Constitution Party of Illinois Chairman discusses possible presidential candidates

Conservative President 2008 has published a short interview with Randy Stufflebeam, chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois:

I believe that my choice would have to be one of my heroes, the man who was indirectly responsible for me becoming a Constitutionalist, Chief Justice Roy Moore. His moral courage and constitutional understanding (among his many other qualifications), eminently qualify him for the position of President of the United States. Three others that I would have no problems in supporting would be Chuck Baldwin, Michael Peroutka and Alan Keyes.

Read the entire interview here.

44 Responses to “Constitution Party of Illinois Chairman discusses possible presidential candidates”

  1. Chuck Says:

    The CP needs to save its money for state and local candidates and back Dr. Ron Paul for President. Dr. Paul has a well established limited government, strict constructionist background and voting record – everything the CP stands for.

  2. Joe Says:

    In his interview with Reason Magazine, Ron Paul said that he is not interested in the endorsement of any alternative parties.

  3. Glenn Brown Says:

    Jim Gilchrist is the best candidate for the CP. I see on this web site he endorsed Tancredo. If the CP holds it convention in 2007 it will cut down on candidates it can run. But this doesn’t stop ballot qualification. The Republican party is holding it convetion very late in 2008.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Glenn,

    I actually somewhat agree with you. I’m not sure Jim Gilchrist is the BEST candidate we could run, but I’d REALLY like to see him try and prove it. Jim is a VERY respectable guy who has put together a movement that would make the Founder’s proud.

  5. Gary Odom Says:

    The National Convention of the Constitution Party will take place sometime in the middle of 2008. There is absolutely no plan to have the convention in 2007. There will be two national committee meetings in 2007, which some people erroneously refer to as “conventions,” one in Boise, Idaho in April and the fall meeting in Omaha, Nebraska in late September or early October.

    And, believe me, it is way too early to count anybody in or out as the nominee of the Constitution Party.

  6. Andy Says:

    “Chuck Says:

    January 26th, 2007 at 10:04 am
    The CP needs to save its money for state and local candidates and back Dr. Ron Paul for President. Dr. Paul has a well established limited government, strict constructionist background and voting record – everything the CP stands for.”

    Ron is more libertarian than the Constitution Party is. Also, Ron getting the Republican nomination is a long shot and apparently he has already ruled out running for President as minor party candidate or independent.

  7. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Gilchrist is not a good choice. Other then immigration he is nowhere near the CP platform in other issues.

    Ron Paul has a very un pro life voting record if the CP sticks to its 100% pro life claims.

    Roy Moore has lost “star” power but would be a great candidate. i just do not see every state supporting him. The West Coast affiliates probably consider him to Godly.

    Alan Keys is a great GOP nominee but not good enough for the CP. Very conservative socially, but I fear he would not stand up on taxation issues or state’s rights. Also his victim mentality will be am enormous turn off in a Nation race. Also if he can’t beat Obamma in his state how is he going to beat him in a National race.

    Chuck Baldwin- Great choice but he like Moore may seem to Godly for the West Coast affiliates.

    The best candidate would be none at all and putting all those funds in local races we might win. But if we have to have one I hope it is not some Republican leftover. I rather loose and keep our integrity then settle to get a couple of percentage points

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Chris,

    It depends on the Republican leftover. If he is a REAL conservative, I could care less what party he CAME from. We need a little star power, in order to get the candidate decent media attention and funds. Cuz lets face it, a typical Howard Philips/ChuckBaldwin ticket isn’t going to get more than 200,000.
    I like Howard Philips,and I think all the nominees you mentioned are good ones, however if one man runs too many times, people start to think the party his based on him, and it isn’t. There are alot of dark-horse candidates here. I dont really know much about Jim Gilchrist’s political leanings, all I know is that he was considered in the past. If he isnt a true conservative,however, then i don’t want him Representing me on the national level. I would be extremely happy with Alan Keyes,as he could generate decent media attention,and sway some more votes. His tax stance doesnt seem QUITE as strong as the CP’s, but maybe that is because it would seem to radical. You never know.
    I would DEFINETLY back Roy Moore, Herb Titus, Richard Shelby, or Robert Aderholt. Anyone involved in the Constitution Restoration Act is gold.

