Posted on 07/24/2012 6:28:39 PM PDT by xzins
While many on the right fear that Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode might just draw enough votes in his native Virginia to tip the Old Dominion’s 14 electoral votes from Mitt Romney to Barack Obama, the former six-term congressman made it clear he doesn’t care.
Goode, in fact, feels that “in many ways, for conservatives, it might be better to have Obama as president next year rather than Romney.”
The 65-year-old Goode spoke to Human Events last week as he and his supporters were in the process of gathering the 10,000 signatures they need to submit before the Aug. 24 deadline to qualify for Virginia’s November ballot. Founded by Conservative Caucus chairman and venerable conservative leader Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party is so far on the ballot in 17 states. Right now, Goode told us, the party is making attempts to secure ballot positions in other key states such as Arkansas, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania — the home state of the Constitution Party’s vice presidential nominee Jim Clymer.
But what has clearly set off alarm bells among conservatives lately is the scenario of Goode making the ballot in Virginia — where he won the 5th District U.S. House seat as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican from 1996 until his narrow defeat in 2008. Polls show the state, which Obama narrowly carried over John McCain in 2008, seesawing between the president and his Republican opponent in 2012. A just-completed Quinnipiac Poll showed Obama and Romney tied among likely Virginia voters, with each getting 44 percent — down from Obama’s 47 to 42 percent edge in the same poll in June.
Of particular concern to Republicans is Goode’s strength in his home turf: the Danville-Charlottesville area that he represented in Congress and previously as state senator. Four years after he lost the closest House race, the former congressman remains popular in his former turf. In addition, his hard-line stance on immigration, strong emphasis on limited government and focus on following the U.S. Constitution seems more likely to woo Virginians who would otherwise vote for Romney than those inclined to Obama.
“If I’m on the ballot in Virginia, I could cost Obama a lot of votes — possibly as much as or even more than Romney,” Goode told us, repeating a line that many third party contenders have taken over the years. “There are a lot of life-long Democrats (in the Fifth District) who say they’ll hold their nose and vote for Obama. But as the fellow in the filling station up the road told me, ‘I’m a Democrat, but if you’re on the ballot, Virgil, I’m voting for you.’”
We recalled how much as it was widely interpreted that Obama’s victory by a plurality over John McCain in North Carolina in 2008 was due to votes for Libertarian Bob Barr. We then pointed out to Goode that, regardless of his interpretation, pundits and political analysts would almost certainly interpret a narrow Obama win in Virginia to a strong Goode showing and asked how he would feel then.
“In many ways, for conservatives, it might be better to have Obama as president next year rather than Romney,” replied Goode, explaining that “it would be tougher to get through Congress some bad things under Obama than it would under Romney.”
“Take one for the team? Not me brother!”
Recalling how the president announced earlier this year his order not to pursue deportation of illegal aliens who complete high school or join the military, Goode noted that “Romney wouldn’t come out against the short-term amnesty. He was just going with the wind. If Obama were president, Republicans in Congress would oppose him on things like this on principle and almost unanimously. But if Romney were president, he would probably get it through (Congress).
“Remember how (Republican presidential candidate Rick) Santorum explained his vote for the No Child Left Behind (federal education program under George W. Bush) by saying: ‘Sometimes you’ve got take one for the team.’ That’s the argument Romney would use with Republicans to get them to pass things they normally wouldn’t oppose.”
As a Democrat in Congress in the 1990s, Goode pointed out that he voted a strong right-to-life line despite the fact that the Democratic leadership was in the other camp on the abortion issue. As a Republican from 2002-08, he said, “I was urged to ‘take one for the team’ and vote for CAFTA (a free trade agreement). I didn’t think it was good for the country and I opposed it. Sometimes you have to show some backbone.”
As a Democrat, Goode in the House scored unusually high ratings of 84 percent and 83 pe cent with the American Conservative Union; as an independent and later a Republican, his ratings went higher and his lifetime ACU average in 96 percent.
In carrying the banner of the Constitution Party, Virgil Goode is again not “taking one for the team.” Whether he qualifies for the Virginia ballot Aug. 24 and how well he does in his home state will surely be watched there, as well as by Republicans nationwide.
Yep. So I could vote for a banna slug it wouldn’t matter, so I will vote or not vote for president.....if I choose to vote for president it will NOT be BHO or Romney.
CA will go for Odumpo. We have to focus on the rest of the ballot and get as many conservatives elected as possible.
-—”Romney is now a supporter of abortion.”
You’ve got the head of the pro-life Susan B Anthony anti-abortion group throwing her support to Romney. From what I gather, he’s NOT a supporter of abortion.
Where do you get your information?
Actually I think Obama is an ignorant stooge. It’s the people he surrounds himself with and puts in charge of major agencies that are even more dangerous. The election is Obama vs Romney and I think Romney will surround himself with much less dangerous people, although Obama is bad enough. A lot of harm can be done in 4 years of an administration that doesn’t have to care about reelection and is filled with a bunch of Communists.
good. then let’s be on the lookout for targets of opportunity. to be effective, we need to unify the conservative vote in blue states for *one* conservative candidate (write-in or official). if anyone knows goode or is in his district maybe they can get his opinion. in the meantime, congressional districts are as good a place to start as anywhere. i’ll forward the idea to the independent, conservative congressional candidate i’ve been working for in ca (chris pareja) and see what he has to say about it.
if you’re going to keep a ping list, please add me to it.
Virgil has been a democrat, independent, republican and latest latest party incarnation. I think he has a good shot at losing three in three different parties, or maybe four in four. As far as I know that would make him the modern record holder...
