Virgil Goode: What's the scoop?

[cavalier973]

So, unless by some astonishing miracle of God Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination (it hasn't happened yet!!!), then I'm leaning toward voting for this Goode character. I like some of what G. Johnson says, but it seems to me that he's more willing than not to be tempted into supporting the Warfare State. I could be wrong.
I don't like Goode's stance on immigration (he wants a moratorium on all immigration until Federal monies stop going to illegal immigrants; he thinks that immigrants are "stealing jobs"), and I really don't like his stance on the War on Drugs (he's for it, hard; to me, it's not about ending drug use and all about implementing the legal and logistical framework to impose martial law). I also am very much opposed to the CP's stance on trade (I'm for Free Trade, they're against it, claiming that free trade "leads to socialism", an Orwellian position if there ever was one).

Nevertheless, I'm willing to overlook the disagreements I have with the CP because there is still a lot of its platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php) that I like. Consider, for example the CP's stance on the military draft:

Conscription

US Constitution, 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Conscription deprives a person of liberty without due process of law. This is clearly prohibited by the 5th amendment. Conscription is an involuntary taking of a person's labor-which is a form of property-without just compensation as provided by the eminent domain provisions of the 5th amendment.

Compulsory government service is incompatible with individual liberty.

We oppose imposition of the draft, the registration law, compulsory military training or any other form of compulsory government service.

We support a well-trained and highly organized volunteer state home militia, and voluntary Reserve Officer Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) military training in our schools, colleges, and universities
A party that opposes the military draft will certainly oppose a "civil service corps", or whatever the heck Obama was talking about implementing.

And--Holy Moley!--their stance on jury nullification:

All who are accused of crimes, petty to capital, shall have a trial by jury upon request, and the jury shall be fully informed of its right to nullify the law.

Plus, the platform calls for the elimination of the Federal Reserve...and fractional reserve banking!!

I saw a news article that described Jim Clymer's speech (http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/sunshine-state-news-exclusive-constitution-party-vp-jim-clymer-makes-his-case-ron-paul-fest) to the one of the Ron Paul Festivals. Anyone have any comment on what he said?

To close, I wonder if, were Virgil Goode to hint strongly that Ron Paul would have a place in his administration, would that sway your vote?

[LibertyEagle]

Well, the kind of trade we have now certainly is helping the globalists/socialists. Dr. Paul is also against NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, etc.

[RonRules]

In 2006, Minnesota's 5th congressional district elected Keith Ellison as the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some criticized Ellison's intended use of the Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson at a private swearing-in ceremony; among them, Goode was vocal in his opposition to Ellison's plan. One of Goode's constituents posted a letter online from the congressman regarding Ellison. The letter reads in part:

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

[RonRules]

Just yesterday Ron Paul emphasized that we have freedom of religion, all 50 or so religions, including no religion.

Virgil Goode is certainly not aligned with Ron on that topic.

[specsaregood]

There was an interview not too long ago, and he claimed to have come our direction in a BIG way on all the big issues. It is either the CP's turn to have a Bob Barr or he is now seen the light and decent liberty candidate.

[cavalier973]

He claims that he is willing to consider a flat tax or "the Fair Tax", but the party platform rejects both proposals in favor of tariffs and excise taxes. If the tariffs aren't "protective tariffs", I can live with that. Besides, if the gov't is relying on taxes on imports for its revenue, there's less incentive to instill import quotas and such.

Yeah, he said some embarrassing things about Ellison. Ellison then sought him out on the floor of Congress, and they had a "cordial discussion" (of which I do not know the result). He also is bad, bad, bad, on the drug war. This is counterbalanced, in my view, by his (presumable) opposition to the "War on Terror" (he supports ending the occupation of Afghanistan, and the party platform is opposed to the "War on Terror").

[Feeding the Abscess]

There was an interview not too long ago, and he claimed to have come our direction in a BIG way on all the big issues. It is either the CP's turn to have a Bob Barr or he is now seen the light and decent liberty candidate.

Considering Goode is still drug warrioring, I'm going with Bob Barr 2.0.

[Brett85]

Just yesterday Ron Paul emphasized that we have freedom of religion, all 50 or so religions, including no religion.

Virgil Goode is certainly not aligned with Ron on that topic.

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion; the phony "separation of church and state" that the ACLU supports doesn't exist.

