Gingrich also fails to qualify for Virginia ballot; Update: Gingrich promises write-in campaign; Update: Are write-ins for primaries illegal in VA?

posted at 9:15 am on December 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Hey, what’s the big deal?  It’s only, er, the state in which Gingrich currently lives:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to qualify for Virginia’s March 6 Republican primary, a development that complicates his bid to win the GOP presidential nomination.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.

This follows the failure of Rick Perry to make the primary ballot, announced earlier last night.  Which is more egregious?  Perry had a lot more money and resources on which to call to get his ducks in a row than Gingrich, but this is Gingrich’s home state now, and has been for the last 12 years.  A basic test in the primaries is whether a candidate can win his home state, so the failure to even qualify for the ballot is an even worse failure.

The news couldn’t come at a worse time, either.  Gingrich’s numbers had already been falling in Iowa, but there had been a sense that the slide had been arrested, if not started to reverse itself a little.  This failure calls into question Gingrich’s managerial competence all over again, which has taken a beating throughout this campaign — first when his staff walked out on him, and later when former House colleagues began to recall the circumstances of the rebellion that took place just a couple of years into his speakership.

The Virginia GOP can’t be enjoying this, either.  Right now it looks like their early-ish March 6th primary will be an embarrassing flop, offering commonwealth Republicans a choice only between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  One has to wonder whether the state party will be spending their Christmas holiday looking for loopholes to add the rest of the field to the ballot — and if they do, how they plan to defend themselves against likely court challenges from Romney, Paul, or their supporters.  Right now, the suddenly impermeable ballot of Virginia is making the case for Romney on competence alone.

Drink heavily the eggnog this evening and next, my friends.

Update: Commenter Cindy Munford asks, “Mr. Morrissey, why didn’t Rep. Bachmann, Sen. Santorum, and Gov. Huntsman even bother to submit petitions? It sure makes it seem like Virginia wasn’t a priority, why is that?”  Er … why are you asking my dad?  Oh — “Mr. Morrissey” is me? Well, OK.  Bachmann and Santorum don’t have the resources to put people on the ground in Virginia; they’re both sinking everything they have into Iowa.  I don’t think anyone expected them to qualify for the Virginia ballot.  Huntsman does have considerable resources, and he should have been able to compete in Virginia, so I’m not sure why he didn’t bother to try.

Dad says hello, by the way.

Update II: Team Gingrich lays this at the feet of Virginia, and promises “an aggressive write-in campaign”:

“Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot.  Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.  We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice.”

Well, the same “failed system” allowed six GOP and six Democratic campaigns to qualify for the ballot in 2008 — including, as Doug Mataconis reminds us, those establishment candidates Alan Keyes [see below, no] and Dennis Kucinich.  I’m pretty sure neither of those campaigns were drowning in cash this time four years ago, either. As for the potential success of a write-in campaign, it’s difficult to see how that will work when Gingrich’s team couldn’t even get enough people on the street to sign their own names to petitions, let alone write his name on a ballot.

Update III: Steve Eggleston offers a devastating comment to Team Gingrich’s attempt to accuse Virginia of blocking ballot access:

I’d like to know whether he considers Bachmann, Huntsman, or Santorum not a major candidate, or whether he realizes none of those three so much as submitted signatures.

Are they paying attention at all?

Update IV: Actually, Doug’s wrong [see next upate] — Keyes wasn’t on 2008 GOP primary ballot, but it did have six candidates: Paul, Romney, McCain, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, and Giuliani.  Democrats had six as well: Obama, Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Biden, and John Edwards.  And as I recall, the Fred Thompson campaign wasn’t exactly known for its energy and accomplishment.

