Third Party Presidential Debate

In the following video, also available at Baldwin/Castle 2008 and at YouTube Third Party Presidential Debate, Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader express their positions and give a bit of counter on the areas where they are not aligned. Amazingly, however, at least from my observation, the two are in agreement on more things than they are in disagreement.

Also to my amazement, is the number of issues in which Nader makes good sense. He is clearly a well-intentioned person, devoted to what he believes, and willing to stand apart from others in order to remain faithful to the principles that he holds.

The debate, in my opinion, was more of an moderated discussion of ideals, and well-worth viewing. Here it is.




My evaluation of the views expressed by the two candidates is that if Mr. Nader held to the clearly stated basis of the Declaration of Independence, that he and Baldwin would agree on almost everything. As I perceive the difference between the two men and their expressed stands, the difference can be summed up in the matter of where human rights have their origin. Chuck Baldwin believes that human rights have their origin in the clearly stated words of the Bible, as God’s revelation of His Word and will. Ralph Nader believes that human rights have their origin in whatever can be derived from nature and from the will of the people. Interestingly, the two candidates deal with the matters of the Constitution and the founding of the nation differently according to their presumed bases for human rights. By and large, Nader is more prone to make allusions to the founding documents and the founding fathers, while Baldwin is far more prone to quotation of what the founding documents and founding fathers actually say.

This seems to me to be significant.

In contrast to the Obama/McCain campaigns and debates, they don’t even do a decent job of alluding to the founding documents and the founding fathers. This seems to me to be even more significant.

Enjoy the video and make your own evaluations, please.