Brother,

 

I apologize for having been so abrupt with you this afternoon, but I was at the time hopelessly submerged in about 375 e-mails that had piled up during my trip, and was reluctant to cover ground I'd thought we'd seen the last of in our rear view.  I didn't even bother to read your piece; I just saw you didn't agree on a few of my points and were still receptive to Chuck.  Now that I'm out from under that pile - and now that I've perused your e-mail - I do want to respond:

 

1    True, there are areas where Chuck seems to depart from Paul.  Chuck's uncompromising position on abortion is one, and that's extremely important.  But then Paul himself has been sold to us as an ally on abortion, when a close look at the fine print of his record (or even at his YouTube interviews) shows quite the contrary - all the way up to letting the states decide, and then nullifying that by voting against the legitimate fed role of prohibiting the transporting of minors across state lines for one.

 

The only other area where I've heard Baldwin depart from the Paul platform is in terms of gays in the military (and I'll give him credit for that, as well).  Both want to jettison "don't ask, don't tell," but Paul wants to replace it with "tell, don't do anything" and Baldwin wants to go back to the old, sound policy.

 

But I do not think they diverge on much else in terms of Paul's "values" issues record, which, as you know, is "apPauling."  I assert this with full confidence, in that Paul couched most of it - right up to his defense of the Terri Schiavo atrocity - in constitutionalist rhetoric, and, remember, Baldwin has repeatedly told us we weren't Christians if he didn't back Paul.  If Chuck were really with us on this plethora of issues, there's no way he would have been that adamant in his support for Paul.

 

2    In terms of foreign policy (which is the part of Paul I find most objectionable, due to its apparently consciously gross illogic and utter variance with the facts), Chuck is 100% on board with Ron.  Chuck virtually never opened his mouth at the convention without at least at some point referencing the ludicrous notion of an "American empire" or demonizing the "military industrial complex" that has kept us free up to now.  Again, with our progeny in harm's way in the face of the world's real imperialist monster - the communist,islamofascist-UN 3-headed variety - this amounts to treason, as far as I am concerned.

 

And, remember, his Obama-like plans to abandon both oil-rich Iraq and Afghanistan (where he actually exceeds Obama's surrender outline) to the terrorists (causing over 4,000 deaths of America's finest to have been in vain) is an area where he vowed at the convention that he will not compromise.

 

It's at this point I always get the "Ron Paul gets more military donations than any other [single] candidate" mantra thrown in my face (along with allusions to his support among Christians and border groups likes Ms. Nightengale's).  And again, my aversion to atrocious (or worse, self-serving) logic is activated.

 

Those arguments commit one of the simplest fallacies in the (elementary) book - confuting correlation with causality.  True, his support in those areas could be a result of his support, conversely, for those groups' causes and/or well being.  But they could just as easily be the result of his being an effective politician.  This would be far from the first time a pol got the backing of a block of voters whose interests he in reality opposes (one only has to look as far as Obama, who in some polls projects as getting a majority of the evangelical vote, to encounter a stunning example).  Even a cursory look at Paul's record in terms of those issues (see The Ron Paul (and Chuck Baldwin) Matter) shows that it is the "effective politician" explanation that fits the facts.

 

3    At the convention (which amounted to a virtual testimonial to Paul - you had to be there), Chuck was repeatedly presented as the "next best thing" option, including in Baldwin's own speeches.  One speaker articulated it as directly as one could ever do so, stating that he was sure everybody would love to have Paul as the nominee, but that Paul has declined, so they were left with selecting the man Paul would throw his support to (Chuck, it goes without saying, although the speaker did, in fact, explicitly "say").

 

Chuck's an unabashed Paul surrogate, a clone, a body double, a virtual puppet.  Or at least that's how he was sold at the convention.

 

4    The behavior of Baldwin (via his operatives) both before and during the convention paints a picture of deceit and ruthlessness worthy of the prototype Ron Paul groupie I've come to know and hate.  I outlined a little of what went on with the platform committee in my account of the convention; since then, I've gathered more specifics:

 

The Keyes people were made to feel totally unwelcome, in no uncertain terms, from the start.  Literally everything they proposed was rejected out of hand and without discussion.  A couple of eminent Constitutional scholars from the Keyes camp found 5 or 6 planks that in themselves were unconstitutional.  They offered re-writes that would have precisely accomplished the party's objectives, only constitutionally, and they were rebuffed.

