William P. Clark, R.I.P.

William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's closest advisor, passed away yesterday. It's quite possible that you've never heard of Judge Clark, but he just so happens to be one of the chief architects of Reagan's vision for the downfall of Soviet communism, and played a key role in implementing that plan.

The following excerpt is from an interview Ignatius Insight did a few years ago with Paul Kengor, Clark's biographer (his book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand):

... Clark helped set up that initial and historic June 1982 meeting between President Reagan and Pope John Paul II, where the two men confided in one another that they believed that God had spared their lives for a special purpose, which they concluded was to undermine Soviet communism, beginning particularly in Poland, which both men—as well as Clark—saw as the wedge that could crack the entire Communist Bloc.

Over the next year and a half that followed, Clark became the primary White House conduit to the Vatican. Along with CIA director Bill Casey, another committed Catholic, Clark met very frequently with Pio Laghi, the apostolic delegate to Washington. He and Casey had code language when discussing over the telephone the need for a quick meeting with Laghi: "It's time to get some cappuccino," they would say. That meant a visit to Laghi's residence for a cappuccino and to share information about the critical activities going on around the world, especially in Poland. They were the middle men between Reagan and Pope John Paul II, the principal liaisons. Clark was the point man who would then report that information directly back to Reagan...

Kathryn Jean Lopez's tribute to Judge Clark at National Review is definitely worth a read.

Requiescat in pace, Judge Clark.

Save America. Vote Virgil Goode for President.

The Differences Are Clear ...

... between Virgil Goode and the two major-party liberals he's running against:

Fight the Goode Fight!

Vote Virgil Goode for President.

Don't Vote for "Lesser" Evil... Vote for Goode

Reject the Obama-Romney Ticket - Vote Virgil Goode for President

Obamney/Robama in their own words:

 

There's barely a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and NEITHER will fight for the principles and priorities that are most important to you.

Don't get stuck choosing between the alleged lesser of two evils. You have a REAL choice, if only you'll escape from the two-party box in which the Republicans think they have trapped you into voting for whoever they nominate just because the other guy is allegedly worse.

 Vote for someone who shares your values, priorities, and political philosophy.

Vote for the only candidate with a 100% pro-life voting record running under the banner of the only 100%-without-exception-pro-life party.


Vote for Constitution Party nominee

Virgil Goode!!!

Fight the Goode Fight!!!

Official Endorsement Time: Virgil Goode for President

Well, it appears as if Willard Mitt Romney (aka Dullard Flip Rino) has all but wrapped up the GOP nomination for President. His coronation at the convention is inevitable. What is NOT inevitable is conservatives having to vote for someone who they don't like, who they don't trust, and who doesn't share their values, principles, or philosophy, simply because his is allegedly the lesser of two evils. There is always the option of voting 3rd party.

That is why tonight I am officially endorsing former Congressman and current Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode Jr. for President of the United States. I encourage all disaffected conservatives who now feel alienated from the GOP to join me in supporting a true conservative who takes the Constitution seriously. Vote Virgil Goode.





Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
More on Virgil Goode for President

An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent

Established Politicians Going Third Party in 2012 Race

Virgil Goode for President [UPDATED]

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Is Virgil Goode Running for President?

More on Virgil Goode for President

I caught up with Virgil Goode over the weekend, after having not seen him in about a decade, at the Constitution Party Presidential Debate in Lansing, Michigan. Here are some photos of that event (along with a photo of some Goode for President campaign buttons I've collected over the last few weeks):










Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent

Established Politicians Going Third Party in 2012 Race

Virgil Goode for President [UPDATED]

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Is Virgil Goode Running for President?

An Open Letter to the Members of the Constitution Party from a Roman Catholic Pro-Life Independent (Conservative)

Dear Members of the Constitution Party,

In two days, I will attend the Constitution Party Presidential Debate in Lansing, Michigan. I am excited for the opportunity to see the candidates in action, going head-to-head in debating the important issues of the day. I also hope to have the opportunity to talk one-on-one with the candidates about the opportunities this year's Presidential election offers to the Constitution Party.

