No longer BFFs: Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul
by Matt SaldañaArticle Tools
- Chuck Baldwin
In an April 2008 Internet column, Baptist pastor and conservative talk-radio host Chuck Baldwin wrote, "I am convinced that only a miracle can save America now."
"I am expecting God to grant such a miracle," continued Baldwin, a former Florida state chairman in Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. "Beyond that, I am willing to do my part to place myself in a position to let God use my voice and my vote to accomplish this miracle. And if that means voting for someone who 'has no chance of winning' in order to let God take the glory for whatever victory results, it is the least I can do. So, who will join me?"
At the time, Baldwin was endorsing presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom he called the "only choice" for conservative Republicans. Now, with a tepid endorsement from Paul, Baldwin is counting on a miracle in his run for president on the Constitution Party ticket—which strictly interprets the U.S. Constitution and seeks to "restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations."
However, Paul's support for Baldwin—over Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr—seems to have evaporated. Following his endorsement, Paul has refrained from mentioning Baldwin on his Web site, and Baldwin's name is conspicuously absent from the Meetup site of the Triangle Campaign for Liberty, the local chapter of Paul's national network of supporters.
"There are tons of Ron Paul supporters who aren't happy with Baldwin, who are still going to vote for Barr," said Dana Mazer, organizer for the pro-Paul group.
Baldwin is on the ballot in 37 states and is a certified write-in candidate in 10 others, according to the Constitution Party Web site. However, a statewide petition seeking to designate Baldwin as a write-in candidate in North Carolina failed, gathering roughly half of the required 500 signatures—including just seven from Triangle counties. Because votes for non-qualified write-in candidates won't be tallied, a vote for Baldwin in North Carolina will be discarded—and there will be no proof that anyone voted for him.
Despite this setback, Constitution Party members hope that Paul's backing, however blunted, and anger over the economic bailout plan would convince disaffected Republicans in North Carolina to make an unrecorded "protest vote" for Baldwin.
Jim Randleman, regional director of the "Southern Region" of North Carolina—a party-designated grouping of 11 counties east of Charlotte—recently e-mailed supporters, urging them to cast votes for Baldwin as a "possible pivot point to help overturn the excessively difficult ballot access laws in North Carolina for third party access."
"I can't vote for the lesser of two evils anymore," Randleman told the Indy, referring to Barack Obama and John McCain, whom Baldwin called "nefarious nabobs," in the April column.
Last month, Paul endorsed a slate of third-party candidates, but not Barr, who was a no-show at the press conference. Then Paul—who has campaigned for smaller government that doesn't interfere with free markets—endorsed Baldwin, who advocates for governmental incursion into international trade, and whose party walks a delicate line on the First Amendment. (They support it for campaign donations, but not for pornography, for example.)
Paul's decision appeared to be a calculated slight of Barr, who instead encouraged Paul to endorse one candidate, presumably him. (Barr had pitched the idea that Paul serve as his vice president, which Paul declined.)
"I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election," Paul wrote on his Campaign for Liberty blog. "I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."
Like Paul, Barr promotes a libertarian ideal of limited government, fewer taxes, free markets and protection of civil liberties and privacy rights. But Randleman described Barr as "power hungry" and said Paul didn't agree with his "core values" as a person.
"Bob Barr will say anything to get elected. I think he was bitter because Ron Paul didn't choose him," he said.
Mazer, the Triangle Campaign for Liberty Meetup organizer, told the Indy that Paul's choice of Baldwin was "insignificant," and that most of his Meetup members were planning to vote for Barr.
"[Paul] used [his campaign for the Republican Party nomination] as his platform, and it worked, and now he's using that platform to try to open up the third parties. Him saying, 'Support third parties' is more important than actually supporting Baldwin. It's convincing people that they're not wasting their vote, and getting another voice out there, if we're not being heard, or the major parties aren't listening to us."
