The Rise of the Constitution Party!

[FrankRep]

The Republican Party has lost my vote completely after this election. We need a third party that can compete in a two party system. I choose The Constitution Party as a possible third party candidate.

What do you think?

Imagine if after this election all the Ron Paul supporters joined the Constitution Party.


The Constitution Party
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[Richie]

Obviously, this issue will be bitterly divided. While I have a lot of respect for the Constitution Party (attended Michael Peroutka's victory party in 2004), I think that the Libertarian Party would be a better match for Paul. Of course, I'm not discouraging you from joining the CP.

[Sematary]

The Constitution pary has too much GOD in it for me and the LP, whom I've been a follower of for years, doesn't ever seem to do anything. We need a party with balls and one that understands the constitution and the message of freedom. I nominate naming it the Freedom Party and asking Ron Paul to join as it's premier member as soon as he gets elected president.
Na - never mind. Goddam media won't allow third parties to win.

[itshappening]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be

[RollOn2day]

Freedom, Peace and Prosperity is worth the hassle.

[itshappening]

Freedom, Peace and Prosperity is worth the hassle.

it wont make a difference via a 3rd party

infiltrating the GOP makes a greater difference

[Sematary]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be

Can't do it. Registering as a Republican made bile rise in my throat. I can't WAIT to rip THAT dagger out of my heart and become an Independent again.

[RoyalShock]

The Constitution pary has too much GOD in it for me and the LP, whom I've been a follower of for years, doesn't ever seem to do anything. We need a party with balls and one that understands the constitution and the message of freedom. I nominate naming it the Freedom Party and asking Ron Paul to join as it's premier member as soon as he gets elected president.
Na - never mind. Goddam media won't allow third parties to win.
While I agree with Dr. Paul that we don't have enough democracy here for a 3rd party, I don't think you need to discount the Constitution Party due to God. It's a naturual fit because the Constitution has so much synergy with the bible, in that a constitutional government allows a Christian to follow his faith to the fullest. The CP is really not much different than Ron Paul's positions.

If there were to be a true 3rd-party movement, the CP is a logical choice. It already has over 350,000 registered voters.

[MJfromCT]

I support the Constitution Party over the Libertarian Party as The Constitution provides a much more clear platform. Unfortunately, Libertarians are perceived as being very divided and sometimes as anarchists. It is not as easy to attack a message or the messengers of the most cherished document of our country. But, either way it is too early in the fight to worry about this in my opinion. It is time to start flexing some muscle with OUR money. If Ron Paul's message is as powerful as we believe it to be then new money will roll in ten fold with the much needed new exposure.

[Original_Intent]

It's back to the CP for me when this is all over. I certainly will support any Repub or Democrat that is correct on principle. I like the LP too, but don't agree with their position on abortion.

[RollOn2day]

Yes, infiltrate the GOP.....and the Dems....and the independents.....

But to throw hands up in defeat when the GOP does the GOP thing.....is like getting upset that water runs downhill. This has all the earmarks (sorry!) of a historic run to the white house via a third party.

I don't care that it has never worked before. I'm with Ron Paul until I vote for him in November.

Wouldn't you vote for him if he runs third party?

[RoyalShock]

Yes, infiltrate the GOP.....and the Dems....and the independents.....

But to throw hands up in defeat when the GOP does the GOP thing.....is like getting upset that water runs downhill. This has all the earmarks (sorry!) of a historic run to the white house via a third party.

I don't care that it has never worked before. I'm with Ron Paul until I vote for him in November.

Wouldn't you vote for him if he runs third party?

I'll vote for him whether he runs 3rd party or not.

[BuddyRey]

Some of the CP platform appeals to me, but a great deal of it doesn't. They're right up there with the Republicans as far as supporting a moralist Christian theocracy.

[Bison]

I am a member of the CP. There are some differences between the CP and LP but they agree most of the time. If the two parties were smart they would team up and support each others candidates when they can't vote for their own. Thats what I do personally.

The two big parties love to see all of us third parties spread about. They know that as long as we wont join with each other, we can't remove them from power. The beauty of Ron Paul is that he already has the support of both the LP and the CP. There is no reason, why our two parties should not join together and support Dr. Paul as well as local candidates.

The main problem with third parties is that they don't have media or funds. Well the RP revolution already proved that it can raise the funds and fight for media attention. If this does not go the way that we all hope it does, then we would be idiots not to ban together and take back our country. Together we can start knocking Repubs and Dems out of office. Start local and work our way up.