Update V: I’m the one who got Doug’s tweet wrong, not Doug; he said Keyes got on the ballot in 2000, not 2008, which is true and goes directly to the same point.  But even worse, it appears that the pledge to run a write-in campaign in Virginia has one eeensy little obstacle …. it’s illegal:

At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person’s name on the official ballot…

Doug marvels at how a major campaign could get this so wrong:

That’s the first sentence of Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C). Considering that Newt is a resident of the Commonwealth one would think his campaign would be aware of such things. Actually, one would think his campaign would have been on top of this thing months ago.

Well … yeah.

Update VI: Some are asking if the requirements for petition signatures changed between 2008 and 2010.  They did in 2010, but they appear to have gotten easier to collect, not more difficult.  Instead of requiring a Social Security number for each signature, the law was changed from shall to may, only for the last four digits of the SSN.

Update VII: So how long did Perry, Gingrich, and everyone else have to collect their signatures?  Steve Eggleston says more than five months:

In case you were in a cave this week, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann failed to turn in any signatures to get on Virginia’s March 6 Presidential primary ballot, while Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich had enough of their under-12,000 signatures (11,911 and 11,050 respectively) signatures invalidated by the Republican Party of Virginia that they too missed the 10,000 (with at least 400 from each of the 11 Congressional districts). …

For those of you wondering whether the 10,000 threshhold is so strenuous, nobody but the best-funded candidates can make the grade, do note tha the candidates could start collecting signatures back on July 1, and thus had over 5 1/2 months to get to 10,000. Further, there were 6 candidates on the 2008 Republican and 6 candidates on the 2008 Democrat Virginia primary ballots, including Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11

The problem comes from having only 2 candidates on the Virginia republican primary ballot.

Dr Evil on December 24, 2011 at 8:10 PM

The problem is that you don’t understand tactics. If the state allowed all comers to get on the ballot, stealth dems would overwhelm the system and no decent GOP candidates would be available.

Gingrich is unworthy to be a candidate in VA because he was too stupid, lazy, or disorganized to do the work required to protect the GOP primary process.

csdeven on December 25, 2011 at 12:32 AM

This has far reaching implications for Newt’s campaign. Voters are going to question if he is this disorganized that he can’t even get on the ballot for the state he is living in, how can he be organized as a president?

TheNumberJ on December 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Comedy gold. Could Newt of La Mancha have given a more ridiculous, inappropriate (and slightly offensive) comparison? I didn’t believe it when I first saw the headline, but there it was on his official Facebook page.

It just came to me who Gingrich with his delusions of grandeur reminds me of: Don Quixote.

Anyway, Newt’s campaign rhetoric seems heavy on lofty, dramatic, symbolic rhetoric, but the whole operation seems poorly run. Newt may be good for coming up with ideas in think tanks, but he seems to be a terrible leader. It seems a lot of people who have worked with him also believe he would be a terrible president.

This man Newt better not get the nomination. It would likely result in a landslide win for Obama.

bluegill on December 25, 2011 at 1:36 AM

i have a feeling Newt and Cain were mostly in it for the book sales

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/gingrichs-campaign-still-looks-awful-lot-book-tour/45977/

yeah, i’m that cynical. I’m not saying that they didn’t come to believe their own PR…that happens all the time…but the initial intent? Sell books.

r keller on December 25, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Social Security number for each signature, the law was changed from shall to may, only for the last four digits of the SSN.

SSN is for payroll purposes. Refuse all (non-Federal) organizations requesting your SSN for anything not related to a job or finances.

The feds have no business asking for my SSN to vote or carry small arms.

Capitalist Hog on December 25, 2011 at 2:38 AM

i have a feeling Newt and Cain were mostly in it for the book sales

And to up their “****ability quotient.” Both of these guys rely on their status and station to get side action.

Remember, Cain was my man, in spite of his challenged credibility. Thank God his bubble burst before he did any real damage to a 2012 GOP run.

Capitalist Hog on December 25, 2011 at 2:42 AM

Capitalist Hog on December 25, 2011 at 2:42 AM

yea. well, it is depressing. I think Romney will do ok…but boy, we need another Reagan.

