This is from blogger “Stonewall”:
Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with Virgil Goode, the presumptive nominee of the Constitution Party. This week is the CP National Convention in Nashville. Unfortunately I’m not able to make the convention this time around, but I sincerely hope that my fellow Constitutionalists will scrutinize Goode to the hilt. In 2008 we rightly rejected Alan Keyes because he’s a neocon. Goode’s neocon leanings, especially with respect to foreign policy, ought to be top on the list of concerns for the delegates at the 2012 convention.
I’m not going to bore readers with a list of mistakes from Goode’s congressional voting record. Suffice it to say he’s voted for some ridiculous things as a member of Congress, but the top two concerns for us Constitutionalists ought to be his votes on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. I asked Goode about both of these issues, and I really wasn’t impressed with his answers. He’s a nice fellow and all, but I don’t think he’s a fit for our Party and certainly shouldn’t be our presidential nominee.
When asked about the Iraq War, Goode never walked that back at all. If anything, he gave me a muddled answer which didn’t really address my original question. He talked about how he wants to end foreign aid, bring our troops home from overseas, and that Congress ought to make a declaration of war before going to war–all good things, to be sure–but this wasn’t a real answer. Not once did he come close to saying that the war itself was a mistake. But I’m honestly not surprised given Goode’s previous promotion of our intervention into Iraq.
Regarding the Patriot Act, Goode did say that it was a mistake to subject American citizens to the Patriot Act. But he voted for it–twice. Once for the original legislation and again to make it permanent. He said that he was fine with applying the Patriot Act to non-citizens. Okay. I’m not sure if this can be considered a walking back on this particular issue, but at least his answer on this was more straightforward than when I asked him about the war. Even so, for someone who claims to uphold the Constitution, voting “no” on the Patriot Act should have been a no-brainer.
At any rate, I sincerely hope and pray that the Constitution Party does not wholeheartedly embrace Virgil Goode–unless he publicly repudiates the aforementioned votes. Delegates, now is the opportunity to make yourselves heard. Now is not the time to shrink back and sacrifice our Party’s principles in the name of having a “big name” on the ballot. Whatever happened to “principle above party”? We already have one Republican Party and we certainly don’t need another.
Actually with Wrights it’s Ruwart’s $2400 and Phillies $2400 plus other’s money, not his to waste.
BTW there is still time to donate $5000 to your candidate of choice. Just do it !
Annoy a Politician, Defend the Constitution. – http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=672
The “purists” have recruited Darrell Castle this week in Nashville. He is in the running now for the nomination. Tomorrow should be an interesting day for the Constitution Party.
Southerners dont’ have twangs, we have drawls. Yankees talk through their noses so fast, it hits the ears like jackhammers.
I think Johnson is going to run again in 2016, regardless of outcome, so I think he won’t stray far from the LP platform.
Call that an early early prediction.
Ruwart came close and could have won if a few things broke differently than they did. I don’t think Wrights will come as close, but if he gets a respectable showing he will put some pressure on Johnson to stay closer to the LP platform as the candidate, and/or possible make himself a strong VP contender. Since we haven’t voted yet, it’s also possible that I could be wrong about Wrights’ chances, although I don’t think I am.
Tom–I respectfully disagree too. I think it’s pretty much a waste of money to run a presidential primary in a third party in which you pretty much know to lose.
Trent @27,
“Just a waste of money and effort, really.”
No, not really.
It is, after all, their money and effort, so whether or not it’s wasted is really for them to decide.
When the radical wing of the Libertarian Party “represents,” it means they think there’s still something worth fighting to save, win or lose.
I’ve come over time to respectfully disagree with them, but I do admire them for putting up the fight until they’re convinced.
How many states do you guys expect to have on ballot access with Goode ?
I don’t know if everyone understands that this year is different from other years. There is ground to be gained by Third Parties this time. There is unease and a dislike for Romney. A large protest vote is there for the taking!
Five Members of Romney Family Endorse Ron Paul for President – http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-03-05/five-members-of-romney-family-endorse-ron-paul-for-president-three-to-speak-at-idaho-caucus-sites/
I hear you Red, I do. And I get it, I’m just saying I don’t think the purists were gearing up for a fight because they knew Goode was pretty much all they had.
Cant see how it matters whether they “represented” or not. Ruwart didn’t win and Wrights won’t either. Just a waste of money and effort, really.
“can we find someone who can get votes, raise money, and build the party–all while offering more ideological consistency than Goode”
Those things would be great, but Lee Wrights doesn’t do that for the LP. Neither would have Mary Ruwart. But at least the LP purists represented. The CP purists didn’t even represent. That’s my criticism.
