Why did Ron Paul endorse Chuck Baldwin?

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 11:07 am, September 23, 2008 | Comments Off

Ron Paul has done more for the cause of limited government and personal liberty than any politician since Barry Goldwater.

That’s why his presidential endorsement of Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin is puzzling.

He announced his endorsement via his Campaign for Liberty site.

Before making the announcement, he discussed his “Unity Press Conference,” which was attended by Baldwin, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney – but not Bob Barr:

Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Of course, the Barr campaign has a different version of events. Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, in an email to supporters, said:

After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.

When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul's prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.

His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.

Apparently there was a lack of communication between the two camps and some hurt feelings. But this is politics. There is no place for hurt feelings.

In his endorsement of Baldwin, Paul wrote:

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

Given the context of the entire announcement, it appears that the “shortcomings of any one person” is a thinly veiled jab at Barr. No problem. This is politics.

Paul continued:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.

…

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.

That is the general background leading up to Paul’s endorsement.

Most people outside the insulated world of third party politics probably have a question: “Who is Chuck Baldwin?”

Let’s look at the Constitution Party website for some answers.

Among other things, the CP wants to end American involvement in overseas wars, limit the federal government’s powers to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and return power to those states by reviving the dormant Tenth Amendment.

So far, so good.

But let’s look at some of those “other things,” as well.

The CP website asks visitors to “Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.”

Biblical foundations? At best, that claim is historically questionable. Throughout its website, the CP picks quotes from John Adams and others that indicate a belief that Christianity is an important part of American government.

Of course, the CP ignores quotes from Thomas Jefferson and others that indicate a different belief.

For an organization that purports to support a stringent reading of the Constitution, it fails to address why the words “Jesus Christ,” “Christianity,” “bible,” or even “church” fail to appear in the document.

The CP has to look outside the document to support its position, which is exactly what liberal judicial activists do to support their arguments for expansion of federal power.

The entire CP platform is online.

It begins: “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

The CP therefore has no place for those that do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Ironically, this would keep Thomas Jefferson out of the CP. Jefferson denied that Christ was divine, and put together a little something called “The Jefferson Bible” to support that belief.

It is hard to imagine how a political party that rejects Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and Thomas Jefferson can be said to support either freedom or liberty.

In that regard, the CP platform sets forth its specific positions very clearly:

The CP is against homosexual rights.

The CP is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

The CP supports the war on drugs.

The CP favors government regulation of the internet and the media in general because both contain sexually provocative images.

The CP is anti-free market in that it favors government restriction on the private use of personal money on gambling and prostitution.

The CP is anti-free trade.

The CP supports government’s power to kill criminals.

The CP would not allow women in combat.

The CP believes that education “cannot be separated from religious faith.”

The CP would eliminate all immigration into the country “except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances.”

The CP would keep out immigrants based on whether or not the government found them a moral burden on the country or not.

The CP supports “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.”

There can be no doubt Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, freedom and limited government. But it is hard to see how Chuck Baldwin and the CP advance these beliefs.

It appears that Paul has taken a perceived slight from Bob Barr personally, and in a fit of pique, endorsed a religious zealot, intolerant of non-Christians and a believer in government authority to implement a Christian theocracy.

And that’s too bad

Comments

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

• "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts

• Rising Oil Production in Alberta: More Evidence Disproving Hubbert’s Peak

  In today’s environment it’s hard to find good news. But this is good news: the free market is working, and putting statists’ predictions, like Hubbert’s, to shame. Oh, the joy!

• Regulatory Agencies Continue to Slow the Economy
• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience