyone doing the reverse of that should be ashamed, too).

You chide people who "refuse to work with others" and yet you're trying to shrink the pool of support. Unless you plan to be one of those people that needs to be "cut loose," you need a new approach that is less about your ego and pet causes and more about organically growing this movement.

Trust me, I like the guy, and I do think he is honest and I'd STILL vote for him.

If it came down to Obama, McCain, and Chuck, I would CERTAINLY vote for Chuck Baldwin.

I 'DO' have to say I don't like his stance on homosexuality. I myself happen to be gay. I'm a HUGE Ron Paul supporter.

I don't care if people 'accept' gays, as long as they get out of the way and allow them to live their lives as they choose so long as they don't directly interfere with another person's right to do the same thing.

Since I'm a smart person and would prioritize my 'threats' , and at this point of the game, I see that as a 'small issue.' It can be sorted out later.

I'd still vote for him. (I want to make that clear.)