The last thing we need is to start yet another "third party".

Regardless of what happens in this Primary season, both the Constitution Party and The Libertarian Party should run Ron Paul as their presidential candidate.

We have in front of us the opportunity of a lifetime. We can't let the elites keep it from us.

Do not give up.

Fight.

[Johncjackson]

I am not a Consitutionalist. I am a libertarian. I think the Ron Paul movement has room for both.

[Alex Libman]

Libertarian

[unloud]

I think it would be more important to set up a council of people that support the constitution. There are people from many different parties that support the constitution foremost and have different beliefs on basic policies (like Kucinich and Dr. Paul) and so to be able to have such a council that crosses party lines we could eventually rival the CFR.

[ixeos]

Honestly I think RP should either go Independent, or form a brand-new (viable) 3rd party. Call it the "Federalist" party (George Washington's party)... and get the support of both LP and CP pplz. Get Pat Buchanan as his running mate.


The req'ments for 3rd party candidates however, completely suck. You have to have 15% of the "pre-poll vote" in order to get in the debates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)


I'm just sick right now... and dunno what to do.

[Ogren]

The constitution party is a theocratic party. If anything go libertarian or independent.

[NorwegianLibertarian]

They are against gambling, drugs and pornography... Libertarian party is 10x better.

[curtisag]

Ron Paul would be the first to tell you that 3rd parties can't win. The system is rigged in favor of 2 parties. Either reform the Republican party from within or don't waste your time.

[RoyalShock]

Some of the CP platform appeals to me, but a great deal of it doesn't. They're right up there with the Republicans as far as supporting a moralist Christian theocracy.

I've recently read a good deal of their platform. While they do cite God and a Creator as a fundamental reason for a few positions (such as enforcing obscenity laws), it usually falls mostly in line with a general position of individual liberty. The major exceptions are abortion, which they feel should be illegal at the federal and state level - and drugs.

Who is going to find the perfect party to align themselves with 100%? Not only that, party platforms can change.

[RoyalShock]

They are against gambling, drugs and pornography... Libertarian party is 10x better.

Actually, they are against government funding/support of gambling. They don't like it, but their policy does not prohibit it.

They also aren't expressly against pornography (in terms of legislation), but do support enforcement of current obscenity laws and encourage personal and corporate responsibility as well as local entities to maintain community standards.

[NorwegianLibertarian]

Actually, they are against government funding/support of gambling. They don't like it, but their policy does not prohibit it.

They also aren't expressly against pornography (in terms of legislation), but do support enforcement of current obscenity laws and encourage personal and corporate responsibility as well as local entities to maintain community standards.

Oh really?



Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography

[RoyalShock]

Like I said, enforcement of current obscenity laws.

As for the last part, I interpret "government plays a vital role" as being state and local. But I could equally see others interpreting it differently.

My overall point is that they aren't expressly calling for federal legislation to ban all forms of pornography. But I admit, they are walking a tight-rope.

[Bison]

No one is going to Ban your perversion or vice. They call for enforcing the standards that have been set by the community. If you want a community with looser standards you can always move to Province Town. You wouldn't be for forcing porn and gambling on a community that did not want it would you?

But you guys are missing the big picture. We are talking about getting some candidates other than Dems and Repubs elected. Getting a handful of constitutionalists elected will not deprive you of your porn or casinos. But it will be a start at getting this nation on the right track. We need to get people who believe in the Constitution into government or we as a nation are sunk. Then it won't matter what party you were apart of because we will all be in the same hole.

Remember what the big issues are.
Monetary policy
Foreign policy
Civil liberties
FREEDOM.

After we have taken back our country you can fight over Porn and Gambling.

Peace.

[RoyalShock]

Bison, that is a good way to look at it.

But for the record, I am still in Dr. Paul's camp that a legitimate 3rd-party isn't viable right now. I think it will be an easier fight to pull back the Republican party. When they realize they aren't going to win any major elections as long as they continue moving to the left and ignoring the Constitution, they'll have to change.

[Talldude1412]

You guys just don't get it. Ron Paul's positions were the positions of the republicans 20 years ago, and they pay lip service to it still! The ONLY MAJOR QUALM most republicans have with Dr. Paul is foreign policy (of course we could also go into expansion of fed power and spending, but repubs aren't SUPPOSED to do that and many are pissed that they are).

