IPR Interview: Virgil Goode Makes His Case to Ron Paul Supporters (And Principled Conservatives)

IPR ^ | 30 May 12 | Peter Gemma

[xzins]

Freelance writer Peter Gemma (cf. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_3/tsc_22_3_gemma.shtml and http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/QRGemma.pdf) talked policy and politics with Virgil Goode, the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party. Goode, who received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, served in the Virginia Army National Guard (1969-1975), as a member of the Virginia Senate (1973-1997), and in the U.S. House of Representatives (1996-2008). Gemma was acting a special corespondent for Independent Political Report.

 

IPR: Thanks Congressman for taking time off the campaign trail to talk with the Independent Political Report. What’s the latest news from the front lines?

Goode: We just got back from gathering signatures in Delaware for ballot qualification. It’s a small number in total that we need; about 600. However, those who wish to see our name on the ballot must change their registration. Believe it or not, the county registrar of voters actually calls people to say “are you sure you want to change party your affiliation?” We have to be triple sure petition signers understand the process.

IPR: What’s next on the roll call of states that you are targeting for ballot access?

Goode: Well, of course I’m working hard here in Virginia to get the Constitution Party on the ballot. Even this far from November and without any serious campaigning, political surveys show that we’re pulling five percent of the vote. We need 10,000 names on our petitions, which means we’re working overtime to get 18,000-20,000 signatures to be sure we cover the usual disqualification ratio.

New York is a big challenge: we must have 15,000 signatures—that means securing 25,000-30,000 names. That’s quite a hurdle, but the good news is that although there is a small minimum number needed in each county, the preponderance of the names can be collected anywhere—in other words in areas where we have the most volunteers.

We’ve also set our sights on California where the American Independent Party, which is not affiliated with the Constitution Party, already has a line on the ballot. Their state convention is slated for August and I will be there for a few days talking with party leaders and grassroots activists about having the AIP endorse the Virgil Goode-Jim Clymer ticket. California is among several states we’ll be visiting on a tour of the West including Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada.

Overall, I’m, hoping the Constitution Party ticket will be an option for voters in 40 states, even if in some cases Goode-Clymer are listed as Independents because party qualification is so difficult. But let me add this as a disclaimer: we have or plan to have lawsuits challenging unfair rules for 3^rd parties in several states. Georgia is in the works right now.

IPR: It’s likely Ron Paul will not be endorsing 3^rd party candidates this year as he has done in the past. His campaign has flatly ruled out any support for the Libertarian party nominee, and many political observers see Congressman Paul’s ultimate goal as building a Republican base for his son, Senator Rand Paul, to run a national campaign in 2016. In the meantime, millions of Ron Paul supporters are up for grabs come November. What will you do to reach out to them?

Goode: Ron Paul has been a friend from my first days in Congress. I learned a lot as a member of his Liberty Caucus in the House. I understand his interests in his son’s viability as a presidential candidate, but I’m always an optimist: I’d welcome Ron’s support. However, you’re right Peter—we should plan to face reality and capture the Ron Paul constituency on our own. Just look at the issues Ron has run on: audit the Fed, the gold standard, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s our platform! Campaigning on the issues that matter most to those who believe in the Constitution will resonate with Ron Paul supporters. I think we might just pay a visit to Tampa during the Republican Party convention and talk with some of Ron Paul’s best organizers and grass roots leaders. When the Republicans crown Mitt Romney, we’ll be right there recruiting constitutionalists to our banner.

IPR: Let’s talk about some issues that would appeal to Ron Paul voters, starting with what you’ve just mentioned.

Goode: It’s clear we must reverse the Nixon administration’s decision of taking our currency off the gold standard. Just think of how reliable the dollar would be today if it were backed by gold, protecting citizens from hyperinflation and other economic catastrophes caused by government manipulations.

Regarding the Federal Reserve, they have put us trillions in debt because of bailouts and loans here and abroad. That’s with help from their allies in Congress and the U.S. Treasury of course. The Fed refuses to disclose the details of its so-called “emergency” lending. This kind of secrecy must stop. I fully support the Constitution Party’s language addressing this issue. We specifically call for a monetary system as spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The voluntary choice of using of silver and/or gold in individual states, such as legislation just considered in Virginia, is something I think should be part of our new emphasis on states rights.

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.

