California chair breaks with Constitution Party–Part 1

The Constitution Party apparently is involved in a controversy with Edward C. Noonan, the State Committee Chairman of its California affiliate, the American Independent Party.

The following is a media release received from Edward C. Noonan, State Committee Chairman of California’s American Independent Party:

STATEMENT TO THE PRESS

From the Desk of
Edward C. Noonan – State Committee Chairman
1561 N. Beale Rd
Marysville, CA 95901

My name is Edward C. Noonan; I am the current State Party Chairman of the American Independent Party. I am announcing today that the American Independent Party has had only four American Independent Party voters elected by their respective counties to the office their County Central Committee for the American Independent Party.

Thus, we only have four people in the entire State of California qualified to act in the party’s name.

I feel it sad that the 40 to 80 people that were active in the party during the last two years either refused to run for state office, or run for their county central committee. I begged, and I pleaded for AIPers everywhere to run for State Office – there were 153 state positions open. The requirement was to either get 150 signatures or pay $3500. I also needed 1,450+ individuals (who were AIP voters) to run for their county central committee. But only 3 ran (and won) for county central committee, and 1 ran for Congress.

According to the state elections code, after the Primary this month, all former offices, terms and positions held by these former 40 to 80 members have ended. (It is limited to a two year term.)

What I am stating, is that the Primary is over… we have only one officer of the seven State Party Officers that ran for election in their County… that was me! Our Secretary, our Treasurer, and others did not run, and did not get elected. Hence, their appointed term is over because they failed to be elected by the voters of their county. They weren’t willing to go out and get 25 signatures to get elected!

In addition, most of our National Committee is dissolved. Only three of the 12 actually were elected by their county voters (Gerry Hill, and Grace Hill and I.)

We only had one person elected in the primary as a Congressional nominee. And that is Robert Lautenberg of Orange County. This makes him the ex-officio member of his central committee.

As some of you know, I have some APPOINTED DELEGATES who were appointed by the former State Chair are trying to run this party. However, they failed to achieve current official status by being elected by their county to the office of county central committee. None of them have been sworn in by their county clerk. What right do they as possible future appointees have to have more power over me…I have been elected and have complied with the elections code and they have not! The words “ELECTIONS CODE” means everyone that it refers to MUST BE ELECTED!

Therefore as of this June’s Primary, they have no official standing in our party.

They are attempting to take over the party…they are having a bogus STATE CONVENTION MEETING in Los Angeles and they are violating the Elections Code. Nowhere can they prove they have legal standing. Since they failed to be elected by the voters of their county, they have no say whatsoever in the running of the American Independent Party. If they want a say, they have to wait two years and be elected to take over the party properly.

I have conferred with the three other ELECTED State Committee members…and all three have sided with me on three issues.

#1. The American Independent Party will disaffiliate with the Constitution Party. Howard Phillips, and Chuck Baldwin (2008 CP Presidential Candidate) has sided with the Bogus Party mutineers and have supported Gary Odom and Nancy Spirkoff who do not live in California but have attempted to control me who is the State Chairman and make me a puppet to their will.

#2. The American Independent Party will support and campaign for Alan Keyes who is running for President of the United States. The four of us have decided that Alan Keyes has the best chance of getting into office and stopping the North American Union and the open border policies that the US exists under. And stopping the cut-throat, oppressive taxes and national debt that our Central Bank called the Federal Reserve System. This Central Bank has helped the US get into 9.2 trillion dollars in debt, and has bankrupted our economy. Foreclosures are high, our money is worthless, and we have become tax slaves.

#3. We believe it is time to affiliate with a new party. One that has a will to win. In ten years, the Constitution Party has NEVER had a candidate elected… in any state, any county… anywhere. We have decided that Alan Keyes’ new party called America’s Independent Party may be the best chance we have of giving resistance to the never-ending advance of socialism and communism within our borders. We need a strong Party that will work FOR US and not AGAINST US to stop the NEW WORLD ORDER and the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

The Constitution Party has consistently backed Nancy Spirkoff, the daughter of one of the founders of the American Independent Party. When this founder, Bill Shearer, died, Nancy thought she inherited the American Independent Party. This is not true. The American Independent Party cannot be inherited. She was the former State Party Chairman before, but state law requires that she can only hold one term as State Chair and then she is termed out.

The Constitution Party supported Nancy Spirkoff and her friend Gary Odom (Field Director of the Constitution Party) and never once has acknowledged my position as State Party Chair.

Neither Nancy Spirkoff nor Gary Odom have any official standing in the American Independent Party, both have moved out of the State of California but both are attempting to use Nancy’s sister, Ann Thomas (formerly the Secretary of the Party) (questionable status as a qualified member of the State Committee) and are interfering with the running of the American Independent Party.

As State Chairman of the American Independent Party, I say this must stop! It ends here today.

There are only four that have any legal standing in the party. I have appointed no-one from neither Los Angeles, nor San Diego mutineering group at this time and date. They have no standing, nor legal merit.

The time to run and campaign for the American Independent Party was over at the June Primary. They had their chance and now the running for office is over… no bogus claim to office will be accepted. The current American Independent Party is a joke and we need to re-chart our course and rebuild our organization with people that are willing to be elected to office…from county level on up.

