Press "Enter" to skip to content

Roy Moore considers GOP nod for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice

Several months ago, IPR speculated that former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was considering a Constitution Party run for President. This week, however, Moore appears to be moving in a different direction:

Judge Roy Moore said Tuesday he’s seriously considering running again for chief justice eight years after being kicked out of the job for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument.

Moore, 64, told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview that lots of people have encouraged him to enter the Republican primary and he expects to decide by Jan. 1.

Later in the article, Moore discusses his flirtation with a GOP presidential candidacy, but does not mention anything about the Constitution Party:

In the spring, he formed an exploratory committee to consider a Republican run for president, but dropped it. Moore said he drew good crowds during speaking engagements in Iowa, the first caucus state, and South Carolina, an early primary state, but couldn’t generate the money needed to seriously consider a campaign.

Moore said he was hesitant when people first approached him about running for his old job, but he changed his mind after thinking back to some of the significant cases the court handled during his time.

This would seem to leave former U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a joint member of the Republican and Constitution Parties, as the most prominent former elected official rumored to have an interest in the CP presidential nod for 2012. Other candidates will undoubtedly emerge from within the CP’s ranks.

21 Comments

  1. RedPhillips RedPhillips October 25, 2011

    I think Wiley Drake is a sincere fellow, but I don’t see the purpose of nominating someone who is only going to be on the ballot in one state. The CAAIP should at least attempt to nominate the same candidate as the CP.

  2. Gary Odom Gary Odom October 25, 2011

    “If Ron Paul wanted their nomination, I’d bet he would have it in a heartbeat.”

    I agree with this statement, but then, of course, I don’t know any more about the Constitution Party than I do about the California American Independent Party.

    Folks, the fact is this: Ron Paul, God bless him, is not going to run as an independent, Constitutionalist, Libertarian or any fusion of the two. Why is everyone reliving the dreams and hopes of 2008 when the answer is clearly the same now as it was then…he simply won’t do it.

    Mark, you and I should talk, but you should also tell the “rest of the story” about how that California vote at that convention turned out that way it did (in the unliklely event that anybody cares aside from you and me). Since you probably won’t, I will. Under Ed Noonan’s chairmanship from 2006-2008, California was only able to get a miserable 12 delegates to actually attend the 2008 CP National Convention (previously there were always 50, 60 or more who attended from California). Charles Deemer was originally appointed delegation chairman, but then Noonan changed his mind and appointed you instead because Noonan supported Keyes and so did you.

    The actual vote of the Californians who showed up in Kansas City was, I believe, 7-5 in favor of Baldwin. At worst it was 6-6, but I believe it was the former split. Anyway, there were about 65 or so delegate votes to which California was entitled to cast a vote and the CP convention rules allowed the delegation chairman (YOU) to vote the entire vote (less any delegates actually present). Yes, your stated percentage for Keyes is correct or close enough, yet you leave out the little detail that it was so because YOU got to vote the delegate votes of all who weren’t present… and hardly anyone was present from California because of Noonan’s less than sterling leaderhip over the previous two years as state chairman. And do NOT bring up proxies, because the convention rules did NOT allow proxy voting. You and I argued about this on the convention floor when I tried to explain to you that proxies weren’t allowed and that, in fact, you didn’t even need proxies because, under the existing rules, you were allowed to “stuff the ballot box” for the California vote– legally– as the delegation chairman. I will be the first to admit, by the way, that California was not the only state where that rule was employed. In some cases, I’m sure it may have been to Baldwin’s advantage.

    If Deemer had still been delegation chairman, being fairminded as he is, he most likely would have split the vote in proportion to the vote of the delegates who were actually there, but that is now a moot point and was not meant to be, so the California vote did end up going about 80% (I’m trusting you on the math) for Keyes.

    A bigger question is: Why in the world are you still bringing up this stuff? Somebody is going to think that you are eccentric if you keep reliving the past over and over.

    Anyway, at some point we ought to talk about the future rather than keep dwelling on the past.

  3. Humongous Fungus Humongous Fungus October 25, 2011

    18 see 3

  4. Darryl W. Perry Darryl W. Perry October 24, 2011

    How did this go from discussing Roy Moore in the GOP to Ron Paul as an LP/CP fusion candidate?

  5. Tom Feeny Tom Feeny October 24, 2011

    He’s a social conservative on a lot of issues.

  6. Jeremy C. Young Jeremy C. Young October 24, 2011

    Trent, interesting. Even though he’s not a social conservative?

  7. Trent Hill Trent Hill October 24, 2011

    “Similarly, a lot of CP members like Paul, but I’m pretty sure they’d never vote for him for President.”

    This is false. In 2008, had Ron Paul walked into the Convention hall, he would’ve had the nomination by a voice vote, probably without a dissenting voice (except maybe Alan Keyes’ shrieking).

  8. Humongous Fungus Humongous Fungus October 24, 2011

    “Only a few states have laws outlawing “sore loser” candidates (candidates who campaign for one parties nomination and then seeks another parties). I don’t think parties can make candidates sign anything that preempts state laws).”

    Sore loser laws don’t apply to presedential candidates. Technically, it is slates of presidential electors that are being elected, not the candidates themselves.

    This may also be a way around anti-fusion laws, though I’m far less sure of that.

