Skip to comments.Tom Hoefling to debate Virgil Goode [Three CA presidential debates, Aug. 1, 4 & 7]
Posted on 07/27/2012 4:57:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
For Immediate Release
Sacramento, CA - America's Party presidential nominee Tom Hoefling has accepted the invitation of the American Independent Party of California to participle in three debates with candidates vying for their 2012 presidential nomination.
The dates for the three debates have been set for Wednesday August 1st, Saturday August 4th, and Tuesday August 7th.
While these will be evening events, the exact start times have not yet been announced. All three debates will be broadcast live on web radio. Please watch americaspartynews.com and tomhoefling.com for additional information and a live link which will be provided as soon as it becomes available.
Reportedly, as of this evening, four candidates have agreed to participate: Tom Hoefling of America's Party, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, Will Christensen of the Independent American Party, and Ed Noonan of the American Independent Party.
The first debate will address principles, the second will focus on domestic policy, and the third will deal with foreign policy.
Maybe each one of us should just vote for our own self.
Well, that would be a big step up from voting for what you claim to hate.
But he convinced me that my opinions are those of a baby-killer.
So I'm learning to live with that, and I'll probably vote Libertarian this time around.
I think this statement is so wildly optimistic as to border on fantasy.
Personally, I know dozens of people....law-abiding working men and women who are pro-life, pro-God, pro-gun, pro-family.....but who have voted and will vote the government cheese ticket every single time.
Yes, I know that anecdotes are not data, but I submit as evidence that my patriotic, traditional values-rich state of West Virginia has kept the Democrats in power in our state capital for eighty years, and were it not for the national Democrats' opposition to the coal industry, they'd have a lock on the Presidential vote too.
Love it, you win the thread.
How's Hegewisch doing under the Rahm regime?
"In an authentic three-way political contest, the number of those who prefer American liberty to anti-American socialism is more than sufficient to defeat, in general election, both wings of the elite factions partisan sham.
Did Keyes say this before, or after, he got thumped by Obama 70%-27%?
"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
We could get most of the way to where we need to go with a mere plurality of folks who refuse to compromise the core principles of the republic.
Unfortunately, that needed plurality is still largely being cowed into supporting what they say they hate. It's very sad.
Gotta be sarcasm, since the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson, completely supports the practice of baby-killing, and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Of course, so does the alleged Republican, notwithstanding the paper-thin layer of lies he's wrapped around his judicial supremacist, anti-republican, anti-Constitution, pro-choice democrat views.
Will you be a ‘write-in’ candidate on the ballot in states outside of California?
My initial point was that Tom’s position on life is absolutely consistent and unbending. In a time when word parsing, flip-flops and prevarication are the hallmarks of too many of our politicians, I find that refreshing.
I pass no personal judgment on anyone because I’m commanded in my Bible not to. But I can show appropriate respect for someone who walks the walk.
In most of them, yes.
Pretenders pretending to be presidentially relevant
I have NEVER voted for a 'pro-death' candidate, and I am not going to start now...
Hegewisch took a fatal wound in the last few years of Daley’s time when they incorporated a lot of Section 8 housing. Really made the place a mess - been a huge increase in gang activity, robberies and even murders. It’s so bad that my family (two girls under 10) are moving out in a couple weeks.
And thanks for the kind words!
Good luck with your “relevant” pro-choice democrat.
Kinder has a legitimate question. My guess is most Freepers can't vote for you even if they wanted to because you won't be on their ballot. Why are you not campaigning under the Constitution Party umbrella, which has obtained ballot access in a majority of states and has elected a few people — not many but at least a few — to local office?
I understand the third-party argument. If we lived in a country with either multimember districts or proportional representation, as is the case in many parliamentary democracies, I would agree with it.
At present in most states, West Virginia apparently being the only exception, we have a winner-take all system in America.
That means we need to get the highest number of votes to even get a seat at the table. That usually means 50 percent, but a weaker candidate can win with less than 50 percent if a small percentage of the stronger candidate's votes get siphoned off to a “true believer” candidate who is more militant. Maybe that means conservatives need to encourage the Green Party, but I think we need to be aware that liberal backers of Barack Obama have just as much interest in encouraging support for conservative third parties as we have in encouraging the Green Party.
