66 votes

Here Comes Blowback! Virgil Goode on Virginia Ballot Despite GOP challenge

Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode is officially -- for now -- on the presidential ballot in Virginia, a battleground state where he has deep roots and poses a real threat to Republican Mitt Romney.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was under the impression Goode favored the Iraq War,

the Patriot Act, and other "War on Terror" provisions.

Should we be troubled by this?

He apparently did vote for

He apparently did vote for the initial invasion, but his understanding has, as Obama puts it, evolved.

Here is his platform as a candidate:


Screw the GOP

A victory for the country whenever those blundering idiots do not get their way. The same goes for the Democrats.

I don't know how complicated

I don't know how complicated it is to start a party, but why don't we start our own party, the Liberty Party. I don't know anything about the other parties but my guess is they don't have a clue about economics. The country needs a party that understands Austrian Economics. That is one of Ron Paul's strengths.

Well GET a clue!

Both Libertarian and Constitution Parties hew very closely to Ron Paul's Austrian economic views. Don't forget, Ron ran as a libertarian in 1988 and endorsed the Constitution Party candidate in 2008.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Virgil Goode to Appear on Fox News Tonight

Virgil Goode will appear on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight ( Wednesday September 5th) at 6 PM Eastern Time. Please be sure to tune in.

While he isn't my favorite

Virgil Goode is the only candidate left who lines up with my positions and values. Here in VA there might be a shakeup.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

I'm surprised we don't hear more about the constitution party

On the Daily Paul, they seem pretty close to us and they are the 3rd biggest party.

They have some bad points like the fact though he regrets it Goode voted for the patriot act. But it's not like they could win anyhow...

So do you know much about them they seem like they might be a bit socially conservative, what are their down sides?

I agree with the earlier

I agree with the earlier poster who took note of the CP position on immigration. The Constitution does not give the central government any power over immigration, that I can see, and leaves the question to the states and localities. I personally would argue within my state for a strict immigration policy that would protect the price of labor and prohibit foreign residents from voting. But it should be up to each state to decide these things. In this one area, the CP position seems to me to be weak.

Article 1, section 8

Article 1, section 8

The Congress shall have Power..
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Quite right, and a good

Quite right, and a good footnote to my point. Congress must establish the rule for the attainment of citizenship. This is one important element of immigration. Others not mentioned (that I can find) include regulation of foreign nationals in the US, remunerated labor by foreign nationals, participation in politics of foreign nationals, admission of foreign nationals, border enforcement, proof of citizenship, etc.

unfortunatly Goode is...

not a very charismatic speaker, but your right, the Constitution Party should be getting more attention. Again I got an email saying he will be on Fox News with Bret Baier tonight ( Wednesday September 5th) at 6 PM Eastern Time.

Not Revenge But...

It is not out of vengeance that I want mittens to lose but the GOP presidential candidate must lose so that the GOP learns that it can not put up McCain Romney types. They need to see the votes show up for the 3rd parties to see that we are real. Plus we have to get in the better down ballot choices in the Senate.

The difference

between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party is the CP wants to mix church and state. The LP does not. That's why I lean toward the LP.

It seems to me that the

It seems to me that the difference between the LP and the CP is not about "separation of church and state" (whatever that is supposed to mean) but it is that the LP is dominated by a faction of "lifesytle libertarians" (the group that apparently drove Murray Rothbard from the party), who favor using the power of the central government to impose narcotics, prostitution, gambling, homosexual marriaged, abortion, etc., on unwilling local communities. This is of course as totalitarian as anything the leftists or neocons propose. The CP has so far pretty much, though not perfectly, provided a home for what Dr. Paul calls "Constitutional conservatism," which is his own belief system. Under a Constitutionally conservative regime, the central power would not be involved in any of these issues at all, and the localities would make decisions they deemed appropriate to themselves.

What? Are you kidding?

Narcotics?, Prostitution? So... allowing individuals choice is somehow totalitarian simply because some don't like it?

You don't have to do drugs or be a hooker just because they are legal.

As far as gambling, I can do whatever I want with my cash. right?

Nope, not kidding. Forcing

Nope, not kidding. Forcing laws on states and counties and cities in a manner prohibited by the Constitution is totalitarian. Remember the Constitution and its limitations on the powers of the central government?
The reason for the unconstitutional wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., is to force laws on other people.

Forcing People....

to have their rights restored is bad? Is'nt it the federal govt job to enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights- is wrong?
Wow. Maybe you should move somewhere were you can have all your rights and liberties taken away. You would be much happier there.

Rights of citizens under the

Rights of citizens under the Constitution should be enforced by the central government. We have been discussing the central government's enforcement of abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. These are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as rights of citizens. You are jeering in vain.

I find that a skewed way of looking at things.

I get the states rights arguments but it is FEDERAL narcotics laws that need to be dropped, FEDERAL gambling laws that need to be dropped. Only then can states determine whether or not to regulate or ban something.
At this point states can't even make gambling legal without some federal interference. Same goes for narcotics.

Prostitution should remain a state issue.

I am not completely

I am not completely understanding your post. You are supporting the "states' rights argument," i.e., the Constitution, yet in your first sentence it appears you are meaning to contradict it. That the central government should get our of the business of narcotics and gambling and prostitution legislation *is* the "states' rights argument" aka the Constitution. Please clarify. Since you basically make my same argument, why do you say my argument is a "skewed way of looking at things"?

I'm unaware

of any call within the LP for "forcing" sub-federal governments to accept libertine behaviors. Instead I see a call for individual liberty at every level of government. Ending the War on Drugs for instance would require changes at federal, state, county, and community levels, not some mandate by federal government to drop all drug enforcement at every level.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

The lifestyle-libertarian

The lifestyle-libertarian faction in the LP is, unfortunately, a powerful one. It may be that under the influence of Dr. Paul, there is a resurgence of Constitutionalism. I don't know. The old platform (2004) was equivocal as to who--state or local government-- was to do the liberating. The only social issue that I can discover that it specifically keeps the central government out of is abortion. The others are unspecified. The new platform (2012) is even hazier. Here are some remarks by Lew Rockwell which are interesting, though not directly relevant to this discussion:


very well put

Liberatarians actually push for MORE GOVERNMENT in certain areas when they force States and local communities to adopt homosexual marriage licence and fund abortion.

The CP however does seem to get a little hung up on imigration

Thanks for this maybe you should start a post comparing the LP and CP

Good idea--I think that would

Good idea--I think that would be helpful to all of us.

Can you give an example

that differs from the Constitution and founding fathers
Ron Paul supported the Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin back in 2008, Bob Barr threw a hissy fit and shuned Ron Paul over it.

Actually, Bob Barr threw a

Actually, Bob Barr threw a hissy fit THEN Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Had Barr not bailed out of the third party conference, Paul may not have endorsed Baldwin.

liberty lover in Nor Cal!


that may be right, even more ridiculous of him (Libertarian, Bob Barr) then to get so pissed off at Ron Paul, did not leave a good impresion of the Libertarian Party to Ron Paul supporters, and really has to make one question wether personal agendas or Liberty is of first and formost importance.

Not really

Having ones public policy positions informed by faith is not "mixing church and state." In fact, the founders assumed, encouraged, and depended on the fact that people of faith would bring their values to the political table.

Just one quote of John Adams:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Virgil Goode to Appear on Fox News Tonight!

Virgil Goode will appear on Special Report with Bret Baier tonight ( Wednesday September 5th) at 6 PM Eastern Time. Please be sure to tune in.