Posted on 01/16/2008 1:15:09 PM PST by locke22
EUREKA Ca: 01/167/08 Old Glory Media - Mary Starrett, Communications Director of the Constitution Party, announced today, in conjunction with her radio interview with Old Glory Radio 16 Jan 08, that the Constitution Party has drafted a resolution encouraging current Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul to run as the Constitution Party candidate for President in the 2008 Election.
(Excerpt) Read more at oldgloryradio.podbean.com ...
He wont get any votes from liberals because they don’t respect the constitution. His votes could only come from conservatives who don’t like the GOP nominee. Smells like Perot from ‘92.
lolz
Awww man, and I was considering them as a fallback position should the GOP nominate someone completely unacceptable. There goes that.
If Paul and say Bloomie run ya gotta think they take away from the nut job dems much more then the Pubbies.
Run Ron Paul as an constitution candidate ya nutjob.
If Hillary is the Dem candidate, ElRon as a third party candidate would pull more votes from the left than from the right.
All the “disaffected yoots” who are basically socialists but distrust Hillary, like, for sure would vote for ElRon.
So, in that case, GO FOR IT, ELRON!
(Against Obama, I’m not so sure.)
Excellent point!
Well, Well... Let me say it again, “ROn Paul will run on a third party ticket”. I’ve said it over and over, and people keep telling me “He isn’t going to, he said so”.
Ever heard a politician, especially one that has already LIED a dozen or more times publicly whose lips were moving that WASN’T lying???????
An excellent fit for Paul which I’ve suggested several times in the past. They’re virulently antiwar, and they’ll be willing to embrace the less savory elements amongst his supporters. Nothing to prevent him from running on the Libertarian slate as well. Between the two, you could be looking at upwards of a half percent.
The Constitution Party just nail their own coffin shut.
The folks I personally know who are supporting him (disclosure: 3 of them) are folks I formerly would have considered to be pseudo-reliable Republicans, in the Pat Buchanan isolationist mold. Not entirely sure who they might end up supporting in ‘08 in a 3rd party Paul candidacy, but I know it won’t be any of the current crop of Democrats. So of course I am somewhat interested.
They've already expelled the hard pro-life wing from the party by banishing former nominee Michael Peroutka and they are really pushing the anti-war, anti-PATRIOT Act, pro-Palestinian stuff lately.
Meanwhile they maintain their links to the racist fringe via their alliance with The League Of The South.
So Ron Paul, with his Truther-Nazi-Code Pink coalition should fit nicely.
He’s perfect for that position. Do it Ron!
Couple of old threads, on the war and immigration, which is their selling point.
The Constitution Party on the War on Terror
Constitution Party on Immigration
And of course an interview with Peroutka, by Mark Danoff (he's a fit, wonder if he wrote any newsletters), and to my knowledge published no where by al Jazeera. Sounds a lot like Paul.
U.S Constitution Party An Interview With the Presidential Candidate Michael Peroutka
That's interesting. I actually know one of the CP bigwigs ... a founding member, in fact. Her excuse for the whole thing is based on the Republicans being insufficiently pro-life.
The Nevada party ran a pro-abort locally and Peroutka demanded that the national party disaffiliate the soft-on-abortion NV party.
Peroutka was overruled and his MD party wound up breaking off from the national CP while the NV party stayed with the CP.
Technically, the antional party claims to be pro-life, but the NV situation shows how flexible they are in practice.
Like most third parties and fringe groups, the CP are more about separating suckers from their disposable income than internal discipline.
The CP believes in having their cake and eating it too.
The Constitution Party received about 5% of the vote in the 2006 Oregon Governors race(Mary Starrett was the candidate). After the election, she became the darling of the antiIraqwar chowderheads and her 3 lectures in Portland drew 50-100 each of the more feverent BDS practioners. Interestingly, her entire campaign was directed at economic policies/governmental interference...not once did she mention Iraq or isolationism.
Not Ross Perot numbers, but,combined with the other 3rd parties, could siphon off enough votes to give some western states to Queen Hillary.
That should be amusing.
Umm. No. - from your link:
Q: What is the LS position regarding blacks in the South?
A: The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South.
We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.
Cool - is this a trade?
Do we get a conservative to be named later?
