Virgil Goode The Constitution Party nominates a neo-con for President.

[Nathan Hale]

I hope it will be led by RP. GJ is a joke in comparison to the real deal.

While I would rather it be led by RP, I don't think GJ is a joke. They're both admirable libertarians with a long history of support for the movement. Don't let RP be the standard, because this movement needs to continue after he retires.

 

[Captain Shays]

This is sad and very disappointing news. I just can't believe it

Every day I am more and more convinced to prepare for the worst

 

[Shotdown1027]

" wow, incredible.... However I knew the Constitution Party was infiltrated when Alan Keys did so well last election, and almost got the nomination.... There was someone else that got alot of votes too last election, who was also a neocon.... so I am not surprised.... Every Political Party will always be infiltrated... trick is, you have to stay active and outnumber the infiltrators. "

Sad to see how few people have done their homework on this. Baldwin backed Goode.

He backed Goode because, as he told delegates, "Goode has come a long way since joining our party".

Virgil Goode joined the CP in 2009. Almost immediately he said he was beginning to change his views on foreign policy because he saw how damaging it was. He has since then given 3-4 major speeches to the National Committee of the CP and in all of them he said that he wanted to repeal the Patriot Act. At the CP national convention, last week, he said he regretted voting for the Patriot Act and never should've done it. He also regretted voting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is calling for our withdrawal from there and from many other overseas bases.

I'm not saying he's perfect--I'm WAY more libertarian than him. But c'mon, at least do your research instead of just knee-jerking it.

And Alan Keyes didn't do well in 2008. He got beat 2-1 in the vote total--67% to 33%. He got quite a few "sympathy" votes from people who knew he wouldn't win and he brought many of his own delegates who then left the party with him.

Also, take a look at Goode's Vice Presidential candidate, former national chairman Jim Clymer. Clymer is an attorney from Lancaster County, PA. He is VERY much a Ron Paul-supporter and before the Constitution Party was founded he ran for Statewide Office as a Libertarian Party candidate. He's legit. Both the Presidential candidate, Goode, and the Vice Presidential candidate, Clymer, have donated thousands to Ron Paul's campaigns. Criticize them for their issue positions...sure...but neo-cons they are not.

 

[Shotdown1027]

This is sad and very disappointing news. I just can't believe it

Every day I am more and more convinced to prepare for the worst

You shouldn't believe it. It isn't true. Goode isn't a neocon. And he's backed off or rejected some of his worst former positions. He's still a social conservative, essentially, which means he isn't my cup of tea, but he isn't a neocon. He's a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[TheTexan]

While I would rather it be led by RP, I don't think GJ is a joke. They're both admirable libertarians with a long history of support for the movement. Don't let RP be the standard, because this movement needs to continue after he retires.

We don't need a figurehead just to have a figurehead. If we're going to push a figurehead that is to represent us and the movement, we need to be more selective than just accepting any "Libertarian." GJ simply won't cut it. The policies he's right on, he got there with luck. He throws darts in a Libertarian direction. His aim has gotten better in the past few years since he started copying Paul, but no, there are no core principles guiding GJ's Libertarianism. He is "Libertarianish" at best.

We can do better.

 

[Shotdown1027]

Gary Johnson is legit. He endorsed Paul in 2008 before he even had any momentum. He was the only former or current Governor or Senator to do so. He's been a legit libertarian for 30 years. The fact that he was an executive office, rather than legislative, means he had to be more practical. However, he's still very legitimately a Ron Paul guy. Lets not apply a purity test to everything--the guy is clearly a Ron Paul supporter, a Libertarian, and a member of the Liberty movement.

 

[TheTexan]

Gary Johnson is legit. He endorsed Paul in 2008 before he even had any momentum. He was the only former or current Governor or Senator to do so. He's been a legit libertarian for 30 years. The fact that he was an executive office, rather than legislative, means he had to be more practical. However, he's still very legitimately a Ron Paul guy. Lets not apply a purity test to everything--the guy is clearly a Ron Paul supporter, a Libertarian, and a member of the Liberty movement.

