Virgil Goode, former Congressman and 2012 Constitution Party Presidential nominee, is now part of Trump’s campaign team in Virginia. What was that about Trump not being conservative enough? I had some differences with Goode, but he always got the immigration issue.
The following is an e-mail I received from the Constitution Party:
Many conservatives put their faith in the two party system, hoping some candidate will reform the Republicans.
Rand Paul, who offers a few positive takes on some key issues, recently said: “I’ve been there. I’ve seen what it’s like in the third-party world. Our system is directed to the two parties and I made the decision when I started running for political office that I am a constitutional conservative and Libertarian-leaning Republican.”
Constitutional Republican? Sadly, Rand Paul seems to to be just another politician out to reform the GOP. It’s not going to happen, and worse, he offers the same failed path for patriots seeking real solutions. That road that must come from outside the elitist-controlled political parties. I wish he knew better.
Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips clearly stated why America needs the Constitution Party: “To capture the Presidency for an agenda of Constitutional renewal, we need a political instrument with clarity of principle and unity of purpose — one willing to offer a change in direction as well as a switch of drivers.”
We are out to change the system and with your support we are making progress. I urge you to visit our national webpage: it has a new look and is easy to navigate. It’s a refresher course on what we believe and our plans for winning.
When talking to friends and family about our Constitution Party, I often refer to what John Adams said:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
Your financial support, $20, $50, even $100, is essential to our future. I hope I can count on your continuing support.
In a post below, Hawthorne suggested that I should go “all in” for Trump as the best way to gin up some useful political theater. I was seriously considering it, although I still had some angst about whether or not I should support Rand Paul. Trump is not the best on all the issues, although he is the best on trade deals and building a wall, but he is a generalized “stick a thumb in the eye of the Regime” candidate. That is why I was very disappointed to read that he joined the anti-Confederate Battle Flag PC fest. (I literally crossed my fingers when I Googled to see if he had made a statement, hoping I wouldn’t be disappointed.) I was really hoping he would denounce the hysteria or at least defer to the people of South Carolina on the issue, but he chose to make a definitive statement in support of removing the flag, so I will not be supporting him.
I don’t really blame Trump as much as I do some of the other clowns. He was born in Queens, NY, had a typical American education and has not really been a part of a political milieu where he would learn better, or at least come to understand the sensibilities of some on the issue. Rand Paul and Rick Perry, for example, have no such excuse. But Trump is a fiesty contrarian and those instincts should have at least lead him to bite his tongue on the issue. The two candidates I was considering, Rand and Trump, have let me down. As of now, I have absolutely no one to support in the Republican primary. Unless someone acceptable gets in, I guess it’s time to start looking at who is running for the Constitution Party nomination.
Since we are on the subject of a draft Steve Stockman effort, here is a post from Trent Hill at Independent Political Report on some potential Constitution Party prospects. Darrell Castle is solid on the issues, but isn’t well known outside CP circles. Steve Stockman may be solid enough on the issues, but I need to explore his foreign policy some more. Dennis Michael Lynch has an intense fan base on Facebook, but appears to be wrong on foreign policy. (See my comment at IPR on DML’s mixed message on foreign policy.) I suspect Stockman could get the nomination if he decides to seek it. Otherwise, I think Castle is the most likely nominee at this point.
As I reported below, an effort to draft Steve Stockman to run for President, likely as the Constitution Party nominee, has sprung up on Facebook. Here is a brief look at some info I have found on Stockman on the issues that matter, meaning the issues that would distinguish him from the rest of the conservative pack.
On immigration he’s rock solid. He’s anti-amnesty and anti-negotiations on “comprehensive immigration reform.” He has taken a position on the birthright citizenship issue which not every tough on immigration conservative is willing to do. He calls for a constitutional amendment which I don’t think is necessary, since birthright citizenship is a misreading of the 14th amendment anyway, but it’s a start. I don’t see anything at the link on restricting legal immigration, which is imperative for the future prospects of anything remotely resembling the conservative agenda. I suspect he is good on this, but I would like to see a statement.