Here's the deal. The vast spread of the current republican base are either people who grew up during the 60s or were told about it by their parents. They are the people who may or may not have supported Vietnam for containment reasons, but also see the "anti-war" movement that led to both incredible disrespect of our nations troops, and the cultural morality previous to that. They liken movements that don't support any nation our war is in to that experience (unless its a war waged by a democrat). The republican party is RIPE for the taking, we are just being ineffective at doing so. Rush Limbaugh for god sakes has been increasingly nostalgic about the good ol days of Goldwater Conservatism.

It will not be an easy effort, and I hope that those of you who do drop the party after the election keep an eye out for the rise of other Ron Paul - like republicans (and even some support would be nice). And in the same respect, if your 3rd parties field candidates like Paul, you can expect my support.

[runderwo]

No one is going to Ban your perversion or vice. They call for enforcing the standards that have been set by the community. If you want a community with looser standards you can always move to Province Town. You wouldn't be for forcing porn and gambling on a community that did not want it would you?

Your view (and the view of the CP) contradicts the notion that all men are created equal, with inalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. My perversion and vice (i.e. my pursuit of Happiness) when harmless, and especially when in private among consenting adults, does not affect your rights at all. It is you who chooses to take offense to it, and the CP advocates that the government violate my rights on your behalf because my behavior was not up to your standards.

That is a tyranny of the prudes, those who create laws for others in their head and expect them to be enforced on their say-so.

At the extreme, the CP's view of government would deem a law about napkin usage and utensil placement to be a legitimate use of government force. Oh, and no slurping of your soup, you barbarian!

[Cleaner44]

Libertarian all the way.

[S3eker]

I think if RP runs as a third party he will hurt the other campaigns a bit. Which one can be debated. I would still vote for him out of principle and the fact that my vote would do so much damage to all those war mongers!

[tsetsefly]

Fuck the constitution party, they want a constitution backed by the 10 commandments, bible thumpers imo...

[EvilNight]

Libertarian Party all the way. I like the Constitution Party but there is one problem - There is no GOD in the Constitution. Just a nebulous "Creator" - the founders were deists. We all know this.

Also, a more practical reason: The LP is on all ballots ALREADY and is firmly established with 2500 or so elected officials. They are light years ahead of all other third parties in size, power, money, and organization. Oh, and they already offered RP their nomination.

Also, the LP if elected would support massive ELECTION reform and allow ALL other parties a more fair shake.

[ARealConservative]

The Republican Party has lost my vote completely after this election. We need a third party that can compete in a two party system. I choose The Constitution Party as a possible third party candidate.

What do you think?

Imagine if after this election all the Ron Paul supporters joined the Constitution Party.


The Constitution Party
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The last time I went to theiri site, they were throwing religion in my face too much.

It looks like the site has been revamped for the better, but any party that feels it necessary to argue that we were created as a christian nation concerns me.

[jumpyg1258]

Fuck the constitution party, they want a constitution backed by the 10 commandments, bible thumpers imo...

I couldnt agree more, when I first heard of them I thought wow they must follow the constitution to the letter but when I looked into what they stand for, theres nothing constitutional about them.

Seperation of church and state, HELLO!

[davidkachel]

Show me a third party that has gained one inch of ground and held it in the last 50 years and I will join it.

Here are the facts:

This country IS NOT AND NEVER WAS INTENDED to be a democracy!
The founding fathers warned, no SCREAMED at us, democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority to be avoided like the plague that it is.
Yet here we are, stupid as sheep, thinking that we can use our tyranny (democracy) to rid ourselves of our tyranny.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE!??

[ARealConservative]

I couldnt agree more, when I first heard of them I thought wow they must follow the constitution to the letter but when I looked into what they stand for, theres nothing constitutional about them.

Seperation of church and state, HELLO!

seperatation of church and state isn't constitutional.

The constitution reads that congress shall pass no law.

Then after the civil war we incorporated the amendments. This means that schools may pass no law. It also created birthright citizenship and gave personhood to corporations. All of these are screwed up.

The point is, seperation of church and state as it stands today isn't constitutional and Ron Paul doesn't support the idea.

[davidkachel]

seperatation of church and state isn't constitutional....Then after the civil war we incorporated the amendments...

HUH? What do you mean "incorporated the amendments"? Please explain.

[BuddyRey]

I've recently read a good deal of their platform. While they do cite God and a Creator as a fundamental reason for a few positions (such as enforcing obscenity laws), it usually falls mostly in line with a general position of individual liberty. The major exceptions are abortion, which they feel should be illegal at the federal and state level - and drugs.

