Oregon CP Disaffiliates from National Party

Just received this bit of news about the Constitution Party of Oregon…

The Constitution Party of Oregon State Steering Committee has unanimously approved the following resolution, as moved by Jack Brown and seconded by Rick Hake:

The Unaffiliation Resolution of May 2006 by the Steering Committee / Constitution Party of Oregon.
The Constitution Party of Oregon hereby ends all formal ties to the national Constitution Party.

Henceforth, we continue our activity as an independent political party officially recognized by the State of Oregon as the Constitution Party of Oregon

We take this action having concluded that the national Constitution Party has defaulted on its duty to maintain and advance the Constitution Party platform of 2004 AD.

The Sanctity of Life plank of the platform has been violated by national Chairman James Clymer, party founder Howard Phillips, and the prevailing members of the voting National Committee.

Specifically, the Independent American Party of Nevada, whose leadership makes plain that abortion is allowable, has been retained as a member party in good standing.

We call upon the national Constitution Party to correct course and return to the safety of the principles of its platform, and encourage other state parties to do the same.

30 Responses to “Oregon CP Disaffiliates from National Party”

  1. Rodney McAllister Says:

    Can someone bring up at an Oregon Constitution Party (and any other state affiliate that disaffiliates) convention who anti-abortion voters vote for?

    Do the members of this party go into churches and tell all the members of the church that if they vote for a Republican they are going to Hell cause they’re voting for a candidate that allows abortion in cases of rape?

    No one has on either. If the Oregon CP believes in this principle then they need to go to every church and tell every person that votes Democrat and Republican that they are pro-abortion, cause that is the case they are making here.

    Or maybe the Constitution Party are becoming like the Libertarian Party, a joke that was created so its member could feel good about themselves and not have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

  2. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home Says:

    THE REFORMIST FLU, THE REFORMIST FLU

    Splinters and splinters of splinters of the reform movement!
    veteransparty.us verses veteransparty.com
    State wide disaffiliation of the Bible Thumpers*

    *what would Jesus do?

  3. Gary Odom Says:

    Let’s see…

    The Constitution Party can either:

    A) Pander to a handful of impossible-to-please extremists who feel that the Constitution Party is not “pure” enough for them on the right-to-life issue, or;

    B) Continue to reach out to millions of average Americans who are alarmed by the invasion of illegal aliens into our country, who are disgusted by the slaughter and the morass in Iraq, who are concerned about the assault on individual liberties resulting from the so-called “War on Terror” and big government in general, who are worried about the continued flow of jobs out of this country, who are outraged over multinational oil companies reaping record profits while they struggle to fill their gas tanks, who are sickened by pervasive corruption in our political and corporate institutions, and who are tired of being fed the same old “choice” between tax and spend “liberal” Democrats and borrow and spend “Neo-con” Republicans.

    Boy, that’s a tough one! I just dont know what we’re going to do!

  4. Camby Collier-CPofOR Says:

    Though new to the Constitution Party (Aug. 2004) I have been an Oregon delegate since Nashville 2004. At Nashville we stood up for Nevada because they agreed on paper with the platform. But then after we found out that at least 2 of the main leadership was vocal for exceptions. Not everyone in the Party will agree with every platform, but this was being thrown in our faces. They could agree to the platform, on paper, and not violate their religious beliefs. And, if Nevada felt they were betraying their religious beliefs, they should join another national party or just be on their own.

    If you don’t dissaffilate because of this after two years or more of Nevada not liking that platform, what DO you disasfilliate for? What if a chairman of Oregon was blantantly for homosexual rights? The chairman should be removed and if not national should dissafilliate.

    I want to know that all county, state and national candidates and officers will speak publicly for every platform. I don’t want the suprises you get in the Republican or Democrat party.

    The fact Nevada was not voted out makes me think 2 things:
    1. The people voting really believe at State can do ANYTHING it wants and National cannot do anything about it. If that is the case, some bylaws need to be changed
    2. Some people thought because Nevada was niffy-noodle on their paper trail that national had no business interferring, but, after Tampa, National did come out with NO endorsement of Chris Hansen. Now Janine Hansen feels the same way as Chris so I do not know why she also was not endorsed.

    I may never find out. I was one of only about 2 people who wanted to stay with National. I don’t know how this can be resolved if we are not going to be in communication and not have votes and not pursue some better reasoning. However, Oregon felt it was passed due for national to act on this and Oregon can say they solidly stand on the platform without wavering.

    It has been extremely emotional since April 21st. Not that we were unreaonable with eachother, but the heartache of seeing a divide in the party when I have the utmost respect for Peroutka, Clymer, Phillips, Janine Hansen, Baldwin. Now what?

  5. NewFederalist Says:

    I just cannot understand how people who disagree with the two dominant parties at least 50% of the time can get so upset with people they agree with 95% of the time (or more). That last percent or two has been the death of many alternative parties. A real shame.

  6. Freelancer Says:

    Gary-

    I don’t want this to come across as negetive, but this is a question I’ve been pondering for a while now. What if there was a candidate that got elected and was in disagreament with many portions of the platform and the state party continued to nominate him because of his name recognition. What would happen? Does the state party have this much freedom, or would the national party kick out the state party? Better yet. What if many of those elected in that state had quite of few disagreements with the platform. Also, are candidates required to agree on some key planks? I really hope you can answer my questions. I’m not involved in the party whatsoever, but i’ve been tracking them for some time now. Anyway, thanks.

  7. Jackcjackson Says:

    Sorry, the CP was Always AT LEAST as much of a Joke as the LP….

  8. Gary Odom Says:

    Okay, Freelancer, you’ll probably be sorry you asked!

    I believe you have to think of the political process as a free market system as opposed to a controlled system. (and I am really hoping that my analogy holds up-let’s see how it goes)

    Your premise is that someone, let’s say, from the CP, gets elected and then they go off the reservation on a number of issues. For my example I am going to make reference to how it works in California, because that’s where I have some knowledge and I don’t like to speculate about situations with which I am not familiar.

    Methods of nomination may be, and, in fact, are different in different states. In my state of California, for example, as in many others, a party member who qualifies as a candidate, first runs in a primary election, where he/she is placed before the voters of that party. The winner of the primary gets the party’s nomination. As you may guess, most primary elections of “minor” parties in California (and anywhere for that matter) are uncontested due principally to a lack of candidates interested in running and particularly because few would see the point in banging it out in a primary just to bring up the rear in the general election. But as unlikely and rare that contested primaries are in these situations they theoretically can happen and, once in awhile, actually do occur. The point is that technically, at least, the rank and file voters, and NOT the party apparatus, nominates the candidate in the primary.

    Therefore, if an AIP member qualifies as a candidate and then gets nominated by the party’s voters in the primary and then gets elected by the voters in his/her district and then morphs into someone who wants to double taxes, re-institute the draft, make abortions mandatory etc., etc., and then chooses to run again for re-election, the party cannot stop that person from running. (Nor can we kick the person out of the party. That person registers to vote with the state and selects a party affiliation. The party does not get to pick and choose who its members are.) In this case the Party or its horrified activists would certainly be motivated to run a candidate against that person in the primary, and try to nominate someone who reflects the party’s principles. If the incumbant was somehow very popular, or very rich or both, it might be a difficult task. Of course, the party could always pass resolutions condemning what the elected representative has done, but there is no way to kick them out of the party or to prevent them from running. You have to beat him/her at the polls.

    A candidate is not legally required to agree with any planks of the party platform. Actually as unlikely as this seems, it does happen, such as years ago in this state, before the Libertarian Party was qualified for the ballot in Califfornia, an element of libertarians joined the Peace and Freedom Party, which has a socialist platform, with the intention of taking over that party’s ballot line. They succeeded in nominating some candidates but ultimately failed to take over the party, but it became moot with the qualification of the Libertarian Party in this state.

    Hopefully, the voters in a primary will select the best product (candidate), but it is up to those voters (who make up the marketplace) and not the party (which in my analogy represents the state) to make that decision.

    I will say, in conclusion, that in a state where a candidate is nominated by convention the party, perhaps, MIGHT exert more direct control of a candidate’s actions or at least be able to control the consequences for such actions than in my state. Each state’s election laws are unique to that state. The party in each state faces different requirements and has to manage its affairs within the parameters of the law of that particular state. That is one major reason why it really is not proper for the national party to try to micromanage the affairs of the state affiliate.

    Well, Freelancer, that’s the best answer I can come up with at the moment. I hope I didn’t serve just to make the matter more confused.

  9. Stuart Richards Says:

    I think a woman’s right to choose is morally wrong.

    We ought to MAKE them have abortions. Enough of this “tolerance” crap, put the women in their place and their babies in a dumpster.

  10. Gary Odom Says:

    The use of the absurd to make the opposite point. Not gonna make anybody forget the Firesign Theatre, but not bad for the spur of the moment.

