Posted on 05/30/2012 9:24:08 PM PDT by xzins
Freelance writer Peter Gemma (cf. http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_3/tsc_22_3_gemma.shtml and http://www.quarterly-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/QRGemma.pdf) talked policy and politics with Virgil Goode, the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party. Goode, who received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, served in the Virginia Army National Guard (1969-1975), as a member of the Virginia Senate (1973-1997), and in the U.S. House of Representatives (1996-2008). Gemma was acting a special corespondent for Independent Political Report.
IPR: Thanks Congressman for taking time off the campaign trail to talk with the Independent Political Report. What’s the latest news from the front lines?
Goode: We just got back from gathering signatures in Delaware for ballot qualification. It’s a small number in total that we need; about 600. However, those who wish to see our name on the ballot must change their registration. Believe it or not, the county registrar of voters actually calls people to say “are you sure you want to change party your affiliation?” We have to be triple sure petition signers understand the process.
IPR: What’s next on the roll call of states that you are targeting for ballot access?
Goode: Well, of course I’m working hard here in Virginia to get the Constitution Party on the ballot. Even this far from November and without any serious campaigning, political surveys show that we’re pulling five percent of the vote. We need 10,000 names on our petitions, which means we’re working overtime to get 18,000-20,000 signatures to be sure we cover the usual disqualification ratio.
New York is a big challenge: we must have 15,000 signatures—that means securing 25,000-30,000 names. That’s quite a hurdle, but the good news is that although there is a small minimum number needed in each county, the preponderance of the names can be collected anywhere—in other words in areas where we have the most volunteers.
We’ve also set our sights on California where the American Independent Party, which is not affiliated with the Constitution Party, already has a line on the ballot. Their state convention is slated for August and I will be there for a few days talking with party leaders and grassroots activists about having the AIP endorse the Virgil Goode-Jim Clymer ticket. California is among several states we’ll be visiting on a tour of the West including Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada.
Overall, I’m, hoping the Constitution Party ticket will be an option for voters in 40 states, even if in some cases Goode-Clymer are listed as Independents because party qualification is so difficult. But let me add this as a disclaimer: we have or plan to have lawsuits challenging unfair rules for 3rd parties in several states. Georgia is in the works right now.
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.
IPR: I appreciate your time Congressman.
Goode: Thank you Peter and the Independent Political Report for the opportunity to say what’s on my mind.
First let me say I appreciate the friendly tone of this conversation. It’s getting too rare on FR. Thanks.
As to your argument, I am glad we have common ground in understanding God as the starting point for moral reasoning.
But I think we disagree on more than just what actions are moral or not. I think we still disagree on what morality actually is.
Harm avoidance is a weak basis for moral choices. In practice, it is not useful for any moral problem that doesn’t produce an immediate and obvious harm. God tells us to avoid idolatry. But who is really hurt if we worship rocks or fishes or fancy cars? Not God. And if we don’t inflict “injury” on anyone else (whatever that really means), why should it be prohibited?
Mere harm avoidance cannot answer that question, and that is exactly why it is the preferred form of moral argument the left uses to advance almost every element of its ungodly vision for utopia. After all, who can argue with heaven on earth? If you buy their premise, all moral arguments devolve to mind-numbing attempts to quantify harm. We become driven, not by the precepts of Scripture and the God who loves us, but by the (manufactured) crisis of the day. We cease to be truly free.
A better argument, IMHO, is that God knows all possible harms, and with that knowledge has told us what we must do. This is the heart of faith, that we believe God’s long-range radar, even when our short-range radar is predicting something different.
God is not asking us to control the future. That’s his job. He asks us to be faithful in the few things he has given us, and if we do OK with those, he will give us more someday.
And he has clearly told us two important things that bear on how we use our vote this election. First, flee idolatry. We are under direct command authority, not so much as to even bid Godspeed to those who bring doctrines of Christ contrary to the apostolic teaching (let alone voluntarily grant them power over our lives). If we help them in their evil, we become a party to their evil. See 2 John 1:10.
As for your calculus of harm, Jesus puts it in perspective: What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul? In other words, if you would measure actions by measuring harm, start with your own soul, because according to Jesus, it is worth more than the whole world.
Peace,
SR
You Obama trolls have been reduced to talking to each other and mau-mauing Mormon FReepers.
Of course you are - you are doing the same thing as voting for Obama.
Thanks for your courteous reply.
I think we could say the basis of morality is love. Love of God and through Him love of our neighbor.
While avoiding harm is not the basis, we do strive to minimize harm out of love.
As for God’s omniscience and omnipotence, this could be used to avoid responsibility for our actions or justify no action at all. God created man, our actions have meaning and consequences, we should strive to increase in moral discernment and love.
I don’t think idolatry comes into play in my vote. (Perhaps if I were a materialist or utopian or Obama worshipper...)
