Ballot Access News reports:
Former Congressman Virgil Goode, who was the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee in 2012, has become a campaign official in Donald Trump’s campaign in Virginia. See this story.
Goode is still presently a member of the Constitution Party National Committee as well.
Trump is currently the candidate leading in the polls for the Republican nomination for President, but continues to float the possibility that he may switch to run as an independent for the same office if he concludes that Republican Party leaders don’t treat his campaign fairly. Trump briefly sought the Reform Party Presidential nomination in 2000 and has been registered to vote as a Democrat, Republican and Independent. His top campaign issue is rounding up and deporting an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants and building a massive wall on the US-Mexico border, which he believes will make America great again. In the most recent Republican Presidential debate, Mr. Trump looked back with fondness to the Eisenhower administration’s Operation Wetback, although he did not call it by name.
From the article linked above at GoDanRiver.com:
Former congressman and Constitution party presidential candidate Virgil Goode will head Donald Trump’s 5th congressional district leadership team, according to a news release from the Trump presidential campaign Wednesday.
…
Goode served in Congress from 1997 to 2008 as a Democrat, Independent and Republican. In 2008, he lost his seat to Democrat Tom Perriello, who lost to Republican Rep. Robert Hurt in 2010. Hurt currently represents the 5th district.
“Contrary to the claims of the political consultant class, Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton. Millions of Republican voters stayed home in 2008 and 2012 because they felt the GOP represented the interests of Wall Street rather than those of working Americans,” Goode said in the news release. “Donald Trump is the best candidate to connect with voters who feel disaffected from both parties.”
…
The 5th congressional district includes Campbell, Appomattox and Nelson counties and most of Bedford County.
Goode, whose 2012 presidential campaign slogan was “Citizenship Matters,” has long called for building a fence on the nation’s Southern border, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Trump has championed that idea throughout his campaign.
J Clifford notes at Irregular Times:
Donald Trump’s call for massive government spying against American Muslims came just a day after Trump demanded that all Muslims in the United States be compelled to enter into a security database to enable the government to track their movements, and to carry mandatory identification cards showing their religious status. Trump also called for the federal government to begin forcing mosques in America to close. Critics have noted that this system is astonishingly similar to the system used to track and control Jews in Nazi Germany.
Wikipedia notes as part of Goode’s Congressional tenure:
Goode’s primary policy initiatives were opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens, veterans’ healthcare, and the enactment in 2004 of a $9.6 billion buyout for tobacco farmers. Goode has sponsored legislation to permit deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces to the U.S.-Mexico border. He voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq War and in support of an $87 billion Iraq War supplemental spending bill.
…
Goode voted in 2007 against a resolution opposing the increase in troop numbers in Iraq,[26] saying that he didn’t want to “aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country” and that “radical Muslims” wanted to control the world and put “In Muhammad We Trust” on American currency.[27]
…
In 2006, Minnesota’s 5th congressional district elected Keith Ellison as the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some criticized Ellison’s intended use of the Qur’an once owned by Thomas Jefferson at a private swearing-in ceremony;[33] among them, Goode was vocal in his opposition to Ellison’s plan. One of Goode’s constituents posted a letter online from the congressman regarding Ellison. The letter reads in part:
When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.[34][35]
Ellison criticized Goode for this letter, stating that he is not an immigrant and that Goode does not understand Islam.
Idaho will have three Constitution Party presidential candidates in the March 8, 2016 Primary. Much to the chagrin of the establishment perhaps.
But we insist on opening the nomination process, moving it out from behind closed doors, and giving our registered voters a voice. The Idaho affiliate has done that, and at a great personal cost in terms of vitriol and so forth.
Moving on. We’re putting a Constitution Party presidential debate in place in Boise, late February a week prior to the primary,
Lead, Follow, of Get Out of the Way.
@ Jed Ziggler
“I consider him to now be a Republican” Agreed. As do I with a caveat.
I have always considered him to be a Republican. Thus the loyalty questions.
I thought there was a pingback earlier. I don’t know why it disappeared. Anyway the link is there now.
Thank for posting that note, Paulie. It indeed raises even more questions in this case.
Does he not also send them to hundreds, perhaps thousands of other places as well? Perhaps he just wants a bigger audience for his opinion columns, regardless of party.
Floyd Whitley: I believe Mr. Baldwin has been sebding his missives to the IAP as well, giving credence to your theory of questionable loyalty. I only post his writings when they come directly from the CP or IAP, as I consider him to now be a Republican, much like Bob Barr and Ron Paul.
http://amthirdpartyreport.com/2015/11/30/1406/ :
“Cody, your comments make sense in revealing the last thing the CP’s Executive Committee wanted to do was to give up their own power for the sake of larger unity. They like running their little fiefdom and thus down the drain went the efforts of the CCTUC.”
Exactly Sean. Though it sounds like Floyd is taking better notice of the internal corruption in the CP as of late.
Thank you Messrs.’ Myers and Whitley for your comments. You both pretty much validated what I thought but I appreciate your taking the time to respond.
@ “The Fed”
That depends on what you mean by “ties with”…After his 2008 CP presidential run, Baldwin went back to the GOP.
In his next political foray, Baldwin ran (for Lt. Gov. in his new Montana domicile) in the 2012 Republican Primary. Fanning was at the top of the ticket. But, Baldwin pulled out early 2012, leaving Fanning hanging. Fanning continued onward with another running mate, only to come in last in the June 2012 Republican primary. That old news on “fluid loyalty” can be found at ballotpedia.
As to more current news in 2015, after a notable multi-year hiatus (actually silence with the CP), Baldwin began shopping lengthy epistles into the CP mailing list this summer. IPR has carried those of late, as you know. They are also unwisely being carried on many CP websites.
We do not agree with the decision to do so. Our website, http://www.cpidaho.org will not. For us, it is a matter of ethics. Baldwin is, to our knowledge, a Republican…with questionable loyalties.
Besides, those avant-garde swinging doors of affiliation swapping have not proven to hold worthwhile deals behind them…whether that deal be Baldwin, Goode, Lynch or Hohstettler. The practice is mercenary, in our view. It admits to a defeat of sorts…i.e. the Constitution Party is so devoid of leadership within its own ranks that is must shop around to buy some.
We say the contrary is true. Indeed, the mercenary concept (or personality cultism) reflects exactly what is wrong with American politics. More appropriately, that should be called prostitution. That is what it is.
Whereas CP-Idaho trusts our ordinary citizens, the common decent people. As we say in bumper sticker terminology, our extraordinary ordinary Americans. And we find this to be true all across our nation, and (in some cases) across the political spectrum.
These unrepresented citizens, CP-Idaho represents. Not the movie stars; they are a dime a dozen or less, each with a retinue of groupies and fan clubs. But to fix societal problems, those “stars” are the very last thing we need. CP-Idaho guides by a far different light. Loyalty is not something on a pull chain.
In any case, given the comparative silence over the past half decade, we can only suppose that Baldwin has been exploring the possibility of “ties” or re-affiliation with the CP, with an interest in the nomination. But that is supposition only.
Whether Baldwin actually resigned his ex officio status in the CP six years back, I can only presume that he did. He is not carried, to my knowledge, on the Executive Committee. But then again, if that should become an issue, I am certain we will all be officially notified…ex post facto of course.
Cody, your comments make sense in revealing the last thing the CP’s Executive Committee wanted to do was to give up their own power for the sake of larger unity. They like running their little fiefdom and thus down the drain went the efforts of the CCTUC.
The Trump campaign reveals a larger opportunity, more so than I might have thought at the time for a Trump-like non-major party to emerge, especially if the GOP denies Trump its nomination or his campaign collapses (any Trump independent campaign will be his alone). Goode could have been a part of that effort, but he sees his future more profitable with a trump-led GOP rather than leading the CP which should tell you something.
As far as I know he left the CP and returned to the GOP only to lose in their primary for Lt Governor of MT. He is no longer involved in the CP, except for occasional articles.
Does anyone know if Chuck Baldwin has any ties with the CP anymore? I assume not but I just am curious if anyone such as J.R. Myers or Floyd Whitley might know for certain.
Thank you for admitting this Floyd. Actually this matter with the obvious corruption with the leadership of the CP has been going on for a long time, as me and several others were victims of the vile tactics the EC and ‘establishment’ individuals in your party took against me and Joshua Fauver during the time our former organization (the Clarion Call To Unite Committee) was attempting to peacefully unify the constitutionalist parties together back in 2013.
If the situation in your party is that bad, then either you need to team up with other CP individuals and state affiliates to remove such problem individuals from their long cocooned positions of power and reform your party, or you and your state affiliate should leave and affiliate with another constitutionalist party out there, like the National IAP perhaps?
Either or, from what you are saying, it sounds like it will end up being one or the other with the CP soon enough.
At some risk here, my personal take on the Goode issue (and several other related matters) comes from a front line position.
It is fair to say that throughout the spring, summer and fall of 2015 a mortal combat of sorts inside the Constitution Party has taken place. Perhaps that is hyperbole; but these have certainly been pitched battles. Those battles continued into Albuquerque. They continue even at this very hour.
The issue, rendered, is whether or not the Executive Committee will submit to the National Committee which is comprised of the respective state affiliates through the states’ duly elected national committee members.
The Executive Committee is supposed to be the subordinate, not the other way around.
Unfortunately, as now structured, the CP is a top down organization. That was addressed in Albuquerque on 31 October 2015. All such top down organizations are inherently unstable.
And in my opinion, all of these issues–communications failures, secrecy, unethical actions, shopping around for political names, financial questions, suspect loyalties–all of them stem from this central combat.
Either the Constitution Party is to be a true grassroots-led organization, or it is not.
At any point, the Executive Committee could end this strife; indeed it could have ended it at any time throughout what was a long summer of pitched fighting.
Personally, the call for an open and transparent political body is not heresy. It is not blasphemy; it is not sacrilege; it is not defamatory. It is fundamental and unalienable to each of us, and to our respective state affiliates.
I do not believe it is hyperbole to compare these central issues to those in the meadows at Runymede in 1215. And so it continues.
There cannot be two Constitution Parties. One that says what it is only versus one that is what it is in evidence. In final analysis, hypocrisy will always out, and the naked truth will be exposed.
In effect, that is what the Goode matter has revealed. But that revelation has been going on throughout 2015, if the truth be told.
The crux of the problem which Mr. Becker mentions above is the proviso “without having given notice of a good and sufficient reason”.
This may have been done, or not. And what constitutes sufficient notice? We simply don’t know because of the “lack of transparent communication” to which Mr. Myers also just alluded.
Further, we have no open access (as is actually legally required) to the published minutes or transcripts of the Executive Committee conference calls. The party is being operated in camera, to a very large degree, on a host of issues.
In any case, because Goode was not elected to the Executive, his removal as an ex officio under the bylaws would be problematic. If, as we are now newly told, the gentleman has resigned, then fine. But the bylaws only refer to removal (after detailed cause under written notice) of elected national officers via the National Committee.
These are technicalities, admittedly. The devil is indeed too oft in the details.
So basically like Hostettler now.
I have personally confirmed with Chairman Fluckiger that Mr. Goode resigned from the CP ExCom prior to the recent Albaquerque meeting where it was announced. Since It was not in attendance, and no press release was issued, I didn’t know about it until now. So, it was a done deal before it started.
I believe these are the relevant comments:
If so, the alleged comments from Fluckiger are second hand.
See comments here:
http://ballot-access.org/2015/11/26/virgil-goode-2012-constitution-party-presidential-nominee-joins-donald-trump-campaign/
Which is strange, as no one was notified about it at the time. If true, I’m good with it. Too bad the CP leadership kept this quiet. The CP needs more light and transparency.
Apparently it happened at the end of October.
Is the person you talked to willing to go on the record with that?
According to a highly placed CP official, Virgil Goode has resigned from the CP ExCom. I have not seen a resignation letter, but this is what has been revealed.
Why not?
Someone in the CP should.
Not my call to make.
Perhaps you should start by asking him to resign if you haven’t already. I have his contact info; pretty sure it is public.
Nor do I.
Both of those gentlemen you referenced have moved on (more or less) by whatever mechanism or circumstance.
My proviso is that their movement was not by a ballot to remove; that would be difficult to effect under existing By-Laws…no matter what the circumstance.
I anticipate that Goode will likewise resign, in toto. Little point in his continued affiliation with the Constitution Party.
Yes, it’s a possibility, I just don’t know whether it was the case or not.
@ paulie
“http://www.constitutionparty.com/the-party/executive-committee/ lists Goode, but not Baldwin or Peroutka. It says nothing about Goode being ex officio, as far as I can see.:
Yes, I understand that. By way of rejoinder, By-Laws are not always followed. (In witness thereto I submit the surname of Obama).
But followed or not, the fact remains that Goode is ex officio under the national By-Laws, whether that is specifically mentioned or not. The By-Laws excerpt above, plainly says as much. (In other words, I did not fabricate the ex officio status.)
As to Baldwin and Peroutka no loner being carried on the Executive Committee ex officio, I do not know the specifics in why they are no longer listed. I have been led to believe that in the matter of Peroutka, some hard feelings existed, very hard, with some in the “establishment”.
Thus, in supposition, I submit the possibility that those two gentlemen may have requested resignation from ex officio status on the Executive Committee, and ex officio membership in the National Committee.
Certainly, being principled individuals, that resignation would be a plausible reason, which even you would admit.
@ Quirk
“Question is, will the majority of CP’ers, especially it’s leaders, support such needed reform at the upcoming national convention next year?”
