Comments on: Ron Paul’s Name Likely to Remain on Montana Ballot http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=9382 By: Dabert http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-677006 Dabert Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:34:33 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-677006 This advice is really going to help, thanks. This advice is really going to help, thanks.

]]> By: Me http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-515097 Me Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:02:46 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-515097 Why can't Chuck come out and say, "I agree with the Constitution Party of Montana, and support their position. Unfortunately, CP party bosses don't see it that way. Now's the time for pro-lifers to take back the Constitution Party, and return it to it's 100% pro-life roots."? Is the issue of child-murder just a vote-getter for him? Why can’t Chuck come out and say, “I agree with the Constitution Party of Montana, and support their position. Unfortunately, CP party bosses don’t see it that way. Now’s the time for pro-lifers to take back the Constitution Party, and return it to it’s 100% pro-life roots.”? Is the issue of child-murder just a vote-getter for him?

]]> By: dddienst http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-515052 dddienst Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:14:57 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-515052 I don't know the details but it sounds to me like... The candidate is not the party and the party wont make the statement so the the Montana party wont put the canidate on the ballot even though the candidate holds the same view of life they do... This is just a guess, another guess could be the difference between relegating the issue to the states vs federal overturn of roe v wade. I don’t know the details but it sounds to me like…

The candidate is not the party and the party wont make the statement so the the Montana party wont put the canidate on the ballot even though the candidate holds the same view of life they do…

This is just a guess, another guess could be the difference between relegating the issue to the states vs federal overturn of roe v wade.

]]> By: Me http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-514958 Me Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:08:54 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-514958 Can't figure out why Baldwin wouldn't agree with what the Montana party wanted put on the national website, unless he just uses the child-murder issue to get votes like lots of other candidates do. Can’t figure out why Baldwin wouldn’t agree with what the Montana party wanted put on the national website, unless he just uses the child-murder issue to get votes like lots of other candidates do.

]]> By: Me http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-514950 Me Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:06:01 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-514950 Allen, you are probably correct that the CP of Montana wouldn't put Baldwin on the ballot, in light of this statement by their chairman, Jonathan Martin: "Both Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin have been in contact with us here in Montana in an effort to have the Baldwin/Castle ticket placed on our ballot. After disappointing conversations with both (disappointing in that there was a definite aversion to talking about the Tampa debacle; and no admission that it was a great mistake), we told them that to even be considered as possible candidates they would need to ascribe to the following statement and post it on the party website: "America's unwillingness to recognize the humanity and personhood of the unborn child is one of the greatest moral failings of our time. The Constitution Party's platform states: 'We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.' Candidates and officers who advocate the murder of some unborn children and the state(s) that support or elect them have, by their actions, disaffiliated themselves and should be removed from affiliate status. We believe the vote in Tampa (to disaffiliate Nevada) was wrongly decided and has been harmful to the integrity and impact of the Constitution Party. We further call on the party to admit the error and to strongly reaffirm it's 100% pro-life position." It has been 10 days and we have received no reply. It seems that pragmatism, the desire for votes at the expense of principle and the fear of man rather than God, still has a strong grip on the national party. Incidentally, the national website gives the impression that Baldwin is already on the ballot here. Totally untrue. Jonathan" Here is a link to the statement on The American View website. http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31720&postcount=10 Allen, you are probably correct that the CP of Montana wouldn’t put Baldwin on the ballot, in light of this statement by their chairman, Jonathan Martin:

“Both Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin have been in contact with us here in Montana in an effort to have the Baldwin/Castle ticket placed on our ballot. After disappointing conversations with both (disappointing in that there was a definite aversion to talking about the Tampa debacle; and no admission that it was a great mistake), we told them that to even be considered as possible candidates they would need to ascribe to the following statement and post it on the party website:

“America’s unwillingness to recognize the humanity and personhood of the unborn child is one of the greatest moral failings of our time. The Constitution Party’s platform states: ‘We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception.’

Candidates and officers who advocate the murder of some unborn children and the state(s) that support or elect them have, by their actions, disaffiliated themselves and should be removed from affiliate status.

We believe the vote in Tampa (to disaffiliate Nevada) was wrongly decided and has been harmful to the integrity and impact of the Constitution Party. We further call on the party to admit the error and to strongly reaffirm it’s 100% pro-life position.”

It has been 10 days and we have received no reply. It seems that pragmatism, the desire for votes at the expense of principle and the fear of man rather than God, still has a strong grip on the national party.

Incidentally, the national website gives the impression that Baldwin is already on the ballot here. Totally untrue.

Jonathan”

Here is a link to the statement on The American View website. http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=31720&postcount=10

]]> By: Allen http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-511324 Allen Sat, 13 Sep 2008 05:57:22 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-511324 It probably wouldn't be Baldwin. I think he was the main reason the Montana CP is not a apart of the National CP, even those some Montana member went to the National CP convention this year. It probably wouldn’t be Baldwin. I think he was the main reason the Montana CP is not a apart of the National CP, even those some Montana member went to the National CP convention this year.

]]> By: Michael http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-511090 Michael Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:46:35 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-511090 Not enough time? It's seven weeks until Election Day?! Not enough time? It’s seven weeks until Election Day?!

]]> By: Alex http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-510887 Alex Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:47:09 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-510887 With there no final decision, who would the Montana CP replace Paul with if they're able: would they go back to Baldwin, or are there other name(s) they'd consider? With there no final decision, who would the Montana CP replace Paul with if they’re able: would they go back to Baldwin, or are there other name(s) they’d consider?

]]> By: Richard http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-510878 Richard Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:19:16 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-510878 Since I first wrote this, I have learned that there is still no final decision. Since I first wrote this, I have learned that there is still no final decision.

]]> By: Allen http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/09/12/ron-pauls-name-likely-to-remain-on-montana-ballot/comment-page-1/#comment-510869 Allen Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:35:14 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=3951#comment-510869 The trouble is is that the Secretary of state changed the rules to allow the Democrats and Republicans on the ballot. The actual date for the presidential paperwork was August 26, but Brad Johnson changed that to September 5th. Ron Paul would not know this since I don't see that deadline on the state's website. The state could change this. Otherwise Paul's name would still be listed, but the votes wouldn't count, since he has withdrawn. The trouble is is that the Secretary of state changed the rules to allow the Democrats and Republicans on the ballot. The actual date for the presidential paperwork was August 26, but Brad Johnson changed that to September 5th. Ron Paul would not know this since I don’t see that deadline on the state’s website. The state could change this. Otherwise Paul’s name would still be listed, but the votes wouldn’t count, since he has withdrawn.

]]>