Who is going to find the perfect party to align themselves with 100%? Not only that, party platforms can change.

Yeah, they sound alright sometimes. But I read some writings from Peroutka that scared the dickens out of me. A lot of talk of America as a Christian nation, along with some pretty harsh gay-bashing. Maybe it's not policies they would enforce on the entire country, but it scares me nonetheless. If I could have the complete Libertarian Party platform, with only their illegal immigration policy switched out for the CP's, I'd be a happy guy!

Edit: WHOA!!! Looking at their platform via their website, it seems they also want to outlaw pornography!

Why haven't these guys endorsed Huckabee yet?

[murrayrothbard]

I am not a Consitutionalist. I am a libertarian. I think the Ron Paul movement has room for both.

+1

[ARealConservative]

HUH? What do you mean "incorporated the amendments"? Please explain.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of those portions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

The seperation of church and state didn't come from the constitution, it came from unelected men in robes in the last 70 years.

[jumpyg1258]

The constitution reads that congress shall pass no law.

Taken straight from their main page...

"Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations"

Sounds pretty Bible Thumpy to me.

[davidkachel]

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of those portions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

I have to run, but I hope you will expand on this. Hasn't the Bill of Rights always applied to the states? Wouldn't the 2nd Amendment for example be pointless if the states were simply allowed to ignore it and confiscate all guns, like say, in Kalifornia?

[Goldwater Conservative]

I think the Constitution Party would turn off liberals and moderates far too much. I think the Libertarian Party would be a much better fit, but I think the best Paul could do would be as an independent leading a new non-partisan movement that revolved around a humble foreign policy, civil liberties, sound money, and a few other issues that could unite disgruntled people of all political stripes.

[ARealConservative]

I have to run, but I hope you will expand on this. Hasn't the Bill of Rights always applied to the states? Wouldn't the 2nd Amendment for example be pointless if the states were simply allowed to ignore it and confiscate all guns, like say, in Kalifornia?

From what historians can gather, the bill of rights was an after thought because the people weren't buying into the constitution. A large portion of people didn't recognize that the wording stricly limited the federal government's power. Some of the founders even worried that the bill of rights would weaken the constitution. Why state that congress shall make no law pertaining to religion when the constitution doesn't allow it anyway? Just adding such wording makes one believe the constitution must not enumerate the powers afterall.

At the time of ratification, nobody believed they were creating a new government body that would protect them from a state infringing on those rights. They trusted the state, they didn't trust this new federal government. they didn't think they needed the second amendment to protect them from the state and wanted to make it clear that the federal government could not take away their guns, even if it was redundent and unneccesary.

What is really interesting is where the supreme court gained the ability for judicial review. This is not something granted in the constitution. In fact, the constitution spells out that the supreme court is only supreme over the lower federal courts. SCOTUS gained the power of judicial review through.........judicial review. It's like asking what came first, the chicken or the chicken.

[LibertiORDeth]

Obviously, this issue will be bitterly divided. While I have a lot of respect for the Constitution Party (attended Michael Peroutka's victory party in 2004), I think that the Libertarian Party would be a better match for Paul. Of course, I'm not discouraging you from joining the CP.

I think the constitution party would be more favorable in most peoples eyes then the libertarian party.

[tfelice]

I think the constitution party would be more favorable in most peoples eyes then the libertarian party.


Definitlely, the LP is seen as a bunch of anarchists, dope smokers and social outcasts. The CP is essentially a paleoconservtive party and they have a state rep as one of their elected officials. I think that is the highest ranking elected official by a third party.

[mconder]

Independent

Independents as a voting block will never congeal into a group that votes for the Constitution. The minute someone like Bloomberg jumps in as independent, the ideology of freedom will be high jacked.

Because of the aforementioned problems with the Libertarian party, is don't think it will ever serve our purposes.

You need a party the operates on principle. The Constitution Party is that party!

[mconder]

Taken straight from their main page...

"Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations"

Sounds pretty Bible Thumpy to me.

Ya, but this works out well for the heathens too, since we will be working within the framework of the Constitution and all. Not to mention, if we can get enough heathens to join the Constitution party, we can get them to tone down the Christian rhetoric a bit. I think it's the perfect channel to through all of RP's support into. Read the platform...it is RP to the core.