And make no mistake: you have been offered a HUGE opportunity this year by the GOP's decision to, in all likelihood, nominate Mitt Romney as its Presidential nominee. People like me - independent pro-life conservatives who believe in the Constitution, but who have traditionally held our noses and voted for the GOP - have had enough, especially with the GOP's nomination of easily the least conservative (i.e. most liberal) candidate since Gerald Ford, and are looking to cast our votes for someone we can believe in, even if that means casting a 3rd party vote for President for the first time ever.

Because of the stakes involved in this election, this has not been an easy decision for me (although I made up my mind many years ago that I would NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney) and, I suspect, for many other like-minded conservatives who have decided they cannot vote for the Republican nominee in 2012. The decision has been made all the more difficult by the fact that we face the prospect of the re-election of the greatest threat to our constitutional republic who has ever occupied the Oval Office. In a year in which the GOP, including many conservatives for whom I have a great deal of respect, have adopted the "Anybody But Obama" mantra, my decision to cast my vote elsewhere is one that comes under constant scrutiny and is one that I find myself constantly justifying. But no other choice is left to me. I left the Republican Party to become an independent many years ago, but continued to vote for the GOP in presidential elections (holding my nose to do so in most instances) because I believed the alternative in the other "major" party to be much worse. But the nomination of Romney makes the prospect of voting Republican completely untenable, and severs once and for all any ties that remained between me and my former party. This has been made evident by the mockery to which my social conservative and constitutionalist beliefs have been subjected by Romney's supporters. My vote and my voice are no longer welcomed by the GOP, and I will oblige them by not voting for that party's presidential nominee for the first time since I became eligible to vote over a quarter of a century ago.

And THEREIN lies the opportunity for the Constitution Party to reach disaffected voters like me who are "free agents" for the first time. I suspect that, as with any party, among your top priorities is increasing your vote totals from prior years and gaining additional respect as a viable 3rd-party option to the "major" parties, while still remaining true to your principles. And although I'm not at the moment a member of your party, I deeply share your principles. Your commitment to following the Constitution as adopted by our Founders, and more importantly for me, your commitment to being the only 100% pro-life party in the country, represent a set of values and a philosophy that I have held for almost all my life. That I choose to remain an independent for the time being is in no way a reflection of the esteem in which I hold the Constitution Party.

As an independent, I have no say in who you choose to nominate. And I cannot and will not try to tell you what to do. That is your choice to make as to what you see as the best direction for your party to take. I certainly cannot blame you for choosing not to take the advice of an outsider. However, if you will indulge me, I will share with you what it will take to receive my vote and, although I won't flatter myself to speak for each and every such voter, what I suspect it may take to win over the votes of those who find themselves freshly disenfranchised from the GOP by the untenable prospect of having to cast a vote for Mitt Romney.

I have high regard for the office of the Presidency of these United States, notwithstanding the way in which the office has been degraded throughout the years by unconstitutional usurpations of power, and particularly debased by the current occupant of that office. The respect I hold for the office is a direct reflection of the esteem in which I hold the person whom the Founders had in mind when the office of the Presidency was originally designed. Our first and greatest President, George Washington, was a man who was in many ways uniquely qualified to fill the role. He had been a commander of militia in the French and Indian Wars, he had been elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses (the forerunner of the Virginia House of Delegates), he had been elected to the Continental Congress, he had been Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, and he had been President of the Constitutional Convention. George Washington is perhaps more responsible than any other individual for bringing this Republic into being. And although I do not believe we will ever see his like again, nor do I believe that every candidate seeking the Presidency should have the exact same impossible-to-duplicate qualifications for the office as did he, out of respect for the man and the office he originated, not to mention the grave duties and responsibilities commensurate to the office, I believe that the Office of the Presidency is not and cannot be an entry-level job into governance.

For that reason, whenever I have in the past considered voting for a 3rd-party candidate for President, I have shied away after considering said candidate's qualifications for office. Don't get me wrong: some fine men and women have chosen the 3rd-party route to seek the Presidency; but, for me, voting for a Presidential candidate is more than just about agreeing with someone on the issues and principles; it is also about voting for the person who is best qualified to represent and put into effect those principles as President. And some modicum of a track record of experience is important to me when making that decision.

