In an article at Irregular Times, JClifford writes
We’ve written a good deal about Virgil Goode in the past, but about his record in Congress, not what he’s proposing as a candidate for President. So, I decided to take a look into his campaign.
I came away with the following question: Just what makes Virgil Goode so different from Mitt Romney? The point of a third party candidacy is supposed to be to offer a dramatically different option for voters, unlike what the Democrats and Republicans are willing to provide.
There are a few policy differences between Virgil Goode and Mitt Romney. They are:
– Virgil Goode supports ending NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Mitt Romney does not.
– Virgil Goode wants to protect Social Security with investment, rather than Wall Street privatization schemes.
– Virgil Goode is campaigning against fictional plans to dissolve the United States of America through the creation of a North American Union.
On most of the issues, Virgil Goode is in strong alignment with Mitt Romney. Are the differences that exist enough to justify Virgil Goode’s campaign for president as a third party candidate?
If there are members of the Constitution Party out there, I’d like to hear about Virgil Goode from your perspective. What makes his candidacy matter to you?
You can answer here.