Category Archives: Virgil Goode

Statement from the Virgil Goode Facebook Page

From the Goode for President Facebook page:

The votes are still trickling in, and no write-ins have been counted yet, but Virgil Goode’s shoe-string campaign has accumulated over 110,000 votes nationwide. This despite voter intimidation against constitutionalists and unfair ballot access fights. This despite having to fight corporate interests and entrenched party-first mentality. Thank each and every one of you.

Crossposted at IPR.

See all third party results here.

Addendum: I have been informed that this is not an official campaign statement, so I changed the title.

A Symposium on the Paleo Vote

We at Conservative Heritage Times have been inspired by the TAC symposium to do one of our own, although one with more of a paleo edge. I’m actually not sure symposium is the best characterization of this. It is a virtual symposium I suppose. But I’m going with it because we are blatantly riffing (not ripping :-)) off TAC’s effort.

Not all the people here would be best described as paleoconservatives, and some would not claim that label, but the attempt was to try to get people who might be considered part of the paleo/traditionalist sphere. I asked CHT’s own contributors, plus people I know (both actually and virtually) whom I thought would represent a broad cross section of the paleo/traditionalist sphere, plus some of our regular commenters. Other of our regular commenters volunteered their services.

In order to avoid the appearance of favoritism, I have arranged the contributions in alphabetical order by first name. I am still expecting some more to roll in. They will be added in their appropriate alphabetical order as they do. Please check back frequently and please promote this on Facebook, Twitter, with you email contacts, etc. Thanks, enjoy and discuss. The endorsements commence below the fold. ~ Red

Continue reading

A Conservative Heritage Times Paleo Election Symposium: Coming Tomorrow

Inspired by TAC’s conservative vote symposium, CHT has decided to do a symposium of our own with a bit more of a paleo edge. Tune in tomorrow for the first installment  We hope to add others as they come in. You might be surprised by some of the talent we have managed to attract.

The American Conservative’s Symposium on “The Conservative Vote”

I don’t mean to steal Sean’s thunder below, but I made this post for IPR and wanted to cross post it here. There are some additional links you should be aware of.

TAC has a “symposium” of multiple writers discussing whom they plan to vote for. Some endorse voting for one of the major party candidates and some endorse not voting, but several endorse third party votes or write-ins. Some of the writers include Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, Paul Gottfried and friend of this website Sean Scallon.

Daniel Larison has a separate endorsement here that wasn’t included in the symposium for some reason.

Samuel Goldman has a separate endorsement here because Hurricane Sandy precluded his participation in the symposium.

Here is a summary of the endorsements.

Johnson — 6 (Bandow, Brimelow, Galupo, Giraldi, Goldman, Kauffman, Larison if he could, Bovard if he doesn’t write in Ron Paul)

Romney — 4 (Coombs, Pinkerton, Tippins, Zmirak, Antle and Birzer leaning)

Obama — 4 (Bacevich, Hadar, McConnell, Millman, Giraldi in a pinch)

Goode — 1 (Scallon, Brimelow and Gottfried would if they could)

Rand Paul — 1 (McCarthy)

Hapsburg Monarch — 1 (Lind)

Not voting/ambivalent/unclear — 7 (Dreher, Dougherty, Gordon, Murphy, Raimondo [rooting for Obama], Richman, Russello, Beer, Sailer)

Virgil Goode Also Endorsing Independent (NM) John Barrie for Senate

As reported below, Gary Johnson has also endorsed Barrie. This letter from Virgil Goode is from an e-mail sent to us by the Barrie campaign:

Dear Jon:

I was encouraged by the news that you beat the odds and got on the ballot in New Mexico. I know full well how the establishment parties have set-up strong barriers for alternative candidates who offer voters real choices on the issues that matter.

On those issues I’m glad we are in agreement: Second Amendment rights must be protected; auditing the Federal Reserve is long overdue; and the abolition of such un-Constitutional federal agencies as the Departments of Energy and Education will help get the government out of debt.