That is why I was excited to learn in February that Virgil Goode had announced his candidacy for the Presidency under the Constitution Party banner. Here was a candidate that I knew personally from my days of living in his congressional district. Here was a candidate with experience in the Virginia House of Delegates Senate, with the experience of a run for Governor, and with experience in the U.S. House of Representatives. Here was a candidate who had served honorably and with integrity as a Democrat, as an independent, and as a Republican. Here was a candidate with a record of conservatism, who shares my pro-life and limited government principles. Here was a man for whom I could vote for President on a 3rd-party ticket and not feel like I was settling for someone without the experience and qualifications that I believe the office merits. I do not intend this in any way to detract from the fine qualities of character that the other candidates for the Constitution Party have; instead, I write this to point out that Virgil Goode's background uniquely qualifies him among all of those candidates to offer Constitution Party voters an experienced alternative to Obama and Romney, with an appeal outside of the party to a broad cross-section of disaffected Democrats, Republicans, and independents longing for a viable 3rd-party option. With Virgil Goode on the ticket, my belief is that voters who might not normally vote 3rd party, in general, or the Constitution Party, in particular, will see that they do not have to sacrifice experience and electoral viability by voting for a 3rd-party candidate. THAT is the opportunity presented by Romney's nomination by the GOP, by Obama's fecklessness and blatantly unconstitutional power grabs, and by the decision of Virgil Goode to seek the Constitution Party nomination.

Again, the choice is yours to make, and I only offer my view on the matter as an independent voter who shares your ideals and goals. Take it for whatever you feel it's worth. But it is my sincere hope and prayer that Consititution Party members and delegates make the most of this opportunity and nominate someone with the experience and leadership and track record of independence and commitment to constitutional conservatism that Virgil Goode has to offer.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Jay Anderson
Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate

Ahem. Toldja So. [UPDATED]

Paul Zummo has the full story at The American Catholic:

Meet Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom. Earlier today he had this exchange on CNN:

HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
ERIC FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.

It happens every time Dullard Flip Rino gets a big boost and begins to feel comfortable that he's got the nomination in the bag. EVERY TIME. He or his campaign lets the fascade slip and shows their true anti-conservative colors. EVERY TIME.

Here, Romney is fresh off his big win in Illinois and having received the endorsement of Jeb Bush, and his campaign makes it clear that all that conservative mumbo-jumbo the candidate has been spouting in order to fool enough conservatives and GOP voters to win the nomination has all the staying power of an etch-a-sketch drawing.

Santorum Central needs to get this ad on the air pronto:



More at Creative Minority Report.


UPDATE (22 March)
HotAir nails it:

What’s wrong with a strategist acknowledging a basic fact of political life, that candidates tend to move towards the center after the primaries to compete for independents in the general? Philip Klein explains in a post titled, “Romney advisor says his conservatism can be erased”:

Romney ran two races in Massachusetts as a moderate and even a self-described “progressive,” before changing his positions in the run up to his first campaign for president. Just last month, he described himself as “severely conservative” at the Conservative Political Action Conference. But as Fehrnstrom statement suggests, Romney’s appeals to the right are simply a matter of positioning rather than principle, something that can easily be changed once the target audience changes.

If Romney’s fiercest critics wanted to come up with a way to describe Romney’s approach to politics, I don’t think they could have come up with a better analogy than Etch A Sketch. The fact that it’s coming from one of Romney’s long-time aides is stunning. An even scarier thought for conservatives: if the Romney campaign is willing to take them for granted before even clinching the nomination, imagine how quickly Romney would abandon conservatives if he ever made it to the White House.

Yeah, that’s the killer. Before the campaign, I could imagine conservatives nominating Romney if he swore up and down that he’d be a right-wing warrior while in office. There’s always a chance that he’d be telling the truth and a chance is all you need to justify voting for a guy who stands the best chance of knocking out The One. But here’s one of his very top aides all but telling you that “severe conservatism” is rhetoric aimed at getting him through the primaries — and yet we’re going to go ahead and nominate him anyway. Think this is the guy who’s going to the mat as president if a Republican Congress gears up to advocate sorely needed yet unpopular spending cuts and fiscal reforms?

(emphasis added)

Nailing it by saying what I've been saying for years. You CANNOT trust Dullard Flip Rino. He is a self-described "pro-choice progressive" who feels most comfortable when he is running to the left.

