Posted on 04/03/2007 3:40:20 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Let me ask if anyone is working on people from the Constitution Party and its state affiliates to endorse Ron Paul. I recently saw an article by the CP’s Chuck Baldwin highly praising Ron Paul. I will be frank with you and state that I will probably vote for the CP’s candidate in 2008. The CP will likely have ballot access in my state. I think that the CP generally has very high regard for Ron Paul.
Back it up.
At this time, neither the Constitution Party nor the Libertarian Party has selected a Presidential Nominee.
However, US Congressman Ron Paul has already been endorsed by BOTH the 2004 Constitution Party Vice-Presidential Nominee AND the 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee. Congressmen Tancredo and Hunter have also earned "honorable mentions", but let's face it -- neither of them can match the Nationwide Name-Recognition, Fund-Raising Prowess, or Personal Wealth of Dr. Ron Paul (he was already in the top third of all Congressmen, and he's been almost entirely invested in Gold -- which, as the Dollar collapses, is up at least 250%; due to Contrarian investing, the good Doctor is absolutely swimming in wealth).
There are, of course, "sour grapes" from the Libertarian Party Dead-Enders who are more concerned about the "Libertarian Party" as a Political Vehicle than the future of Our Republic. But I believe that our 2004 Libertarian Nominee for President has put them in their place, quite nicely:
Phillies, who was in the audience Sunday morning, was visibly upset and asked why Badnarik would cross party lines. "Ron Paul is a Republican," he said.
"I don’t care if Ron Paul is a Martian," Badnarik responded. "He is the one person in Washington who understands the Constitution, the one person I trust implicitly."
(http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/25/badnarik-answers-charge-of-abandoning-party/)
Amen, and AMEN.
From Gay Rights to Gun Rights, Homosexuality to Homeschooling, Abortion to America-First, RON PAUL is the ONLY Congressman I can count on.
"I don’t care if Ron Paul is a Martian; he is the one person in Washington who understands the Constitution, the one person I trust implicitly."
This Great Nation will be Saved from its folly -- IF it will be saved, God Willing -- NOT by the mighty and sweeping actions of Presidents and Politicians, but rather by the ten thousand tiny good-works of Christian Families raising their children, living debt-free; Earning and Saving and Tithing and Preaching and Caring for those who have no-where else to go... and they shall know that we are Christians, by our Love.
ALL we require, from the Civil Magistrate, is to stay outta our way.
And Ron Paul proposes to do exactly that. He will enforce the Civil Table of the Law, and leave everything else up to the voluntary minstrations of the Church (which is our proper Duty. Let's not shirk, eh?)
Best, OP
National Right to Life Rating, 1994.
A fair, if rather noncommittal, reply.
-----
Riddle me this -
As the Constitution gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war, does it also, by default, give Congress the authority to DEFINE war?
Your spin has been squashed numerous times here on FR. The fact that you continue to pass it around as if it were fact shows you are more interested in spreading disinformation than in sharing valid information.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805399/posts
and outright pointing to Romney disinformation:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11198
Thompson, who has made it clear that he does not support Roe v. Wade, and who was certified as pro-life by the National Right to Life Committee back in 1994, has continued to state that he is pro-life.
But the Evangelicals for Mitt, using research provided by the Romney campaign, has been putting out information on its blog that Thompson, as well as other Republican Senate candidates, were not.
Okay.
Fact is, I've been paying attention to Politics for a long time, and I happen to know that Thompson ran as moderate Pro-Choicer in 1994. Just as I'm aware that Steve Forbes ran as a moderate Pro-Choicer in 1996 (which is why, much as I liked his Flat Tax, I couldn't vote for him in 1996).
But, here's the scoop: I've been telling my FRiend, "The_Eaglet", to lay off Fred Thompson because I think he's probably come around to the Pro-Life Position. I've been trying to defend Fred.
But apparently that doesn't matter to you. Apparently, you want War.
Okay... shall we discuss Fred's betrayal of the Republican Party in assaulting President Nixon? Or perhaps his pork-belly lobbying for the deregulation and bail-out of the S&Ls to the benefit of his Financier buddies with zero concern whatsoever for the losses suffered by small-town widows and orphans? Or shall I get TRULY tawdry and discuss his Biblically-Unjustified First Divorce, his Womanizings, and his latest marriage to a Trophy Wife half his age? How much do you want, Kemosabe??
I've been trying to defend Fred.
But catch some AC/DC:
If you say that I am Fred Thompson's enemy...
Then, fine. I will be.
Your Choice... but you ain't seen nothing yet.
OP
Ooh. Threats.
Democrats can ONLY win if there’s a viable third party candidate who siphons off conservative votes. The dems are incapable of getting a solid majority in a two-party race.
I've been defending Fred.
If you'd prefer that I attack him, just let me know.
My personal hope is that Al Gore will answer the Call of his Ego and run to the Left of Hillary on that Green Party campaign he's been flirting with; while at the same time the Republicans, Constitutionals, and Libertarians band together and run Ron Paul on a grand unified Conservative ticket.
Splitting the Left, while unifying the Right under a Ron Paul Campaign?
Hey, a boy can dream....
Don’t let shabby threats like that get you down.
Keep in mind that there are some primaries where voters are not required to register. In TN, for example, we pick one party's primary of the parties with recognized ballot access, but party affiliation is immaterial. This is one reason why I, as a Constitutionalist, look forward to voting for Paul in the TN GOP primary.
Having that said, I am happy to see that Thompson has taken a pro-life stand, and I hope it becomes more consistent in his citizenship.
Correction:
Thanks for that statement, OP and everybody else trying to make the point about Thompson’s current stated position.
That is bothersome, and I'll admit I hadn't considered it. As I said, I am basically taking him at his word now and hoping that he means it. His Votes for past Budgets which included Planned Abortionhood funding are admittedly troubling.
Having that said, I am happy to see that Thompson has taken a pro-life stand, and I hope it becomes more consistent
Yes, that is also my hope. I am taking Fred Thompson at his word for now. I believe that Argumentative Charity requires that much.
OTOH, as for myself, I'm still sticking with the guy who has consistently defended the Sanctity of Life for the last 30 years.
That's what I'll be doing as well. It's a shame the party throws up a White Flag of surrender to the Liberals without so much as a fight anymore and pushes candidates they hope will win over DEM liberals. It's not gonna happen. The only major surge of DEM votes the GOP gets is when the GOP runs Conservative. The DEM Conservatives will be happy to cross the party line. Liberal DEMs are not going to vote for the GOP's version of liberal lite. You would think after Bush SR and Dole plus nearly loosing two more POTUS elections they would catch on.
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.