Analysis of LACP Straw Poll

With the Louisiana Constitution Party straw poll’s results out, this is basically the first indicator of how party-folk feel about each candidate. To my knowledge, no other party has yet run a straw poll.
So let’s review the vote totals.
Judge Roy Moore: 11/24 votes - 46%
Sec. Alan Keyes: 8/24 votes - 33%
Rep. Steve Stockman: 4/24 votes - 17%
Jerome Corsi: 1/24 votes - 4%
Also on the poll were Rev. Chuck Baldwin, Dr. Don Grundmann, Dr. Diane Beall Templin, and Lt. Colonel Max Rieske.

After eliminating Corsi and Stockman for being the lower vote getting (of the people who got first place votes), we get these standings:
Judge Roy Moore: 15/24 votes - 63%
Sec. Alan Keyes: 9/24 votes - 38%

Obviously Keyes benefitted from speaking personally to the convention, but even before addressing the delegates he was a popular choice. Rep. Steve Stockman recoeved 4 first-place votes in the first round and recieved a competitive amount of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place votes.
However, the obvious first-tier is Judge Roy Moore, Alan Keyes, and Rep. Steve Stockman—with Judge Moore way out ahead and Rep. Stockman lagging behind. Jerome Corsi and Rev. Chuck Baldwin make up the second tier, with the others bringing up the rear. It is also of interest that Rick Jore recieved both 3rd and 5th place write-in votes.

I’d say that as of this moment—Judge Moore could easily win the nomination if he wanted it.

37 Responses to “Analysis of LACP Straw Poll”

  1. Paulie Says:

    Points by “Sherlock Holmes” in the last Moore thread:

    Roy Moore is a sanctimonious opportunist. He wants to sit on God’s throne and judge in His place.

    Roy Moore demagogues religion in the same way that George Wallace demagogued race for part of his career.

    It is simply a way to get him attention and power, end of story.

    The idolatrous rock was no different than the stand in ths schoolhouse door.

    Standing up to the federal leviathan is far less admirable when it is done on behalf of state tyranny - whether that takes the form of segregation laws or religious bigotry.

    No shit, Sherlock!

  2. matt Says:

    If the CP can’t see enough sense to nominate a serious anti-war candidate, they are history. Not in this race per se, because McCain is easy to run against, but certainly by the end of the next presidential race.

  3. Kevin Thompson Says:

    Does anyone know if Roy Moore even wants the job? Has he made any sort of public indication that he would even be willing to accept the nomination?

  4. Red Phillips Says:

    Also, if he accepts the nomination will he campaign in earnest?

  5. Red Phillips Says:

    That pro-war Keyes got any votes at all is embarrassing.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    Matt,

    Moore is non-interventionist.

    Red,

    Keyes gained a significant advantage by being the only “top-tier” guy to address the convention,and he did so eloquently for 20 minutes.

    Kevin Thompson,

    Moore is considering the nomination—i’v a feeling that we’ll know soon.

  7. matt Says:

    That’s awesome that Moore is an anti-interventionist.

    He’ll be able to speak to what’s left of the religious right much more effectively than anyone else I can think of.

  8. Daniel Says:

    Moore is non interventionist but hes not bat shit insane about it the way ron paul was. And if the CP nominates Keyes, good for them. That will show that the party actually has some strength in foreign policy which is basically all they lack.

  9. Jeremy Young Says:

    All right, I’m a lurker and not currently a member of any third party (though that may change soon), but—it doesn’t make any sense to me why the CP would consider anybody other than Moore. Keyes was once a formidable figure, but he seems to have become a joke since he got creamed by Obama and disinherited his lesbian daughter. Smith is regarded by most people as a kook. Stockman I can see if they’re looking for a non-fundamentalist paleoconservative, but really, can anyone do for their party what Moore can do? Roy Moore will energize the hard right like nobody since John Schmitz. He’ll poll so well in Alabama that McCain will actually have to fear that he’ll lose that state to Obama. He’ll make the CP the most powerful third party in America and leave Nader in the dust.

    I don’t swing the way the CP does, but I still can’t understand why there’s even any discussion—why isn’t Moore simply their choice by acclimation, the way, say, Bob Barr would be in the LP?

  10. Katrinka Yobotz Says:

    Most of you are victims of media bias and deliberate media spin as to Alan Keyes. They know Alan can win and they are very afraid of him for that reason.

    Therefore, in order to find out the truth about Dr. Keyes, you need to go to his campaign website. I challenge you to see for yourself what Alan is about. Watch the videos of his speeches. Read his stand on the issues. Take a look at the upper righthand corner at what pledge takers have had to say. www.alankeyes.com

    Passivity in this election will only lead to the media and party boss’s choices being skided into place. It’s time for a third party.

