33 votes

Is GOODE any GOOD? Requesting Opinions on Voting Constitution Party

I absolutely cannot vote for Romney or Obama. I have considered writing in Dr. Paul’s name. I have considered not voting at all. I am also considering the Constitution Party.

I just found Dr. Paul last year and was quite devastated over the way he and our delegates were treated at the RNC. I also realize Dr. Paul has asked us to retake the GOP. I am floundering on what to do next.

That being said, I am still looking for a presidential candidate with whom I can agree this year. If my Friends of Liberty would be so kind, I would appreciate your thoughts on the Constitution Party. I have heard they are Pro-War, but I just looked today and did not see that. I think a lot of you all out there are a lot smarter than I when it comes to Liberty principles so I would appreciate your help.

If you could take the time, please see the CP platform: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php and let me know what you think regarding how that party lines up with Liberty.

The 2012 Presidential Candidate is Virgil Goode: http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html

Any time you can provide is much appreciated!

Comment viewing options

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

When religion is the primary

When religion is the primary driver of the party, there is something wrong in falsely calling it the "Constitution" party.

There is nothing wrong with the name

of the Constitution Party as first and foremost we are all STRICT constitutionalists. Our party has been literally holding classes and flat out teaching the constitution to our communities for years.

Possibly you should try doing some real research on the subject before getting hung-up on a falsehood.

Side Note

If you read Patrick Henry, who seemed to live by Christian Principles, you will find he was opposed to the Constitution. Another little tidbid that has been left out of history class. I found it a fascinating read:



So what should be the primary driver of a party? Secularism? Humanism? Atheism? No one is a blank slate. It's ok to have influences so long as you recognize your presuppositions and make them clear to people. Like I said before, I believe Christianity is 100% where Liberty comes from. That's me. It's ok if you disagree. But don't make the naive mistake of thinking that every party/platform doesn't have SOMETHING behind it, some set of beliefs, some presuppositions, some paradigm. I understand why many are turned off by Christianity and politics, I am mostly as well.

It's also naive to say that the constitution is not based on the Christian Bible's principles. Take Presbyterianism for example. Presbyterianism has a representational form of government. The congregation votes for elders (representatives) who then vote on most issues for the Church. There are three courts (levels of government). Each is accountable and checked by the others. If you look at Presbyterian government and compare it to the US form of government it is so similar it's almost like it was based on it (insert sarcasm). The government of the United States, whether anyone likes it or not, is based on the ecclesiastical forms of government found in the Christian Bible.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

So what should be the primary driver of a party?

"So what should be the primary driver of a party? Secularism? Humanism? Atheism?"

None of the above, you idiot!

It should be the Constitution of the United States:

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Minor Details

Yes, regardless of ideology! But perhaps it is the very problem...it has but a few strings and anything can be played upon it per Manning below. Maybe that is why Hamilton pushed it along with the First Central Bank...

How about this for a read: http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html

You will see that Patrick Henry was opposed to the Constitution.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dis... Page 229:
"made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings,"
"play any tune upon it they pleased."
In Context:
"Regarding the Constitutional Convention, he [William Manning] echoed a common Anti-Federalist complaint: the framers deliberately employed ambiguous language to facilitate their aristocratic designs. He confidently asserted, "The Convention who made it intended to destroy our free government by, or they neaver would have spent 4 Months in making such an inexpliset thing." The Constitution was a "made like A Fiddle, with but few Strings," so that those in power might "play any tune upon it they pleased." The ambiguity of the Constitution was a deliberate product of Federalist aristocratic machinations-confirmed by the practices of Federalists since ratification. Under the guise of constructive interpretations, Federalists were seeking to extend the powers of their federal government and trample on the people's liberties."

I am not anti-Constitution by any means. I am just saying maybe the states were hoodwinked and we are living in the aftermath...cheif of which may be the fact that state competition has been removed and 2 parties inserted and true trial by jury lost.

Limited Government

Here is where Ron Paul sets the Standard of Value for Statesmen again, and again.

"The Constitution" was designed to be constructively interpreted by the well paid liars like Hamilton, and his banker buddies, like Morris, but they had to add to The Constitution half truths that made the LIE look good enough to SELL with their False Advertisement Campaign written and published as The Federalist Papers, and then, in order to get the thing ratified, they had to add the first 10 Amendments.

So Ron Paul can just as easily interpret The Constitution literally, with reasonable English meanings to English words, such as NO LAWS against Freedom of Speech, and therefore no such thing as The Alien and Sedition Acts, so the THING, that Constitution thing, as bad as it may have been, according to Patrick Henry, it can still be useable as a LIMIT on Government by an excellent Statesman who can set the Standard of Value as never before, and then someone else can even raise the bar later.

Why settle for less?


1st Amendment

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State."

James Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

That's what I was getting at.

That's what I was getting at.

My prime concern is not

My prime concern is not religion but who will work within the confines of the constitution. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwinin 2008...that should be enough said on Mr. Baldwin. However, Ron Paul has not endorsed Mr. Goode so the jury is still out for me.