Signed

(s) Edward C. Noonan
State Party Chairman – American Independent Party

Digg This! • Add to del.icio.us • Stumble It! • Email this

This entry was posted by Media Release on Monday, June 30th, 2008 at 6:52 am and is filed under News, Campaign 2008, Constitution Party, Presidential Race, Other Minor Parties. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Edit this entry.
Leave a Reply

44 Responses to “California chair breaks with Constitution Party–Part 1”

  1. MPM Says:

    “the Constitution Party has NEVER had a candidate elected… in any state, any county… anywhere”

    Isn’t this totally wrong?

  2. NewFederalist Says:

    I guess he didn’t choose to remember Rick Jore who was elected to the Montana House of Representatives on the CP ticket.

  3. Nexus Says:

    So will Baldwin or Keyes be on the California ballot?

  4. Sean Scallon Says:

    It figures that Noonan would try to steal what he couldn’t buy himself. Sadly for the CP and the AIP, its off to find the lawyers to handle the litigation.

  5. attman Says:

    If Baldwin loses CA ballot access that would be a huge blow to his campaign, no question about that.

  6. Gary Odom Says:

    AS USUAL, ED NOONAN HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG!

    1. Ed Noonan is no longer the state Chairman of the American Independent Party. The new chairman of the California state central committee is Jim King of Los Angeles. He was elected at the State Central Committee yesterday in Los Angeles which followed the state convention, which was held Saturday at the same location.

    2. Of course, we acknowledged Noonan as the State chairman (the biggest mistake our party made in its 40 year history)—he is so insecure. His name and contact info was posted on the CP contact during the period of his term. Unfortunately, the fact that he was elected chairman in September became a two year nightmare for the AIP.

    3. In the fall of 2006 while Noonan was running for Governor, Jim Gilchrist, at the time an AIP member (who has always had and independent streak and has shown himself to be a bit of a loose cannon) endorsed a candidate from another party for Governor. [Not something that was really very smart because that SAME DAY that he had called Bill Shearer soliciting his aid to run for the Constitution Party Presidential nomination] Anyway, Noonan went ballistic (and this may be when he really became unhinged) and called Gilchrist and was very abusive and as a result Gilchrist—the AIP’s most prominant public figure left the party. Even Noonan’s crony Mark Seidenberg, has admitted that to me.

    4. Noonan’s first attempt at communication with the AIP membership was a proposed letter that he sent to Nancy Shearer with a request that it be sent out. The letter included a naked picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger and was addressed to “Dear residents of Sodom and Gomorrah”. He then proceeded to tear into the party memberhship for not working harder for his dismal Governor’s campaign. Needless to say, that letter never saw the light of day—but was preserved as evidence.

    5. Noonan next—over everyone’s objection—appointed a person who was under investigation for hate crimes by the San Diego District Attorney’s office and who had clearly lied to the court about having AIP information on his computer (as a purported reason to get his computers back—which had been taken). The man had never been actively involved in the AIP before and his “group of supporters” were biker club.

    6. Next Noonan got talked into supporting somebody’s hare-brained scheme to divide California into “Old California” (counties that had voted Democrat) and “New California” (counties that voted Republican). There was not even contiguous geographic boundaries to these proposed new states. (I don’t really think I need to go further to explain the ridiculous and embarrassing nature of this proposal) I sent Ed a personal and private email describing this proposal as a “non-starter” and urging him to abandon this idea. (Certainly, I acknowledged him as Chairman there) Noonan’s response was to attack me on his “Yahoo chat room.” As far as I know California is still just one state so I don’t think his crusade on that issue went very far.

    7. By the way, Noonan ran the party activities strictly through his yahoo chat room—one of the silliest and most counter productive ideas I have encountered in 37 years in politics.

    8. Noonan—our state chairman—-was quoted in a major California newspaper saying that our registration base—the foundation of our ballot qualification—was a mistake in 99% of the cases. Even if that were true (and it is not) it surely is not something that the state chairman ought to be telling the media.

    9. In the summer of ‘07 his great idea for fundraising was to invite Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and the rest of the major (and minor) party candidates to participate in a debate along with AIP/CP candidates in an AIP sponsored meeting in Sacramento. He actually sent invitations to the other party’s state chairmen! Need I say more?

    10. After I came to California last year (my home state and the state where I was registered to vote at the time) and met with AIP leaders about what to do about Noonan’s antics—he circulated a proposed motion which he claimed he was going to bring at the Council Bluff’s National Committee meeting to “ban” me from the Constitution Party for 20 years! Well, I showed in Council Bluffs and he didn’t. Not much courage for a gentleman who had accused me of “hiding behind” Nancy Shearer’s skirt.

    11. More recently his great crusade on his chat rooms was another crack-pot scheme to organize what could only be called a “posse” to go and effect a citizen’s arrest on the Mayor of San Francisco.

    (THIS IS A VERY PARTIAL LIST ON OUR EX- STATE CHAIRMAN’S NONSENSE)

    Ed Noonan has done nothing but bring scorn and ridicule on the American Independent Party—the party to which I have served since 1971.

    Everybody makes mistakes—Lord knows I have (and some have been documented here) and those mistakes made me a much more humble person—but in Noonan’s case it is a matter of stupidity compounded by arrogance compounded by a nasty sneering attidtude compounded by rude behavior.

    Yes, we WAS our State Chairman and possibly the greatest embarrassment the party has suffered in 40 years.

    The so-called “facts” he has listed in his two parts are,as usual,filled with mistakes and an astonishing lack of understanding of the election laws and procedures in California.

    There has been NO disaffiliation by the California AIP from the Constitution Party. On the contrary, there was just this weekend a state convention and state central committee legitimately called pursuant to the bylaws of the party, with 30 days notice and attended by leaders of the party from all over the state. This will become readily apparent to all.

    [The purported “meeting” by which the disaffiliation was supposed to have taken place was an online “meeting” to which the members of the prior State Central Committee ( =of which it was purported to have been a meeting) received no notice. Ed Noonan, Mark Seidenberg and Markam Robinson are making a laughable attempt to hijack the AIP—though at the moment is a bit of a pain in the neck from a PR point of view]

    The California American Independent Party enthusiastically reaffiliated with the Constitution Party and nominated Chuck Baldwin as the AIP nominee in California.

  7. Sean Scallon Says:

    Make sure you get this out to the press and make sure you make them realize Noonan is a party of one.

  8. Red Phillips Says:

    Are Keyes and his backers actively encouraging this, or is this just Noonan axe grinding? If Keyes and his supporters are encouraging this, then that does not speak well of them. They lost the CP nomination fair and square based on the issues. They need to let it go.

  9. Porter Rockwell Says:

    Alan Keyes is clearly behind this effort…In his narricisistic bid to continue to separate poor fools from their money in order to continue to receive his 100K salary…he’s decided to enlist the assistance of 3 fools…

  10. Porter Rockwell Says:

    I received one of Noonan’s pornographic mailers…Shameful

  11. DaveC Says:

    Jesus spoke to his disciples in a parable telling them, “There was a woman who had two suitors. The first suitor was a diligent man who had courted her for many years. At the harvest he was always to be found in the fields helping her father to bring in the wheat. The second suitor was a wanderer who appeared suddenly with promises that he woud make her the queen of the entire land. After pondering all these things the woman chose the first suitor and they were betrothed. The second suitor was sore aggrieved. Encountering the woman one day as she gathered firewood he berated her with these words, ‘Because you have chosen poorly now I am going to take what should rightfully have been mine.’ So saying he dragged her into the woods and raped her. Who now can tell me the interpretation of this parable?” All of the disciples were silent so after a moment Jesus continued, “The second suitor is like unto a politician who covets the ballot access of a political party. And having failed to win the nomination of that party he seeks to tear it asunder for his own purposes. Truly I say to you, that politician and all who follow him will be sorely accursed. He who has ears let him hear.”

  12. Edward Harrison Says:

    As a Green Party conservative I find this all disappointing.

    Still politics is always a struggle. These are normal, and natural conflicts in the process.

    It proves once again. You must participate to make a difference.

    You must have candidates on the ballot to be a real political party.

    Veteran Green Party members, both conservative, centrists, and other have learned to keep the fire focused on the real opponents of positive change.

    Those are in the two larger parties. Non within the Third Party movement.

    Thank You for coverage.

    What happened to the Green Party coverage????????. The convention is next week.

  13. Red Phillips Says:

    I don’t doubt that Keyes and company (i.e. Tom Hoefling) are encouraging this. I rather suspect they are. But if anyone has proof, then post it. This is very weaselly stuff and indicates some serious sore losers. They got beat on the issues. Why can’t they just accept it?

    Tom, I know you are reading this. What do you have to say for yourself?

  14. Steve Schulin Says:

    The Noonan statement includes quite specific claims related to state elections code. Bringing up bikers and whatnot seems more akin to ad hominum than to refutation, and ridiculing invitations to a debate seems, well, silly.

    The apparent notion that Keyes supporters should be anything less than delighted that others support Keyes also seems silly. If the lawfully empowered American Independent Party wants to back Keyes, that’s great news for Keyes supporters everywhere. The disparagement of Keyes and his supporters in this thread tells more about the disparagers than about others.

  15. Michael Says:

    If Howard Phillips had not made that speech attacking Alan Keyes at the Kansas City convention none of this would have happened. As usual, Phillips put his huge ego above doing the right thing and it has exploded in his face. He has fired people for not voting for him. He slanders innocent people under the cover of politics. He claims to defend the Constitution of the United States and then denies others there rights under that very document. It is all coming back to haunt him and it’s about time.

  16. Deemer from California Says:

    Nevada’s Constitution Party affiliate, the Independent American Party
    has had several people win various offices including Constable of
    Searchlight, Nevada the home base of Senate Majority leader Harry
    Reid. There have been successful candidates in Iowa & Wisconsin. Also,
    in Florida and Ohio, City Councilmen & Mayors have re-registered in the
    Constitution Party. Granted, currently we have fewer elected officials
    than either the Green or Libertarian Party’s. From the states listed one
    can see that we can be competitive throughout these United States.

  17. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Edward Harrison: Green focus? What state are you involved with? Along with the Socialists and Feminists of the off beat California [One State National Party, often nominating cop killing federal felon for POTUS] Peace and Freedom Party, are their many groups MORE disfused than the Sunflower Children? Call me for about three hours of details. The Green Party of California is the biggest enemy of the green movement! 619.420.0209

  18. Gary Odom Says:

    Steve

    Background information about Noonan was in order at this time.

    And if you think that Noonan’s statements about the Election Codes were knowledgeable…well, you can be forgiven because you live in Maryland.

    We’ve had to suffer with his behavior for two long years and frankly we’re sick of it. You seem like a decent sort, but you cannot imagine the abmonidable behavior and ignorance of these buffoons over the past couple of years. For example, very recently Markham Robinson (one of Noonan’s cronies—The “Mark’s Brothers”) was calling people and ranting and raving about me and Nancy Shearer. Among those that he called was Jim Griffin (Jim has been in the party since 1967. He was a personal friend of George Wallace. He was a candidate for Congress in ‘74, for US Senate in 80, for Governor in ‘82 and Lt. Governor in 1986. In 1988, when we had no national affiliation Jim was honored with the AIP nomination for President and got 28,000 votes in California)

    Markham Robinson didn’t even know who Jim Griffin was, yet called him (because he is on the state list) and told Jim that “he (Robinson) was going to tell him about the history of the American Indepdendent Party.” Jim laughed and replied “I am the history of the American Independent Pary,” to which Robinson responded with the snappy comeback, “huh?”

    How do I know this? Jim is my father in law…(which ANYONE REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE AIP WOULD KNOW THAT) And, by the way, Jim Griffin like many, many other AIP veterans was at the meeting on Saturday, June 28 in Los Angeles.

    Mark Seidenberg sat outside our meeting at the Westin Hotel, Saturday and literally stalked people coming to the meeting. I thought it was very sad and pathetic. He was invited into the meeting (he was, up until Sunday our State Vice-Chairman I am embarrased to say) Eventually, because he was violating hotel policy of “pandering”... he was asked to stop—by the hotel. He got belligerent and and was removed from the premises.

    This is the quality of the Keyes representation in California, Steve.

    And Steve, don’t you recall how the CP bent its own rules so YOU COULd be a delegate from Maryland, even though you had never previously been invlolved in the AIP, knowing that you were a Keyes supporter and wanting to go to great lengths to “cut people in, not out.”

    The legitimate State Central Committee is filing the appropriate documents in the appropriate manner with the appropriate office (unlike Noonan…oops!) concerning the legitimate meeting which was called by a majority of the officers of the AIP and attended by legitimate delegates of the AIP.

    Did you know that Noonan attempted to “fire” all of the national committee members (who are convention delegates) who were not on his side—which was the great majority of them) the day before the meeting so that he could argue that they were not lawful delegates?

    Did you know that, Steve?

    Noonan, Seidenberg and Robinson had no lawful meeting. All of the people I have know for all my years in the AIP (who are still alive) and many new people were at the Los Angeles meeting—which was properly called and noticed.

    Steve, do you REALLY know what you are talking about or are you just hoping?

    Gary

  19. Gary Odom Says:

    Howard Phillips was right. After he met with Alan Keyes, who had been his friend for many years, he told him that he could not support him and that he would oppose him.

    Keyes had absolutely no reason to be surprised and nothing Howard said was not true. He called him a Neo-Con which might be subject to debate, but since one of the people who has had the greatest influence on him and who managed his Maryland campaign for Senate was none other than his college roomate William Kristol I don’t think it is much of a stretch.

    Sorry what Howard said hurt. But sometimes the truth hurts.

  20. Red Phillips Says:

    Michael, the numbers were stacked against Keyes long before Howard Phillips made his speech, and everyone knows it. Keyes would have lost with or without the Phillips speech and likely by nearly the same margin. If you don’t recognize that, you are delusional.

    Steve, if the Keyes forces are actively trying to undermine the party that they just sought the nomination of, because that party failed to recognize Keyes’ brilliance, then that is the low down behavior of a sore looser. That is not the same as being happy for a positive new development and potential new supporters. It is underhanded, and it stinks.

    If the CP had lost its way and nominated a pro-choice Communist, then maybe, but this is not about issues at this point. It is about personalities. Or are Keyes and his supporters really that invested in interventionism? I’m not buying it. This is sour grapes, pure and simple.

  21. Open Letter From Don Lake Says:

    Ed Harrison, separately, on the ‘green’ postings and [thank fully] the recent lack of same:

    Once upon a time the American public was getting more and more fed up with the two party Dem/GOP collusion and the erosion of their constitutional rights. Millions dropped out of the electorate. Other millions looked harder at the non Democrats and the non Republicans.

    After the historical recall of corrupt insider California Governor Gray Davis and the two worst [and grossly similar] Yale Skull and Bones men/ major presidential candidates in 2003/2004, two web sites appeared.
    ,

    ThirdPartyNews was merely a knock off [some say, even a clone] of the other! It finally ran out of interest, advertisement revenue, and steam. It literally disappeared!

    ThirdPartyWatch was founded by a registered REPUBLICAN and heavily, purposely slanted toward right wing [what ever that means] paradigms.

    A succession of non Republican owners still keeps the liberal [what ever that means], progressive [what ever that means], left wing [what ever that means] messages either modified or to a bare minimum .

    Reform and Center Left postings have been sparse. I have given the folks in charge a dozen names. Only two were used and neither one lasted very long. I [reluctantly] offered up my self as sacrafice with no response.

    ‘Green’ postings were done by a guy heavily invested in the [so called] Independent Green Party movement. What true general green or Green Party USA blogs he did post were over the top and so sugary that dozens died of diabetes!

    Most of his stuff came back around to Frank MacKay, John Blare, Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg, Unity 08, and the true object of the Independent Green Party of Virginia’s affection[s], the Independence [Party] movement.

    These folks were the ‘Independent Green Party’ in states with long established Green Party USA affiliates. They do ‘talk’ about the ecology of rail transit [a capitol and labor intensive endeaver, which is stuck on a fixed route….] yet refuse to contact other rail enthusiasts or supporters.

    Green? Nominally—-may be.

    Frank MacKay stealth [currently trying to take over the bruised and battered fragments of the reform movement as well] operatives and agents provacateur? The evidence mounts!

    Any thing but Libertarian/ Classical Conservative/ Neocon/ blogs including honest and raw Left – Center opinions? Few and far between!

  22. Gary Odom Says:

    One thing you gotta love about TPW…no matter what the subject of the thread… you can always depend on Donald Lake to bring up something totally irrelevant to the discussion….I guess its just part of the overall charm of this place.

  23. Steve Schulin Says:

    Gee whiz, Gary. It continues to seem clear to me that Noonan made quite specific claims about the election code. I don’t vouch for his claim, and I understand that you disagree. Your reasons for disagreement with these claims seem quite vague. Background may be in order, but it’s no substitute for refutation.

    I do indeed recall the part of the credentials committee meeting I attended at the Constitution Party convention. I was especially deeply touched by the two members who spoke up, after hearing my story, to say “If this man is not seated, he can have my vote.” I think the vote was 26-1 in favor of seating the Maryland delegation, which was me. I got involved after hearing you, Jim Clymer, and Mary Starrett come on the Keyes campaign conference call and invite us to get involved, and the Keyes campaign said “show ‘em who you are”. I didn’t plan on being the chair of the Maryland delegation at the upcoming convention. I just wanted to help, because I thought Alan Keyes was a good fit with the Constitution Party. If there had been others more active in my state, I surely would not have gotten involved to the extent that I did. The one vote against seating Maryland in the committee was from Howard Phillips. I found it sort of astounding the next morning that a fair amount of convention time—the first morning of the convention proper—was spent on a motion to overrule the credentials committee’s recommendation.

    Red, I support Alan Keyes’ decision to continue to run as an independent because I think this election is important and that Keyes is, by far, the best choice for President. I would have supported him if he had done the same in 2000. One of the important things on which I agreed with him, then, was that our intervention in the-unpleasantness-in-the-former-Yugoslavia was a big mistake. He was the only Republican candidate in the debates to voice even a whit of criticism of that intervention. So the “interventionist” label seems, at best, quite superficial as applied to Keyes.

    As best I can tell, Keyes is still running because he does not see an adequate choice amongst the others. I dial-in Tuesday and Thursday nights to his campaign conference calls, and I assure you that the focus of the callers has nothing to do with sour grapes.

  24. Red Phillips Says:

    Gary, the Keyes supporters think that neoconservatism is simply a list of policy positions. So since Keyes disagrees with a couple of policy positions usually associated with neoconservatism, then he must not be neoconservatives. Of course, this is a very simplistic way of looking at it. Neoconservatism is not just a list of policies, it is a coherent philosophy, a well formed body of thought. With regard to that philosophy and its usual language and rhetorical style, Keyes is more neoconservative than the neocons.

    The objection that Keyes isn’t a neocon is either ignorant or intended to deceive.

  25. Red Phillips Says:

    Steve, Keyes’ opposition to Yugoslavia was admirable and some paleocons have conceded that. That is why his support for the invasion of Iraq is all the more baffling. He can not just claim some blind ignorance of being still stuck in a Cold War mindset. He either actually supported it for ideologically reasons or he was skeptical but supported it because he felt it was politically necessary to do so, either way a huge problem. I believe it was the former. He made very passionate defenses of the War in his WND columns and even wanted to declare war on Syria at one point.

  26. Ben Says:

    Steve Schulin Says:
    As best I can tell, Keyes is still running because he does not see an adequate choice amongst the others.

    As best I can tell, there is adequate choice running for President. I may have considered Baldwin in the solitude of my voting booth, but Darrell Castle as Baldwin’s running-mate was/is a deal breaker. Fortunately, this isn’t England and I can’t be fined for staying home on Election Day.

  27. Ben Says:

    Typo: there is NO adequate choice

  28. Gary Odom Says:

    Steve,

    We’re not fighting our procedural battles on TPW. I don’t think the TPW readership is going to decide this issue for California. Am I correct?

    And we are not about to do anything further to educate those people as to their mistakes, though I surely tried, especially with Seidenberg, who I once considered a friend. If you don’t think my refutation is adequate, that’s too bad. Whether you have had the issue adequately explained to you will make not one iota of difference in the outcome of this matter.

    If you want to continue with your wishful thinking, be my guest.

  29. Steve Schulin Says:

    Hi Red – I don’t see support for the Iraq war as being disqualifying or even misguided. The two possibilities you see for why Keyes may have supported the war do not describe my reasons, so it is not clear to me why you think they bound Keyes’ reasons.

    One reason I did not vote for Bush in 2000 general election was his distancing of himself from the admittedly divisive issue of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. I have concluded over the years that this was part of a GW Bush tendency to avoid confrontation in the great-town-hall-of-ideas. I think he could have done much better in reinforcing his message on Iraq.

    Before this year’s campaign began, I did not imagine that it would be possible for me to admire Alan Keyes more than I already did. I have listened to him speak and answer questions in several venues in recent months, and I am struck by what a good listener he is, for example. I have also come to appreciate the delta between his preparedness and that of the other candidates on the matter of protecting our national security.

  30. Steve Schulin Says:

    Hi Gary –
    I sure don’t begrudge your right to say as little or as much, in the way of refutation of the specific claims Noonan made, as you wish, nor do I presume to question your judgement in the choice you make in that regard.

    I’ve no expertise in California election law, but I have seen a lot of folks discuss a lot of things. Your comments about bikers and such reminded me that folks who have the facts on their side don’t need to bring up other stuff.

  31. Red Phillips Says:

    “I don’t see support for the Iraq war as being disqualifying or even misguided.”

    But it is disqualifying if he is seeking the nomination of a non-interventionist party that advocated a Ron Paul style foreign policy before Ron Paul was cool.

    I think some people believed that Iraq represented a threat (although war would not have been justified even if we knew for certain they had WMDs), and hence their support of the War was not some ideological crusade, but for Keyes it was. Read his WND archives.

    Re. the legal issues, look at the Bill Woolsey explanation on the AIP Part 3 thread. I think that will be similar to the issues in CA. I tried to post a link but it didn’t go through.

  32. Steve Schulin Says:

    Hi Red –
    One can support the Iraq war without being an interventionist, just as one can decry the War of Northern Aggression without being a racist.

    I recall that, a mere 9 days after 9-11, Saddam’s state-controlled press published unambiguous threat to use biological weapons against us outside of Iraq. Here’s how Dr. Laurie Mylroie, former Clinton advisor, described the threat which Iraq made: “The Iraqi newspaper Babil, published by Saddam’s son, clearly spells out their strategy. The September 20th edition predicted a three-stage American war on Afghanistan: 1) air attacks, 2) escalating air attacks and ground troops, and 3) a Vietnam-style quagmire and growing Muslim counterattacks. Babil says during the first two stages Iraq will not publicly involve itself in the war because ‘[Americans] will watch Iraq accurately and seriously. If we do anything, Iraq will be attacked, not just like the attack of 1998, but perhaps like the attack of 1991 [the Gulf War].’ However, once we reach stage 3 ­ a Vietnam-style quagmire ­ Babil warns, ‘At this stage, it is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of the hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything.’” The Mylroie excerpt is from an interview with Christopher Ruddy’s NewsMax.com in November 2001.

    I looked at the Keyes WND archives. Hundreds of articles over the years. Few of the titles during 2001-3 period seem to indicate anything about the topic you mention. I read a bit. I’m not sure what your complaint about these articles can possibly be.

    That post about the Arizona LP factions was sure thought-provoking.

  33. Red Phillips Says:

    Steve, glad to learn that you are on the right side of the War of Northern Aggression as all Marylanders familiar with their State’s history should be. One reason some of us opposed Keyes is because he is a big supporter of Lincoln and the North.

    Mylroie’s conclusions are highly disputed to say the least. She is a neocon hack. Check out the Wikipedia article on her or just Google her. I would not use her to support my arguments. People who wanted to attack Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy and they wanted to usher in American style democracy were clearly interventionist ideologues. Those who wanted to invade Iraq because they thought they were a threat were guilty of advocating pre-emptive war which violates just war doctrine. As I said above, we would not have been justified attacking Iraq even if we knew they had WMDs because they were not a proximate threat to us. If we can just attack enemies because they have weapons that could potentially harm us, then would we have been justified in launching a pre-emptive war against the Soviets? We need to withdraw all our troops from the region and leave them alone to squabble amongst themselves.

    Keyes was clearly in the ideological war making camp as well as exaggerating the threat of Islamic radicalism. His rhetoric is full of universals and American exceptionalism hubris, all the marks of a neocon. And it is short on practical strategy. In the article where he advocates declaring war on Syria, he says that any terrorist attack anywhere in the world is an attack on the US. I’m sorry, but that is unhinged.

  34. Steve Schulin Says:

    Red – I’ve observed Mylroie herself dispute her prior conclusions as she learns more. Do you have any reason to dispute her translation of the newspaper article? It’s been on the record for almost seven years.