  9. Joe Says:

    Chris,

    I agree with you about Gilchrist and Ron Paul. Some of the members of our state party have expressed an interest in Ron Paul’s candidacy and I have contacted his campaign and invited him to attend one of our meetings so we could discuss with him his position on life and other issues. I have yet to hear back, which I couldn’t figure out until I read the interview in Reason Magazine where he said he is not interested in the support of any alternative parties.

    My first choice is Michael Peroutka. I may well end up voting for him in November ‘08, even if he does not run.

  10. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,

    You do that.

  11. Gary Odom Says:

    Chris,

    Before you count out Ron Paul, consider the “Sanctity of Life Act” which he has introduced in Congress and which the Constitution Party endorsed at it’s National Committee Meeting in Concord in December.

    I worked with Jim Gilchrist in the fall of ‘05 in his campaign. He is actually closer to the CP platform than you might think. His intincts are good and he is a good man, but he really hasn’t studied a lot of the issues beyond illegal immigration and is easily tripped up, especially if he is interviewed by someone intent on tripping him up.

    It’s irrelevant. He will not be our candidate.

    This is the resolution in support of Paul’s proposed legislation:

    Support For Sanctity of Human Life

    Resolved, that the Constitution Party endorse Ron Paul’s HR 776: Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 that recognizes the personhood of every unborn baby and mandates Congress under Article III, Section 2, to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

  12. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    I will unless another candidate enters the race who meets the biblical standards for civil magistrates. I agree with Gary about Gilchrist. I was shocked by his interview with John Lofton. His faith seemed wishy washy which of course led to wishy washy answers. And I agree with Chris about Ron Paul. He has maintained for three decades that the feds have no Constitutional jurisdiction over baby murder. This is very different from Michael Peroutka’s position as the nominee in ‘04 when he promised if elected he would end all “legal” abortion in America on his first day in office.

    On January 22, 2006, in addition to endorsing the Sanctity of Life Act, which recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State, our state party also endorsed the The Right To Life Act which declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.
    http://www.nyconstitutionparty.com/Press.htm

    I hope that Michael and John can get Dr. Paul as a guest on their show to examine him more closely about his views on the right to life.

  13. Rebel Says:

    I really like the Constitution Party but I can’t get over their never-ending bent on keeping christianity in their politics. I’m a man of faith, but I keep it to my self. Therefore, I hang with libertarians. Anyway, the real issue hear should be to get the Constitutionalists and the Libertarians to concentrate their money, votes and volunteerism on Ron Paul’s primary race. He’s got more chance to shake the political landscape than any Lib or CP member. The longer we act like the CP and the LP aren’t friends, the longer we’ll lose our rights and money to the government. Once we roll back government power over our lives, then we can debate the finer points of our platforms. The GOP and Dems work together to make our lives hell, let’s show them what we can do when we’re backed into a corner. My Free State Project family from NH will be working overtime to get Paul to win the NH primary (the 1st in the nation). This would be a great way to start off the primary season. Bottomline, we need to show the GOP leadership that we’re thru being minimized to a joke. The trump card needs to be pulled this next election or else. Think about it, Paul v. Clinton. Paul would be the ony candidate that is distinguishly different in policy than Clinton. Grassroots supporters will come out of the woodwork to support Paul. Wait and see. Let’s not spoil this.

  14. Trent Hill Says:

    Rebel,

    If you are listening to Joe, Dont. He is not affilliated with the National Party. His party sought to create a Theocracy.

    however, I would agree with you that the CP is too “christianized”. I appreciate the Christian heritage of our nation,and indeed its laws too. However, I do not think it is neccesary to invoke Jesus’ name in the platform. Nor do i think every article on the website should be about religion.

  15. MAC Says:

    Trent & Rebel:

    Say what you will about Jesus Christ in the CP Preamble, but the reason this nation is so bad off is because we have allowed Almighty God/Christ to be taken out of everything. But, fret not, those who have been active and so joyful to be rid of the ‘100% pro lifers’ will be about removing Christ from the Preamble soon and have been cleansing itself of “Christianisation” of the party so it will no longer be a problem for you and those who want Republican Lite.

    Trent, as for Richard Shelby is a Democrat cross-over RINO —a true Republican he is not. His voting record is liberal. His rhetoric is the ‘feel good’ kind that sheeple cannot see through—sorta like Bush. He supports staying in the UN, is going along with those that say the NAU and NAFTA Superhighway isn’t true, and votes for monies being used for unconstitutional programs…. for starters.

