Thread: Keyes not selected by Constitution Party

Originally Posted by POTUS

Originally Posted by GUYMAN

I may very well vote for the CP as a protest - it depends what other choices can get ballot access in my State. But Baldwin's constant references to God and prayer turn me off a bit. I'm sure many of you out there who are more religious may disagree, but that's how I feel. And the CP's contention that America was founded as a Christian nation is just false. You will find reference to the Creator in our Constitution, but you will not find any reference to Jesus Christ. I don't say that to put down anyone's beliefs, it's just a fact.

America wasn't founded as a theocratic state, but many of the Founders were Christians, although revisionists would like us to believe they were all deists, if religious at all.

The Christian views of the Founders heavily influenced the creation of this country, but they designed a government to be conducted in a secular manner.

I think both our quotes are basically correct. The Founding Fathers were not atheists (neither am I). I'm just saying the CP could possible become a powerful third choice in this country - but not if they are a Fundamentalist Christian organization. That's just not what most American voters want a Political Party to be. We'll see what happens.

Originally Posted by POTUS

I like Chuck Baldwin, and have no axe to grind with him. Here's a different view of the recent CP Convention, however: http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/200 ... -your.html

Interesting article. The author seems to say that the CP and its convention were taken over by the RP people. The main issue that divided the party from Keyes is undeniably the Iraq War and foreign policy. It also suggests that the "Ron Paul, Alex Jones Axis" upended the campaigns of Keyes and Tancredo.

There may be some truth to this. Whatever the reasons, I think its unfortunate. I oppose the Iraq War, but supported Duncan Hunter. I also would support Keyes, but I can see how this is a major dividing point. Its not just "the Ron Paul people" within the CP, I think the party has always been anti-interventionist. But the point raised that the Paul and Jones people upended other candidacies was interesting....at least to me; take from that whatever you will.

The bottum line is that the CP will not have a big name on its ticket. I will research Baldwin, but am disheartened that a recognizable personality like Keyes will not represent the party.

I am actually glad to hear Chuck Baldwin was selected. He is definately a Ron Paul supporter. He lives in Pensacola, Florida. That's a great choice!!! Good for the CP. I might have to vote for Chuck! Alan Keyes is STILL a big government guy. I looked at his website early on, and read his stance on issues. Totally a big government guy and the goal is to get someone in who will promote limited government like the Constitution states. Righton Chuck BAldwin!

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by POTUS

I like Chuck Baldwin, and have no axe to grind with him. Here's a different view of the recent CP Convention, however: http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/200 ... -your.html

Interesting article. The author seems to say that the CP and its convention were taken over by the RP people. The main issue that divided the party from Keyes is undeniably the Iraq War and foreign policy. It also suggests that the "Ron Paul, Alex Jones Axis" upended the campaigns of Keyes and Tancredo.

There may be some truth to this.

You know, I don't think there's anything to it except sour grapes. I think this person represents the minority in the CP. much like Ron Paul represents a minority of the GOP.

I don't dislike Baldwin - I don't even know him. But I do agree that the CP would have been better off with a big name on their ticket. It will take a miracle for Baldwin to get any attention at all.

The CP is anti-war, and it always has been. The CP was raising money for Ron Paul when he was still in the exploratory stage, before 99% of his current supporters had even heard of him. I worked with plenty of CP members back in the early days. To say that they somehow took over the party (or the convention) just doesn't fit with what I saw. I saw the CP members gravitate to Paul, but that hardly means they took over the party. It just means Paul's message appealed to a lot of them.


The CP was absolutely set to forgo even selecting a candidate if Paul got the Republican nomination, and that decision was made long before the first primary took place. In the CP, It's the "one Christian world" faction against the "God loves all his choldren" Christians, and right now the latter is leading. Agree or not, the threat of perpetual war is a deal breaker with a lot of the people in that party.

The author of that piece certainly has a right to be disgruntled if he thinks his party isn't representing him. I think he's probably an immigrant from the GOP, unhappy that the Christian wing has been openly discarded.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by POTUS

I like Chuck Baldwin, and have no axe to grind with him. Here's a different view of the recent CP Convention, however: http://lewislyspeaking.blogspot.com/200 ... -your.html

Interesting article. The author seems to say that the CP and its convention were taken over by the RP people. The main issue that divided the party from Keyes is undeniably the Iraq War and foreign policy. It also suggests that the "Ron Paul, Alex Jones Axis" upended the campaigns of Keyes and Tancredo.

There may be some truth to this.

You know, I don't think there's anything to it except sour grapes. I think this person represents the minority in the CP. much like Ron Paul represents a minority of the GOP.

I don't dislike Baldwin - I don't even know him. But I do agree that the CP would have been better off with a big name on their ticket. It will take a miracle for Baldwin to get any attention at all.

The CP is anti-war, and it always has been. The CP was raising money for Ron Paul when he was still in the exploratory stage, before 99% of his current supporters had even heard of him. I worked with plenty of CP members back in the early days. To say that they somehow took over the party (or the convention) just doesn't fit with what I saw. I saw the CP members gravitate to Paul, but that hardly means they took over the party. It just means Paul's message appealed to a lot of them.


The CP was absolutely set to forgo even selecting a candidate if Paul got the Republican nomination, and that decision was made long before the first primary took place. In the CP, It's the "one Christian world" faction against the "God loves all his choldren" Christians, and right now the latter is leading. Agree or not, the threat of perpetual war is a deal breaker with a lot of the people in that party.

The author of that piece certainly has a right to be disgruntled if he thinks his party isn't representing him. I think he's probably an immigrant from the GOP, unhappy that the Christian wing has been openly discarded.

I think the author of the piece is also unhappy that Keyes was asked by the CP to participate in seeking it's nomination, and then was smeared by Howard Phillips. A CP blogger and CP insider, stated that although he agreed with Phillips' comments, that targeting Keyes in his speech was a violation of the CP's bylaws.

An independent named Charles E. Collins received the same kind of reception, when he sought the CP presidential nomination in "96, although his views were absolutely in line with the platform.

I think Baldwin would have won regardless, but if the CP intends to be anything more than irrelevant, it might behoove them to treat invitees a little more civilly.

I had been a member of the CP National and my State affiliate long before Keyes pondered taking a crack at the CP's nomination, but have left both, as a result of this convention.

Originally Posted by POTUS

I think the author of the piece is also unhappy that Keyes was asked by the CP to participate in seeking it's nomination, and then was smeared by Howard Phillips. A CP blogger and CP insider, stated that although he agreed with Phillips' comments, that targeting Keyes in his speech was a violation of the CP's bylaws.

An independent named Charles E. Collins received the same kind of reception, when he sought the CP presidential nomination in "96, although his views were absolutely in line with the platform.

I think Baldwin would have won regardless, but if the CP intends to be anything more than irrelevant, it might behoove them to treat invitees a little more civilly.

I had been a member of the CP National and my State affiliate long before Keyes pondered taking a crack at the CP's nomination, but have left both, as a result of this convention.

Yes, you're absolutely right. When you invite a person to speak, you should let him do so.

I had not even heard of the CP until this election, but I've done a lot of waking up in the past 24 months.