We're not going to get anywhere by being practical. Working within the system is practical. If I thought working within the system was a viable option (it is NOT), then sure GJ would be a fine choice. However we won't get our freedom back by working within the system. The system, if you are not aware, is but people, and these people in this country, if not all countries, are inherently averse to the ideas of freedom. They outnumber us greatly, and we're not going to change their mind. We're not going to get what we want (freedom) by working with them.

Right now, we don't need practical. We need inspirational. We need someone who ignites a passion for liberty and freedom, and that can only be done by someone who shares that passion for liberty and freedom. GJ is a practical choice, but he simply does not have the fire of liberty in his heart.

 

[The Other Andy]

I'm confused.

"We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources"

'We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior...we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions...we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."

"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."

These are all quotes from the Constitution Party homepage. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The idea that they'd pick a neo-con doesn't surprise me in the least. They don't sound all that terribly Libertarian to me, more like some religious party. I'm confused as to why this nomination surprises anyone. Will we be surprised when the Prohibition party nominates someone who supports prohibition?

 

[JebSanderson]

The idea that they'd pick a neo-con doesn't surprise me in the least. They don't sound all that terribly Libertarian to me, more like some religious party. I'm confused as to why this nomination surprises anyone. Will we be surprised when the Prohibition party nominates someone who supports prohibition?

They're not libertarians. They've paleoconservatives. Much better than libertarians.

 

[Shotdown1027]

I'm confused.

"We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources"

'We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior...we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions...we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."

"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."

These are all quotes from the Constitution Party homepage. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The idea that they'd pick a neo-con doesn't surprise me in the least. They don't sound all that terribly Libertarian to me, more like some religious party. I'm confused as to why this nomination surprises anyone. Will we be surprised when the Prohibition party nominates someone who supports prohibition?

No one said they were libertarian. They're paleoconservative. Paleoconservatives make up a decent chunk of Ron Paul people, actually. And everyone over at the CP supports Ron Paul. Everyone--literally. Had Paul walked into that national convention--he would've been Presidential candidate easily by a vote of 403-0.

To be fair, their platform has survived several platform fights. There is a "free market" element within the party that has continually challenged those planks you mentioned (and some others). They again challenged those platform planks this time around, but still don't have the organizational strength to overtake the more vehemently social conservative group.

Again, though, they are nowhere near neoconservative. That label MEANS something.

 

[erowe1]

I'm confused.

"We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources"

'We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior...we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions...we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples."

"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country."

"We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy."

These are all quotes from the Constitution Party homepage. http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

The idea that they'd pick a neo-con doesn't surprise me in the least. They don't sound all that terribly Libertarian to me, more like some religious party. I'm confused as to why this nomination surprises anyone. Will we be surprised when the Prohibition party nominates someone who supports prohibition?

None of those quotes have anything to do with neoconservatism.

 

[Nathan Hale]

We don't need a figurehead just to have a figurehead. If we're going to push a figurehead that is to represent us and the movement, we need to be more selective than just accepting any "Libertarian." GJ simply won't cut it. The policies he's right on, he got there with luck. He throws darts in a Libertarian direction. His aim has gotten better in the past few years since he started copying Paul, but no, there are no core principles guiding GJ's Libertarianism. He is "Libertarianish" at best.

We can do better.

That's the talk of a Johnny-come-lately. I've been a libertarian for a long time, and Johnson has been there (so has Paul). The LP has been trying to recruit Johnson for the Presidential race since he held office.

 

[Nathan Hale]

We're not going to get anywhere by being practical. Working within the system is practical. If I thought working within the system was a viable option (it is NOT), then sure GJ would be a fine choice. However we won't get our freedom back by working within the system.

Umm, running a candidate for the Presidency is, by definition, working within the system. Perhaps you're looking for a guy on a horse to follow into battle, but this isn't that movie. Sorry.

