Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin

Sometimes people forget that the major strength of Bob Barr as a presidential candidate is that he is far less kooky than most libertarian politicians, less kooky than even Ron Paul. While we may get lost in dissecting the candidates' policy positions in search of the best libertarian match, we should periodically pause to remember how big of an asset non-kookiness is.

I am sure this recent action by Paul will remind people how awesome it is to have Bob Barr on our side. This libertarian is happy to have a candidate who hasn't published any race-baiting newsletters (Paul), isn't screaming about roads to Mexico and the New World Order (Baldwin and Paul), and has never advocated removing exercise equipment from prisons as a serious approach to crime control (Badnarik).

Plus, Bob's mustache is made of awesome.

Share this

Sometimes people forget that

Sometimes people forget that the major strength of Bob Barr as a presidential candidate is that he is far less libertarian than most libertarian politicians

FTFY

If I never again have to nod

If I never again have to nod my way through a serious discussion about the North American Union, that's good enough for me.

I was with you right up

I was with you right up until the mustache.

"the major strength of Bob Barr as a presidential candidate"

The major strength of Bob Barr as a presidential candidate is that he is not, nor has he ever been, a libertarian.

Barr is a Libertarian

Barr is the kind of politician who had a change of heart from his former beliefs and voting record. Of course, his past doesn't make him look like a libertarian, but I wasn't always a libertarian either.

They're both crap

Barr is no libertarian.

Baldwin is a theocrat.

Barr just (deliberately?) rubbed Paul up the wrong way which is rather idiotic...

Then again, what do you expect from electoral politics?

Chuck Baldwin isn't a theocrat

Chuck Baldwin isn't a theocrat. What, everytime a true Christian conservative runs for office, they are automatically a theocrat?

Baldwin a theocrat not hardly!

I think you may have jumped to fast on a bandwagon of deciding what is good and bad for a country.
While I respect your opinion,it is promising to note that by simply ruling a candidate out because they may follow the Christian teachings,does not say that it is something bad.
If anything it would dictate as your opinion suggests that anyone would have your approval from any other Religion,or one whom has none.
Acceptable other than a Christian.
That would be hypocrisy on your part,and Constitutionally it would be Religious bias.
The best way to decide whether a candidate is good for our country must be in the answers given by DR. Chuck Baldwin.
In every instance to date he has never given a run around of answering any questions,from religious freedom,to homosexuality,to abortion,to the illegal immigration,to the economy,to the Federal Reserve system,to foreign matters,and most importantly the matters that are concerning States rights,as well as making sure the checks and balances of the chains of the Constitution is kept on the government and not the people.
These are the most important factor.
As a Constitutionalist it is the Constitution that gives DR. Baldwin direction.
Any many people across the United States have awaken to this same belief,and as such many other candidates such as Ron Paul have decided to support the Baldwin and Castle ticket for the Presidential election 2008.

My name is Micha Ghertner

My name is Micha Ghertner and I approve this message. Especially the mustache part.

Mustache

So bigotry can be overlooked when it wears an awesome mustache?

Are you talking about Barr's

Are you talking about Barr's marriage legislation thing? Didn't he reverse himself on that?

His stance on gay marriage,

His stance on gay marriage, his speeches to white supremacist groups, his stance on non-Christian religions, just to name a few.

I don't know that he's reversed his opinion on gay marriage; last I saw, he was saying his marriage legislation was "a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism."

I guess it's hard to keep

I guess it's hard to keep track of which errors Barr has reversed himself on and which ones he has pursued with full force. Blech.

Which white supremacist groups did he speak to? I'm surprised I hadn't heard this before. It sounds juicy...

Wikipedia has nothing on the

Wikipedia has nothing on the white supremacist angle, but does have this on his gay marriage reversal:

At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, he apologized for the part of the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

He now opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, contending it is a violation of states' rights.

Which white supremacist

Which white supremacist groups did he speak to?

The Council of Conservative Citizens. Admittedly, he claims to have not realized they were a white supremacist group when he spoke to them, and has since denounced them.

It's not necessarily the individual little things as it is the picture as a whole. He's demonstrated that he's more than happy to use the power of the state to discriminate against various ethnic, religious, and other groups.

The Good Doctor makes a Good decision

Examine Bob Barr's voting record. He voted for the Iraq War as well as the Patriot Act. He turned his back to Dr. Paul after committing to his press conference for unity against the status quo. How can he expect the supporters of true liberty to rally behind him? If he didn't conduct himself as a true libertarian when it counted, what assurances do we have that he will do so as president? None. The campaign for liberty does not support Barr. Dr. Ron Paul and the revolutionaries will support CHUCK BALDWIN FOR PRESIDENT.

LOL

The Ron Paul Kool-Aid, in its distilled, powder form.

Chuck Baldwin lol

I understand completely why Paul has endorsed him. He's well into the belief that we won't win this election, and Chuck Baldwin's party's platform isn't going to be a big deal.

However, Bob Barr is much better candidate than Chuck Baldwin because he doesn't support Federal bans on: Abortion, Gambling and Same-Sex marriage. Even if he had in the past, he no longer does, and I will never vote for someone who is in a party named Constitutionalist, and has a platform that doesn't strictly follow the Constitution.

Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin

That would be hypocrisy on your part,and Constitutionally it would be Religious bias.
The best way to decide whether a candidate is good for our country must be in the answers given by DR. Chuck Baldwin.
keyeagle