[RonRules]

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion; the phony "separation of church and state" that the ACLU supports doesn't exist.

Read your Constitution. One of purposes was to prevent tyranny of the collusion between church and state.

It's also because you don't want morons running the county that believe in imaginary friends in the sky.

[specsaregood]

It's also because you don't want morons running the county that believe in imaginary friends in the sky.

I'd much prefer that than douchebag atheists that think they are the pinnacle of life.

[erowe1]

I like the Constitution Party. But I prefer Johnson over Goode. Neither one is perfect. But Johnson's record backs up his words, and Goode's doesn't.

[RonRules]

I'd much prefer that than douchebag atheists that think they are the pinnacle of life.

Maybe we are!

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/376679_267649873346828_433608297_n.jpg

[Nathan Hale]

Goode reeks of Barr 2.0 - but that doesn't even matter. The long and shot of it is that Goode doesn't have decent ballot access so there's no point in voting for him.

[cavalier973]

The only way I'd vote for Johnson would be if he promised to put Ron Paul into his cabinet. He might not be able to say so openly, but he could do the whole "the person I'm looking for for the position of Sec of X will have these qualities" hint, hint, wink wink.

[erowe1]

The only way I'd vote for Johnson would be if he promised to put Ron Paul into his cabinet. He might not be able to say so openly, but he could do the whole "the person I'm looking for for the position of Sec of X will have these qualities" hint, hint, wink wink.

That seems like a strange condition to apply. Johnson's not going to win, so cabinet talk would just be like fantasy football.

[cavalier973]

Yeah, but having Ron Paul in the admin would help me overlook some of the stuff I dislike about Gary Johnson. I swear, though, that, while reading through the Constitution Party's platform, that while I really liked some of the stuff I was reading, on several of them, I was like "screw this! I'm voting LP!"

The advantage of voting Johnson, as I see it, is that he seems to have better name recognition among liberty advocates, and so the more people who vote for him, the better chance there is of getting him over 10% of the vote, which would really resonate with people who think that taking over the GOP is the only real path to getting us back to Constitutionally limited government.

[erowe1]

Yeah, but having Ron Paul in the admin would help me overlook some of the stuff I dislike about Gary Johnson.

But there won't be an admin. There will only be a campaign. In that campaign he can say whatever he wants about his hypothetical future administration. He could say he'd ask Bono from U2 to be in his admin. It won't matter because he'll never have to make good on the promise.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well, the kind of trade we have now certainly is helping the globalists/socialists. Dr. Paul is also against NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, etc.

As far as those treaties which I am against because there are many bad parts, but the effect is a lowering in tariffs. Protectionists would agree with me in removing the fascist/globalist provisions, but they are also against the lowering of the tariffs.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

My assessment of Goode is that he is a traditional conservative/nationalist type, which I like to some degree. Not a perfect record, but he has evolved too I think specifically on foreign policy.

[Brett85]

I'm fortunate in that I have the opportunity to vote for Chuck Baldwin, as the Kansas Reform Party decided to nominate him again this time around. I wasn't really enthused about voting for Virgil Goode.

[torchbearer]

how many states' ballots will Goode be on?

[torchbearer]

I'm fortunate in that I have the opportunity to vote for Chuck Baldwin, as the Kansas Reform Party decided to nominate him again this time around. I wasn't really enthused about voting for Virgil Goode.

most CP candidates fall short on social issues since they are basically a social conservative party that care only about economic liberty.
they offer half the pie.

[cavalier973]

But there won't be an admin. There will only be a campaign. In that campaign he can say whatever he wants about his hypothetical future administration. He could say he'd ask Bono from U2 to be in his admin. It won't matter because he'll never have to make good on the promise.

Then what reasons are there to vote for Johnson rather than Goode?

[cavalier973]

most CP candidates fall short on social issues since they are basically a social conservative party that care only about economic liberty.
they offer half the pie.

They oppose the "War on Terror" and the Patriot Act, and support jury nullification. They may not be perfect, but that's more than "only caring about economic liberty."

[torchbearer]

Then what reasons are there to vote for Johnson rather than Goode?

Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states. meaning he is the only other candidate besides the status quo that has a black swan's chance of winning.
plus, he offers the full liberty package, not just economic liberty.
and despite his religious bias- he will not govern by it. say no to theocracy disguised as constitutionalism.

[torchbearer]

The platform supports jury nullification, which really is a more powerful method than "voting for the right person" to limit the power of gov't.

CP is against gambling, prostitution, and certain drug use.
not exactly a friend of individual liberty.

[seyferjm]

I'm fortunate in that I have the opportunity to vote for Chuck Baldwin, as the Kansas Reform Party decided to nominate him again this time around. I wasn't really enthused about voting for Virgil Goode.
Lucky. I still regret not voting for Chuck in 2008.

[cavalier973]

Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states. meaning he is the only other candidate besides the status quo that has a black swan's chance of winning.

And that's a good reason; I mentioned earlier that getting Johnson up over 10%, if possible, could entice me to vote for him. Did the LP get on the PA ballot? I heard the GOP was trying to get them kicked off (and successfully got the CP kicked off).


CP is against gambling, prostitution, and certain drug use.
not exactly a friend of individual liberty.

Support of jury nullification undermines those stances. Still, you're right that the LP is already against using gov't to restrict those activities. AND it's also for jury nullification. AND it's for free trade. Hmmm....

[torchbearer]

And that's a good reason; I mentioned earlier that getting Johnson up over 10%, if possible, could entice me to vote for him. Did the LP get on the PA ballot? I heard the GOP was trying to get them kicked off (and successfully got the CP kicked off).



Support of jury nullification undermines those stances. Still, you're right that the LP is already against using gov't to restrict those activities. AND it's also for jury nullification. AND it's for free trade. Hmmm....

the LP is for individual rights in all things- that is how those positions come about.
the person over the state.

[cavalier973]

the LP is for individual rights in all things- that is how those positions come about.
the person over the state.

Not for the rights of the unborn, unfortunately. In that case, a "person's conscience" should be the guide on whether he can murder another human being or not. Which, as you may have guessed, is really my biggest problem with the LP.

But, you have given me some things to mull over, and I may consider voting for G. Johnson, after all.

[torchbearer]

Not for the rights of the unborn, unfortunately. In that case, a "person's conscience" should be the guide on whether he can murder another human being or not. Which, as you may have guessed, is really my biggest problem with the LP.

But, you have given me some things to mull over, and I may consider voting for G. Johnson, after all.

you are misquoting a fallacy.
the LP has no position on abortion as its delegation can't come to an agreement.
half the delegate- you would consider- pro-life.
the other half only disagree as to when that life begins. no one in the LP is for killing a baby.

[cavalier973]

you are misquoting a fallacy.
the LP has no position on abortion as its delegation can't come to an agreement.
half the delegate- you would consider- pro-life.
the other half only disagree as to when that life begins. no one in the LP is for killing a baby.

I'm glad to hear it. You're really doing well in your attempt to persuade me. I will now be looking up G. Johnson's stance on the NDAA, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror. Forgive me if these seem to be issues that I should already know his stance on, but I've been kind of distracted with another candidate for the past several months, and there's a thread somewhere else claiming that GJ is a "statist"...

[torchbearer]

I'm glad to hear it. You're really doing well in your attempt to persuade me. I will now be looking up G. Johnson's stance on the NDAA, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror. Forgive me if these seem to be issues that I should already know his stance on, but I've been kind of distracted with another candidate for the past several months, and there's a thread somewhere else claiming that GJ is a "statist"...


here is where some Ron Paul supporters will not like G.J.
he and ron paul get to the ideas of liberty from different angles.
Ron Paul supports liberty from a philosphical point of view- meaning, we should have liberty because it is our natural right.
G.J.- judging from his past rhetoric, comes to liberty from a utilitarian point of view. we should have liberty because it if the most functional system with most gains.
now, i've noticed G.J. has been listening to and growing from Ron's lectures. but casting aside election time speeches, he got their through utilitarian arguments.
that is the only neg on G.J. with the caveat, he seems to be growing past that(only third hand info from speeches i've seen)

[rockandrollsouls]

Johnson already said in a prior debate if he got the nomination Ron would be his vice president. I think it's obvious he'd put Ron in his cabinet...


The only way I'd vote for Johnson would be if he promised to put Ron Paul into his cabinet. He might not be able to say so openly, but he could do the whole "the person I'm looking for for the position of Sec of X will have these qualities" hint, hint, wink wink.