    You apparently see Keyes as one whose views make him likely to trample liberty. I’m sensitive to the Lincoln implications, and I keep that in mind when listening to what Keyes says. And I’ve heard him a lot over recent months. When discussing issues, he brings first principles to bear, and, from brief look at the website your name links to here, I’d be surprised if you disagree with those principles.

    My background is nuclear power, and as part of trying to make nuclear.com live up to its everything-nuclear name, I’ve been especially interested in learning about nuclear weapons in recent years. I respectfully disagree that the threat of Islamic radicalism is being exaggerated, although I suspect we agree that many are using the existence of the threat as a tool to achieve ends you and I recognize as inimical to our liberty.

    Keyes does see the USA as having been a force for good in the world, albeit not in every situation. And he does think we should be a force for good in this world. If’s that’s enough to label him a neocon, well, then the label is too broad to be very useful, as it would include folks going back to George Washington and Ben Franklin. I admire Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and I think President Alan Keyes would be every bit as admirable. Keyes does share the notion that a virtuous citizenry is vital to our system of government. I agree with him that we are at great risk of losing huge ground in that regard, and that government policies have greatly hurt us.

    Your claim that Keyes is short on foreign policy strategy seems silly to me. He’s got more hands-on strategic national security experience than any of the other candidates.

  35. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    Alan Keyes and all his “cry babies” who lost out at the Constitution Party National Convention….and “Grouch Ed” and the two “Marks Brothers” ...need to really get a life. ALL you bloggers and responders who are so wrapped up in this so-called controversy, NEED TO GET A LIFE.
    Let the despots, and painty-waisted knuckleheads go home with their marbles. Who cares? The Constitution Party and it’s affiliate American Independent Party in California ,DID THEIR DUTY at this last weekend’s AIP State Convention….and they leave the rest to GOD. Let the chips fall where they may. The AIP/CP is in excellant hands now, with dedicated LOYAL leadership. Congrats to the NEW AIP Leadership at the helm…
    Jim King and Dr. Grundmann. God Bless them. As for the painty-waisted wannabes….good riddance! -Larry Breazeale, NVC/CP…www.nvets.org

  36. Red Phillips Says:

    “When discussing issues, he brings first principles to bear…”

    I don’t have anything against first principles per se, but Keyes constantly invokes abstract universal principles. Liberals appeal to abstract universals. This is a historical fact. Conservatives appeal to tradition, history, Revelation, the way things are. etc. It is partially his appeal to abstract universals that marks him as a neocon. His rhetoric reeks of Strauss.

    “And he does think we should be a force for good in this world.”

    We shouldn’t be a force for evil obviously, but to actively believe your nation should be a force for democracy, freedom, etc. especially if that requires military force goes beyond what a nation is supposed to do. The American government is only supposed to be a force for protecting America. To believe otherwise is a set up for ideological crusading. And Washington was on our side on this. I’m sure you are familiar with his Farewell Address. Is Peru, for example, also supposed to be a force for ushering in global democracy? If not, then why is America different? See the danger of hubris is this belief?

  37. Steve Schulin Says:

    Hi Red –
    I understand your concerns. I have thought about these issues a lot over the years and keep them in mind when listening to any candidate. I think it is an error to lump rhetoric which obfuscates agendas with the type of approach to decision-making which I described. I respectfully disagree that George Washington was on your side of this issue. He had firsthand experience with the type of entangling alliances he warned about. There’s nothing in Keyes’ approach to foreign policy, including those aspects which sound Straussian, that strays from the principle of acting in our (selfish) national interest. I took the opportunity on one of the conference calls to urge him to highlight the differences between the intervention he opposed in the former Yugoslavia and the Iraq intervention.

    Larry – you appear to give the Constitution Party much too much credit for influence on what concerns Keyes and Keyes supporters.

  38. Porter_Rockwell Says:

    BRAVO…CODY…BRAVO…

    Dear Ed,

    Consider this the last email ever from me to you.

    Since you have been our Chairman, I’ve tried to stay out of all in-fighting that has gone on in the Party, thanks to you.

    But now I’ve had it.

    Ed, you are the WORST State Chair the AIP has EVER had! You have caused more problems then you did build the party! Now there’s only ONE AIP candidate running for this year and AIP registration.

    Appointing that moron (D. Clark) and his biker gang to be the San Diego AIP Committee has caused us nothing but hardship, and it did nothing.

    Attacking Gary Odom and Nancy Shearer in a deranged manner is definably disgusting and petty of you. Especially since Gary has done more for the AIP in its history then you have, as has Nancy. Gary even has tried burying the hatchet with you and helping you out, but you have rejected his peace offerings.

    You have also driven people out from the AIP, just because they don’t see eye-to-eye with you, and have attacked Party members simply for not being active enough. David Christensen was one that you have unjustifiably dragged through the mud.

    Endorsing Alan Keyes, to the point of breaking off from the party was a new low for you. Alan killed his chances with the Constitution Party by refusing to reconcile his foreign policy views with the Party and chiding Constitutionalists for not thinking like him on his views.

    Alan is nothing more then a political opportunist and a poor debater, even Chris Hansen will not support him. After losing the nomination, his own actions (by bashing the CP), speak louder then words in showing that the CP dodged a bullet by nominating Chuck instead.

