Posted on 02/28/2007 4:50:41 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Former LP Presidential Candidate Endorses Ron Paul For President
Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, has endorsed Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) for President.
“My short term goal for the next two years is to make sure that Ron Paul is elected president in 2008,” Badnarik said Friday night at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, a pro-liberty conference hosted by the Free State Project.
(…) In his Friday night keynote address, Badnarik, who is also a member of the Free State Project and plans to move to New Hampshire by the end of 2008, urged over 200 attendees to support Ron Paul for president by making campaign contributions and activating grassroots support.
“You cannot do it yourself,” he said. “You have to have wide, wide grassroots support.”
Badnarik also urged the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as well. “I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, ‘Oh ho, somebody we can trust!’ and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee,” he said. “We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person.”
Why do Evangelicals ignore Ron Paul? (Chuck Baldwin, 2004 VP Candidate, Constitution Party News)
Evangelical Christians are already beginning the process of selecting the Republican presidential candidate whom they can anoint as their successor to George W. Bush. Somehow, evangelicals have this deluded idea that President Bush is one of them. How they came to this delusion both fascinates and escapes me. Bush is anything but one of them. However, most evangelicals believe he is, and today it seems that illusion is greater than reality, anyway. Bush proves that more than anyone I have ever known. But enough about Bush.
The question burning in the minds of evangelicals today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint?...
Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.
Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals’ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)
In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.
Over the past four elections, the Libertarians have averaged a bit more than three tenths of one percent of the Presidential vote, while the Constitution/Taxpayer Party has averaged around one tenth of one percent. So even if they pooled their resources, on a good year they would be lucky to get one half of one percent, or probably less than a Nader type would pull from the Democrats. It's a long, hard road.
It's too bad the Republicans aren't the Constitution Party anymore.
Forbes was pretty good, and many libertarian Republicans backed him. I was leaning towards Gramm for a while. BTW, Gramm has endorsed his old buddy McCain.
I fully support Ron Paul.
http://electronpaul.blogspot.com
I'm not surprised. Look at the trends here on FR. Small-l libertarians like me are aligned with the social conservatives, while meanwhile the "moderate" faction is bashing both groups. The same thing happened during the Arnold/McClintock wars.
On the other hand, the Libertarians and Constitution Party will poll independently lower if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, because most of them won't be voting independent of the GOP except on local races.
Agreed.
Hell, they aren't even the republican party anynmore.
I'm the first one to bash Paul on his inconsistency regarding the most recent Congressional resolution, but I'm still a big fan of his regardless. It amuses me to ask a Paul basher what he or she disagrees with him on when it comes to domestic issues. They try their damndest to deflect the conversation when you bring that up.
I was a Forbes fan in 2000.
I think I remember reading a piece by Paul on his reasoning on Iraq. I believe it was something along the lines of "if we leave the border open for invasion, why even bother trying to fight bad guys overseas?". I was thinking the same thing in '04 when I decided not to vote for Jorge Bush.
If he were only stronger on fiscal conservatism (sadly, he voted 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments), he might well be my second choice. If Tancredo doesn't last (and I don't think he will), Hunter still might be my second choice.
If Ron Paul is supported by the Constitution Party....thats the kiss of death from the evengelicals....why?
The Constitution party is anti-israel....they are consumned by "Replacement Theology"....in other words, todays Israel is not the Israel of the Bible.....grrrrrr
Also, keep in mind that JimRob allows the RLC to host their forum here on FR.
I do not believe any conservative would ever support a cut and run coward like Ron Paul.
Might I ask you who your favorite Republican currently is for the nomination?
This libertarian admirer of Paul is behind Duncan Hunter and you might just be surprised at how well he ends up doing.
Actually, the Constitution Party's strongest base of support is Fundamentalist Christians like Chuck Baldwin.
I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.
As to "Replacement Theology" -- good grief, that's a charge which is bandied about by Dispensationalists against Amillennialists in theology debates; it really doesn't apply to a political debate over the Constitutionality of Foreign Aid.
Ronald Reagan, who withdrew US Marines from the insanity of Lebanon in 1983, was always a strong Ron Paul supporter.
Was Reagan a Conservative?
Great post. If more freepers thought like you did, this would be a much more productive forum.
I strongly disagree with your views on Iraq, but I will concede that ones views on such transcend the whole liberal/conservative spectrum. "Liberal" and "conservative" are terms to describe ones view on the role of government in domestic affairs. In the real world, I know plenty of liberals who support the war and a bunch of conservatives that oppose it.
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.