  11. Red Phillips Says:

    “he’s not bat shit insane about it the way ron paul was”

    Wow! That was a startlingly unintelligent statement.

  12. Red Phillips Says:

    Katrinka,

    The assertion that Keyes is a pro-war interventionist is not influenced by media spin. It is the truth.

    http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_list.php#terrorism

    “This is not an issue, this is not an option, it is a reality — and we either deal with it or we die.”

    So the terrorist are going to kill all of us? (We) That is ridiculous fear mongering.

  13. Deran Says:

    Andd what of this mystery congress person mentioned as a possibly CP contender?

    With all Viguirie’s recent talk abt how no one o the right wants to donate to McMcain, is Viguirie the sort that might; whether publicly, or back channel, help money move to a CP candidate he could support as a rightist opposition to McCain? Or, would he be too afraid of encouraging a real strong rightist party out side the GOP?

  14. Jerry S. Says:

    Judge Moore was embarassed in the AL Republican primary for Gov. in ‘06. Does anyone have a link to show Moore is a non-interventionist?

    Saw Keyes on the Travis Smalley PBS Republican debate, IMHO the man is borderline INSANE. Straightjacket material

    Does the CP actually place this much emphasis on the opinions of 24 cajuns and/or coonasses ? If so, they won’t be breaking 200,000 YET again ! Unless

    they listen to their recent VP candidate…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkkV5_88WfE

  15. Paulie Says:

    Moore is non-interventionist.

    Evidence?

  16. Paulie Says:

    Not that it matters.

    He is a fundamentally dangerous demagogue and believes absolutely none of what his supporters think he is for.

    He is using religion the way Wallace used race (BTW George Wallace was never himself personally a racist, but he sure played a good one on the stump and in his 1960s terms in office).

    I am a little worried though.

    We may be going into an economic depression. Moore could be much more dangerous than Wallace.

    Executive summary answer to unanswered responses to “Sherlock Holmes” in last Moore thread:

    Yeah, the floundering fathers were still bowing to vestigal religious bigotry. Although they did what they could in the real world of their times to move the ball down the field in the direction of secularism. Good for them, but I consider the American Revolution an unfinished and ongoing project.

    As Roderick Long explains here

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/07/04/is-the-declarations-preamble-irrelevant/

    I should note that while there are many things I admire about the f(l)oundering fathers, there are many I don’t.

    Are you going to hold forth that their unreconstructed views on race should hold forth in today’s modern world, too?

  17. Red Phillips Says:

    “vestigial religious bigotry”

    Of course your anti-religious bigotry is not bigotry.

    You have no idea that Moore “believes.” How do you know he isn’t a sincere Christian acting on his Faith? On what do you base your claim?

  18. Red Phillips Says:

    “That” should be “what” in third paragraph above.

  19. Paulie Says:

    I have no anti-religious bigotry.

    Practice your religion all you wish up to and until the point where you wish to force it on others, whether through the state or some other means - but worst of all through the state.

    How do I know Moore is not a Christian in his heart? By their fruits ye shall know them. See and think through part one of

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/03/15/will-keyes-bolt-the-gop/#comment-537674

    I know Wallace was not a racist because I read his biography. Moore strikes me as being very similar, except today the issue he can demagogue to seek power for the state is religion rather than race.

    The role of a government judge is to enforce man’s law, not God’s law. Of course it is against God’s law for any man to be the judge (in God’s place). That judgement is solely up to God.

    Nevertheless some men do try, and set themselves up as rulers of men by force in the name of God. These men are evil and dangerous. Remeber what Lucifer was cast out of heaven for? Read the link in my link to my comment above, and think it through.

    Consider also Matthew 6.

    The role of man’s law is simple. No victim, no crime. It is simply the non-initiation of force principle.

    http://philosophyofliberty.blogspot.com/

    Keep religion in religion. Don’t try to force it on others through politics; that corrupts both religion and politics, just as Lucifer commands.

  20. Paulie Says:

    Are you going to hold forth that their unreconstructed views on race should hold forth in today’s modern world, too?

    Am I racist against the race of racists?

  21. Sean Scallon Says:

    Okay everybody, it’s this simple:

    When Alan Keyes ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, he ran on a platform of slave reparations, keeping the Dept. of Agriculture, and bringing back the draft.

    Is that what you want the Constitution Party to stand for?

    Judge Moore is a religious man, yes. But he respects the Constitution. He’s not going shove religion down the throat of someone in Wisconsin. All he wanted to do was put the 10 Commandements on the wall in his courthouse in Alabama per wishes of the people who voted for him. I have no problem with that if that’s what they want to do. It’s their business.