Join me, therefore, in vowing to NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney.

Poll: Obama Leads Romney in Four Key Swing States — But Trails Santorum

Electable.

Virgil Goode for President [UPDATED]

As I have previously stated, I am actually backing two candidates for their respective parties' nominations: former Sen. Rick Santorum for the GOP, and former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode for the Constitution Party.

I already have Santorum stickers on my Dodge Ram and Santorum signs in my yard. Well, today, I recived my Goode for President stickers:



Given the likelihood that Santorum and Gingrich will split the conservative anti-Romney vote between them in tomorrow's "Southern Super Tuesday" primary contests, thereby denying either a clear path to the GOP nomination, it is becoming increasinly likely that I will be casting my vote for a non-Republican candidate in November (since I will UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES EVER vote for Mitt Romney).

Goode still needs to win the Constitution Party nomination next month at the party's national convention in Nashville. But that appears to be a more likely outcome than Santorum pulling off an upset against the GOP Establishment's chosen one.

UPDATE (15 March 2012)
Yesterday, I received some nice Virgil Goode for President political buttons that are produced by someone independent from the campaign. (He specializes in collecting and making old-time political campaign buttons.)



Upon receiving these yesterday, I then went into one of our storage closets and dug out some old Virgil Goode campaign buttons I had kept from Virgil's campaigns for Congress:



I know I have some other buttons from other Goode campaigns, but these are all that I could find in my brief search yesterday.

David Brooks Throws a Tantrum

David Brooks took to the pages of The New York Times yesterday to throw a great big temper tantrum over the fact that his elitist, pseudo-sophisticated notions don't hold sway with the conservative grassroots of the GOP and that the RINO party elders just don't have the wherewithal to take back his precious party from the riff-raff:

... But, of course, this is exactly what has been happening in the Republican Party for the past half century. Over these decades, one pattern has been constant: Wingers [ED.: Really? "Wingers"? I thought you were too sophisticated and too "no labels" to engage in such rhetoric. Hypocrite.] fight to take over the party, mainstream Republicans bob and weave to keep their seats.

Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members. Those in the middle backpedal to avoid conflict. Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles. Those in the mainstream are quick to fudge their principles if it will help them get a short-term win.

[...]

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. [ED.: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute, @$$hole. You were singing Santorum's praises back when Gingrich was challenging your boy and Santorum was considered the "principled alternative" who you were hoping would steal votes away from Gingrich. Now he's "embarrassing and unelectable"? Do you think we're so stupid that we can't remember what you wrote just last month? Talk about "embarrassing", the way you Romneybots have all followed the EXACT SAME template of praising Santorum when you believed he had no real chance of beating Romney to trashing him now that he poses the most serious challenge to Dullard's election hopes, is laughably embarrassing.]

But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin [ED.: How about backstabbing her with whisper campaigns and feeding "background info" to fellow traveling columnists like you only too willing to dish dirt, trash reputations, and abandon the candidate YOU supported ALL ALONG going back to the 2000 election just because he picked someone from the "riff-raff" to be his running mate?] and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? [ED.: The question is: Where were YOU? Wherever it was, it was obviously someplace where you were unable to pay attention to the actual facts of what actually happened. Because it's pretty clear to everyone else that it was the GOP who compromised their principles on the budget and got absolutely NOTHING in return.] They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. [ED.: Bullshit. Ask anyone who has dared to pose a challenge to Dullard Flip Rino during this election season whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty. Ask the Tea Party candidates who defeated the Establishment-anointed candidates during the 2010 election cycle whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty, even showing a willingness to lose elections on principle - just like you accuse the "purists" of doing - rather than be shown up by the upstart riff-raff.] They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right. [ED. Whatever. Crybaby.]

Without real opposition, the wingers go from strength to strength. Under their influence, we’ve had a primary campaign that isn’t really an argument about issues. It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity. Two kinds of candidates emerge from this process: first, those who are forceful but outside the mainstream; second, those who started out mainstream but look weak and unprincipled because they have spent so much time genuflecting before those who despise them. [ED.: Oh the humanity! Dullard Flip Rino has actually had to act like he really gives a rip about conservative principles in order to try to convince REPUBLICAN voters to award him the REPUBLICAN nomination. He should've just been anointed on the basis of ... wait a minute ... I'm sure I can come up with a compelling argument for his nomination if you give me another 7 years of his running for President.]