Unlike the Democrat and Republican candidates, I admire your tough stance on the problems associated with illegal immigration. You are with the majority of voters in opposing amnesty of any kind, supporting the complete closing of the border, and establishing English as the official language of the United States. I particularly appreciate your endorsement of my proposal for a moratorium on issuing green cards until our unemployment rate is under five percent. 

In sum, you are taking the message of liberty to New Mexico’s voters as a champion of Constitutional government. You have my full support and best wishes for your courageous and dynamic campaign.


Virgil Goode

Cross posted at IPR.

Virgil Goode Signs Personhood Pledge

Below is an e-mail from Ricardo Davis:

Atlanta, GA – Former U.S. Congressman Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate, signed Georgia Right to Life’s “Personhood Pledge” – the gold standard of a candidate’s commitment to defend the sanctity of life. In doing so he is the only certified presidential candidate in Georgia to do so, giving Georgians who value the unalienable right to life an opportunity to vote for a candidate that supports their convictions.

Unlike any other presidential candidate, Virgil Goode has a history of standing on principle to defend the sanctity of life at the federal level. In signing the GRTL Personhood Pledge, Goode affirms his support of legislation that would ensure that the civil rights of the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped, and all children before birth at any stage are protected by law.

In 2007 Congressman Goode was a co-sponsor of the Right to Life Act (HR 618) that “would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.” The Act declared that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each and every human being, and defines “human being” to encompass all stages of life.

In the previous year National Right to Life gave Congressman Goode a 100% pro-life rating. During his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives Goode was a pro-life champion voting to outlaw human cloning, transport of minors across state lines to obtain elective abortions, embryonic stem cell research, partial birth abortion, and federal funding to organizations that provide abortion services, counseling or advocacy.

State Party Chairman Ricardo Davis noted, “As a long-time pro-life activist who is now working to build a 100% pro-life political party in Georgia, I realize that to be successful the party has to build from the ground up. Because of Georgia’s election laws Virgil is a certified write-in candidate, so all votes for him will be counted and reported. This is the ground-floor opportunity – and the goal is to get two percent of the vote statewide. This realistic goal lays the foundation for statewide ballot access and fosters support for like-minded state and local candidates in the next two years. Politically savvy Democrat and Republican voters here in Georgia understand that two percent of the vote will not impact the presidential vote in our state, so Virgil’s candidacy is the prime opportunity for voters who highly value the sanctity of life and the defense of marriage to vote for a candidate whose election results can lay the foundation for greater gains for these issues in Georgia.”

Cross posted at IPR.

Scott Galupo on the Third Party Debate (With Reference to Virgil Goode)

Here is Scott Galupo from The American Conservative on last night’s debate. Below is his comment on Virgil Goode:

I was at pains to figure out exactly why Goode isn’t a Republican. Jim Antle’s profile of the former Virginia congressman found Goode doggedly on the side of the mainstream GOP on big issues like the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and the drug war. Republicans don’t talk much these days about Goode’s hobbyhorse — term limits — but the issue figured prominently in the 1994 Contract with America. His position on immigration — no green cards for foreign workers until employment is under five percent — is more restrictionist than the average GOPer’s, but his irrational fear of Muslims would fit right into Sarah Palin’s “real America” party.

I could have done without the PC Muslim comment. Fear and hatred of Muslims that leads you to want to bomb them in far off countries is certainly a problem, but not wanting masses of them to immigrate here and change the culture is what some of us would call conservative. You know, that whole wanting to conserve things vibe.

That said, Galupo has identified the same issue with Goode that I identified below. See here and here. This is a problem for Goode. Some people may not want to hear criticism, but it is.

Vote to Move Virgil Goode on to Round 2

From a Constitution Party e-mail:

A SECOND Free & Equal “Third” Party presidential debate is being scheduled for next Tuesday, October 30 in Washington, DC. However, the organizers are using online instant runoff voting to narrow the field from four candidates to two.URGENT!! PLEASE GO to their website, and rank the candidates in any order you choose, as long as Virgil Goode is first.

