August
1st 2008
Is Glenn Beck Endorsing Third Party Voting?
Filmer

Posted under Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin & Ron Paul

It kind of sounds that way. Here is our friend Pastor Kevin Thompson’s take on the story.

Beck says Ron Paul is likely to endorse Chuck Baldwin. I actually highly doubt he will. If he did it would really make him persona non grata with the GOP, even more than he already is, and it would allienate his L(l)ibertarian base as well. I suspect Paul will say nice things about both Barr and Baldwin but will officially endorse neither.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

19 Comments »

19 Responses to “Is Glenn Beck Endorsing Third Party Voting?”

  1. Kevin Thompson on 01 Aug 2008 at 10:30 pm #

    Actually, as of June 30, I am no longer a Pastor – still an ordained preacher, but not pastoring at this point. I am now a full time Bible teacher at a Christian high school in WI. But thanks for the link and for the friend comment…

  2. Red Phillips on 01 Aug 2008 at 11:38 pm #

    WI? You might be near Patroon.

  3. Kevin Thompson on 02 Aug 2008 at 2:02 am #

    I’ll be in Beloit.

  4. roho on 02 Aug 2008 at 12:05 pm #

    I think that Beck has a “Grandmother” following with his imature and sometimes childish rant/style of communicating his position?

    However, any support is a good thing for Chuck Baldwin.

  5. RedPhillips on 02 Aug 2008 at 3:49 pm #

    Thanks to Mapquest I can tell you are not that close to Patroon, but you are close to Rockford, IL. You should look into attending some Rockford Institute events.

  6. Andrew T. on 02 Aug 2008 at 3:51 pm #

    The irony is that Baldwin seems more radically libertarian than Barr. Baldwin is not one to compromise, and maybe it’s because he doesn’t have a history with the establishment to iron out. On Beck’s show, Bob Barr said that at first it will be necessary to subsidize oil companies to drill in ANWAR after it has been allowed, which shows an ignorance of how the responses of producers to demand in the market actually work.

  7. RedPhillips on 02 Aug 2008 at 5:28 pm #

    Conservatives will tolerate a lot of libertarianism as long as it does not come off as hostility to traditional values, moral relativism, or moral libertinism. This is what Ron Paul understood, and too many of the rabid libertarian crowd doesn’t. To them, traditional values are as much a part of the “oppression” as is the government.

    Barr is trying to appear as a moderate “sensible” libertarian without totally ticking off the base. Baldwin, on the other hand, is just being a doctrinaire constitutionalist. That is why I like the idea of constitutionalism. It gives you ground cover for taking some very radical positions by today’s standards.

  8. Weaver on 03 Aug 2008 at 2:11 pm #

    A lot of libertarians don’t like Barr. Paul embracing Baldwin wouldn’t necessarily alienate him with his base I think.

    I don’t have any insider info, I just watched the LP primary.

  9. Weaver on 03 Aug 2008 at 2:12 pm #

    Baldwin is conservative where it matters: immigration and trade. On the other issues, conservatives are mostly in agreement with libertarians I think.

  10. Andrew T. on 03 Aug 2008 at 4:18 pm #

    Weaver,

    Don’t forget that there is an entire school of libertarianism (paleolibertarianism) that is not for open immigration at all. And I haven’t seen Baldwin using rhetoric that is any more protectionist than what was said by Paul, just the same goals of abolishing NAFTA and the WTO. And since when has a production job ever been something prestigious? If you have a country that manages a respectable 5.7% unemployment rate while being able to import a massive assortment of its nonperishable goods, I think that’s pretty good for the nation (both parties, actually).

    Has someone even suspected that Paul embracing Baldwin could alienate anyone? The continuity between the Paul campaign and that of Baldwin is so great that the Baldwin campaign literally owes its existence (and its chances of success) to Ron Paul’s.

  11. Weaver on 03 Aug 2008 at 7:33 pm #

    Andrew,

    all schools of thought are not created equal.

    You’re right, Baldwin owes a great deal to Ron Paul.

  12. Weaver on 03 Aug 2008 at 7:41 pm #

    On the issues writes:

    In order to keep jobs in this country, we need to have a trade policy that works in the best interest of the American people. To this end, I favor a tariff based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, & which was the policy of th United States during most of our nation’s history. A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government.

    A Chuck Baldwin Presidency would signal the end to the stranglehold that the modern day moneychangers have over our economy and provide the opportunity for a rebirth of the American dream.
    Source: Campaign website, http://www.baldwin2008.com, “Issues” May 27, 2008

  13. Weaver on 03 Aug 2008 at 7:41 pm #

    Baldwin is a trad not a lib.

  14. roho on 03 Aug 2008 at 10:16 pm #

    Good Points Weaver!………………….”Free Trade” is a Joke!…….NOTHING in life is ever free, and somebody has to cover the cost. “Free Trade” to the Globalist/Wall Streeters simply means profiting off of foreign citizens while screwing U.S. Citizens.(Much like a War Profiter that hopes for a long war, regardless of dead U.S. Citizens, because he bought stock in a BOMB FACTORY!)

  15. Andrew T. on 04 Aug 2008 at 2:09 am #

    Baldwin is a great candidate, but he needs to remain as economically vague as possible because when he gets into specifics he makes it abundantly obvious that he does NOT know what he is talking about (unlike Ron Paul). “Fair trade” is a tired, meaningless phrase used by protectionists and corporatists. A “fair” trade is one to which both parties consent. By contrast, I believe that having the national government, which is wholly inept at running the economy, regulate and tariff trade, is quite unfair indeed. And wait, why is raising even MORE revenue for the national government somehow a good thing!?

    roho, free trade means “free” as in doing what you want with your own property, not free as in free lunch. You’re comparing a voluntary exchange of mutually desired goods to mass murder? That’s like comparing free speech to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Or a murderer to a decent person.

  16. Weaver on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:42 am #

    Andrew,

    let’s cut the bs and be frank: the difference between trads and libs is trads think in terms of a group and libs think in terms of an individual. This is not a case of Baldwin misunderstanding economics. This is a case of Baldwin valuing his people.

    Admittedly trads can get confused with their group ties, leading to extreme nationalism or confusion therein, but not everyone can be as simple minded as a lib ideologue.

  17. Weaver on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:43 am #

    However, recalling how the libs turned on Buchanan over trade… Baldwin might well do better not to focus on trade.

    Sometimes it’s wise to play to the base, and sometimes it’s wise to be true to oneself. Baldwin will just have to decide for himself.

  18. Andrew T. on 04 Aug 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    You’re right, of course, Weaver. Not that it stops me from holding a belief that trade is good for everyone all-around.

  19. Weaver on 05 Aug 2008 at 5:44 am #

    It’d be good if everyone played by the rules, sure. But they never do.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply