Chuck Baldwin doesn’t have the name recognition of Ron Paul, but he certainly has a large internet following.  His columns are posted on hundreds sites, and he’s one of the few religious “leaders” openly to come out against immigration.  He could pick off some of religious voters from McCain, especially if many of the Ron Paul meet-up groups start backing him, which is a strong possibility.  (Last night, many Ron Paul supporters, some as young as 19, showed up in droves to defeat Keyes and his strategy of stacking the convention.)

The general Ron Paul strategy of steering towards the middle (to pick up disaffected voters from the Left) was not nearly as successful as Buchanan’s strategy in 1996 of staying to the Right.  Not that Baldwin is a Buchanan (although he sounds more like Buchanan than does Paul), he could attract significant support from the religious right (especially if people like Dobson support him, which isn’t out of the realm of possibilities).  At least theoretically he could pick up enough religious voters (especially those upset over immigration, trade, and the war) to hand the Democrats a victory.

In reality, though, it may be impossible to defeat McCain (although this should be a bad year for Republicans), especially since McCain’s strategists are now realizing that states like California could be in play.  (I could see a election where Obama only wins 10 or so states.)

There are many long-term advantages to a Democratic victory (amnesty is less likely, as Republicans would oppose it out of partisan habit, we could see a healthy right-wing backlash, etc.) but I think that openly supporting someone like Obama sends the wrong message.  The media will interpret this as a shift to the Left of the electorate.  And, as a matter of conscience, I could never vote for someone like Obama. 

A promising sign last night was that many of those involved in Ron Paul meet-up groups were frantically calling their contacts to reallocate their resources (websites, etc.) towards backing Baldwin.

Another reason for supporting Baldwin:  there is an underlying connection between libertarianism/ traditional conservatism and Christianity.  The connection is straightforward:  when you apply to politics the formerly important Christian idea that pride/lust for power is the worst of sins, the result is a political ideology that emphasizes small government with strong checks and balances to control politicians’ power-grabbing.  Many of Baldwin’s writings come close to recalling the old Christian morality.  If he succeeds in reviving the old morals and their implications among American Christians, he will bring to libertarianism numbers that dwarf current membership.

I agree with Matthew Roberts’s justified perception that Chuck Baldwin has steered a
more traditional rightwing course than Ron Paul did under the influence of his advisors.
I am also entirely comfortable with Baldwin’s positions on a wide range of issues. The
problem is I don’t see any way that he could reach even a modest 1% level in the general
vote. Paul’s Republican and LP bases gave him an advantage as a presidential
candidate that Baldwin won’t have. Like Matthew Roberts, I would hesitate to vote for
Obama. I not only disagree profoundly with his policies but also view him as an
electoral expression of the white Christian politics of guilt. Obama’s mainstream
supporters turn my stomach, and I would have to take a barf bag to the polls
if I voted for him. But I would vote for him to sink McCain and his ominous body of
mind-snatchers.

Paul,
“The problem is I don’t see any way that [Baldwin] could reach even a modest 1% level in the general vote.” Could it be that you are underestimating Baldwin’s ability to attract Christian voters?

Baldwin does not have a lot of name recognition tis true, but he does have a good internet
following and that’s where he’ll have to be heavily promoted. He’ll also have to do some
travelling around the country and appeal to younger fundementalists disgusted with the GOP
and looking for an alternatives along with disgruntled conservatives. A good goal for the CP
is break over 200,000 votes and sign up more activists. They’re looking to be on the ballot
in 41 states this time so they have a shot at doing so. If votes for Baldwin and Barr
combined get between 1-3% and really cost McCain, the the GOP will know that it has
problems on its right from a paleo perspective and will have to act accordingly.

Chuck Baldwin is a solid Christian conservative, hostile to the increasingly marginalized and statist Christian Zionist Right and Neocons. He is likely to draw large numbers of non-Zionist Christian conservative voters disenchanted with McCain, who still remember his “agents of intolerance” crack, which is the political equivalent of Obama’s “clinging” blunder. Chuck Baldwin also has populist appeal, and is regularly featured on the hugely popular and populist Rense.com. When Bob Barr announced he might run as a Libertarian, Sean Hannity interviewed him and became visibly angry at the prospect of him taking votes on the Right from McCain, but I think the Neocons have more to fear from a Baldwin candidacy. In fact, it’s not too far-fetched to see a nearly wholesale Christian desertion of McCain for Baldwin.
Also, Kari’s point that “there is an underlying connection between libertarianism/ traditional conservatism and Christianity” is a good one, even more so because it is the two-party system that is sabotaging initiatives like school vouchers that could be used to restore Christian/Western civilizational values. More and more populists, conservatives, Christians and libertarians correctly view the federal government Leviathan as hostile to their interests, values and cultural traditions in the same way that the Soviet government was hostile to the custom and interests of Russian people.
Of course, this is anathema to the Marxists, Neocons and Capitalists who each want to use the Leviathan for their own selfish internationalist purposes, America and Americans be damned.
Chuck Baldwin’s articulateness and experience at the pulpit makes him a good prospect to convey all of this on a mass scale.

I’m with Prof. Gottfried on this one. If Pat Buchanan could not break 1%, we certainly should not expect Pastor Baldwin to.

When will Buchanan come out in favor of McCain?  I expect he will, particularly on the
off chance that Romney is the VP candidate.

Yes, yes Mr Gottfried.

All those opposed to Obama do so because they are shills for Israel, notwithstanding Clinton’s support for the anti-Zionist New Israel fund, and her embrace of Palestinan Nationalism.

And it has nothing to do with Obama’s rank anti-Americanism and ties with leftist domestic terrorists.

With all due respect to Dr. Gottfried. I could never vote for Obama. He may be far superior to McCain and Clinton but he is still terrible. McCain has no chance in my state, so it is academic anyhow. The more third party votes the beter. Even Keyes let him run too as he is threatening. Nader, Barr, Baldwin, we need to show the goons running this country there is still some resistence here.

Too bad Baldwin isn’t a billionaire like Ross Perot. If he were he would have a chance to get something more than a risible vote total.

Chuck is a great speaker and a better writer. Check out his archives. There is very little to disagree with.

Dr. Gottfried, I am not sure what you are saying in this post. That we should support Obama or that the CP would have been better off nominating Keyes or neither? What exactly about Matthew’s post are you objecting to?