Baldwin comes out swinging!
Posted May 21st, 2008 by scandinavian
output
Baldwin's first campaign speech just posted:
Bookmark/Search this post with:
 HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING |
WOW
If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination-and will not run third party, I hope he will endorse Baldwin. I'm still holding out hope that the RNC will come to their senses.( I'm not holding my breath, however).
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
Lots of Opinions Here
Well,,,,,, here's mine. Ideally, the movers and shakers in this movement that have connections and know how should get their ducks in a row and promote the delegates to bolt in Minnesota and form a rump party ( is rump party the correct term?) , in the same fashion as the Dixiecrats did in '48. Think, Bull Moose Party. ( Roosevelt drew more popular vote than the Republican Taft, if I remember correctly. Of course we ended up with Wilson and Colonel House,, so this is a going for broke kinda deal.) A deal needs to be laid out to put Dr. Paul at the top of the ticket and Chuck Baldwin as VP and those two need to promise Barr a cabinet post. Wheelin' and dealin' behind the scenes is how US political stuff has been working since it all started.( Remember the election of 1800?) It ain't right, but it's a dirty game. The 'bolt' itself should get media attention and the alliance of these three candidates should help get media attention, and Baldwin would tear up anyone, that either of the two major parties put up, in a vice-presidential debate. Keeping in mind that you can't have a perfect world, it may be that the only way to bust up the present duopoly is for The Ron Paul purists, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarians to do a little forgive and forget compromising on some of their differences and coalesce. For what it's worth, that's my two cents worth. And that's about all it's probably worth.
Good Luck to all and we'll see you at the convention.
Fortune Favors the
Fortune Favors the Bold
Agreed
Keeping in mind that you can't have a perfect world, it may be that the only way to bust up the present duopoly is for The Ron Paul purists, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarians to do a little forgive and forget compromising on some of their differences and coalesce. For what it's worth, that's my two cents worth. And that's about all it's probably worth
Ron Paul united a very diverse coalition of people. To continue to promote the ideas he represents, one of our greatest challenges will be to preserve this coalition, and not re-splinter into ineffective blocks.
Sounds clever actually. Do
Sounds clever actually. Do we have enough people who think "outside the box" for something like that?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
about thinkin' outside the box?
It pains me to say, "Probably not".
This chaotic thread
This chaotic thread convinces me--even though I support Baldwin and I'm..well, lukewarm to Barr, I suppose...that no one in this movement is going to be happy unless the Third Party candidate in November is RON PAUL.
We're six months out...I know Dr. Paul does not want to run Third Party, but why can't we try to persuade him otherwise? And to the "risk of his congressional seat" issue, why can't he run for Congress on the same party?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kevin
Fortune Favors the Bold
there may be more unity come closer to november. I tend to think, as far as the POTUS goes, that we should be unified in our vote to maximize impact, but of course, there's no real way to do that, except perhaps for spontaneous consensus as the facts come to light.
Also, for all of you who want to write in Ron Paul, why don't you start an Official Write In Campaign? You need to do this, or your vote will be meaningless. Remember, it's electors to the college you are technically voting for. Without an Official write in campaign, there are no electors for the write in candidate, hence wasted vote.
I think it is silly to think Chuck Baldwin has any chance.
I think it is silly to think Chuck Baldwin has any chance. He has some pretty extreme religious thinking. I don't think that mixes so well with the president role in this day and age. Ron Paul is religious. But because Ron Paul does not offend other religions, and mostly keeps his own religion out of politics, this is only a good thing.
Btw, I am not saying Baldwin is a bad guy! But just stop talking about Baldwin (certainly in this way) while Dr. Paul is still growing big in this race will you all?!
Are you kidding me? Look
Are you kidding me? Look what all of us did to ger Ron Paul on Fox and CNN. We could all do the same for Chuck and atleast get him alittle face time. If we all join together we can be heard.
I'm a fan!
I don't care for Chuck Baldwin's, of Ron Paul's for that matter, strong anti-abortion stance, but I'm willing to let it go for their strong anti-neoconservative and America remaining a sovereign nation stances. I've been following Baldwin for years and while I don't agree with eveything on his platform, I am seriously considering voting for him instead of writing in Ron Paul. That is, only if Paul doesn't get the republican nomination!
The only hope IMHO
Is a Ventura /Paul ticket or vise versa... I don't care as long as we get SOMEONE that speaks truthfully in the WH.
JV was on Alex Jones show again today,and considering a run for the Senate.He has until July to make a decision.
I would suggest that those "in the know" , call AJ's show tomorrow and ask him to be a catalyst to bring the two together.
Not that it would stop another false flag terror attack, Iran bombing,and Martial Law declaration....
They will start rounding up the dissidents first (that's us BTW)
I don't understand. If Ron
I don't understand.
If Ron Paul was going to run Third Party, which he has repeatedly stated he will not, why would he run as someone elses' Vice President..?
Wouldn't you prefer to see him at the top of the ticket?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Kevin
Fortune Favors the Bold
due to sore loser laws, Paul would be kept off the ballot in many states. This doesn't apply if he was the VP for another candidate.