[...]

Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. [ED.: In other words, the Establishment RINO minority should call the shots, and the conservative majority in the grassroots (i.e. the "riff-raff") should shut up, respect its "elders", send in money, and march in lockstep to the voting booth to do the bidding of our betters in the "educated class".] Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me. [ED.: Oh, good grief. Get over yourself!]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Leaving aside one of the more pathetic invocations of Godwin's Law that I have ever had the misfortune of reading, I don't know what's more sad: (a) that Brooks actually wrote this whiny piece of drivel; or (b) that the man who voted for Obama in 2008 based, at least in part, on an admiration for Obama's pant crease, actually believes himself to be a "mainstream conservative".

Mickey Kaus, one of a dwindling number of principled Democrats out there, does a fine job of taking Brooks apart for this little diatribe.

David Brooks’ Sad Elite: David Brooks says extremist “wingers” have taken over the Republican party–because those condemned as RINOs are too timid to “stand up to those who would destroy them.”

(1) It sounds like he’s not really upset with RINOs. He’s upset with primaries.

(2) [...]

(3) [...]

(4) Is this the inverted country club Republican version of the Dems Fight-Back Fallacy? ‘If only those RINOs had some spine and fighting spirit they’d beat those irresponsible wingers.’ No they wouldn’t.

(5) Brooks thinks he’s a “mainstream conservative”? If so, he is an “insular information loop” of one.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
David Brooks, Self-Anointed Member of "Educated Class", Admits Unwashed Red-State Conservatives Smarter Than He Is

Comeuppance for "Conservative" Critics of Conservatism (Who STILL Won't Admit That They Were Wrong)

Self-Critical Navel Gazing for Thee, But Not for Me

Another Elitist "Conservative" Realizes Too Late That "This Obama Fellow Is Unequal to the Task"

David Brooks Wonders What Went Wrong [UPDATED]

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

The "Elizabeth Bennett Conservatives"

Brooksback Mountain

Today's Must-Read: "Palinphobes and the Audacity of Type"

A Conservative Manifesto

Another Elitist "Conservative" Likes the Cut of Obama's Jib

The Liberal Media's Elitist Conservative Rats Leave the Sinking Ship

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Let's Get One Thing Straight ...

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Yesterday, The Richmond Times-Dispatch ran the following opinion piece on my friend Virgil Goode, who is seeking the Constitution Party nomination for President:

Virgil Goode has run for office as a Democrat and as a Republican. Partisanship never has defined his career. He is a true independent. Goode is his own man, which may help to explain why in 2008 he lost his seat in the U.S. House.

For many years Goode represented a Southside district in the state Senate. He promoted rural interests. When the parties split 20-20 in the chamber, he compelled his reluctant party colleagues to share power with Republicans. The Democrats did not embrace power-sharing because they believed in comity. Goode gave them no choice. He also once challenged Chuck Robb in a primary for U.S. Senate.

Goode won election to the 5th House District as a Democrat. Later he became an independent before joining the GOP.

Goode now is seeking the Constitution Party's nomination for president. He concedes his election is unlikely, yet he has points he wants to make. The Constitution Party embraced a Tea Party agenda before the movement's birth. "To thine own self be true," advises Polonius in "Hamlet." Virgil Goode has not strayed.

(emphasis added)

The Atlantic also has a good piece on Virgil: "Virgil Goode: This Is What a Third-Party Candidate Looks Like".

... But it's that mix of social conservatism with economic populism that doesn't get much a hearing as it should, based on Americans' political views. As my colleague Ron Brownstein noted in his column last week "each side's electoral coalition is now bound together far more by shared cultural values than by common economic interests."

That means Republicans, increasingly dependent on the support of blue-collar voters, are campaigning on cuts to popular entitlement programs that may rankle some of the GOP rank-and-file. And it means that Democrats can't effectively win over these voters with populist appeals because the party's views on litmus test cultural issues, like immigration and abortion, are well out of step with their personal beliefs.

