Peter Vidrine is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Louisiana. Joshua Fauver is the vice-chair. Fauver is also the vice-chairman of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC). I got the following email from National Chairman Frank Fluckiger today:
I received an email advising me that you were planning on interviewing Joshuah Fauver and Cody Quirk on your radio show this evening. In view of that, I felt it only fair to you to share with you what I know regarding the situation. Below is a letter which Joshua sent to Peter Vidrine, CP State Chair of LA and my responses to him. I also read some of the comments on IPR, and feel that Trent Hill had a pretty good grasp on what really happened. Joshuah was sent a copy of my response to Peter. I hope what I have written will be of value to you in your interview.
I feel that both Cody and Joshua are well meaning, but neither of them is aware that they are being manipulated by the leadership of the AIP in CA. Many of the CP leaders clearly see the manipulation going on in full force and simply felt (from past experience) that we needed to steer clear of becoming entangled in still another situation that would end baldy for us.
I hope this note and the letter below will help you sort out things and put them in proper perspective. I was honestly impressed with Trent Hill’s incite into what is really going on.
I was copied on the email that Joshua Fauver sent you and felt it wise to respond to it. I just wanted to take some time to think things through more carefully before doing so. You will find my response in “All CAPS”. Randy Stufflebeam will also most likely want to respond to your email in his words.
Dear Mr, Vidrine,
I write to you today to voice my concern regarding a resolution passed at the National Spring meeting in Baltimore.
As you are well aware, I have worked with Cody Quirk of Nevada since the end of November to help see the goals of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee come to fruition. The resolution in question was posted on the Independent Political Report today, (April 23, 2013). The resolution says it was not “in the best interests of the CP to join or have any ties to the Clarion Call to Unite Committee” effort and “not being affiliated with or supportive of the CCTUC.”
My concern with this resolution stems from the following reasons:
1) I was not in the room at the time the resolution was passed. Normally, I would not have been concerned, but, this resolution was not on the itinerary given to me, and it was known by both Mr. Fluckiger and Mr. Stufflebeam that I was a supporter of the efforts of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee. It is disconcerting that the national committee decided to propose and pass this resolution while the one known supporter of the CCTUC was not in the room to debate the matter, especially after it was left off of the itinerary.
AS TRENT HILL OF IPR POINTED OUT, THE DETAIL OF RESOLUTIONS ARE GENERALLY NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA DUE TO LACK OF SPACE, BUT THE RESOLUTIONS REPORT WAS ON THE AGENDA AND WAS SCHEDULED FOR 8:45 AM. WE WERE ON A VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE AND FOLLOWED IT VERY CLOSELY.
JOSHUAH HAD THE SAME AGENDA THAT ALL OTHER MEMBERS HAD. WHAT HE FAILED TO MENTION IS THAT HE SLEPT IN AND MISSED THAT FIRST HOUR OR SO OF THE MEETING. HAD HE BEEN IN ATTENDANCE HE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND ALLOWED TO SPEAK ALTHOUGH I AM CERTAIN IT WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE FLOOR WAS OPENED TO DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE RESOLUTION, THAT I REALIZED THAT JOSHUAH WAS NOT IN THE ROOM. HE OPENLY ADMITTED IN HIS BLOG ON IPR THAT HE HAD SLEPT IN.
2) After this resolution was passed, (apparently unanimously) I was not informed. No one bothered to let me know that this resolution, which put an end to my efforts of several months, has been passed. I find this just as alarming as I do the fact that this resolution was passed in my absence.
IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT JOSHUAH WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE VOTE. (BUT ON FURTHER THOUGHT I AM NOT SURE THAT WAS THE CASE, SINCE IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE THAT THEY DID SPEAK TO HIM REGARDING THE VOTE.) I WAS TOTALLY OCCUPIED WITH CONDUCTING THE MEETING. SINCE RANDY WAS OVER THE COLLEGE GROUP I ASSUMED THAT RANDY WOULD HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM, BUT APPARENTLY I WAS WRONG IN THAT ASSESSMENT.
