Virgil Goode submits 14,000 signatures for ballot, with help from Independent Greens

Virginia Politics ^

[mnehring]

With a little help from his friends, former congressman Virgil Goode has taken a key step toward getting his name on November’s presidential ballot in Virginia, submitting more than 14,000 signatures to the State Board of Elections....

..Goode was a Democrat for much of his career, then became an Independent and finally a Republican for his last six years on Capitol Hill. Now Goode is getting assistance from yet another party, the Independent Greens, whose members have collected thousands of signatures for him....

...“Virgil supports rail, and that’s our big issue and he’s with us on that,” said Carey Campbell, a member of the Independent Greens executive committee. “We’ve had for many years a good relationship with the Constitution Party folks.”...

[P-Marlowe]

If it’s not a gut shot, and you drain the blood properly.

If you can't hit them in the jugular, then you shouldn't be hunting, you should be practicing. :-)

[Norm Lenhart]

Dear Lakeshark, Please find enclosed all that really needs to be said about your entire 'argument' and support of the ABO philosophy. And remember he, like I, am far smarter than you. It is nothing short of amazing to me how it is that so many self-proclaimed 'conservatives have not only decided to abandon all principle in their zeal to get “Anyone But Obama” into the Oval Office, but how willing they are to create their very own Ministry of truth to do so. Over the past several weeks here on Free Republic and elsewhere across the net, apologists for and supporters of Mitt Romney have launched an all-out effort to rewrite history to justify their abandonment of the ideals they once claimed to hold. Ironically, despite trashing conservatives and adopting the very tactics they condemn in liberals, they have not only proclaimed such as the 'conservative thing to do”, but have repeatedly made the claim that American heroes who based their entire existence on standing by and for principle would have joined them in heir abandonment. We are told that the threat of Obama trumps everything else. We are told that persons standing by their beliefs are “Obama supporters” “Marxists” and any number of other blatantly unsupportable accusations. I have recently had 'discussions' with several people who have related to me in no uncertain terms that Ronald Reagan, of all people, would be voting for Mitt Romney. I find that rather odd. Since Al ester Crowley is no longer around to speak with the dead, I have to assume that they are simply attempting to justify their shame over willingly and publicly supporting a radical liberal candidate for the highest office in the land while claiming they are conservatives. Because no matter how you look at it, they are casting their vote for a liberal 'to save America”. If you willingly empower a liberal, I fail to see how his vision qualifies as “America' but I digress... Now since Reagan isn't here to defend his position, we only have his words to go by. Just as we have the record of Mitt Romney to go by. And while the ABO crowd has taken the ignoring of Romney's record and made it into numerous Oscar-worthy performances, it remains a hard, cold fact. And one too well known and widespread to stuff down the Memory Hole any time soon. Listed below are a number of quotes from Ronaldus Magnus dealing with principle and the importance of standing by it. A number of them deal directly with or are easily applied to the issues of today. All of them put lie to the delusion that Reagan would have abandoned his principles for political purposes or for any other reason. They are also highly instructive to the formerly conservative among us “There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” So how is it "morally right" to empower a man whose record is pro abortion and pro homosexual" Where is the courage in casting aside what you know to be right in order to empower that which you know to be wrong? “Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.” How is throwing away everything you hold up as the greatness of America keeping anyone free or keeping the faith? What faith empowers abortionists and what freedom embraces 'mandates'...or those who 'love' them? “We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.” "Idealism" is the very thing Reagan called for. And our strength. To toss them away in order to embrace and empower one liberal over another is the polar opposite of that “Admittedly, there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face.” "The greater risk lies in Appeasement". Pretty much covers it. Refusing to face that is the ground "ABO" is built on. “I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” "And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”" One more time... "And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” Is that clear enough? It would seem he and Ben Franklin, by their very words, do not support abandoning or "Trading" their beliefs for 'Security", regardless of the form it takes. And Reagan CLEARLY implies those that do, "however good their intentions' are contributing to our collective national problem. “This country was founded and built by people with great dreams and the courage to take great risks.” The courage to take great risks is not in evidence among the ABO crowd now is it? “Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us-we finished the