YOU MUST VOTE before 10:30pm tomorrow night, October 24.Let’s get Virgil Goode in the 2nd debate. He did a great job this evening, along with Larry King as moderator and Christina Tobin as the event organizer.Thank you,

Third Party Debate Commentary

First of all, I can’t win regarding Goode no matter what I do. When I criticize Goode I get criticized for being too critical and not being fully on board. When I say positive things about him or promotes his candidacy, others blast me for supporting someone who supported the Iraq War, etc., etc., etc. For the record, I intend to write in Goode. He is not on the ballot in my state, but he is a certified write-in candidate. I recognize that he is less than perfect, but in casting my vote for the Constitution Party candidate, I am endorsing the idea of the Constitution Party, a Constitutionalist party that is to the right of the GOP, as much as I am the candidate.

Also, Goode almost deserves a vote just based on his awesome Southern accent alone. You know that Goode’s accent in the White House would horrify all the right people. Imagining it makes me giddy.

Now for the debate, regarding who the candidates should pitch to, I thought all four candidates basically pitched to a general audience and against both Romney and Obama. They weren’t pitching against each other although Virgil Goode emphasized a couple of distinctions, and none seemed to be pitching specifically against the major party candidate most closely aligned to them.

This was a mistake, IMO. Goode should have pitched to conservatives and against Romney as I suggested below. Jill Stein should have pitched to liberals and against Obama. Etc. Do the candidates really think there is some general mass of undecideds who are open to third parties who could be persuaded to vote for Stein or Goode? I don’t think that’s the playing field. I think Stein’s audience is liberals who think Obama has betrayed them. I think Goode’s audience is conservatives who think Romney is insufficiently so. That is who they should pitch to. (I recognize that this dynamic is somewhat different for the Libertarian.)

That said, I was very impressed with Rocky Anderson. I have no idea what separates the Justice Party from the Green Party and Stein and Anderson didn’t seem to differ on anything, but Anderson was much more smooth and polished. Perhaps in 2016 Anderson could attempt a fusion campaign and run for both nominations. Johnson did fine, although on one of his drug answers he ran long and didn’t make his point. He needs to work a bit on sound bites. Also, it is absurd to suggest, as Johnson did, that gay rights are Constitutionally guaranteed. So the Founders were intending to protect gay marriage? The notion is laughable on its face. This marks Johnson as an unserious Constitutionalist. He is imposing his beliefs onto the Constitution. He is not taking the Constitution as a serious historical document. And moving on, Stein seemed flustered and amateurish.

Goode was a very mixed bag. He was right to pound home the immigration issue. And he is definitely playing the populist (getting rid of PACs, term limits, etc.) rather than the strict Constitutionalist. I’m OK with him playing the populist because that is an issue cluster that isn’t represented well by either major party and there are votes to be had there, but to do so while maintaining a Constitutionalist pretense takes nuance. I think he bungled the Constitutional Amendment question. Term limits? Really? If you could guaranteed pass one amendment it would be term limits? How about overturning the 16th? Or how about a pro-life amendment? And I think his drug answer was very problematic. I know it’s trendy to be for drug legalization, and it is popular among the third party crowd, but there are a lot of conservatives out there for whom it is still a radical idea and a non-starter. Therefore, Goode is wise to not just casually endorse drug legalization, but he should frame it as a state issue, which it is. He needs to acknowledge, however, that federal drug laws are unconstitutional on enumerated powers grounds. This way you don’t frighten little old ladies who imagine meth addicts buying their meth at the local Seven Eleven, but also keep your Constitutionalist core happy. This is essentially how Ron Paul played the issue, even though philosophically he opposes all drug laws on libertarian grounds, and it was only a marginal problem for him in the GOP primary. Goode’s answer was all over the map. He treated it mostly as an spending issue (ending the “war on drugs” wouldn’t really save that much), gave a nod to it being a state issue, then reaffirmed his support of drug laws (presumably federal).

