[ Virgil ] Goode unaware of probe Of signatures on his petitions

martinsvillebulletin.com ^ | Aug 8 2012 | martinsvillebulletin.com

[NoLibZone]

Constitution Party presidential candidate Virgil Goode said Tuesday he does not know why the Virginia State Board of Elections is asking for a probe into matters pertaining to his campaign.

State officials are keeping quiet on the investigation request.

The elections board on Monday voted unanimously to ask Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to probe “suspected petition fraud” on forms that the Constitution Party submitted in efforts to get Goode’s name on the ballot for the Nov. 6 presidential election.

In a phone interview, Goode said nobody from either the elections board or the attorney general’s office has contacted him, so he has “no idea” what is behind the board’s request for an investigation.

“I’d like to know” what is going on, he said.

Justin Riemer, deputy secretary for the state board of elections, said in an email that “we are not commenting on the investigation at this time.”

Riemer referred inquiries to the attorney general’s office. Brian Gottstein, Cuccinelli’s director of communications, could not be reached Tuesday afternoon.

[House Atreides]

“With one vote you can cast a ballot for

An ex-Democrat
An ex-Republican
AND a Constitution Party candidate.

It’s like a box of chocolates, you have no idea what you’ll get!”
*************************************************************
Nicely put. I know what we’ll get in the future:

An ex-Democrat
An ex-Republican
An EX-CONSTITUTION PARTY
AND a fill-in-the-blank minor party candidate.

Please Lord, spare me these needful morons and their supporters.

[sam_paine]

Don’t care. I’m still not voting for that liberal lying bottom feeder Romney.

It's ok crip. We know you have a secret desire to git some of Obama's stash. You're afraid Romney and Ryan might make you put down your Krispi Cremes and get off your government-bought Hoveround and go to work!

[cripplecreek]

I think you need a napkin to wipe that little dribble of Mitt off your chin.

[so_real]

Is party affiliation the sole measure of a man's conservatism? I prefer to discern by the history of the man's words and actions. You've asked a fair question, and I'll be happy to provide a fair answer. But I warn you, once you dig into and truly do the research as to where Virgil Goode stands on the issues, you will discover that you like him a lot. You might even find, as I did, that you overwhelmingly prefer him. Read on :

Virgil Goode on the Issues

• pro life
• anti bailout
• anti homosexualization
• pro capital punishment
• pro drug enforcement
• pro education reform
• pro UN reform
• supports economic sovereignty
• approves voter ID
• pro second amendment
• absolute gun ownership right
• opposes federal health care
• would eliminate ObamaCare
• anti amnesty
• anti progressive taxation
• pro military
• against foreign tax havens
• supports overhaul of tax code
• didn't fall for "net neutrality"
• etc, etc, etc

These are just highlights. Follow the link and the links therein to get a fuller picture.

Your question is how can this guy be a solid conservative if he's not a reliable Republican Party guy. Your question should be how did the Republican Party slide so far away from its platform so as to have a man like Romney at the helm when a man like Goode was ready, willing, able, and more representative.

The current Republican "leader" is a pro-abortion, pro-guncontrol, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gay-adoption, pro-stimulus, pro-bailout, pro-healthcare-rationing, pro-amnesty, pro-spending-mandate candidate. Virgil Goode is solidly opposed to all of these. In my opinion, the only thing keeping the republican electorate from abandoning the Republican Party en masse, is a fear of "losing" and a lack of exposure to genuine conservative candidates like Virgil Goode. I'm helping to fix the exposure issue ... the fear issue is on each of us must conquer on his own.

I hope I've answered your question.

[so_real]

I should have ping'd you to post 44. Your "fact" does not stand in face of the evidence.

[sam_paine]

Your question is how can this guy be a solid conservative if he's not a reliable Republican Party guy.

That was not my question at all.

I asked:

Why does this guy flipping around through all the parties make him the "solid conservative" in the race?

I see a pattern where he ran as a Democrat when a Democrat was President and he ran as a Republican when republican was president, and the transitions in 2000 and 2008 are messy.