 

[TheTexan]

Umm, running a candidate for the Presidency is, by definition, working within the system. Perhaps you're looking for a guy on a horse to follow into battle, but this isn't that movie. Sorry.

I donate to Paul's campaign not because I want him to be President, but because I want to spread the message of freedom. The unfortunate reality is that even if we were to politically game the system into a Paul Presidency, he'd get nothing done in office. Sure, he'd end the wars, which is great don't get me wrong, but any significant attempts at restoring freedom would be met with insurmountable resistance.

We may be outnumbered, but thanks to Dr. Paul's campaign there are millions of freedom lovers across the nation, and even more across the world. We don't need violence to get our freedom back. We need only the inspiration, conviction, and willpower to do what must be done: peaceful secession.

 

[cheapseats]

Wrong thread, sorry.

 

[cheapseats]

No, it wasn't.

That's the talk of a Johnny-come-lately. I've been a libertarian for a long time, and Johnson has been there (so has Paul). The LP has been trying to recruit Johnson for the Presidential race since he held office.

We can do better.

LIKE WHO, that is ready to rock-and-roll in the IMMEDIATE future?

Remember, we're talking about an UNDENIABLE FOURTH-QUARTER HAIL-MARY FUCK-YOU LANDSLIDE c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n.

That pointedly EXCLUDES beyond-right Hardright and beyond-left Wingnut.

Less Commie than Obama, less BRUTAL than Bush (Cheney).

 

[TheTexan]

LIKE WHO, that is ready to rock-and-roll in the IMMEDIATE future?

Remember, we're talking about an UNDENIABLE FOURTH-QUARTER HAIL-MARY FUCK-YOU LANDSLIDE c-o-a-l-i-t-i-o-n.

That pointedly EXCLUDES beyond-right Hardright and beyond-left Wingnut.

A coalition with who, exactly? Anti-war people? Or should I say "anti-war people"

 

[cheapseats]

A coalition with who, exactly? Anti-war people? Or should I say "anti-war people"

Anti War

Anti Corruption

Non Believers

"Spiritual But Not Religious"

Screwed Savers

Screwed Fixed Income

Screwed SINGLES

Lotsa Women

Fed Up

Pissed Off

Pot Smokers

Undecided

UNREGISTERED

Democrats who are PROFOUNDLY disappointed in The Great One, but who would never never NEVER vote Republican.

Anymore than hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Republicans would vote Democrat.

 

[TheTexan]

Anti War

"anti war" you mean. There are very few real anti-war people

Anti Corruption

You mean OWS?

Non Believers

"Spiritual But Not Religious"

Just as likely to go Barry as Paul

Screwed Savers

Screwed Fixed Income

Screwed SINGLES

We saw how well that worked out already

Lotsa Women

You're living in a dreamland, Paul got predominately male votes

Democrats who are PROFOUNDLY disappointed in The Great One, but who would never never NEVER vote Republican.

From the polls I've seen (I don't have them off hand - my apologies), most Democrats will be voting Obama again, even the "anti-war" ones who elected him to end the wars

Fed Up

Pissed Off

Pot Smokers

Undecided

UNREGISTERED

That pretty much just leaves us.

We are a diverse group don't get me wrong, but running as a 3rd party isn't going to bear any fruit that our Republican run hasn't already bore.

I'm also not saying we shouldn't run 3rd party, but if we do, NOBP.

 

[cheapseats]

You're living in a dreamland, Paul got predominately male votes

You don't WANT Ron Paul to go Third Party . . . re-MEM-ber?

A LOT of women who don't like Ron Paul (and there are MANY) "simply" don't like REPUBLICANS . . . and they don't like Abortion Hysteria. SOME are afraid of his foreign policy . . . more are afraid of his Supporters, no lie.

Gary Johnson is SINGLE.

Yes indeedy, we can MAKE NEWS with a viable SINGLE get-er-done Independent Man.

As a Triathlete, he matches up better with "our man of action" Vladimir Putin.