By 2014 they need to have in mind some ideal candidates and some fall back candidates.
Red–I’d be fascinated to know all that, as well as the vote-totals by round and by state. I suspect I won’t get data that involved, though.
Castle could self fund a couple thousand dollars–maybe even tens of thousands. But he’d need a couple hundred thousand to run even a decent CP campaign.
I think Castle could self-fund to some degree.
Does anyone know who is giving the nominating speech for Wells? Goode?
Andy, I think Castle was the fall back option but didn’t run once Goode stepped forward. As far as I know, Castle is on board with Goode.
DeRosa would be fine, ideologically, i’m sure. Financially, I’m not sure he could offer much. Media wise and campaigning wise, I’m confident he wouldn’t have much to offer, although I’m sure he’d do his best. The challenge that purists needed to see and stand up to is…can we find someone who can get votes, raise money, and build the party–all while offering more ideological consistency than Goode. I doubt the purity faction could have accomplished that, it’s quite an ask.
Darryl Castle is a nice guy. He may be VP again, although I think Scott Bradley is the front-runner. He has no ability to raise money, build the party, or get votes outside of our current base, though.
I don’t know if he’s interested in running or not, but it seems to me that Darryl Castle would make a good candidate for President for the Constitution Party.
“Red–leadership needed a candidate. No one else seems to have been forthcoming. If you can name someone, anyone, I’d love to hear it.”
I don’t disagree. I just think the leadership should be more discriminating in who they chose. As far as the purist faction, let’s say, for the sake of comparison, that R. Lee Wrights is the designated radical or purist candidate in the LP for 2012. My point is that the CP purist faction didn’t field, in a similar way, their own purist candidate. They were caught with their pants down so to speak and then had to go scrambling around trying to find someone to carry their mantle and seem to have settled on Wells who is less than ideal. This happened in 2008 as well. Then they were only saved because the majority of the leadership decided that Keyes was unacceptable, and prevailed upon Baldwin to pull their rear end out of the fire. This indicates to me that the purist faction lacks the clout or will or organization (I suspect the latter) to foresee these dilemmas and act proactively. That is on them. That is my point. To be fair, I think there was hope that Goode would recant.
I mentioned on another thread that I think Prof. Marshall DeRosa would be an intriguing candidate, but I have no idea if he would be interested. He ran for Senate in FL then backed out due to the filing fee from my understanding.
Next cycle the powers that be within the purist faction need to start thinking about a candidate in 2014 or so. Not a month before the convention.
“I hope Virgil has a million dollars to do ads – his accent will net a million votes.”
Not gunna happen. I’d be surprised if Goode was able to raise $200k. He should get good backing from NumbersUSA and MinuteMan types, as well as Tancredo-style backers, but he doesn’t have much of a fundraising network that is THAT loyal. With that said, his sole focus now should be getting that AIP ballot line.
Red–leadership needed a candidate. No one else seems to have been forthcoming. If you can name someone, anyone, I’d love to hear it. Goode isn’t a perfect fit, but he’s got a name, a small backing, ability to get media and some money, and he’s probably the highest profile vote getter yet.
With that said, without the ability to tap into Ron Paul voters–I suspect he won’t do as well as Baldwin did.
“Virgil Goode is to the CP what Bob Barr is to the LP: A promising candidate that won’t break a million votes and would be lucky to win 300000 votes. Seriously, Wells would do just as well but without the hype. Hell, Ducey would probably win 300000 votes easily. Goode is just going to disappoint.”
You don’t know much about the CP, clearly. 300,000 votes would be a great total for them–their highest by a good deal. Goode’s goal ought to be 300,000 or more. Ducey and Wells would fail to get on the ballot in many of the states Goode would make. I have a post i’m readying about Wells, too, which should shed some light here.
“A group of Ron Paul supporters in California filed the necessary paper work to have Ron Paul counted as an official write in vote in California for the 2008 election. I voted in California in 2008 and I wrote in Ron Paul, along with around 20,000 other California voters.”
–that’s why I said “unless it’s an approved write in.”
Trent makes a good point @4. You can’t beat something with nothing. I fault the CP leadership for swooning over Goode, but some blame also lies with the “purist” faction for failing to field/recruit an alternative.
Goode is trying to get in line with the CP, admitting his mistakes and committing to run as a non-interventionist. His big issue is immigration, and he will certainly stand out from the other prez candidates on that. Robby Wells is even more vague re: foreign policy, and in my opinion, doesn’t come across as a viable candidate.