[runderwo]

Definitlely, the LP is seen as a bunch of anarchists, dope smokers and social outcasts.

Another problem it faces is being co-opted by interventionist ideology. Neil Boortz and Glenn Beck "Libertarians". So LP membership is dominated by those who use it to excuse libertine behavior, while the original message of minimal government has been lost because of all the people who are not libertarian calling themselves "Libertarians".

[mconder]

"Obviously, this issue will be bitterly divided."

If we fail, this will be the reason. Perhaps we need to start an entirely new party with the express purpose of bringing the heathen libertarians and stuffy religious types together in a common purpose.

[runderwo]

I have to run, but I hope you will expand on this. Hasn't the Bill of Rights always applied to the states? Wouldn't the 2nd Amendment for example be pointless if the states were simply allowed to ignore it and confiscate all guns, like say, in Kalifornia?

Yes.

Article IV:
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [...] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Note that the clause in the 14th Amendment is redundant. But there is an important difference here.

Article IV left it up to the states to follow the Constitution, with the only option for an individual having their rights violated by a state to appeal to the Supreme Court under the judicial review doctrine (which itself is on shaky Constitutional ground).

The 14th Amendment gives the federal government the power to force the states to comply with that clause through legislation and enforcement.

[mconder]

Another problem it faces is being co-opted by interventionist ideology. Neil Boortz and Glenn Beck "Libertarians". So LP membership is dominated by those who use it to excuse libertine behavior, while the original message of minimal government has been lost because of all the people who are not libertarian calling themselves "Libertarians".

No doubt...almost anyone can call themselves a libertarian these days. We need a new organization!!! We need to keep the mission statement broad enough to accept Christians, Atheists, and Mormons, etc., but keep it specific enough to restore the Constitution!

[tfelice]

No doubt...almost anyone can call themselves a libertarian these days. We need a new organization!!! We need to keep the mission statement broad enough to accept Christians, Atheists, and Mormons, etc., but keep it specific enough to restore the Constitution!

I'd say go for it, but we are looking at about 4% national support for Paul, and that's polling data before yesterday's slaughter. In truth, you are probably only looking at a couple thousand hardcore Paul activists that are willing to commit the time & money to building a new party.

Look at the CP for example. They are at this full time, they have been for dozen or more years and have a whopping 350K members or thereabouts. Even if you mereged the LP and CP you are talking about 5% of the electorate at best, and thats a real generous number there.

So throw another right wing party onto the heap and how do you think it will fare?

[runderwo]

seperatation of church and state isn't constitutional.

The constitution reads that congress shall pass no law.

Then after the civil war we incorporated the amendments. This means that schools may pass no law. It also created birthright citizenship and gave personhood to corporations. All of these are screwed up.

The point is, seperation of church and state as it stands today isn't constitutional and Ron Paul doesn't support the idea.

For more information on the Incorporation Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine

For strict Constitutionalists and natural rights people, this quote boils it down nicely:


In the 1940's and 1960's the Supreme Court gradually issued a series of decisions incorporating several of the specific rights from the Bill of Rights, so as to be binding upon the States.[8] A dissenting school of thought championed by Justice Hugo Black supported that incorporation of specific rights, but urged incorporation of all specific rights instead of just some of them. Black was for so-called mechanical incorporation, or total incorporation, of Amendments 1 through 8 of the Bill of Rights.[9] Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to respect all of the enumerated rights set forth in the first eight amendments, but he did not wish to see the doctrine expanded to include other, unenumerated "fundamental rights" that might be based on the Ninth Amendment. Black felt that his formulation eliminated any arbitrariness or caprice in deciding what the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect, by sticking to words already found in the Constitution. Although Black was willing to invalidate federal statutes on federalism grounds, he was not inclined to read any of the first eight amendments as states' rights provisions as opposed to individual rights provisions.[9] Justice Black felt that the Fourteenth amendment was designed to apply the first eight amendments from the Bill of Rights to the states, as he expressed in Adamson v. California. [10] This view was again expressed by Black in Duncan v. Louisiana: "'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States."[11]


Many of us (myself included) believe our rights are based on Locke's harm principle, stated in the Declaration of Independence and explicitly expressed in the Ninth Amendment.

People such as Justice Black who believe that state laws that violate the life, liberty, or property of individuals are Constitutional as long as the Bill of Rights is obeyed are agreeing with the Incorporation Doctrine as a compromise to the text of the Constitution and the natural rights that pre-dated government or the Constitution.