Why does Ron Paul need to

Why does Ron Paul need to endorse him?

He doesn't need to, it would

He doesn't need to, it would just make my life easier because I would have my answer on who to vote for handed to me on a silver platter now that the Silver Platter [Ron Paul] has been stolen.

The reason I am weary of Virgil Goode...

is because he participated in demagoguery against the Muslims trying to pander to the Christian right to help increase the number of troops in Iraq in 2007. Here is a recount of his statements:

Goode voted in 2007 against a resolution opposing the increase in troop numbers in Iraq, saying that he didn't want to "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country" and that "radical Muslims" wanted to control the world and put "In Muhammad We Trust" on American currency.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson was against the Iraq War from the beginning. He said:

"I was opposed to us going into Iraq from the beginning, I really thought that there was no threat to our national security, I really thought that if we went into Iraq we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end and I thought we had the military surveillance capability to see Iraq rollout any weapons of mass destruction and if they would have done that, we could have gone in and dealt with that."

Further, Johnson has spoken out against Libya and Iran.

I heard the OP inquire in another thread about the abortion issue. On that, while Johnson is personally pro-choice up to the viability of the fetus, he takes the same policy approach as Ron Paul in saying that it is a matter that should be dealt with by the States individually.

From OnTheIssues.org - http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Abortion.htm

Q: Should abortion be outlawed in the United States?

A: Let each state decide.

DW, you funny guy...do you

DW, you funny guy...do you always double post at the top and at the bottom? You are making me smile this morning :)

I doubt most people read past the first page of comments...

Just wanted to keep it visible while the thread was popular.

Do you think you are telling

Do you think you are telling me something I didn't know LOL. Thank you for stopping back in. Smiling again :)

DW, you funny guy...do you

DW, you funny guy...do you always double post at the top and at the bottom? You are making me smile this morning :)

That Proves Nothing

That proves nothing if you write Ron Paul in. Aren't you mad at what they did to Ron Paul ( The GOP ) You gotta make a statement or they will throw away your write in and continue in 4 yrs there corruption at Conventions.

Yes, I am mad at what was

Yes, I am mad at what was done at the RNC. It is absolutely disgusting and sickening.

Ballot Access!

Don't forget that a vote for a third party candidate could potentially help the party in the future with ballot access. Many states use results from previous elections to determine automatic ballot access.

Here in West Virginia, the LP needed to collect over 7,000 signatures to get Gary Johnson on the ballot.

If the LP gets 1% of the vote for Governor, they will achieve 'Major Party' status and be exempt from petitioning for statewide races for four years.

You are correct!!!

Thank you for posting. You are absolutely correct. The reason why 3rd parties are not progressing is b/c people keep voting for lesser of 2 evils and supporting evil. It is critical for the future of any minor party to get as many votes and support as possible if we are going to ever crush the 2-headed dragon.

If more people vote for 3rd parties, it makes it easier to get ballot access in the next election cycle and to stay on the ballot in their state. We need volunteers for petitioning and money for legal battles and advertising for our candidates as msm usually blacklists all Constitution Party candidates. The establishment knows we are the biggest threat to the GOP and if you are angry with what they did to our beloved Dr.Paul, then get off the stick and HELP US!

Good Point!

Good Point!

It's a protest vote. Vote for

It's a protest vote.

Vote for whatever 3p candidate is on the ballot in your state.

It doesn't really matter if you agree 100% with any of those candidates.

They aren't going to win.

The message we should collectively be trying to send is that Romney is too Liberal.

If there's more than one

If there's more than one minor party you vote for the one whose candidate has the STATED position closest to yours on your most important issues and/or on HIS signature issues. (You don't need to worry about whether he'd actually govern that way unless he can win the election.)

Voting for a minor party says "Here's a vote you COULD have had if you weren't doing the wrong stuff." Voting for the one closest to your position says "... and here's how you have to change to get that vote."

So unless Good is EVEN WORSE than Obama and Romney, or there is another minor party candidate on the ballot who is better, go ahead and vote for him.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

Thank you for the insight!

Thank you for the insight!

I'm not protesting. I want

I'm not protesting. I want to vote my conscience now that I am awake.

But make sure it is a

But make sure it is a conservative 3rd party--either the CP or the LP or one with a similar platform.

Do you live in Virginia?

If you live in Virginia and don't want Romney to win the state, Goode is the man to vote for. They (GOP & Romney) tried keeping him off the ballot there because he is already polling at 9% and has Romney scared s#!*less! He got put on the ballot, but Rachel Maddow reported tonight that they are going to try and remove him from ballot. Virginia is a battleground state this year and I hope they vote for Goode if he is not removed.


These cheats are making me sick.

So now Romney thinks his lawyers should control the Ballots in Virginia as well as the RNC?

Since when should it be so hard to run for president. Maybe we need to look at the constitution for the requirements...oh, someone has to be a US Citizen...isnt that a novel idea!

Voting For Goode.

I like what I've seen so far from Virgil Goode. I'd vote for him or GJ. I agree that writing in Dr. Paul does very little to help the cause.