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.
Are you refering to romney or obama?Its hard to tell from their records.
Goode isn’t going to save Obama in Virginia. People want Obama out. Romney big
“..It is not as if these are people given to compromise, so expecting that they will suddenly change is pretty stupid. They have been up front and unwavering in their convictions for decades..”
:::::::::::::::::
I understand what you are saying. But there is so much more at stake in THIS election than just personal conviction. I too have personal convictions that conflict with some but I am not so selfish as to ignore that America is where we ALL live and want it to remain the greatest country and governmental system on the face of the planet.
The entire make up of America is on the line. And it affects all of us, regardless of our personal convictions. It is time to unite against the worst threat America has faced since the first Revolution. And if Obama gets another 4 years, many “personal convictions” will become crimes against the state. This is no time for self-interest but a very unselfish uniting to save our Republic.
Because bush sucked out loud and you know it.
Instead of dream weaving that they might manage “to hold Romney’s feet to the fire” they need to leave off those drastic plans for destroying his feet...
He needs them to stomp out of the convention hall in anger Romney style at the GOP nomination next mouth when the Conservatives revolt in true “American exceptionalism” fashion and succeed in putting a real patriotic in as our worthy candidate...
Bingo
it’s not about Romney - it’s about ousting a clear and present danger to our survival.
Trivial???
A 'real-life' Romney 'sample' of how he indeed 'poisons' the womb:
December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes)
Let's break that down...
Mitt is talking about PARENTS ... and their adoptable offspring. Yet he uses the word "decides" (another pro-abort like word for "choice").
He uses the word "donate" (a euphemism for destruction). And the "purpose?" (Research) Any parents of born infants and toddlers want to join Mitt's campaign of "donating" their infants and toddlers "for purposes of research?" Does a trip down the birth canal "humanize" our offspring??? Really, Mitt?
Mitt the waffler...the wishy-washy flip-flopper:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation) | Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
Bollucks
Obama has been hamstrung by a House of Representatives in the hands of the republicans.
His only victory came due to a rino named John Roberts on the Supreme Court.
Other than that he’s done a lot of stuff that’s been shot down.
He’s not all that smart. If he truly had 4.0 GPAs and perfect SATs and ACTs and LSATs at all his schools, you know they’d be beating down the doors to release that to the American public.
I watched him with the “you didn’t build that” line. He can barely put an idea together when it isn’t pre-written for him.
Trivial???
We know that if/when Romney becomes POTUS, it would = giving the Mormon church more unprecedented PR proselytizing power – even if Romney did zero to promote that. This would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political races)
Think about Bill Clinton for a moment as a supposed "presidential role-model" disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!" This is the same kind of mainstream power that this cult seeks!
There are posters here who believe the same. It boggles the mind.
Trivial???
Let's look @ just three "manipulative" word-games the Romneys have played during their "pro-life" campaigning (we don't even need to go back to his wide-open "pro-abort" years):
Example A: January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07; yet on another South Carolina campaign stop Romney was claiming "I was ALWAYS for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was ALWAYS for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
If you think that was simply a "miscue" type of statement politicians occasionally make on the campaign trail, listen to these jumbled words Romney told Chris Wallace of Fox during an August 12, 2007 interview: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
Ann Romney further tossed in confusing rhetoric about Mitt Romney's supposed "former" pro-abort positioning in her Parade Magazine interview (November, 2011): In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve ALWAYS been pro-life." (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
This kind of concept manipulation might be difficult to understand for those unaccustomed to how Mormons can switch from 19th century communists to 21st century capitalists like a light switch; or from those condemning polygamy as an "abomination" in the 1830 Book of Mormon -- to practicing it in the first Mormon generations -- to moving to root it out again.
If people want to understand how Mormonism's approach to the socio-political realm, they may want to read these two articles (the first written by a Mormon; the second by an ex-Mormon):
* Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon church [Lds writer says Romney flip-flops 'cause Lds church has/does]
* Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not
From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is — ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" — undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!
where do they come from?
____________________________________
Well, Willards family came from Mexico...
They were “undocumented”
Every time someone says “Romney is no better than Obama, or they are the same,” etc, makes me want to puke. Romney would have never been my first choice of the candidates who ran. He was dead last. But anyone who thinks he is no better than Obama really should re-think their position. The amount of damage he could do in a final term would be irreparable. There wouldn’t even be any need to vote him out after that.Who cares who is the president of a poverty stricken wasteland with societal breakdown and racial war? I hope all those who are so dead set against Romney remember that if Obama is re-elected we get to keep Holder, and all the rest of his administration as well. And he’ll get to appoint 2 more Supreme Court judges most likely. Two more communist lesbians most likely. And Zero is a Muslim, Romney is not. That should be reason enough. I’d rather wonder what kind of president Romney will make than KNOW what Obama will do to us.
Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney could “take one for the team” and drop out? Wouldn’t that be the best outcome?
Mitty's been wanting this since Dad flamed out in 68. Don't see him dropping out now. And I think he's got a decent shot at winning.
these obamey conservatives remind me of the guy who keeps beating his wife all the while saying “you’re making me do this”.......we’re “making” them vote for obammey because they didn’t get their way in the primaries....boo hoo..
ping to #36
You seem to be ignorant of all the executive orders he has issued and all the other transfers of power he has effected from the legislative to the executive branch. Not only the czars, which is bad enough, but the unprecedented power he has given to agencies and other parts of the executive.
He has not been hamstrung by a Republican Congress. Not that they aren’t trying. For criminy’s sake, read up on it. And read some European history of the thirties while you’re at it.
If Romney loses Virginia it is because he is vying for the liberal voters with Obama. Romney is a liberal democrat. Obama is a left wing radical. If Goode is a spoiler, then so be it. Congress will just have to step up to the plate and impeach the bastard. He has already done enough high crimes and misdemeanors to make Nixon look like an angel.
Romney is not our savior. I expect him to win the election, but only because he will sway enough liberals that can't stand Obama anymore to pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
I cannot vote for Romney because he is an unrepentant homosexual rights advocate and his abortion record is worse than most of the democrats and on a par with Obama. He literally laid the groundwork for Obamacare and instead of promising to just repeal it, he promises to "repeal and replace it". Replace it with what? Romneycare?
The Liberal Progressive Crony Capitalist Republican establishment ensured Romney's nomination by stacking the deck against the tea party conservatives and inviting liberals and democrats to vote in the primaries and caucuses.
Romney lied, cheated and stole the nomination. I will not reward him with my vote. I will work to elect a conservative house and senate that will have the guts to impeach Obama if he is re-elected and not only hold Romney's feet to the fire, but put him through the hell he deserves.
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.