Ron Paul Takes The Last Step Into Irrelevance

Earlier this week, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul finally decided to endorse a candidate for President, and he chose to pick the wackiest man in the room:

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.

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’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.

As you can probably tell from the fact that he doesn’t refer to him by name, Paul is obviously still miffed at the fact that Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr declined to attend Paul’s bizarre four-party press conference two weeks ago and then issued his own challenge to Paul to join the Libertarian ticket rather than just endorsing the idea of voting for “any” third-party candidate.

So, there’s obviously something personal going on in the fact that Paul didn’t end up endorsing Barr, but that doesn’t make his endorsement of Chuck Baldwin any less troubling for libertarians who actually hoped his campaign, and the Campaign for Liberty, would amount to something.

As Kip Esquire notes, the Constitution Party is hardly libertarian in any sense of the word, as these excerpts from it’s platform make plain:

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. … The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

So much for the separation of church and state, apparently.

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions.

Libertarians for the drug war ? I don’t think so.

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

Again, so much for individual rights.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called “sexual orientation” and “hate crime” statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of “partner” benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

In other words, if Texas wants to put people in jail for engaging in oral sex, Chuck Baldwin and his theocratic friends have no problem with it.

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.

Nope, nothing libertarian there.

We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Cute the theocrats again.

We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

Because nothing says support for the rule of law like supporting a man who violated his oath of office, his duty as a judge, and his ethical standards as an attorney.

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

Apparently, Chuck Baldwin knows obscenity when he sees it and doesn’t like it very much.

So, Paulistianians, this is what the vaunted r3volution has come to. Your candidate has endorsed the nominee of a party that opposes the right of gays to marry, thinks the drug war is a great thing, and wants to restrict speech based on what it considers “obscene.”

That, my friends, is not freedom and liberty.

Kip, of course, is among those saying “I told you so”:

I was, along with a few select others, among the first to stand athwart yelling Stop!. We warned against this lunacy, this malignant fever that struck so many intellectually challenged “libertarians” who deluded themselves into thinking that Ron Paul was anything other than a majoritarian, neo-confederate theocrat (who engages in rank homophobia as a hobby).

We were right. You were wrong. We stayed true to our principles. You sold your souls for a bumper sticker and a press conference. Now welcome your new Constitution Party overlords..

As for the future, my advice to Paul supporters is this: By all means join the Constitution Party and vote for [Pastor] Chuck Baldwin. All we who saw through the Paul charade ask is that you do so with your eyes wide open. Know fully who and what you are voting for.

And please, for your sake and ours, stop calling yourselves “libertarians.”

Given what I’ve seen of the man Ron Paul says he’s voting for in November, I can’t say I disagree.

Update: Jack at The Crossed Pond makes this point:

[T]his is a disheartening development. Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin is a disastrous, petulant, ill-considered act that taints his legacy and hinders any positive impact he might provide for the libertarian movement. He has, in either a fit of pique or a conscious revealing of his actual leanings, endorsed a true horror show. Rather than allow the slow healing of the libertarian rift by endorsing the odd and politically bumbling, but at least defensibly libertarian candidate Bob Barr, he has reopened the wounds by endorsing a “loopy ‘America is a Christian nation’ paleo-conservative” Rather than signal his continued opposition to the GOP foreign policy and economic agenda as well as rejection of fringe element mediocre candidates by remaining out of the endorsement business altogether, he has stated his support for a “Theocratic Homophobic Lunatic for President.” Rather than retain some semblance of legitimacy as a libertarian elder statesman and an alternative rallying point for a GOP opposition element in Congress, he has lessoned his cross cultural appeal and potential political leadership by endorsing a candidate with this abortion for a party platform.

And so, the r3volution ends. Not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but in much the same confused, poorly-planned manner in which the entire enterprise was run from the beginning.

Now, while it’s clear that some significant portion of Paul’s supporters will find the Constitution Party quite conducive to their beliefs, where do real libertarians go from here ?

Originally posted at Below The Beltway

  • kris

    I suggest you all jump in front of a bus, you’re worthless pieces of shit anyways, and were never able to garner the support in the whole life of the libertarian party that the man you now disparage managed in 2 short years. Your time is done.

  • Doug Mataconis


    And all that support he got translated into how many votes ?

    Baldwin, who is barely on enough state ballots to equal 270 Electoral Votes, will come in fourth or fifth behind Nader and Barr.

    What will the Paulistinians do then ?

  • spinnikerca

    Irrelevance? No, actually, he’s fighting a bailout bill you may not have heard about.

    Do you really think this is on the top of his mind right now? Barr pushed and pushed him to make a decision and forced him to choose – the one who wasn’t pushing at him all the time.

    I’ve been known to do that with my kids when they nag.

    Move on.

  • Justin Gimse

    I believe Dr. Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin (the man), not necessarily the Constitution Party. Apparently he knows him well and finds him to be the best man left standing. Pretty simple adding that up.

    Barr is no real libertarian. I don’t care if he’s the party’s candidate. Just like McCain is not a real Republican.

  • Doug Mataconis


    So Bob Barr forced Ron Paul to endorse Chuck Baldwin ?

    Yea, you go with that one.

  • Doug Mataconis


    Baldwin has said more than once that he supports the CP platform in full. There if very little in that document that a libertarian would be comfortable with.

    At least Barr has admitted his past mistakes and changed his mind.

    No, I’m not voting for the theocratic bigot just on Ron Paul’s say-so.

  • kris


    Well, if memory serves, approximately 1.2 million, which is a hell of a lot more than the libertarian party can ever lay claim to. What will we do anyways, support neocon fascist Barr? I don’t think so, he let us all know exactly what he thinks of Ron Paul and his supporters. We all know our votes will not count, so what difference does it make? And by the way, most of us “Paulistinians” support the person, not the party, as evidenced by so many anti-GOP, democrats, and independents persons supporting him.

  • David Rairigh

    Stand down soldiers! I would guess that Dr. Paul realizes that the CP doesn’t stand a chance of getting elected and simply chose to vote for Baldwin because, in general, Baldwin comes pretty close to Paul’s personal beliefs. I think the overall point that he is making is “Don’t Vote for the Republicrats!”
    Man, what a bunch of whiners.