I do believe opposing evil and godlessness does come into play. As does opposing secular humanism, reductionism, denigration of soul and spirit, etc. And with it all the resulting harm.
Primarily for these reasons, I believe the moral thing to do in this election is act to remove this evil regime from power. I believe that voting for a third-party candidate is counter productive to this primary objective. And is, therefore, IMHO, immoral.
thanks again...
Are you talking about me...xzins? Are you saying I posted a thread the subject of which was an encouragement for people to vote for Obama?
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worth of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worthY of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worthY of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
Why did you only send your message three times? Shouldn’t a spasto like you send it a hundred times?
Why?
So people would go back and look at your quote that says Mitt and Obama are the same.
EPluU: “The alternative is Myth, who is the same thing as Ubama. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800991/posts?page=10#10
LOL!
I agree that love is certainly a better place to begin than avoidance of harm. However, I note than in your response you end up back at avoidance of harm as your primary expression of love, and that continues to be a weak approach, because it leads directly to moral relativism.
Consider: God has commanded us avoid worshipping idols. You agree? So let’s say I was told that if I worshipped an idol, King Nebuchadnezzar would not throw me in the fiery furnace. Would you have me worship that idol to save my life? If not, why not? Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to save my own skin so I can go back to taking care of my family? They do need me. Or I could also go back to teaching people how wonderful God is. After I worshipped an idol?
What did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do? They rejected the pressure to disobey God, even if it meant the end of their own earthly lives. Apparently, the consequence they feared the most was displeasing God. Is what they did immoral? Based on your analysis so far, it is.
Now change the problem. Let’s say Nebuchadnezzar tells you your whole family will be thrown into the fiery furnace if you do not bow down low and worship his idol. Harder problem, isn’t it. The love you have for your family, if you are like me, is greater than the love you have for your own life. And if the harm would be so great, wouldn’t love predict you would bow down to that idol? To save your own family?
Or would love do something different. If the objective of a godly man is to see to the salvation of his family, is that primarily a physical salvation, or a spiritual salvation? Is it really “moral” to sin so that good may come of it? The Apostle Paul teaches us explicitly not to use that logic. We are not allowed to sin so that good may come of it. By so doing we commit an act of gross hubris, making ourselves more wise than God Himself. When confronted with such a choice, we must always obey God and trust him for the outcome.
Then the problem becomes, not what harm can I avoid if I do this sinful thing, but will I choose to trust in God, or will I cave to the fear of man?
One of my favorite stories in this regard comes from Corrie Ten Boom. She and her family in German-occupied Holland were giving refuge to escaping Jews. They were hiding them in the floor. One day the Germans came to their home and demanded to know of them whether they were hiding Jews.
Using your system of moral analysis, it would seem the right thing to do was to lie to the Germans. But Bessie, Corrie’s sister, did the most unusual thing. Taking on a bizarre, comical manner, she told the Germans the truth. They didn’t believe her. They probably thought she was crazy. But Bessie held to her conscience, which did not permit her to lie, even if grave consequences would come from telling the truth. She trusted God, and God vindicated her.
But your system says what she did was immoral. The “loving” thing to do would have been to lie, right? Lives saved, happy endings for all (well, except the Germans, of course). Yet she did what was right, out of a sense of unalterable duty to God. It is very hard, no, it is impossible, for me to judge that as immoral.
In fact, that story, among so many other stories of the people of God remaining true to God even when it made them the object of ridicule and violence, has served as a reminder to me that we have not yet paid the ultimate price for our sense of duty to God. We have brothers and sisters in Christ in China, Darfur, and elsewhere, who daily confront the prospect of prison or execution, for failing to sign on to the state-sponsored orthodoxy. What we are going through is child’s play by comparison.
I have to go somewhere. I have enjoyed the conversation. I hope it has been beneficial to you as well. Peace.
I realized that Myth would be better then Ubama, because Ubama hates America. You can't say that about Myth.
You, however, want Ubama to win.
Good luck to ya.
Does “adjust to reality” = OK with gay adoption by gay couples?
You think you're clever by pretending to be for Goode, when you really are nothing more than a DUer practicing the Delphi technique to get Ubama reelected.
It's pretty transparent.
Good. Return the favor and we'll both be happy.
Your words, EPU, are that Obama = Romney.
Goode is a life-long, pro-life advocate.
Romney is an on-again-off-again, on-again-off-again advocate of the political winds of abortion advocate.
Obama is a life-long, pro-abortion candidate.
Are you pro-life or pro-abortion?
mind reader alert
Deb seems so confused sometimes, be kind.
I'm so sorry. I thought she was truth challenged.
You are the one with the problem. Just a few months ago you were claiming that there was no difference between Obama and Romney and you were right. Now you claim that those who take the same position that you were taking just a few months ago are Trolls from DU.
You are a flaming hypocrite. No wonder you are carrying water for Romney. You are just like him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.