After watching the debate, I think I may have been over thinking Goode in my post below. I’m not sure he is making some calculated effort to split the difference. I think Goode just really doesn’t understands his new audience, which makes sense since this hasn’t been his milieu until recently. His audience has been mainstream conservatives and Republicans, and I think he thinks he is still speaking to that same audience. Did Goode prep for the debate or did he shoot from the hip? Is he open to instruction? Some Constitution Party long termer needs to coach Goode up on CP and “far” right dynamics to help him avoid land mines like the drug issue.

What to Watch for When Virgil Goode Debates Tonight

Here is what I will be watching for when Virgil Goode debates tonight. Does he style himself as a mainstreamish candidate who was disgruntled with his ex-party and happened to capture the nomination of a third party, or does he style himself as the spokesman of his new party carrying the Constitutionalist banner even when doing so will force him to take unpopular positions? To some degree (but not entirely) this is a question of whether to Virgil Goode this campaign is about Virgil Goode or the Constitution Party. Was the Constitution Party a convenient and available vehicle for Goode, or is he really a convert to a Constitution Party way of thinking?

My hunch is the former. This is based on several things. His initial website blared his intention to save Social Security. He mentions the Fair Tax on his issues page. He has so far failed to fully embrace non-interventionism. Etc. A lot of Tea Party style Republicans would be comfortable with his issues page and candidate comparison page. There is no “radical” Constitutionalism in it. His opposition to NAFTA, his mention of the North American Union, his opposition to US soldiers under UN command, his opposition to birthright citizenship, etc. clearly signal to a lot of Constitution Party types, but these issues tend to distinguish him in kind as much as they do by degree. He is running as a more populist/paleo/Buchananite candidate, but is he running a hard to the right of Romney campaign?

In the back of my mind in asking this question is whether Goode is attempting to maintain his viability for a future GOP or independent run, or is he all in with the CP. (Goode is, as my Mom would say, no spring chicken so that factors in. He may not be planning a future run due to his age so this may be more of a last hurrah.)

In a related question, who is the audience of a third party debate on C-SPAN? Will there be a large contingent of undecideds who are genuinely considering a third party vote, and if so what percentage of these will be conservatives who are trying to decide between Romney and Goode and/or Johnson and liberals who are trying to decide between Obama and Stein or Anderson? Or will the audience mostly be partisans who tune in to root for their candidate? There may be some data on such things, but my hunch is the latter.

So who will Goode be pitching to? Will he be pitching to undecideds that he doesn’t want to scare off with budget slashing Constitutionalism, or will he be pitching to hard right true believers who are still skeptical of him?

This dynamic also applies to Gary Johnson, who is considered by many hard core l/Libertarians to be insufficiently plumb line, but I have the sense that l/Libertarians have come to terms with Gary Johnson more so than right-wing Constitutionalists have come to terms with Virgil Goode.

My advice to Goode, were he to solicit it, would be to run against Romney as insufficiently conservative every chance he gets. Turn every question into a reason why Romney is unacceptable on the issue. He could play to both potential audiences by doing this. He doesn’t necessarily have to embrace purist Constitutionalism, although some nod that this or that program is unconstitutional on enumerated powers grounds would be appreciated. Goode’s opponent in this debate is not the other three candidates except Johnson to some degree. His opponent is Romney. And his audience, which I suspect is more likely to be exposed to his performance in discussions about the debate than by actually watching it, is conservative but wavering Romney supporters. People he can convince that Romney is so unsound on the issues from a conservative standpoint, that they are willing to say “Aww screw it” and cast a protest vote against Romney, especially in states that are safe one way or the other.


Virgil Goode Addresses National Press Club

Virgil Goode addressed the National Press Club on 12 Oct 12.

“We have an uphill battle, but I am optimistic that we will have a strong showing” in the coming election, Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party’s nominee for president, told reporters at a National Press Club Newsmaker on Oct. 12.

Whereas Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have based their plans for job growth largely around a combination of tax cuts and stimulus, Goode puts immigration front-and-center in his jobs plan.  “Jobs in America, when you’ve got high unemployment, should go first to U.S. citizens,” said Goode.