I hope Virgil has a million dollars to do ads – his accent will net a million votes. Oh, and Howard Phillips thinks he looks like Thomas Jefferson. That’s not a bad thing either.
Virgil Goode is to the CP what Bob Barr is to the LP: A promising candidate that won’t break a million votes and would be lucky to win 300000 votes. Seriously, Wells would do just as well but without the hype. Hell, Ducey would probably win 300000 votes easily. Goode is just going to disappoint.
“The LP did not fall into a hole in 2008. Bob Barr got 523,715 votes even though he was not on the ballot in 5 states.”
Given the potential that the Libertarian Party had in 2008 with the interest great rise in interest in libertarian ideas due to Ron Paul’s run for the Republican nomination, I’d say that Barr’s vote total was a disappointment (although I predicted that was what was going to happen). Also, Barr’s actions after getting the nomination, including endorsing Newt Gingrich for President in 2012, turned off a lot of people who’d be potential supporters of the Libertarian Party.
Trent said: “Also–don’t write in Ron Paul. In California they won’t even count it unless it’s an approved write in. At least help the LP’s vote total (or the AIPs).”
A group of Ron Paul supporters in California filed the necessary paper work to have Ron Paul counted as an official write in vote in California for the 2008 election. I voted in California in 2008 and I wrote in Ron Paul, along with around 20,000 other California voters.
I agree with Trent @4. It’s sad, but true.
@8,
I’m pretty sure he won’t. He isn’t going to win the Ron Paul vote over Gary Johnson and he knows it. He’s angling for disaffected social conservatives.
Also–don’t write in Ron Paul. In California they won’t even count it unless it’s an approved write in. At least help the LP’s vote total (or the AIPs).
@4, he better make his new position on the Patriot Act and his support of the withdrawal loud and clear. I am strongly leaning towards Gary Johnson but I might end up writing in Ron Paul or voting for the CP.
Yeah, Trent hit the nail on the head there.
Virgil Goode has the resources to pay for a good bit of ballot access petitioning.
The LP did not fall into a hole in 2008. Bob Barr got 523,715 votes even though he was not on the ballot in 5 states. Michael Badnarik in 2004 got 397,265 votes.
In 2008, the LP got enough votes to remain ballot-qualified in North Carolina, the first time that had ever happened in that state. It was the gubernatorial candidate’s vote who did that, but Barr himself in North Carolina got the best percentage the LP has ever got in that state for president. The LP should, and does, devoutly hopes for a repeat showing in 2012 for President or Governor. Probably the North Carolina petition requirement after 2012 will be close to 100,000 signatures.
If the CP nominates Goode, they’ll fall into the same hole the LP did in 2008: a credible candidate that’ll perform far below expectations and promises. They’ll be better off nominating Wells or Ducey, they’ll win the same amount of votes the CP candidate tends to win (probably around 200000 votes) but won’t falsely raise expectations about actually effecting the election.
Phillips is from Georgia. He’s got his own southern twang 😛
The CP really can’t do better than Goode. I say that as someone who helped lead the charge against Keyes.
First of all–the criticism, then we’ll look at the alternatives.
The criticisms: He voted for the Patriot Act twice, supported the War in Iraq, and has voted for a number of miscellaneous dumb things.
From what I’m hearing he’s saying he’d vote to repeal the Patriot Act now and will campaign on that issue. He’s also said we should leave Afghanistan and Iraq–regardless of how he voted to begin with. To me, that’s pretty damned close to admitting he was wrong. Goode is, remember, a politician–he’s not going to give crystal clear answers that will offend or put off large swaths of people. That’s to be expected, regardless of what you think of it.
The alternatives: Robby Wells is a fired university football coach with no name recognition, no money, no ability to get media, and no prospects of achieving any of that. His foreign policy is untried and untested, we’ve no idea where he stands on foreign policy or most other nuanced issues. What we do know is that he’s brand new to the party–he’s been here a month. He was a member of the Reform Party before that.
Laurie Roth is even worse on issues of war and the Patriot Act. Again, less money, less name recognition, less ability to get media (though she’s better off that Wells)
Ducey is the only other person vying for the nomination. She’s a female conservative activist from Kansas. No money, no ability to get media, no name recognition. I’m sure she’s a nice lady, but you might as well nominate a cardboard box for all the difference it’s going to make.
The CP can do better than Goode.
RedPhillips, since you brought up accents, I have been wondering what part of the US you live in…are you a southerner?
Listen to the linked Youtube. Goode has an awesome accent. I’m tempted to support him just to tweak all the Blues who break into hives when they hear a Southern accent, but ultimately I have to agree with Stonewall.