race, we kept them free, we kept the faith.” Again, "keeping the faith". One does not keep faith by abandoning it when one gets scared, nor for political expedience. “A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets tough.” But when the going got tough, the ABO crowd got going...over the fence to vote with other liberals and moderates. Thus abandoning 'the faith'. “I am very proud to be called a pig. It stands for pride, integrity and guts.” Integrity . in·teg·ri·ty    [in-teg-ri-tee] noun 1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. By definition, to abandon one's moral and ethical principles is to abandon one's integrity. Therefore it logically follows that in order for Reagan to vote for a man with a clearly and radically liberal voting record, he would again, by the very definition of the word, be abandoning his integrity to do so. And since Reagan was a man, not a God, it also logically follows that any person claiming to be a conservative who supports/votes for a radical liberal would likewise abandon their integrity. Don't blame me. Words mean things. “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” So how does one do 'all' that can be done by fighting against the very people and things they claim to believe in? How does guarenteeing more abortion/homosexual 'rights' preserve Reagan's or any other definition of 'America' for our children's children? How does cementing liberalism into the Republican Party, the traditional check on Democrat excess achieve that goal? “To grasp and hold a vision, that is the very essence of successful leadership - not only on the movie set where I learned it, but everywhere.” It then stands to reason that to abandon one's vision is the very essence of FAIL. “The United States is unique because we are an empire of ideals.” Yet 'ideals' are the very thing the ABO crowd is mocking us 'purists' for. It seems Reagan was a big fan of ideals. So drop the pretense ABOers and just mock Reagan openly. “Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways.” Sums it up. “There is a mandate to impose a voluntary return to traditional values.” Whereas with Romney, the ABOer supports a mandated entrance to the values of liberalism, the homosexual agenda and Planned Parenthood. That's not hyperbole, it's what Romney legislated with gay marriage and his personal and legal donations to the abortion industry. Reagan it seems, was quite clear on 'traditional values'...like having integrity. “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life -- the unborn -- without diminishing the value of all human life . . . there is no cause more important.” The Abo crowd thinks otherwise. Why else would they vote for a man whose entire career is filled with not only the support of, but expansion of abortion? So if as Reagan believed, there is no caise more important, would he give support to, much less vote for such a man? That would logically make no sense. “I want to talk about political and economic fairy tales” What a coincidence Mr. Reagan, so do the ABOers... “Many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled, and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems. I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal, an era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.” There he goes again..supporting those 'crazy' people and their 'stupid' values. “Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last. (October 27, 1964)” Somehow, he does not sound like he'd support a man who legislated all of that. But hey...ABO! Right? “Many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled, and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems. I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal, an era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.” Kinda runs contrary to supporting a man who 'loves mandates, furthered gun control, raised taxes and regulations to the point businesses left his state and stepped all over the freedoms of his constituents in a host of other ways. Then again, I guess Romney DID reorder the relationship between citizens and govt. “The very key to our success has been our ability, foremost among nations, to preserve our lasting values by making change work for us rather than against us.” “Our whole system of government is based on "We the people," but if we the people don't pay attention to what's going on, we have no right to bellyache or squawk when things go wrong.” Read it and weep. “Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears.” Where by their admission, the ABO movement is ALL ABOUT "Fear of Obama" and the push to elect Romney is a manifestation of that fear. “I know you have been critically looking at the mores and customs of the past and questioning their value. Every generation does that. But don't discard the time-tested values upon which civilization has been built just because they are old.” Damn. That's a hard one to spin. But good luck trying Romney fans. “Let us ask ourselves; ''What kind of people do we think we are?''” Unfortunately I think we are learning that lesson all too late. “The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas—a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.” Pretty much sums it up. Now tell me again how it is that Ronald Reagan would be an ABOer? Or better yet, before spouting that garbage again, ecplain to the class why he spent an entire lifetime being so 'WRONG”? Good luck with that.

[Norm Lenhart]