Though his may not be a household name outside of his native Virginia, Goode believes that “if the American public wakes up”, his proposals for a moratorium on permanent-resident green cards IDs and a limit on congressional terms will resonate with those listening.

Read more…

Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson Confirm for Third Party Presidential Debate

I came across this article on Facebook:

Free and Equal Elections Foundation announced today that four candidates have confirmed their participation in the 2012 Presidential Debate at the University Club of Chicago on October 23: Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson.

This debate is the only 2012 Presidential Debate featuring four candidates. The top six candidates were invited to participate. Democratic Party candidate and incumbent Barack Obama and Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney are welcome to participate in this historic debate. The moderator will be announced shortly.

Read more…

 Cross posted at IPR.

Goode/Clymer Campaign Material Now Available

Below is an e-mail from the Constitution Party:
Are you preparing to campaign in your neighborhood, precinct, community and/or across your state for the Constitution Party’s Goode/Clymer Presidential ticket?  Regardless of whether the Goode/Clymer ticket is on the ballot or a write-in option in your state, you should be planning now to get the word out to voters in your state that they have a far superior choice to “Romneycare” or “Obamanation” in 2012 with Virgil Goode for President and Jim Clymer for Vice-President.
Your “army” of supporters is not expected to enter this campaign “battle” unarmed.  First class campaign materials are available!  The palm card, slim jim, push card (call it what you will) shown below (editor’s note: actually not because I didn’t want to cut and paste an image) ) is available to those who are willing to get out and distribute them to voters in your precinct, district, region and or state.  These beautiful and effective two-sided glossy, hardstock pieces can be used for door to door campaigning, public events,  mailings or in any other way you might imagine.
Also available are very attractive blue and white “plastic bag” style Goode/Clymer yard signs, bumper stickers, round Goode/Clymer stickers and campaign buttons. (Supplies are limited)
Virgil Goode is receiving more media attention at the national and local level than any Presidential nominee in the history of the Constitution Party.  People are hearing about him and his campaign for President.  The literature you distribute; the sign you put on your lawn, or the bumper sticker you place on your car may well be the “connector” that reminds a voter that the great candidate he or she saw on TV, heard on the radio or read about in the newspaper or on the Internet is available for him or her to vote for…for President of these United States. In other words, it can make a difference!
Politics is all about OUTREACH.  These excellent campaign materials will help you reach the voters in your precinct, neighborhood, community, region and state with the Goode/Clymer message.  Considering the competition, that may be all it takes to win votes in your area the Goode/Clymer ticket.
Please contact the Constitution Party office at: 717-808-2138 (ask for Gary Odom) or to order materials.

Reminder: Virgil Goode Constitution Day Money Bomb is Tomorrow

Below is from an e-mail from the Goode campaign:

Reminder: On Constitution Day, Monday September 17th, the Campaign is having a money bomb. Our goal is to raise 100,000 dollars in 24 hours.  Please sign up here:
and help spread the word. 

Note: I have expressed my concerns about Virgil Goode’s past history of support for interventionism. I do think he has made progress in the right direction, but I am supporting the Constitution Party nominee more as an endorsement of the idea of the Constitution Party – a constitutionalist, paleoish party to the right of the Republican Party – than as an endorsement of Goode himself.

Is Virgil Goode Hurting Romney in Virginia?

Here is one for the road.

Might Goode be hurting Romney in Virginia? This Washington Times article suggests he might.

What is interesting is to read the comments. Predictably a bunch of Republicans whining about how “a vote for Goode is a vote for Obama” blah … blah … blah… If I had a nickle…

Here is the comment I posted:

What a bunch of sheep you “conservatives” are. You bray and bray about RINOs, but when the GOP nominates one you fall in line like a bunch of whipped dogs. Have you no shame? You are the GOP’s kept men. They are going to keep nominating RINOs because they know they have you in their hip pocket. If you want the GOP Establishment to quit serving you up RINOs then prove to them you won’t tolerate RINOs and vote for a conservative third party. Otherwise you will continue to get more of the same.