That's why former Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode's third-party presidential candidacy should be receiving more attention. The Democrat-turned-Republican congressman is campaigning on a platform of reducing immigration (legal and illegal), protecting Social Security and Medicare and balancing the budget immediately.

Goode, by virtue of his relative anonymity and likely lack of funding, probably won't get much traction -- even if he emerges with the Constitution Party nomination. But he's the prototype of a third-party candidate that would have the potential to get support from a swath of voters who would see both President Obama and Mitt Romney as elites disconnected from the concerns of working-class Americans. Americans Elect isn't jumping to his side, but he's the type of candidate whose positions could resonate with a significant minority of voters.

The media tend to think that the impetus for third-party candidates comes from Americans who are just plain sick of politics-as-usual and want a truth-teller to come in and shake things up. Hence, the regular Bloomberg boomlet in certain circles. In reality, the greatest demand for a third-party candidate would come from the voters whose views are most out of line with the political establishment and most newspaper editorial boards.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Some background on the candidate: Virgil is 65 years old, although he looks and seems younger than that. He served in the Virginia Senate for 24 years, from 1972 to 1996. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1996 and served for 12 years until 2008, when his seat was targeted by national Democrats because Charlottesville was part of his district.

(Incidentally, Tom Perriello, the ObamaCath co-founder of Soros-backed Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, who defeated Virgil in 2008 thanks to Soros and the Democrats' focus on the 5th District seat, himself went down to defeat in 2010 - in no small part for selling out his Catholic faith in service of Obama and ObamaCare.)

Virgil is a solid conservative of a definite Southern populist bent. He was a Democrat for most of his political career, but like so many conservative Demcorats, left the party as the party lurched leftward. He was one of only 5 Democrats in the House who voted to impeach Clinton (again, remember that C'ville was part of his district, so that was something of an act of political courage). He then became an independent caucusing with the Republicans in the late 90s, and eventually became a Republican during the early Bush years.

As for policy, he is solidly conservative, especially on the issues that matter most to me. NOTE: Just as I disagree with Rick Santorum, who I am currently supporting, on his harsh immigration rhetoric, neither am I in agreement with Virgil on immigration - and Virgil is far more belligerant on the topic than Santorum has been. That said, his views on immigration are not disqualifying for me, and I could gladly cast a ballot for Virgil Goode based on his record and his views on other issues of importance to me. Virgil's views on the issues can be read on his campaign website.

A personal note on former Congressman Goode: Virgil was of immense help to me when I was Mayor of Columbia, Virginia, in my work on Columbia's revitalization plan. He took a personal interest in the town, and actually made a public appearance at a town festival to promote the revitalization process. Note that this was a town of only 50 people whose electoral value was probably close to zero compared to other localities in Virgil's district such as Charlottesville.

Dale Price on Today's Michigan GOP Primary

My friend Dale Price explains his support for Santorum in "A choice, not an echo":

... I won't pretend that Senator Santorum was my first choice. I've always liked him, especially up close and personal. But I was looking for a candidate with solid executive experience, and he didn't have it. Never the less, the Pawlenty "Brave Sir Robin" act and Rick Perry's inexplicable flameout took those options off the table.

I still think Santorum needs to develop the discipline to steer away from hot-button trap questions he really wants to answer, but at least you know what's on his mind.

[...]

Back to the Senator: yes, he's got pork and massive entitlement (Medicare Part D) issues, but he also is someone who can take the credit for ending a lifetime entitlement with welfare reform. He also has a vision supportive of more limited government, with support for a civil society with its "mediating institutions." He has also shown the ability to win over voters in a purple-blue state, which says something for his campaigning skills. He's aware that America is faced with people in the world who wish her ill, and he feels the HHS assault in his guts. There will be no backdown on that. No, he's not a perfect candidate (I'd like him softer on certain issues like immigration, for a start), but I'm surprised by how well he laps the field.

[...]

I'm looking for a choice, not an echo. Santorum for President.

[Read the whole thing]

Rick Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda

Rick Santorum writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

... my opponent in the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney, had a last-minute conversion. Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.

It's a good start. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.

