Tim Utz, the Constitution Party nominee for a Minnesota state legislative race, is paying $2,100 to have the votes recounted in his race, even though the original results show that he did not come close to winning. See this story. It is likely that Utz doesn’t really believe he might have won, but that he is testing the system. The recount may show that the original count was accurate, or conceivably it could show that it wasn’t accurate.
I know I’ve “pestered” members of the Constitution(al) Party over what I believe is the incorrect usage of their party name in the political arena. I’ve done this because I believe a person who calls themselves a “Constitutionalist” would automatically realize the name of their party should be “Constitutional Party.”
I also realize that most of the Constitution(al) Party members who log on to B.A.N. ignore me and this is okay. Time will tell what should be the correct usage of the party name.
However, I am siding with Mr. Ulz who is “testing the system” and is willing to pay the $2100. to have all the votes in his recent campaign re-counted. For I am one who is not convinced that these automatic vote counting machines cannot go “haywire,” and not count the votes correctly, without anyone else doing anything wrong.
Once the re-count has been made, if the results, not only for Mr. Ulz – but for the DFL nominee and the GOP nominee – are greatly different, then this should raise a red flag over the dependency and accuracy of the automatic vote counting system and an investigation should be made as to why?
Again, I applaud Mr. Ulz for going to these financial pains to make this test.
Will be waiting to see what the re-counted vote tally reads.
Alabama Independent… if you get their newsletter you will see it is called The Constitutionist. I believe they are trying to brand themselves as Constitutionist for some reason. I agree with you that Constitutionalist and Constitutional; Party is more accurate.
Casual Bystander:
I don’t subscribe to their newsletter CONSTITUTIONIST, the word, by the way, is not even listed in Webster’s Dictionary, nor does my spell check recognize the word, “Constitutionist.”
However, I understand – even if I don’t agree – why they want to create a new name “Constitutionist” as a political philosophy. They are obcessed with one issue – the Constitution of the United States. To them, the nation rises and falls solely on the Constitution of the United States. They remind me so much of the Prohibition Party – which too attempted to build a party tied to one fundamental issue – and they too failed as a result.
I am a Constitutionalist. This means I believe in “constitutional” government, but I also believe in the Constitution of the United States. The two go “hand in hand” and allows one to broaden their ability of addressing other issues which might not necessarily be tied to the Constitution of the United States.
But, this is a free country, and if these folks want to spent their time and money promoting a party with a limited name, and narrow their focus of government to one issue – then I say more power to them.
This is sad also, because there is need and room for a party on the right in order to give the voters a full choice in the political spectrum.
Maybe one day, the younger leaders of the Constitution(al) Party (unlike the leaders of the Prohibition Party) will wake up and see the error of their way.
The Constitution Party has some religious issues that hold them back as well in my opinion.
Casual Bystander:
While the Constitution(al) Party’s position on some religious issues may hold them back, on the other hand, their position on certain political issues could help to give them a strong base upon which they could build upon.
You note I use the word “could” rather than “would.”
I am familiar with the religious issues you refer to. And with respect to what you or anyone else may think regarding these religious issues, there are a sizeable number of the electorate in the United States who holds to these same religious viewpoints. And these people could give their support to such a party as the Constitution(al) Party, but they are not going to be enticed to do so, if they see the party as not being serious.
And as I’ve already stated, using the proper and correct name for the party to reflect a political philosophy which likewise is held by a sizeable number of people, can be a deterrent in seeing such become a reality.
I wish the leaders of the Constitution(al) Party would wake up and take advantage of the opportunity they have.
I was referring to the internal feuding among various Protestant denominations and the less than charitable view toward Catholics and Mormons that have sparked controversy and dissention in the past.
Yes, this kind of narrowing down based on religion denominations could hurt the Constitution(al) Party’s chances. I am not aware of the particulars of what this kind of feuding consist of.
If you will, briefly bring me (and others) up to date. I’m sure Richard will not mind.
The only “proper and correct” name for them would be the Theocracy Party. The fact that the C.P. is actively hostile to what most Americans regard as essential components of the U.S. Constitution makes a strong argument for “Constitution Party” being misleading on the substance for a radical Christian identity party.
Setting that aside, I see nothing wrong with the name “Constitution Party” from a grammatical sense. There’s no rule that says party names have to be in adjective form. cf. “Liberty Party”, “Free Soil Party”, “Labor Party”, etc.