I barely voted for Bush I the second time around. McCain was a real challenge to vote for.

Kerry and Gore were such fruitcakes that I didn’t have a problem with W…but new that he was ‘moderate’ going in.

So I like Mitt more than McCain, he’s smarter, more poised…and has never shown hate to at the R party…which McCain had. Romney is more of a professional.

r keller on December 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM

I barely voted for Bush I the second time around.

I think GWB second term really was the beginning of a long road back to a solid, solid conservative American base. Problem is, it might take a full decade to manifest.

Capitalist Hog on December 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM

By that I mean, second term GWB was soooo anti-conservative that Republicans and conservatives rechecked their value-system. The Tea Party is a direct result of that and the statist Obama getting elected.

Capitalist Hog on December 25, 2011 at 3:20 AM

Eh. Well, there’s always going to be those who ignore the requirements, fail to meet them and then expect special treatment. The cry? “It’s not fair!”. Though a serious candidate would be above that and say, “We messed up, but now we’ve learned to ‘dot the i’s and cross the t’s’”. Candidates who refuse to learn from their mistakes become nothing more than roadkill. Life is tough, especially for those who refuse to consider their mistakes.

whatcat on December 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Errrmmm……exactly what HAS Perry’s team said about all this? Putting words into someone’s mouths isn’t the same thing as a fact.

The excerpt that I posted came from the Washington Examiner.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 4:23 AM

I change my “fail” to “epic fail”. If Newt’s campaign screwed this up, how in the world can he take on Obama? We know Obummer is incompetent, but his brilliant campaign machine got him elected. It’s all over but for the crying unless Newt gets a solid plan and takes action, which apparently is not his strong suit.

The Republican field is going to crucify him over the write-in comment. Newt didn’t know the primary rules in his own state? Ugh.

Philly on December 24, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Good point the one thing Obama is good at, or his people anyway is getting elected by gaming the system. Newties are telling us they can beat Obama, yet they can’t get on hte ballot in their own state?

Fail.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 5:16 AM

Do you think it reasonable to invalidate the will of the voters who signed on single sided paper? I don’t. The requirement is that the campaigns get over 10,000 signatures. Perry and Gingrich got over 10,000 signatures. They should be on the ballot.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 24, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Newt and Perry didn’t respect voters enough to get the right forms printed? How hard can it be to punch “recto-verso” into the photocopier? And now they’re whining?

Also this is Virginia law, not GOP.

Plus the get-out clause was 15,000 signatures. If I were running, I’d tell my guys to get more than 15,000. Not about 11,000 on wrongly printed forms.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 5:52 AM

ot a big fan of Mitt but I’m going to have to agree. It’s not Romney’s fault that the only other candidate serious about winning is Paul.

Kataklysmic on December 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Not sure he’s serious about winning, but participating, surely.

I’m still waiting for a decent explanation, let alone excuse. So far it’s cos the forms had to be printed on both sides. That is sooo hard.

Two points, candidates with sufficient support, 15,000 were deemed to be on the ballot. Candidates with less support, but good organisations, 10,000 were too. Newt and Perry could do neither.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 6:39 AM

Question of the day: why did the Virginia GOP change the rules so that anyone who collected 15,000 signatures would not have to have those signatures verified JUST LAST MONTH?

Maybe they were trying to help the “c” listers get on the ballot?

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 7:04 AM

Newt and Perry didn’t respect voters enough to get the right forms printed? How hard can it be to punch “recto-verso” into the photocopier? And now they’re whining?

Also this is Virginia law, not GOP.

Plus the get-out clause was 15,000 signatures. If I were running, I’d tell my guys to get more than 15,000. Not about 11,000 on wrongly printed forms.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 5:52 AM

Sorry, it’s got nothing to do with “respect for voters”, but a nice-sounding hyperbole, nonetheless.

Who’s “whining”???