    Robert Aderholt isn’t much different. You can call them ‘gold’ for supporting the Constitution Restoration Act but they aren’t doing anything about trying to get it passed. After a little ‘Bush arm twisting’ Aderholt voted for CAFTA after saying he was against it and wouldn’t vote for it!

    They are very proud of ‘bringing home the bacon’ in any means to get votes and have no problem supporting a budget filled with money for Planned Parenthood, National Endowment of the Arts and other such ungodly organisations. Oops! there I go, using God in my speech. tsk, tsk on me.

  16. matt Says:

    ... the reason this nation is so bad off is because we have allowed Almighty God/Christ to be taken out of everything.
    ===============================
    I’m a Godfearing man myself, but personally, I think it would be blasphemous for us to put Christ’s name on a warmongering country like this. That, and insulting to Americans who’ve chosen not to place their faith in Him. Better, I think, to continue building on the life and liberty principles He endowed us with than to toss His Name around the public square as though it were some kind of national talisman of good fortune.

  17. Joe Says:

    As a Christian I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government. Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents.

    Ron Paul offered HR 776, which only go so far as to repudiate the theory of a constitutional right to abortion, as a substitute for the Right To Life Act of 2005 because he doesn’t believe that the Constitution addresses the matter or that the federal government has the power to do so. This is quite different from the position Michael Peroutka campaigned on in 2004 in which he promised to end all legal abortion in America on his first day in office if elected. I would like to hear Michael and John interview him and/or have the opportunity to meet with him to talk about his position on life, but he has said he is not interested in our support.

    Mac, I don’t know anything about Shelby, but it sounds like he isn’t a RINO at all. I avoid that term, it gives Republicans a free pass. People like Shelby are true Republicans. I might call someone like Ron Paul a RINO though. He’s in their party but doesn’t vote like them.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    I know next to nothing of Aderholt. But Shelby seems VERY conservative.

  19. Prester John Says:

    Re: Keyes, I used to like him but the way he imploded in the 2004 Illinois senate race was shocking. Only 27% of the vote against a leftist like Obama? He may be great as a speaker but his days as a candidate are over.

  20. Cody Quirk Says:

    I wouldn’t support Gilchrist since not only is he a loose cannon, but he endorsed a Libertarian candidate for Governor over ours, he lost any standing he had with the AIP.

  21. Cody Quirk Says:

    Gilchrist shouldn’t be in that poll at all, in fact.

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    Gilchrist is still an option Cody. He may be a darkhorse now, but the fact that the National Committee offered him the chance is still significant. I will agree that he probably wont win the nomination,but he needs to be considered.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well, he doesn’t have the support of the California delegation, this for sure, and he already went back to the GOP.

    I probably would have to go with Jerome Corsi as our Prez. candidate

  24. Chris Fluharty Says:

    Rebel- I am not sure there is still a big push to keep Christ in the party. Just look at the article by Bill Shearer in this site. Plus hear what Gary Cody and Trent are saying. Truth be told I think it is wise to keep Christ from politics lest we defame His name for the sake of points. As a man of faith you may remember after feeding the 5,000 he ran because they wanted to make him a king. Some would have us do that today. Christ does not want to be an earthly King now anymore then he did then. Christ is bigger then our [politics and to try to force Him to be our king in America in the political sense is a grave mistake. However, we must not keep Him from being king in our lives and in our churches. I do want to say I would never vote to have the name of Christ removed form our platforms preamble. If that took place I would probably leave the party as well. We should keep him out of policy but not as Lord. I joined the party because they acknowledged Christ as Lord.

    The choice for president must be done carefully and I know that the National party will do so with fear and trembling. The party is on fire lets not quench that fire with a bad choice.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    Agreed Chris.

    I simply think we should edit the Preamble rather then reword it. I wouldn’t mind keeping JC in there, and especially about the part of no religious tests. Which is in our US Constitution.

  26. Joe Says:

    Cody, What do you mean edit as opposed to rewording it? I seriously doubt that anyone who was present at the 2004 convention and witnessed the debate on the wording of the preamble will want to revisit that. The current wording was a hard wrought compromise between different factions within the party. I would leave it be.

    Corsi has been a staunch supporter of our unconstitutional, unbiblical attack on Iraq.

  27. Cody Quirk Says:

    -Perhaps a paragraph or some verbs or adjectives might need to be changed, though the wording on the religious test language should be left be.

