Tag Archives: Constitution Party

Darrell Castle appears on CSPAN

2016 Constitution Party presidential candidate Darrell Castle appeared on CSPAN today. The video of his appearance lasts 41 minutes and can be viewed at this link.

Video of Darrell Castle’s acceptance speech at the Constitution Party’s convention

One can go to the link below to watch Darrell Castle’s acceptance speech after winning the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?408208-1/constitution-party-nominee-acceptance-speech

Idaho Constitution Party: The trudge to Salt Lake

The trudge to Salt LakePosted on April 16th on the Idaho CP’s website

 

We’re certain that some sort of pithy commentary could be done, practically on the eve of the National Convention of the Constitution Party in Salt Lake (April 13-16).  But nothing comes to mind.

The effort before us will be one of duty, of trudging through the muds of politics.  Even the heavens suggest complicity–since thunderstorms are forecast to begin Wednesday concurrent with the opening meetings of the National Convention, and continue as a cold rain through Thursday and Friday.  With any mercy at all, perhaps the weather will begin to clear Saturday, when we are released to return home.

It will be muddy–in more ways than one.

A belated pack of entrants each and all with great expectations (yet without any visible investment of time or effort thus far in the Constitution Party’s nomination until now), have pushed themselves to the front, the chief seat seekers.

Without proper declarations of candidacy, without verifiable and reportable campaign committees, some even without  being members of the Constitution Party, and in one instance being sworn to some highly irregular financials on file with the FEC…these Johnny Come Lately opportunists seek to harvest what they have not in fact sown.  We will be polite and call them interlopers, coveting the prize of the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination.

For our part, CP-Idaho has maintained throughout this ordeal a stainless procedural process.  We can demonstrate a quorum–485 voters across 39 of Idaho’s 44 counties cast ballots in the March Primary.  To our knowledge many state affiliates are utterly incapable of demonstrating a quorum, much less an actual organization.  CP-Idaho can.  Ours has actual real flesh and blood citizens within it…not the fabrications of boastful braggarts who swell up in an effort to make themselves seem bigger or more important than they really are.

In contrast, our citizen voters are real.  CP-Idaho had 485 authentic fellow Idaho citizens cast their voice in an official state sanctioned primary.  We dare to submit that Idaho, and Idaho alone, has a genuine preference ballot for the pending National Convention.  As for the rest?  We also dare to suggest that they protest far too much…to the point of strained credibility.

The 2016 Idaho Primary gave to Mr. Scott Copeland a plurality of 111 votes.  It gave to him the majority of the ballots cast (51.5%).  Therefore, Mr. Copeland will receive the entire slate of Idaho’s delegates.  Others can wink and nod all they will.  But CP-Idaho shall stand firm with our voters.  It is a matter of honor; it is a matter of principle.  It is a matter of doing the right thing.

We are reminded, in this muddy affair, of an ancient story.  A murderous zealot named Barabbas was chosen instead of Christ, a healer.  Jesus just “wasn’t good enough”.  He didn’t ride in on a white horse.  He didn’t have shining armor.  He didn’t “fit” the fictional model of a warrior king…and more than anything else in this world that mob sought retribution.  They wanted to see some blood, some mud.

That mob had a different view of what a Messiah was “supposed” to look like.   He certainly wouldn’t be of lowly birth, or humble compassion.  That’s just not good enough.  So they dispatched Jesus.  They got their reward, to be sure.

For CP-Idaho’s part, we say the voice of our 2016 Primary voters–our real and verifiable voters–is good enough.  Those who suggest some other process, something other than an honest ballot, those who believe that some other route exists to national leadership, are just as mistaken as the mob in Jerusalem two millennia past.

These things–integrity, honesty, principles, even handedness, loyalty–are “good enough” for me.  We call that “old time religion”.  The mob may disagree, but we do not care.  Mr. Copeland was the choice of our voters at the polls.  And we will defend that choice come what may, mud or no, in Salt Lake.

Dan Phillips: The Constitution Party’s Donald Trump Dilemma

The following article, written by Dan Phillips, was published on April 12th, 2016 on EconomicPopulist.org and sent to IPR for publication:

The Constitution Party’s National Convention kicks off tomorrow in Salt Lake City, Utah. There the CP will chose its 2016 nominee for President. More interestingly to many observers of third part dynamics, however, is how the CP will handle the Trump phenomenon.

First some background on this year’s Convention for those who do not follow CP internal politics closely. This year there is significantly less intrigue headed into the convention than there was in the past two Presidential election cycles.

In 2008 there was a hotly contested struggle for the nomination between former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes and conservative columnist and pastor Chuck Baldwin. For many, Keyes represented a chance for the CP to land a “big name” and potentially reach a broader audience of disillusioned conservatives, but for some party stalwarts, Keyes was seen as too much of an interventionist on foreign policy. Baldwin ended up winning the nomination, but not without some significant hurt feelings and fall out.

The 2012 nomination battle was less contentious, but not without some drama. Former Congressman Virgil Goode declared his intention to seek the nomination ahead of the Convention and entered as the prohibitive favorite. He was challenged at the last minute by 2008 Vice Presidential nominee, lawyer Darrell Castle. Some CP members viewed Goode as insufficiently doctrinaire on certain issues dear to the heart of constitutionalists, especially the non-interventionist foreign policy issue that felled Keyes, and Castle primarily represented this faction. Goode won on the first ballot, but it was closer than many expected, especially for a last minute challenge.

This cycle the CP failed to attract a big name of the likes of Keyes or Goode. It was widely expected that Darrell Castle would be the 2016 nominee in the absence of a big name. While Castle is not a big name, he was generally considered a satisfactory placeholder candidate who would represent the party and its positions well. This expectation was derailed when Castle withdrew from the contest due to health concerns.