This article (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/perrys-va-ballot-hopes-were-dead-arrival/274906)NOT THE PERRY CAMPAIGN states that rules were sent to “all the Republican presidential campaigns” in March, but later admits that Perry’s campaign may not have received the detailed instructions because he didn’t enter the race until August.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch informs us that the Romney campaign had their petitions personally delivered by none other than Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, Romney’s VA campaign chairman. It probably didn’t hurt that someone in the Romney family has pretty much been running for president since the Johnson administration, so they’ve known and understood the rules of the game for much longer than the other candidates.

http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2011/12/24/va-ballot-access-no-way-to-choose-a-president/

Haven’t heard ONE WORD OF WHINING FROM THE PERRY CAMP.
Please get your stories straight.

Btw, this part is bothersome: The Perry campaign says they submitted 11,911 signature, more than the required 10,000. The Virginia GOP has not indicated why over 1,911 of those signatures were disqualified.
P.S. This concern comes from ME, not the Perry campaign.

Of what should be of concern to the Romney campaign is that this circumstance (however, it was generated) will backfire on Mitt Romney as it does absolutely nothing to promote his 25% 5 year ceiling that he’s enjoyed, this only makes folks despise his candidacy even more.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 7:45 AM

Regardless of the facts of this case, it seems to me that any party whose primary rules eliminate one of the top contenders needs to seriously look at some changes. And, since the primaries are party mechanisms, they could begin with answering the question as to why the qualifying rules are coded into state law.

Nomas on December 25, 2011 at 8:01 AM

csdeven on December 25, 2011 at 12:32 AM

You know that is untrue. 2 candidates on a primary ballot? Sure that’s what the purpose of a primary (For President) to make sure the primary voters have as little choice as possible.

I’m sure Newt Gingrich told himself- I’ll just not worry about the Virginia State ballot requirements, it’s unimportant, and I am feeling lazy about the process/ None of the characterizations made by Mittwitts in this thread about the disqualified candidates is factual or accurate.

Dr Evil on December 25, 2011 at 8:19 AM

There was no contradiction. You made that up. I made the judgment that Mitt was obviously superior to the rest of the field. I did not make the judgment that that was a good thing. They are different questions and you dishonestly tried to spin it in to a contradiction.

MJBrutus on December 24, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Your comments are right here in this thread, all anyone has to do is scroll up, and read them. Yes you contradicted yourself, and you stooped to name calling to cover it up – misdirection if people focus on your negative name calling, they won’t read you stating the exact opposite of what you claimed. You didn’t make the judgement that Mitt was superior was a good thing…that’s nonsense, again all anyone has to do is read your comments in this thread. Dishonest? Go look in the mirror.

Dr Evil on December 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 7:45 AM

This whole post is a whine.

But I grant you, it’s not from Perry himself, it’s from supporters.

I speak as someone who initially supported Perry, but he needs to get his shit together. I still like him a lot, and am looking forward to following his progress next time around. Hopefully this kind of contretemps will teach him some valuable lessons.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Regardless of the facts of this case, it seems to me that any party whose primary rules eliminate one of the top contenders needs to seriously look at some changes. And, since the primaries are party mechanisms, they could begin with answering the question as to why the qualifying rules are coded into state law.

Nomas on December 25, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Somebody who can’t get 10,000 sigs in his own state is a top contender?

And he was planning to CARRY the state in the actual election how exactly?

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 8:52 AM

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 7:45 AM

This whole post is a whine.

But I grant you, it’s not from Perry himself, it’s from supporters.

I speak as someone who initially supported Perry, but he needs to get his shit together. I still like him a lot, and am looking forward to following his progress next time around. Hopefully this kind of contretemps will teach him some valuable lessons.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Facts. Whine. Guess it’s in the eye of the beholder. Mine. Yours.