Hopefully the formatting willbe correct. Dear Lakeshark, Please find enclosed all that really needs to be said about your entire 'argument' and support of the ABO philosophy. And remember he, like I, am far smarter than you. It is nothing short of amazing to me how it is that so many self-proclaimed 'conservatives have not only decided to abandon all principle in their zeal to get “Anyone But Obama” into the Oval Office, but how willing they are to create their very own Ministry of truth to do so. Over the past several weeks here on Free Republic and elsewhere across the net, apologists for and supporters of Mitt Romney have launched an all-out effort to rewrite history to justify their abandonment of the ideals they once claimed to hold. Ironically, despite trashing conservatives and adopting the very tactics they condemn in liberals, they have not only proclaimed such as the 'conservative thing to do”, but have repeatedly made the claim that American heroes who based their entire existence on standing by and for principle would have joined them in heir abandonment. We are told that the threat of Obama trumps everything else. We are told that persons standing by their beliefs are “Obama supporters” “Marxists” and any number of other blatantly unsupportable accusations. I have recently had 'discussions' with several people who have related to me in no uncertain terms that Ronald Reagan, of all people, would be voting for Mitt Romney. I find that rather odd. Since Al ester Crowley is no longer around to speak with the dead, I have to assume that they are simply attempting to justify their shame over willingly and publicly supporting a radical liberal candidate for the highest office in the land while claiming they are conservatives. Because no matter how you look at it, they are casting their vote for a liberal 'to save America”. If you willingly empower a liberal, I fail to see how his vision qualifies as “America' but I digress... Now since Reagan isn't here to defend his position, we only have his words to go by. Just as we have the record of Mitt Romney to go by. And while the ABO crowd has taken the ignoring of Romney's record and made it into numerous Oscar-worthy performances, it remains a hard, cold fact. And one too well known and widespread to stuff down the Memory Hole any time soon. Listed below are a number of quotes from Ronaldus Magnus dealing with principle and the importance of standing by it. A number of them deal directly with or are easily applied to the issues of today. All of them put lie to the delusion that Reagan would have abandoned his principles for political purposes or for any other reason. They are also highly instructive to the formerly conservative among us. “There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” So how is it "morally right" to empower a man whose record is pro abortion and pro homosexual" Where is the courage in casting aside what you know to be right in order to empower that which you know to be wrong? “Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.” How is throwing away everything you hold up as the greatness of America keeping anyone free or keeping the faith? What faith empowers abortionists and what freedom embraces 'mandates'...or those who 'love' them? “We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.” "Idealism" is the very thing Reagan called for. And our strength. To toss them away in order to embrace and empower one liberal over another is the polar opposite of that “Admittedly, there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face.” "The greater risk lies in Appeasement". Pretty much covers it. Refusing to face that is the ground "ABO" is built on. “I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” "And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” One more time... "And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.” Is that clear enough? It would seem he and Ben Franklin, by their very words, do not support abandoning or "Trading" their beliefs for 'Security", regardless of the form it takes. And Reagan CLEARLY implies those that do, "however good their intentions' are contributing to our collective national problem. “This country was founded and built by people with great dreams and the courage to take great risks.” The courage to take great risks is not in evidence among the ABO crowd now is it? “Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us-we finished the race, we kept them free, we kept the faith.” Again, "keeping the faith". One does not keep faith by abandoning it when one gets scared, nor for political expedience. “A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets tough.” But when the going got tough, the ABO crowd got going...over the fence to vote with other liberals and moderates. Thus abandoning 'the faith'. “I am very proud to be called a pig. It stands for pride, integrity and guts.” Integrity . in·teg·ri·ty    [in-teg-ri-tee] noun 1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. By definition, to abandon one's moral and ethical principles is to abandon one's integrity. Therefore it logically follows that in order for Reagan to vote for a man with a clearly and radically liberal voting record, he would again, by the very definition of the word, be abandoning his integrity to do so. And since Reagan was a man, not a God, it also logically follows that any person claiming to be a conservative who supports/votes for a radical liberal would likewise abandon their integrity. Don't blame me. Words mean things. “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” So how does one do 'all' that can be done by fighting against the very people and things they claim to believe in? How does guaranteeing more abortion/homosexual 'rights' preserve Reagan's or any other definition of 'America' for our children's children? How does cementing liberalism into the Republican Party, the traditional check on Democrat excess achieve that goal? “To grasp and hold a vision, that is the very essence of successful leadership - not only on the movie set where I learned it, but everywhere.” It then stands to reason that to abandon one's vision is the very essence of FAIL. “The United States is unique because we are an empire of ideals.” Yet 'ideals' are the very thing the ABO crowd is mocking us 'purists' for. It seems Reagan was a big fan of ideals. So drop the pretense ABOers and just mock Reagan openly. “Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways.” Sums it up. “There is a mandate to impose a voluntary return to traditional values.” Whereas with Romney, the ABOer supports a mandated entrance to the values of liberalism, the homosexual agenda and Planned Parenthood. That's not hyperbole, it's what Romney legislated with gay marriage and his personal and legal donations to the abortion industry. Reagan it seems, was quite clear on 'traditional values'...like having integrity. “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life -- the unborn -- without diminishing the value of all human life . . . there is no cause more important.” The Abo crowd thinks otherwise. Why else would they vote for a man whose entire career is filled with not only the support of, but expansion of abortion? So if as Reagan believed, there is no case more important, would he give support to, much less vote for such a man? That would logically make no sense. “I want to talk about political and economic fairy tales” What a coincidence Mr. Reagan, so do the ABOers... “Many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled, and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems. I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal, an era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.” There he goes again..supporting those 'crazy' people and their 'stupid' values. “Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last. (October 27, 1964)” Somehow, he does not sound like he'd support a man who legislated all of that. But hey...ABO! Right? “Many Americans today, just as they did 200 years ago, feel burdened, stifled, and sometimes even oppressed by government that has grown too large, too bureaucratic, too wasteful, too unresponsive, too uncaring about people and their problems. I believe we can embark on a new age of reform in this country and an era of national renewal, an era that will reorder the relationship between citizen and government, that will make government again responsive to people, that will revitalize the values of family, work, and neighborhood and that will restore our private and independent social institutions.” Kinda runs contrary to supporting a man who 'loves mandates, furthered gun control, raised taxes and regulations to the point businesses left his state and stepped all over the freedoms of his constituents in a host of other ways. Then again, I guess Romney DID reorder the relationship between citizens and govt. “The very key to our success has been our ability, foremost among nations, to preserve our lasting values by making change work for us rather than against us.” “Our whole system of government is based on "We the people," but if we the people don't pay attention to what's going on, we have no right to bellyache or squawk when things go wrong.” Read it and weep. “Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears.” Where by their admission, the ABO movement is ALL ABOUT "Fear of Obama" and the push to elect Romney is a manifestation of that fear. “I know you have been critically looking at the mores and customs of the past and questioning their value. Every generation does that. But don't discard the time-tested values upon which civilization has been built just because they are old.” Damn. That's a hard one to spin. But good luck trying Romney fans. “Let us ask ourselves; ''What kind of people do we think we are?'' Unfortunately I think we are learning that lesson all too late. “The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas—a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.” Pretty much sums it up. Now tell me again how it is that Ronald Reagan would be an ABOer? Or better yet, before spouting that garbage again, ecplain to the class why he spent an entire lifetime being so 'WRONG”? Good luck with that.

[Norm Lenhart]

I give up. The first two I tagged for the mods. Sorry for the incontinence.

I may not be able to format this right, but the logic is solid for anyone that tries to dig through it.;)

[MHGinTN]

Pick an argument with someone else. You haven’t a desire to discuss anything but the usual ‘anyone but Romney or Obama’ and sling insults. It’s the current spittlegeist at FR.

[svcw]

I will write this very slowly, I can vote for whom ever I want including a conservative because I live in California BHO has already bout this state.

[roamer_1]

Pick an argument with someone else. You haven’t a desire to discuss anything but the usual ‘anyone but Romney or Obama’ and sling insults. It’s the current spittlegeist at FR.

LOL!

I am insulting? You said:

Voting for anyone but Obama or Romeny is aimed at teaching the GOPe a lesson. Sadly, that strategy will likely end the Republic or at the very least end the legitimacy of voting because with four more years to do their agenda, the DNC and globalist for whom they work, or should I say to whom they belong, will arrange the nation to fall in line with the world-wide agenda. Pyrrhic victory that ...
src

I am among my fellows who will not vote for Romney. In my case, I am not in any way trying to teach the 'GOP-e' a lesson. I am no longer a Republican for precisely that reason. The GOP can go screw. It is almost as precisely 'globalism' that caused me to part ways with the GOP... and Romney is probably THE premier poster child of corporate globalism on the planet.

You laid down the accusation that 'we' in our ignorance, are aiding and abetting globalism. I'd just like to see you justify your comment in the light of the fact that Romney himself is an unabashed socialist and globalist, as his record plainly announces. Somehow, voting for the Republican socialist/globalist is going to save us from globalism? How the hell does that work?

[Lakeshark]

Dearest Normy.

Do us all a favor and learn how to write and communicate. Hint: Paragraphs that are the size of two normal book pages don't cut it. Rambling tirades that say little or nothing don't cut it. Hint: Communicating an idea is important.

I got this far: We are told that the threat of Obama trumps everything else

No one said that, it's your small mind that inferred it (you would probably use the word "implied", because you think are so much smarter).

