Posted under Bob Barr & Chuck Baldwin & Conservatism & Constitution Party & Election 2008
Recently the America First National Committee voted to encourage voters to cast a ballot for either Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin or Libertarian nominee Bob Barr. The text of the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the America First Party is not running a presidential candidate in 2008 because this would be a poor use of resources for our developing party; and,
Whereas many voters would nevertheless like to have guidance on how to vote in the general presidential election; and,
Whereas both Democrat and Republican presidential nominees are greatly at odds with the America First Party’s principles in areas of foreign policy, trade, immigration, and fiscal spending; and,
Whereas it is important that voters not waste their vote by voting for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates who are poised to violate the basic requirements of the oath of office, and who will, if they pursue their stated policy objectives, continue the process of overturning our constitutional government; and,
Whereas there are two presidential candidates which have achieved ballot access in enough states to have a theoretical possibility of winning the presidential election, and which hold positions similar but not identical to those of the America First Party;
Therefore, be it resolved by the America First National Committee:
That voters be encouraged to vote for either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr for President in November.
For those unfamiliar with the America First Party, it is largely the remnant of the Buchananite wing of the Reform Party. This dual endorsement comes as a bit of a surprise to many, because the AFP solely endorsed Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka in 2004. The AFP platform is much closer to the Constitution Party than it is to the Libertarian platform.
I contacted Mr. John Pittman Hey, the National Secretary of the Committee to inquire about the dual endorsement. The Committee was reluctant to endorse Baldwin alone primarily because of some inside baseball past Constitution Party business that it would not be productive to dredge up again here.
Personally, I think the AFP is shooting itself in the foot with this dual “endorsement.†(Technically it was not an endorsement, but I struggle for a better word to characterize it.) Baldwin is clearly closer to the AFP on a number of issues. However, us Constitution Party supporters appreciate the mention of Baldwin, nonetheless.
For what it’s worth, I think the AFP should consider merging its efforts with the Constitution Party. The alternative right is not yet big enough to support two third parties.
Weaver on 04 Nov 2008 at 1:15 am #
The AFP has a few libertarian leaners in it. As a party it’s slightly less religious than the CP too, which in theory should make it more capable of uniting disparate segments of the US population.
However, I’m going to switch from the AFP to the CP soon I think. There isn’t, as you say, a need for two parties. I should have switched in 2004 when I put up Peroutka signs, though the AFP guys I’ve spoken with have all been very kind. I joined the AFP in 2002, though I haven’t been active because there simply aren’t any candidates in SC.
—
Baldwin has taken some pretty liberal stances with regard to race and religion (he’s always taken these same good, liberal stances too – Baldwin, like Paul, is fully honest and consistent), but are some perhaps wary of him as a Southerner? And similarly are some Catholics wary of him as a Baptist preacher?
Maybe Paul and Peroutka were just less colorful and a more liberal appearing candidate is the only thing that will unite Americans? It’s very surprising to me to find Baldwin not appealing to so many. For me, Baldwin is the greatest thing since Buchanan. Maybe the country has moved too far left.