  • whatevs

    What do you care anyway? Shouldn’t a site like this be wondering about Barr’s own campaign instead of focusing on Paul if you don’t like him so much?

  • kris

    And by the way, I would like to point out that Ron Paul IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN! Libertarian leaning, sure, but it’s been debated endlessly how he does NOT fit the Libertarian party platform perfectly. It’s you’re own fault if you jumped in to support him and are not happy with his endorsement.

  • Doug Mataconis


    You see, that’s why I never could get on the Ron Paul bus.

    I don’t support the man, I support the ideas. For a time, it seemed like Ron Paul agreed with those ideas and that his campaign would advance them.

    Now that we are nearing the end of the 2008 campaign, it’s fairly clear that is not the case.

    Supporting Chuck Baldwin and the miniscule Constitution Party with it’s theocratic agenda isn’t going to do one thing to advance liberty in this country.

    Then again, neither is inviting socialists like Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney to a press conference and Paul already did that didn’t he ?

  • kris

    All third parties are miniscule and powerless, there is no difference between them there.

  • whatevs

    He’s basically bawling about Paul’s endorsement. What a cry baby.

  • jill

    I was going to write something, but Jack at the Crossed Pond said it all so perfectly that all I can say is hear hear!

    I was a Ron Paul supporter. Now I don’t know who that man is. Seriously. I am dumbfounded.

    But don’t you dare tell me You Told me So. I don’t care if it was Hitler himself leading the charge, at the time you were all dead wrong. Today he may have snapped. But then, he had some good things to say and frankly he is still saying some good things on the hill.

    Know any other Congressman who is trying to protect YOUR money? At least he is still speaking out.

    Yes, this Campaign for Liberty is a joke. But, that doesn’t mean we don’t need 100 senators just like him.

    As they say in some circles, take what you like and leave the rest.

    I will take the lessons on liberty and leave the rest of the theological garbage. Goodbye all help to the Campaign for Liberty. Goodbye any support for anyone Paul endorses. But thank you Dr. Paul for continuing to speak for me when no one else would.

    And, P.S. to those that are shouting I told you so right now, I blame YOU for this economic mess. You destroyed Ron Paul’s financial analysis credibility. You attacked him over and over until the public couldn’t listen to a thing he said. You are part of the problem.

  • Jason

    Maybe Ron Paul supported Chuck Baldwin, because he knows Nader will get a good amount of votes on his own, Barr will get a good amount of votes on his own, but maybe chuck can take away some more votes from dems and republicans and won’t really effect nader or barr, who aren’t going to win anyway, so the more 3rd party votes the better. I’d rather vote for a steaming pile of giraffe feces than anyone except Ron Paul

  • JimS

    This is just silly on its face and those that read it know it. The LP and the CP combined won’t get more than 10% in any state. All I want to see is the % of not McCain and not Oboma go up. That’s all, that’s it. If it’s Barr, Baldwin or Mickey Mouse I don’t care.

    It gives us something that we desperatly need and that is a (none of the above) box to check.

  • Stefan

    In what cave do you live, Doug? Ron Paul is as relevant as ever and is ALL over the news this week, as he predicted the current financial crisis, unless you want to go with John “the fundamentals of our economy is strong” McCain. A bizarre world indeed, and it is rather people like Bush and McCain that acts bizarre, while Paul as a political and economic prophet.

    Why do you fail to mention the meeting with Nader, McKinney and Baldwin was based on a four point plan, that is not only highly relevant, but also at least moderately libertarian. It is really a big breakthrough. Barr simply had to attend the meeting, and most Ron Paul supporters would have voted for him without any endorsement by Paul, and some for Baldwin. Paul’s appeal during the news conference was NOT (only) to Ron Paul supporters, it was more to the general public, you know those that do not vote normally or those that consider voting for Obama. Don’t you think it is better that they vote for Nader than Obama? Nader has a much better record on civil liberties, peace, non-interventionism and honesty than McBama.
    The Barr campaign made some strategic errors. Do you think it was a wise decision to offer Paul the VP position of the LP, whereas Paul is the rock star and much more experienced, better record and comprehensive appeal than Barr? And it was well known Paul expressed his views all along that he would not endorse the GOP nominee unconditionally and also had no interest running as third party.

    Paul explained his reasons for supporting Baldwin over Barr yesterday on the Bill Press radio show. He cited – interesting enough – not snubgate – but a waterd down LP platform, not such strong consistency and radicalism on two major planks of his platform: the Iraq war and the Federal Reserve. Baldwin is really better than Barr on this, as Prof. Walter Block also noted recently. Paul did not want to chose between Barr or Baldwin but he was heavily criticized by the LP for not showing leadership and endorsing anyone, so this lead him to the decision. Let us be clear: LP VP Wayne Root openly states his difference (and opposition) to Paul’s foreign policy and calls for a surge in Afghanistan, just like in Iraq. Was Paul supposed to endorse this idea by endorsing a Barr-Root ticket?

    Paul mentioned honestly in the interview that Baldwin is not a perfect/ideal libertarian at all, but that he is a good constitutionalist in general…and there is really something to say for that. To those that really followed some interviews etc, it is clear that Baldwin is closer to Paul in a number of things than the CP platform. Paul did not endorse the CP’s platform, but the person Baldwin, whom he knows in person and also helped with is campaign and also contributed to it.

    Paul did not denounce the LP and is looking for the total of the votes between the LP and CP, and to a much lesser extent – those of Nader and the Greens. Thus is does not really matter if he supports Baldwin over Barr or visa versa. Now it simply means probably more people would vote for Baldwin that would otherwise have voted and Barr will still receive an amount of the Paul support, though perhaps more limited. You have to agree Mike Ferguson’s comment, Aaron Starr’s letter, personal action and words by Shane COry towards some of C4L staff, and Russ Verney’s PR, whereby Bush is praised for standing and Paul dissed, were not very helpful comments and did not contribute to a seeking for understanding between the LP and C4L.

    The Paul presidential campaign has effectively ended a few months ago and the new campaign for liberty has only just begun and is a very long project, that is currently growing.

  • NH

    Wacky? Apparently you think we should allow YOUR wacky thoughts but no one else’s?