Yet Al Pisano, chairman of the North Carolina Constitution Party, insisted that younger Republicans are considering voting for Baldwin. "Especially after this bailout fiasco ... we are now really starting to see people contacting us, because they figure our voice is just not being heard," Pisano said.
As a solution to the current financial crisis, Baldwin has proposed the "Baldwin/ Castle Doctrine," named for Baldwin and his running mate, ex-Marine Darrell Castle. In it, he proposes barring foreign interests from owning any portion of American commerce or infrastructure, including stocks and bonds—without explaining how he will dismantle the global economy.
"We will stop this international meddling ... this intentional empire-building," Baldwin writes on his foreign-policy issue page. "When Chuck Baldwin is sworn in as President of these United States the 'New World Order' comes crashing down!"
The "New World Order," which takes its name from an H.G. Wells book, is a conspiracy theory that posits multilateralism efforts, including wartime alliances and the United Nations, will lead to a singular world government.
Other Constitution Party issues include strictly enforcing immigration; eliminating federal funding of Social Security, education, and health care; repealing the Voting Rights Act and campaign-finance laws; and employing an official pro-life policy that would eliminate federal funding to states and foreign entities that permit abortion.
In a blog post on the Libertarian Party Web site, National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis writes that a principle difference between the Libertarian and Constitution parties is gay rights, which the Constitution Party vehemently opposes. The Libertarian Party, Davis writes, holds that "government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."
The Constitution Party platform, meanwhile, refers indirectly to homosexuals as "sexual offenders": "We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system." The party doesn't support a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
The platform also states that "this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
A return to America's Revolutionary-era gilded age, Pisano insisted, did not necessarily involve an armed insurrection—despite conventional wisdom about his party.
"The media has portrayed people in the Constitution Party as fatigue-wearing, toothless right-wing coots in the woods training for Armageddon," he said.
The Constitution Party is simply advocating, he said, for a return to the "time-tested, proven ideals that came from our founding fathers."
Showing 1-5 of 14
Add a comment | All comments »
I would like to remark on several comments that you made in your article that mentioned the Constitution Party of North Carolina. First you stated that "a return to America's Revolutionary gilded age did not necessarily involve armed insurrection". That is correct but I must add with the strongest language that the CPNC is ABSOLUTELY opposed to this type of action against any lawful authority as is stated clearly in the CPNC bylaws as well as in the membership pledges that requires every member to acknowledge and sign. It is unfortunate that over time the media as well as the movie and television industries have made countless attempts to instill in the minds of the citizenry that any person or group who identifies with, has knowledge of and may wish to defend the Constitution should be linked with domestic terrorists(Oklahoma City etc.). This is simply Wrong.It is every Americans duty to read,learn,understand & defend our Constitution. This is the goal of the CPNC. It's members as well as the organization have as their mission to educate and encourage as many American citizens as possible as well as those foreign persons here legally to do just that and to vote for individuals that promise to and will adhere and comply with our Constitution.
You make the comment in your article that the Constitution Party walks a fine line with the First Amendment when you editorialized "they support it for campaign donations but not for pornography for example". I agree with that but you failed to point out that every party does the same with the First Amendment. Based on your reasoning, the question must be asked,Which party then does not walk a fine line with the First Amendment. Those that profess freedom of expression may decry public expression or acknowledgment of religion. Those that push for hate speech laws do so at the expense of their opponents free speech in order to prevent them from speaking out against their beliefs or actions.Those that want hate laws passed because of racial or ethnic intolerance are thus also violating the Equal Protection Clause for those that disagree. They in turn foment hate towards those that they claim are speaking hate.It is obvious that regardless of what a group stands for it must by its very action of taking a stance on any issue seek victory for that stance. That is what taking a stance on issues is all about. Thankfully we as Americans have been given by our forefathers The Constitution of the United States and The Constitution of North Carolina to protect that Right.
