Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘Chuck Baldwin’

New video from ThirdPartyTicket.com asks that Nader, Barr, Baldwin and McKinney be included in the debates

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, Politics on October 3, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Trevor Lyman’s http://thirdpartyticket.com has released this new video. ThirdPartyTicket now has over 30,00 visitors and 7638 pledges out of 10,000 needed to stage a more inclusive Presidential debate in New York City. They are trying to collect the remaining pledges by October 8. Lyman previously staged “money” bombs which collected $6 million and $4 million for Ron Paul per day. He is asking that viewers share this video with their friends.

Trevor Lyman’s ThirdPartyTicket.com more than half way to 10,000 pledge goal for organizing alternative Presidential debates

In Politics on October 1, 2008 at 1:43 am

Trevor Lyman is more than half way towards his goal of raising 10,000 pledges to stage a debate with all the candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the election. Lyman is previously known for organizing Ron Paul’s money bombs. Currently, ThirdPartyTicket.com lists the number of people who have pledged to help fund the proposed alternative debate as follows:

9/29/08 – 5,782 pledges
9/28/08 – 4,695 pleges
9/27/08 – 702 pledges

Lyman proposes to hold the debate at a yet to be announced location in New York City. It will be broadcast by BreakTheMatrix.com, which is sponsoring the debate along with Free and Equal and Open Debates.

The candidates who are invited are:

Constitution Party Candidate: Chuck Baldwin
Democratic Party Candidate: Barack Obama
Green Party Candidate: Cynthia McKinney

Independent Party Candidate: Ralph Nader
Libertarian Party Candidate: Bob Barr
Republican Party Candidate: John McCain

BreakTheMatrix is also soliciting questions for the proposed debate.

As of this writing 6653 people have pledged to donate.

Trevor Lyman attempts to hold a presidential debate, changes thirdpartyticket.com

In Libertarian, Politics on September 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm

posted at IPR by Ross Levin

Trevor Lyman, the man who organized the Ron Paul moneybombs, is trying to organize a debate for all of the presidential candidates who will appear on enough ballots to win. Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, and John McCain will all be invited.

However, it is not guaranteed that the debate will take place. Lyman is asking for 10,000 donation pledges to his website, thirdpartyticket.com, before he commits to holding the debate. He wants that number of pledges by October 8th. If the goal is met, the debate will be in New York City.

Formerly, the website was taking pledges for a third party moneybomb, and the candidate who would receive the funds would be decided at a later date. But it has since changed to taking pledges for money to run the proposed debate.

So far, there are over 1,500 pledges, and the sponsors are Break the Matrix, Open Debates, and Free and Equal Elections.

Once again, you can pledge to donate toward the debate at thirdpartyticket.com, and 10,000 pledges are needed by October 8th for what could be the most serious challenge to the Commission for Presidential Debates monopoly on presidential debates to take place.

Scotty Boman on Ron Paul Endorsing Chuck Baldwin

In Candidate Endorsement, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Ron Paul on September 27, 2008 at 11:55 pm

From the Miller Politics interview with Scotty Boman, the 2008 Libertarian candidate for Michigan US Senate.

Question: You say you are “running to further the Ron Paul/Libertarian ideals of Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity.” Recently the Libertarian presidential candidate, Bob Barr, has had a falling out with Rep. Paul and Paul has now endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party for President. What is your response to Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin over Barr?

Answer: My reflex reaction to this question was “No comment.”

I am a Libertarian Party candidate who has been a Ron Paul supporter since 1988. I am also a Libertarian candidate for United States Senate that has earned the support of many Chuck Baldwin supporters. So any answer I give could cost me supporters.

Nonetheless, I must comment; I didn’t get into politics to play it safe and avoid offending people. That’s what mainstream Democrats and Republicans do; stand for nothing to attract supporters who fall for anything.