Obviously all Republicans are not conservatives.

But what is it about a "strong conservative" that makes him run as a Democrat two years after the 1994 conservative revolution?

[so_real]

   Why does this guy flipping around through all the parties make him the "solid conservative" in the race?

Flipping around through all the parties does *not* make him the "solid conservative" in the race; his voting record and stance on the issues make him the "solid conservative" in the race.

   But what is it about a "strong conservative" that makes him run as a Democrat two years after the 1994 conservative revolution?

You'd have consult Goode himself for clues as to the local political environment that drove those decisions. Looking at Romney's record, I could ask why he ran as a Republican in his state when clearly his positions are more inline with the Democrat platform. It was a choice he made, and a successful one at that. I'm from Wisconsin. In our recent recall election, six republicans ran as democrats in the primaries. Does that really have anything to do with how conservative they were or were not? Not in the least.

I discern a man from his words and actions, not the letter that follows his name on the ballot. It's a far more successful measurement of "solid conservative" when looking for one.

[sam_paine]

I discern a man from his words and actions, not the letter that follows his name on the ballot. It's a far more successful measurement of "solid conservative" when looking for one.

WTH does supporting the Equal Rights Amendement do to make me think this guy loves conservatism?

And whether it's Obama or Goode, something concerns me about a guy who graduates from law school and goes straight into politics for two decades and then doesn't seem to know how to do anything else.

At least Romney worked outside of politics for a few years.

[sam_paine]

BTW, I appreciate you actually taking the time to answer in reasonable terms.

I understand your perspective of support for a guy who you know more about than I do.

But I also think you could help your case by eliminating the attack on the credibility of “republicans who are just afraid of losing.”

There is also the possibility that some of us recognize that there are only highly flawed people who run for office and our job is to pick the least offensive candidate. And when I learn about someone like Goode who has a very small but rabid following, I think of how great Herman Cain or Christine O’Donnell seemed at first.

[so_real]

   BTW, I appreciate you actually taking the time to answer in reasonable terms.

You are very welcome. It seemed a sincere question and deserved a sincere answer.

   But I also think you could help your case by eliminating the attack on the credibility of “republicans who are just afraid of losing.”

Understood. In my defense, "fear" -- being a profound motivator in human nature -- is most certainly in play. It is expressed daily on FR as many here have indicated their support for Romney is based solely upon their fear of Obama. They will not support a third-party candidate due to the fear of losing, which gives Obama a second term. Though harsh, I think that's accurate.

   There is also the possibility that some of us recognize that there are only highly flawed people who run for office and our job is to pick the least offensive candidate.

That is reasonable. Perhaps I even fall into that camp. I did the homework, reviewed the options, and discerned rather quickly that Virgil Goode is by far the "least offensive candidate" on the ballot. I suspect just about every conservative that takes the time to compare Goode to Obama and Romney on an issue-by-issue basis comes to the same conclusion, probably more quickly than I did.

Often times this is followed by the statement "but he can't win". And for as long as we continue to fail the best candidate available with our vote, that is most certainly true. Which means we will perpetually deny ourselves a candidate of Goode's caliber. And, that won't change until we do.

[Emperor Palpatine]

Damn. Virgil Goode changes parties more often than Liberace changed outfits....

[sam_paine]

I suspect just about every conservative that takes the time to compare Goode to Obama and Romney on an issue-by-issue basis comes to the same conclusion, probably more quickly than I did.... Which means we will perpetually deny ourselves a candidate of Goode's caliber.

Again, I think trying to convince someone from such a haughty standpoint may be too "honest" for your own good. In other words, "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is simply ignorant of the gospel truth."

Consider it this way.

I suspect just about every conservative that takes the time to convince themselves that they have discovered the one ideal candidate that absolutely everyone else has missed will always come to the same conclusion just as quickly as you did did.... Which means we will perpetually have a "if only" third-party candidate of Goode's type.

