Daniel McCarthy, an American Conservative editor and former Paul campaign blogger (and occasional reasonoid), raps Bob Barr on the knuckles for instigating the Paul endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.
I don't think Paul wanted to choose between Baldwin, who faithfully supported Paul's Republican presidential bid earlier this year, and Barr, the nominee of the party whose ticket Paul had headed in 1988. But Barr's behavior forced a decision, and the Libertarian Party is the loser for it.
McCarthy lays blame at the doorstep of Russ Verney, the Barr campaign manager whose occasional appeals to disgruntled conservatives—praise for George Bush's leadership on 9/11, for example—have done less to make Barr look mainstream than to infuriate the very active anti-Barr internet armies.
The Libertarian Party's Andrew Davis writes at the party's web site about the difference between them and the Constitution Party.
For a party that believes so strongly in the Constitution and preserving its authority, it is puzzling that the CP takes the position that God's law is supreme to Constitutional authority in the government. Many Christians, including myself, do believe that God's law always is supreme to the law of man when the two conflict; however, the difference is that this belief is made at a personal level, and would not expect the same to apply to government.
The news isn't all bad for Barr. He has won a lawsuit to remove placeholder presidential candidate George Phillies (who ran for the LP nomination and came in behind Mike Gravel) on the Massachusetts ballot. The state party had gotten ballot access by collecting signatures for Phillies, but when Barr got the nomination the state fought his attempt to replace Phillies' name with his. It caused (of course) friction within the party, as Mass Libertarians like Arthur Torrey threatened never to vote for Barr, and as Phillies put out press releases as a presidential candidate on two state ballots. (He and Barr are both on the New Hampshire ballot, for similar reasons, although Barr is trying to get Phillies removed.) He's also put out statements detailing (and subtly attacking) Barr's campaign spending.
Meanwhile, Baldwin supporters, giddy at the Paul endorsement, are promoting a September 26 moneybomb for the candidate. I wonder if they really want the attention. Digging into Baldwin's columns and public statements reveals a candidate who's far more, let's say, Kirchick-able than Paul ever was. See this, from 2002.
There is another part of the story regarding sexual predators that is not being discussed: the large numbers of young girls today that are themselves sexual predators!
This MTV generation has lost its innocence and virtue, and girls seem to be the ones leading the way. Furthermore, the days are gone when we could depend on mothers and fathers to jealously guard the purity of their own daughters. Today, it seems fashionable for girls to dress and behave like prostitutes. The moreflesh that is exposed, the more everyone (including the girl's parents) seems to like it. Whereas girls were once the prey, they are now the predators. The damning influence of pop culture icons such as Brittany (sic) Spears and Madonna has created an entire generation of girl predators.
I would eagerly read an essay on this topic: "The best thing Ron Paul could have done for his 1.2 million voters was wait until September to make an endorsement, endorse four third party candidates, then change his mind and endorse Chuck Baldwin." If you want to take a crack at it, put it in the comments.