I got into politics to support what I believe is the right kind of government, and to give people who share my political beliefs, a chance to vote their conscience. At the core of my philosophy of government, is the recognition that the initiation of force is a fundamental social evil born of irrationality. By “initiation of force” I am referring to acts and threats of violence or fraud that exceed what is necessary to protect oneself from the same.

The political application of this principal is to support laws and policies that maximize individual liberty, and minimize the victimization of people. The greatest potential victimizer is the government. To the extent that government is necessary, it must therefore be restrained. This is the libertarian philosophy.

The libertarian ideal of minimal government provides the best model for a prosperous, free, society: A community wherein people of different cultures, and diverse faiths can coexist. This way, even people who have irreconcilably different theologies, and personal moralities can live next door without the fear of sectarian violence.

On the Federal level, adherence to the Constitution with its Bill of Rights is essential to move in the direction of a free society. Without it I am not a candidate, and Ron Paul is not a Congressman.

I have been a Ron Paul supporter because his message is libertarian; Ron Paul being the messenger, is not the reason I support the message. Now he has endorsed a candidate who has previously endorsed him. Chuck Baldwin’s positions on most Federal issues are the same as those of Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party platform, and myself. Previously Dr. Paul refrained from endorsing any presidential candidate, in part due to his close relationship with the Libertarian Party. In fact, earlier that day Tom Lizardo told me Ron Paul would not endorse ANY candidate who was running against a nominated Republican. According to Paul’s blog, Bob Barr’s Snub tipped the scales. I understand the Congressman’s choice, but I will chose differently.

My November 4th vote only matters because it will be an expression of my beliefs. It will not plausibly choose the next president. By voting Libertarian, I won’t just be choosing a single candidate; I will be voting for the policies of minimal government. I will be voting for the Libertarian Parties Statement of Principles. I will be voting for the fine individuals (myself included) that were nominated to be presidential electors by the Libertarian Party of Michigan.

While our views on Federalism are very close, there are important difference between the Constitution Party (Taxpayers Party in Michigan), and Libertarian Party on the State level. Libertarians support maximizing individual liberty, at all jurisdictional levels: Federal, state, and local. As a federal candidate, I recognize and agree with the tenth amendment limits on the federal government. As a Libertarian, I would support less government intrusion at the state and local level.

In this age of tyranny it is vital that people of all faiths and backgrounds work together for their mutual liberty. The libertarian platform is one that supports religious freedom for all faiths. We wish to keep the tentacles of the state out of your church, temple or mosque.

Ron Paul: ‘I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin’

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on September 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm

At the end of a lengthy essay posted on the Campaign for Liberty blog, Rep. Ron Paul writes, “The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for ‘remaining neutral’ in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

“I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years. … 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. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.”

What Should Bob Barr Have Said?

In Libertarian Party-US on September 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm

You’re Bob Barr on Sep. 10, stepping to the podium after Chuck Baldwin makes the following pitch to the people who worked for Ron Paul’s success in the Republican primaries.

In the comments below, post (or vote on) what you think Bob Barr coulda/shoulda said to attract votes to the Libertarian Party ticket from Ron Paul fans who heard Baldwin’s remarks.  I’m sure the Last Free Voice community can show the Barr campaign that there were better options than simply not showing up.  (Readers can judge for themselves whether sarcastic or non-serious responses should be counted as agreeing with Barr’s decision to skip the event.)

The Starr Resolution

In Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Wayne Allen Root on September 16, 2008 at 7:53 pm

The following is the letter Aaron Starr proposed the LNC send to Ron Paul, offered in response to the letter of apology suggested by Rachel Hawkridge.

September 13, 2008

The Honorable Ron Paul
Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation
Clute, TX 71531

Dear Dr. Paul:

The Libertarian National Committee is disappointed to learn that you have recently urged those in the freedom movement to vote for the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin, none of whom truly grasp the meaning of Liberty.

