Why Virgil Goode matters to Mitt Romney's presidential chances

July 14, 2012 | techno

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider… [Otherwise], would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power do to whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1791

[EternalVigilance]

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution

[xzins]

Alexander Hamilton: “The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this—That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”

[EternalVigilance]

Can you show us any real difference between your construction of the constitutional taxing authority vis a vis Social Security and John Roberts’ construction of the constitutional authority of Congress in the Obamacare case?

Is your construction vis a vis the “general welfare” clause in line with the views of the framers, or in line with the modern understanding of our political and legal elites? It cannot be both.

[EternalVigilance]

"Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

-- Thomas Jefferson

[EternalVigilance]

"With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."

-- James Madison

[xzins]

ObamaCare required a non-uniform, penalty tax to fund a congressionally approved program. Social Security is a uniform tax to fund a congressionally approved program.

Additionally, ObamaCare’s tax is the only one I can think of that is levied against non-behavior, thereby violating the basic right of liberty.

Social security, on the other hand, is a tax collection placed in a fund that is distributed to all, AND it has opt-out provisions for religious/philosophical dissent.

[gorush]

I was, thanks. Romney will win easily as plenty of disaffected liberals will be happy to vote for him...why wouldn’t they? So we end up on a freight train instead of high-speed rail...they both go to the same destination.

[EternalVigilance]

Either the general welfare clause means what I’m saying it means, which is what Madison and Jefferson said it means, or it means what our political and legal elites say it means. It cannot be both.

The former describes limited government, according to enumerated powers. The latter describes unlimited government, without any regard to enumerated powers.

And Madison’s view of the taxing authority was that it only extends to constitutionally-enumerated purposes.

John Roberts, in a rather psychotic contradiction of himself in one opinion, said that the general welfare clause does NOT give the general government unlimited power, but that the taxing authority gives them power to do whatever they want, without limit.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, Hamilton's words that you cite are the ones used constantly by liberals to constitutionally justify the endless number of agencies and programs from which they benefit. The National Education Association most notably.

It was also used extensively in the Congress to launch the New Deal.

[EternalVigilance]

"The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it....is now universally admitted."

-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819

[Yashcheritsiy]

Goode on National Defense: We need a strong national defense. However, reckless federal spending which has given us a deficit in excess of one trillion dollars necessitates cutting defense spending. We must now come home from Afghanistan and reduce our expenditures around the globe.

Yeah...and?

[xzins]

Does that make them NOT Alex Hamilton’s words. I think he was commenting on the language used in the US Constitution.

Say what you want about what you think it means, but it does say “general welfare”. Alex was simply saying that the word “general” makes it broad. I think he’s right.

And since we have founders in disagreement, that means that it remains up for discussion.

[EternalVigilance]

Look to the unconstitutional spending first. That’s all I’m saying.

And don’t think you can balance the budget on the back of national defense. You can’t, and you shouldn’t try.

[xzins]

Again, let me point out that Goode is talking about the fastest way to come to a balanced budget, and that he thinks the end of a war should mean lesser funding necessary for the US military. I see no problem with that.

When you speak of “unconstitutional spending” and you question social security’s constitutionality, and you question Goode’s resolve to preserve social security, you raise an interesting question for me.

Do you plan to end social security? A yes or no answer would be appreciated.

[EternalVigilance]

And since we have founders in disagreement, that means that it remains up for discussion.

Hamilton's views, as interpreted by you, have prevailed, that is very clear.

As I said before, the quote you've used is what every leftist in American government today uses to justify an unlimited scope on government, on taxation, on spending, on social engineering of any and every sort.

The crucially important question is, is that a good thing?

Because, the end result is necessarily an unlimited, all-powerful, general government.

Is that what you support?

Is that what Congressman Goode supports?

Is that what the "Constitution" Party supports?

[EternalVigilance]

Yes. And every other unconstitutional program and agency.

It’s what the oath requires, isn’t it?

[Yashcheritsiy]

First of all, spending on the military is the single largest chunk of the federal budget, so anyone who can't agree to it facing its share of cutback simply isn't serious about reining in spending or cutting deficits. Period.

I looked up Goode's personal election website, and checked out his statement about Social Security, which seems to be along the lines of "we've stolen $2 trillion from it, we need to pay it back to fulfill our obligations." As much as we may not like this obligation, it's nevertheless one we've made. Simply wanting to cut and run from that shows a lack of charactre on the part of the one wanting to do that. Pay off our obligations, while at the same time phasing the program out of existence completely.

Not sure where the "Social Security is sacrosanct" claim being attributed to Goode comes from. Did he actually say this, or is this more of the "Tom Hoefling super secret interpretation sauce" being applied?

As an aside, I would point out that because the Constitution never explicitly mentions any Air Force, and because the Founders did not mention it either, therefore we should cut the Air Force out completely.

[xzins]

Hamilton, author of the Federalist papers, has had his view on the meaning of “general welfare” prevail over others like Madison and Jefferson. That is because Hamilton recognized the broadness of the term “general”.

And it isn’t just “leftists” who use that understanding, it is also courts, who, at the end of the day on this one, do have to contend with the broadness of the word “general”.

Now, you say those views have prevailed, but you then call programs based on that view “unconstitutional”.

Wouldn’t you have to admit, at a minimum, that their constitutionality is disputed, but not necessarily unconstitutional, and also that their constitutionality is the prevailing view?

Would I prefer a different system than Social Security. Yep. What do I think is the best system? Personal ownership and responsibility.

Now, asking me about the inworkings of the Constitution Party isn’t going to yield much info. I’m new to it, I’m not a spokesman for it, and I would be able to speak in broad terms and not specific.

That said, I’m enthusiastic about what I know of it so far.

[muawiyah]

We are not fighting Hitler ~ but in any case we screwed that up when we failed to reduce Europe to a fiefdom that pays us tribute.

Here's a chance to get rid of two birds with a single vote ~ toss this into the House. If they can't figure it out it goes to the entire Congress and each state gets one vote.

At that level Romney and Obama are just out of the loop.