Rick Jore to attend Constitution Party meeting in Boise

Apparently, Montana State Representative Rick Jore, will be attending the Constitution Party national committee meeting in Boise, Idaho next month on the 20 & 21st of April.
Rick Jore will be giving a talk on his experience in the Montana State Legislature and the accomplishments of shaking up the two dominant parties in the Montana Legislature.
Other speakers include co-founder of the Minuteman Project and current president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Chris Simcox and National Veterans Coalition Chairman Brigadier General Charles Jones, USAFR (Ret.), along with several other important speakers who will be in attendance.

29 Responses to “Rick Jore to attend Constitution Party meeting in Boise”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    YAAAY! I was wondering when you would post this Cody.
    I got the news a few days ago, and im quite excited to meet the guy.

  2. Chris Campbell Says:

    I met him last year, not long before his state Party left CP nationally. A quiet gentlemen.

    No doubt, he will be pummled for going by the Righteous Diffiliators.

  3. SovereignMN Says:

    I would assume that if the CP of Montana doesn’t re-affiliate by 2008 they will still nominate/endorse for President whoever the CP national candidate is.

  4. Timm Knibbs Says:

    Mary Starett was a speaker at the last meeting. She is from another state that disaffiliated. There was nothing but praise for her there. She is now the communications director for the national party. There is a very small group on both sides of the division that have made the whole thing venomous. I think both sides will continue to support Jore and Starett. They have not compromised their principles.

  5. Bill Wood Says:

    Attention Everyone:

    Congress is once again trying to make it more difficult for a “Third ” Party Candidate to seek Office. Read Stephen Gordons article at the www.lp.org blog site.

    “Legislative Attempt to Weaken “Minor Party” and Independent Campaigns”

    This would effect al of us.

  6. Michael Says:

    Any clues where the 2008 C.P. National Convention might be held at? The only place in serious contention was Kansas City.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    Au contrair.
    Kansas City and New Orleans are the front runners.

    Im lobbying hard for New Orleans to be the location.

    As for the Montana/Oregon thing…they are the only states we truly miss, and I suspect they will be the only states who return. Not becasue they are wrong,but because we resolve the issue like statesmen.

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    Come on now - does anyone have news on the allegations against Gene Chapman? I wanna know!

  9. Cody Quirk Says:

    Give me some evidence and links and I’ll be more then happy to report it on TPW!:)

  10. political forum Says:


    I have a friend from Boise.

    Maybe I’ll call him up.

  11. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - Check LastFreeVoice.com. A tiny click of insiders are emailing one another back and forth and being all like, “Hey we know something you don’t know.” Very third grade.

  12. Cody Quirk Says:

    Looked at it,

    they delated the allegation posts that accused him of of the really bad criminal activity.

    Thought hard about this and decided I’m not going to report something on these allegations- I’ve hit Gene hard below the belt many times in a previous article before, reporting on something like this could perhaps destroy his life forever. Even if the allegations were backed up- personally Gene has already dropped out of the Presidential race and there’s very little reason to go after him now.

    Maybe if he finally got arrested for the allegations I might report on it, but I think I’ll leave this matter to someone else…

    So anybody else wants to do a story on Gene right now, go right ahead. I’m going to just stick to the blogs on this one.

  13. globalist_elitist Says:

    Cody - You have no responsibility to report on this story, but don’t you think the people who first broached it do? After all, isn’t it worse to say “There were some very serious, very distrurbing allegations against Gene Chapman” and then refuse to say what they were? They’re hinting that they’re sexual, perhaps pedophelic/zoophelic in nature - but not saying what the allegations are. To me, that is very irresponsible journalism.

    It’d be like saying. “Some annonymous blogger posted some very serious allegations about Ron Paul. I’ve deleted them. But the allegations were very serious. I will email my closest friends and tell them what the allegations are, but everyone else, I’m not saying. But trust me. They’re really bad. Really really bad. Fill in the blanks and connect the dots. Stepchild. Horse. Live boy. Dead girl.”

  14. matt Says:

    I was a little miffed at TPW for not reporting it either at first, but I guess I can’t blame them for not wanting to libel the guy.

    Also, whoever is at this meeting, it would be cool if you could would give us a rundown on Jore and his mindset, His succeeding when meany others have failed makes him an intersting man indeed, and it would be cool if we could learn from him.