You once supported and thought that Palin, Cain, and Newt, were all great candidates. Now all of them disagree with you, and you imply that they have suddenly become stupid. I am proud to say, I don't think they are and agree with them rather than you on this point.

You are being told one simple thing: That leaving the worst (by record and intent), most divisive, most anti-American, pro-Marxist, pro-muzzie, pro-death, anti-free enterprise, anti-everything we all love preezie in there for four more years to destroy everything they hold dear is one of the dumbest ideas ever hatched by a person who thinks they are a "conservative".

Hat fits.

Wear it.

[MHGinTN]

Do you feel you ‘scored enough points’? That ego sure seems needy ...

[Postman]

Save your breath, you can’t really fix stupid

[AuH2ORepublican]

Why wouldn’t VA’s Independent Greens help Virgil Goode get on the ballot? They have the exact same goal as Goode: helping to reelect Barack Obama.

Romney is a half-full glass of water, but I fail to see why we should refuse it and die of thirst with Obama.

[AuH2ORepublican]

The last poll of WA I saw showed a single-digit race for president with Obama under 50%. I’d call WA “leans Democrat,” not “safe Democrat.”

But in an actual safely Democrat state, such as Vermont, sure, knock yourself out and vote for Goode (or for someone who, unlike Goode or Romney, is actually a consistent conservative).

However, that’s not what this thread is about. Virgil Goode partnered with his leftist friends in Virginia to gather signatures to get on the VA ballot, which only will serve to take conservative votes away from Romney and allow Obama to carry VA with 47% or 48% (and, if that happens, probably win reelection). Or are you suggesting that VA, carried by a comfortable margin by President Bush in both 2000 and 2004 (and which, before Obama carried it in 2008, hadn’t vited for a Democrat presidential candidate since 1964), is a “safely Democrat” state?

[AuH2ORepublican]

No, Goode didn’t vote for Pelosi for Speaker in January 2009; he was too busy packing up stuff from his congressional office after losing his conservative seat to a liberal Democrat.

But Goode did vote for liberal Democrat Dick Gephardt for Speaker in January 1997 and January 1999.

[xzins]

I’m arguing that Goode got his signatures and was creative about getting it done. The Independent Green Party of Virginia is not associated with the national greens but is actually associated with the Independence Party of America.

In short, the smaller parties find the burden of Virginia’s requirements to get on the ballot so onerous that they carried each other’s petitions for signatures. Seems a creative way to overcome an undue burden if you ask me.

They must be onerous since Perry, Gingrich and Santorum agreed that they were unconstitutional. A judge disagreed and that ended their hopes of getting on the VA ballot.

Finally, it isn’t illegal.

[xzins]

He lost his seat because he refused to support TARP and the GOP-E punished him by withdrawing anticipated help.

And, he didn’t vote for Pelosi because he’s a solid conservative, something that Romney is not.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Goode lost because of his own screw-ups, like saying that better border enforcement would prevent Muslims like Keith Ellison from getting elected to Congress (what an illegal-alien invasion has to do with a Black Muslim getting elected in Minneapolis is beyond me). So Goode wanted the GOP to come to his rescue because he didn’t outraise the Democrat by all that much? He was in a district far more conservative than VA as a whole, and he lost.

And Goode didn’t vote for Pelosi for Speaker because he was a Republican by the time she was the Democrat leader. Back when Goode was a Democrat, he voted for the Democrat leader for Speaker (Gephardt). And in the VA state senate, the RATs had a one-vote majority in the early ‘90s thanks to Goode. He was a loyal Democrat until he realized that the GOP would control redistricting after the 2000 Census and could place his home county in another Democrat’s district, which would end his congressional career, so he became an “Independent” that caucused with the GOP and soon thereafter an official Republican. Now, after losing to a Democrat, he lswitched parties again, and is an Obama-enabling candidate in cahoots with the “Independent Greens.”

As for your praise for Goode for (perhaps) being able to meet the (ridiculously difficult) signature requirements to get on the ballot in VA by joining forces with the Independent Greens, I think you may be a bit confused. Goode didn’t make a deal with the Independent Greens so that the two parties would each collect signatures for two presidential candidates (Goode and a Green guy); that wouldn’t work, since for a signature to be valid the person must only have signed a petition for a single candidate for a particular office. If a bunch of those signatures that Goode turned in were from voters who also signed petitions for a Green presidential candidate, then Goode won’t get on the VA ballot and Obama will be deeply saddened. What the Independent Greens must have done is not to collect signatures for a Green candidate (who, after all, would take votes away from Obama, whom they want to see defeat Romney in VA), and only collect signatures for Goode. So Goode didn’t form a signature-gathering coalition of also-rans so that they could a get on the ballot; he merely is benefitting from the Independent Greens using their party machinery to get a candidate on the VA ballot who would take votes away from Romney abd could tip the state to Obama. It’s as if the GOP had helped Ralph Nader get on the ballot in FL in 2000—you could call it a smart Republican strategy or Republican dirty tricks depending on your point of view, but one thing you could not call it was “a brilliant move by Nader to get on the ballot,” since Nader would have merely been the recipient of GOP help in taking votes away from Gore.

[xzins]

Signature collectors ask lots of people, and some will sign for candidate A and some will sign for candidate B and some will sign for neither. In any case, you cover more ground with 2 people asking that with 1 person asking. I’m sure you see that.

The collector is simply a collector.

Goode was a consistent pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God, pro-family conservative throughout. He voted to impeach Clinton. That is what riled them up.

He voted against TARP. That’s what riled them up. And, so far as losing a congressional campaign...he won many through the years. So, the same as Santorum, there is no fault in losing a campaign. If Romney is your candidate, and losing a campaign disqualifies a candidate, then his loss to Kennedy was crushing, and his pending loss in his 2d term as governor had him turn tail and run. So...I guess that means you can’t vote for Romney.

All that said, Goode didn’t come out in April for gay couples and for gay couples at the state level having the right to adopt children. But, Romney did.

Goode didn’t just say (last Monday) that he though gun control was just fine if brought to him in a bi-partisan way, that that is the kind of legislation he likes to sign. But, Romney did.

Goode is not extolling the virtues of Romneycare in Masschusetts. But, Romney is.

Goode was not promoting pro-choice as his effective position as recently as late 2007. Romney was.

Goode is not fearful of taking a stand on illegal immigration and is incomprehensible when responding to the idea of amnesty for young illegals. Romney is, and even hired illegals.

I could go on, but this will not open the eyes of those who’ve made up their minds to support Romney.

So, go in peace, Au. I’ve known you in the past as a solid Freeper. My guess is that you still are.

[AuH2ORepublican]

So the Independent Green signature-gatherers are asking people which petition they want to sign a petition for Goode or for an Independent Green (but not for both), and that Goode’s signature-gatherers do the same? That might work, but I haven’t heard of an Independent Green presidential candidate seeking the VA ballot. Besides, I’m still suspicious of a conservative forming a coalition with a leftist group, and even more so of a leftist group helping a conservative candidate in any way. I think that it’s clear that the reason why leftists are helping Goode is because he’ll take votes away from Romney and help Obama carry VA with 47%-48% (and thus get reelected).

I think you are exagerrating the import of Romney’s recent statements. For example, he didn’t say that he personally supported gay adoption, but that it was something that was legal (not just in MA, but in 49 states IIRC). Gay adoption is legal in VA, and I betcha that when the Democrats controlled the VA state government (thanks in part to Goode giving them a one-seat majority in the state senate), any attempt to limit adoption to legally married couples was rebuffed.

And while I certainly did not support Romney in the primaries (neither in 2012 nor in 2008, when so many FReepers were conned into believing that Romney was a true conservative for some God-forsaken reason), we are now facing an election among (i) a socialist, anti-Christian, non-American Democrat president hell-bent on destroying the nation, (ii) a wishy-washy moderate Republican who has taken much more conservative positions over the past five years and who likely will do most of what conservatives ask him just to curry their favor and be able to run for reelection, and (iii) a slew of minor-party and independent candidates with absolutely no chance of winning. Romney is far from ideal, but we need Obama to be swept from office, and Romney is the only person with a working broom.

[roamer_1]

Do you feel you ‘scored enough points’? That ego sure seems needy ...

Speaking of insults... First you impugn those like me generally, then you impugn me personally (accusing my motives) rather than simply answering the question I offered up... To wit: 'How does voting for the Republican socialist/globalist protect us from the ravages of globalism?'

It was you who offered up the statement that 'we' are too ignorant to understand that we are enabling globalism. If you cannot defend the statement, I would expect you to retract it. That is how it is supposed to work around here, isn't it?