In other words, Cain was perfect--before he was not. O'Donnell was perfect...before he was not. I even remember back pre-GOP head days when Michael Steele was the next great white (black) conservative hope on FR.

We can both talk all day about how bad Obama is. I can rattle off 5-7 things I can't stand about Mitt Romney. (You could probably find 50-70.) But the fact that his supporters don't seem to think that Goode has any problems...a guy who's never done -anything- but run for public office....well that just cements my alarm bells.

[sam_paine]

Oops. O’Donnell was perfect...before [s]he was not.

Or better.

O’Donnell was perfect...before she was not a witch.

[so_real]

Indeed, I wish I were a better orator. I've been told on several occasions I'm very good at being "right" but not so very good at being "persuasive". My strength is in the research and not the presentation, but I am trying to change that. Perhaps you've read through Goode's background now? Not that it will change your vote, but truthfully which would you have preferred were chosen to lead the Republican party, Goode or Romney, based upon their voting record? I'm not asking which is "perfect", but which is more likely to advance a conservative agenda from the Executive Office.

[sam_paine]

Not that it will change your vote,

How could it change my vote? The only independent parties that bothered to put their hat in the ring for the 2012 presidential race in Texas was the Libertarian party and the Green party.

If the Constitution Party can't bother to do what even the idiot Greens can do, why should I take them seriously?

As if they have better ways to spend their time? They don't think they could get a boat load of votes in Texas to bolster their national tally for the future? They appear to have let the Green party collect fraudulent votes for Goode in Virginia and this article claims he didn't know anything about it.

You want me to endorse this guy to run the largest bureacracy in the world?

And Goode's down on the GOP now too? After the GOP supported him in FOUR elections, he's through with them why? Because -HE- lost the last election by a thin margin? So now he's going to run against them to teach them a lesson?

Again, you've yet to admit a single flaw in the guy. That tells me right there you're not being honest with your analysis.

Does Goode think he has any culpability for losing his last election?

[so_real]

Truly not asking you to endorse Goode. You've picked your candidate for your own reasons and I accept that. I am just wondering if the primaries were starting next week, based on their voting record, would you feel more confident in Romney or Goode advancing a conservative agenda from the Executive Office. I am, in a sense, trying to use you to double check my analysis. If you have not read through Goode's voting record I link'd, or do not desire to grant me this comparison, I understand.

[sam_paine]

I think this discussion is helpful, but it’s really in two separate areas.

Yours is a policy/platform/record/primary topic. In this area I’d agree with you that you vote in the primary for the most right-leaning candidate you can if not to elect him, then to pull the party/eventual nominee in that direction in the event the most right candidate does not win. But if he loses (or doesn’t bother to compete) in the primary, then he’s not showing signs that he can unify the general.

Yours is also a character/principles argument, and this is my topic of first interest here. For this is the area that inhibits me from trying to discern his key principles. With all due respect, so far I see that it would be a complete waste of time because he demonstrates, by his action, not an adherence to core principles first/party second, but indeed-—by your own admission-—he runs where he can with whoever is to his personal advantage at the time.

“You’d have consult Goode himself for clues as to the local political environment that drove those decisions.”

Indeed. He, like any professional politician, made the party choices based on the most advantageous local political environment at the time. So I have to ask you, what is he doing now? If he was running as a Dem in order to secure the seat of power where he could implement his solid conservative leanings, then what is he doing running in a party he knows will have no effect this go-round, other than to perpetuate a second Obama term.

Having lost his last election he can either keep his powder dry like Sarah Palin, or he can put himself in a position to have great “I told You So” leverage in Virginia. It would not surprise me if he’s rewarded with a sweet crony deal in the 2nd Obama term for his efforts.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Why does this guy flipping around through all the parties make him the “solid conservative” in the race?”

Because he’s prolife and he supports traditional marriage.

I ask all the ROMBOTS why they support the man who supports baby killing and gay marriage.

We had good, solid alternatives, but you ROMBOTs destroyed them in the primary. Guess what, we aren’t going to go support Mitt.