    Constitutional renewal is the essence of the man and it’s the essence of the Constitution Party. That’s why it exists, because for those citizens who feel the Constitution is being trampled on, warped, distorted and made irrelevent by politicians in both major parties, where else do they have to turn to?

    Alan Keyes has every right to compete for the CP nomination fair and square and as more refugees from the GOP come into CP ranks, there are going to be more disputes because of the factionalism that exists within conservatism. But I and many others feel Alan Keyes should not be the party’s nominee for president for reason due to inept campaigns for public office in the past, the fact that such campaigns have run afoul of the FEC and resulted in lawsuits and that he is incompatiable with the party platform on many issues.

    Judge Moore is the party’s best candidate for President IMHO and the CP should nominate him.

  22. Red Phillips Says:

    “Are you going to hold forth that their unreconstructed views on race should hold forth in today’s modern world, too?”

    What I would hold forth is that the Founders were not rigorous PC egalitarians in the modern sense of that term as was nobody in 1776/1787. This proves that the attempts to make the Declaration of Independence some universalistic egalitarian document are historical revisionism.

    Second, you can come on here and spout libertarian dogma until the cows come home. We differ on fundamental assumptions. The primary question is not whether Christianity is authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. Or pro-liberty or anti-liberty. The primary question is whether Christianity is true. If it is then what matters is the right interpretation and application of Christianity. Not attempting to force Christianity into your libertarian box.

    If you are a Christian and want to debate the political implications of Christianity, something sincere and thoughtful Christians have long disagreed on, then fine. But Christianity does not rise or fall based on whether you think it fits your ideas about what is the best political order.

  23. Red Phillips Says:

    Paulie,

    BTW, I will be happy to read the document you link to, but it is 61 pages long so it will have to wait.

  24. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Jeremy writes:
    ... why isn’t Moore simply their choice by acclimation, the way, say, Bob Barr would be in the LP?

    I don’t know much about Moore, but if you beleive that Barr could walk into the LP nomination without significant opposition, you evidently do not understand the way LP nominating conventions work.

  25. Paulie Says:

    Judge Moore is a religious man, yes.

    The question is which religion. There are many men who follow Lucifer and call him Jesus and Yahweh, as William Blake said. I tend to think Roy Moore is one of them. Yes, a satanist.

    But he respects the Constitution.

    Even if you hold that he respects the Constitution of the United States, a debatabe position, he certainly does not respect the Constitution of Alabama on the issue of freedom of religion. As a State judge he swore to affirm, defend and uphold the Alabama constitution.

    One of several relevant passages:

    The sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions, it is usurpation and oppression.

    - Alabama Constitution

    Roy Moore does not respect the liberty and property (given the power, probably life as well, as he has said rhetorically) of many peaceful citizens, and is willing to use the guns of the state against them.

  26. Paulie Says:

    Screwed that up. Second paragraph should be without italics, third (one line) paragraph, with italics.

  27. Paulie Says:

    But he respects the Constitution. He’s not going shove religion down the throat of someone in Wisconsin.

    You mean as an Alabama judge? Maybe not. But then again he would have no jurisdiction and no power to shove his religion down the throats of anyone except the people of Alabama at that time, which he did in fact do his worst to do. Given the powers of the presidency, he would shove it down the throats of the people of Alabama, Wisconsin, and every other state.

  28. Paulie Says:

    All he wanted to do was put the 10 Commandements on the wall in his courthouse in Alabama per wishes of the people who voted for him. I have no problem with that if that’s what they want to do. It’s their business.

    The problem is that not all of us voted for him. Some of us voted against him. Some of us did not vote. Some of us were illegitimately denied the right to vote due to criminal convictions for things the state has no legitimate business outlawing.

    Try this:

    “All he wanted to do was put the negroes in nooses on the tree out front of his courthouse in Alabama per wishes of the people who voted for him. I have no problem with that if that’s what they want to do. It’s their business.
    If the people of Alabama want government enforced segregation and to allow citizens to lynch wayward negroes without punishment, it’s their business. Kudos to them for standing up for those rights.”

    Sorry, I disagree.

  29. Paulie Says:

    Constitutional renewal is the essence of the man and it’s the essence of the Constitution Party. That’s why it exists, because for those citizens who feel the Constitution is being trampled on, warped, distorted and made irrelevent by politicians in both major parties, where else do they have to turn to?

    Not to Roy Moore, and not to the Constitution Party despite its name.

    To take just one example, the constitution “gives” the government the right to regulate the citizenship naturalization process. It gives it no such power to regulate or limit immigration (or emigration).

    One passage has sometimes been misinterpreted on this account, but in fact it deals with the importation of slaves through the involuntary slave trade; that is why it is time limited from 1808.

