Comments on: Ron Paul Will be on Presidential Ballot

Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

By Roark on 09-08-08

This move was idiotic. Paul has officially ended his campaign for the Presidency and is instead focusing on his House race! Symbolic gestures are meaningless if a candidate has no interest in furthering his Presidential goal. The MT Constitution Party should have put Chuck Baldwin on the ballot instead. Bob Barr you have my vote!

By Allen on 09-08-08

It’s amazing that the Constitution party is supporting a Libertarian rather then their nominee Chuck Baldwin. For this to happen the state had to forgo the rule of law.

By Carl on 09-08-08

Y’all calm down now.  Yer disturbin’ the other patients.

By DocR on 09-09-08

I do not agree with any attempt to split a ballot ....BUT..I do not agree with the GOP in forcing more of the same down our throats.
In 1988 McCain was quoted as saying “ Dr. Paul is the most Honest Man in Congress.“
That’s an endorsement from another of the candidates…
I’m voting for Honesty….

By Roark on 09-09-08

The whole irony of this mis-calculated move is that Ron Paul himself is a BIG supporter of Chuck Bladwin and may even endorse Baldwin as President! Again I ask; why OH WHY did the MT Const. Party put Ron Paul on the ballot when he has clearly stated both in word and in deed, that he is no longer running as a candidate for Pres.!?!? The MT Const. Party would have been wise to endorse their current ACTIVE nominee, Chuck Baldwin.

By SteveMT on 09-09-08

Take a hard look at both the major candidates. They leave much to be desired.  Then get on the internet and find out about Ron Paul.  Dr. Paul believes in and supports the Constitution.  He has a 20-year voting record consistent with everything he says. When I think about Montana, I think about freedom.  When I think about Ron Paul, I also think of freedom.  A vote for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.  Vote for Ron Paul.

By Robin B. on 09-09-08

The point is giving people options besides voting for a Republicrat!  The educated public is not going to put up w/ it anymore.  Wish I could vote for him here in CT. Granted, RP did officially drop out of the race but only because the Establishment and MSM ridiculed him and shut him out.  Of course he would accept the role of POTUS if people would wake up and vote for him.  Wish he was the Libertarian candidate though rather than Constitutionalist.  While the Constitution party gets it mostly right, I find the way they wear their religion on their sleeve a turn-off.

By Obama Backer on 09-11-08

Thank you. Thank you. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Barack Obama. Barack will definitely carry Montana if 20,000+ of your kind folks vote for Ron Paul. Thank you again.

By JB on 09-11-08

Roark. you are of course aware that Ron Paul was placed on the Presidential ballot in Montana by a representative of the Montana Constitution Party.  Even though RP has stated publicly he is no longer seeking the office, do you really think that he would decline to accept if by some miracle he was elected President?  Of course not.  He didn’t state that he did not want to be placed on the ballot.

I am happy that we agree that our current government is a shambles, and is a point of shame for all Americans, and that something needs to be done about it.  I am also happy that we still have the freedom to disagree with each other over what action needs to be taken.  If I am labeled “unrealistic” for my political views, then so be it - but it is my view.

By John on 09-11-08

I’m voting for Ron Paul because he is right for Montana, and the nation.  Let the chips fall where they will, voting for Paul is much more important than this election cycle alone.

By Citizen on 09-11-08

Roark, lets put this issue to rest.  We all agree that A.) McCain is a social liberal, pro-war, wants to tax health benefits, pro-big government, neo-conservative that wants more war, caters to the elites and cares less for the average working class or our rights.  And B.) Barack is a socialist, pro-big government, pro-war, pro-invading Pakistan and Iran, supported by the Israel Lobby (as well as McCain), wants to raise taxes, etc etc.  THEY BOTH SUCK.  THis is the problem.  America needs to vote 3rd party and let the elites and party rulers know enough it enough.  Vote for libertarians or constitution.  JUST DON’T VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.  It is that easy.  That is democracy.  No moron will ever talk me into voting their way by telling me I am throwing my vote away.  I vote my voice and my voice only.  There you go.  McCain or Obama?  Thats like asking me if I want herpes or gonorhea!

By Citizen on 09-12-08

I will never vote Republican or Democrat.  Both parties have controlled this government the past 100 years and look at where we are.  The past 8 years have been dominated by republicans and we could not be worse off I think.  Democrats controlled congress this past 2 years and literally did nothing to correct the destruction caused by the republicans.  Screw both of them. VOTE 3rd party and tell the other 2 off for good.
P.S. thanks for the kudo Robin.  Hey go check out the discussion over in comments about the City Budget.  It is a good one as well.

By --dhc-- on 09-12-08

The only way to throw away your vote is to neglect to cast it. Whether you vote for a likely candidate, an unlikely candidate, or a candidate that doesn’t even want to be a candidate, you are sending a message, and that message is the important thing.

For a long time, I was partially swayed by the “but you’re helping the other guy win!“ argument. But it is truer now than it ever has been (except perhaps when the choices were Bush and Kerry) that there is no real difference between the two major party candidates in the way this country will be run. A vote for either of them is a vote for more of [approximately] the same. A vote for anyone else, no matter the likelihood they’ll win, is a vote for real and meaningful change, at the very least in the election process itself.

The thing is, it has to start somewhere. This year, perhaps 3rd-party candidates will get 15% of the vote (a lofty goal). Maybe next cycle, that will encourage another 10% to vote for who they really want instead of the lesser of two evils. Every time one of us steps up and votes our conscience, we indeed run the risk of casting a vote for a hopeless candidate, but we also run the risk of encouraging two others to do the same next time around. The more of us that are willing to ‘waste’ our votes, the more possible it seems that a 3rd-party candidate can have a chance, and therefore the more possible it is that he actually has a chance.

In essence, advocating this “vote for one of the two bozos or you’ll waste it” stance is much like advocating not voting because one vote can never make a difference.

Elections don’t work unless the people believe that their votes matter and so go to the trouble of casting them. In the same way, 3rd party candidates will never be viable unless the people believe that they can be. Beautifully, though, and maddeningly, that is all it will take.

By SteveMT on 09-15-08

Any third candidate vote cast sends a powerful message and that works for me.

By Carl on 09-26-08

Well said. [or written].  Read/Watch the “news” with a healthy sense of suspicion.  Consider courses of action with due evaluation.  And - I like the last line.  Good warning.