By contrast, in my first 100 days as president, I'll submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda. Here are 10 of its main initiatives:

• Unleash America's energy. I'll approve the Keystone Pipeline for jobs and energy security, and sign an order on day one unleashing America's domestic energy production, allowing states to choose where they want to explore for oil and natural gas and to set their own regulations for hydrofracking.

• Stop job-killing regulation. All Obama administration regulations that have an economic burden over $100 million will be repealed, including the Environmental Protection Agency rule on CO2 emissions that's already shut down six power plants. I'll review all regulations, making sure they use sound science and cost benefit analysis.

• A pro-growth, pro-family tax policy. I'll submit to Congress comprehensive tax policies to strengthen opportunity in our country, with only two income tax rates of 10% and 28%. To help families, I'll triple the personal deduction for children and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

• Restore America's competitiveness. The corporate tax rate should be halved, to a flat rate of 17.5%. Corporations should be allowed to expense all business equipment and investment. Taxes on corporate earnings repatriated from overseas should be eliminated to bring home manufacturing. I'll take the lead on tort reform to lower costs to consumers.

• Rein in spending. I'll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over five years, including cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I'll propose budgets that spend less money each year than prior years, and I'll reduce the nondefense-related federal work force by at least 10%, without replacing them with private contractors.

• Repeal and replace ObamaCare. I'll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states. I'll work with Congress to replace ObamaCare with competitive insurance choices to improve quality and limit the costs of health care, while protecting those with uninsurable health conditions. In contrast, Gov. Romney signed into law RomneyCare, which provided the model for ObamaCare. Its best-known feature is its overreaching individual health-care mandate. But it shares over a dozen other similarities with ObamaCare and has given Massachusetts the highest health-care premiums in the nation, and longer waits for health care.

• Balance the budget. I'll submit to Congress a budget that will balance within four years and call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution which limits federal spending to 18% of GDP...

[More]

Ron Paul: Social Issues a "Loser" in This Election

Congressman Paul is currently my second choice for the presidency behind Rick Santorum. But I may have to re-evaluate that based on the fact that it doesn't appear that the issues that are most important to me are all that important to him:

Yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a “losing position,” but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.

Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play...

[More]

(emphasis added)

I keep hearing from Dr. Paul's supporters that he is the "REAL" Catholic choice in this race. But it sounds to me as if the issues of utmost importance to faithful Catholics in this election are not going to receive the attention they deserve from the so-called "REAL" Catholic choice. He's forfeited the field of play, since it is the LEFT who is pushing these issues at the federal level, and the social conservative pushback is merely a reaction to the federalizing of the culture wars. And citing the 10th Amendment is simply NOT going to be a successful response to the next leftist incursion in this ongoing battle for the soul of America.

As I am often asked why I support Rick Santorum over Ron Paul, especially since I do have some major disagreements with Santorum's stance on foreign policy, torture, immigration, etc., allow me to just go ahead and state here for the record why I have backed Santorum. Winning this blasted culture war is what animates me to get involved in politics in the first place. I detest politics, but feel compelled to get involved because I see the daily attacks on my values by people who consider me and mine to be backwards and brainwashed. This culture war is one of attrition that can be won, IF and only IF we are willing to fight it.

On the one hand, Ron Paul has just stated that he doesn't have the stomach for the fight. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, for all his flaws, appears willing to take the fight to the left. In this race, I am backing the guy who will be a warrior for the preservation of what's worth preserving and for restoring what needs to be restored. The guy who just said the fight's already lost need not apply.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

James Taranto writes in The Wall Street Journal:

If you're a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

[...]

In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."

He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. "You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."

[...]

The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."

[...]

"I think the tea party is an ally of social conservatism, because it also seems to go back to that idea in the Founding. . . . The tea party brings absolute values, normative values, to a whole set of issues where they really weren't present, namely economics and the size of government." Another commonality is that both arose in reaction to an aggressive left.

The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics. The libertarian social scientist Charles Murray presents a more sophisticated variant of the puzzle in his new book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010." Mr. Murray shows that upper-middle-class Americans lead far more conservative lives than the less affluent do, by such measures as marriage, illegitimacy, churchgoing and crime.

Yet Mr. Bell notes that social conservatism is largely a working-class phenomenon: "Middle America does have more children than elite America, and they vote socially conservative, even though they might not necessarily be behaving that way in their personal life. They may be overwhelmed by the sexual revolution and its cultural impacts."