 

On foreign policy, the Keyes reps were able to ingeniously re-word certain clauses in areas of divergence so that they should have been at once acceptable to both sides.  The committee refused to even look at these changes (remember, it was the party itself that had invited Alan to run, and he'd won by a landslide, among rank-and-file Constitutionalists, in an on-line poll).

 

The Keyes folks even found one clause where their only proposed redaction was the correction of a grammatical error (subject/verb disagreement, or something like that).  One would have thought that, even in a rigged process, the Pauldwinistas would have been happy to accept this correction - both to make the party look less illiterate and to make it appear they were willing to give some in at least some areas.  (That, apparently, was not their objective; rather, it seems to have been to leave the Keyes forces with no illusion that they would get any quarter at the convention.)  Even that change was summarily rejected.

 

Finally, the Keyes faction, I understand, tried a test.  They presented a proposed plank that was word for word identical to one from the Constitution Party's '04 platform - the one that was serving as a point of departure for this year's, and which was altered, as a rule, cosmetically, if at all, in the final '08 product.  Even that submission was turned down, simply because it came from Keyes (or appeared to).  I can tell you, as an ex-basketball coach, it was at this point that I would have pulled my team off the court.

 

As for the convention proper, I have little doubt that the last minute addition of several fringe candidates (who, collectively, were to garner only about a vote apiece in the tally of over 500 - some of them got none whatsoever, according to my observations) was a Baldwin/Phillips ploy, designed to clog the calendar and limit Keyes to minimal time.  You see, the lengthy, gratuitous Phillips assault on Alan's character that opened the nomination process both gave Chuck a big boost and started Alan out in negative territory.

 

Then Baldwin was allowed his own speech, in which he was able to demonstrate his "magnanimity" toward Alan (right - after his longtime best buddy attack dog had done all the damage), followed by four other faux "candidates" all of whom used their 15 minutes essentially to provide convincing (from the standpoint of coming from feigned rivals) endorsements of Baldwin.  In retrospect, and realizing the depths to which the Pauldwin campaign customarily has sunk, I believe this was all planned out.

 

Then Alan had his "chance" (with his promised 20 minutes evidently reduced to at most 16 or 17, according to my watch).  That's about 15 minutes for Alan, after 2 hours of solid Chuck, with a profusion of pot shots - unanswerable in the tiny space Alan was given - thrown in for good measure.  And, boy, did he make the most of it, even with the handwriting on the wall.  Indications were that he had "overcome."

 

But then Bircher John McManus's 45-minute thinly veiled anti-Keyes speech, which immediately preceded the balloting, was offered up to quell the groundswell.  Plus who knows how many would-be Keyes delegates had been excluded in the same arbitrary way I was tossed from the South Carolina CP?  I can tell you for a fact that, at least in SC and at the southern regional office (which doubles as the Florida party), nothing but self-serving, Ron Paul KoolAid drinking logic was applied, at least in my case.  Both groups, by the way, voted unanimously for Chuck,

 

Even in an area where, in yesterday's piece, I gave credit I felt was due (Jim Clymer's scolding of Howard Phillips for his tantrum against Alan), I was later disabused.  It seems the Baldwin camp got a hold of the video of the rant, and have circulated on the Internet as supposed prima facie evidence of Keyes' unfitness.  The very thought of this abominable display being anything but burned and buried is both disgusting and mind boggling.

 

Finally, there's the matter of Baldwin's offer of the second spot on the ticket.  In my opinion, after the uniformly shabby treatment Alan had received at the hands of Chuck's brigade, this offer was most likely perfunctorily extended, perhaps so that Chuck could say he tried to mend fences.  Or perhaps, as I posited in the previous piece, it was intended to head off any possible independent or other party run (the one I pray for) on Alan's part.  In any event, one could scarcely expect anything but an "are you kidding me?" reaction.

 

But in Alan's post mortem remarks in his suite to his faithful, what let us know he would decline any such overture was his emphasis on his grave differences in critical policy areas with the Paul/Baldwin forces.  He made it clear that he agreed with my long-held view that the "Pauldwin" policies would leave us utterly friendless and facing a world united in pursuit of our extinction.  In retrospect, it seems he sensed the VP offer that was coming, and he was letting us know that to him, who had no purely personal ambitions, such an offer would be unacceptable.

 

I do want to express my pleasure in the fact that this closing meeting ended with Alan in a prayer circle with four SaveAmericaSummit pastors (all of whom had been chosen to offer benedictions before the assembled delegates at one time or another) and my humble, unworthy, sinful self.  I've since heard encouraging news about a continued Keyes candidacy.  I believe I can speak for SAS as a whole in saying he can count on our continued wholehearted support.