  11. Stuart Richards Says:

    What? Everyone’s calling everyone else a babykiller, so why not show you all what an actual babykiller would look like?

    Seriously, every CP post around here could be summed up as follows:

    Austin: This just in: SOMEONE’S FEELINGS IN THE CP ARE HURT; IN THE LATEST PRESS RELEASE (ENTER STATE AFFILIATE HERE) VOWS TO “TAKE THEIR BALL AND GO HOME.”
    CP 1: Babykiller.
    CP 2: Zealot.
    CP 1: Mormon.
    CP 2: Baptist.
    LP 1: Yeah that whole party of yours is just rocking now, innit?
    CP 2: OMG TEH BORDERZ
    CP 1: JESUS!
    CP 2: AND JOSEPH SMITH!
    CP 1: OMG U DIDN’T JUST GO THERE
    CP 2: I WENT THERE WUT
    CP 1: I’LL PRAY 4 U HEATHEN
    CP 2: UR NOT GOING TO TEH SPECIAL MORMONISTAN HEAVEN THEN
    CP 1: I H8 JELLO ANYWAY
    CP 2: JOSEPH SMITH DIED 4 UR SINS IT SEZ SO IN TEH CONSTATUSHIN

  12. Freelancer Says:

    Thanks Gary. Yeah that makes sense. Of course I was thinking more of the convention method. Thanks for the clarification.

  13. Christopher Hansen Says:

    NewFederalist

    You are so right.

    How can people refuse to work with others that agree with them 95% of the time?

    Let it always be said that Nevada did not try to kick anyone out. Nevada did not refuse to work with any other State including Alaska which has NO plank on abortion at all.

    Peroutka knew Alaska had no pro-life plank when he took their ballot position.

    This was not about abortion, as Peroutka’s action proved. It was and will continue to be Anti-Mormons. I understand the Oregon CP is full of them. If that is true then I am glad they are gone.

    I sure hope the Oregon party has a plank that says they do not support the original intent of the Constitution because abortion was legal when it was written and the Constitution intent CANNOT be changed by statutes.

    Hopefully someone with political intellect will start an Independent American Party in Oregon and watch the CP die there. And if not who cares? I do not care any more that is for sure. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  14. Freelancer Says:

    Oooo, you got a good point there, Chris. The Alaskan Independence Party doesn’t have an abortion plank. Hmm, interesting.

  15. Stuart Richards Says:

    I’ve been wondering if any of you guys actually noticed that. They also want Alaska to leave the Union… you know, your God-fearing Christian Union founded on Biblical principles. They’re apparently not thrilled with it.

    What else… no gratuitous references to Jesus and/or God, no beating the term “family” to death in each and every platform plank, and… as it turns out, some actual electoral success. How about that.

    If I was in Alaska I’d strongly consider giving those guys my vote for everything but the Presidential race… but that’s in spite of the CP, not because of it.

  16. RCAIP Says:

    Though I firmly disagree with why they did it, the Oregon CP has every right to leave.

    But I guarentee you all, it won’t be ballot qualified for long, just like when the American Party split form the AIP in the 70’s. They are nothing now and they couldn’t even get write-in status for any of their candidates since 2000.

    Those CP affiliates will flounder and die once they leave- why?

    1. With extremist leaders, they will lose more members and potential members then gain new ones and even earn a bad reputation from those that do know the Party.

    2. With no more funding from the national Party, they will eventually end up with only 19$ in their account or worse.

    3. Except for the AIP and the Nevada IAP, their organizational skills will do more harm then good for their Party.

    4. Being both a unknown state party and radical to the core, they will turn off any potential voters and lack in the votes to keep them ballot qualified.

    -They may not lose ballot status after this election, but eventually it will happen.

  17. RCAIP Says:

    Austin, know do those damn lines show up?

  18. Austin Cassidy Says:

    When you put a dash in front of something, it’s just a formatting thing… I removed it from you post.

    This should have lines through it.

    *This shouldn’t.

  19. RCAIP Says:

    Thanks Austin:)

  20. RCAIP Says:

    As I have stated in another post-

    “If we have to change the CP plank on abortion- since the no-exceptionists will not vote or affiliate with the CP anymore, despite having some ‘no-exceptions wording’ there, I think the best course of action is to change the abortion plank as to where the CP stays NEUTRAL on the exceptions issue.

    Just say you’re Pro-Life and don’t try to define it. In fact, leave the ‘exceptions’ and ‘worst case pregnancy scenarios’ to yourself. Such stances should just be left to personal thought, belief, and motivation- NOT to Party doctrine at all.

