Compromising Principles?
Lately I've seen a lot of support for people that don't quite share our principles. I can't speak for anyone else, but I support Ron Paul because of his strict adherence to the Constitution. I thought that was the cornerstone of our movement.
Don't get me wrong. I like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich (much less after seeing him screaming Obama/Biden at the DNC) and Naomi Wolf and think they're honorable people that have done a lot of good at great risk to themselves, but they're far from being Constitutionalists. Ron Paul wouldn't vote for these people unless the only alternative was a neo-con hardliner, and maybe not even then. Sure, he told people to vote 3rd party; that Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin shared enough of his views on the most important issues of the day, but he said he wouldn't vote for Nader right in front of him on live television.
Shouldn't we ALWAYS demand the very best and demand that anyone who wants to lead (not join, but LEAD) our movement be strict Constitutionalists and not just honest people with their hearts in the right place? Not saying that they should be completely shunned, I'm just saying that we should demand that our leaders and our spokespersons be as close to Ron Paul as possible.
Ron Paul was our best shot at the White House, but that's history at this point. In this election our votes are nothing more than protest votes, so shouldn't we try to be like Ron Paul and cast our protest vote in a way that exactly matches our movement's platform: strict Constitutionalism? Ron Paul's votes in the House are basically just protest votes, too, but he never compromises his principles and votes with a strict adherence to the Constitution, knowing full well that his beliefs always lose. Shouldn't we, as Ron Paul supporters, always cast our protest votes in favor of strict Constitutionalism whether we can win or not?
Well, that guy exists and Ron Paul endorsed him. If there was no Chuck Baldwin, or if Baldwin is not on your ballot and Nader is, then sure... vote Nader. In that case, Nader would be the most "Constitutional" candidate on the ballot and I think that's what we should always aim for.
Don't let your religious prejudices take away from the fact that Chuck Baldwin is a Constitutionalist who has already said that issues like abortion are state issues, not federal. I'm agnostic and Baldwin being a Bible thumper doesn't bother me at all.
Stay true to your principles, folks. Always vote for the Constitution. Ron Paul does.
And, hey, Nader fans... instead of flaming me, please tell me where I'm wrong. If there's something about Baldwin that I don't know that proves he's not as "Constitutional" as I've come to believe, I'd love to see it. I'm not one of these "Go Baldwin!" guys; this is probably the first time I've ever endorsed Baldwin on here more than answering "Baldwin" to a "who will you vote for?" thread.
Make discussion, not war. heh
Not all RP supporters
are constitutionalists. I'm not. I'm firmly in the "anarchist" camp.
Not everyone who supported RP sees him in the same way, and values him for the same reasons you do. He truly is a uniter, rather than a divider. The 3rd party candidates lack this kind of charisma.
~jaq
~jaq
I've been under the impression that...
...anarchism is as far right on the political spectrum as one could lean and that strict Constitutionalism was as far right as one could be without removing government completely. Nader leans pretty far left... a collectivist. How does that work?
I'm not trying to divide, I'm trying to keep everyone who DID join Ron Paul's movement because he's a strict Constitutionalist focused. If that's not why you joined, fine.
You mistake me
I don't support Nader.
But then again, most of the RP supporters I've met were former Democrats, dissatisfied with pro-war candidates.
~jaq
~jaq
Sorry about that...
...just assumed.
Opposite, here. Most RP supporters I know were Reagan fans, including me, but I was only a kid and know better now. heh I do know a lot of RP supporters that got into politics because of RP.
When Ron Paul held his Press Conference
He was bringing attention to the fact that their are choices beyond the 2 party single agenda system. I didn't get that he felt any of those supporting his 4 point committment (we agree position) were worthy of his endorsement, yet I knew that it would be very difficult for him to endorse anyone outside of the republican party.
Days later he did - he risked so much to step outside and formally endorse Chuck Baldwin, I don't think many of us are focusing on how much he put on the line.
Think about it, just to be a delegate, committe person etc you had to sign a statement that you would support the nominated position, do we not think that Ron Paul as an elected Republican Congressman is under atleast the same rules! He is so humble, he would never bring it to our attention or beat his chest over it, but I guarantee he is feeling the wrath over his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin!
It boggles my mind that people at this point would doubt him or his advice. I know he encourages us to be free thinkers and would never expect us to just follow his lead, but I have to believe he thought WE would get it and know without him holding our hand what he was risking by doing what he did to TRUST him. Many here did not and now our vote is scattered acrossed the wind from Nadar, Barr and even (can't believe it) McKenney.
I will early vote tomorrow and put my name behind Baldwin and wake up on Wednesday to a McCain President, then puke and plant my garden!
!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!
" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."
Tho
Ron's strategy with the press conference
I don't think he wanted us (RP supporters) to vote for McKinney or Nader. He wanted us to vote for Barr or Baldwin.
I think his strategy was to get disillusioned liberals to vote for McKinney and Nader.
Well said (nm)
...