The answer, at least as it pertains to the leadership, is no. That has already been demonstrated at Albuquerque.
Well that’s quite a PR & procedural, legal pickle you have there, Floyd. The CP is long overdue for a complete overhaul in it’s bylaws, platform, even its name too.
Question is, will the majority of CP’ers, especially it’s leaders, support such needed reform at the upcoming national convention next year?
paulie: “Was Goode running for the CP nomination at this point in 2011?”
Goode had been expected to run since he lost re-election to Congress in 2008. However, he did not officially begin his campaign until February 2012.
Fascinating.
FYI – I plan on speaking t he Florida CP Convention in Sarasota in less than two weeks.
Why not. I could still get ballot access in several states. It depends on how fair the CP process is…
If you win the CA AIP nomination but not the national CP nomination do you plan to campaign?
I do not believe he is running anywhere. I believe it was widely anticipated at the time. That was three months ago.
Hostettler is officially running now? News to me.
Here’s a confirmation from Chairman Seidenberg he posted to B.A.N. this past August that I will appear on the CA AIP ballot.
Mark Seidenberg August 20, 2015 at 10:35 am
“… Hostettler will not be on the California Ballot in 2016. Mr. Myers of Alaska will be. Both are running for POTUS in other states as Constitution Party… Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman American Independent Party of California
Announcing early is not a good indicator of success. Many past presidential nominees, including if I’m not mistaken in the CP, were not announced at this stage. Was Goode running for the CP nomination at this point in 2011? I know for a fact the LP has had eventual nominees that have come along later than this. Party membership is another thing that can easily be “fixed” in such a case. I doubt either the LP or the CP will end up nominating anyone that is already announced for their presidential nominations. The Greens are the only “major minor” party that has anyone already officially running that I see as likely to get the nomination.
Getting ballot access in the 15 states where the Constitution Party has ballot access would be nothing for Donald Trump.
Trump could easily flood the Constitution Party with delegates at their national convention and I bet he could capture their nomination, but what would be in it for him? The Constitution Party brings little to the table for Trump, and the party may even be a liability for him.
If Trump were to run outside the GOP he’d almost certainly do it as an independent.
I don’t think Trump would accept the nomination. Hostettler may. Castle probably deserves it more, and probably won’t get it.
At least Root had the decency to eventually resign from the LNC when he went to shed the fig leaf and openly campaign for Romney.
Nader in his independent runs is another example. It’s done all the time.
If you read the rest of the article at GoDanRiver.com linked in the post above that theory would seem to be borne out.
It would appear that Mr. Trump is not short of money.
Even if he could be guaranteed the nomination, and he can’t, the Independent label is more popular, so it would be a false economy.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/the-party/executive-committee/ lists Goode, but not Baldwin or Peroutka. It says nothing about Goode being ex officio, as far as I can see.
@ Quirk
“if the CP, or specifically their national/executive committee votes to kick out Goode over this”
As with everything, rules and procedures exist which must be followed.
I argued at Albuquerque last month for a thoughtful rewrite of the National By-Laws and Platform in the pending National Convention. Holes in them are big enough to drive a semi-tractor through. They were ill considered, shall we say?
This is one example of A problem…not the only problem. However, under the By-Laws Mr. Goode is actually an ex-officio member of the National Committee and the Executive Committee. This is NOT by a vote, but rather it is mandated under the By-Laws as follows:.
“All current Constitution Party and former Constitution Party nominees for President”…shall be ex-officio…”with all the rights and responsibilities of other members of each body.”
Unfortunately, the By-Laws are silent on party affiliation of that ex-officio. As constructed, the ex-officio former Presidential candidate, it could be argued, is lifelong, and irrespective of party affiliation. I find nothing in the By-Laws contrary to that.
As to how to get rid of such an ex-officio, the By-Laws are absolutely silent. Only a removal process for elected officers is enumerated. But again, these are ELECTED; as follows:
(a) presentation of a petition setting for in detail the reasons for seeking such removal,
(b) signed by one-sixth of the FULL membership of the National Committee, and
(c) presented by written notice 14 days prior to a regular or special meeting of National Committee.
(d) removal is by a majority at any meeting with a quorum present.
But no mechanism is specifically set forth to remove an ex-officio as in the case of Mr. Goode.
As written, the By-Laws COULD be argued to equate the ex-officio to elected members…having “all the rights”. But, that is quite a stretch. Besides, if the ex-officio is treated as an elected officer, and thus subject to removal, then that too is nearly impossible to surmount.