[...]

Even without immediate gains among minority voters, Mr. Bell sees social issues as the path to a GOP majority in 2012. They account for the George W. Bush-era red-blue divide, which Mr. Bell says endures—and, he adds, red has the advantage: "There was one state in 2000 that Bush carried that I would say was socially left of center, and that was New Hampshire," the only state that flipped to John Kerry four years later. "By 2004, every state—all 31 states that Bush carried—were socially conservative states." Those states now have 292 electoral votes, with 270 sufficient for a majority.

By contrast, not all the Kerry states are socially liberal. "The swing vote in the Midwest is socially conservative and less conservative economically," Mr. Bell says, so that "social conservatism is more likely to be helpful than economic conservatism."

Among states that last voted Republican in 1988 or earlier, he classifies two, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as socially conservative, and two more, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as "mildly" so. That adds up to 35 states, with 348 electoral votes, in which social conservatism is an advantage...

[...]

Mr. Santorum is the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race, but Mr. Bell rejects the common claim that he places too strong an emphasis on social issues: "I think that's unfair to Santorum. He goes out of his way to say that he has an economic platform, he isn't just about social issues."

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

If Santorum Beats Romney, Watch for GOP Establishment to Replace Him With Jeb Bush [UPDATED]

One "brave" anonymous U.S. Senator has already said it should happen:

Silly me; I thought that when one candidate in a primary race lost a state, it meant that another candidate was stronger. Not so, according to an unnamed but “prominent” Republican Senator contacted by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. If Romney can’t win, it’s time to call in … Jeb Bush?

“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.

[...]

It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who? “Jeb Bush,” the former Florida governor.

The Secret Senator believes that Rick Santorum would lose 35 states in a general election, and apparently thinks so little of Newt Gingrich’s chances that he doesn’t even raise him as an alternative. No, it would be better to call the younger Bush and skip over the rest of the primaries, apparently, since it would be almost impossible at this point for a new candidate to qualify on enough ballots to win a majority of the delegates.

[...]

How about this for an idea: let’s hold a primary among those candidates who had the courage to put themselves on the line for almost a year, and stop worrying about those who sat on the sidelines. Stop looking for a Deus ex machina and start building the organization that will help whomever the voters choose as the nominee win the general election.

[More]

If the GOP tries this, it will forever sever ties with social conservatives and with grassroots GOP voters, and will consign itself to permanent minority status.


UPDATE
Yeah, what Patrick Archbold said: "I Hate Republicans"

... Dear Senator Jerk, I would rather go down with Santorum than win with your type. And if Santorum does lose, I hope to God that he takes you with him.

I hate Republicans.

My sentiments exactly.

Susan B. Anthony List Endorses Santorum

Santorum scores a big-time pro-life endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony List:

The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List plans to endorse Rick Santorum for president.

The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It's the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.

Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group's board, says none of the other candidates has the "record of consistent leadership" Santorum has shown on abortion.

Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.

The group plans to organize activists, particularly in Michigan, before the state's Feb. 28 primary.

(emphasis added)

More on this major endorsement from LifeNews.com.

I wonder if any of the so-called "pro-life" activists and "pro-life" organizations (i.e. Republican first, pro-life second) who endorsed Dullard Flip Rino early on are now having second thoughts.

Santorum the Hot Name Among Ohio GOP Voters

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

He’s the right kind of conservative.

He cares about the problems of average people.

He’s got a small unfavorability rating.

Oh, and Rick Santorum is also the “hot” candidate.

In a nutshell, that’s why the former Pennsylvania senator has wrangled the lead in the Ohio presidential primary less than three weeks before voters head to the polls, a survey released yesterday shows.

Santorum is the new favorite of Buckeye State Republicans, leading ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among likely voters by 7 points, 36 percent to 29 percent, in the Quinnipiac University poll. Romney was ahead with registered voters two months ago; Herman Cain was on top two months before that.
[...]

“Santorum’s a hot candidate,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
New Poll Shows Santorum Trouncing "Mr. Electable" by 18 Points in Key Swing State of Ohio

Poll: Santorum Ahead Of Romney In Buckeye State