Posted on 07/14/2008 9:48:03 AM PDT by mnehring
p>Well, you can add another candidate I won’t be voting for in November to my list; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party who has all but pulled a John Kerry and insulted our troops by inferring that they are part what he calls the “lunacy” of the Iraq War. By correlation, if the mission is “lunacy” than those that are willingly supporting it and singing up for the job must be “lunatics”. Baldwin decried “the bi-partisan complicity that has allowed the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”. Baldwin went on to point out “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad to guard the borders of Iraq, while leaving our borders wide open, inviting illegals to plunder the wealth and good will of American citizens”. Baldwin’s remarks were interrupted by a number of thunderous standing ovations making it clear his message resonated with the party faithful.
Of course I assumed that the Constitution Party would appoint a candidate with such a position and quite frankly it is actions like this that keep people from voting for their candidates. Instead of being unhinged and adopting liberal talking points, the Constitution Party should step back, take a deep breath, reread the Constitution and come back down to Earth.
To call the Iraq War “unconstitutional” places Baldwin in the same camp as Ron Paul in terms of being “loony” himself since the Constitution clearly states that Congress declares war and there is a resolution on record, for anyone that cares to read it, authorizing the use of force (i.e. war) against Iraq for their (at the time) continued violations of the ceasefire agreement and associations with terrorist organizations.
Baldwin’s “lunacy” puts him squarely in the camp of not being qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military and thus not qualified to be President. Thus the Constitution Party, for all its good ideas, regulates itself to being nothing more than another hopeless also-ran.
It doesn't limit what type of ‘punishment’ is used, nor does it limit what laws we use, it basically gives Congress permission to use the legal tools necessary.
Our not liking the two choices does not change the truth of his statement.
Both are bad choices, but one is still much worse of a choice than the other, and the results will effect you regardless of if you decide to participate of not.
If conservatives decide not to vote or vote for someone that has no chance of winning, then the choice will be made by liberals. Are you satisfied with liberals choosing our next president?
The third parties have always been some incestuous political family. Ever election they claim they are made up of disaffected voters of the major parties, but in reality, 99% of the time, they are the same old faces of other third parties.
They are repeatedly asked to do so.
They have three standard responses:
(1) They take the attitude that anything disliked by a constitutional scholar as great as themselves is obviously unconstitutional and that even asking the question proves that the questioner is stupid.
(2) Anyone daring to ask them such a question is clearly a neo-con, probably a Zionist and is likely Jewish to boot. Therefore, the questioner is not worth answering.
(3) Constitutional law is not actually a rational discipline pursued analytically, but is simply one big game of semantics, and if a magical sequence of words framed ahead of time by them cannot be discovered verbatim in the Constitution, then it is not constitutional. For example Congress is not allowed, by the rules of the game, to declare war unless the document specifically says "We declare war."
No synonyms allowed and the words "authorize the use of force" cannot be literally found in the Constitution.
Both McCain and Obama truly are very socialistic in their politics, so it really doesn’t matter this time who the next POTUS is. Also, do you really believe McCain when he says that he will ONLY NOMINATE conservatives to all future judicial vacancies while McCain is POTUS? All conservatives are NOW supposed to actually TRUST McCain on everything dear to conservatives? BTW, what good is McCain’s promise to nominate only conservative judges to the Supreme Court when the next Congress, including the next U.S. Senate, will probably by more leftist? It’s the U.S. Senate who has to approve all of McCain’s judicial choices, and the next U.S. Senate will probably be more socialistic than the present U.S. Senate! Socialism will truly win no matter who the next POTUS is.
They begin with the party organizers and a bunch of mailing lists purchased or "borrowed" by the organizers.
They recruit gullible, ideologically committed volunteers to do all the heavy lifting (getting on the ballot, handing out literature, arranging speeches, manning the phone lines, etc.) while they solicit donations. The rubes respond, sending money to a party which they believe will finally "restore Christian constitutional government as of old."
The organizers pay themselves through fees remitted to consulting companies employed by the campaign. When true believers become discouraged or suspicious, they close up shop and move on to the next party.
And the rubes vote for the next hopeless scam - convinced that they are "investing" their vote instead of throwing it away.
History lesson: no third party has ever come to power in American history. A cursory review of the US Constitution reveals that we do not operate on the parliamentary system, making the growth and ascendancy of a third party structurally almost impossible.
The most important fact: an Obama presidency will, with 100% certainty, create hard left Supreme Court justices while a McCain presidency means that there may be another conservative justice nominated or the balance may remain the same.
That's the simple math.
Wrong. The Republican Party started out as a third party in the 1850's.
Third Parties, the Amaway of politics.
Indeed it is.
You will also find most of these "constitutionalists" claiming to be both strict constructionists and originalists - not realizing the fundamental incompatibility of these two approaches and not recognizing the intellectual ancestry of either.
What they are is semanticists.
These are also the same people who will tell you that the XIVth and XVIth Amendments were never validly ratified.
It is a confused worldview tinged with conspiracy at every turn.
No, you are wrong.
The Republican party has never run lower than second in any national election it has participated in.
The GOP was never a third party.
Sounds like Lew Rockwell's history.
There was a spokesman for the Green Party on some news program I flipped past last night and he was saying pretty much the exact same thing every other third party does, even though they are unabashed liberals. They where promising a return to 'Constitutional values' etc, etc, etc.. It is funny to see how people flock over to these parties just because of trigger words.. but as Shakespeare put it in Hamlet..Words, words, words..
You're right. The last U.S. Senator to become President was John Kennedy. Before that, you would have to go back to Warren Harding. However, the list of Senators who lost Presidential elections is quite long: John Kerry, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Barry Goldwater, Alf Landon (and I suspect I have missed one or more).
In 1856 it contested the Congressional, Senate and Presidential elections for the first time.
John Fremont finished second in the Presidential race and the Republicans seated the second largest delegation in the Congress and Senate.
In the 1858 midterm elections, the GOP maintained its position as second largest party in the Senate and in the House.
In 1860 Lincoln was elected President and the GOP had the largest delegation in the House and second-largest in the Senate.
From 1860 on, the GOP has been second or first party in every national election, just as it was in 1856 and 1858.
The third party in the 1856 and 1858 elections was the American Party - the Know-Nothings - who were absorbed by the larger GOP in 1860.
Guess what’s back.
http://www.bullmoose.org/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.