Agreed, though if they added ‘Christian’ to their title, then at least they would be sincerely honest about their political beliefs.
To sum up what happened in a nutshell- the CP back in 1999 had a sudden influx of the extremist Calvinist/theocratic elements that decided the GOP then wasn’t extreme enough for their liking, and so they took advantage of the hospitality and gullibility of the then leaders and active members of the CP, and once they became members and even leaders back then, everything went downhill and descended into serious infighting that, to an extent, is still going on in the CP.
I know because I was a part of this fight until I smarted up and became Libertarian.
Forget it AI- they are a dying party and they are too proud, arrogant, and set in their ways to ever reverse that fact.
In fact I bet many CP’ers that read your posts think you are GOP-lite that would be willing to “compromise the’biblical principles’ of the Constitution”.
Seriously, that is the mindset of many of them! Hence why I went Libertarian after putting up with them long enough.
Cody:
The CP’ers may think I am a Republican-lite, but I disagree with the GOP just about as much as I disagree with the Democratic Party.
The Constitution(al) Party knows where I disagree with them at. It is their narrow-minded doctrine that the federal government should do nothing but provide for the military and the mail. They still think it is 1776 and we can still live in a 1776 world.
My only hope is their younger members, who usually are a little more open minded to at least discussing. At least this is the experience I’ve had. I agree, it hopeless for the old codgers whose minds are sealed.
Cody:
Thanks for enlightening me.
The Constitution(al) Party is going to need the church vote if they are to ever form a base. The Democrats have long ago abandoned the church base, and now the Republicans are beginning to do so. This could open up a golden opportunity for the Constitution(al) Party. The question is, are they smart enough to know how to win them over.
From what you’re describing, they are not. The average traditional Christian voter is not interested in whether you believe in the doctrine of Calvinism to determine your personal salvation, or the gift of speaking in tongues, when you are a candidate for public office.
The average traditional Christian voter wants only to know where you stand on Life and the Family, to name a couple of the dominate social issues. You start splitting hairs in theology, then you’re going to turn off the tradition Christian voter, and he or she is ether going to stay home, or find another 3rd party.
If this happens, the Constitution(al) Party will have no one to blame but themselves.
AndyCraig:
“There’s no rule that says party names have to be in adjective form. cf. “Liberty Party”, “Free Soil Party”, “Labor Party”, etc.”
You’re right, there’s no rule which says the party name has to be in the adjective form. But isn’t it interesting the above parties you list which did not, or not longer with us?
What if the Democratic Party only referred officially to itself as the DEMOCRAT PARTY?
Or if the GOP only referred officially to itself as the REPUBLIC PARTY.
Just doesn’t sound right, does it?
And what if the Libertarian Party started referring to itself officially as the LIBERTY PARTY? You think the Libertarians would have advanced as far as they have by using their name in the noun sense?
I doubt it.
AI – You are welcome to call me at 510-7600968 to clarify what I will not take the time now to write out but Bottom Line is that Cody Quirk is full of B*&^%$#, regarding the CP in both previous occurances and current events , which he endlessly shovels out in his never-to-end attacks on the party for properly seeing what a fool and detriment to the party which he is. He is endlessly shoveling his BS over any possible forum and it is all an ego trip to distort the real occurances and facts of the situations to produce a polished image of his ego and avoid the mud which he always has due to his own foolishness.
The attack of using the perjorative term of ” Theocracy Party ” against the CP is simply because of their opposition to homosexual/pervert marriage.
Younger members?!
LOL.
I don’t think they have any- they disbanded their youth organization last year and the chairman of the group (Joshua Fauver) left the CP shortly.
Here’s the problem- it won’t work; Religious Right voters are GOP loyalist since they are too afraid of helping the democrats win by “splitting the vote”.
They would only leave the GOP if it actually went the way of the Whigs, which it has yet to do, and won’t be doing for a long time still.
The CP has been CONSTANTLY trying to reach out to them and have them join them since 1992, and they have yet succeeded in doing so.
Yet they did attract those religious kooks that made a mess of things in the CP after 1999.
Another thing, the Religious Right and religious conservatism is in serious decline in our country- more and more people are becoming secular, or more libertarian-minded on religious matters, so the CP’s attitude on religion is actually alienating them further as our country becomes more secular.
A “Labor Party” (or Labour) is a major governing party or the official opposition in a majority of the English-speaking world. I really don’t see the problem you allege here.