[rockandrollsouls]

Eh, I don't agree with this and everything I've heard from him doesn't suggest this. GJ takes a business approach to managing government, but he's never viewed liberty like that.


here is where some Ron Paul supporters will not like G.J.
he and ron paul get to the ideas of liberty from different angles.
Ron Paul supports liberty from a philosphical point of view- meaning, we should have liberty because it is our natural right.
G.J.- judging from his past rhetoric, comes to liberty from a utilitarian point of view. we should have liberty because it if the most functional system with most gains.
now, i've noticed G.J. has been listening to and growing from Ron's lectures. but casting aside election time speeches, he got their through utilitarian arguments.
that is the only neg on G.J. with the caveat, he seems to be growing past that(only third hand info from speeches i've seen)

[torchbearer]

Eh, I don't agree with this and everything I've heard from him doesn't suggest this. GJ takes a business approach to managing government, but he's never viewed liberty like that.

would you please list examples as to your argument that G.J. only supports liberty in the sense that he thinks the government can run like a business?
and by the way, business in the private sector is an example of a utilitarian view of government. it isn't different from my remarks except for the part that it removes utilitarianism. (though most businesses run on a utility type scheme)

Gary Johnson is anti-war and anti-fed. he is anti-drug war, he is anti-unbalanced budget. he is anti-fiat currency.
what is it you don't like? perhaps its his name or party affiliation? something shallow?

[Brett85]

CP is against gambling, prostitution, and certain drug use.
not exactly a friend of individual liberty.

The last time I read the CP platform, it didn't say anything about prostitution. Their stance on drug use is that the federal drug war is unconstitutional, and the issue should reside with the states or with the people. Their position on gambling is that the government shouldn't promote gambling through state lotteries or state owned casionos. That's a libertarian position.

[torchbearer]

The last time I read the CP platform, it didn't say anything about prostitution. Their stance on drug use is that the federal drug war is unconstitutional, and the issue should reside with the states or with the people. Their position on gambling is that the government shouldn't promote gambling through state lotteries or state owned casionos. That's a libertarian position.


when is the last time you attended a CP meeting?
anything that goes against the religious beliefs should be outlawed. if you deny this statement- you are a liar.

[Brett85]

when is the last time you attended a CP meeting?
anything that goes against the religious beliefs should be outlawed. if you deny this statement- you are a liar.

I'm a Republican; I haven't been to any CP meetings. But they did nominate Chuck Baldwin in 2008, and his views are very much like Ron's views.

[torchbearer]

I'm a Republican; I haven't been to any CP meetings. But they did nominate Chuck Baldwin in 2008, and his views are very much like Ron's views.

Chuck Baldwin is close to Paul, but Goode is not close to either.
Chuck almost made an attempt to stay constitutional, even on issues he didn't agree with religiously.
I could feel with Chuck that he would not let personal bias dictate policy. that is not the case with the majority of the CP. how do i know? been to the meetings- had their guys at my meetings. we agree on a lot- but they don't get to liberty from a natural rights position. they see government as an outlet of their theology that is somewhat friendly to liberty except for the parts of putting the ten commandments as the law of the land.(along with their doctrine)

[misean]

The last time I read the CP platform, it didn't say anything about prostitution. Their stance on drug use is that the federal drug war is unconstitutional, and the issue should reside with the states or with the people. Their position on gambling is that the government shouldn't promote gambling through state lotteries or state owned casionos. That's a libertarian position.

"Goode is an advocate of a federal prohibition of online poker. In 2006, he cosponsored H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[23]"

Nothing Libertarian or Paulian about that. Gary Johnson on the other hand has taken a strong, correct position on the issue.

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%. He was a Democrat for most of his time in office.

[Joseph de Maistre]

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

In a sense, Goode is correct in saying all of that. He's merely stating his opinion of what he would do, and what will happen if immigration continues at the current rate.

[Joseph de Maistre]

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%.

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

[Joseph de Maistre]

Johnson is 90% the same as Paul on the issues. Goode is maybe 65%.

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

Johnson would repeal Roe v. Wade, so effectively their stances would bring about the same results.

[J. W. Evans]

how many states' ballots will Goode be on?

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

[cavalier973]

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

Romney got him kicked off the ballot, in the mistaken notion that liberty advocates detest Obama so much that, absent any other viable choice, that they would vote for him. He's also trying to get Johnson kicked off the ballot in a few states.

[erowe1]

Johnson is pro-abortion. Paul is not. That 10% difference clearly includes some fundamental denials of our natural rights.

Johnson is for repealing Roe v. Wade. Paul is for repealing Roe v. Wade. One calls himself pro-choice, the other calls himself pro-life.

[Nathan Hale]

Agreed - this whole "abortion controversy" between Johnson and Paul is manufactured, both offer the exact same policy prescription.

[erowe1]

Unfortunately for his campaign, not many. The Constitution Party withdrew it's legal challenge in Pennsylvania this past week so that leaves them off the ballot in PA, CA, OK, TX, NC, IN, IL, and a few others.
Goode is only a handful of states away from not even being able to meet 270 electoral votes, let alone be absent from the big voting states.

I'm pretty sure he's not on the ballot in IN. The CP does not have automatic ballot access here. And there's no way he got the signatures to get onto a general election ballot without me hearing about that.

On the other hand, the LP is on the ballot here. And that's another factor for people to consider. If Goode is really the one they prefer, then will he actually be on their ballot? If not, and they're just trying to make a statement, Johnson might be a better way to do it. That said, I did write in Baldwin in 2008, and have no regrets about that.

[Icymudpuppy]

Johnson already said in a prior debate if he got the nomination Ron would be his vice president. I think it's obvious he'd put Ron in his cabinet...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkYBMuH34AY

[Joseph de Maistre]

Agreed - this whole "abortion controversy" between Johnson and Paul is manufactured, both offer the exact same policy prescription.

"Every abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn human being. When politicians in both parties claim to be pro-life but favor abortions because of the criminal behavior of the father, as in rape or incest, they are politically rejecting that hard truth. What other violations of the natural law will they condone for political expedience?"

-Napolitano

http://takimag.com/article/abortion_and_rape_andrew_napolitano/print#ixzz24yL9LFnw

We know what is in his heart - Johnson fundamentally opposes the natural law because he rejects the basic right to life of the unborn. Even if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, as Napolitano said, what other violations of the natural law would Johnson support?

[erowe1]

We know what is in his heart - Johnson fundamentally opposes the natural law because he rejects the basic right to life of the unborn. Even if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, as Napolitano said, what other violations of the natural law would Johnson support?

Does Goode support nationwide federal regulation of abortion? If so, that's a violation of natural law. What other violations of natural law does Goode support?

[Joseph de Maistre]

Does Goode support nationwide federal regulation of abortion? If so, that's a violation of natural law. What other violations of natural law does Goode support?

I don't think so - I think he argues in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade as well; however, this is irrelevant.

Let's say person A supports executing person B because person B killed an innocent person. Let's say person C supports executing person B because person B is a Jew. A and C may agree on the basic action to be taken, but their reasons for believing what they believe are fundamentally different, and person C's position ought to be rejected, even if you agree with the outcome. Right reason is as important as good ends.

[erowe1]

I don't think so - I think he argues in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade as well; however, this is irrelevant.


If everything else you say is true, then how could this be irrelevant? Why should disrespect for natural law disqualify Johnson but not Goode?

[Joseph de Maistre]

If everything else you say is true, then how could this be irrelevant? Why should disrespect for natural law disqualify Johnson but not Goode?

It's not just one's actions that can oppose natural law, but what is in their mind. I don't want to vote for someone who advocates libertarian policies, but admits that he is a pedophile.

[erowe1]

It's not just one's actions that can oppose natural law, but what is in their mind. I don't want to vote for someone who advocates libertarian policies, but admits that he is a pedophile.

Fair enough. But again, why does this standard apply to Johnson and not to Goode?

[Joseph de Maistre]

Fair enough. But again, why does this standard apply to Johnson and not to Goode?

Because Goode doesn't support, you know, ending people's heartbeats.

[erowe1]

Because Goode doesn't support, you know, ending people's heartbeats.

I'm not sure if that's true. It certainly wasn't when he was in Congress.

Also, being against empowering the state to stop someone from killing someone is not the same as supporting the killing.

[Joseph de Maistre]

I'm not sure if that's true. It certainly wasn't when he was in Congress.

Also, being against empowering the state to stop someone from killing someone is not the same as supporting the killing.

