Posted on 07/12/2008 12:34:59 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
This non-partisan, national grassroots lobbying organization working day and night on issues pertaining to border sovereignty, recently updated their online 2008 Presidential Candidates score card.
On a variety of (15) issues relating to Immigration, the group ranked Presidential Candidate CHUCK BALDWIN of the US Constitution Party, as "EXCELLENT" in all categories.
Coming in second place with a high report card was Libertarian Party's CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR.
don't waste my time, newbie midget
in your dreams, on crack cocaine, maybe, RINO-McCainiac koolaid drinker
Assumes facts not in evidence.
There are plenty of conservatives living in states that could handily go to Obama. If the last few weeks before the election strongly suggest an Obama victory in winner-take-all states, conservatives there would best serve the cause by registering their votes for right-wing third party candidates on their ballot. To vote for McCain under those circumstances would do more to shift the GOP to the left and drive the last nail in the conservative coffin.
For all of you conservatives out there who think that by voting for McCain regardless of your location you are automatically hurtng Obama, you are sadly mistaken.
AuntB, I agree with you in principle but please be careful about writting in a name. In some states, votes for candidates not on the ballot are not counted. If that happens to be the case where you are, vote for an offical candidate to the right of McCain.
The GOP (aka The Stupid Party) can ignore "no votes" or low turnout numbers. But even they can't ignore registered votes for right-wing candidates.
In summary, if you're in a blue state, don't vote center, vote right.
The 80s amnesty didn’t destroy the country because it didn't add twenty million left-leaning voters to the electorate. The 80s were a tugboat. Welcome aboard for the maiden voyage of the HMMS Titanic.
If the bread-and-circus crowds get the vote:
Stopping the Democratic liberals - lost cause
Supreme Court appointments - moot point two elections from now
Our Energy future and a sensible policy to get there - through an overwhelmingly left Congress & President?
Muslim extremism/terrorism - with an overwhelmingly left Congress & President?
Our changing role in the global economy - with a bread-and-circus domestic economy?
Get Amnesty and you've lost it all.
No mandate for Obama. No mandate for McCain.
I will be glad when the party is completely rid of you nativists and your extremist rhetohric.
Very well said, sir. Well said.
We are not voting for President - we're voting for electors. People need to stop talking about wasted protest votes long enough to educate themselves on what they're actually doing instead of what someone told them they're doing.
Very good post.
“In summary, if you’re in a blue state, don’t vote center, vote right.”
Exactly. That’s why I’m not voting for McCain.
Well, a vote for McCain remains a vote for a liberal. America is harmed either way, but the GOP is in a far worse mess with McCain running the party.
This may, or may not be true. I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Ah, but you are dear lady. The farm and the future of your greatgrandchildren.
Please. You can’t possibly believe that the CP candidate is going to become president. Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?
This thread was about the desirability of the Constitution party candidate for the Presidency because of one issue—amnesty. I’m not for amnesty but voting for this guy wouldn’t stop it from happening at all. It would merely register one’s antipathy in a futile gesture.
I don’t think you can stop amnesty unless you get a President in the WH who can use the veto. The Congress is surely going to be solid Dem.
Amnesty is only one of the issues/problems we’ll have to deal with if Obama is elected.
"the party"...that sounds so communist.
For what it's worth, I think you lost your way and came to the wrong site. There are many sites available for lockstep Republicans with no mind of their own.
If "The Party" ran Obama, you'd vote for him wouldn't you?
Given your penchant for childlike references I'll type this slowly so you can understand. No. I do not believe the CP candidate can possibly win. That position will be taken by one of two liberals.
Do you have any other misconceptions that we can clear up?
Conservative voters in blue, winner-take-all states could wield some influence by voting third party, lessening McCain's mandate in Congress for "comprehensive amnesty", moderate judges, and erosion of First & Second Amendment rights. It would demonstrate to otherwise spineless GOP congressmen that there remained a block of votes to the right of McCain and the RNC. Whereas, a vote for MCCain under those circumstances would strengthen his ability to herd Republicans in the House and Senate to back him. He would be less likely to veto and more likely to compromise with his "friends across the isle" (who, lest we forget, he almost joined - but I digress).
I'm trying to point out that the consequences of "No choice but McCain" can be just as thoughtless - and damaging - by those poo-pooing alternatives.
We'll have a liberal in the Whitehouse either way. The real question is how best to strengthen the hand of those few conservatives left is Congress against either one of them.