  15. Cody Quirk Says:

    Yeah, we’ll find out at Boise.

    However I’m not sure if I can attend, so I guess Trent will give me a heads up on what happens there.

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    About Gene, I’ll just leave it up to Austin or Brad or any other TPW writer to report or comment on the allegations.

    HOWEVER, if Gene happens to get arrested because of these allegations, THEN I’ll report it.

  17. matt Says:

    Bravo for not covering it at this point, Cody.

    I’ve read the charges, and they look more like character assasination than anything else. Chapman doesn’t have a lot of gravitas to begin with, but these comments are tailor-made to ensure that he doesn’t show his face anymore. My guess is that they are exaggerated or untrue.

  18. Trent Hill Says:

    Gene Chapman is irrelevant.

    Cody, I had intended on getting some comments from Rick Jore at the Boise meeting,regardsless of if you were there (but definetly if you werent). I’ll have detailed notes on Boise.

  19. Cody Quirk Says:


  20. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    Hey, folks, Rick never said that he was going to Boise for sure. He merely told Mr. Clymer that he might go if the schedule of the legislative session allowed it.

    I was excited to hear of the possibility that Rick would be going to speak at the meeting in Boise, but this announcement, without his knowledge, that he is going has created some unfair pressure on Rick which even makes me uncomfortable—let alone him!

    I hate to be negative, but to be honest, it really smells of manipulation by someone in the chain of command, and he has enough to worry about these days without having to worry about people taking advantage of him without his knowledge.

    Does anyone know who was responsible for turning “might go” into “will be going”? Was this a case of information being passed through a sequence of people and gradually being changed by the time it reaches the end of the line?

  21. Trent Hill Says:

    Um, Kurtis, an email from National said he would be there.

  22. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Yeah—the one from Gary Odom. I’ve just e-mailed Gary and asked him to shed some light on it. Hopefully, this can be cleared up swiftly, before it becomes another wedge.

  23. Kurtis Oliverson Says:

    My feelings exactly. I emailed Odom too. ;^)

  24. ElectionWatch2006 Says:

    Saturday, March 31, 2007
    Could a 3rd Party Arise in 2008?
    It looks like the chances for a major third party contender in 2008 are better than 50-50. Those that wish to break the two-party system can look to 2008 to do it. As it stands, there are numerous opportunities for a third party to arise:

    1) A conservative alternative, almost certainly to be centered on immigration. This scenario is likely to come about if Giuliani, McCain, or potentially Romney, become the GOP nominee. If Giuliani or McCain win it, look for social issues to be added to the immigration gripe that is dividing the Republican party. This is currently THE biggest problem for Republicans. If they want to win future presidential elections, they have to win over a large portion of Hispanics, which arguably, means that they have to be more lax on the border issue. On the other hand, if they aren’t tough, they’ll lose conservatives.

    Most likely trigger: The Republicans nominate a more moderate candidate who does not support a border fence, wall, or minefield (yes, that was a joke, but the intensity of anger by the base is extremely high).

    Most likely candidates: Tom Tancredo, Chris Simcox, Jerome Corsi.

    How to avoid this: The Republican nominee must straddle both sides by supporting a guest worker program along with a border fence. Ideally, the Republicans would nominate a Hispanic candidate, but none that I know of exist, except for George P. Bush in the future, although his last name might end him. The only other option would be to put a real immigration hawk in the VP slot, like Duncan Hunter, although that’ll result in losing key Hispanic votes.

    2) An anti-war/pacifist alternative. This could be of a conservative, liberal, or bi-partisan nature.

    Most likely trigger: Continued war in Iraq causing popular support for a withdrawal or at least a major drawdown; and neither presidential candidate must rule out action against Iran (and must give “tough talk”). This is likely because in hopes of winning the general election, it’s probable that nei! ther can didate will rule out force against Iran. Hillary Clinton, for example, is not viewed as “anti-war” enough by her base.

    Most likely candidates: Chuck Hagel (touting his conservative credentials to win Republicans who tire of the war), Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and possibly, Dennis Kucinich. It is extremely likely that a far-left anti-war candidate will rise to challenge Hillary if she is the nominee.

