Now that Jerome Corsi is no longer a possibility for Constitution Party nomination, who is the front runner?
The party does not seem too excited about its current possibilities: Don Grundmann (the only official candidate) and Texas state party chair Bryan Malatesta, who has shown interest in running.
And there is currently no sign that former UN Ambassador and frequent candidate Alan Keyes and former Alabama Supreme Cour Chief Justice Roy Moore have any plans of the Republican Party.
Another name mentioned is the party's 2004 Vice Presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin, but in an interview in October 2006 Baldwin said: "I have learned to never say never, but I have no desire to run."
So who is the front runner for the party's nomination? Answer: Ron Paul (or he is at least the favorite among the party leaders).
Ron Paul, the Republican candidate who has already told the CP that he would not run as their candidate. A recent article on the Constitution Party website says: "...it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%."
But the statement above may not hold true. If Paul some how does win the Republican nomination (or another party's nomination, ie. the Libertarian Party) it does not mean that all of the members of the Party will want to endorse him. Illinois' state party chairman Randy Stufflebeam does not like the idea of the party reaching out to candidates that are not already in the party and if it looks like leading CP officials are strong supporters for the endorsement of Paul, Bryan Malatesta will almost certainly seek the nomination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I expect Ron Paul would be a far better fit for the Libertarians.
Would he stand up for the CP's rather overt Christian message? I doubt it. I also wonder about his views on gay rights and drug legalization. If they are anything like the LP's, the CP will have nothing to do with him.
Here is Ron Paul's statement of faith:
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Dr. Don Grundman is an excellent candidate! It's a shame the Constitution Party spits in the face of the great statesmen among its own ranks.
Post a Comment