    Yet, the Constution Party wants unconstitutional “laws” (edicts) against immigration to be enforced and strengthened further.

  30. Paulie Says:

    Second, you can come on here and spout libertarian dogma until the cows come home.

    I do no such thing.


    We differ on fundamental assumptions. The primary question is not whether Christianity is authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. Or pro-liberty or anti-liberty. The primary question is whether Christianity is true.

    No, the fundamental question is what gives you the right to shove your interpretation of Christianity onto non-Christians as well as those with a different view of the application and meaning of Christ’s message through the power of the state.

    I don’t care if you believe Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, or any other doctrine is TRUE. I care whether you want to force it on those who do not agree with you.

    A secondary point for me, but what should be a primary point for you if you indeed believe the most important question is whether Christianity is true, is that any attempt to use the state to enforce what you believe to be Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with the teachings of Christianity itself as plainly stated in the New Testament (and a few passages of the old).


    If it is then what matters is the right interpretation and application of Christianity. Not attempting to force Christianity into your libertarian box.

    The problem with that Talibanistic view is that it is incompatible with Christianity itself. Christianity, properly understood, IS a libertarian box.

    But when we are discussing politics, the real question is not what you think your religion means but whether you are willing to use government force to force other unwilling people, including non-believers, at the point of the state’s guns into your religion’s box.

    This is compatible neither with liberty nor, for that matter, with Christianity.

    If you are a Christian and want to debate the political implications of Christianity, something sincere and thoughtful Christians have long disagreed on, then fine. But Christianity does not rise or fall based on whether you think it fits your ideas about what is the best political order.

  31. Red Phillips Says:

    Paulie, so because Moore is not a political libertarian he worships Satan? Give me a break. That kind of hyperbolic nonsense discredits you. You are not making a good faith attempt to discuss the theology of political organization. You are shilling for libertarianism and using Christianity when it suits you and slandering Christians who disagree with you when it doesn’t.

  32. Paulie Says:

    If you are a Christian and want to debate the political implications of Christianity, something sincere and thoughtful Christians have long disagreed on, then fine. But Christianity does not rise or fall based on whether you think it fits your ideas about what is the best political order.

    Whether I am a Christian or not I am sincere and very interested in what Christianity means, especially since I live within a part of the world where people who profess to be Christians are a majority, and where the evil doctrine of political majoritariansim (two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner) is also prevalent.

    Nor is the fundamental issue whether Christianity rises or falls, but whether liberty rises or falls. Although, as I said, from my interpretation of Christianity, they would rise or fall together, not separately.

  33. Paulie Says:

    Paulie, so because Moore is not a political libertarian he worships Satan?

    Yes.

    Give me a break.

    I did. You just haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Take your time.

    That kind of hyperbolic nonsense discredits you.

    It is neither hyperbolic nor nonsense.


    You are not making a good faith attempt to discuss the theology of political organization.

    I most certainly am.

    You are shilling for libertarianism and using Christianity when it suits you and slandering Christians who disagree with you when it doesn’t.

    I am for liberty. That is all libertarianism means. It’s not a political ideology. It is freedom from political ideology. And I am not slandering anyone. “Christians” who stand against liberty stand against the teachings of Christ.

  34. Red Phillips Says:

    “Nor is the fundamental issue whether Christianity rises or falls, but whether liberty rises or falls.”

    Paulie, the fate of your immortal soul does not rest on liberty.

  35. Paulie Says:

    Paulie, the fate of your immortal soul does not rest on liberty.

    True, but this is Third Party Watch, not Paul’s Soul Patrol. The “party” part refers to government and politics, not to whether or where I will be partying in the afterlife, whether or not there is one, etc.

    You are welcome to your views on whether or not I am destined for heaven, hell, or neither, but if you believe what you say you believe, there is really only One who really knows.

    I’m more interested in whether you are willing to use the guns of the state to speed me on my way to wherever I’m going in the afterlife.

    Just like I don’t care whether you think I am, by circumstances of birth, a demon seed mud person Khazar descended from Satan. You are welcome to believe that if you wish. If you like getting together with like minded individuals on private property, or in a peaceful demonstration on public property (not saying you do or don’t, this is a hypothetical analogy), stand around in a circle jerk, yell “white power!,” blow each other, and talk about screwing up the courage to one day gas all the Jooooze and send all the Nigras to Africa and them Mexicans back to Mexico.

    What I care about is whether you put those beliefs into action by force, especially by government force. Your rights end where my nose begins.

  36. Sean Scallon Says:

    Paulie, giving living like its 1963. The world has changed. You should too.

  37. Sean Scallon Says:

    Paulie, quit living like its 1963. The world has changed. You should too.

Leave a Reply