    Chuck Baldwin is one of the smartest people I know. He has it right on about the government and the two party system. He understands the Constitution.

    He happens to be religious and you call this wacky? The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

    Unfortunately it can’t guarantee that intolerant people like yourself won’t smear the religious types in our country.

    Why not just join the Southern Poverty Law Center and get it over with?

  • chRIS



  • Ed

    If Ron Paul had decided to run as a third party immediately after having lost the republican nomination, he might actually be a contender right now.

    With all that has happened with the financial markets etc., his timing could not have been better to run as a 3rd party than in 2008.

    But I think he decided that he tried that once before, in 1988, and it didn’t get him anywhere, so at this point he’s decided he can do more good for the “revolution” to continue to do what he’s doing in the congress and to promote change from within the maintream republican party.

    I get that philosophy, but in hindsight, maybe he should have ran after all. Alot of people are not to crazy about either of the mainstream choices.

    Regardless, I think that once he held a press conference with multiple 3rd party candidates, he should never have turned around and endorsed any one of them at all. Having done that, I think he’s lost credibility with many.

    No third pary is going to win this election at this point – Not Barr – Not Baldwin – Not Nader.

    Simply convincing a large number of people to vote third party in general could have had an impact, and helped to continue the momentum of the “revolution” over the next four years. This could have been a precursor to 2012. I just feel that Ron Paul has created alot of confusion with his press conference of multiple candidates, followed by an endorsement for Baldwin. These moves have hurt things unquestionably.

  • Doug Mataconis


    A Baldwin supporter calling someone intolerant.

    Now that’s delicious.

    Why not asked Pastor Baldwin and his minions in the CP what they think of homosexuals and atheists ?

  • Doug Mataconis

    I just feel that Ron Paul has created alot of confusion with his press conference of multiple candidates,

    Especially when two of those candidates were socialists who have nothing in common with the ideas Paul said he was running to advance.

  • Doug Mataconis

    He’s basically bawling about Paul’s endorsement. What a cry baby.

    No, I’m just lamenting the fact that so much effort was put into a cause that will amount to nothing.

    Even a loon like Ross Perot managed to have a bigger impact on the political scene.

  • Mac

    NH – My thoughts exactly. These mentally constipated Libertarians who never learned the difference between liberty and libertineism, and who throw a tantrum at the mention of liberty for anyone’s opinions but their own. In the end, every great empire was eviscerated from within by the same band of idiots.
    – Mac

  • Doug Mataconis


    Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin have the right to whatever opinions they want to have, that doesn’t mean that either of them is immune from being criticized.

  • Shannon

    You just don’t get it…anyone who fights for the freedoms in the constitution is a friend of mine. Those that make reference to being against that plight, when your actions speak to the fact you defend it, are missing the whole point. This is about turning america around back to the directions the constitution point us. I have a feeling we will all learn this, once the police state takes hold we will look at each other and realize we were all saying the same thing, yet critisized each other on a point of view or interpretation. There will be no misinterpretation, from any of us when are loved ones are taken by force.

  • hawk

    Ron Paul is only a republican because its the only way he can be heard and still make a difference.

    Sticking to a party’s platform or standing up for a party is what got us into this mess. That is the only reason we have a two party system because people consider themselves democrats or republicans. They dont even know what it means anymore. a parties platform is like the constitution, nobody follows it anymore.

    And thats why im an independent and will always remain a independent even though im a conservative/libertarian.

  • hawk

    btw im voting Nader.

  • jermey

    this site is distorting the facts… ron paul’s statement…he DiD in fact call bob barr by his name.. one sentence before he gave his endorsement….to the author of this article… you should be ashamed of yourself…. you completely rearranged Dr. Pauls statements to suit your own needs….do you think that people who are interested in this would not check for themselves? you are a fool for thinking you can maintain any sort of credibility with such dishonest behavior.

  • PainfullyAware

    Divided We Fall, Again.

    Children, Do you not understand that the Financial Issues overshadow all other issues. If your money is taken you have no control over your own destiny and ALL OF YOUR PET ISSUES BECOME IRRELEVANT.

    McCain And Obama are deep in the mix along with all their other cronies in Washington.

    Fannie and Freddie Greatest Contributions

    McCain’s inner circle

    I am going to Vote For Chuck Baldwin in November.

    He is down with curtailing the FUNNY MONEY SYSTEM and that is my biggest issue and should be every American’s. Even the numb can now see and feel the ramifications.

    This will be the focus of the President for most of the next term. The next President will not have the time or the extra energy to deal with anything else. There is no magic wand to make this go away. It is a systemic problem.

    In Washington they are talking “Bailout”. How Stupid Is That. Why Not “Fix” or “Correct”. If the Boat Has A Hole In It – Plug The Hole – Otherwise you will have to continue bailing.

    At least with the Savings And Loan bailout the RTC took over TANGIBLE ASSETS. They are proposing for this bailout giving CASH FOR TRASH. No one is going to repurchase the worthless paper created by the “Financial Engineering” after the government buys it.

    Do not believe the cries for speedy cash infusion or there will be calamity. Where they are talking about putting the money will not help you or I or anyone else; it will only fill the hole that was created and drain the coffers and allow the chicanery to continue. They will dilute the Dollar and increase the Debt so much that we will not be able to pay the interest. Who then will bail out America? We will be sold to our enemies without a shot fired; All in the name of saving the Global Economy.

    Better make some noise people the consequences could be grave.

    The complexity of corruption is vast.

    To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

    I will give my support to one who has little if no history with the Corruption Club Or Money Party.

    Both Repubs And Dems Are In The Corruption Club And The Money Party. They Are One.

    I wish more people would have debated Ron Paul rather than dismissed him.

    Debate is the distillation of reality.

  • steven stone ( the spokesman)

    I would like to inform and correct the misconception that this country was put together under the beliefs and rules of the christian faith. The constitution was actually modeled and based on a Native American government that had already existed before the white man invaders ever landed in America. They had a constitution that was in place. However, the greedy self claiming Lords of the New World ( really the Old World ) decided that this native American government had no power or authority to rule them. However, they seen the benefits of a constitution and created one that is very similar to the Native American Constitution. So once again Christianity has taken and claimed something that wasn’t theirs as their own.
    As for this country also being put together under the Christian God is false also because, it was formed by many religions wanting to have a safe place to practice their own beliefs. However, as history shows Christianity is always trying to force people to believe their way by placing laws based on their own morals and beliefs. However, true freedom and free will does not allow for anyone to force their beliefs on another by coming up with laws. So if you believe in free will and freedom stop trying to force everyone else through laws to follow your beliefs and standards.

  • LibertyReign

    LOL! This blog is such a mound of crap it makes FOX News look “Fair and Balanced”. What kind of a mindless cow would you have to be to actually agree with your interpretations of the CP platform. It is consistantly against the Federal government’s intervention in just about everything from sexual-orientation to marriage, to medicine to religion and even the economy, and yet you passed it off as totalatarian and tyranical.. If you didn’t hate Christians so much you probably would have called Baldwin a SOcialist.

  • badmedia

    Oh look, someone who has done nothing but bash Ron Paul for the past year once again nit picks to find any reason to Bash him somemore.

    I don’t see how anyone can take you seriously. If not for google putting you in the search results for Ron Paul, I wonder if you would get any traffic at all.

    I’ve been a libertarian supporter for years. And I am not supporting Bob Barr at all. I tried to like him, but simply can’t bring myself to it.

    Personally, I don’t even see why it matters who Ron Paul endorses. It’s not like the people who support Ron Paul are going to just vote for whoever he says. What makes people a Ron Paul support in the first place most times is they actually decide for themselves.

    You know what I think? I think people like you will use anything they think they can spin as a reason to bash people like Ron Paul.

  • Scott R

    FWIW, I’m a Christian, but some of the CP platform seems off-base to me. That said, I think that you’re line-by-line critiques of their platform are wrong in most cases. While they clearly have a Christian focus, they’re in favor of a minimal federal government, and I see that as a very good thing. You seem to make assumptions that less federal government equates to less liberty, but that’s a bit of a stretch. Do you think that in the absense of a federal government, California would all of a sudden make homosexuality and oral sex (to name a couple of your favorite things, apparently) illegal?

    Less federal government equates to more states rights. That means more local government, where you can get involved and actually make a difference. Obviously, if you’re a minority in your state, there might be cause for concern. That’s where the difference between a republic and a democracy is important.

    Anyways, it matters little because neither Baldwin nor Barr (even if Baldwin wasn’t in the race and Paul threw his support to Barr) have any chance of winning this election. Paul had/has the right idea by running within one of the two major parties because otherwise he would have gotten zero air time. Unfortunately, the masses are still ignorant, so the time was not right. Apparently it will take a massive depression to wake people up, and by then it will be too late and/or they still won’t get it. Take, for example, the present crisis. The people are against the bailout, but they don’t understand it, and when it gets passed, they won’t revolt.

    Getting back to Baldwin vs Barr…as I understand it, Baldwin was actually in the trenches helping Paul early on, whereas Barr is clearly an opportunist, who jumped on the Paul bandwagon after he saw how popular Paul was and hoped that he could leech off some of that support. I never even heard of Barr before the day he introduced him at some gathering (which escapes me now), and a few years from now I’m sure very few people will recognize/remember Barr’s name.

  • Joshua Holmes

    steven stone,

    If the Constitution is modelled on Native American governance, then why is there not one mention of the Native Americans in the constitutional convention debates?

  • LibertyinLaw

    You are all totally snowed about the Constitution Party and Baldwin. So much so that you cannot trust the man with a 100% Constitutional voting record to understand the Constitution and to know the difference between liberty and religious tyranny.

    Get the facts, if you love Liberty, get the facts!

  • LibertyinLaw

    Many believed that Barr was a neocon plant, but the LP chose to compromise its own principles to try to gain political power through pragmatism.

    The truth is that it backfired for the party. Barr accomplished exactly what he was sent to the LP to accomplish — split the party and split the liberty movement — rendering both completely impotent.

    If you don’t trust the Constitution and put candidates in power that understand it and pledge allegiance to it you are simply playing the same corrupt political games that the R’s and D’s have been playing for years.

  • Andrew Panken

    Please stop the petty bickering, you guys/gals are giving me a bad headache. Though, I favor Barr over Baldwin, I still consider Paul to easily surpass either one in leadership and knowledge. If the LP wasn’t running someone, I would just cast the vote for Baldwin. I don’t believe Baldwin actually endorses the CP platform. Though, it would be nice to hear him say that, since we’re not mind readers.

  • Stephen Littau


    “Personally, I don’t even see why it matters who Ron Paul endorses. It’s not like the people who support Ron Paul are going to just vote for whoever he says. What makes people a Ron Paul support in the first place most times is they actually decide for themselves.”

    Really? Based on how some of Paul’s supporters circle the wagons anytime somone makes the slightest criticism of his actions…you could have fooled me!

    I like Ron Paul and admire him for what he has done to bring issues of importance into the debate. But like Barack Obama, Ron Paul has become a cult of personality. To his most loyal supporters, Paul can do no wrong. If Bob Barr endorsed the CP candidate, these same people would be calling him a theocrat!

  • Stephen Littau

    The cause of liberty is much bigger than one man. Why is it that when we write about issues which libertarians and classical liberals of all stripes should care about barley garner a response but a critical post about Ron Paul fetches 30+ comments?

  • pj mcflurr

    When the hell will people realize its a fkn PROTEST VOTE?? Like any third party candidate can win. Sheesh..

    Paul said he was going to vote for Baldwin. Sweet.. That doesnt mean im going to.

  • Darel

    Hi Doug,

    Perhaps you need a new tag line.

    Why not: Doug Mataconis Takes the Last Step Into Irrelevance

    I suggest the readers revisit the daily posts from Doug Mataconis during the primary season. He offered many posts regarding Paul from everything from Barry Manilow’s support to skin head donations. Yet, at the same time Doug stated he supported Ron Paul. Trouble is he never donated to Ron Paul’s campaign. Yet, he claimed he supported Ron Paul and would vote for Paul. Then about the same time Jamie over at the Neocon site pushed letters from years and years ago which Paul clearly has challenged since they were posted. Doug, then claimed it was new info and sited other reasons and he changed his mind. Sure, everyone can change ones mind but Doug was never a supporter and only posed as one.