I wanted to use a different word than “kept men,” but since I was posting under my name I figured I should keep it clean.

Via IPR.


Virgil Goode on Immigration

From the Constitution Party’s News at a Glance:

Both President Obama and Governor Romney have no solution to illegal immigration. In fact the policies of both will encourage the continuation of the illegal invasion into our country. Obama’s temporary amnesty and work permits for illegals and Romney’s statement that “the status of young people… should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country” will lead more of those waiting at the border to enter in expectation of a future amnesty.

Goode said, “Unlike Romney, if I am elected President, I will promptly rescind the Obama amnesty order. Amnesty in any form only encourages more illegal entry into the United States.”

A way to reduce unemployment, reduce the deficit, and provide more jobs for U.S. citizens is to end illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. In recent years about 1.2 million green cards have been issued annually and over 60% go to foreigners who come to the United States and take jobs from American citizens. I have proposed a moratorium (with a few minor exceptions) on issuing green cards until our unemployment rate is under 5 percent. America has one of the most liberal immigration policies in the world and it is time for the citizens of this country to be at the head of the line for jobs. We also need to totally end diversity visas (50,000 per year), reduce chain migration, and dramatically reduce asylees and refugees and their costs to the U.S. taxpayer.

Crossposted at IPR.

Jim Antle: Goode Enough for Paul Supporters?

Antle has a post up at American Spectator asking if Paul supporters will be willing to support Virgil Goode. It is referencing Antle’s Goode article at The American Conservative that is linked to in a post below.

So who would the Ron Paul supporters angry at Rand Paul for his Mitt Romney endorsement rather vote for? For the more conservative among them, a candidate is Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode…

But his foreign policy record is closer to Romney’s than Paul’s…

See more…

Goode’s problem is that he developed his conservatism in a mainstream “conservative” milieu. Now he finds himself in a “far right” milieu, and he doesn’t know the ropes. But I think he is figuring out that his milieu has changed and that the old answers don’t suffice any more. The far-right is not just the mainstream right on steroids. The far-right has fully embraced non-interventionism. Hawkish interventionist “conservatives” are still very happy in the GOP (Why shouldn’t they be?) and are not going to vote third party. The kinds of conservatives who are willing to entertain voting third party are disproportionately non-interventionists.

Crossposted at IPR minus the editorial content.

Daniel Larison on Virgil Goode and Iraqi WMDs

Jim Antle’s article on Virgil Goode (post below) is the occasion for this Daniel Larison blog post. Larison is skeptical.

The Constitution Party is often the default third party alternative for antiwar conservatives. If one wants to vote only on foreign policy and civil liberties, the Libertarian candidate will usually be acceptable (though that wasn’t really the case in 2008), but the Constitution Party theoretically gives dissident conservatives of various stripes a vehicle to express their dissatisfaction with the Republicans on a wider range of issues. Antiwar conservatives unwilling to cast a protest vote for someone as socially liberal as Gary Johnson can usually rely on the Constitution Party to nominate someone credibly opposed to unnecessary foreign wars while still being conservative on most or all other questions. As the profile explains, Goode fits the second part of that description, but not the first.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t make for much of a protest candidacy if the third party candidate can’t make his differences with the major parties sufficiently clear. I have no objection to most of what Goode says here on foreign policy, but that remark about believing that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003 is such a bizarre and unnecessary error that it brings me up short every time I read this article. The best part is when Goode qualifies his belief in the existence of Iraqi WMDs with the phrase “to some degree,” as if hedging on a demonstrably false belief made it less ridiculous. I don’t know why anyone would still be saying this in 2012. It certainly makes no sense for the nominee of a party that was opposed to the invasion of Iraq to repeat one of the worst pro-war lies. If he is hoping that this claim might make his past support for the Iraq (invasion) seem less obnoxious, he is mistaken.

See more…

The problem with the WMD argument all along was that even if we knew with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMDs, that still would not have constituted a sufficient casus belli for war. Invading Iraq because they had WMDs that they might use is still preventive war.

Crossposted at IPR without the editorial content.