If an individual could stop someone from being killed, yet they do nothing, then they are morally complicit in the death. Because government is no different than individuals, the same is also true of any government.

[erowe1]

If an individual could stop someone from being killed, yet they do nothing, then they are morally complicit in the death. Because government is no different than individuals, the same is also true of any government.

If there's another country whose abortion laws are too lax, then should the regime in DC take over that country to change those laws and stop babies from being killed?

[Joseph de Maistre]

If there's another country whose abortion laws are too lax, then should the regime in DC take over that country to change those laws and stop babies from being killed?

No, that act would undermine one of the other responsibilities of governments: protection of Liberty. You cannot accomplish good ends with bad means, and so a government (or individual) that invades another country is necessarily transgressing the liberty of its citizens, even if its intentions are good.

[erowe1]

No, that act would undermine one of the other responsibilities of governments: protection of Liberty. You cannot accomplish good ends with bad means, and so a government (or individual) that invades another country is necessarily transgressing the liberty of its citizens, even if its intentions are good.

But the same regime rules over us by conquest now. Its right to rule over us is no different than its right to rule over any other nation. That is against natural law, and if the regime were to use its power over us to protect the unborn from abortion, that would not be an excuse for the violation of natural law on which that power is based.

[Nathan Hale]

We know what is in his heart - Johnson fundamentally opposes the natural law because he rejects the basic right to life of the unborn. Even if he supports overturning Roe v. Wade, as Napolitano said, what other violations of the natural law would Johnson support?

You're talking to a guy for whom abortion is not a watershed issue, so I'm not going to draw a line in a sand about a candidate's personal opinion on it.

[PierzStyx]

The only way I'd vote for Johnson would be if he promised to put Ron Paul into his cabinet. He might not be able to say so openly, but he could do the whole "the person I'm looking for for the position of Sec of X will have these qualities" hint, hint, wink wink.

The only I'd vote for a ticket with Johnson on it was if he were the VP and Ron was the Presidential candidate.

[Nathan Hale]

The only I'd vote for a ticket with Johnson on it was if he were the VP and Ron was the Presidential candidate.

So you'd vote for the guy to be an 80 year old's heartbeat away from the Presidency, but you wouldn't vote for him to be the President? That's the line?

[Shotdown1027]

This article (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/exclusive-ipr-interview-virgil-goode-makes-his-case-to-ron-paul-supporters/) is the interview that was talked about earlier in which Goode essentially makes his case to Paul supporters.

[Sola_Fide]

IPR: It’s likely Ron Paul will not be endorsing 3rd party candidates this year as he has done in the past. His campaign has flatly ruled out any support for the Libertarian party nominee, and many political observers see Congressman Paul’s ultimate goal as building a Republican base for his son, Senator Rand Paul, to run a national campaign in 2016. In the meantime, millions of Ron Paul supporters are up for grabs come November. What will you do to reach out to them?

Goode: Ron Paul has been a friend from my first days in Congress. I learned a lot as a member of his Liberty Caucus in the House. I understand his interests in his son’s viability as a presidential candidate, but I’m always an optimist: I’d welcome Ron’s support. However, you’re right Peter—we should plan to face reality and capture the Ron Paul constituency on our own. Just look at the issues Ron has run on: audit the Fed, the gold standard, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s our platform! Campaigning on the issues that matter most to those who believe in the Constitution will resonate with Ron Paul supporters. I think we might just pay a visit to Tampa during the Republican Party convention and talk with some of Ron Paul’s best organizers and grass roots leaders. When the Republicans crown Mitt Romney, we’ll be right there recruiting constitutionalists to our banner.

IPR: Let’s talk about some issues that would appeal to Ron Paul voters, starting with what you’ve just mentioned.

Goode: It’s clear we must reverse the Nixon administration’s decision of taking our currency off the gold standard. Just think of how reliable the dollar would be today if it were backed by gold, protecting citizens from hyperinflation and other economic catastrophes caused by government manipulations.

Regarding the Federal Reserve, they have put us trillions in debt because of bailouts and loans here and abroad. That’s with help from their allies in Congress and the U.S. Treasury of course. The Fed refuses to disclose the details of its so-called “emergency” lending. This kind of secrecy must stop. I fully support the Constitution Party’s language addressing this issue. We specifically call for a monetary system as spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The voluntary choice of using of silver and/or gold in individual states, such as legislation just considered in Virginia, is something I think should be part of our new emphasis on states rights.

