Posted on 07/13/2012 9:00:22 PM PDT by techno
The complete Virgil Goode rundown:
The ten most asked questions about Virgil Goode and why he matters:
1) Who is Virgil Goode?
He is a former GOP Congressman from Virginia who was defeated in the 2010 election. He is now the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party, a third party.
2) How long has the Constitution Party been around?
About 20 years.
3) I hear that Virgil Goode is NOT yet on the Virginia presidential ballot. Will he fail to get on the ballot.
To give you some perspective, in 2004 and 2008 the Constitution Party presidential nominee was on the Virginia presidential ballot. As Goode is a resident of Virginia and a former Congressman, do you really think he would not know the ins and outs of getting on the ballot, which requires him to get 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each congressional district. As of June 6, 2012 via the Martinsville Bulletin, a local newspaper, Goode had already collected 4000 signatures. And the article concluded that the Constitution Party had as of that date already collected enough signatures to be on the ballot in 17 states.
4) Third party presidential candidates don't normally a cause a ripple through the process. What's different about Virgil Goode?
Let's put it this way, if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, Goode wouldn't matter. But presidential elections are decided in the electoral college.
5)What do you mean Techno?
There are certain states which are called battleground or swing states in which either the Democratic presidential nominee could win but by the same token the GOP presidential nominee could prevail as well. There are ten or so states in the 2012 electoral college which could be considered battleground states based on recent presidential elections and current polling. Virginia is one of those states. And it is not out of the ordinary for the winner of a battleground state to win by a margin of less than 2%.
6) So again why is Goode important to Romney's chances to become president?
Because Goode apparently is far more popular in Virginia than any other state. A Public Policy poll (PPP) in May found that Goode would garner 5% of the vote in Virginia in the presidential election against Obama and Romney. And now a couple of days ago, Goode increased his share of the vote to 9% with Obama collected 49% of the vote and Romney 35%. Without Goode in the mix it would be Obama 50% and Romney 42%. And for those not schooled in the electoral college, the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race in Virgina earns Virginia's 13 electoral votes in 2012. And that now appears to be Obama and not Romney.
7) Are you saying Techno that Goode is taking away way more voters away from Romney than he is Obama?
Exactly, that is what I am saying, But I am NOT the only one saying that. Local Virginia pundits are saying that as well. And PPP in its summary of the poll found that too. If you don't believe me, go over to the PPP web site and read it for yourself.
8)Techno, I'm lazy. I don't want to go over to PPP and read their s*it. Could you give me a brief synopsis?
Alright brother and sister. Under the Obama--Romney--Goode scenario in Virginia here is how the vote breaks down in four demographics: very conservative voters, somewhat conservative voters, Republicans and independents:
----------------------OBAMA--------ROMNEY-----GOODE
VERY CONSERVATIVE-------7-----------84----------7
SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE---19----------55----------14
REPUBLICANS-------------9-----------78----------9
INDEPENDENTS------------45----------26----------17
It doesn't take a genius to figure out Goode hurts Romney way more than he hurts Obama.
9) But don't third party bids eventually fizzle out?
Yes, that is the rule of thumb nationally. But in Virginia Goode ahs gained 4% in support since May and he's not even on the Virginia ballot yet. Even if he drops back to his previous level of support of 5% that would still be enough to sink Romney's ship in Virginia in a close contest.
10) Techno, could you explain why Virginia is so important?
It comes down to the number of electoral votes (EV) in the electoral college. The general consensus among the folks who do it for a living is that President Obama currently sits at 247 EV when you include all the safe blue states and those states leaning to Obama (likely to win). If Obama wins VA, a battleground state, that takes him to 260 EV and therefore only needs 10 more EV to hit the 270 EV threshold to win re-election. And here are the four swing states which Obama must win these 10 votes again based on a consensus of experts: Iowa (6), NH(4), Nevada (6) and Colorado (9). Obama is currently enjoying a small margin in the polls in every state but Iowa and is running neck and neck with Romney there.
Of course the dynamic of the race could shift in the next three months or so but it appears Obama has the edge in winning Colorado and its 9 EV. If he did that he would reach 269 EV and would only need to win one of the remaining three states to get a second term.
As for Mitt Romney if he loses Virginia, assuming he wins the other huge 4 swing states of Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida and reaches 253 EV, Romney would be forced to win Colorado to have any chance of winning the presidency in the electoral college. The best he could hope for otherwise is a tie (269-269) in which case the contest goes to the House of Representatives.