    Doug is also a slim ball lawyer from the beltway. So there you have it he is a slim ball lawyer who lied about his support of Paul.

    Today’s post and when matched with his former actions only supports the new title.

    In the end Doug Mataconis Takes the Last Step Into Irrelevance while Ron Paul’s serves his nation with honor, grace and has in fact inspired liberty. Doug, may have a very short term memory and didn’t remember that 12,000 people did in fact show there support for Ron Paul’s vision of our nation at the counter convention.

    Again Doug maybe you need to spend more time attacking Bob Barrs staff for all there stupid mistakes. I know our local Paul group paid for $7000 for billboard signs all over my area for the last two months after the stupid mistakes of Barrs staff and Bob Barr no one was willing to spend there money for October.

    Yet, Doug will take the time to share information as if anyone is listening.

    Doug, it looks to me you have lots of people who couldn’t care less what you have to say.

    In defense of liberty,


  • Doug is a Troll

    Darel, you are absolutely correct. One has to wonder if Doug is a Libertarian Cannablist or not after all his “I hate Ron Paul, but call myself a libertarian who secretly earns to be the GOP’s doormat” publications.

    pj mcflurr, the only protest vote is one that is made against a candidate and not for a candidate.

  • blakmira

    Re: “All third parties are miniscule and powerless, there is no difference between them there.” Comment by kris

    Precisely, you pompous drone. Ron Paul advises voting for a third party as a protest vote against the 2 party monopoly to say loud and clear We Reject Your Election System.

    Do you seriously think he believes a third party could possibly win? Not in the current electronic secretive voting system we have — a paperless unaudited black hole specifically designed for fraud.

    UnCounted: The New Math of American Elections DVD. If you have any brains or guts you’ll watch it.

    You Barr supporters are so wicked and so anti-Ron Paul, and you wonder why we have been suspicious of a former CIA-member and DEA supporter all along. I certainly don’t see all the major TV networks jumping all over Barr for interviews about the economy, as they have this week to hear Ron Paul’s advise. Jealous much?

    Diebold: “If your vote counts, then we haven’t been doing our jobs.”

  • Mac

    Badmedia said –
    I don’t see how anyone can take you seriously.
    If not for google putting you in the search
    results for Ron Paul, I wonder if you would get
    any traffic at all.

    It’s so true. Heaven only knows how many similarly brilliant careers the good Doctor has made possible. Talk about bite the hand that feeds it!

  • Frank

    To Steven Stone (the spokesman)

    You said:

    “So if you believe in free will and freedom stop trying to force everyone else through laws to follow your beliefs and standards”.

    I say:

    Should we then follow your beliefs and standards?

    BTW, who are you to force your beliefs on anybody?

  • Scott Harmon

    Well, McCain signs are hanging around my neighborhood. We’ve got “Women for McCain” (that’s a laugh), “Veterans for McCain” (that’s the bumper crop), and “Virginians for McCain.” Sad that so much of the Constitutional work was done by native Virginians, while the apple of the modern Virginian’s eye is a globalistic, warmongering Empire builder. That’s IRONY number one. IRONY number two is the Libertarian Party’s decision to genuflect in the direction of the “mainstream Republicans” and away from the renegades that Ron Paul gathered together to make a statement against the duopoly. But, where there is feeding to be done, and the IRONIES must intersect at the all-important feeding trough near K-street: well over 5,000 lobbying groups who smack their lips on that Federal Budget. Barr, or his controllers, simply could not starve for a day and tighten the belt over that overstuffed arse . A real shame.

    The point of Paul’s 3rd party gathering is to try to turn some philosophy into action. If all philosophy gets you is a different way to hold your fork, what’s the point? In other words, intellectual sacrifices have to made. One might want to consider the greatest principles involved and vote on that basis. If an election is about handouts, then what’s the fuss? Take Option 1 or Option 2 and the results should be largely the same. But demand something off the menu, and maybe the menu will change.

    I don’t think Paul hurt the cause by endorsing a particular candidate. After all, he has basically endorsed a vote for any of the 3rd Party candidates. That is better than nothing. There really isn’t a singularly strong 3rd Party candidate, anyway, so the sum of votes to all 4 is the only point that matters. Someone mentioned, “protest vote,” but I like to call it a “voice of dissent.”

    So, what is the key principle? In my view, it is better to support the people who want to make a change rather than an interest group. I’ll sacrifice a certain amount of ideology to achieve a result that moves in the direction of positive change. Choose Barr, Baldwin, McKinney, or Nader–who cares? I don’t particularly like any of these choices, but I have to think any one of these is better than Option 1 or Option 2.

  • Big Dwane

    I wouldn’t vote for Barr either. He’s just another laywer doing jobs for the communist inspired ACLU

  • uhm

    If Kip figures out how to get rid of Dixiecrats out of the Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian parties he has my attention. A Federal program to ship them back to Europe might work. :-)

    Bob Barr’s the best candidate even through he is flawed. The Neocons have their Palin project. The Libertarians have their Barr project. I think a vote for Chuck would send the wrong message to the GOP. I like Baldwin’s desire to get rid of the Department of Education. The whole educational system should be removed. I was reading on Fox News how degrees from some online schools weren’t considered legit (accredited) because those schools weren’t paying the US government tribute then passing the cost to the students.

    I think Ron Paul is correct that people need to seek out third parties that represent their beliefs and are not as corrupt as the Democrat and Republican parties. Fascism and Socialism have failed.

  • Dan

    It seems extremely clear that, when one looks at the issues, records, and so forth, that Ron Paul is supporting the candidate that best represents his views. It really is that simple.

    Sure, one can speculate regarding personal vendettas and all that, but as long as the stances, issues and statements of intent are more consistent between Paul and Baldwin than they are between Paul and any other candidate, there is no good reason to take any of this any further than, ‘Paul chose the candidate he felt obligated to chose.”

    As to what will happen to the supporters of Ron Paul, they should (and likely will) chose who they feel best represents their positions and views. That is ultimately all one can do and that is the best thing to do. Actually, since the majority of those votes will go toward one of the third party candidates anyways, the no-confidence statement will still be made, which is a good thing.