IPR: Can you address some domestic issues?

Goode: Let me just add one thing about the military. Of course I want the U.S. military to be the strongest and have the cutting edge weaponry necessary to keep us number one in the world. That does not mean however, that the Defense Department automatically gets all the monies it wants—which is always more than its budget the previous year. America is broke. We must balance the budget immediately which means every aspect of government spending must be assessed, cut back, or cut out. In the Goode administration, the Defense Department is on that list.

The children of illegal aliens are now granted automatic citizenship. That’s wrong and must be addressed right away. This is central to my opposition to granting amnesty for any and all illegal aliens. And I go a step further: legal immigration must be cut back too—Americans with talent and experience must be put to work first before we import foreign job takers.

When I was in the Virginia Senate, I co-sponsored a bill urging our congressional delegation to vote against NAFTA. It’s bad for business and a challenge to America’s sovereignty. Our trade surplus with Mexico is now a trade deficit. When I was in Congress, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal NAFTA. These free trade treaties are exporting U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. In my area of Virginia we were once known as the sweatshirt capital of the world but not now—the textile industry all across America is suffering because of NAFTA and similar treaties.

I was the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus during part of my tenure in Congress and received “A” ratings from National Right to Life, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), as well as the Christian Coalition on family issues.

IPR: Finally, why didn’t you run for re-election to Congress? You always had a strong support base—elected and re-elected as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican—and you lost by just a few hundred votes as part of the Obama landslide in your area of Virginia.

Goode: I’d be a very lonely voice in the wilderness, and the establishment parties wouldn’t give me much leeway to pursue a constitutionalist agenda. Here’s an example of how things work in Congress. Along with Walter Jones [R-NC] I was among a very few Republicans opposed to a free trade treaty—the House Republican leadership really put the pressure on us to change positions but we refused to go along. Now you know that every Congressman gets certain monies allotted to their districts from the federal gas tax to be used for road and transportation projects. The funding recommendations go through the House leadership. I suppose it was just a coincidence, but that year the districts Walter and I represented received half of the anticipated allocation. I had several such coincidences when I was in Congress.

I want to take our Constitution Party message across the nation—more people are ready to listen to it than ever before. The Ron Paul supporters, the Tea Party movement, home schoolers, and so many constituencies will vote for the Constitution Party if we give them the chance. That’s why we’re working hard to get ballot access. Jim Clymer did so well in Pennsylvania running for U.S. Senator in 2004: he received over 200,000 votes! Now he’s organizing people to get us on the ballot for the 2012 presidential campaign. Of course we are already on the ballot in many states, like yours in Florida. That’s our starting point, but we’ve got quite a challenge ahead. My work with the leadership and the grass roots activists of the Constitution Party has convinced me that only with an issues-oriented campaign—as opposed to the slick establishment candidates—we will make history.

IPR: I appreciate your time Congressman.

Goode: Thank you Peter and the Independent Political Report for the opportunity to say what’s on my mind.

 

 

[xzins]

From Goode:

Of course I want the U.S. military to be the strongest and have the cutting edge weaponry necessary to keep us number one in the world. That does not mean however, that the Defense Department automatically gets all the monies it wants—which is always more than its budget the previous year. America is broke. We must balance the budget immediately which means every aspect of government spending must be assessed, cut back, or cut out. In the Goode administration, the Defense Department is on that list.

The children of illegal aliens are now granted automatic citizenship. That’s wrong and must be addressed right away. This is central to my opposition to granting amnesty for any and all illegal aliens. And I go a step further: legal immigration must be cut back too—Americans with talent and experience must be put to work first before we import foreign job takers

[D-fendr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ey4Pz2AVJYw

[xzins]

A video by a multi-millionaire does not change that Romney is a radical liberal.

[OneWingedShark]

A video by a multi-millionaire does not change that Romney is a radical liberal.

You took the words off my keyboard. I will not vote for Romney; better to make a "useless vote" based on principal than to contribute to evil and be condemned by my conscience.

[Graybeard58]

A video by a multi-millionaire does not change that Romney is a radical liberal.

Regardless of what the ABO crowd has to say, I will never vote for the liberal Romney. I'm better than that.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So a poor schmoe barely scraping along could have made the same video for $100, in Cinelerra under Linux with a Goodwill computer and camera.

How about rising above ad hominems sometime?