One other element to consider: In 2008 President Obama won 1 EV in Nebraska who allots it EV by whoever wins the congressional district. Obama actually won this district (Omaha) by 9.77% which is a pretty hefty margin. If Obama could again win this district and on top of it win Virginia and Colorado that would take him to 270 EV on the button and Romney would be denied regardless of what he did in Iowa, NH and Nevada.
A final note: If Romney can win Virginia with Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida he would then be at 266 EV. He would then not be forced to win Colorado but would only have to be victorious in Iowa to become the new president.
And that folks is why Team Obama has had many sleepless nights over the past 3 years. Virgil Goode is a godsend for Obama and his team.
If you live in WA, OR, CA, MN, IL, NY, NJ, CT, DE, MD, DC, VT, MA, Maine, Hawaii, a vote for Romney -- who won't receive first-place #s in those states -- is a sure vote for a loser in those states. (Remember, unlike other roles, a candidate doesn't win by popular vote; he wins by electoral vote...a state-by-state vote).
Sorry, Gusty. But second-place only counts in horseracing!
Therefore, all, Gusty might be consistent here ... IF he would tell all you voters in the above states that it's "looneytune logic" for you voters in those states to go ahead and vote for a loser (Romney).
Yes, making the vote overwhelming for Obama in those states allows the dem vote counting scams to place more democrats in Congress ... if Obama wins by a large margin int hose states, there is no grounds upon which to question a higher dem vote for the dem candidates down ticket. But hatred for the liberal Milt doesn’t stop folks from pushing the ‘finny’ logic apparently overwhelming the minds of Romney haters. Why shucks, if you get this meme loud enough you might even have an effect in close states where the dems need it close so they can cheat for the win. Aren’t you so proud of your ‘finny’ sycophancy?
Actually, not in context, EV.
How would balancing the budget happen most quickly. That’s what he’s spelled out.
At no place do you find Goode saying, “I believe in welfare queens ripping off the system.”
What he does say is that with wars drawing down that there is no reason to keep the military funded at the same level. That’s only common sense. It wasn’t funded at wartime levels prior to the war.
However, he clearly says it should be the best military in the world.
I’m a veteran and a retiree, EV. I know the military.
Romney's religious track-record re: Communism...see the last column to the right below...and then realize that Romney says he is "faithful" to the faith of his forefathers in the faith!
| GOV. Romney | Mormon 'scripture' & History | Sources | Quotes |
| ObamaCare based upon RomneyCare [SoConPubbie has posted some threads the week of April 16, 2012 along these lines]. In addition, what about Romney's $50 taxpayer-subsidized abortions -- and some $0 abortions -- he permanently imposed a Planned Parenthood rep into supervision of RomneyCare? (Since he vetoed other portions of that legislation, the Planned Parenthood rep section was also something he could have vetoed). For all of the pro-abortion damage done by Romney in the Bay State, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt] | Mitt's Mormonism embraced socialism/communism under the 'United Order' – sacred commands still on the Mormon “scriptures” – depicted to be “everlasting” commandments of the Mormon god | The Mormon socialistic/communistic “everlasting” nature of the “United Order” depicted in Lds “scriptures” – Doctrine & Covenants 82:18-19 and 104:1, 48, 53. | Even Lds author George Givens described Brigham Young’s communist-built community of Orderville, Utah as “pure communism”: "When Brigham Young established Orderville and similar United Orders, John Taylor was less than enthusiastic. He realized that enterprises such as Orderville were pure communism and not the law of consecration. He made this plain after he became President, when in 1882 he sent an epistle to all authorities of the Church in which he bluntly stated: 'We had no example of the 'United Order' in accordance with the word of God on the subject...Our relations with the world and our own imperfections prevent the establishment of this system [i.e. the system of consecration and stewardship spoken of at times as the 'United Order'] at the present time, as was stated by Joseph in an early day, it cannot yet be carried out.'" (George W. Givens, 500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, 2004, p. 169)"One of the most famous utopian books ever written was Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy, published in 1889. Some scholars believe Looking Backward had considerable influence in the making of Lenin's Soviet Russia. If this is true, then [ensuing Lds "prophet"] Lorenzo Snow and the Latter-day Saints must receive some of the credit--or blame. Hearing of the success of the United Order in Brigham City, Edward Bellamy made a special trip to Utah in 1886 to study its operation. There he spent three days with Lorenzo Snow, Brigham City's founder and forty-year resident. Impressed with the thirty to forty industries run by its 2,000 inhabitants and the vitality at that time of one of the most successful United Orders, Bellamy returned home and wrote his influential book." (500 More Little-Known Facts in Mormon History, p. 185). Way to go, 19th century Mormon leader-“prophets” of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor & Lorenzo Snow!!! They all unwittingly fueled Soviet Communism! |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! |
He has made it very clear that he has no intention of touching the major “entitlements.” It’s on his website still. I just went and looked. “We must preserve and protect Social Security.” (http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html)
As for me, I can’t put my finger on the enumerated constitutional power for those programs. Can you?