    While some people seem disappointed that Paul chose to support Baldwin instead of placing his vote where it might strike a deeper blow to the system, personally, I respect the choice. Instead of playing politics he is voting for who he believes is the best man for the job. That should be the task of every voter.

    The job of the rest of us is to try to convince others to vote their convictions and to then attempt to show why a vote for this or that candidate is the best vote.

  • Doug Mataconis


    It seems extremely clear that, when one looks at the issues, records, and so forth, that Ron Paul is supporting the candidate that best represents his views. It really is that simple.

    That one sentence speaks volumes.

    Baldwin is no friend of liberty.

    His supposed adherence to the Constitution and respect for so-called “states rights” is, in reality, a shield for what is clearly the Constitution Party’s desire to turn individual states in to engines to enforce their vision of social order and religion.

    That isn’t libertarian.

    Ron Paul has endorsed this guy.

    So, that means that Ron Paul…………. ?

  • Rojas

    It’s a bad decision by Paul. He’s made those before. He has nonetheless proven to be an effective popularizer of libertarian ideology and an effective leader of the movement.

    I do not understand all of the claims that this somehow spells the end of Paul or of the CFL.

    Part of being a libertarian is being an individualist. You don’t need to be a zombie-like follower of any one demagogue and you don’t need to march in lock-step with everybody else of the same ideology. We, of all people, ought to appreciate that it is possible to march side-by-side with somebody on one issue and fight like cats and dogs on another.

    I reject Ron Paul’s presidential endorsement, and I look forward to supporting him on a wide spectrum of other issues. Hope you’ll do the same.

  • TerryP

    At this point I will be voting for Barr, not as a vote for Barr per say, but as a vote for the Libertarian Values. How else will we show what we want. Voting for the CP candidate may give off the wrong idea. While they promote freedom in many areas their stances on some issues such as religon, marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc. aren’t rooted real well in freedom (this coming from a Christian). Saying that, they are still far better than the republicrats and if I didn’t have the LP choice I would likely vote for the CP candidate.

    I really wish we stop bickering so much amongst ourselves. It only undermines the freedom movement and our credibility. Once we are a big enough player we can start bickering about some of the things on the fringes of the freedom movement.

    With hindisght it sure looks like if Paul was running as a third party candidate or even as an independent, as Nader is doing, he would be moving up big-time in the polls right now. He would be crushing Obama and McCain right now with their economic stances and full go ahead on the bailout. It is very possible that he could be at over 15% right now if he were still in the race and be in the debates where he could push his numbers even higher. We wouldn’t be having this squabble between the CP and LP parties either, as they would both be backing Paul right now instead of their lesser candidates.

  • Doug Mataconis


    So far, the Baldwin endorsement is the only major thing to come out of the C4L, so I don’t think it’s unfair to judge the effectiveness of the concept by looking at whether it actually advances liberty.

    (And I don’t think that giving any credibility to the Constitution Party advances the cause of liberty)

    As I said months ago, it would’ve been nice if Paul had ended his campaign sooner in recognition of the fact that it was going nowhere, donated his millions of dollars of campaign contributions to the C4L PAC, and used that money to fund candidates for lower office who might actually have a chance of winning.

    Part of being a libertarian is being an individualist. You don’t need to be a zombie-like follower of any one demagogue and you don’t need to march in lock-step with everybody else of the same ideology. We, of all people, ought to appreciate that it is possible to march side-by-side with somebody on one issue and fight like cats and dogs on another.

    True, but when someone who has said more than once that they are a libertarian backs someone who clearly isn’t one and who represents a party that calls for rolling back individual liberty at the state level, it’s worth questioning his motives and/or judgment, isn’t it ?

  • Doug Mataconis


    I am supporting and will be voting for Barr for much the same reasons that you put forth. For awhile, I thought the Barr campaign might actually break the string of badly run LP Presidential campaigns, but the whole thing with dissing Paul and then asking him to be Barr’s VP running mate was so badly handled that I know that isn’t the case.

    Nonetheless, he is the only candidate on the ballot representing a party with a consistent philosophy promoting individual liberty. So, he’s got my vote.

    With hindisght it sure looks like if Paul was running as a third party candidate or even as an independent, as Nader is doing, he would be moving up big-time in the polls right now. He would be crushing Obama and McCain right now with their economic stances and full go ahead on the bailout. It is very possible that he could be at over 15% right now if he were still in the race and be in the debates where he could push his numbers even higher. We wouldn’t be having this squabble between the CP and LP parties either, as they would both be backing Paul right now instead of their lesser candidates.

    I’m not so sure. Paul never did very well in the primaries, even in states like New Hampshire where there was an open primary and you would’ve thought he would attract libertarian minded voters.

    It’s possible that he would’ve become something like Perot was in `92, but you have to remember that Perot was polling at 25-30% in the early summer of 1992 before he even entered the race, Paul has never polled that high.

    Frankly, I think it’s just an indication that libertarian ideas aren’t as popular with the voting public as we’d like to think.

  • Give me Liberty!

    Here we have the heart of the situation:

    During Ron Paul’s 2007 Presidential run, the excitement mounted, expectations grew, money poured in, nearly 200,000 people separate individuals donated money to his campaign.

    But, in early January of 2008, it dropped off. The money only trickled in, even while the early votes were still underway. Why? The newsletters.

    But, the loyal supporters and those who had already come aboard joined with others who were politically homeless in the various primaries and 1.2 million still voted for Ron Paul.

    But, the movement had already moved away from Dr. Paul. By spring, in addition to the newsletters, you could see that his age, fatigue and the beginnings of senility were gaining on the good doctor. He probably knew that his wife was ill as well, so he dropped out.

    But, as Dr. Paul always stated, he never expected to do so well. This means he never expected to have so many supporters, raise so much money or probably to even be included in the debates. He’d been excluded from so many events before.

    So, why did Dr. Paul run? He ran to spread the message of liberty as he currently sees it and to add names to his personal fortune building mailing list machine.

    Up to 1988, Ron Paul was mostly a Libertarian. No purest, but not bad on the issues. He cozied-up to Libertarianism a bit more during the LP campaign.

