You need to direct that at Presumptive GOP Nominee and the GOP-E.
They're the ones that brought you a GOP Nominee with this Progressive Liberal record and they're the only ones to blame for this pickle that we find ourselves in:
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.
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.”
This is called "holding Romney's feet to the fire." Too many ABO's sit quietly and permit Romney to say anything because they don't want to upset the apple cart.
That, of course, is the opposite of what they've promised...to hold Romney's feet to the fire.
“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.’”
Goode actually HAS drawn a number of conservative democrat votes in his old district.
ABO's would be well advised to aim for those conservative democrat votes themselves, whether they understand those people or not.
Yeah....Yippie...bamey is going to be dictator!....yeah....good going folks....
ping
This guy is a nutcase spoiler. Why? Because he sees Romney as the THREAT to America, not Obama and his blatant communism and hatred for America.
God help us. I wonder how much this is costing Soros??
You better make sure your candidate stays conservative: fiscal conservative AND SOCIAL conservative.
He needs to recant and apologize his “gay adoption” crap from 2 months ago.
Yes I M voting 4 Goode & ENCOURAGE others to do same!
The Constitution Party is now, and has been since its inception, devoted to conservative principles.
You can read them at http:www.constitutionparty.com
Your job is to hold Romney’s feet to the fire and get him to recant his foolish support for gay couples and for gay adoption.
He needs to come out strongly against RomneyCare.
He needs to say clearly that illegal immigration is never right and will be stopped, that amnesty won’t happen, and that in a time of terrible unemployment that he will not even support LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Why take citizen jobs and give them to foreigners?
Amen brother, I’m doing the same here in Colorado. GOP down ticket but Goode at the top.
BOTH Obama AND Romney are threats...
Of course, Obama has been quite horrendous and will continue to be if he wins. Obama & Romney are political twins
ALL:
Careful re: the apologetical approaches being used by Romney supporters. They will tell you...
1. ..."It doesn't matter what Romney does or doesn't embrace."
All that matters to SOME zombie-like "All But Obama" voters (a sheer euphemism for RomneybotISM) is to...
...hype you up on fear-steroids so that THE ONLY THING that matters is who Romney is running against.
They employ, plainly speaking, pragmatic utilitarian political relativism. Pragmatic utilitarianism, simply put, reduces the socio-political to our own pet-agenda bents. Sadly, Spring/Summer of 2012 has shown how Romney "Conservatives" have tended to fall into the same type of utilitarian logic Democrats used in trying to keep President Clinton in office during his impeachment times. Some Democrats then argued that it didn't matter whether Clinton was guilty of sexualizing his employee; all that mattered was not disrupting a "good economy." Per the pragmatic utilitarians, a candidate supposedly isn't to be measured based upon true conservative principles he/she embraces (or doesn't); rather his resume' is 100% irrelevant!
"The ONLY thing that matters," they tell you, "is that Obama is wrecking the economy. (Hence: 'Tis only Romney's main opposing candidate that matters).
The end-game result? This will, of course, strongly replace the GoP with RINOISM. Permanently. To use a racetrack term, this is called "backing the wrong horse." RINOS indeed are the "blue lights" (the name for the 1813 pro-British traitors) of conservatism. They -- and grassroots Americans who have been raised to embrace free-floating relativism and utilitarianism -- are the cultural capitulators of our times!
And they are rapidly gaining new converts every day via Romney's candidacy!
Thus, Romney and Obama are the "G men" twins (Romney is six of one and Obama a half-dozen of another). What once-upon-a-time drew criticism of Romney...for example, his pioneering socialistic healthcare, has now become "acceptable" to these "born-again" Romneyites! The truth is that BOTH Obama and Romney are EACH "G men" (both government men who have pioneered socialistic healthcare).
Likewise, they will tell you...
2. ...that it "doesn't really matter what candidates believe religiously" -- that there somehow (miraculously and prophetically) won't suffer ANY bleedover to ANY other spheres of life...that religion is somehow hermetically sealed and carefully compartmentalized. Sadly, this simply caters to reinforcing one 2012 book published -- that we are indeed a "nation of heretics."
Likewise, they will tell you...
3. ... minus any evidence, mind you, that somehow one heretical religious system (Mormonism) being injected mainstream into our socio-political culture trumps yet another heretical system (Islam) -- all in the name that Obama is somehow a current Muslim (no evidence offered); or that Romney is somehow an economic political savior whom we have to trust implicitly. Never mind that hell stands eternal for all such systems that cater to counterfeit salvation (BOTH MormonISM and Islam).
Finally, they will tend to ignore...
4. ...the potential bleedover of a candidate's vulnerability -- his gullibility -- to deception. They will talk of this character defect -- this sheer lack of discernment -- as if it wasn't part of a presidential "job description!" Yet in areas such as foreign policy, a candidate easily deceived is easily subject to "hook, line, and sinker" foreign policy major fiascos!
Simply put, we must weigh a candidate's level of vulnerability to deception -- for that transcends religious considerations. (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
A similar principle revolves around this: Other-worldly commitments (faith, whether it's 'True' faith or misdirected faith, IS a character issue!)
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Everytime I hear about some jackass who shoots his family and then commits suicide, I wonder why he just didn’t commit suicide first.
Somehow I’m reminded of that scenario by this bozo.
Obama is lazy and incompetent. He’s not going to be the dictator of anything.
I agree.
Your vote for a conservative, Virgil Goode, would make a difference in that:
1. It would help strengthen a 2nd party in our current one party system.
2. It would send notice to the liberal-lite wing of our 2-headed, one party system that if they want conservative support then they need to break away from the liberals and start being a conservative party.
Perhaps he’s going for the record of losing campaigns running in the most parties.
Or he’s just another has-been politician who only cares about staying in the spotlight - no matter how small.
Well of course, that’s why he’s running, and why his “party’s” bills get paid.
Speaking of communism...right in Romney's Mormonism's ballpark...[See right column - chart below...since the Mormon "prophet" said in Mormon "scripture" that the communistic "United Order" was "everlasting"...the Mormon "prophet" could bring it back anytime...and Romney could help impose it upon the people...just as Romney imposed his socialistic healthcare worldview upon the Commonwealth of MA]
| 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! |
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.