    And I believe one such faction we compromised with is now out of the Party.

    Any ProWar individual with credentials that wants to run for President in the CP is more then welcome to. Besides Corsi has changed his mind on a view things. Especially his support of Bush.

  28. Andy Says:

    “I worked with Jim Gilchrist in the fall of ‘05 in his campaign. He is actually closer to the CP platform than you might think. His intincts are good and he is a good man, but he really hasn’t studied a lot of the issues beyond illegal immigration and is easily tripped up, especially if he is interviewed by someone intent on tripping him up.”

    This is the impression that I got of Gilchrist. He seemed like a single issue candidate that didn’t have a thorough understanding of all of the issues, certainly not as versed in Constitution Party policy as say Howard Phillips. Having said this, he’s certainly not a bad candiate and I could seem him getting the Constitution Party a lot of votes.

  29. Joe Says:

    Cody, why would you welcome pro-war candidates for President? In a recent message chairman Clymer wrote: “The president should now be looking for ways to extricate the U.S. from the quagmire he and Congress got us into . . .” Corsi suggested in January 2002 that the United States capture Osama bin Laden and move him to Iraq so that “we have an excuse to bring them the Holey Month of BOMB-adon. Iraq with Saddam sounds as good a place to park him as anywhere. Let’s Roll!”

  30. matt Says:

    Any ProWar individual with credentials that wants to run for President in the CP is more then welcome to. Besides Corsi has changed his mind on a view things. Especially his support of Bush.
    =============================
    Anyone who’s turned on bush in the last 2 years reeks of bandwagonism. He didn’t change, his approval numbers did.

  31. Joe Says:

    Matt,

    Wisdom so often never comes that I generally don’t complain when it arrives late. But I am not aware of any evidence that Corsi has turned on Bush on this issue. I am not talking about griping about a difference of tactics. Does Corsi favor the immediate withdrawal of America’s military from Iraq and all other oveseas deployments the way Michael Peroutka did in ‘04 and continues to today? If he does great, but I don’t think he does.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    Immediate? Probably not.
    Quick. Probably.

  33. Chris Says:

    Joe is an unabashed Peroutka supporter.

    I supported Peroutka in 2004, but now he regularly uses his radio program to attack the CP and dissuade likely supporters and voters (I have heard many “now that you have abandoned your pro-life platform…” thanks to him).

    Add to this his right hand communications director, John Lofton, who continues to scathe the CP and now refers to himself as a Recovering CPer.

    Add Joe and others to the attack dogs…well, you get the picture, Peroutka would receive little warmth from most in the CP. Though he is by large a nice guy, his attack dogs have done damage to him beyond measure.

    Then again, there are those pesky people the TAV hates in the CP and failed to purge- Catholics, Mormons…then I guess, Arminians, who else.

    THey would have to purge these folks. Maybe Peroutka will run in ‘08 on the AHP platform, though largely irrelevant.

  34. Chris Says:

    Joe says:”Trent,

    I will unless another candidate enters the race who meets the biblical standards for civil magistrates. I agree with Gary about Gilchrist. I was shocked by his interview with John Lofton. His faith seemed wishy washy which of course led to wishy washy answers”

    Let us remember that typical of Lofton’s style, this was a hit interview-much like a drive by. It was inteded to bait and attack. Just watch Lofton debate Zappa, he was right in his opinions, but acted like an ass and cut off the rope Zappa could use to hang himself.

    Gilchrist was not as slick as Peroutka, but not everyone has answers as quick to throw out. Why his faith is wishy-washy is beyone me, maybe Joe is referring to Gilchrists Catholic upbringing, which is unacceptable to certain ex-CPers

  35. Joe Says:

    You are right I am an unabashed Peroutka supporter. I voted for him in convention in ‘04 and I voted for him again in the general election that year. Note that the chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois included him on the list of his preferred candidates.

    If there is another candidate in the race whose views I agree with on the issues that are most important to me as much as Michael Peroutka I will consider voting for him. But right now I don’t see anyone like that. I never heard of Michael Peroutka before probably the winter of 2003. The first thing I did is ask him his position on three key issues. I was pleasantly surprised at his answers. I then watched and listened to several radio and television interviews he did and my enthusiasm grew. If I had invented my ideal candidate out of whole cloth, I could hardly have done better. Since I voted for him I have listened to most of his nearly 100 radio broadcasts and I could not name one thing that I have heard that I disagreed with.