For what it’s worth, I think changing the ballot label to “Liberty” (and still referring to party members as Libertarians) should have been under serious consideration in the early days of the party, and may well have increased the party’s vote totals over the years, though at this point “Libertarian” has too much of a brand build up around it to change.
Closet Don, if you want to refute my arguments- simply saying I’m full of it and calling me names, or even making physical threats against me -isn’t going to help you or the CP any.
And if the CP only has people like you to defend it in the comment threads, then it is in big trouble.
It also doesn’t help that you were voted out of your position with the California CP because of your divisive conduct online and elsewhere.
AI, you should also ask Closet Don about his views about homosexuality- he would make a fine member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Will be giving you a call as soon as I have a few minutes.
Cody Quirk:
“Another thing, the Religious Right and religious conservatism is in serious decline in our country- more and more people are becoming secular, or more libertarian-minded on religious matters, so the CP’s attitude on religion is actually alienating them further as our country becomes more secular.”
I’m afraid your statement is correct. I’m not sure if the Constitution(al) Party can bring big names into that party. While genuine Bible-believing Christians will hold firm, many Conservatives have a problem of “changing” or “softening” their views over time.
At one time many Republicans were a staunch defender of Prohibition. But after 1933, when the 21st amendment was passed, they gave in to the reality of the days. You’ll hardly find a GOP meeting or Convention in 2014 where liquor does not flow freely.
Don’t want to get into prophecy or religious doctrine statement, but I can see the day – though it may be 25 years or more from now – when there will be a 3rd party made up of non-compromising Christians. Whether that party will be the Constitution(al) Party or a more broader based and professionally organized party, only time will tell.
AndyGraig:
You are correct. The “Libertarian” label has taken root, and it would be foolish for the party to change to any other name. The problem with the Libertarian Party, is whether the GOP will attempt to “out-libertarian” the Libertarian Party.
This is what happened to the Free Soil Party. It was too narrowly based in its doctrine, and the revived “Republican” name in 1854 was perfect to cover those issues espoused by the Free Soil Party as well as additional issues to make the new Republican Party a broader based party. Had the Whig Party addressed the Slavery issue positively, the Whigs might have still been around today. Though its hard to imagine politicians in the 21st century calling themselves “Whigs.”
Also, the Republicans already have their Rand Paul, and there are many others in the GOP who prefer to call themselves Libertarians rather than Conservatives. Slowly but surely, the GOP is becoming a libertarian party.
“Agreed, though if they added ‘Christian’ to their title, then at least they would be sincerely honest about their political beliefs.”
This is true. But right now, the Constitution(al) Party (or whatever 3rd party wins over the fundamental Christians)has to operate with a “non-sectarian” name in order to be marketable. Not sure the Constitutionalist leaders understand this.
But the day could come, when they may have to unashamedly use the name “Christian” as the name or part the name of a party to identify them. Don’t know your age, but I doubt I’ll be around when this comes about.
But in 2025 an beyond, politics in the United States is going to be interesting.
Quirk – A) I have more than refuted you; i.e.; shown that you are a nitwit; on many occasions. I am not about to spend my time doing it yet again as what difference does it make? Will you be any less of a fool? No way. You are actually PROUD of your nitwitery as shown by your continuance of your ultra stupid police comment and your even more stupid ” physical threats ” comment. You simply have no possibility of conceiving what an absolute fool that you are for trying to make yourself important by throwing out your ” physical threats ” utter stupidity. You are both your own worst enemy and, especially, proud of it. Hence you will NEVER change as to do so you would have to admit what a fool you are and have been; an absolute impossibility due to the ultra preciousness of your ego. Bottom Line – you, by your own choice, will always be a fool and no amount of documenting your foolishness will ever change it.
You of course have absolutely no idea of the internal workings of the CA CP; i.e.; no idea, as usual, of what you are talking about; but you prattle on anyway to try to promote yourself via attacking me.
Watching your commentaries is like watching a flasher – an idiot in a raincoat who thinks that exposing himself gives him power. You can tell the fool that he is a fool but, being a fool, he will never believe it. He will forever glory in being a fool.
That is why I won’t waste any more time exposing your foolness after having done so many times already. You will always be a flasher equivalent. By your own choice no amount of reasoning will ever change that and a simple observation over time will show any observer the ubfortunate absolute truth of your foolness.
You are the architech of your own pig sty.
Yes! Let the hate flow through you Don!
Of course the SLPD will be watching.
Hahahaha