http://libertyordeath.us/paul-endorse.htm
An Analysis of Ron Paul's Decision What are we to make of Ron Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin? It is worthwhile to exercise a critical faculty. Paul speaks of unity, and "the hope of winning new converts to the cause of liberty." He later goes on to say that "new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left" than from "evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions." Yet, Paul endorses a candidate much less likely to appeal to the left, than to those same evangelicals. I agree that the left is more likely to come around to our point of view, than pro-war Christian conservatives. I can tell you that here in NY, the political left has a very bad reaction to the CP. The CP is also hostile to the political left. Baldwin isn't going to bring the leftists into the fold. For this reason, Paul's endorsement of the CP candidate is at odds with his adjacent reasoning. Such apparent contradictions invite closer examination. I'm wary of decisions based on personal pique. If Paul's strategy was to stay neutral, why did it change? From an advancing-Liberty standpoint, does it make sense to change the strategy? Or did it change because Paul felt slighted? The final paragraph of Paul's essay strongly indicates a personal motive: "I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate." The Constitution Party will never unite all those who love freedom. This is because it advocates a theocracy that only resembles Liberty. A good discussion of the differences between the Libertarian and Constitution parties can be found at http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/libertarian-party-vs-constitution-party I ask if our allegiance is to ideas or men. Why should a personal conflict between leaders guide my course? These aren't the days of feudal aristocracy. The LP philosophy is closer to my moral code than the CP philosophy. I'm not going to endorse the "lesser of two goods" simply because of some personal drama. The LP has reached out to Paul many times this past year. Paul refused our nomination. He accepted Baldwin's invitation to address the Constitution Party Convention, while discarding the same LP invitation. So perhaps it's not a decision based on pique. Perhaps Ron Paul has become a constitutionalist. If so, he's gone where I can't follow. Paul has chosen another way and I wish him well. Yet I will follow my conscience, not the leader. for Liberty, Chris Edes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