Such individuals accept legislation from the bench as a substitute for the Constitution, so as a result they allow unelected Supreme Court elites to invite local governments to abridge their rights, through the judicial review doctrine which the Supreme Court granted itself.

I believe freedom of expression even flying in the face of local laws did not come from the Incorporation Doctrine. It came from the natural rights expressed in the Ninth Amendment.

Based on this argument I believe that laws that preemptively restrict liberty or allow others to relieve an individual of their property, when that individual has not harmed or coerced anyone else, are on their face unconstitutional. That also is what makes me a libertarian. The Constitution is very libertarian when you understand it.

[RonPaulMania]

2 thumbs up for the Constitutional Party.

[MusoSpuso]

The Constitution pary has too much GOD in it for me and the LP, whom I've been a follower of for years, doesn't ever seem to do anything. We need a party with balls and one that understands the constitution and the message of freedom. I nominate naming it the Freedom Party and asking Ron Paul to join as it's premier member as soon as he gets elected president.
Na - never mind. Goddam media won't allow third parties to win.

I truly believe our best bet at this point (near/mid future) is to overtake (RETAKE) the republican party and return it to its roots. Right now as Ron has mentioned the base has shrunk because so many true coservatives are sick of the neo-con BS that has taken over. However, I believe that if we all (Ron Paul supporters) "crashed the party" we could easily overtake it and bring it back in line with its true values.

That's what I'm shooting for anyway. I'm going to look into fielding a "constitutional-republican" or "libertarian-republican" in my district. Or maybe do it myself if need be.

[scbissler]

I still believe the campaign can gain momentum and be a force in this election, especially if it ends up as a brokered convention. But that is a big "if". So that probably wil not come to pass. What is the best alternative? I feel eventually a 3rd party run - not as LP or Constitution but hopefully with their support. This campaign has awakened quite a few people, from many different backgrounds and beliefs to the message of Liberty. Especially the younger generation. That needs to be nourished and built upon. It also needs to be an open tent. Many disaffected democrats have joined the cause, ans I believe the possibility exists to bring in more, especially the communitarian type democrats (thus the reason that the Constitution party might not be the best idea). The local control aspect of the message needs to be sold hard - it allows everyone to have a hand in creating and living in their ideal community. That can be a very big enticement.

[Richie]

I keep seeing people say that the Constitution Party has 350,000+ members. While this is true, it's sort of a mistake. It's from people accidentally joining the American Independent Party in California (CP state affiliate) thinking that they're registering as independents.

[electronicmaji]

LP, Can't stand the Constitution. If we build a new LP party we should pull Steven Kubby, and the rest of them that are actually worth it with us.

[ChelC]

I was registered CP prior to this, and republican prior to that. I will continue to support third parties in their efforts, but will never be party loyal again. I will only vote on principle and principle alone win or lose. Nothing like pride and party politics to cloud your vision and fit you with blinders.

[mconder]

You only need a couple thousand to build a new party. We should be able to get 40-50K members fairly quickly.

[Indy Vidual]

Taken straight from their main page...

"Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations"

Sounds pretty Bible Thumpy to me.

CP = God NO! :eek:
A theocracy with stone age ideas about social freedom does not create liberty.

[Scott Wilson]

After Ron Paul the freedom movement will once again be divided. Mark my words.

[Peppy690]

I say if Ron gets the presidency he denounces the Republican Party and forms the Freedom Party, and asks members of congress to do the same. I bet if a president forms a party it will be huge news and get a huge following.

Isn't Arnold a (R) ? I say we get him to endorse paul, since he is hating on the federal gov't right now

[DaneKirk]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be

Yup.

[trey4sports]

I say if Ron gets the presidency he denounces the Republican Party and forms the Freedom Party, and asks members of congress to do the same. I bet if a president forms a party it will be huge news and get a huge following.

Isn't Arnold a (R) ? I say we get him to endorse paul, since he is hating on the federal gov't right now

do some research on arnold. hes not a ron paul republican at all. hes more like a nancy pelosi socialist, not even a chance we would align ourselves with him

[FrankRep]

Can we get the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party to combine and create the Freedom Party ?

[Indy Vidual]

I say if Ron gets the presidency he denounces the Republican Party and forms the Freedom Party, and asks members of congress to do the same. I bet if a president forms a party it will be huge news and get a huge following.

Isn't Arnold a (R) ? I say we get him to endorse paul, since he is hating on the federal gov't right now

Arnold is a terminator of Liberty not a promoter.

