Personally I think it would have been better for Paul not to have
endorsed anyone.--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> 6a. An Analysis of Ron Paul's Decision
> Posted by: "Chris Edes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] chrisedes1
> Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:02 PM ((PDT))
>
> 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. <
>
> Only if you wish to understand what the Libertarian Party did wrong
and how
> the Libertarian Party created this mess.
>
> > 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? <<
>
> I can understand your not wanting to face the real facts of the
matter.
> Ron Paul stated more than 100 times he would not endorse any
candidate this
> year.
> Boob Barr publicly made an issue of this. He embarrassed every
person
> involved in Ron Paul's campaign, he embarrassed everyone who at
anytime claimed to be
> a Libertarian or a member or subscriber to the philosophy of any
third party.
>
> Ron Paul and his staff received many calls to repudiate the actions
of Boob
> Barr.
> By his actions Boob Barr pressured Ron Paul to turn away from the
actions of
> THE BOOB.
>
> For those who were not around or choose not to remember I find
little
> difference in most of the ways that the actions of Ron Paul 20
years ago and the
> current actions of the BOOB differ, except Ron Paul never made a
national public
> spectacle of himself like the BOOB does.
> I would say at this time that maybe finally Ron Paul has grown up
to some
> extent.
> The BOOB is not as important as he thinks he is. He is not a
Libertarian, a
> libertarian or even libertarian leaning.
> His attempt at embarrassing Ron Paul was pure force initiated
against another
> person.
> Thank what ever gods there may be it did not work.
>
> >> 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." <<
>
> I loved this answer. I have no use for Chuck Baldwin and never
will. However
> he has demonstrated that he is much more of a man than is the BOOB.
> At least he did not try to use force to get his way.
>
> >> 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 <
> <
>
> To try to use someone who has much less intelligence that yourself
is not
> wise. It makes you look smaller than he is. Give yourself some
credit.
>
> >> 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. <<
>
> If you endorse the current stand of the Libertarian Party or the
permanent
> stand of the BOOB you are on the wrong track, I suggest that you
lock yourself
> in a closet and pray to whatever god you worship for guidance.
>
>
>
> for Liberty, (ARE YOU SURE) Chris Edes
>
>
> Thank You,
> John Wayne Smith, Chair
> Boston Tea Party of Florida
> http://www.bostontea.us
> 2008 Vice Presidential Candidate for the Florida Boston Tea Party
> 2010 Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Florida
> CEO, 1000 Planets, Inc.
> Building a Private Road to the Stars!
> Http://www.1000Planets.com
> 203 W. Magnolia St.
> Leesburg Florida 34748
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
> challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and
information, tips and
> calculators.
> (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