This left the CP with a battle for the nomination between relatively minor candidates, primarily Pastor Scott Copeland, long time CP activist J.R. Myers and Alan Keyes associate Tom Hoefling. As a disclaimer, I am Facebook friends with the latter two and met both briefly at the 2008 Convention where I was heavily invested in the Baldwin nomination. All three seem to be good men who are sincere, concerned citizens who want what they see as best for their country. No disrespect is intended by describing them as “relatively minor” and the descriptors I chose for each were intended to convey the most relevant info in a few words.

Recently, former Republican Alaska Senate nominee and Tea Party favorite Joe Miller announced he would seek that nomination but withdrew himself from consideration today. Also today it was reported that Castle would in fact seek the nomination, despite earlier withdrawing. (I first learned of these two developments while I was writing this. Such is the hazards of writing about current happenings, I suppose.)

My hunch is that Castle will win the nomination, but I do not predict this with any certainty. This lack of a big name nominee is one reason why how the CP handles the Trump phenomenon is really the more interesting dynamic this cycle.

For a little background, while the CP in its current iteration is an unambiguously Constitutionalist party, it was initially formed in 1992 as a possible vehicle for a Pat Buchanan third party run, following his primary challenge of George Bush. Hence, the CP has always leaned paleoconservative. Its platform is restrictionist on immigration, opposed to globalist trade deals and non-interventionist on foreign policy.

Herein lies the dilemma for the CP regarding Trump. A Trump Republican nomination could potentially open the CP up to disaffected #NeverTrump types who see Trump as an abandonment of movement conservative orthodoxy and/or as not having a Presidential temperament and demeanor. But while being the more orthodox conservative party might gain them some votes from disgruntled conservatives this cycle presuming a Trump nomination, I think it would be short-sighted in the long run for the CP to overtly dis Trump and his supporters and seek the more conservative than thou vote this cycle. Purely ideological parties that attempt to be the more pure expression of a particular ideology, whether the CP, the Libertarian Party or the Green Party, while they have a role, have limited popular appeal. This is not a value judgment. This is an observation based on history.

The growth potential for a conservative alternative party like the CP is not in appealing to the more conservative by degree vote which has limited popular appeal. The growth potential is in being the populist alternative to the globalist, elitist GOP, capitalizing on issues like immigration and trade that Trump is appealing to. Given this dynamic, it would be very unwise for the CP to run as the explicitly anti-Trump alternative.

If my social media feed is any indication, CP types are very divided on the Trump phenomenon. Some are adamantly opposed to Trump, particularly the more Christianist (for lack of a better term) element who see Trump as a poor Christian example. But many, particularly the more paleo and anti-globalist elements, see Trump as a unique nationalist challenge to the globalist Establishment consensus. Of note, 2012 CP nominee Goode has endorsed Trump.

My assessment, for what it’s worth, is that the CP would be wise to accept the anti-Trump element that comes its way without coming out as overtly anti-Trump. The populist Middle American rebellion that Trump is fomenting is where the potential for growth lies for a conservative alternative party, and it would be unwise for the CP to become the overtly anti-Trump conservative alternative.

From what I know about the current CP candidates, I suspect that Darrell Castle gets this dynamic better than the other alternatives. I believe he would be a wise choice for the CP delegates interested in not burning bridges with Trump supporters.

Constitution Party of Idaho to host U.S. Senate debate in May

From the Constitution Party of Idaho, March 20th, 2016:

2016 Constitution Party LEWISTON DEBATE for the U.S. Senate

Because the Constitution Party of Idaho has two candidates seeking our November ballot line for the U.S. Senate, we believe some public comparison of these two candidates is appropriate.  Seeking the ballot line are:  Raymond J. Writz of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Pro Life (whose Christian name was Marvin Richardson) of Letha, Idaho.

Our state affiliate is making plans for a Lewiston Debate to be held Saturday, May 7th, 2016 beginning 12:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), in Room 115, Sacajawea Hall, Lewis & Clark State College campus.  We will be busy working on the venue details with the kind and helpful folks at LCSC to make this public debate happen, and make it be successful.

2016_Lewiston

The question format will be similar to the one we used for the recent Boise Debate of the Constitution Party candidates for President, on February 27th prior to the March 8th Primary.  (We have an audio tape of that debate available on our website under CPIdahoUpdates.)

We will also seek public question submission, and work those into the Lewiston Debate question array (the same as we did at Boise).  This primary was unexpected.   That said, our job as honest arbiters of political choice, and ethical process, requires us to examine these candidates and leave to you, our registered voters the decision.

That decision will come Tuesday, May 17th, 2016 at the State Primary.  We sincerely ask those who live in Nez Perce,  Latah or surrounding area to contact us if you can volunteer to help us with the debate.  We can use help keeping the debate timer, for example.  And most importantly…contacting your neighbors and have them attend!

Be on the lookout for a mailed note card.  For information, or to volunteer to help, contact Chairman Whitley  [chairman [at] cpidaho.org].  News media is urged to contact the chairman as well.

Self government is not a spectator sport.  Please participate.  And consider helping CP-Idaho fund our public program.

Darrell Castle: Who are we fighting?

Zdjęcie użytkownika The Castle Report.

Darrell Castle was the Constitution Party’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee. The following was posted yesterday on the Constitution Party’s Facebook page:

Darrell Castle talks about the War on Terror, the rights of terrorists and poses the question — Why don’t we identify who we are fighting?

LISTEN NOW AT http://www.castlereport.us/who-are-we-fighting/ orhttps://soundcloud.com/castle-report/who-are-we-fighting

‪#‎CastleReport‬ ‪#‎IslamicTerrorism‬