Posted under Constitution Party & Election 2012 & Interventionism & Iraq
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 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.
roho on 19 Apr 2012 at 12:34 am #
I’m pretty much over todays politicians that hid out in the gaurd or college during the Vietnam War………And they were many.
Kirt Higdon on 19 Apr 2012 at 1:00 am #
Virgil Goode is not even a big name. Could even one percent of the electorate identify him? How much good did it do the libertarians to nominate Bob Barr last time and he had a lot more name recognition than Goode has?
RedPhillips on 19 Apr 2012 at 1:38 am #
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.
Trent Hill on 19 Apr 2012 at 9:30 am #
And vote for who? Which candidate is going to better represent the platform than Goode and still carry the banner even somewhat effectively? Ducey? Wells?
RedPhillips on 19 Apr 2012 at 4:13 pm #
Trent makes a good point. 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.
Not Libertarian on 19 Apr 2012 at 7:47 pm #
The logical thing to do is not to vote at all. There will be no viable and supportable candidate in the election.
Walter on 19 Apr 2012 at 8:50 pm #
Goode is sound on immigration and trade, from my understanding, and he has been for quite some time.
He could use some shaping up, however, on interventionism and nation building, as pointed out in this post.
Trent Hill on 19 Apr 2012 at 10:17 pm #
Walter–my understanding is that he’s prepared to hold the non-interventionist line for the CP. He’s definitely backed WAY off of interventionism, publicly, over the last 2-3 years. He’s also way against the Patriot Act.
roho on 20 Apr 2012 at 2:15 am #
Pleassssssssse!……..There are two candidates?….There is the Goldman Sachs backed Obama, and there is the Goldman Sachs backed Romney!……….Make no mistake about it, neither represent your broke ass, but only Goldman Sachs interest!
Much like Professional Wrestling, you are welcome to pull for your candidate if it makes you feel involved?……..Ha-Ha!
Actually, you have about as much impact on the outcome as an NFL Cheerleeder!
“Stonewall”: Healthy Skepticism of Virgil Goode Warranted | ThirdPartyPolitics.us on 20 Apr 2012 at 8:07 pm #
[...] This is from blogger “Stonewall”: [...]
Feltan on 21 Apr 2012 at 11:03 pm #
Good, bad or indifferent — he is now the candidate.
I hope and pray he is successful in outlining the differences between parties, and the futility of chosing between “Big Government” or “Slightly Less Big Government.”
Regards,
Feltan
Constitution Party's Virgil Goode Runs as a Republican on 26 May 2012 at 2:06 pm #
[...] prepared to not only double down but he believed in the rosiest outcome for Iraq. Unsurprisingly, an entry at the Conservative Heritage Times describes an informal interview with Goode as someone unwilling [...]
“Stonewall”: Healthy Skepticism of Virgil Goode Warranted | Independent Political Report on 16 Jun 2012 at 5:30 am #
[...] This is from blogger “Stonewall”: [...]