I have apparently upset some people with my criticism of the Virgil Goode nomination.
I had concerns about the nomination of Goode before the Convention which I expressed openly but not in the frantic manner I did about Alan Keyes, because, as I expressed in the link above, Alan Keyes brought with him a lot of ideological baggage that would have tainted the party in a way that Goode’s nomination doesn’t. I also didn’t get the sense that there was enough dissatisfaction with Goode to rally anyway. In hindsight, I probably should have been more vocal in my criticisms because there apparently was some dissatisfaction with him as evidenced by the fact that he only won the nomination on the first ballot by one vote.
But what’s done is done and my after the fact criticism of the Goode nomination is being questioned. After some consideration, I have decided that it would be best if I hold off on my criticism of the Goode nomination and what I see as the message problem of the Constitution Party until after the election.
I have written often in my defenses of third party voting about how I try to consider what message my vote sends. Likewise, as far as the big picture message sent by the voters collectively is concerned, I ultimately don’t want to deny Goode votes. More votes for Goode is better than less votes for Goode.
With this in mind, and also realizing that I don’t do my own influence (such as it may be) any good by making myself persona non grata with the Constitution Party, I will withold my criticisms until after the election.
My concern has always been the advancement of what I feel to be authentic conservatism and my desire for the Constitution Party to serve as one vehichle for that. The nature of my concerns about the message of the Constitution Party may be overly philosophical and inside baseballish, but I don’t think they are mysterious. My “motives” are as out there as they can possibly be.
Until November then.