Review of Presidential Candidates - Part Three

We'll now feature the next two candidates...

Party: Constitution Party
Candidate: Chuck Baldwin

The Constitution Party boasts the title of the party with the largest volume of registered voters outside of the duopoly (Dems and GOP). They currently have ballot access in thirty states. (Note: Ralph Nader now has surpassed Baldwin with access in thirty-three states.) The party's platform is very conservative, perhaps paleoconservative with, as the name suggests, a strong adherence an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. They also adhere to a strong moral platform on Christian principles.

Mr. Baldwin is a Baptist pastor, author and radio talk show host. He received the party's nomination for Vice President in 2004. Baldwin has received public support, but not an endorsement, from Ron Paul (R-TX) for his strong defense of liberty and fiscally conservative views. Interestingly enough, prior to Baldwin's decision to seek the candidacy, he endorsed Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Baldwin has gone on record to indicate that he believes there may be government conspiracies behind 9/11, the New World Order and the North American Union. He has also proposed a ban on foreign ownership of just about anything in the U.S. His running mate is Darrel Castle.

Like many of the candidates we've reviewed so far, I respect many of Mr. Baldwin's positions. He believes in limited government, decentralization, and strict interpretation of the Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers. However, the strong message of Christian values is divisive and leads to the restriction of other people's rights. Their platform walks this line carefully which is important. Their stance on gambling probably best embodies my trepidation. The old argument that State's Rights is "code" for granting the states the authority to impose morality and discrimination is one that I don't believe in. But, I'm a little nervous in the case of Baldwin and the Constitution Party. I do like more than I dislike. He's a semi-finalist.

Party: Libertarian Party
Candidate: Bob Barr

The Libertarian Party is often described as fiscally conservative socially liberal (or progressive). This is a reasonable description of the party, but the strong belief in personal choice and freedom without little (or no) government intervention is the spirit of their ethos. In some ways they look a lot like very conservative Republicans and in other ways the look a lot like hippy, liberal Democrats. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. in terms of the number of candidates and elected officials. They currently have ballot access for President in forty-one states.

Bob Barr is (like Cynthia McKinney) a former Congressman from the state of Georgia. He served from 1995-2003 and was (in)famous for leading the impeachment charge against President Clinton (before Lewinsky). Barr has changed his position on many issues since his time in Congress. He was against medical marijuana, authored the Defense of Marriage Act which limited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. He has changed or revised his position on all of these issues which caused consternation and limited his acceptance within the Libertarian Party. Nonetheless, he did receive the party's nomination and arguably gives them their best chance in the election since their inception in 1972. His pick for VP is Wayne Allyn Root.

I've struggled to bring myself around to definitively support Mr. Barr. His background shows strong conservative principles, but mixes in a bit too much authoritarianism on social issues and security than I care to have in a politician. But, he says that he's changed. Should I trust a politician? Barr continues to maintain his Leadership PAC and has distributed funds to staunch Republican conservatives even in battles where they oppose Libertarian candidates. (Story here and interesting blog post here.) So, where does that leave me...??? Barr is a semi-finalist.