3) Thirdly, and most unsettling, is the fact that the resolution was passed. Cody and I have worked hard to unify a group of third parties that are all similar in nature.
All of the parties that we have reached out to and brought on board with our efforts agree on the following principles:
1) The principle of liberty and constitutionally limited government.
2) That life is precious and must be protected, and that the rights of the unborn must be protected.
3) That marriage is a sacred union and exists between one man and one woman.
THE CP IS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS, BUT OUR DECISION TO NOT AFFILIATE WITH THE GROUP WAS FOR TOTALLY OTHER REASONS AMONG WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING:
1) I COMMUNICATED WITH CODY QUIRK UP FRONT THAT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY I WOULD NEED THE CONSENT OF THE CP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BEFORE I COULD SPEAK ON THE PARTY’S BEHALF REGARDING THE PARTY’S AFFILIATION WITH CCTUC. I FURTHER SAID THAT A DECISION WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL OUR MEETING IN BALTIMORE.
2) IN THE INTERIM, SEVERAL ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN IN BLOGS BY BOTH JOSHUAH AND CODY THAT REFLECTED VERY NEGATIVELY ON THE PARTY. THOUGH I AM SURE THEY MEANT WELL, THOSE ARTICLES WERE VIEWED AS VERY OFFENSIVE BY MANY OF THE CP STATE AND NATIONAL LEADERS. SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY CCTUC AND WERE INDUCED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PARTY WAS IN ACCORD WITH THEIR EFFORTS WHEN SUCH WAS NEVER IMPLIED BY THE LEADERSHIP. FURTHER MORE, SOME OF THE ARTICLES IMPLIED THAT MANY OF THE CP LEADERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORT, BUT AFTER THE VOTE AT THE BALTIMORE MEETING ONE IS LEFT TO QUESTION THAT ASSERTION
3) APPARENTLY THERE WAS A PHONE CONFERENCE HELD ON APRIL 13TH AMONG THE CCTUC MEMBERS AND IT WAS IMPLIED THAT THE CP WAS OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED AT THAT MEETING. THERE MAY HAVE SOME CP MEMBERS ON THAT CALL, BUT NONE OF THEM WERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP AS THAT DECISION WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL THE 20TH. SURELY BOTH CODY AND JOSHUAH WERE AWARE OF THAT.
4) ALL OF THE ABOVE INCIDENTS DID NOT HELP THE CA– USE OF THE CCTUC IN THE EYES OF MANY PARTY MEMBERS, BUT THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT REALLY A CONSIDERATION IN THE VOTE TAKEN AT THE BALTIMORE MEETING SINCE I THINK MOST OF THE MEMBERS FELT BOTH JOSHUAH AND CODY MEANT WELL IN THEIR ENDEAVORS.
5) AMONG THE OVERRIDING REASONS THAT THE CP LEADERSHIP DID NOT WISH TO AFFILIATE WITH THE CCTUC GROUP ARE AS FOLLOWS:
a) IT APPEARED FROM EARLY ON THAT ROBBY WELLS WAS USING THE CCTUC FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES AND MANY CP LEADERS WERE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. FURTHERMORE, THE CP HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER SUCH UNDERTAKINGS AT CONSIDERABLE PERSONAL EXPENSE, ONLY TO EXPERIENCE NOTHING COME TO FRUITION IN THE END.