"My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.

"People need somebody to watch over them... Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger at 44 to US News and World Report in 1990.

[AggieforPaul]

I'd be afraid a LP run wouldnt work because the media would say "lolz he tried this in 1988 and got .5 percent of the vote"

[DrNoZone]

Neither the CP nor the LP are going to be the vehicle that brings about real freedoms in the U.S. What we need is a new third party that has the potential of being even bigger than either of the current major parties given enough time and due diligence. See my sig line for more info.

[free.alive]

Another discussion that's a waste of time.

Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Go knock some doors and he has a shot at winning - no joke. Look how far we've come in just a couple months of actual action.

[FrankRep]

Another discussion that's a waste of time.

Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Go knock some doors and he has a shot at winning - no joke. Look how far we've come in just a couple months of actual action.

I'm talking about after the Ron Paul run.

In the future we need to have a competing third party.

[Johncjackson]

The LP has WAY better ballot access and other plusses than the CP- for those that could go for either. And not all LPers are pro-choice and open borders. So dont let 1 or 2 issues like that get you.

Still completely Independent might be best as all existing minor parties have strong negatives associated with their labels.

[cujothekitten]

Going with libertarian :)

[FrankRep]

What do you think about the Freedom Party idea?


Combining the Constitution / Libertarian / Disgruntled Republicans / Enlightened Democrats together.


Some compromise will need to be made, but that's life.

[CJP]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be

+1

For those who want to cop-out and say "the GOP stinks too much to be associated it," remember this: you've got to get close enough to smell dragon before you can slay it. The neocons lair is the GOP. Storm the gates!

[han_solo]

Ron Paul stands for what the Republican party USED to stand for...and what I belive it still can stand for someday.

Its just that we need to take the party back from the neocons.


What is really odd is that its the democrats that caused the republican party to be like it is....they got soooo soft on national defense and so far into socilism that all it took was someone to give an alternative that was a little pro-defense during the cold war to bring over all the non-socialist democrats to the republican party.

Now the republican party looks very much like what the Democrat party looked like 40 years ago.. JFK would have fit RIGHT IN with these candidates like Romney. He sure would not have fit in with the current "Peoples Socialist Party of Special Interest and Giving Away Stuff to Stay in Power" Democrats.


Some day I might be happy to vote republican again, but neo-con pro-war pro-massive-government socialist-lite candidates like Bush, Romney, Huck, and McCain are NOT gonna due it.

[Mark Rushmore]

It looks increasingly like the Democrats will take the election (eg. voter enthusiasm as measured by turnout so far), which will likely cause the neo-cons to drop the charade and unmask again as the leftists that they are while latching on to the Democratic party. That should release their stranglehold on the ideas that comprise the Republican persona and allow a hyperactive minority of party members to steer the Republican discourse into a more historical conservative channel.

If the Republicans win with anyone other than Ron, of course, then there is no hope for the party.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I'm for combining the Constitution Party with the Libertarian Party to create the Freedom Party or something like that.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Retaking the GOP is our best shot.

[V4Vendetta]

I voted for the Constitution Party's Nominee in 2004. I sure as heck wouldn't mind doing it again, if Ron Decided to run with the Constitution Party instead of the Libertarian Party!

[Churchill2004]

For the love of God, no. Ron Paul has been fully aware of the "Constitution Party" and for good reason has stuck with the Libertarians. The simple fact is that the CP nominated two theocrats in 2004. Men who openly said non-Christians have no place in American politics.

Affiliating himself with the horrendously misnamed Constitution Party is just about the one thing Paul could do to not get my vote. I'm not too worried, though. As the only candidate to speak out against the attacks on Romney's Mormonism, I don't think he'll be abandoning his long and happy relationship with the LP to take over what is in effect a Christian Dominionist party that happens to think that the Constitution should be supported, not because of any deep-seated appreciation of liberty, but because they think it's divinely ordained. What a joke.

Absolutely not.

[garrettwombat]

constitutionalists

[scbissler]

What do you think about the Freedom Party idea?


Combining the Constitution / Libertarian / Disgruntled Republicans / Enlightened Democrats together.


Some compromise will need to be made, but that's life.

That is exactly what I believe should happen.

[Churchill2004]

From the CP's platform:

"The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries."

That's a load of crap, and a dangerous one at that. There are no "biblical foundations" to American jurisprudence- it's based on the Constitution and English common law.

