Abortion in the CP: Tampa’s Vote

Bryan Malatesta, in a vote in Tampa over the Constitution Party’s “abortion” vote - to oppose the no-exceptions plank in the CP platform - has been under some scrutiny for his vote, the one that he later said he wished he hadn’t casted. Malatesta’s interview on The American View radio show in which he explains his vote.

It’s interesting that the one issue that defines the Constitution Party is the abortion plank: no exceptions in the case of rape and incest (similar to my personal view, but it’s still a case-by-case basis.)

Are there “rats” in the CP?

33 Responses to “Abortion in the CP: Tampa’s Vote”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    So,without listening to the interview—Which side of the vote was Malatesta on?

  2. Joey Dauben Says:

    He voted against the no-exceptions plank.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Good.

  4. Cody Quirk Says:

    This is why I’m not support Brian.

  5. Cody Quirk Says:

    And Joey, if you want the full story-

    What happened was the Nevada IAP Chair Chris Hansen was engaged in debate with Leslie Riley from Mississsippi on abortion, and of course Chris came out in favor of exceptions on his personal views.

    The no-exceptionists in the CP (which were religious extremists) went beserk and tried to kick out the Nevada Party simply because of Chris’s personal views.

    Yet the Nevada IAP voted to uphold the Pro-Life plank in the CP and the CP voted to keep the Nevada IAP in the fold at a meeting in Salt Lake.

    But the kooks just wouldn’t give up, and members of the former Maryland CP brought another disaffiliate move after a failed one by a former member of the South Carolina CP that left the party afterwords.

    Of course that failed at Tampa too.

    On the surface, the disaffiation effort looked to interpret the Pro-Life plank as some sort of litmus test and sought to kick out anybody not in line. However at the same time, the 3rd article in the CP bylaws claim that no part of the platform or the bylaws shall confer upon any state affiliate in the CP.

    http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=279

    Yet in reality, it was actually a move to kick out the Nevada Party because their leaders were outspoken Mormons, if you delve into TAV archives and read about the Tampa event, you’ll see a LOT of religious hostility towards Mormons and anybody not in coformity with their religious views.

    The people that tried to kick out Nevada were bigots that tried to gain control of the Party and turn the CP into a theocratic vehicle for their agenda. The reason why the current CP platform sounds so dogmatic is because it was done as a compromise between them and the majority constitutionalists in the Party.

    In fact here are some links you may find interesting Joey…

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1093&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=628

    These are just samples, but you will find that the people that tried remove the Nevada IAP were of this type and mislead others into voting with them.

    Thank God they’re gone!

  6. Cody Quirk Says:

    *This is why I’m not supporting Brian.

    Sorry, just woke up.

  7. Matt Says:

    I don’t care about this. Rick Jore won an election on the CP ticket. I care about that. A lot. Because it bodes well for our country as a whole. If some other candidates won elections on the CP ticket, I would care about that, too.

    Al Davis (the old LA Raiders owner) said it best:

    Just Win, Baby!

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed Matt.

  9. Ben Miller Says:

    It was just confirmed a little while ago, Constitution Party founder and former presidential candidate Howard Phillips will be on my show on Sep. 10

  10. Lance Cain Says:

    “Rick Jore won an election on the CP ticket.”

    No he didn’t. At least if you mean the Phillips/Clymer CP. This, along with losing 9 state affiliates, was one of the major consequences of the Tampa vote. They could have had a state level victory, but no, they had to allow Mormon theology to replace part of their platform, hence pissing off those who truly place “priniciple over politics.”

  11. Brandon H. Says:

    The faction that left would have preferred the CP to kick out all Mormons, Catholics, and anyone who is not a reformed Protestant. Fortunately the CP chose to stick to the principle of “no religious test” for membership.

  12. Trent Hill Says:

    Cain,

    He won using the CP platform. It is THE EXACT SAME PLATFORM.

  13. Cody Quirk Says:

    No he didn’t. At least if you mean the Phillips/Clymer CP.

    =Yet that CP endorsed and supported him. Ha!

    This, along with losing 9 state affiliates, was one of the major consequences of the Tampa vote.

    =And all of those states except for Oregon and Montana have been reorganized and running well, so much for destorying the Party!

    They could have had a state level victory, but no, they had to allow Mormon theology to replace part of their platform, hence pissing off those who truly place “priniciple over politics.”