    We all should just simply work to end abortion and not have to bite each others heads off on defining your perosonal idealogy. If only some people could understand such logical reasoning.”

  21. Gary Odom Says:

    To Stuart Richards:

    Who wants Alsaska to leave the union? Perhaps you were just trying to be funny. The problem with trying humor is that if it fails, you just sound like you’re being serious without knowing what you’re talking about.

  22. rj Says:

    ^ There’s an Alaskan Independence Party. It has somewhere around 20000 members (which, when you consider the small population of Alaska, is a lot). Until they were passed by the Vermont Progressive Party, statistically, they were the largest third party in the country.

    http://www.akip.org

  23. Gary Odom Says:

    Yes, the Alaskan Independence Party has had a relatively successful history. In 2004, they gave their Presidential ballot line to the Constitution Party nominee, but are not otherwise affiliated with Constitution Party.

    As far as pure numbers are concerned, I’m quite sure the American Inependent Party of California is the largest state third party (of course, it is an affiliate of the Constitution Party, and does not stand alone, independently) in the nation with over 300,000 registered voters.

  24. Gary Odom Says:

    Great, I can’t even spell the name of my own party!

  25. Chris Campbell Says:

    hate to see them go, they may get called on by the National Leadership for the name though, as the name belongs to National Party, not the state. OF course, this may create problems for them in ballot access, etc—-it was though their choice to leave.

    I guess the drama around their last meeting was the clincher.

    The views of a few in Nevada are not the views of the whole Nevada Party. I had hoped that Chris Hansen may have stepped down to avoid this dispute or was voted out- but he opted, as was his right to stay. National will not dictate to the states whom we may have lead us.

    The arguement “well, we’ll kick ‘um out, then they will depose Hansen and come back into to open arms” was a joke—not too many come back from getting kicked in the teeth.

  26. rj Says:

    “As far as pure numbers are concerned, I’m quite sure the American Inependent Party of California is the largest state third party (of course, it is an affiliate of the Constitution Party, and does not stand alone, independently) in the nation with over 300,000 registered voters.”

    When one vote equals one vote, yes. (I thought Greens were larger than the AIP though in membership in California). However, I was talking percentage of vote.

    Surprised the Constitution Party would take the ballot line of a party that advocates a referendum on whether to be a state or secede. Is that a principle somewhere?

  27. Gary Odom Says:

    The AIP is much larger than the Greens as far as registration is concerned.

    As far as percentage of the vote, that is a different criteria (albeit a legitimate one) and perhaps from that point of view you are correct. I don’t know.

    Why would you be surprised that we accept that party’s nomination. We had no ballot qualified affiliate in Alaska. We wanted our candidates on the ballot in that state. Anybody around here heard of practical politics?

  28. Stuart Richards Says:

    Who wants Alsaska to leave the union? Perhaps you were just trying to be funny. The problem with trying humor is that if it fails, you just sound like you’re being serious without knowing what you’re talking about.

    No, I’m perfectly serious… securing a vote on secession is in the platform of the Alaska Independence Party. I was planning on moving up there once upon a time and I was looking into them. They want to leave the Union. The only other party agreeing with them up there is the Alaska Libertarian Party.

    But yeah-where are your “principles”? Nobody’s raised a bitchfest over Alaska, so what gives?

  29. Gary Odom Says:

    Maybe you don’t know as much about the Constitution Party as you think you do.

    It certainly doesn’t bother me that the Alaskan Independence Party may be interested in secession. As long as they are in the union and, assuming the CP has no other ballot qualified affiliate up there, why would we not want to accept their nomination so that our candidate could be on the ballot there?

    You seem to attribute the religious extremism expressed by a small, vocal minority in the CP to the majority of its leaders and its members. It may disappoint you, but the Constitution Party is not a theocratic party, it is not a “Christian” party (although Christians are very welcome), and we are not a “white” party. It’s a political party, not a church, that welcomes men and women of all races, creeds, colors, and ethnic groups to join and participate.

    The CP national platform has no plank where it addresses Alaskan secession one way or the other, so why would you expect a bitchfest over prinicples concerning this matter?

    You know the CP and the LP have a number of issues where we can work together as part of (hopefully) a greater coalition, e.g., the Income Tax, the IRS, the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain, foreign aid, the United Nations and a whole lot of other things. Why the constant obsession with rehashing religion and abortion? Gets boring.

  30. Chris Campbell Says:

    We trying to work together in my state, as our comon enemy at this time is the Republocrats.

Leave a Reply