[mnehring]

This will be no surprise to most here, but just another example of how, even our third party choices this year stink.

Note, I fixed the grammar problem with the original title.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Just goes to show that, as usual, the only things worse than the two major parties are the third parties.

[carenot]

By correlation, if the mission is “lunacy” than those that are willingly supporting it and singing up for the job must be “lunatics”.

BS

[wideawake]

The Constitution Party has nothing to do with the Constitution.

It is an amalgam of all the anti-Constitutional crank movements from the original Anti-Federalists to the America Firsters and beyond.

"Untold innocent Iraqis" - clowns.

[Emile]

Not quite as bad as the left. At least he proposed defending our borders from illegals. The left would never propose such a thing.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> “... the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional war that has resulted in the slaughter of four thousand American soldiers and untold innocent Iraqis”.

Makes John McCain sound like Ronald Reagan.

H

[2ndDivisionVet]

One of two individuals will be the next president of our United States: Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. or Senator John Sidney McCain III. Pick one.

[ZGuy]

I guess that leaves the Falcon Party as the only conservative option: “Twenty members...and growing!”

[Terabitten]

Not that I agree with the Constitution Party, but your conclusion doesn’t match logically with what the man actually said.

He said, “If elected, I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad ...” Thus, “lunacy” refers to the policy (and by extension, the politicians), not even to the war. Therefore, it cannot be extended to the soldiers.

[TBP]

This is my main problem with the Constitution Party. On most other things, I agree with them. But ideas like this and the savage way that Howard Phillips (wom I respected and used to work for) went after Alan Keyes are real problems.

[VeniVidiVici]

Must be the Soviet Constitution.

[MortMan]

...I will end the lunacy that sends Americans abroad to guard the borders of Iraq...

I do not agree with Chuck Baldwin's statements, but...

The author of this piece is looney if he doesn't understand that the impetus for military action is provided by the civilian leadership of the U.S. government. By misconstruing this argument, the author dilutes the true jibes at America's service members - such as the "stuck in Iraq" comments from one John Kerry.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"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"

This is what really bugs me about clowns like this, Ron Paul etc.. Why are they not called at some point to explain why it's unconstitutional?

As another poster pointed out, Article 1, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to declare war. Article 2, Section 2 delcares that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, Militia when called forth by the government etc...

The Congress voted on the bill that was entitled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". The President has been in charge of waging the war against Iraq ever since. Where is this unconstitutional? I still would like one Paul nut or anyone else explain why this war is unconstitutional???

[SoCalPol]

Good post.
When I have posted exposing this same type of extreme to leftwing views of the third party folks, their answer is, I made it up.
Facts get in the way of their thinking.

These people are sucked in the same as the Obama folks.
Most children outgrow the all or nothing mentality, but
not the third party voters.

[big'ol_freeper]

Anybody who would vote third party is stabbing the troops in the back anyways, by contributing to an Obama presidency. If I was still on active duty I would rather be called a “lunatic” and serve under John McCain than to be subjected to B. Hussein Obama.