Man this sound refreshing. "I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. Ron Paul's message is my message; Ron Paul's fight is my fight. I want to return America to constitutional government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X) I believe that, and will govern the Executive branch of the federal government accordingly."
I consider myself Libertarian, but after reading their website find myself disagreeing with many of their planks and their basic marketing strategy. Anti-gambling, porno, and same-sex marriage, from a Constitutionalist? Shouldn't their position on these issues be: Let the states decide? Here's a link to the LP website, describing the differences between the CP and the LP: The Link
I share your sentiments Anastasis, and am still trying to decide what I'm going to do when it's time, but I do think Baldwin is more sincere about his commitment to echoing Ron Paul's positions on the bigger issues (foreign policy, monetary policy, etc.) than Barr. Even if by some miracle he got elected, I don't think Baldwin would have a chance of pushing much through Congress, so these issues really aren't that important IMO.