b) MANY OF THE OTHER PARTY LEADERS WHO WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE CCTUC GROUP WERE PEOPLE WITH WHOM THE CP HAS HAD UNFORTUNATE BAD EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST AND SIMPLY DID NOT WISH TO BECOME INVOLVED IN ANOTHER EFFORT THAT WE FELT WOULD ULTIMATELY NOT BE PRODUCTIVE. IN PARTICULAR THE AIP OF CALIFORNIA HAD ON AT LEAST TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS LEAD THE CP LEADERS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH US, ONLY TO GIVE US THE SHAFT IN THE END. WE SIMPLY WANTED TO AVOID THAT SITUATION IN THE FUTURE AND FOR THAT REASON OFFICIALLY ORGANIZED THE CP IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
c) THE CP EITHER HAS BALLOT POSITION OR ACTIVE ORGANIZATIONS IN MANY OF THE SAME STATES AS THE OTHER PARTIES HAVE ORGANIZATIONS AND SO IT SEEMED COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO WORK WITH PARTIES IN OTHER STATES WHO WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR BALLOT POSITION. THE CP LEADERSHIP SIMPLY FEELS THAT TO BE A VIABLE PARTY WE MUST HAVE THE SAME NAME IN AS MANY STATES AS POSSIBLE. IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. FOR EXAMPLE THE CP IS WELL ORGANIZED AND STRONG IN UTAH, SO ONE WONDERS WHY THE IAP IS CURRENTLY WORKING TO GET BALLOT POSITION IN THAT STATE.
d) DURING THE COURSE OF THE PAST MONTHS I WAS THE INADVERTENT RECIPIENT OF EMAILS (THAT I AM CERTAIN WERE NOT INTENDED FOR ME). FROM THOSE I LEARNED THAT SOME OF THE MOTIVES OF THE CCTUC WERE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE GOALS OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO ACCIDENTALLY RECEIVED THOSE. THIS OF COURSE MADE US A BIT SUSPECT.
e) THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION WAS THAT FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW IT JUST DID NOT SEEM WISE FOR US TO AFFILIATE WITH THE GROUP. THE CONS FAR OUT WEIGHED THE POTENTIAL PROS. THE CP CURRENTLY HAS BALLOT POSITION IN 14 STATES AND WE PLAN TO BE ON THE BALLOT IN AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT STATES BY 2014. WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR RESOURCES AND FELT WE JUST NEEDED TO KEEP FOCUS ON OUR LONG RANGE GOALS FOR 2014 AND 2016. FOR MANY OF THE CP LEADERS IT SEEMED THAT JOINING THE GROUP WOULD SIMPLY BE PUTTING THE CP IN A POSITION WHERE THE TAIL WAS WAGGING THE DOG AND THAT WAS NOT A SITUATION WE WANTED TO FIND OURSELVES IN.
IN SUMMARY MY FEELINGS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON IN HIS VIEW OF HOW THE US SHOULD DEAL WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. HE WAS AN ADVOCATE OF BEING A FRIEND TO ALL, BUT ENTANGLING OUR NATION WITH NONE. HISTORY HAS PROVEN THAT TO BE A MOST WISE PHILOSOPHY.
BOTH CODY AND JOSHUAH ARE YOUNG MEN WITH HOPEFULLY BRIGHT FUTURES BEFORE THEM, AND I WISH THEM WELL, BUT THIS IS ONE ENDEAVOR IN WHICH THEIR PATH AND THAT OF THE CP DIVERGE. I FEEL SOMEWHAT CERTAIN THAT HAD THEY EXPERIENCED THE SAME THINGS WITH THE LEADERS OF SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT THE CP HAS, THEIR VIEWS WOULD VERY LIKELY BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE.
4)Not only that, but some of these parties (America’s Party and the American Independent Party) are former affiliates of the Constitution Party, and others such as the Independent Green Party of Virginia are longtime friends of the party that as recently as 2012 have aided in getting our candidates on the ballot. It is no secret to the Constitution Party leadership that these parties, as well as the others involved in these efforts, have expressed genuine concern for our nation and expressed their belief that after the debacle of 2012 that, we as parties of similar beliefs, principles, and convictions can accomplish more by working with one another. I cannot think of any legitimate reason why the Constitution Party would adopt a resolution claiming that it would not support nor affiliate itself with such an effort. The only reason I can think of for the party to turn down ballot access in California, as well as Virginia, as well as a couple hundred thousand new registered voters is that the leadership of this party is more concerned with keeping their current positions than with expanding this party and the movement.
I think it would be in our best Mr. Vidrine, if we reconsider our affiliation with the National Constitution Party. Perhaps it is not in our best interest to be affiliated with this party. We must consider what is best for the Constitution Party of Louisiana.