    In 2007 and 2008, Ron Paul was more conservative than libertarian, he said constitutionalist, partially true, and now he’s added theocrat to his list of adjectives in advance of the word Republican.

    His fortune building at the expense of the movement for Liberty has always been paramount. Dr. Paul sucked hundreds of thousands of dollars and mailing lists with hundreds of thousands of names out of struggling new organizations in the battle for liberty. He used these names to build a personal fortune in the millions of dollars, and gave nothing back.

    So, where did these millions of voters and donors go? 1.2 million, or 1.5 million, don’t just vanish into thin air, do they?

    Well, it seems they have. His campaign for liberty has barely cracked 100,000, and membership is free. One person can sign up their whole family and Donald Duck without any cost. So, where are the other 1.4 million?

    Faced with a 90% loss of followers over a period of a few weeks beginning in late December and in the first few months of 2008, Dr. Paul needed a way to save face on Election Day. There would be at most a scattering of write in votes, and that would be an embarrassing reminder of his loss. So, what to do?

    The answer: The now infamous Ron Paul news conference. He could invite the “big Four” 3rd party candidates and, on Election Day, he could claim all of their votes as his own, and thereby save face. And, as a side benefit, it would help the personal money making machine.

    Bob Barr was smart enough to see what was happening.

    Allowing Dr. Paul to lump all the alternative candidates with all their differences into one package to benefit the “Paul Machine” would NOT help the Fight for Liberty and it would hurt both the LP and the Liberty movement forever in the future.

    So, the Barr campaign made the correct but painful decision not to attend. Instead, they took one last chance on Dr. Paul, asking him to join the LP on the ticket and asking Dr. Paul to get serious and join the fight for Liberty.

    No one would have really expected Ron Paul to do so. His motivation now is personal glory and personal financial gain.

    Ron Paul is now lost to the Freedom movement. Perhaps he should become a Las Vegas odds maker. That would be a step up at this point.

    So, Dr. Paul decided to join the fight for his money machine instead. Now he could no longer count on the 3rd party vote being declared his in November. He could no longer count Barr’s LP votes as his. This meant that Paul would look foolish counting Nader and Green Party votes as his, so he had nothing left to do but endorse a theocrat, his buddy Baldwin.

    Paul’s strategy of cozying-up to everyone from the 9/11 truthers to the various groups of theocrats and racists that dot the political wilderness has long been about money. Paul needed to save his money machine.

    Now Paul has some wiggle room. At least he’ll have some votes to show that he has some influence, and he’ll keep some people loyal, so that his direct mail marketing empire can keep selling newsletters and coins and keep sucking in millions of dollars for his family.

    So, the question is: how many votes can he swing?
    He has the campaign for Liberty. That’s a good clue, but it’s only got 100,000 members. That’s already a loss from his 1.2 million primary voters and nearly 200,000 donors.

    Many of those people like Dr. Paul, but they’ll still vote for McCain over Obama, the usual conservative argument for why.

    Others are loyal Constitution Party voters already.

    Others are loyal LP voters and will stay that way.

    Others are a mix of Nader, Green, “Truthers,” and nonvoters.

    In short, there are very few votes left for Ron Paul to swing.

    So, what are the embarrassment levels?

    For Barr: too many unrealistic high expectations at the outset: less than 1 million votes will be somewhat of an embarrassment for him. Major embarrassment would be falling below Ron Paul’s 1988 vote total or finishing after Baldwin.

    For the LP: 4th after Nader and highest vote total ever other than the Clark campaign will be enough to brag about.

    For Baldwin: he has no track record and is not given to bragging. He only has to beat Millness to claim top wacko loser status.

    For the CP: They need to beat their highest ever vote total, given that they have the great cult guru backing them.

    But, for Ron Paul, the stakes are high. If Bob Barr breaks 1 million votes, Paul will look foolish. If Bob Barr gets more votes than Baldwin and more than Paul in 1988, Paul will look foolish. If Baldwin gets less than 250,000 votes or a lower percentage than Barr, Paul will look foolish.

    Ron Paul has painted himself into a corner.

    He could have kept himself out of this fracas by actually trying to contribute something to the Fight for Liberty.

    He could have used his C4L and some of his personal millions to sponsor real 6 way debates on nationwide television: 3 for president and 1 for VP. By making them large and nationwide, and especially with the McCain attempt at hiding, he could have gotten them all there.

    But, Ron Paul would never put Liberty above making money. He could never join our founding fathers who pledged: “to sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor …”

    Ron Paul abandoned liberty for personal gain.

    Shame on Ron Paul.

  • Doug Mataconis


    Your personal attacks on me merely demonstrate the lack of merit to your arguments.

    Have a nice weekend.

  • freewheeler


    I have not had time to read through all the comments, but it continues to be disappointing to see someone who clearly cares about liberty waste so much time hating on RP. You and the Reason crowd have allowed an old rivalry with paleo-libertarians, among others, to divert your attention away from the real issues. We are having a complete meltdown of the financial industry caused by the direct intervention of the government. The government is passing laws like the PATRIOT ACT and the FISA Amendments, with the support of both parties. People are beginning to awaken and are looking for answers. Seizing this opportunity should be the focus now. I’m sure you claim this is what you’re doing, as you think the Barr campaign can serve that ends. But ask yourself, what percentage of your recent posts was directed at marginalizing others who generally are on the right side of fighting for liberty? In my opinion, you come incredibly biased, and sad.

    I disagree with your assessment of the exchange between Barr and Paul. But it’s really irrelevant. Also, there are legitimate libertarian arguments to make against RP. Though an RP supporter, I have made them, because he is not the most purist of libertarians. But you instead focus on the most trivial and personal of issues within the miniscule sphere of true-liberty advocates, while the world burns down around you.

    For what it’s worth, I enjoy your pieces when focusing on the atrocities of government, and hope to see more of them in the future.

  • Stephen Littau

    Give me Liberty!, those are all great points.

    In the face of this present financial crisis, Ron Paul looks brilliant (check out his face off with Bernake ).

    But with how he has handled the ’08 campaign, especially as of late, he looks very foolish.

    Ron Paul is great on policy (generally) but terrible on politics (generally).

    What a shame.