I agree that voting third party isn’t always futile, helping the other side. I know many conservatives who think that Sen. McCain is too liberal, and many of those conservatives are considering voting for third-party candidates. I hope that each voter will make that decision, based upon the politics of his or her state, because of the electoral college. I hope that no conservative wants to vote for a third-party candidate, if the vote, in his or her state, will be close, because that might help split the anti-liberal vote, helping the Democrat win all of the electoral votes from that state.
The swing states will be CO, FL, MN, LA, MN, VA, IA, ME, and ND. I hope that all anti-democrat voters, in those states, will vote for McCain and that the conservatives, in all other states, will vote for the candidates with whom they agree the most. The most popular conservative candidate will probably be the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin.
I agree. Third Parties can only sap our strength when trying to defeat a socialist/communist and prevent him from becoming President.
Platform found at: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
1. Defense - "... We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution."
The Congress of the United States excercised their autority and passed the ""Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. They have also continued funding it, andI agree not without great discussion.
2. Terrorism and Personal Liberty - "...The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, these United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward these United States and its people; and
In accord with the views of our Founding Fathers, we must disengage this nation from the international entanglements which generate foreign hatred of these United States, and are used as the excuse for terrorist attacks on America and its people. The 'war on terrorism" is not a proper excuse for perpetual U.S. occupation of foreign lands, military assaults on countries which have not injured us, or perpetual commitment of taxpayer dollars to finance foreign governments.
From what I'm reading it implies the act of sending troops over to the Middle East after 9/11 was retaliation? I think not. Further in the first paragraph above, it appears to want to treat terrorist as ciminals. We know this is a failed policy. In the second paragraph above, the implication that our forces are occupiers is totally wrong. We occupied Germany and Japan after WWII as we determined their fates, we are not occupying Irag or Afghansistan as they have an elected government.
We can augue over the spending of funds on inappropriate ends or projects. We can argue sematics and word definitions till we come to agreement. We can argue that we are financing Iraq with foreign aid but then we are also financing other governments in this world with foreign aid. If it applys to one country it applies to all. But we must remember as we do our arguing there are forces in this world that want to destroy us and will use this against us to divide us.
The language I see appears to want to make this nation an isolationst nation much like when Wilson was president. We must interact with other nations of the world (not through the UN) and we can not afford to turn our backs and look solely with in our own country. Isolationism was shown then to be a failed policy then and still is today as many things are too complicated to turn our backs on when we can and will have an interest in their outcome.
We face a massive threat in radical Islam and those who perpetrate it and actively work to achieve it desired end. Do we wait to fight till armed terrorist are on our city streets, is that the only "good war"? As for retaliation, what retaliation was there when President Clinton order bombing Bosnia or was this a "good war" or good use of our military might. To many variables andto much lumping of factswithout specifics for me.
The platform also states under Defense that "Since World War II, these United States has been involved in tragic, unconstitutional, undeclared wars..." This statement presupposes that a military unit or military force can not be used unless Congress declares war.That violates the President constitutionally granted power as Commander-in-Chief to act in the best interst and defense of the country. An internal war, against drugs, has existed for decades and Congress didn't declare it so maybe we should stop fighting it.
During the Koran Conflict, the US went to war when President Truman sent our military into a police action, no declaration of war, but Congress did and still funds our military being there. During the Vietnam Conflict, the US went to war when President Eisenhower sent troops to Vietnam, followed by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon upping the numbers of our forces there; Congress funded this until 1970 with the Church-Ciooper Amendment on a supplemental funding bill.
Congress has exercised their authority in the "power of the purse because during Korea and Vietnam there was no War Powers act, but true they never declared war and the President acted under his constitutionally granted authority (that has never been challenged). Now we have always debated the difference between a war and a conflict.
Although there are numerous planks and paragraphs I agree with in the Constitution Party platform, for me these are killers. I can not support a unilateral withdrawal by this country and a running away from an enemy. Whether he is defined properly or not, we are in a war agaist radical Islam and it combatants who will take every means possible to destroy us and make the world a homogenus Islamic State.
We can't put our personal desires and beliefs ahead of the country's. Nor can we allow a failed ideology to reign in this country ... socialism/communism. For these reason the Constitution Party does not have the best candidate to offer in this 2008 Presidential election. That candidate would lead by retreating to failed polices going back over a century.
MY eyes were opened wide to the dangers of the CP during the 2000 and 2004 elections when they were running ads against Bush--not Gore and Kerry.
This told me they preferred Gore and Kerry become president rather than Bush. They are delusional and dangerous besides being cowards and thieves. They take money from idealists (I plead guilty to once being sucked in by these frauds) knowing full well they will never have to prove anything because they know they'll never be elected and they want it that way.
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.