    =What a load of crap! The Nevada IAP supports the CP stance on abortion and they don’t even allow for exceptions in their platform! And unlike the wackos that tried to kick out the IAP- Mormons respect religious diversity and support the Constitution 100% even the First Amendment and the ‘no religious test’ part of Article 6!

    Get a clue MORON!

  14. Cody Quirk Says:

    Oh and I’ll get to work on that article ASAP Trent.

  15. Trent Hill Says:

    Thanks Cody. Im going to send another to you.

  16. Lisa Says:

    The radio program was very informative. I didn’t realize the extent of this split within the constitution party. I don’t follow the constitution party much, so I don’t know much about it or pretend to. But, I do remember several Constitution Party members in Pennsylvania erupting into an argument over this issue at a PA CleanSweep event a while back in Harrisburg.

  17. Trent Hill Says:

    Lisa,

    It really isnt too much of a split.
    Several of us are pro-exceptions, the majority of us are not. But ALL the platforms are anti-exceptions. If individual candidates differ with the Platform on .6% of an issue, it isnt the catastrophe some people would like it to be.
    This is one reason I doubt I could ever secure a CP nomination.
    Im pro-right to gamble, Anti-Drug War, pro-Free Trade, and I dont worship people like Judge Moore.
    And I also couldnt secure an LP nomination.
    Im pro-life and anti-illegal alien.

  18. John Lofton, Recovering Republican Says:

    No, never, can murder-by-abortion be addressed on “a case-by-case basis.” Murder is ALWAYS illegal and deserves the death penalty. Thus saith the Lord.

  19. Lisa Says:

    John,

    Did you really think that your wife or daughter would want a baby if it was the result of a brutal attack and rape by someone like Osama bin laden or a child-molesting illegal alien??

    Let God be the judge of her actions, not some group of politicans or judges.

    A mother and husband would likely only resent the baby and it would be a daily reminder of the attack, thus the mother would have to re-live the rape all over every single day.

    Is that in the best interest of anyone? The mother?, husband?, baby?, society??

  20. Lisa Says:

    Trent,

    Thanks for your the explanation. I am sure it isn’t a big deal to all the members and it may be a small number of people split on the issue. It was the intensity and rage that caught my attention when those people were arguing. They looked like they could literally kill each other. But, I guess they wouldn’t kill if they are pro-life.

  21. Lance Cain Says:

    McQueer, it doesn’t matter what your platform says if your candidates don’t hold to it.

    “Get a clue MORON!”

    It’s a lot easier to use pejoratives than formulate an intelligent argument. The only “MORON” here is the mindless CP shill, namely, you.

    And Lisa, putting aside absurd references to Osama bin Laden, would you like to tell me how tearing apart a child will remedy any of those situations?

  22. Trent Hill Says:

    “No, never, can murder-by-abortion be addressed on “a case-by-case basis.” Murder is ALWAYS illegal and deserves the death penalty. Thus saith the Lord.”

    Thus saith the lord. Ohk Lofton, that right there is why you will remain fringe forever. You believe that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is the law by which we should govern our nation.
    Im sure you’ve read the scripture about Onan. Where he withdraws during intercourse and spills his seed on the ground—as a form of birth control. In your view should early-withdrawals be killed also? Mind you, I agree that Abortion is wrong.

    In Leviticus 20:13, it is decreed that homosexuals should be put to death. Do you beieve this should be standard practice in the US John?
    In Number 31: 1-18 the Israelites committ mass genocide (not the only time) and the Lord tells them “but all the women and children…keep them for yourselves”. Should we committ genocide on our neighbors John? Should we keep their women are body-slaves?
    Deuteronomy 22:5 says Women shall not wear men’s clothing. Likewise with men wearing women’s clothing. Would you want us to follow this heavenly decree also John?
    Deuteronomy 22:11 says we cant wear clothes with “mixed fibers”. Apparently even polyester offends God.
    Deuteronomy 23: 13-14 describes how you MUST bury your fesces because God walks amongst us, and shouldnt have to see it.

    As a Christian, I find it incredibly offensive that you advance your psuedo-Christian sharia law on us.

  23. Dan Says:

    I am pro-choice and have been voting for Ralph Nader the last few elections. I guess that I can respect folks committed to following their principles if they think they are doing the right thing.