Only reason I dont want
Only reason I dont want Ventura is because he stated he was bought out to keep silent for 3 years. Don't remember which video but if he can be bought out why vote for him no matter how cool what he says sounds? Why wouldn't he be doing this again just for another pay day and drop out?
The only votes Barr is gonna take is from Ron Paul. People will think he's the closest thing to RP and he'll steal a few vote from him. What's his agenda? He has no shot so why get in the race?
So the majority of the troops are voting for RP and have given him more money then all other candidates combined. Are you gonna vote for RP? No? So you're saying you don't support our troops? Why can't we get someone to spin shit our way? Never surrender!!!!!!
I remember this video too.
I remember this video too. He was talking with some neocon interviewers on Fox. He told them he had a contract for couple of years on a televisionchannel with a show, and he was so provocative according to that channel, they decided to pay him during his contract period, but would not allow him to make the show.
Outside his control
I recall him pointing that out. He signed to do a show for 3 years, and once he signed, THEY chose not to run his show.
He found this out in due course. This is outside of his control.
He was contractually oblidged to only work for them for that period.
What he said/meant was, they bought his silence. He didn't they wouldn't run it. He noted he was smarter for it. He wasn't happy.
true,........
but he said as president he couldn't lie to massive amounts of people or let them down. I like his stance against the neocons though. makes good points and not only that, the guy was in the military, so he can pull that out in front of McCain and slap him upside the head with it!
well
Fortune Favors the Bold
he said he is considering running for senate rather then president. That bought out thing is definetly an important question.
Barr's trying to hijack the
Barr's trying to hijack the Libertarian party with his friend Richard Viguerie in order to make it safe for the neocons. If no Ron Paul in November, I'd go with Chuck, as I imagine most supporters would, along with RP himself.
DC you are full of crap
his campaign manager is Perots campaign manager and Barr did not join the Libertarian Party this year he joined in 06 and Barr was the guy that made the official declaration for Ron Paul to be the Libertarian nominee if he did not win the Republican primaries
Either You Know Nothing About Barr
or you're hoping we don't. Why do you persist in this?
DC I have tangled with you before
all I can say is I looked back at your posts and you in the past were making negative posts on Dr Paul. The only reason you are against Barr is he actually has a chance to knock out McCain and stop him from becoming President and teaching the GOP a lesson
I have followed Barr for awhile and see no problem with him. he Is a million times better than McCain or Obams
You're Lying
Negative posts? What in blue blazes are you up to? Yeesh.
Do you have proof
Fortune Favors the Bold
that Barr is tied to Viguerie? What motive would Viguerie have in doing this?
Circumstantial Evidence From One of the LP's Founding Fathers.
Here's a link, and I think he's right. In any event, Barr's got no business in the Libertarian Party.
http://fairuse.100webcust...
The problem with Chuck Baldwin
The problem with Chuck Baldwin is that he is an unkown and will not get traction. As a result he will never get mainstream and disgruntled Republicans to vote for him. And before you accuse me of hating Chuck I don't as a matter of fact I believe I was the first one to ever post anything about Chuck Baldwin on the Dailypaul.
Does it matter?
The lesser of two evils voting is becoming antiquated as people realize ther IS no lesser of two evils! A vote for someone you think would make a good president is not a wasted vote, even if he can't get disgruntled republicans to vote for him, and even if he has no chance of becoming president.
Okay, but who will get
Okay, but who will get traction? It won't be Bob Barr. It won't be Mike Gravel. And it won't be Dr. Paul because he won't be on a ticket in the Fall.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
K Tuma. you have to look at history
To gain traction you have to look at history. In the last 100 years two third party candidates have gained traction. Ross Perot with United We Stand America and Teddy Roosevelt with the Bull Moose Party and to some extent Lindberg with the America First Party. Not really any polling with Roosevelt, but he did well and almost pulled it off. However, Perot started out at 5 % and by Sept he was at 7%, by Oct 12% and on election day hit 20% and thats after he quit. Bob Barr is already at 6% or 7% depending on which poll you look at. Millions of people are looking for an alternative to McCain and Obama so he could easily catch fire.
Strom Thurmond did pretty darn well as a Dixiecrat
Actually, he is the only third party candidate in the last 100 years to win any states outright and win their electoral votes(if I recall correctly). He won 4 states (South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) and won their 39 electoral votes in 1948 as a third-party candidate for the States' Rights Democratic party, nicknamed the Dixiecrats. The party formed when Democratic delegates bolted the convention when it became clear Truman was no friend of the States' Rights platform, and convened their own convention, nominating Thurmond.
A dream of mine is that Republican delegates in St. Paul will do something similar. I'd love to see the RP supporters walk out en masse as McCain is nominated, and go across the street, hold their own convention, and nominate Dr. Paul as the "Old Right Republican" nominee.
Also, John Anderson, a liberal republican who lost the primary to Reagan in 1980 ran as an independent and got 7% of the vote, about 6 million votes.
