- Painfully unaware of the ballot access and state-to-state recognized/unrecognized party status implications of your suggestion, and how much further that would set us back than the present situation does.

- Unfamiliar with coalition parties in other countries where the various parts of the whole, and their beliefs, are virtually destroyed in the merging process. You’re left with a coalition party that has no agenda, no cohesive platform, and no ability to accomplish anything due to the need to fight amongst yourselves to define your goals before you can actively begin fighting against the rest of the government to accomplish them.

Bickering over labels and Party Doctrine has hamstrung any opposition as usual.

Divided We Fall, Again.

I suggest a “Third Party Congress” to create a new party.

The Mission – Create a new charter for a combined party.

Nothing goes into the charter that is not approved by 3/4 of the convened congress. Result – Only similarities are accounted. We can argue the details and who best represents later.

I have watched a great many Fools argue Party Doctrine As Religion this election cycle. I have not seen many, if at all, arguments based upon individual character or action.

Do not be so foolish as to be ruled by emotion.

The future of America is on thin ice; The need for cohesion has never been greater.

Do not sacrifice what your forefathers left in your care out of arrogance and skepticisms.

Danger Close.

Leadership?

Well?

The Constitution Party itself, on the other hand, is what’s really in question. There are many in its ranks that would happily embrace theocracy. The religious references in the Constitution Party’s platform all refer to “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” unambiguously, as this is declared in the first sentence. The number of religious references in the Constitution Party’s platform, about 30, reaches the point of absurdity. There’s only about 3 religious references in the Declaration of Independence, and they refer to “Nature’s God” with some ambiguity, which could mean anything.

The course of our nation’s history has taught us that creative interpretation of the language of our Constitution can allow for unintended side-effects. I light of this fact, and the nature of Constitution Party’s platform, I find cold comfort in their pledge to adhere to it. Some Democrats and Republicans are convinced most or all of their hare-brained schemes are in compliance with the Constitution as well, and just look where that’s gotten us.

Bob Barr’s nomination has done NOTHING but disrespect Ron Paul and his supporters and cause division. I severely questioned the suspicious nature of so many anti-Ron Paul/pro-Bob Barr trolls smearing Ron Paul.

Mission accomplished, now shut the hell up about your disappointment in Ron Paul — who has never disappointed me. His predictions and sage advise on the economy, foreign policy, following the Constitution and backing up his talk with actual votes is all I need to remain a loyal supporter.

VOTE THIRD PARTY as a protest of the corrupt 2-party system. It is a huge step towards change.

How ridiculous is it that we elect leaders and tell them “it’s O.K. if you don’t want to follow the law sometimes. If you think you have more wisdom and better ideas…etc.”

If we could unite on this principle, then we could UNITE to overcome the political monopoly in our land.

How about it Libertarians? Can you agree to only elect Constitutionalists to office? Or is it better to be pragmatic and support a candidate who won’t follow the Constitution, but talks about small government, civil liberties and small government?

It has nothing to do with a person’s moral or religious convictions. It is about what the Constitution allows for or restricts.

Chuck Badlwin wrote an article about this in 2006 called Can Constitutionalists Ever Come Together? http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060523.html

You are so right about the silence of Evangelicals on important issues like the real id, globalism…etc. This is the result of a powerful political alliance called: “The Religious Right”. Leadership from the top down has changed the entire paradigm and led Christians on the path of supporting the establishment at every turn. Just look at the deceptive voting guide that makes John McCain look like an angel.

What you need to know is that Chuck Baldwin and most members of the Christian members of the Constitution Party are not in-line with this alliance. We see the hypocrisy and apostacy and it is outrageous. They are as guilty as the liberal left in working to increase the size and power of the federal government. Chuck Baldwin has been railing AGAINST the Religious Right since his eyes became opened in the late 90’s. Just review the archive of his column. Here are some to consider:

The Religious Right is Wrong – January 4, 2002
The Religious Right Has Huge Blind Spot – August 16, 2002
Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant? – March 11, 2005
The Religious Right Has Fled The Battlefield! – June 09, 2006
Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul? – February 27, 2007
Have Christians Become Dupes? – April 10, 2007
Christian Right Just Doesn’t Get It – December 07, 2007
Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul? – January 08, 2008
The Religious Right Is AWOL From The Real War – July 23, 2008

Chuck Baldwin is about following the Constitution and honoring his oath of office. The issues that cause concern for many non-believers and libertarians (abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, war on drugs….etc.) are those that Chuck Baldwin recognizes as properly within the jurisdiction of the states. He is a sctrict Constitutionalist and the allegiance he has to the law of the land is what makes the difference between him and the Religious Right.

For those that don’t understand why Ron Paul would endorse Chuck Baldwin because you think he is a Theocrat, an understanding of the Religious Right might help explain why you’ve gotten that mistaken impression. There is a whole movement of Christians who believe in the Constitution — the rule of law.