A fifth round draft pick?
Well, so much for any interest I had in the Constitution Party.
That doesn't change their membership or their donors.
BINGO !
Soros money and moonbats rallying to prop him up in the phoney on-line polls just so he could suck fool votes from "Libertarian"-leaning Republicans.
What a plan (surprising how many even on FR buy into this fringe crap).
If nothing else it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the folks who define libertarianism according the platform of the Libertarian Party try shoe-horning this into their political word processor.
They run candidates like Mark Dankoff, certainly fringe, but right back to the Willis Carto/Ron Paul connection. Dankoff contributes to the American Free Press, and is on Republicradio.
To what extent they're serious versus peddling code I don't know, but the Constitution isn't based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the CP is mistaken. We are not governed by biblical law, they're wrong on that too. And we haven't in the past and present offered asylum to non-Christians. We actually let non-Christians be American citizens, have since our founding. They should at least include the future.
Paul will be a fit, and the CP will have no problem at all with his nutball supporters.
Sorry, but I’m not disputing “Fringe” - That may not even be an insult after looking carefully at the modern political parties. 8^)
I am disputing the pejorative term “racist.”
I don’t think I brought them up, I’m not that familiar with their position on blacks, certainly racists associate with them, but I don’t know if their proposals for a new Southern nation are racially exclusive. My impression is that they are religiously exclusive. I’m comfortable describing them as fringe, and that the CP won’t have any particular concerns with Paul’s racist support.
You didn’t bring them up.
It was bought up to you in a reply by another poster and so I added your name to the poster’s.
I actually never heard of them before today, and I live in Florida.
Associating with RP will bring no group anything that they want as far as I can see.
Couldn't agree more.
Ron Paul's motto: "Sometimes you feel like a nut and I am one!" Paul is a nutjob extraordinaire!
Then why aren't they voting for him in the primaries? I keep hearing the "he's a Democrat plant" conspiracy theory being whined, but no one's ever been able to produce anything to back it up. Where are the hordes of liberal cross-overs the anti-Paul nuts keep hallucinating about?
There goes my respect for the Constitution Party.
If Paul’s positions are 100% in line with the CP, then I’ve misread the CP platform. Now I’m really depressed.
“They’ve already expelled the hard pro-life wing from the party by banishing former nominee Michael Peroutka and they are really pushing the anti-war, anti-PATRIOT Act, pro-Palestinian stuff lately.”
Not all people who express concerns about personal liberties (re: Patriot Act) are leftist on that account.
It very well may be time for a new party. A truly conservative party that is motivated by restoring the foundation of American liberty.
I believe that Peroutka (and his running mate in 2004 Chuck Baldwin) endorsed Ron Paul
He brings two things. A name, fringe parties usually don't have a shot at a Congressman, much less one with a high profile, and as I noted the negative aspects of that profile won't be a put off for the CP. Equally important, he has a lot of $$$$. Whether he'll spend it, that will be an interesting future topic, is another issue.
So when the GOP loses the general election, there won’t be any of this “thanks to all of you cut-and-run conservatives” and “stupid Losertarians” rants on this Forum, right?
Does Dr. Paul endorse them though. That's the $64,000 question.
You comment makes no sense.
I don't share your contempt for the GOP, nor do I expect them to lose.
I certainly wouldn't blame cut-and-run conservatives and stupid Losertarians, presuming you're referring to Paul supporters. They're far outside the platform of the Republican Party, classic RINOs. If you're not supportive of the Republican platform in the first place, you really can't desert.
Besides, they'll have their own fringe party to support.
From the 'nut-job' aspect yes. From a vote stealing aspect, not a chance in hell!
He's been clear that there's no ideological component to terrorism, and that the 9/11 terrorists were actually thugs. I'm sure he's sympathetic with the mischaracterization of Islam.
He spoke at the Arab American Institute in Dearborn on the heels of what I presume were unauthorized anti-Israel ads paid for by supporters which he forgot to correct, so why wouldn't Dr. Paul be comfortable with an endorsement from a Muslim paper?
Why are both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party so “open borders” when it comes to the illegal immigration issue? This is only one of the many issues that truly prevents a majority of conservatives from ever joining, supporting, and/or voting for either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party at any political level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.