[D-fendr]

Just a different point of view from Andrew Breitbart...

A video by a multi-millionaire

Or we could adopt the view of class warfare..

[D-fendr]

Here’s Breitbart’s full speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbycMtTUDfE

[Springfield Reformer]

Breitbart, God rest his soul, is wrong. People of conscience are never on the “other side.” This country was built by people who insisted on doing the right thing no matter how powerful the opposition. I cannot vote for Romney and keep my peace with God. The core problem with the left is their god complex. Romney, in his own mind, is a “god in embryo.” Voting for either of these deity wannabes is a vote against God, and that’s not going to happen. I owe God, big time, and I’m not going to cross him on this one.

[going hot]

Voting for either of these deity wannabes is a vote against God, and that’s not going to happen. I owe God, big time, and I’m not going to cross him on this one.

Your post prior to the above sentence made some sense.

That line, however, leaves me scratching my head.

A vote against GOD? Is that possible? vs voting forHIM?

If you owe GOD, big time, and vote wrongly, thus "crossing" him, does HE retaliate?

The Supreme Creator of all that there was, is and will be, The Lord who can destroy this entire galaxie easier than I can flick a drop of water off my middle finger nail, That Lord God, may not be watching this election all that closely to see who wins, he already knows, and probably cares not regardless who 'wins', as the backdrop to the play of life.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. Obviously, we disagree.

I don’t think your proposed actions are right or moral. I believe your intentions are, but not the actions chosen based on them.

We disagree.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

If only the majority of conservative voters would, actually, vote based upon the principles that they, really, believe in. Then, Virgil Goode would, actually, get on enough state ballots and then, even better, actually win. It’s frustrating, whenever way too many non-leftist voters continue the ongoing trend of voting for the “lesser of two evils” in the race for POTUS/VPOTUS, with no true end in sight!

[D-fendr]

The great majority of conservatives vote in the GOP primary.

Had Goode acted on wise principles - and been a good candidate - he would have defeated Romney there.

Instead any votes he garners now further the goals of the current regime.

[Happy Rain]

I can understand folks not wanting to vote for Mitt but campaigning, for all intent and purposes, for Obama like this is counterproductive.

It's not so hot Mitt or the destruction of America Marxist—a real smacked upside the head reality check that one is.

So vote for Obama by not voting for the RINO—that's your right—just don't complain about the food in the concentration camps when you have helped the commie win.

[Dr. Thorne]

bfl

[NE Cons]

"a radical liberal"

Really? Wow, talk about hyperbole

[NE Cons]

Exactly... AmazIng how quickly some folks adapt the Obama talking points, and use them against Romney

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

And what exactly does standing on "PRINPICLES" mean?

Oh yeah, I know: It means facilitating the reelection of the most eeeevil, corrupt, HATE-AMERICA, dangerous, President ever to occupy the Oval Office, but hey, what's more important, standing on "Principles" or standing by and watching our Great Republic being harmed (perhaps irreparably) IF NOT DESTROYED?

Mmmm, lets see now, who is more of a "threat" to the safety and security of the United States among these 2?

And of these 2, which is more dangerous to our survival?

I especially welcome comments from those who (claim) that Mittens is 10 times worst than Dear Leader and thus, we shold all stay home or vote for someone else come November.

How's about any of you who have been disparaging the Mormon Religion (and no, I'm Catholic and thus do not necessarily support what Mormons advocate) provide ANYTING printed or advanced by Mormons which is even close to what many Muslims and specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood (which Obama supports and defends) do?

The Muslim Brotherhood Creed: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The Muslim Brotherhood Agenda as outlined in 1991 in Phildelphia:

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means.

THE IKHWAN MUST UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THEIR WORK IN AMERICA IS A KIND OF GRAND JIHAD IN ELIMINATING AND DESTROYING THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN AND "SABOTAGING" THEIR MISERABLE HOUSE BY THEIR HANDS AND THE HANDS OF THE BELIEVERS SO THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AND GOD'S RELIGION IS MADE VICTORIOUS OVER ALL RELIGIONS.

Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

(THESE ARE BUT A FEW OF THE SUPPORTERS/MEMBERS OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OBAMA HAS APPOINTED TO HIGH LEVELS/ADVISORS IN HIS REGIME: Rashad Hussain, Huma Abedin, Daliah Mogahed, Kifa Mustapha, Momamed Elibiary, and Mohamed Magid.)

All it takes for .....

.....EVIL....

..... to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......!"

....you know, like staying home or writing in someone's name which is the same thing as affirmatively, voting for the closest most of us will ever come to WITNESSING PURE EVIL while still alive...Barack, Barry, Hussein, Soetoro, Obama.

"Oh yeah, we'll stand on 'PRINCIPLES' and show them what's what, then in 2016, we will really, REALLY, work to elect a true Conservative....."

Yeah, right, provided there is still a United States of America left as we used to know it.

THEM: Oh, don't worry, we will keep the House and take the Senate and that way, we will keep Dear Leader in check.

Oh course you will with the Weeper of the House (Bone-er) and wuss, RINO extraodinaire and he who is afraid of his own shadow, Mitch McConnell leading the charge.

Mmm, mmm, mmm!

[xzins]

Romney is a radical liberal.

Just one month ago he came out (again) in favor of gay couples adopting children.

I suppose you will promise the forum that Romney is now and always has been a solid conservative? Will you make that promise?

[xzins]

How do you spell principled, CVV? Apparently, some freepers have forgotten the high regard for "Mittens" in the distant and (even) recent past, and all of a sudden, those who continue to despise the man's politics are suddenly crazy, out-of-step, ignorant, etc.....hmmmmm

Yeah, right!

There is about as much of a chance of this happening as us seeing our former “Compassionate Conservative” RINO President (Boosh) coming out and defending his record (the good parts) and taking O’Bummer to task for his illegal and Unconstitutional agenda.

First of all, Mittens would have to take his gonads out of where most Republi-tards keep them; securely hidden under lock and key in some storage area.

He/they are petrified of the Lame Stream Media and as far as I know, Newt is one of the few who has dared challenge the media. The rest (and that includes the Weeper of the House and the limp-wristed Mitch McConnell) think that if they stay quiet, the corrupt, biased, media will somehow be “nice” to them or conversely, not be so mean as usual

They are ALL soooo stoopid and never learn from their mistakes or hitoire.

The media (as we witnessed in 08 with Juan McLame) help choose our candidate (the same as they just did with Mittens) and as soon as they are the presumptive nominee, begin an unrelenting effort to destroy them as they work diligently to help “their” choice (Dear Leader or any other Demo-Rat/Lib/Progressive/Socialist/Commie, but I repeat myself) get re/elected.

Wake up all ye Pubes and smell the deception, deceit and dishonor being perpetrated by the media and quit acting like a bunch of spineless, girly-guy, wusses.

Sadly, it appears that our women (Palin, Bachman, et al) have a bigger “pair” then our men do.

3 posted on Monday, May 14, 2012 6:36:59 AM by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)

found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2883438/posts?page=3#3

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How “principled” is a “principled conservatism” that gives us four more years of a Moslem-mole President whose goal is to overwhelm the Republic?

[W. W. SMITH]

With an Obama win the GOP will fight tooth and nail to block as much as possible of the communist agenda.

With a Romney win the gutless GOP will move heaven and earth to help pass the communist agenda.

I will vote Goode!

[Springfield Reformer]

Are you a deist then? According to Jesus, the idea of a distant, uninvolved God is wrong. He doesn't just know, he cares about the falling of a single sparrow. So yes, he cares about what each of us does every day, up to and including whether we make bad moral choices.

Moral choices include many things, not the least of which is whom we give power over our lives. A vote is a voluntary, temporary transfer of power to another person, not entirely unlike a power of attorney. We give that other person a measure of control over our life. And as long as I may do so freely, I will never voluntarily give power over my life to someone who has aspirations to deity.

But why not, you say? What’s a harmless little god complex between friends?

Here’s the problem: There is only one God, and I will not sanction or cede control to any of his competitors. The Scriptures show that God is a jealous God, and he will not give his glory to another. If I reject him on that point (by sanctioning someone else who clearly does reject him on that point), he will hold me to account. As Jesus said, it is better to fear God than man. And in another place he says the he who trusts in man is cursed. Why would I invite that into my life? I’d rather have God’s blessing.

[W. W. SMITH]

This one is for those who when they see the word communist their brain ceases to function.

With an Obama win the GOP will fight tooth and nail to block as much as possible of the radical leftest agenda.