Ron Paul endorsed him because he is a Constitutionalist and so is Chuck Baldwin. That is the measure we should be using to elect federal officers.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html

Vote Third Party and let’s get the vote out

1. For many this isn’t about mending fences or creating alliances. It’s about staking out turf and gathering market share for competing factions. Some of Ron Paul’s staff, already hostile toward Barr long before these events unfolded, were able to spin the entire affair (along the same lines as what I mentioned earlier about how the word “snub” serves to frame the debate long before rationally weighing the facts even enters the equation) as “proof positive” that their “dire warnings” of Bob Barr’s “poisonous effect” on Ron Paul’s “virtuous agenda” were true. This undoubtedly pulled any staffers that were on the fence off, and staffers that were indifferent toward Barr on. Couple this with the feud that was sparked between both camps, and now I’m sure there’s a sizable mined “no man’s land” between both.

2. Ron Paul’s decision to scatter the voice of dissent “to the four winds” at the press conference disappointed Barr, and likewise Barr’s no-show disappointed Paul. There may not be a conciliatory spark in either man, even without the influence and involvement of the staff.

3. Ron Paul’s decision to parlay the spin and the whispered counsel of those that have his ear into an endorsement of Chuck Baldwin probably locked closed whatever avenues of reasonable discourse still remained, and Barr’s comment that Ron Paul’s supporters should be disappointed in him surely threw away the key.

You said:
“The key to a third party arising to challenge the Democrats and Republicans is that it NOT be an ideological party, either libertarian or Christian, but that it combine both streams of political thought that have been ignored or exploited by the Republicrats.”

No. The two “streams of political thought” that need to be wedded are the “right-conservative” and “left-liberal” streams, and that is accomplished by libertarian philosophy under the banner of libertarianism. The “two parties” (which are essentially one) are doing the same thing, except they’re wedding the two under the banner of authoritarianism. Take a look at the “Nolan Chart” for a good view of what I’m talking about.

Christianity is not a political ideology, but rather a religious ideology. This highlights one of the significant differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Libertarian philosophy is extremely inclusive of people from many walks of life and a variety of faiths, and it is broad inclusiveness that is needed to garner the amount of votes necessary for an alternative party to succeed. The Constitution Party clearly appeals primarily to Christians. It attracts others, to be sure, but I’d imagine this is either by virtue of the word “Constitution” in its name or because–for whatever reason–those individuals chose not to support another cause. Many Christians that have faith in the laws of God and his sole authority to judge us for our sins, not the laws of men and a notion that they have secondary authority to administer punishment for disobeying God, find a happy home in the Libertarian Party.

We do not have voices, and we are not on the ballots in every state like we should be, and therefore WE DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE. Seriously, it’s time to be realistic.

After getting on the ballots, after getting people to listen, then talking about how the views of various third parties differ will be constructive….until then it is a complete waste of time.

Ron Paul tried to do more than anyone has in a long time to recognize this and unite the third parties under this common issue that must be addressed before anything else can happen. Bob Barr chose to be different. Maybe he was misinformed, who cares, grow up. If he cannot join other candidates with this one common goal, then why even pretend to be running. I honestly cannot believe he is able to call himself a “presidential candidate” with a straight face. To even call himself that just gives Republicans and Democrats more reason to laugh at the entire party. Why even run if you aren’t going to be on the ballots in all 50 states and in the debates? I say that to all third party candidates….really, you’re making fools of yourselves.

There are two presidential candidates:
1. John McCain
2. Barak Obama

Until the third parties are taken seriously, they need to stop claiming to have “presidential candidates.” Why not work on third party congressmen to start? In the meanwhile fight for ballot access. We all have differences; focusing on those differences will not lead to progress. If we focus on what we have in common, and work together, maybe we can get somewhere.

The key to a third party arising to challenge the Democrats and Republicans is that it NOT be an ideological party, either libertarian or Christian, but that it combine both streams of political thought that have been ignored or exploited by the Republicrats. This was the year for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties to combine forces and nominate the same ticket, and Bob Barr was the obvious candidate (in the absence of Ron Paul) to be their joint standardbearer. Having failed to do that, Ron Paul’s idea of having the public associate both their slates of candidates, together with Nader and the Greens, is the next best alternative. Granted, the LP and CP will never build a common platform with committed socialists, but from the standpoint of having the same foreign and military policy goals, as well as an opposition to the conventional wisdom from Wall Street, the four have the opportunity to build a sensible coalition, in the way many European governments are built by coalitions among parties with conflicting planks in their separate platforms. By putting all four candidates together in the mind of the American electorate, the vote totals of the four tickets could be combined to look at their total impact upon the polling on election day. None of them are going to win any state’s electors, but building a united front in the public mind gives the coalition movement a far greater opportunity to build for the future.

Remember the Ross Perot candidacy, which was non-ideological, but gathered together a lot of folks dissatisfied with the two major parties? That opportunity was squandered because the “libertarian” heirs to that campaign, most prominently represented by Jesse Ventura, bad-mouthed the paleo-conservative wing of the party, represented by Pat Buchanan. We really don’t need Bob Barr repeating the same mistake.