Posted under Constitution Party & Election 2012 & Interventionism & Virgil Goode
Our friend Peter Gemma interviewed Virgil Goode for Independent Political Report. I was encouraged by it. He seems to be making progress on foreign policy. Read the whole interview, but the foreign policy part is excerpted below.
As far as a non-interventionist foreign policy goes, let me say this to begin with: I’ve learned a lot in my years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party. Some votes I cast in Congress were not well matched with Constitutional principles. I oppose the Patriot Act provisions and the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that trample on the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford—nor is it strategically necessary—to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.
Peter Gemma on 31 May 2012 at 2:20 am #
thanks very much for posting this – I’m interested in reading feedback
RedPhillips on 31 May 2012 at 2:46 am #
Your welcome.
I sense that Goode is receiving some coaching. Clymer maybe?
roho on 31 May 2012 at 4:06 pm #
I agree with these points on Foreign Policy.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 31 May 2012 at 8:54 pm #
Good start–if I wish some whiff of treason as it relates to UN Wars.
If you get another chance, Mr. Gemma, the Law of the Sea Treaty remains big with an older sovereignty groupscule–at my state convention, they were not Ron Paul people, and they were “colorful”, but we have been able to work with them the past couple years.
Trent Lott is the most famous turncoat lobbyist on the Law of the Sea question, and it has some currency yet for the CP.
Feltan on 01 Jun 2012 at 3:16 am #
I am not an interviewer, I just read them.
Seems to me like this was an opportunity for Goode to showcase himself. No controversial questions or answers, all rather bland and within the bounds of a Sunday after church conversation.
Fine. No harm no foul.
However, if I were in Mr. Goode’s shoes I might want to draw shaper distinctions, and be a tad bit more provocative. The CP candidate is not running at the head of the pack, and there seems little down side in drawing some attention to yourself by rattling some cages.
Regards,
Feltan