Just the signatures of 1/6th of the FULL membership of the National Committee to expel an elected officer, it nearly impossible; besides the party struggles even to get current roster of national committee members; and coordinated internal communications are, well, akin to Reno’s command on the Little Big Horn.
More than you wanted to know, and more than I should divulge, sure. But, be advised that Goode was not “elected” to be on the Executive Committee. That mischaracterizes the circumstances.
My advice in Albuquerque, incidentally, was ignored or dismissed. Se la vie.
“”If Donald Trump wants to run for office outside the major parties, he really does not need the Constitution Party.””
I pretty much agree with this, and you’re probably right. The other obvious reason, is that Goode is a former Republican VA Congressman so that’s the sort of person you’d typically bring on to help run a VA GOP primary campaign.
“It would be a cost saving measure.”
Possibly, but the downside is the possibility of being defeated, which Trump is personally familiar with when it comes to seeking recalcitrant third-party nominations.
“”I believe some states are easier to get on for a party than an Independent and vice versa. This way he can pick and choose how to get on.””
Doesn’t matter, he can go the easier route regardless. Creating a new-party vehicle is commonly used by independent candidates in states where that is easier. Anderson did it, I believe Perot did in 1992 (pre-Reform Party). See also Joe Lieberman getting re-elected on the new-party “Connecticut for Lieberman” line. There is no advantage going the new-party route as an established minor party, vs. running as an independent and creating a legal fiction “party.”
AC: “Did they give up on trying to woo Stockman?”
According to Trent Hill, Stockman has passed on the idea. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/the-cps-presidential-options/#comment-1198984
It would be a cost saving measure. According to Wikipedia, the CP is already on 15 states. There’s 15 states he wouldn’t have to worry about. I believe some states are easier to get on for a party than an Independent and vice versa. This way he can pick and choose how to get on.
This is what you get when you run a star candidates who as a politician in some other party. I use the word “star” a bit broadly.
If Donald Trump wants to run for office outside the major parties, he really does not need the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party does not have ballot access in that many states, and Trump certainly has the money to get on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC on his own. I see no reason for Trump to seek the Constitution Party’s nomination.
@ J.R.
I provided a candidate page at cpidaho.org this morning, upon seeing your Form 2 come across on the FEC list. I posted a news Update at cpidaho.org as well. Contact me by email, please.
“I think the CP nominee will either be John Hostettler, Darrell Castle, or Donald Trump, in that order of likelihood.”
Did they give up on trying to woo Stockman?
There are already several filed CP candidates for POTUS.
https://www.facebook.com/CPPOTUS2016/?ref=hl
Only one of the three you mention is a CP member, and he hasn’t announced.
“I believe Trump is more popular in the CP than some may think.”
If this is true, then the fact that a religiously fundamentalist-oriented political party is willing to woo a candidate that’s lacking in moral character and their religious values, especially when it comes to the nature of his current wife’s former work with magazines that could be best described as somewhat pornographic -then CP’ers are the biggest hypocrites in minor-party politics, since many of them support christian reconstructionism (theocracy) and attacking and suppressing certain religious groups and beliefs in this country all the while claiming to support restoring our constitutional rights and constitutional government -which they obviously don’t.
I’m sorry J.R., but realistically, I think the CP nominee will either be John Hostettler, Darrell Castle, or Donald Trump, in that order of likelihood.
The CP always likes to focus on the corruption and ‘lack of principles’ in the GOP and always tries to court dissident conservative Republican voters and support claiming that they are the best principled alternative for the voters.
This action by Goode seriously hurts their arguments in demonstrating that ‘principle’ and party integrity means nothing to their leadership and that they are willing to throw support to a candidate of the two political twin evils rather then maintain being a minor-party alternative, and in breaking the grip that both major parties have on this nation.
Then again, if the CP, or specifically their national/executive committee votes to kick out Goode over this soon, then that might help stem the damage a bit.
I have filed my campaign with the FEC.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/candcmte_info.shtml
The CP will have a nominee for POTUS. It will not be the Don.
I believe Trump is more popular in the CP than some may think.
I do wonder if keeping the back door open to getting the CP’s ballot access is part of the calculation here. Probably not, because I don’t think Trump really intends to run independent and this is a pretty minor position they’ve given Goode, but that would make some sense. Whether that would work or not, I don’t know. Probably not, but it would be his only plausible chance to net a bunch of states from a third-party nomination. But from what little I’ve seen in the comments here, I don’t get the impression that Goode remains very popular in the CP, and that endorsing and campaigning for Trump hasn’t helped that.
I wonder if this will finally cause this clown (Goode) to be ousted from the Constitution Party’s National Committee.