The CPNC does believe that this Nation's moral foundation was based on Christian ideals and principals and that those ideals and principals were consulted numerous times during the Constitutional Convention.This does not mean that the CPNC advocates any sort of theocratic form of Government. I believe that if this were to be the case that you would find that the CPNC and it's members would be the first in line to stand up and oppose any sort of theocracy. A government backed church with the civil authority to enforce any type of church law or force citizens to pay taxes towards any church is abhorrent to the notion of religious liberty and to Christianity in general. For more on this please read James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrances" at the CPNC website under Historical Documents.This does not mean that a society can not base it's civil and criminal laws on moral codes based on Christian beliefs. North Carolinians especially need not fear freedom of religion or of a government that acknowledges the belief in God based on the irrational fear that to do so would lead to the implementation of a theocracy. We in North Carolina have never lived under such a government even though our State Constitution acknowledges God,religion and morality in numerous places through out the document. For example: The Preamble, Article 1 sec.1, sec.13, Art.6 sec.7 & 8,Art.9 sec.1,Art.11 sec.4.
Thank you Mr. Saldana for writing this very thought provoking article. I hope that it will encourage people to read their Constitutions & to investigate for themselves if the CPNC is what they may be looking for in a political organization. CPNC Al
I'm sorry to hear that this will be your last comment on this article.
The post on the triangle group was asking for help to meet signature requirements, not a post about the failure of the signature drive for Chuck Baldwin. It's true that anyone can sign up and post to that site, but this message was posted on August 14th well before your article was written.
You made no mention of the abstract vote total which you overlooked in your research. Actually, you were probably fed bad information by the SBOE which seems to be a common practice. That's the same reason we missed our deadline for Baldwin's write in signatures.
To those looking on, I hope you will take a chance to research the CPNC and make a decision for yourself. These days there are more and more media outlets telling us what we should think rather than suggesting making your own choice. If you believe in principles and a moral government then you may be interested in the CPNC. If you have any questions for the CPNC they will be more than happy to answer them through their website.
Mr. Saldana, Thank you for your interest in the CPNC and for writing this article. Some of the details are inaccurate, but it gave people a venue for discussion and the seed has been planted. We hope in the future you will use your talent to promote a free election for all citizens and all parties in North Carolina.
VoteCPNC, apparently, we're in agreement here. In my comment above, I quoted an e-mail from Jim Randleman (in italics), which you've misattributed to me. Jim had questioned the accuracy of my statement that the Constitution Party proposes to eliminate federal funding to social security. As you've noted, and I wrote, eliminating federal funding to social security is part of the Constitution Party's platform.
As for the Triangle Campaign for Liberty Meetup, you're correct: out of nearly 400 members, one member posted a discussion thread (with no replies) regarding Baldwin's failure to collect 500 signatures in order to qualify as a write-in candidate. Baldwin is not included in any of the group's scheduled "meetups," the principle function of Meetup groups, and the portion of the Web site actually controlled by its organizers. Bob Barr, BJ Lawson, Mike Munger, and other national and local candidates are mentioned here, but not Baldwin. Of course, anyone is free to join a Meetup group and post a discussion thread (as I did, in seeking comment for this article), but that doesn't necessarily reflect the group's endorsement of Baldwin as a candidate. I made this determination, not only by reading the group's Web site, but also by interviewing its organizer. I hope this clears things up.
Finally--and this will be my last comment here--this article doesn't propose to increase, or relax, voting requirements in N.C.; it quotes Constitution Party leaders in N.C. who advocate loosening requirements. Thank you for the comments, again.
It is so much nonsense about Barr being willing to say anything to get elected. I mean, the guy is running in a Third Party that is guaranteed (unfortunately) NOT to get elected. If he were willing to say anything he'd be promising to pay our mortgages and health care -- just like the other guys. Give the guy a break. He's saying all the wrong things to get elected in this crazy country.
Our Blogs
Multimedia
Comments (14) RSS