Posted on 01/02/2007 9:25:56 PM PST by TBP
http://conservativepresident2008.blogspot.com/2006/12/constitution-party-to-select-candidate.html
The Constitution Party, a conservative third party founded in 1992 to serve as a possible ticket for Pat Buchanan to run on, plans to have nominated its candidate for President by July 2007, World Net Daily reports.
The party held a national committee meeting last weekend where Howard Phillips, who is the party's founder and three time Presidential candidate (1992, 1996 and 2000), told World Net Daily "The time has never been better for a third party dark horse candidate to grab the White House."
Phillips said that the party will nominate candidate next year and among the possibilities are: Jim Gilchrist, former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, Pastor Chuck Baldwin and World Net Daily columnist Jerome Corsi.
1) Duncan Hunter
2) Newt Gingrich.
How about you?
Mike Pence
http://krustykonservative.blogspot.com/
By the way, I've posted this before but I've been at three functions recently attended by Republican activists. I've been taking my own little private poll and NO ONE likes McCain and the two with the most interest right now are Newt and Romney.
Thanks for that info.
There are pros and cons to an early nomination. Given the way the liberal media is campaigning for their preferred candidates with free air time, an early nomination is probably for the better.
I've seen Constitution Party members and leaders support winning races of Conservative Republicans as well as Constitutionalists. I don't know of any case where the Constitution Party "put dems in office" .
Yes
That's my approach too, along with voting for Constitution Party candidates when I get the opportunity.
When you vote for the anti war CP party it takes away a vote for the Republicans and a + for the Dems.
That is how the CP puts a Dem in office.
If this has to be explained I can see why a person is sucked into the CP anti war bunch
Why would it take a way a vote from the Republican if no Republicans in a race deserve votes in the first place?
Your post has left me confused. First, it sounds like you are suggesting that I should join the Constitution Party. Then you suggest I should have voted for DeWine. Please clarify.
The Constitution did not address abortion. That matter was simply left to the states who were free to outlaw it, allow it, or even promote it. Thus, I would support a strict constructionist who was personally in favor of abortion. (As long as he could be trusted to REMAIN a strict constructionist.)
That is NOT true. if that is what you thought, then you weren't paying attention. They vigorouslyt go after both major parties (but on different issues.) They have found out, howeve, what a lot of RINOs have also found out: when you go after Republicans, you get more attention. But read and listen. The Constitution Party has been highly critical of Bush on many issues (mostly deservedly), but also of the Democrats on a whole lot of issues too.
You also obviously haven't been paying attention if you actually believe this RINO falsehood. The party is strongly pro-life. It's a cnetral part of the party's platform. They have articles on the website promoting pro-life positions. Show me one piece of evidence that the party is NOT pro-life. Go ahead.
The WOT HAS been used to expand the Federalk government beyond its proper means. Some of that is necessary war measures, some is arguable, but you can't deny that it has happened.
And the fact is that once the governmetn starts a program, it's very hard to get rid of it. I have concerns about the civil liberties aspects of some of these programs too, although I understand the national-security reasoning for them.
The FACT is that the CP is one of the very few out there actually supporting constitutionally limited government, a position most of the GOP abandoned long ago. So yes, it's a conservative party. No question about that.
Don't post stuff like that. It confuses the CP's critics.
Is the Republic of Minerva still operating?
Cindy's out of her so-called mind, so I consider that irrelevant.
It was sickening and I realized then I had been duped into believing their rhetoric.
I'm just not stupid enough to believe that Bush is more dangerous than Gore or Kerry. They knew full well that they were attempting to take votes from Bush because they had NO chance of taking votes from the RATS. Shame on them. They didn't care if they threw the election to Gore or Kerry. They're delusional cowards. Why don't they get involved in Republican primaries? They might actually get elected. Maybe they don't want to get elected.
Not the ones I heard.
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.