    However, these “no-exceptions” people do realize that the CP will never be a powerful party in America with such a platform. Right?

  24. Trent Hill Says:

    Dan,

    they dont care. To them,it isnt about electing people with similar beliefs. Its about having a church that can recruit from all over the US.

  25. Cody Quirk Says:

    No, never, can murder-by-abortion be addressed on “a case-by-case basis.” Murder is ALWAYS illegal and deserves the death penalty. Thus saith the Lord.

    =Thus saith grumpy old theocrat John Lofton!

  26. Cody Quirk Says:

    McQueer, it doesn’t matter what your platform says if your candidates don’t hold to it.

    =At the same time, a CP’er can personally disagree with the Platform and still support it.
    When platforms are used to dictate how you should think and act personally and privately, you got a political party modeled after 1984.

    It’s a lot easier to use pejoratives than formulate an intelligent argument. The only “MORON” here is the mindless CP shill, namely, you.

    =Sorry, I’m just extremely honest because you are indeed one and obviously you let your bigotry be your wisdom and intelligencen when using pejoratives youself to describe the Tampa meeting and the Nevada IAP.

    =BTW, the CP doesn’t presently seem to be reeling from Tampa, don’t you think?

    And Lisa, putting aside absurd references to Osama bin Laden, would you like to tell me how tearing apart a child will remedy any of those situations?

    =Would you like to tell me how letting a horribly deformed mass of tissue and nevous systems live? How about not operating on a woman with a tubal pregnancy? Or even letting a mother die when she cannot physically deliver- can remedy these situations?

  27. Cody Quirk Says:

    they dont care. To them,it isnt about electing people with similar beliefs. Its about having a church that can recruit from all over the US.

    =Correction Trent- a church/political party that can recruit all over the US.

  28. Jason Says:

    This thing has really ran it’s course. The CP can not move foward because we are slapping at the gnats—the outcast. They are like the drunk uncle that shows up time to time to cause trouble.

    The CP will be mired in amteurism until their members, their affiliates, and their leadership can exhibit professionalism.

    I believe at the top there is legitimate professional credible leadership. However, from there, the CP leaves a lot to be desired. Howard Phillips is known and respected by many in the political establishment as well as Mr. Clymer.

    Personally, I would like to see them both run for Congress or the Senate. In my opinion one of them could win if not both.

    This would be great for a number of reasons. First, it will prove by example it can be done. Secondly, winning will suddenly become an option and members will work towards victory. Instead of preparing the losing speech on how much principle they have compared to their oppents. Lastly, and frankly, I’m getting a little tired of reading and hearing of principled losers. You have to win before you can change anything. What does this mean, well that must be decided locally. If enough local wins start sprouting up, the rest, National, will begin to make changes as well.

    Until the CP figures this out, we will continue to be dysfunctional, disregarded, and nothing more than a novelty.

    Jason

  29. Jason Says:

    Either 08 is the year for the CP or it is back to the drawing board. It is that simple. Scrap it or fix it.

  30. Cody Quirk Says:

    This thing has really ran it’s course. The CP can not move foward because we are slapping at the gnats—the outcast. They are like the drunk uncle that shows up time to time to cause trouble.

    =Good point.

    The CP will be mired in amteurism until their members, their affiliates, and their leadership can exhibit professionalism.

    =Showly that is happening, and more professionalism is being expressed with the state affiliates then ever before, especially the reorganized ones.

  31. Trent Hill Says:

    “The CP will be mired in amteurism until their members, their affiliates, and their leadership can exhibit professionalism.

    I believe at the top there is legitimate professional credible leadership. However, from there, the CP leaves a lot to be desired. Howard Phillips is known and respected by many in the political establishment as well as Mr. Clymer.”

    =This is possibly the best statement about the CP recently. Jim Clymer, and Howad Phillips—as well as people like Rick Jore and Randy Stufflebeam are quite organized and professional. If they would all run for state legislature offices I would be much more pleased. However, all these guys in the mid-west that use colloidial silver and the Religious Zealots are a real turnoff. If 08 isnt the year—it’s time for a different strategy.

  32. how to fix credit report Says:

    how to fix credit report

    blaming golfer Domingo Gustav?

  33. bingo game for playing now Says:

    bingo game for playing now

    souring?binoculars pleases!Samuelson Torah along

Leave a Reply