    How to avoid this: Hillary Clinton must win the praise of the anti-war left (or the right-wing candidate must be so hawkish that they’ll accept her); Iraq must turnaround; the nominees must choose anti-war VP candidates; or Iran must scare the daylights out of the electorate.

    3) A bi-partisan ticket, either both pro/anti-war, or strictly anti-war. This may be a subcategory of #2, accept this would be more about bi-partisanship and fighting corruption in the parties. These candidates must be seen as outsiders, and take a page out of McCain’s 2000 playbook.

    Most likely candidates: Chuck Hagel with an anti-war liberal Democrat or pro-war Republican; or some sort of dual ticket with a Republican who supports the war in Iraq, and a Democrat who opposes, but somehow finds common ground. In the last case, it’s hard to see that striking a big constituency. However, a Hagel candidacy with any combination (a pro-war Republican, an anti-war Republican, an anti-war Democrat) will draw some attention due to its bi-partisan nature, combining the isolationist Republicans and conservative Democrats.

    5) The least likely combination is a pro-war independent ticket that puts national security above everything. Due to some small rumors currently without substance, I had to include this. It’s possible that John McCain and Joe Lieberman would team up, as the two are great friends. This ticket would combine socially moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats. The problem with this ticket is that even conservative Democrats are against the war, and if this ticket was created, a similar anti-w! ar ticke t would compete with it. I will not even get into the mind-boggling dynamics that would then take place in that four-party match up.

    posted by TDCAnalyst at 10:21 AM

    http://www.ovaloffi ce2008.com/ 2007/03/could- 3rd-party- arise-in- 2008.html

  25. globalist_elitist Says:

    Interesting scenarios.

  26. matt Says:

    I hope we get a realignment of some sort, but my guess is that it won’t happen in 08. It could happen in 2010, but I think the MSM will intentionally keep the war issue off the table during this election cycle. Yes, it is the biggest grassroots issue since Vietnam, but the money players are of one opinion on it, and they won’t change their mind until there are riots in the streets.

    Look for the MSM to continue to ignore antiwar voices on the left and the right.

    I just hope that the new parties will pick up some seats in the legislatures and make a huge racket in the legislatures. Barring a Ron Paul miracle, that’s the best we can hope for.

    2010, however, looks really interesting, especially out west…

  27. Trent Hill Says:

    2008/2010 out west could be VERY interesting Matt. Iv been really excited lately,and although I’d hate to over-reach my own expectations…I am expecting a number of state legislative seats to fall into third party hands. When my father asked the reality of this, I told him - “Three greens. One in Maine, one in Oregon, one in Wisconsin. Two libertarians, one in new hampshire, one in nevada. Four constitutionalists, two in utah, one in Montana, one in Nevada. Six progressives in Vermont. 2 in Alaska, one Alaskan Independence Party, one Moderate Republican Party. Total of 17 state legislators in the hands of third parties. While this is, by no means, a landslide victory, it is a big step.
    Of course, it is only a guess…and a hopeful one at that.
    Right now there are 7 third party state legislators. 6 progressives, one constitutionalist. There have been Green and Libertarians legislators in the past. ‘08 is a great year for resurgence, and if those parties play their cards right…they’ll have some seats in the bag.
    As far as the CP goes, you may have noticed I gave them four seats. A positive number by anyone’s count. The one in Montana (Jore) is a given. The one in Nevada is really a given (4% registration rate in Nevada and some elected officials, plus skyrocketing towards major party status). The two in Utah….those are out of my arse. The Utah party was only just formed JUST prior to the ‘04 elections, yet in the ‘04 Senate elections the CP candidate got %1.90. In ‘06 their Senate Candidate got %3.62, and as much as 8% in some counties.

  28. Gary Odom Says:

    Rep. Jore has notified us that his legislative duties will, unfortunately, preclude his attendance at the Boise National Committee meeting. We understand that those duties take priority, though we certainly regret that we will not be able to have him with us. We are all very proud of the job that he is doing in the Montana legislature. We look for forward to the possibility of hearing from him in the future.

  29. Rick Jore to Attend CP Meeting in Boise (Cody Quirk) « Constitutionalogistix Says:

    [...] (HT:  Third Party Watch) [...]

Leave a Reply