They also say they have no problem with the criminalization of what they think to be "offensive sexual behavior".

These people are twisted, and they do not support individual liberty.

[hocaltar]

there's no point with the 3rd parties, they take 0.5% of the vote, it's not worth the hassle

get infiltrating the GOP, that's where the energy and effort should be


I agree with this assessment. The far easier, faster and more productive approach would be to just take over the republican and democratic parties one congressman at a time. We need Ron Paul democrats and Ron Paul republicans running. The grass roots efforts must continue. When ever people ask why you lean libertarian, answer them with something like, "I have no association with the libertarian party I am a strict constitutionalist not one of those libertarians..."

I have put a lot of thought into this, and to me the primary reason we seem to be losing right now is due to the association with the word "libertarian." Many people don't know what it means, don't care, or simply hate it for being different.

[mport1]

The Libertarian Party is MUCH better than the Constitution Party.

[american.swan]

The Constitution pary has too much GOD in it for me and the LP, whom I've been a follower of for years, doesn't ever seem to do anything. We need a party with balls and one that understands the constitution and the message of freedom. I nominate naming it the Freedom Party and asking Ron Paul to join as it's premier member as soon as he gets elected president.
Na - never mind. Goddam media won't allow third parties to win.

I think we should stay in the GOP and reform it. (vote for easier rules on getting third parties on the ballot)

[FrankRep]

The Libertarian Party is MUCH better than the Constitution Party.

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.

Libertarian party of wants open borders and that's a dangerous action right now.

[Churchill2004]

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.



How do you get that? Ignoring their insane theocratic platform, the LP is much better established and doesn't have nearly as many problems with internal factions feuding.

Seriously, we're talking about a party that advocates this sort of revisionist, pro-theocracy crap and you're worried about the fact that the Libertarians have a slightly different position on the border than Dr. Paul? (Both ultimately want it largely open, Paul just wants to end the welfare state first) There's also the fact that the Libertarians have proven they're willing to accept a principled candidate who disagrees with them on some issues (Paul on abortion 1988), whereas the CP went so far as to kick out state affiliate parties because they dared to run a candidate who thought abortions might be acceptable in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

[Richie]

The Constitution Party strikes me as being more professional.

Libertarian party of wants open borders and that's a dangerous action right now.

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=750

More professional? *Chris Matthews HA!*

That source is quite biased, so here's what happened. One of the state affiliates nominated a candidate that wasn't 100% pro-life. He thought abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was at risk. As a result, half of the state affiliates dropped their support of the party.

[John P Slevin]

it wont make a difference via a 3rd party

infiltrating the GOP makes a greater difference

The R and D parties are actually the same. It's a duopoly.

Actually, many LP members thought infiltration of the GOP a smart move, so they started to do it about 25 years ago. See where that got 'em?

The Republican sell-out of principles actually accelerated while these former LP members spent almost all their time telling remaining LP members they were stupid for not following along and going into the GOP.

There was a reason the LP nominated Paul in '88. The same reason exists today. LPer's would love to nominate Paul (the sane ones anyway). It's because the LP has stood on the same principles.

And, for that reason, it never has been bloody likely Paul can get the GOP nomination.

But all that aside, it's the fight that is important, NOT the nomination, NOT the White House. It's winning back our country that matters.

[runderwo]

What do you think about the Freedom Party idea?


Combining the Constitution / Libertarian / Disgruntled Republicans / Enlightened Democrats together.


Some compromise will need to be made, but that's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)

[Goldwater Conservative]

It looks increasingly like the Democrats will take the election (eg. voter enthusiasm as measured by turnout so far), which will likely cause the neo-cons to drop the charade and unmask again as the leftists that they are while latching on to the Democratic party. That should release their stranglehold on the ideas that comprise the Republican persona and allow a hyperactive minority of party members to steer the Republican discourse into a more historical conservative channel.

If the Republicans win with anyone other than Ron, of course, then there is no hope for the party.

You bring up a good point. It's like when Southern "conservatives" abandoned the Democratic ship, lurching that party to the left. If the Dems become the majority party for a long enough period of time, we could see Republicans switching sides to play ball with the winners. Most likely the economically populist evangelicals, but hopefully also neocons since they don't give a damn about small government or even like big government. The GOP would have the national political strength of the Democrats in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it wouldn't be dead and it'd be easier to sway back to its true conservative roots. It'll be a while before that happens, though.