View Full Version : Ministry of Lost Republicans

06-30-2008, 10:07 PM
Ministry of Lost Republicans
Scott E. Crawford


Ben Adler of "The Politico" brought to light a very significant question concerning the upcoming presidential election. Where will Ron Paul Voters Turn? This question is particularly important when you consider the impact Paul had during this past primary season. Nation-wide, he garnered well over one million votes. Impressive as that figure is, it was the fact that Paul became a fund-raising juggernaut that turned heads, as he raised millions of dollars and out-competed all Republican competitors during the last quarter of 2007. Although Paul's supporters don't number as high as those of John McCain or Barack Obama, they exceed them in their enthusiasm, whether their on an Internet forum or at a political event. No matter where you live, there is a good chance you will see a Ron Paul campaign sign near your home. Thus, there is no doubt that these displaced voters will be invaluable to any campaign.

Unfortunately for the two major parties, it is highly unlikely that many of Paul's supporters will turn to Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama. People often forget that Paul was a relatively obscure candidate until his infamous and highly-publicized debate with Rudy Giuliani last May, in which Paul not only emphasized his opposition to the War in Iraq, but also criticized U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past half-century. Shortly thereafter, he garnered the support of the anti-war right. These voters are not likely to support McCain's aggressive foreign policy at the polls. However, Paul's positions on economics, health care, social security, education, and social issues differ vastly from that of Sen. Obama, making Obama equally unattractive to Paul's supporters.

Thus, it is the third party candidates who stand to reap the benefits from Paul's supporters. Libertarian Bob Barr has stances similar to Paul's on many issues. Anti-war Independent Ralph Nader is also likely to draw some consideration. However, it is Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party who is the most logical choice.

One merely has to look at Baldwin's campaign platform to see that he is a faithful disciple of Dr. Paul's brand of politics. You will find that Baldwin has adopted Paul's stances on nearly every issue, from the economy to foreign policy, to abortion and immigration. Ron Paul is frequently mentioned on Dr. Baldwin's campaign website (one endorsement category is titled "Ron Paulers"). In fact, Baldwin has announced that he will be speaking at the Revolution March and Rally in Washington D.C. on July 12th, an event that was organized by supporters of Rep. Paul. The Baptist minister and former vice-presidential candidate is also attractive to disenfranchised Republicans due to his past association with the GOP: Baldwin himself was a Republican until 2000, and worked on both Reagan campaigns. He has not only reached out to Rep. Paul supporters...he has embraced them.

Dr. Baldwin is no Ron Paul, and the Constitution Party might not be the ideal standard-bearer for the so-called "Ron Paul Revolution." When analyzing the candidates in the race, however, Baldwin is by far the closest thing to Rep. Paul out there. Barring a major scandal, he is more than worthy to take the "Revolution" to the polls come November and help continue the movement. The long-term goal for Ron Paul and his supporters is to reform and restore the Republican Party. In the short-term, however, a candidate is needed to represent Paul's supporters that were displaced by the Republican primary. Where will Ron Paul voters turn? The answer is obvious. :D

07-04-2008, 02:21 AM
The Constitution Party is still plagued with what I like to call "Constitutionalism of Convenience."

They uphold the Constitution on somethings, such as the 5th Amendment's protection against conscription [1 (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Conscription)], yet their preamble says they want to "[R]estore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations [ . . . ]"[2 (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Preamble)] and have stated "No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted." [3 (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Family)] even though the 1st Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]"

They also quote John Adams when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [4 (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Character%20and%20Moral%20Condu ct)]

This really alienates people like me, who are strict constitutionalists, but are also atheists.