As far as a non-interventionist foreign policy goes, let me say this to begin with: I’ve learned a lot in my years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party. Some votes I cast in Congress were not well matched with Constitutional principles. I oppose the Patriot Act provisions and the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that trample on the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford—nor is it strategically necessary—to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.

IPR: Can you address some domestic issues?

Goode: Let me just add one thing about the military. Of course I want the U.S. military to be the strongest and have the cutting edge weaponry necessary to keep us number one in the world. That does not mean however, that the Defense Department automatically gets all the monies it wants—which is always more than its budget the previous year. America is broke. We must balance the budget immediately which means every aspect of government spending must be assessed, cut back, or cut out. In the Goode administration, the Defense Department is on that list.

The children of illegal aliens are now granted automatic citizenship. That’s wrong and must be addressed right away. This is central to my opposition to granting amnesty for any and all illegal aliens. And I go a step further: legal immigration must be cut back too—Americans with talent and experience must be put to work first before we import foreign job takers.

When I was in the Virginia Senate, I co-sponsored a bill urging our congressional delegation to vote against NAFTA. It’s bad for business and a challenge to America’s sovereignty. Our trade surplus with Mexico is now a trade deficit. When I was in Congress, I co-sponsored legislation to repeal NAFTA. These free trade treaties are exporting U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. In my area of Virginia we were once known as the sweatshirt capital of the world but not now—the textile industry all across America is suffering because of NAFTA and similar treaties.

I was the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus during part of my tenure in Congress and received “A” ratings from National Right to Life, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), as well as the Christian Coalition on family issues.

IPR: Finally, why didn’t you run for re-election to Congress? You always had a strong support base—elected and re-elected as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican—and you lost by just a few hundred votes as part of the Obama landslide in your area of Virginia.

Goode: I’d be a very lonely voice in the wilderness, and the establishment parties wouldn’t give me much leeway to pursue a constitutionalist agenda. Here’s an example of how things work in Congress. Along with Walter Jones [R-NC] I was among a very few Republicans opposed to a free trade treaty—the House Republican leadership really put the pressure on us to change positions but we refused to go along. Now you know that every Congressman gets certain monies allotted to their districts from the federal gas tax to be used for road and transportation projects. The funding recommendations go through the House leadership. I suppose it was just a coincidence, but that year the districts Walter and I represented received half of the anticipated allocation. I had several such coincidences when I was in Congress.

I want to take our Constitution Party message across the nation—more people are ready to listen to it than ever before. The Ron Paul supporters, the Tea Party movement, home schoolers, and so many constituencies will vote for the Constitution Party if we give them the chance. That’s why we’re working hard to get ballot access. Jim Clymer did so well in Pennsylvania running for U.S. Senator in 2004: he received over 200,000 votes! Now he’s organizing people to get us on the ballot for the 2012 presidential campaign. Of course we are already on the ballot in many states, like yours in Florida. That’s our starting point, but we’ve got quite a challenge ahead. My work with the leadership and the grass roots activists of the Constitution Party has convinced me that only with an issues-oriented campaign—as opposed to the slick establishment candidates—we will make history.

...

[Zap!]

A libertarian against gays, abortion, and drugs: My kind of person. I'm voting Goode all the way.

[Deborah K]

Chuck Baldwin is close to Paul, but Goode is not close to either.
Chuck almost made an attempt to stay constitutional, even on issues he didn't agree with religiously.
I could feel with Chuck that he would not let personal bias dictate policy. that is not the case with the majority of the CP. how do i know? been to the meetings- had their guys at my meetings. we agree on a lot- but they don't get to liberty from a natural rights position. they see government as an outlet of their theology that is somewhat friendly to liberty except for the parts of putting the ten commandments as the law of the land.(along with their doctrine)

Virgil and Ron may not be close, but they're friends. I met Goode in '07 when I helped organize a rally in D.C. opposing amnesty, which was being voted on in Congress at the time. Goode spoke at our event. He also wrote HR40 which opposed the NAU aka Security and Prosperity Partnership. Ron was a co-sponsor, and clearly had Virgil's respect, as many people at the event were Paul supporters and someone gave him a Paul '08 pin which he promptly put on his lapel.