    And when I went to the IAP state convention in Reno, I found Mark Seidenburg and Markham Robinson there trying to sway the IAP to leave the Constitution Party, with Mark telling me it was going to happen- which it did not.

    Man Ed, have you no decency?! any dignity at all?

    I guess you don’t, after trying to disrupt the OFFICIAL AIP convention in Los Angeles, first by calling up AIP members, including Jim Griffin, and bashing Gary Odom and telling a distorted history of the AIP and at the convention, having Mr. Seidenburg hang out outside the convention hall and harass convention goers until he had to be escorted out by security.

    You haven’t sunk rock-bottom; you’re well below the rocks themselves.

    And don’t bother claiming this is a anti-Mormon conspiracy- Nevada, Utah, and Idaho voted for Baldwin, Paul Venable argued against Keyes, Janine and the Fluckigers are backing Baldwin 100%. The man is no anti-Mormon. You can forget about LDS support for your tyranny in the AIP.

    And now you’re claiming, after a unannounced meeting you had, that the AIP is leaving the CP and joining “America’s Independent Party” is utterly pathedic. But the most pathetic part is you claim that the CP has never elected anyone to office!

    BS!

    Besides our office-holders in Nevada, we have city councilmen in Utah and Michigan, town mayors in Florida and Minnesota, a County commissioner in Wisconsin, another office-holder in West Virginia, and of course there’s Rick Jore of Montana.

    Well Ed, you did it for me, as of now, I’m leaving CA Mormon Battallion and I’m kicking you out and deleting your posts on Independent- American.

    I guarentee you Ed, if you take AIP Chairman Jim King and the Party to court- YOU WILL LOSE!

    Thank you for destorying Bill Shearer’s legacy, you Gaddianton Robber! What you have done will count against you in the Book of Life Ed.

    -Cody J. Quirk

  39. Cody Quirk Says:

    I believe I did a editing error on the ‘AIP registration’ bit.

  40. John Smith Says:

    American Independent Party of California reiterates its position concerning national affiliation

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    Media contact:

    Markham Robinson

    Parliamentarian

    American Independent Party of California

    mark@masterplanner.com

    Marysville CA - June 30, 2008

    In the wake of a small weekend meeting of members, non-members, and out of state interlopers, the duly-elected and legally-constituted officers and State Central Committee members of California ’s American Independent Party, including Chairman Edward C. Noonan and Vice-Chairman Mark Seidenberg, today clarified the official position of the party.

    On Saturday, the party announced its affiliation nationally with the newly-formed America ’s Independent Party of Fenton, MI. The American Independent Party had previously affiliated on a national basis with the Constitution Party of Lancaster, PA.

    The State Central Committee of the American Independent Party voted unanimously in its Friday meeting to make the switch, after which the new 2008 national affiliation was duly filed with the Secretary of State’s office in accordance with the requirements of California ’s Election Code.

    State Vice Chairman Mark Seidenberg, commenting on the activities of the rogue group, which is falsely claiming to represent the AIP, said, “Edward C. Noonan, our Chairman, was elected to a two-year term, which doesn’t expire until September. The group which met in Los Angeles has no legal standing or right to present themselves as in any way representing the American Independent Party. Any actions they took or will take under the direction of out-of-state political operatives are null and void.”

  41. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    Everyone,
    It should be totally obvious to everyone who reads this site that ED NOONAN and the two Marks brothers are total ‘buffoons’.
    They are all ‘felony stupid’. -Larry Breazeale, Msgt.(ret.)USAF

    National Veterans Coalition
    Constitution party…www.nvets.org

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    They claimed that the CP has never elected anybody to office!

    BS!

  43. Alan Roth Says:

    Alan Keyes????? Are you f^%king kidding me.

    Alan Keyes HATES the Constitution especially the second amendment. He believeS that the 2nd Amendment is not a guarantee of the right to bear arms but instead he believes that it establishes the governments right to conscript the population into compulsory military service. The guy is a SOCIALIST!

    And only a COMMUNIST and/or a traitor would cast a vote for Keyes.

    What? You don’t believe me?

    Just ask Alan Keyes. He’ll tell you exactly what I just told you about the 2nd amendment and compulsory service to the government.

  44. Steve Schulin Says:

    I respectfully disagree with Alan Roth’s characterization of Alan Keyes’ view of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. Here’s an example of Alan Keyes’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment, as he described in a debate in 2004 against Obama:

    ... the argument on gun control is very clear. The Second Amendment is there so that we never lose either the practice or the mentality of defending our liberty. Self-government, government by representative institutions, in human history went hand and hand with the willingness of common people to overcome their fear of weapons and take up those weapons in defense of their own rights. If we lose that mentality in which we are willing to stand fast in defense of our liberties, we will lose those liberties. So, the Second Amendment isn’t just about gun bearing.

    And also, gun control is absurd. If the law-abiding citizens can’t carry weapons, and they obey the law, then the only people who will have the weapons are people willing to break the law—that is to say, the crooks. So, you’ll have disarmed law-abiding people and armed crooks. That sounds like a real uneven match, and I think it’s idiotic to suggest that a society should place itself in that position.
    —- END OF QUOTE —-

Leave a Reply