More than before, we remain committed to our nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. We believe both of them boldly present the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom to the American people.

We invite you to restore your commitment to Liberty by supporting the only candidates on the ballot this year who understand the Constitution and are prepared to restore our republic to what the Founders believe

Toward Liberty,

The Libertarian National Committee:

Should libertarians support Chuck Baldwin? Part II

In Immigration, Politics on July 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Back on May 27, I wrote a piece for Independent Political Report entitled, “Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?” Unfortunately, it made a couple of incorrect assumptions.

For one, Chuck Baldwin does in fact support the Defense of Marriage Act. Secondly, he also supports an extra-constitutional federal abortion ban.

I recently interviewed Baldwin over the phone, and when asked to make his pitch to libertarians, here is what he said:

I understand that some libertarians do not share my conviction that life begins at conception and that we need to protect it. I understand that some don’t share our concerns on the moral issues, but I’ll say this to all the Libertarians and independents: If you believe that a secure border is critical to our nation’s survival, then I’m the only candidate for president in 2008 you can vote for… I’m also the guy that has historically stood against the Patriot Act, from the beginning. I will never allow eavesdropping on private citizens without a court order. I’m going to stop the New World Order, the NAFTA Superhighway. I really believe that NAFTA and GATT and WTO and all those so-called free trade deals have torn our country apart.

Baldwin was confused by the notion that “all” peaceable immigrants who wanted to work in America be allowed to, and said that the current immigration process is very “generous” and very “fair.”

He also said that he was on the same page with unilateral free trader Ron Paul, and that “maybe some libertarians don’t understand” Ron Paul’s position. Baldwin says he supports a 10% universal tariff to replace the income tax.

You can read the full report on the interview here. I will try to post the audio later today.

The Barr dilemma: What’s a radical to do?

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics on May 29, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Going into the convention, CIA asset and FairTaxer Bob Barr was unquestionably my last choice for president. I thought there was no way I could support his candidacy, and then the possibility of a Barr/Kubby ticket caused me to reconsider. Alas, it was not to be, and I left Denver with no intention of even voting for (much less supporting) the LP this presidential election.

I floated the idea of Libertarians for Baldwin at Independent Political Report. It was a non-starter. A few of my Rockwellian allies were/are amenable to the idea — with the same reservations I have — but most folks see the anti-gay, protectionist, anti-immigration Baldwin as at least slightly worse than Barr. To his credit, Baldwin is not a “former” CIA operative and he does take a strong stand against the Fed.

I’ve listened to and read the arguments posed by Less Antman, and I’m inclined to agree. I’m personally going to take a wait-and-see approach, and I suspect many of my fellow radicals (especially Rockwellians) are going to do the same. Word is that two very prominent Austrians may endorse Chuck Baldwin — which I can’t believe could happen without him restating his opposition to the free market — and that could change things for me.

I do not feel I’m under a moral obligation to support the Libertarian Party ticket, as some “reformers” — who I know would have stormed off it a real libertarian had won in Denver — want to claim. Although I don’t think the Barr campaign engaged in any type of shenanigans at the convention, I do believe they participated in a terribly unethical plot to smear Mary Ruwart prior to it — a plot involving abuse of power at LPHQ and the semi-covert conversion of a third-party news site into a propaganda mill for Barr. A fair and square loss would have been hard enough to swallow. But when Republican hate tactics are used to advance a Republican candidate within the LP, the pill’s a little bitterer. And so am I.

At LFV, I’ve read comments from a number of disgruntled radicals who feel the same way I do. The healing process is going to take some time. Maybe in a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, we’ll be ready to get behind Barr. Maybe not. Many of us and most of our candidates have taken bruises for the libertarian movement. Barr and Root are both unscathed. Let them leave some blood on the battle field, and I think plenty of on-the-fence radicals will come rushing to their aid. But if they play it safe and market themselves as “conservatives for medical marijuana,” don’t expect much from us.