Why Virgil Goode matters to Mitt Romney's presidential chances

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.

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.

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%.

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:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out Goode hurts Romney way more than he hurts Obama.

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.

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 gut the other 81 percent of unconstitutional spending, then yes, you are advocating fiscal responsibility. The federal government has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation. Where is the constitutional right to welfare? To social security? Cut those first and then we can talk about cutbacks to the military.

Nope. Cut it all, or you're not serious about fiscal responsibility. Right now, a large extravagant military is simply a useless bauble that's sucking away taxpayer monies with little to no return on the "investment."

And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.

Irrelevant. Congress is only authorised to raise and support armies by specific appropriation for two year periods. This means that the whole "standing army" expenditure is pretty much unconstitutional on its face. Since we've had no actual budget for several years now, but have been shoestringing it along, this also means that, while we're shoestringing appropriations for the wars, there hasn't been any actual *legitimate* appropriation for it taking place. Again, either you're for budgeting or you're not for budgeting. The former indicates fiscal responsibility, the latter indicates a lack of it.

And while we're on the war - it's time to end it. Occupying Afghanistan serves absolutely no US security interest. It's simply as rathole that we're pouring money down so that the US government can justify inflating expenditures.

hat do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”.

I think you mean Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington. However, Jefferson also sent the Navy (and the Marines, which are a Department of the Navy, and were originally shipboard pretty much entirely, except for brief landward excursions), not a standing army, so your analogy is useless on its face.

Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.

Yeah - they would have fought it to win, and then come home once it was done, and demobilised any armies temporarily raised. Like we should have done in 2002.

If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about

Whenever you'd like to start, please feel free to.

“Nope. Cut it all, or you’re not serious about fiscal responsibility.”

Again, cutting the 81 percent of non-military spending is fiscal responsibility directed with proper priorities. Priorities of spending is the most important thing of all.

“Right now, a large extravagant military”

The military is neither large, nor extravagant. We are at wartime at present, ergo cutting the military is not appropriate at this point in time.

“Irrelevant.”

Not at all. Wars are wars. Wars must be fought to win. Peacetime military is very different from the wartime military.

“Congress is only authorised to raise and support armies by specific appropriation for two year periods.”

Not since the Bill of Rights.

“This means that the whole “standing army” expenditure is pretty much unconstitutional on its face.”

One of the reasons the bill of rights was passed was to deal with this part of the Articles.

“Since we’ve had no actual budget for several years now, but have been shoestringing it along, this also means that, while we’re shoestringing appropriations for the wars, there hasn’t been any actual *legitimate* appropriation for it taking place.”

This is the big problem. The problem isn’t so much the lack of appropriations for the military, it is the fact that legally, the budget must be passed, each and every year. This is a huge problem for one missed budget, let alone 4. This issue must be addressed instantly.

“Again, either you’re for budgeting or you’re not for budgeting. The former indicates fiscal responsibility, the latter indicates a lack of it.”

And I’m very much in favor of budgeting.

“And while we’re on the war - it’s time to end it.”

So sayeth the loser generation that lost in Vietnam and drew in Korea. No, we’re going to fight in Afghanistan and win in Afghanistan. As much as I’m sure the boomers want to cut and run, the younguns like me who have been fighting the war for their entire adult life are going to keep fighting.

“Occupying Afghanistan serves absolutely no US security interest.”

Establishing a democratic and free Afghanistan does.

“so your analogy is useless on its face.”

Jefferson didn’t cut and run from the Barbary Pirates. Why do you think Jefferson would cut and run after something like 9-11?

“Like we should have done in 2002.”

Umm, neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan was won at that point in time. So you believe in losing wars?

Again, cutting the 81 percent of non-military spending is fiscal responsibility directed with proper priorities. Priorities of spending is the most important thing of all.

Well, first of all, the 81% of non-military spending won't all be cut, for the simple reason that the government *does* have other constitutional roles besides just operating a military. A large chunk of it can and should be cut, but your simple-minded "we'll just cut the other 81%!!!" approach is ludicrous and infeasible.

AGAIN - anyone not willing to put a 19% chunk of largely useless spending on the block is simply not serious and is not paying attention.

The military is neither large, nor extravagant. We are at wartime at present, ergo cutting the military is not appropriate at this point in time.