Barring a realistic plan to follow the precedent of the Republican Party of the 1850s of replacing one of the two existing parties, I see no purpose in a third-party campaign.
That still leaves what individual voters should do. Third party campaigns are out there. What should those of us who morally object to both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do?
If I lived in a solid red or solid blue state, I could see the point of a protest vote, and if I lived in a district where there was a realistic chance of a third-party candidate being elected to local office, I'd give that candidate a very hard look. In our area, one county over, an independent candidate for sheriff four years ago came very close to winning a three-way race against an Republican incumbent, and actually outpolled the Democrat by a large margin. In our own county, ten years ago an independent Christian conservative candidate for prosecuting attorney came very close to winning as well against a Democrat in a race the Republicans didn't contest that year. Third party and independent victories are rare but they are not impossible at the local level.
Here's the problem. I live in Missouri. The 2008 election in my state was decided by only a few thousand votes. Around these parts, my vote very possibly could have made a difference four years ago.
I don't like Romney at all, but no other candidate has a chance in this state's presidential race of defeating Obama. Do I cast a protest vote for the Constitution Party or do I vote for Romney as the only one who has a chance of defeating Obama in my state?
That may depend on how close the polls look as we approach election day.
The first of the three scheduled American Independent Party Presidential Debates begins tonight at:
6 pm Pacific
7 pm Mountain
8 pm Central
9 pm Eastern
That is absolute bull. You went to great lengths explain how Romney was foisted upon us to being with. Yet you believe he could be "primaried" as an incumbent President? Ha.
For the past 5 years, Romney has pretended to be conservative (unless his conversion on several issues is real, which I doubt), and because he wasn’t in office it was hard to convince people that he wasn’t being genuine. If he governs like a liberal now, after having claimed to have converted, he will lose all credibility with the misguided and confused conservatives who chose to support him in 2008 and 2012.
Remember how in 2008 Obama fooled a bunch of conservatives that he was not a liberal extremist, which allowed him to improve upon Kerry’s performance in states like Indiana by over 10%? Well, in his four years in office he has proven that we were right about him all along, and Obama knows he won’t be able to fool those voters again (he’s not even contesting Indiana this year after having carried it in 2008).
If Romney doesn’t toe the conservative line, he knows that his credibility with conservatives will be shot and that he likely will face a primary challenger; more to the point, Romney knows that even if he bought his way to the nomination away that conservatives won’t go to the polls to vote for him in the numbers that he would need, since he wouldn’t have the luxury of having an incumbent President Obama on the ballot increasing conservative turnout.
So Romney will not be vetoing conservative legislation that passes both houses of Congress, he will appoint conservatives to the federal judiciary so as not to raise the ire of what will be a very conservative GOP delegation on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he will tread very carefully before issuing an executive order that will piss off conservatives.
I have no hopes of Romney being any sort of conservative leader, but he will allow conservatives to pass laws that Obama would veto immediately and he will let the Federalist Society and the Senate Judiciary Committee tell him who to nominate to the federal bench. Remember, Romney was a go-along to get-along kind of guy in Massachusetts, where he went along with the Democrats on some truly awful policies and appointed some terribly liberal judges—he was trying to fit in with a Massachusetts legislature that was around 90% Democrat. Well, in 2013 conservatives will have majorities in both houses of Congress (and our majority in the Senate will grow even more after 2014, with a good chance at reaching 60 seats), and Romney will want to be “one of the cool kids” so as to fit in. At least during a first term, Romney won’t let his liberalism show.
On the other hand, if Obama gets a second term . . . .
Thank you for the thoughtful and well written reply. While I’d like to think you are right, I can’t help but think the scorched-earth primary campaign of 2012 would pale in comparison to the steaming pile awaiting any meaningful challenge to the incumbent. His executive implementation of homosexual marriage long before the fight was over was NOT go along to get along. It was pure Mitt.