Other notable third party candidates with strong showings, but no "wins", were George Wallace with 12% in 1968, Theodore Roosevelt's 27% in 1912, Robert LaFollete's 17% in 1924, and Ross Perot's 18% and 8% in 1992 and 1996.
thanks for the info
However were they all third party candidates or something similar to United We Stand America which was NOT a third party, but rather the controlling organization. I think some of these like Roosevelt, Anderson and Strom Thurmond were actually Independents and not part of a Third Party.
Also that would be great if a whole bunch of delegates walked out of the GOP national convention to form an independent run for Ron Paul - however he must be on the ballot for that to happen. The way the Republicans set that up now to prevent that is to have their Convention basically so close to the General election there is no time to gain ballot access.
Some of each
Roosevelt was the nominee of the Bull Moose Party. Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, formally called the States' Rights Democratic Party. Anderson was a total independent, as was Perot. But, of course because ballot laws vary from state to state, occasionally a candidate had the name of a party after their name. Perot was listed on some states as being on the ballot line of the "No Party" Party because the rules to get on the ballot as a party were easier than as an independent. yes, it is stupid.
History check
George Wallace took 5 states in '68, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. Teddy Roosevelt took 6 states in '12 for 88 electoral votes. He beat President Taft(the GOP nominee 2 states - 8 votes) for 2nd.
Apparently I did *NOT* recall correctly
LOL. Thanks for correcting my boneheaded error.
such a strange political realignment
Fortune Favors the Bold
I have to say, one of the most interesting things about Ron Paul is how this whole movement has shattered the conventional notions of political alignment
By the way, I was always a big Truman Hater. I can't get past the whole nuking cities thing.
Barr has nothing to do with what we are doing here
NOTHING.
and what are we trying to do here?
From what I understand create a movement and that means take over the GOP but that is a long process. This is now and if we have no Ron Paul after the convention then what? The way to get people to understand the patriot act or why the war is wrong is to bring them in with a Barr who they agree with on other points. Sometimes forcing the issue does not work
You are correct sir!
You are correct sir!
Barr is a fake Libertarian
He's a NeoCon. He would be no different than the other 3. Take a look at his Blog. He's an interventionist: economically in Iran, and militarily in South America. Is that really what we want?
ha ha your funny
Barr is so far from neocon. You need to read his statement on Iran. he is an expert on Iran and even went to high school there. Do agree with you south America but he also has said he would pull out of a whole bunch of countries.
He is not pure Libertarian but either am I they have some crazy aspects to their party like open borders and legalizing hard drugs like crack and Meth.
Again thats what makes him appealing to so many Republicans. See I liked Reagan you probably didn't but let's see Barr as been gun ho against the national ID been against the UN, against the IRS, against NAFTA, Against WTO, against the war since 2004, super pro second amendment, was against giving away the panama canal, is not a CFR member, and has come around on the war on drugs. don't really see any neocon in that resume, but obviously the neocons are trying to put out bad press about him
question about the hard drugs thing
Fortune Favors the Bold
don't you think legalizing them would help the problem though? It would certainly hurt the criminal cartels by killing their source of profit. Also, it's the no harm principle. Even if I think it is retarded to do heroin, do I have the right to force that on someone else? And do you think heroin use would increase if it were leaglized? I tend to think it will decrease, as most people aren't going to start doing heroin just because it's legal, but the black market that makes huge business off heroin wil be shut down.
(Also, if say, a single state legalized it, all the heroin addicts could move there, if that state wanted to take the risk and reap the profit, making them less of a threat to everyone else.)
JohnGalt300 yes
Yes, it probably would help with all the crime on one end, and save billions in drug enforcement, prison etc, but on the other end we would have a huge drug problem and society is already so messed up. Not sure if chemical based drugs should be legal, but I am open to states rights about the issue. I don't see where its the business of the Federal Government, just another power grab by them.
Can you imagine how powerful corporations are already with the media and everything? Try to imagine a Budweiser Brand Meth or even a Rupert Murdoch branded crank with some nice Fox News blended in - I can just see it now.
Scary image
Fortune Favors the Bold
Hannity fans on meth! "Try Foxnews' new super patriot juice! A healthy blend of, um, energy stuff that is just what you need to sharpen your senses to spot those terrorists!"
Actually, it wouldn't shock me if Coulter was already a tweaker.
agreed, that would be a problem
Fortune Favors the Bold
which is why the states rights way is probably the way to go on that issue.
Barr isn't
Barr isn't acceptable...Baldwin is...I prefer Baldwin.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I personally prefer Baldwin
Fortune Favors the Bold
I have some questions, maybe you can answer them. Are there any areas of significant policy difference between Baldwin and Paul? Where does Baldwin stand on the war on drugs?
as far as I have read he mirrors the CP
which is to continue the war on drugs
You're spreading
You're spreading misinformation. The CP and Baldwin oppose the WoD. It's your boy who supports it. Why are you doing this?
But does the CP support a
But does the CP support a federal War on Drugs? Or a state's rights view of the issue?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
The latter
Don't be fooled.