Well, first of all, the action in Afghanistan *barely* constitutes a "war" and it's certainly not a "war" that in any wise constitutes a life-or-death situation, or one where we'd be even mildly inconvenienced were we to stop diddling around with it. It certainly does not justify 19% of a budget that comprises ~3.5 trillion dollars. If we have to end the war in Afghanistan to cut it back, then so be it. We have no interest now in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is irrelevant to American security interests.

Not at all. Wars are wars. Wars must be fought to win. Peacetime military is very different from the wartime military.

Well, since we're obviously not fighting this war to win, then there's no point to our being there. Why continue to waste $85 billion a month when we're not serious about fighting it? That's simple-minded stupidity. Either powerup and kill everybody in the country ('cause that's basically what you'd have to do to really "win" there by the definition we're used to thinking of), or leave and let them rot in their own Islamic filth.

Not since the Bill of Rights.

Seriously? You are an idiot, plain and simple. The Bill of Rights nowhere calls for a standing army, large or otherwise. The 2nd amendment assumes that the entire able-bodied population of the country that is of age will form a well-regulated militia - which is emphatically NOT the same thing as a professional standing army, large or otherwise. The fact that you seem to be confused on this point indicates that you really have no business engaging in this discussion since you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Go back to the library and read some more, and maybe we can pick this discussion up in a few months.

“Well, first of all, the 81% of non-military spending won’t all be cut, for the simple reason that the government *does* have other constitutional roles besides just operating a military.”

So you are saying the government should only spend money on it’s constitutional roles?

“approach is ludicrous and infeasible.”

How so?

“19% chunk of largely useless spending”

When there’s 81 percent of largely useless spending, yes we should concentrate on cutting the 81 percent before the 19.

“the action in Afghanistan *barely* constitutes a “war” “

tell that to the young men and women who have died serving their country that they didn’t die in a ;reaa

“If we have to end the war in Afghanistan to cut it back”

As I said, you wouldn’t know how to win a war. Cut and run.

“Afghanistan is irrelevant to American security interests.”

Just like Bin Laden is irrelevant too, eh?

“Either powerup and kill everybody in the country (’cause that’s basically what you’d have to do to really “win” “

So you don’t believe they can become a friendly democracy.

“The Bill of Rights nowhere calls for a standing army,”

You’re aware of the articles of confederation and how they prohibited the establishment of a standing army? That changed with the Bill of Rights.

If you’re going to call me ignorant, then you’d best get to reading those books you’ve assigned.

So you are saying the government should only spend money on it’s constitutional roles?

Pretty much, yeah. Though it doesn't have to waste money on even those.

When there’s 81 percent of largely useless spending, yes we should concentrate on cutting the 81 percent before the 19.

We should concentrate on cutting *100%* of useless spending. Unfortunately, you appear to be one of those "conservatives" who want to cut the budget - except when your preferred spending program is on the block, then suddenly that becomes hands off.

tell that to the young men and women who have died serving their country that they didn’t die in a war

Pretty pathetic attempt at an emotional argument designed to get around a rational approach to the issue. While tragic, their deaths (which were UNNEEDED) still do not make Afghanistan constitute a real war. We have thousands of young men and women who die each year in the military just due to accidents - does this mean that electrocutions and Humvee accidents constitute "wars"?

As I said, you wouldn’t know how to win a war. Cut and run.

This is just a dumb argument. So we need to stay around in some idiotic hands-off occupation for decades on end because otherwise some idiot-child chest-thumper might accuse us of "cutting and running"? What sort of stupidity is this?

Further, if you think what's going on in Afghanistan constitutes "knowing how to win a war," then you have some serious educational deficiencies that you need to remedy.

Just like Bin Laden is irrelevant too, eh?

Apples and oranges. Even presuming that Bin Laden hasn't been dead since Tora Bora, and has only since been used as a rallying cry for continuing the wars, his importance has had NO relation to operations in Afghanistan since late 2001/early 2002. For most of a decade, the occupation in Afghanistan has been nothing but a rathole down which we're throwing good mens lives and billions in taxpayer dollars.

So you don’t believe they can become a friendly democracy.