Don’t close your eyes to who Mr. Goode has allied himself to when it comes to foreign policy. They are overwhelmingly extreme isolationists, and want to drop Israel like a rock.
Conservatism is slip, sliding away. You have to move the pile, even a bit, in the opposite direction for future nominees.
In reference to my last post:
Goode thinks defense spending has caused our deficits, and that therefore cutting it is the path to a balanced budget.
I strongly disagree. The primary cause of our deficits is unconstitutional spending on programs and agencies that lie outside the enumerated powers.
The exact agencies and programs Congressman Goode considers to be sacrosanct.
(Instead, you'd rather sleep with somebody who STILL embraces giving her offspring to "research"...and carries the power to reinforce that for others...)
Who is culpable -- besides the GoP-e -- for giving us Romney to begin with?
...This whole thing is kind of like a relative coming to you and asking if you approve of the guy she's chosen for marriage...
...You frankly, repeatedly, with full reasons why -- including a careful background search of the guy -- tell the female relative, "No, he's not the right guy for you."
...Then guess what happens?
Surprise, surprise! The "marriage" doesn't last very long...
But guess who the ex-bride will blame for the "marriage" not working out???
Yup...'twas your fault...
Tho you tried & tried & tried to warn her that it wouldn't proceed very far, she just wouldn't listen...
And what is almost as bad -- the ex-bride's family & friends temporarily rallied behind her to extol this guy to the world as being a true "catch"...They hid from the world all the horrible things they knew about him, and became apologists for him re: the trail of aborted babies he left behind in previous relationships...
And now the ex-bride's reputation for life is forever linked with this sorest apology of a guy (let alone not living up to the "god in embryo" he is touted to be)...And these cheerleaders-from-hell who endorsed the bridegroom...the ones who would betray the womb...betray the cause against socialism?
Why, they've become -- with it growing daily -- marginalized. Silenced.
Their vocal chords & keyboards vs. socialism & abortion & liberalism have been "traded in."
They are like Esau of the Bible, who traded his inheritance for a bowl of lentil soup. In this case, they have traded their Free Republic heritage for a "lentil soup" candidate, all because they refuse to "taste" defeat, wanting to delay the hunger pangs of defeat until later.
Running liberal, socialist RINOs as POTUS candidates is the REAL sticking point that allows the dem vote counting scams to place more democrats in Congress...pinpoint the blame where it belongs and stop projecting it onto voters who retain their principles...versus the capitulators we see left and right...
Ah yes, wave you self-righteousness falg as if it was the issue unspoken. And I’m sure you divert lots of attention from the realities with that strategy too, as you work tirelessly to aid the improvement of Obama’s stats and empower the democrat down ticket cheating.
Rush spanked you Anybody-but-Romney folks on the radio yesterday. Were you able to catch that?
Defense: as I said, defense savings will happen as a result of returning from war.
Israel: Chuck Baldwin, the most recent Constitution Party candidate, is a premillennialist, and they are notoriously pro-Israel. Not being burdened by foreign entanglements is a worthy goal, and it does not mean one does not recognize one’s allies.
Social Security: Article I, Section 8: “Section. 8.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; “
Social Security is not against the Constitution, it is simply a poor way to accomplish the goal of providing for the elderly. It is a uniform tax, uniformly applied, and it is designed to provide relief for the elderly. That is not contra-Constitution.
I would add this portion of the 14th amendment: “Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...shall not be questioned. “
Wartime levels of spending have contributed to our deficits. It’s all borrowed money, and it doesn’t really matter where they record it on the ledger.
the National Right to Life Committee supports Romney.
I guess you are smarter than they are?
HUH?
The USA allied with the Soviet Union against Hitler.
The USA sided with the Taliban against the Soviet Union.
You do what you have to do, to survive.
If you want our country to survive, you will vote for Romney.
Every election is a choice between the “lesser of evils” since NOBODY IS PERFECT, Jesus is not on the ballot!
Therefore, your puritanical silliness only helps the worst of evils: OBAMA!
They might want to ask why Romneycare covers abortion. :)
Respectfully, your construction is as loosey-goosey as the construction of the Democrats and the Republicans, which is what got us where we are now.
It is not uniform, which means it doesn’t fit the constitutional template for taxation. Which also means it is in no way the “general welfare” either.
As regards Baldwin and the CP you are at the least naive vis a vis Israel and their foreign policy views.
"The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."-- James Madison
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.