    I was not referring to Gilchrist’s Catholic upbringing. I was referring to the fact that when I listened to John interview him, I did not feel confident that he had a clear idea what he believed. You may disagree with Michael, but I doubt many would say the same about him.

    I love John Lofton’s style. I never heard of him before his speech at the 2004 Constitution Party convention. I joined the rest of the convention in giving him a standing ovation. I love John’s style. I watched the Zappa exchange and don’t think he acted like an ass at all. Theirs is definitely my favorite radio show.

  36. Trent Hill Says:

    I am a CPer, and honestly have no problem with Peroutka (or most of the disafiliators period.)
    But Lofton was SOOO an ass on that Zappa interview.

  37. Joe Says:

    Trent,

    Did you view John’s debate with the United Methodist Church?
    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=493
    Sartorial choices aside, I thought it was similar to the Zappa debate and I loved it. Do you think he has improved since then?

  38. Chris Says:

    Jumping down ones throat and almost out of his seat on top of Zappa, cutting him off was not a great style.

    Again, Gilchrist may not have been as prepared or distracted. It does not mean he is dumb or wishy-washy. Odd, right after Peroutka’s future in CP went south, this interview was held. Hmmm….....

    As far as not disagreeing with Peroutka—-no kidding Joe, you never do. Not when the show says this country was founded in 1620 (oddly, separate colonies with separate governing styles, etc). Not that a certain religious group founded it, apparently solely by itself.

    The show is becoming a sadly distored Reconstructionist, Rhasoodny-like venue.

    Then again, arguing with disotrted men is rather fruitless.

  39. Joe Says:

    Chris,

    If Peroutka is so distorted, why did the Constitution Party nominate him in 2004? Who did you vote for President that year? Why does the chairman of the Illinois party put him on his list of preferred presidential candidate for 2008?

  40. Cody Quirk Says:

    Joe,

    Again, if Corsi wants to be our candidate for Prez. As long as the CP convention votes in favor of him, then yes.

    You’re not in the national CP anymore, so you don’t have any voice.

    And if you want to write in Peroutka’s name in 2008, then go for it. – - – I don’t care for Gilchrist, but John acted like a complete jerk and repeatedly tried to nail Jim to the wall in the interview.

  41. Cody Quirk Says:

    We had no idea what Peroutka was REALLY like. No one thought he would go off the deep end to extreminism. Even Chris Hansen voted for Peroutka at the time, as did I. But no way will Peroutka be our candidate again, ever.

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    BTW, Congress gave the consent to Bush to use force in Iraq, so the Iraqi war is semi-constitutional in a way.

  43. Joe Says:

    I doubt Corsi will be the Constitution Party’s nominee unless he changes his position on Iraq in particular and foreign policy in general. The party has consistently maintained that the use of force in Iraq is unconstitutional.

    It is one thing to nominate a different candidate, it is another thing entirely to claim that the party’s last presidential nominee is “distorted.” I had an idea what Peroutka was really like. He made it clear that he was opposed to abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and when it came to voting to disaffilate a state party that knowingly elected candidates and leaders that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, he voted his principles. I had no idea what Howard Phillips and Jim Clymer were really like.

    Randy Stufflebeam did not include Corsi on his list of preferred candidates, but he did include Michael Peroutka.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    I doubt Corsi will be the Constitution Party’s nominee unless he changes his position on Iraq in particular and foreign policy in general. The party has consistently maintained that the use of force in Iraq is unconstitutional.

    =We’ll find out whose running next year.

    It is one thing to nominate a different candidate, it is another thing entirely to claim that the party’s last presidential nominee is “distorted.” I had an idea what Peroutka was really like. He made it clear that he was opposed to abortion in the cases of rape and incest, and when it came to voting to disaffilate a state party that knowingly elected candidates and leaders that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, he voted his principles. I had no idea what Howard Phillips and Jim Clymer were really like.

    =Yet I had no idea how zealous he was, or even his anti-Mormon views, which didn’t come out of the closet until the Nevada issue.

    Randy Stufflebeam did not include Corsi on his list of preferred candidates, but he did include Michael Peroutka.

    =Yet he didn’t mention his name first.
    And Randy doesn’t decide whose our candidate.

Leave a Reply