You lost me there .. your post is beyond confusing.
But there is a simple organizing principle for how to vote in November: cast your vote in such a way as to minimize the probability of a second term for Obama!
That's it. No need for principles. Principles in the voting booth are for children. No need for God (well, except for existence)!
If you think of it that way, you will recognize there is no room for third parties!!!
“That is not an instance of a Faustian bargain.”
You’re right: Faust got something in return.
“The election is Obama vs Romney and I think Romney will surround himself with much less dangerous people, although Obama is bad enough.”
Maybe, maybe not. I expect that willard will surround himself with people who will do as much or more lasting damage, just over a longer time horizon. And ultimately, if you view the future as including some fairly significant structural shifts in how parts of the country are governed, then which of these guys win is of less consequence.
Texas and Arizona are more going to determine the course of things at this point.
He became a Republican in what, 2000? Do you honestly think the Democrat party in the 90’s is similar to the party Reagan belonged to? Yet Virgie couldn’t figure out he was playing for the bad guys? Or was it just politically expedient to be a Democrat until it was politically expedient to be a Republican. Yeah, there’s the pinnacle of virtue you need to waste your vote on. What a joke.
Please be quiet and drink the CP-e Kool-Aid...
Shoot, I forgot. Maybe I can claim to be a Tom Huff-n-puff supporter disrupting a Virgie thread.
I am only using my phone but if you look through my posting history you will see a time line of Romney’s statements and actions on abortion.
When a guy promotes a government health care that provides free to low cost abortions and still today praises the plan - I do not care who or what group endorces him - he is pro anortion and has always been pro abortion.
Perhaps going back and following the thread of discussion would clear it up.
AGS
I wrestled the computer away from the grandkids and was able to find this time line:
Romney is not pro-life regardless who has endorsed him.
Here is the time line:
Romney’s evolution on abortion:
Romney said I am not comfortable with my status on abortion and want to be called pro-life. (2012)
Romney’s government health care provides $50 to free abortions. (current)
Romney appointed pro-choice judges to his court, they are still serving. (current)
Romney said Roe v Wade should be overturned and left to the states, so that makes me pro-life. (2011)
Romney supports stem cell research. (2004)
Romney said abortion should be kept legal, safe and rare and will honor that commitment. (2002)
Romney said I am committed to preserving abortions rights. (2002)
Romney whether you are for abortion or not is relevant, the individual should decide. (1999)
Romney said is a debate with Kennedy that he was more pro-choice than Kennedy. (1994)
Romney was applauded by plan parenthood for his pro-abortion stand. (1994
Romney’s supporters appear to hope that he will change from the liberal he has always been.
That somehow he will change into a conservative, except that he has never been one (a conservative), so the question is - why do you think he will change?
I wrestled the computer away from the grandkids
_____________________________________________
LOL
Also during a debate in 202 for MASS Gov Willard said uping the age for abortions was OK because if the parents of an underage girl wont give their permission for an abortion a judge in MASS would...
Underage like 12, 13, 14...
Our granddaughters ages...
Willard is an immoral peice of trash...
No better than Obama...
Wow Nana my oldest granddaughter will be twelve in two years and Romney would say its ok for her to get an abortion.
The thought of him or BHO being president makes me ill
Fair enough. But the fact remains that of the two guys running, of which one will be President, Romney is the only chance for good judges. He might surprise us. Obama will not surprise us; he will put atrocious, terrible judges like Sotomayor and Kagan on the bench. There is no doubt at all about that.
If Romney wins and gets a Sup Court opening in his first term, then he’d be hard pressed not to nominate a known conservative because to do otherwise would sink his reelection chances by losing the base. Even if the Dems were to keep the Senate, Romney would lose all support from the social conservative base if he were to betray on a Sup Court pick. As President, he would be held to a different standard than he was as governor of a hopelessly left wing state.
Would Romney identify who he would nominate now, during the campaign? No, I doubt it. Has any candidate ever done that?
Would Romney pledge to nominate judges devoted to overturning Roe? Again, I doubt it. But again, did McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, or Reagan even do that? I know they all spoke of picking judges who won’t legislate from the bench, but have they ever pledged to nominate anti-Roe judges in such explicit terms?
The only commitments he’d likely make now are the ones that other GOP nominees have done, like I said above. Is it meaningless? Yeah, probably, but I don’t think it’s fair to hold that against Romney and not the others.
As to his pro-Roberts comments; when did he say that? I’ll bet it was before the anti-Arizona and pro-Obamacare rulings that Roberts crapped out. Really though, who saw those coming? I know there were a few prescient observers who said Roberts would save Obamacare, but most thought it would be Kennedy who crossed over if anyone did. Until the Arizona and Obamacare cases though, Roberts record was mostly good. He got the Second Amendment cases and the partial birth abortion case right to name a couple. As bad as his last two decision were, the jury is still out on Roberts. Yes, I fear he is ‘evolving’ in office and will go left on more and more cases (but I’m a pessimist), but it’s too early to say. It won’t take long though. Soon a new affirmative action case will go before the Sup Court, and marriage can’t be far behind.
I share the skepticism of Romney. But either he or Obama will be elected President in November. On judges and so many other things, its a choice between a chance and a known terrible entity.
And we should never forget that even the great Reagan only got one good Sup Court pick confirmed. To be fair, Kennedy was a third choice, but there was no excuse for picking O’Connor. What a wasted pick. And of course Bush the Elder gave us Souter, and by extension Kagan (or Sotomayor...I forget the order). If other Republican presidents had done what they promised then we’d have 5 conservatives on the bench right now, with Roberts being a cushion 6th vote.
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.