On trade he’s rock solid also. He opposes NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. Unfortunately he opposes lifting the embargo on Cuba and is for making civil rights a factor in trade. The embargo on Cuba is not really about trade. It is an interventionist foreign policy position that is a relic of the Cold War. As far as human rights, trade is an economic issue. Making human rights a factor in trade is turning trade into an instrument of a meddlesome interventionist foreign policy.
On foreign policy, he’s promising. He supports foreign aid only for defense purposes. I believe we should abolish foreign aid entirely, but this is a start. Unfortunately he opposes diplomatic relations with Cuba. Again, our relationship with Cuba is a Cold War relic and should be normalized. From the link Stockman believes “The US should use military force only when the US border or territories are attacked or American citizens are in danger.” The way it reads, I believe this is indicating how he answered a survey question.
The overall sense I get is of someone who is inclined to oppose and naysay things. This would explain not wanting to change the status of our current relationship with Cuba and opposition to “most favored nation” status for China. This makes for some potential inconsistency, but it is much better than an inclination to yes man everything.
Steve Stockman has been rumored to be a potential Constitution Party candidate for President. Now there is a Facebook page promoting his candidacy. It not clear whether the site is promoting a GOP primary run and/or a CP run.
I don’t know if Stockman is a non-interventionist on foreign policy. This has come up in the past and at the time I seem to recall that he was not a dogmatic non-interventionist, but my recollection is vague. I’ll do do some research and see what I can find out.
Below is the email response from Phil Collins to an inquiry sent by an IPR writer. Collins is Koppie’s former campaign manager. It is republished here with permission.
During Chad’s last U.S. Senate campaign, I was his campaign manager, so your email was forwarded to me. Yes, he’s considering running for president, for the Constitution Party. I think that he’s the only potential candidate, for that party’s nomination, who has held an elective office. He’s in his second term as a member of the Kane Co., IL Regional Board of Schools. He was also a township trustee and school board member. If he runs, his most important issue will be trying to end abortion, since he says that it’s murder. He also supports cutting federal spending & tax rates and deporting more illegal aliens…
Update: Here is his website.
The following was sent by the Constitution Party. Please excuse the fund raising appeals unless you are so inclined:
2014 was a significant building block on our way to success. We had more than 150 Constitution Party candidates from sheriff to Congressional seats, prepared for 2015 by balancing the books with a successful year-end “Money Bomb,”and we now have more ballot qualified affiliates as we aim for 2016.
To say thank you is simply not enough. Your generosity, your stamina doing the hard work of electioneering, and your courage to uphold our Constitution Party and its principles is inspiring. I wish there was a stronger word I could use to describe how I feel.
Looking back, as you see in the attached newsletter, gives a perspective and an assessment of where we are. I hope you will take advantage of contacting state leaders (found on page five) so we can go forward with candidate recruitment plans, new literature to distribute, recruiting candidates, training campaign volunteers, and the all-important drive to gain ballot access in many key states. All that takes financial support, and I urge you to re-invest in the Constitution Party.
Because, as Thomas Jefferson once said:
A sense of this necessity, and a submission to it, is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
We must inform our fellow citizens so they wake up to see how far America has gone down the wrong road — away from the Constitution and ignoring wise advice of the Founding Fathers.
Please take a moment to underwrite our Party’s goal of voter education, motivation, and political action. A gift of $25 or $50 or $250 is important to get the ball rolling. I will soon layout specifics of next steps for the Constitution Party. In the meantime, please accept my heartfelt thanks for all you do.
Here is an Independent Political Report post on 3 minor party candidates, including one CP candidate? I am not familiar with the CP candidate, and his candidacy appears to be Quixotic in nature. That’s not the interesting part of the article. Of interest is this comment by Trent Hill, who teases us that a “big name” candidate that the CP has been courting my be about to make the move. I know Trent Hill. If he says he has inside intel, he has inside intel. It’s not a done deal, but it’s possible. There is some speculation about who it might be below Trent’s comment. Any guesses? Keep in mind that “big name” is by CP standards.