  • Rachel Farer

    I wonder if Ron Paul simply wanted to support a friend and remove himself from the center of attention. His cult status among many Libertarians was not healthy. He has said all along that he was not the best person to lead, just that he had the right ideas. Ron Paul is perceived as extreme by the mainstream, and if Bob Barr is smart, he will spin this as an affirmation of his own more mainstream candidacy.

    Bob Barr is far from perfect, but we need to get the Libertarian Party above 5% this election cycle so that we can have a real shot in 2012.

    ~ MRF

  • uhm

    Doug, Bob Barr is for “states rights” too. Power needs to be decentralized but there shouldn’t be any more Jim Crow. He has talked before the The Council of Conservative Citizens. It is believed to be a white supremacist organization. The Wilsionian Progressive Dixiecrat cancer is everywhere except probably not supporting Obama. What can freedom lovers do against this menace to society. It jumped from the Democrat Party to the Republican and now the Libertarian. How does Libertarians deal with this malignant cancer that infects (thus discredits) anything that thinks will help them in their collectivist race and class wars?

  • steven stone ( the spokesman)

    no we shouldn’t follow anyone one beliefs or standards. The standards we should follow should be what the majority of the citizens say it should be. Not based on the Bible or any other religious books.

  • irritated

    @ Steven Stone: “no we shouldn’t follow anyone one beliefs or standards. The standards we should follow should be what the majority of the citizens say it should be. Not based on the Bible or any other religious books.”

    Don’t you think the majority of those citizens are basing their standards from a bible or religious book? They keep spouting that this is a christian nation after all. How many people voted for Bush JUST because he was a christian?

  • Mike

    This post is a lie. The Constitution Party does not want to ban gay marriage.

    Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Following the Constitution means that if Texas wants to not legally recognize a marriage between a man and another man, then they won’t be forced to. Likewise, if California wants to legally recognize a marriage between two men, they won’t be prevented from doing so.

    The Constitution was meant to give 50 independent states a common market and a mutual defense force, it was not meant to create a super government that decides all matters in the country from Washington D.C..

    You need to learn about the Constitution and how America is supposed to be governed.

  • Doug Mataconis


    The Constitution Party believes in the Constitution only because it permits them to pursue their agenda on the state level.

    From a libertarian point of view, there is no such thing as state’s rights. The State of Texas doesn’t have the right to tell individuals what kind of relationship they can enter into. Therefore, state bans on gay marriage are unacceptable.

    And you forget that the Constitution has something called the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which means that Texas ought to recognize a marriage legally sanctioned by any other state, including a gay marriage sanctioned by Massachusetts or California.

  • Brad Warbiany


    Actually, the Constitution was written by people who at heart really wanted to see the central government strengthened, and the states subservient. Madison wanted the national government to have veto power over any state law. Hamilton was a fan of HUGE central power, as the guy who convinced the nation that the federal government should assume all states’ Revolutionary war debts, and was the impetus behind the first National Bank.

    It was only the people who were against the Constitution who managed to put enough safeguards into the process to give the States some protection against the Central power.

    You need to learn about the Constitution and how it came to be. If you want a quick primer, try here.

  • Seth

    Right, and Bob Barr is such a great libertarian, who breaks contracts, perpetrates frauds, and attempts extortion for endorsements. If Paul made a error in judgement at all it was in endorsing anyone at all. However, keep in mind, he only endorsed Baldwin’s positions on the Constitution, he didn’t endorse the Constitution Party, their platform, or Baldwin’s wacky Christianist mysticism. Anyone with a disciplined and subtle mind could discern that.

  • oilnwater

    the people that run this blog are nowhere people. anyone just tuning in, you should tune out, stat.

  • Doug Mataconis


    If you really feel that way, why do you keep coming back ?

  • Pingback: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » When Ron Paul Is Right, He’s Right()

  • steven stone ( the spokesman)

    I agree that the fanatical Christians are spouting that. However, it was Bush’s “terrorist are going to get us” is what got him re-elected. I was from a church in New York where we were told to vote for the candidate who best fit bible standards. I knew many who voted for the opposite because of the economy and other areas. However, it is the hard core Christians that push for laws based on their bible that I’m talking about. Even though there numbers aren’t high they are made to be seen as a strong power of influence. Because when it comes right down to it, if the Christians start loosing their homes and jobs because of an economic crisis they will vote for the non – Christian candidate.
    It’s not the voting though that gets me it’s the let’s say make a law for this because it is sin in our bible that gets to me. I’ve been ordained as a minister. And through out my search in the bible when Jesus lived not once did he try to change laws, instead He tried to change people. This is why I’m strongly against making my vote based on my faith beliefs. I judge my vote on who will get our focus on this country and not 130 others. We have many serious issues here that need to be dealt with, and no time to deal with their problems. That’s how I will vote. I wish that Ron Paul was still running cause he would’ve had my vote, which the hard-core Christians would not support. He is to loose on the you can do whatever you want for them.

  • Brian Miller

    The Constitution Party does not want to ban gay marriage.

    The delusion of the Paultardian-Baldwinian Brigade knows no bounds.

    Here’s what the CP says about gay marriage:

    The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

    They advocate a state based on their interpretation of “God’s” law… there’s no place for gays in that order (other than prison or the graveyard).

    For one to argue otherwise, after reading the CP’s platform (let alone being familiar with their wacky ranting) is beyond deluded — it’s smack-dab in the domain of mental illness.

    And all the other Paultards arguing that a theocratic moron like Baldwin is a “friend of the Constitution” deserve all their new CP buddies and the “credibility” that those guys bring to the “r3volution.”

    Pretty funny stuff. Then again, keep in mind that the die-hards still whining about every factual criticism of their sainted Fearless Leader actually believed all the excuses about how Ron Paul didn’t REALLY write all those racist newsletters (even when he said he did, which was just him making an honest mistake).

    At a certain point, reasonable people write them off.

    Having such delusion, hero-worship, and lack of principled analysis of the blatantly obvious affiliated with the movement for personal liberties in this country does GRAVE damage to libertarianism.

    Ron Paul’s embrace of his natural extreme-right-wing fascistic brethren in the Constitution Party is, in that sense, a blessing for those of us who understand what real individual liberties are.