With a Romney win the gutless GOP will move heaven and earth to help pass the radical leftest agenda.

I will vote Goode!

[Springfield Reformer]

Define moral. For a hint on my view, see post #24. God defines morality. No one else. Make your case in that context. If you can. No hostility. Just curious to see how you will try to make this work. Warning. I will be watching closely for fear versus faith as motivation, and for end-means justification fallacies. Go for it.

[going hot]

Thank you for the reply.

I simply was unaware that anyone was running as a replacement, a competitor -if you will- for God.

Now, some in position of power may think that, until they are face to face with their Creator.

I don't have personal knowledge, but I strongly suspect the He is not really worried about mortal pretenders.

[SoConPubbie]

Define moral. For a hint on my view, see post #24. God defines morality. No one else. Make your case in that context. If you can. No hostility. Just curious to see how you will try to make this work. Warning. I will be watching closely for fear versus faith as motivation, and for end-means justification fallacies. Go for it.

You have quite clearly defined the moral delima faced by those trying to make the case that not voting for Romney, a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal, is voting for Obama.

[zeugma]

Excellent post. I may not have to vote for Cthulhu this year after all.

[SoConPubbie]

Really? Wow, talk about hyperbole

Really?

So how exactly would you categorize a politician who has done the following?:

1. Implemented Socialized medicine with a $50 dollar Abortion
2. Implemented an "Assault" weapons ban
3. Supported the Brady Bill
4. Raised taxes/fees by $700 million
5. Whole-heartedly supported Abortion while Governor, and even after his supposed Pro-Life conversion was still nominating extreme Pro-Abortion judges.
6. Supported and forced Gay Adoption. He still supports Gay Adoption.
7. Almost implemented a Carbon cap-and-trade plan, only backing off at the last minute when he realized the political winds had changed and he was running for President.
8. Supported Planned Parenthood.
9. Nominated 27 out of 36 judges who were radical, left-wing, Progressive Liberals.
10. Supported/Supports Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
11. Believes States forcing people to buy Health Insurance is constitutionally correct.
12. Is Ok with Homos in Scouts.
13. Supported TARP and Auto Bailouts.
14. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty for Illegal Aliens)
15. Is OK with Homos in Military.

[CommerceComet]

AmazIng how quickly some folks adapt the Obama talking points, and use them against Romney

It is as amazing as how quickly people will gloss over Romney's warts because he has an R behind his name. No matter how many times you kiss him this Romney frog he isn't going to turn into Prince Charming.

I can understand why a self-professed conservative like you might vote for this clown (considering the alternative) but at least be honest enough to admit that Romney's politics stink to high heaven. Ideologically, Mitt Romney is the worst candidate the Republicans have ever run (and one of a very small handful of national Republican figures ever for whom I wouldn't hold my nose and vote).

[E. Pluribus Unum]

With an Obama win the GOP will fight tooth and nail to block as much as possible of the communist agenda.

He doesn't need congress.

He has executive orders, and he is not afraid to use them.

[NE Cons]

but at least be honest enough to admit that Romney's politics stink to high heaven. Ideologically, Mitt Romney is the worst candidate the Republicans have ever run (and one of a very small handful of national Republican figures ever for whom I wouldn't hold my nose and vote).

He was the worst candidate outside of Ron Paul. His record in MA was pitiful and way too liberal for my taste.

Having said that, he's the ONLY person in the world standing between us and a 2nd term. So... I'm ABO till the end. We can't afford otherwise.

[NE Cons]

He doesn't need congress. He has executive orders, and he is not afraid to use them.

Look at the havoc he's causing with the EPA, and the destruction he'll cause with it during the next 4 years, if elected.

[NE Cons]

Excellent post!

[PapaBear3625]

I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential Election. Ross Perot, seeing widespread dissatisfaction with George Bush I, entered the race as a common sense conservative. He got 18.9% of the popular vote against Bush, from people who wanted to punish Bush for violating his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.

The net result was that Bill Clinton won in an electoral landslide, while getting just 43% of the popular vote.

[Springfield Reformer]

I never said God was concerned about god wannabes. He’s not. He laughs at their pretension. Yet he is concerned about how his believers behave themselves. He warns us to steer clear of any person or practice that sets itself up against God, or offers itself as a substitute for God. He designates such hubris as idolatry, and has told us unambiguously to avoid it, to flee from it. His concern is for us, not for the idol. He loves us, and thus wants us to direct our faith exclusively to him, because only then can we receive his blessing and help, which we now so desperately need.