Actually, I don't. Besides - you're asking the wrong question. "Democracy" can merely mean a bunch of people with purple ink on their thumbs legally installing Islamist regimes into power. While people like you might pat yourselves on the back in front of a TV camera for it, it really does nothing, well actually WORSE than nothing, to actually stabilise the world situation.

As for whether Afghanistan (or the rest of the Muslim world) is ready for constitutionally limited government and true freedom, the answer is also "no." Those things don't just appear overnight. We have these because we have centuries of experience in building self-government and developing a broad-based philosophical ideology of limited government dating back through the Scottish Enlightenment to Locke and beyond to the Magna Carta. Even in places like Japan and Germany where we "successfully" (and even then, the success is somewhat questionable) implanted democracy, in both of those nations, you had educated elites (often persecuted) who had imbibed a good deal of liberty ideology from our schools, and (more importantly) accepted it themselves.

This same cannot be said for the Muslim world. They simply lack a critical set of liberty values that are necessary to make the kind of stable, rule of law limited government system such as ours possible. You're not going to change that in a decade when there's no underlying foundation upon which to build it.

You’re aware of the articles of confederation and how they prohibited the establishment of a standing army? That changed with the Bill of Rights.

LOL, okay, I'll bite. I'd love to see your attempt to show us how the Bill of Rights authorizes a standing army. This will be interesting, considering what Madison, one of the principle authors of the BoR, said about standing armies,

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Indeed, if there was one thing that the Founders most generally agreed upon, whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist, it was that a standing army was a Bad Thing.

"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?" (Patrick Henry)

"...that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." (Statement of the Virginia Convention for Ratification of the constitution) (you mean they were ratifying a document that contained a provision for something they thought the largest instrument of tyranny available???)

"...that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power." (North Carolina Declaration of Rights of 1776)

"...as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power." (Statement of Pennsylvania's Convention for Ratifying the Constitution)

I mean, these were people who wrote the Declaration of Independence which contained numerous grievances specifically against the uses of standing armies by a tyrant.

The whole point to the 2nd amendment was to provide the general body of the citizenry as a militia, so that we didn't NEED a standing army, and so that we'd be able to BEAT a standing army should one exist and be used for tyranny. Hate to break it to you, but the Founders thought the 2nd amendment was to be used to shoot American soldiers if they got out of line.

Further, the whole point to the 3rd amendment was to limit the ability of the government to use a standing army as a means of oppressing the people, too. Far from being a positive argument FOR a standing army, the 3rd amendment was intended to provide an additional safeguard against such an institution.

Sheesh. Have we learned nothing in the past 230 years?

“when your preferred spending program is on the block”

The constitution is pretty blunt about that - military spending is constitutional. 80 percent of our domestic spending is not. Unconstitutional spending should be cut first before constitutional spending.

“does this mean that electrocutions and Humvee accidents constitute “wars”?”

When a young man goes overseas to fight enemies of America, it is our obligation to honor their sacrifice. Not piss on them by telling them that their ‘war’ isn’t real.

“So we need to stay around in some idiotic hands-off occupation for decades on end”

You’re not the one doing the fighting. We are. And we’re not going to cut and run like you did at Vietnam.

“For most of a decade, the occupation in Afghanistan has been nothing but a rathole down which we’re throwing good mens lives and billions in taxpayer dollars.”

Yawn, same bitchfest we heard at Vietnam. Why don’t you go over and live in Afghanistan, if you aren’t willing to fight for America. Maybe they’ll even give you a microphone so you can be Kabul Charlie.

“to actually stabilise the world situation.”

As opposed to an Islamist regime that is beholden to the caliphate. You really think that would be more secure?

“Those things don’t just appear overnight.”

You’re the one insisting that they do.

“We have these because we have centuries of experience in building self-government and developing a broad-based philosophical ideology of limited government dating back through the Scottish Enlightenment to Locke and beyond to the Magna Carta.”

Worked well enough for Japan, and Germany. If it can work for Japan, Germany, Korea, Taiwan, etc, then I don’t see why it cannot work for Afghanistan.

“They simply lack a critical set of liberty values that are necessary to make the kind of stable, rule of law limited government system such as ours possible.”

Nonsense. Afghanistan has had far more exposure to these ideas than North America. Islam is not native to the region.

“...that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous”

Once again, your lie has been exposed. We are not in a time of peace, ergo a standing army is appropriate.

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.