  9. Humongous Fungus Humongous Fungus October 24, 2011

    “At Kansas City 80 percent
    of the California vote went to Ambassador Dr.
    Alan Keyes in 2008?”

    Proxy votes cast by one person.

    “It was persons in leadership with the national CP that tried an out-
    of-state takeover of the AIP and lost. ”

    They were the people that were the leadership of the AIP for decades. The current group picked by the state government are mostly (though not all) fairly recent members of other parties.

    “Similarly, a lot of CP members like Paul, but I’m pretty sure they’d never vote for him for President.”

    If Ron Paul wanted their nomination, I’d bet he would have it in a heartbeat.

  10. Alaska Constitution Party Alaska Constitution Party October 24, 2011

    #7
    After all the MT CP put Ron Paul on the ballot there in 2008, and Ron Paul endorsed CP Presidential nominee, Chuck Baldwin. While the LP & CP certainly would have a hard time merging, it is conceivable that we could set aside some of our differences to support someone like Ron Paul that we may agree with 80% or so…based on history, it is not out of the realm of possibility. People may realize that he may be the best choice to salvage what’s left of the Republic. Perhaps a Paul/Castle ticket?

  11. Derek Derek October 24, 2011

    In case Ron Paul does run as a third party candidate, if he were endorsed by the Greens, Reformers, Libertarians and Constitutionalists, I wonder if he could be on state ballots under different party labels even if they endorse him. No problem with the fusion voting states, but I’m talking in general. Maybe this could work, as it would mean ballot access wouldn’t be needed.

  12. Deran Deran October 24, 2011

    Ron Paul running as the nominee of both the CP and LP would be complicated because many states do not permit “fusion” – two parties having the same candiate on the ballot for the same officce at the same time. So the LP and CP would have to decide who would be on which states ballots.

    Only a few states have laws outlawing “sore loser” candidates (candidates who campaign for one parties nomination and then seeks another parties). I don’t think parties can make candidates sign anything that preempts state laws).

  13. Jeremy C. Young Jeremy C. Young Post author | October 24, 2011

    Brian, I’m pretty sure that Chuck Baldwin was the closest thing to a bridge CP/LP candidate that will ever happen. And while lots of Libertarians liked Chuck (heck, I like Chuck — he’s a stand-up guy), and some of them voted for him out of disgust with Barr, they would never have considered nominating him for President. Similarly, a lot of CP members like Paul, but I’m pretty sure they’d never vote for him for President.

    Mark Seidenberg, does that mean that Alan Keyes isn’t planning on running again?

  14. Mark Seidenberg Mark Seidenberg October 24, 2011

    Alaska Constitution Party,

    I voted for Dr. Ron Paul in 1988 for President.
    However, California now have two of its own that
    may run for President of the United States, viz.,
    Former Chairman of the AIP, Chairman Edward
    Noonan and Orange County Vice Chairman and
    State Chaplin Wiley Drake.

    Now to my question to you, what are you talking
    about, viz., so-called sour grapes and Alan Keyes
    supporters. First the AP has well over 417,000 electors in California. At Kansas City 80 percent
    of the California vote went to Ambassador Dr.
    Alan Keyes in 2008? It was persons in leadership with the national CP that tried an out-
    of-state takeover of the AIP and lost. They lost
    and the good guys won.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.

  15. Brian Brian October 23, 2011

    Am I the only one that has a hard time understanding all this talk on IPR about joint CP/LP projects? I have a difficult time reconciling the views of the parties (especially the views of certain membership groups of the parties).

  16. Brandon H. Brandon H. October 23, 2011

    While one can only be registered under one party at a time, one can be a dues paying member of multiple parties, so that is probably the definition of a joint member.

    As to Paul running as LP and CP, I read that by registering to run in the Republican Primary, in most states one agrees that they will not run for President as a member of another party. (There could be around it since one votes for electors, but you would have a tough time letting people know that a set of electors will vote for a different name than what is on the ballot.)

  17. RedPhillips RedPhillips October 23, 2011

    This is the first I have heard about him officially dropping the Presidential campaign.

  18. NewFederalist NewFederalist October 23, 2011

    Since Ron Paul will not win the GOP presidential nomination I would like to think both the CP and the LP would nominate long standing consciencious members of their parties for their respective nominations. I would also hope they would be willing to withdraw when Dr. Paul becomes available and the Nat Coms of both parties would substitute Ron Paul in their place. I know this is heresy but what the hell!

  19. Jeremy C. Young Jeremy C. Young Post author | October 23, 2011

    When I say Goode is a “joint member” of both parties, that is my understanding of what he considers himself. I’m not sure if it’s possible to be a member of both parties, though.

    And if I had to guess, I’d guess that Goode won’t run either. My bet is that Darrell Castle will be the nominee.

  20. Alaska Constitution Party Alaska Constitution Party October 23, 2011

    Let’s hope for some serious constitutionalist candidates to emerge. What is this joint member nonsense? It would behoove everyone to review Mr. Goode’s voting record. We think Virgil is NO GOOD as a POTUS candidate for the Constitution Party…We don’t need a CP version of Bob Barr! And as for Alan Keyes, forget it! He and his supporters tried to destroy the CP with their sour grapes. And Alaska even gave him his first 3 votes at the 2008 CP Convention… We continue to hope and pray for the right candidate for POTUS. We don’t need any more major debacles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

17 + five =