[Graewoulf]

Thanks for this thread.

[going hot]

He loves us, and thus wants us to direct our faith exclusively to him, because only then can we receive his blessing and help, which we now so desperately need.

You have convinced me. V. Goode is the answer to our prayers.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Ask Mitt for this promise.

Mitt’s trying to have it all ways.

[OneWingedShark]

It’s frustrating, whenever way too many non-leftist voters continue the ongoing trend of voting for the “lesser of two evils” in the race for POTUS/VPOTUS, with no true end in sight!

Part of the problem, I think, is the 12th Amendment which changed the way President and Vice President are chosen.
The founders may have been brilliant, but I think they screwed up with the 12th. Having the VP be the runner-up for the Presidency meant that two very different outlooks (parties) could "have their say", so to speak.

I think that system would allow people to vote more in-line w/ their conscience than "in the interest of practicality." (someone once said that in a compromise between good and evil, good always looses.)

[xzins]

Just one month ago Romney announced his support for gay couples. At the same time he announced his belief that a state should be able to force gay adoption on its citizens.

How exactly is that not a leftist agenda designed to overwhelm the republic?

[cripplecreek]

At least the BBC is honest. Just yesterday they called Mittens a “Liberal republican” and stated that his candidacy is a sign that the GOP is trying to move away from the “extreme right”.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The only choice we have at this point is the lesser of two evils.

If you want Ubama to win, good for you.

[libdestroyer]

>How “principled” is a “principled conservatism” that gives us four more years of a Moslem-mole President whose goal is to overwhelm the Republic?

It’s pretty easy to understand. Some of us want to vote for a candidate that shares our values. Goode shares our values.

These doomsday hyperboles you ABO people keep throwing out won’t do a damn thing to change our minds. And if you’re thinking Mitt Romney is going to fix Obama’s mess, you’re sorely mistaken. There’s LESS chance of disaster under a lame-duck Obama than there is with MR and a willing Republican House that will vote for ANYTHING he proposes.

[libdestroyer]

>So how exactly would you categorize a politician who has done the following?:

1. Implemented Socialized medicine with a $50 dollar Abortion
2. Implemented an “Assault” weapons ban
3. Supported the Brady Bill
4. Raised taxes/fees by $700 million
5. Whole-heartedly supported Abortion while Governor, and even after his supposed Pro-Life conversion was still nominating extreme Pro-Abortion judges.
6. Supported and forced Gay Adoption. He still supports Gay Adoption.
7. Almost implemented a Carbon cap-and-trade plan, only backing off at the last minute when he realized the political winds had changed and he was running for President.
8. Supported Planned Parenthood.
9. Nominated 27 out of 36 judges who were radical, left-wing, Progressive Liberals.
10. Supported/Supports Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.
11. Believes States forcing people to buy Health Insurance is constitutionally correct.
12. Is Ok with Homos in Scouts.
13. Supported TARP and Auto Bailouts.
14. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty for Illegal Aliens)
15. Is OK with Homos in Military.

GAME. SET. MATCH.

[xzins]

E. Plur Unum wrote to xzins: "The only choice we have at this point is the lesser of two evils. If you want Ubama to win, good for you.

Earlier he wrote to Jim Robinson:

To: Jim Robinson

Cain is filling the vacuum Sarah left behind. He's going to have to do.

The alternative is Myth, who is the same thing as Ubama.

10 posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:08:56 PM by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." --Ronald Reagan)

found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800991/posts?page=10#10

[libdestroyer]

>I’m reminded of the 1992 Presidential Election. Ross Perot, seeing widespread dissatisfaction with George Bush I, entered the race as a common sense conservative. He got 18.9% of the popular vote against Bush, from people who wanted to punish Bush for violating his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge.

The net result was that Bill Clinton won in an electoral landslide, while getting just 43% of the popular vote.

The lesson to learn here: STOP GIVING US RINO CANDIDATES OR YOU WILL LOSE TO A DEMOCRAT.

[xzins]

Maybe we could get the BBC to buy NBC.

They only need one consonant and don’t have to buy a vowel. :>)

[Yashcheritsiy]

BAM!