April
22nd 2012
Posted under Conservatism & Constitution Party & Election 2012 & Interventionism & Virgil Goode
This is unfortunate news. Virgil Goode barely won on the first ballot (203). Darrell Castle was second (120). Robby Wells was third (58).
Jim Clymer as VP could have been worse. As long time CP Chairman he should know the CP ropes and keep Goode from misstepping.
PaleoDude on 22 Apr 2012 at 12:44 am #
Goode is a bad fit for the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is non-interventionist on foreign policy, like Ron Paul. Goode is not a non-interventionist. The Constitution Party sold out to nominate a “big name.”
Trent Hill on 22 Apr 2012 at 12:52 am #
Goode’s CSPAN speech seemed to toe the line–he called for withdrawal from Afghanistan and said that he regretted voting for the Patriot Act.
Feltan on 22 Apr 2012 at 5:20 am #
Unfortunate news?
Perhaps for some it is unfortunate news. I am sure there are those who have argued, defined and honed logic for years — trying to establish a philisophic basis for the Constitution Party.
And then, a seeming interloper grabs the nomination. One who is not perfectly aligned with the nuances of the either the platforms nor the debates behind them. So then, how often is a standard bearer of a party also its greatest rhetorical champion? How often is a candidate the perfect representation of a party?
I suspect that any disappointment with Mr. Goode is somthing similar to that which has been visited and revisited upon nearly every nomination to every party since the republic was founded. We are not the first to have such feelings.
The nominating process is over. I suggest we all take a moment and pause.
We should be different. We should, I suggest, approach this nomination with aplomb. For we are a party that “gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”
That alone makes us unique. We can and should show poise and grace in the outcome of a process that may not have met our temporal expectations.
Maybe, just maybe, larger forces are at work. Can we humble ourselves for a moment. Can we show a little faith?
Regards,
Feltan
Not Libertarian on 22 Apr 2012 at 7:00 pm #
So Red – will you vote for the warmongering military statist Goode? You previously had said you could not without a public retraction of his previously held views. Was his speech enough?
RonL on 23 Apr 2012 at 8:35 am #
Virgil Goode is a Democrat turned Republican Congressman, who broek with the GOP hierarchy on immigration. He believe in tradition and has ties to the land. Goode has called for an exit to the Afghan quagmire and has rethought his position on the USA Patriot Act. He seems like a good fit to me, especially if part of the goal is to pick up conservatives, who cannot vote for Romney.
Gary Odom on 23 Apr 2012 at 1:03 pm #
For over 40 years in politics, I have been as non-interventionist as they come. I once told an audience that the only foreign war where I would support intervention is if Canada invaded Mexico…by land (or visa versa). I have got to know Virgil pretty well over the past couple of years and I am totally comfortable with his foreign policy views. I think his views are much like Pat Buchanan’s at this point. He has called for bringing troops home from around the world, not only Afghanistan.
A lot of people reacted emotionally in the months and even years after 9-11. Hell, I wanted to go join the Nothern Alliance…until the truth began to surface. Mist of us reacted to the “new Pearl Harbor” in a very predictable way.
RedPhillips on 23 Apr 2012 at 7:59 pm #
NL, what speech are you referring to? His CP Convention speech? I didn’t see it. I wasn’t at the Convention.
I’m going to do a post on my thoughts on VG. Hopefully later today.
RedPhillips on 23 Apr 2012 at 8:15 pm #
Gary, I held my fire on Goode leading up to the Convention because I don’t want to get a reputation as the purist naysayer who balks at every big name candidate the CP tries to recruit. Plus I didn’t sense that there was enough anti-Goode sentiment to muster anyway or an acceptable non-Goode candidate around which to rally even if there was. I let it be known that I had concerns about Goode, but didn’t go on the war path the way I did about Keyes. I don’t think Goode’s nomination is the disaster that Keyes’ would have been because Keyes brought with him a whole system of ideological bagage.
That said, had I sensed that there was a sufficient well of opposition to Goode and a better candidate to rally around, I probably would have said more publicly. I don’t want to appear to overestimate my influence, which is minimal, but I would have felt better if I had tried.
I’m glad Castle stepped up and at least gave the delegates an option, but I think the “purist” faction, for lack of a better term, is partially to blame here as well. The candidates have been known, by and large, for a while. If they thought Goode was less than ideal but didn’t think Wells was an acceptable alternative, then it shows disorganization on their part that they didn’t come up with a candidate to rally around sooner.
More later.
My Thoughts on the Constitution Party’s Nomination of Virgil Goode | Conservative Heritage Times on 23 Apr 2012 at 11:48 pm #
[...] I said in the comments to the Goode post below, I held my fire on Goode leading up to the Convention because I don’t want to get a reputation as [...]