Thank you at least for admitting from where the presentation of the “facts” are coming from.
I’m sure he would agree with your last sentence.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Many States have a law that makes it illegal for a man and woman to live together…Florida is one, and your probation/parole can be violated, then revoked, then back to prison for you.

The GOP – especially in Virginia – needs to be dumped for having such rules. Does anyone actually believe that Gingrich or Perry or Santorum or Bachmann can’t get 10,000 votes on voting day in Virginia, if they were allowed on the ballot?

This is going to be my last year as a Republican if this crap keeps up. I’ll return to Libertarian Party and vote against all Republicans, i.e. basically voting the Democratic ticket.

Karmi on December 25, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Guys, we are so being played like a bunch of violins. The republican establishment at their sleaziest sticking us with Romney. Well, I’ll vote with my pocketbook and not a cent to the republican party if it’s Romney. Then maybe they’ll listen to “we, the people” instead of immitating their good old boy democrat buddiesand pulling their political crap.

mozalf on December 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM

I speak as someone who initially supported Perry, but he needs to get his shit together. I still like him a lot, and am looking forward to following his progress next time around. Hopefully this kind of contretemps will teach him some valuable lessons.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Perry is famous down here for his disdain of the Washington culture.

Unlike Romney,Paul and Gingrich he hasn’t been driven for years to occupy the office to either fulfill a daddy dream(Romney) or his own ego (Paul & Gingrich). He jumped in because there wasn’t a conservative in the race with a solid commonsense conservative plan to turn the economy around or restore governing power to the states & secure the damned border.

It’s not real complicated & Leadership matters.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Thank you at least for admitting from where the presentation of the “facts” are coming from.
I’m sure he would agree with your last sentence.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 8:55 AM

No, the facts are that Viginia has rules. Like them or loathe them, they are the same for everyone.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

This hard working person who has not been able to keep with all the going on of the Virginia GOP just told this reporter this.I just entered the voting booth in Virginia on Republican primary day.As i look down to cast my vote for Perry,Newt,Bachmann,Santorum or Huntsman their name to my surprise are not there.Only 2 names appear.Romney and Paul.I step out of the booth and call the poll worker over and ask.Were are the names of my candidate?He says smiling oh they did,t get the 10000 required sig.to be on our ballot but you still have 2 candidates to chose from that very good candidate Romney and of course if you must theres Paul.I said to him with a very large frown on my face did he or she drop out?I just saw them on the debate last night.No he replied they just did,t get sig so their no on our ballot. You mean on this day super tue. my son in N.C. can vote for who ever he pleases and my daughter in Maryland can vote for who ever she pleases and my mother in Arizona can vote for who ever she pleases but i can,t.Yep that about it he shouted.I threw my ballot down shouting as i walked to the door were the nearest Federal judge i have just been disenfranchise and i,m going to sue.

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM

this is getting monotonous. even allan keyes in 2000 qualified for ballot. all 6 major candidates qualified in 2008.

If your upset blame Newt,Rick,Rick,Michelle,Jon.

their the ones that let the dog eat their homework

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 10:35 AM

No, the facts are that Viginia has rules. Like them or loathe them, they are the same for everyone.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

No the rules are not the same for everyone. Ron Paul was certified without the same scrutiny even though he has less then 15,000 votes.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM

It’s not real complicated & Leadership matters.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Perrys fine as long as there’s no more than 2 paths to follow. if theres 3 he has problems

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

No the rules are not the same for everyone. Ron Paul was certified without the same scrutiny even though he has less then 15,000 votes.

I like that. the republican establishment helping Ron Paul.

gerry-mittbot

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 10:42 AM

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

There are 3 kinds of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can’t.

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM

the clown show has somehow become even more clownish.

sesquipedalian on December 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Yes you contradicted yourself, and you stooped to name calling to cover it up – misdirection if people focus on your negative name calling, they won’t read you stating the exact opposite of what you claimed. You didn’t make the judgement that Mitt was superior was a good thing…that’s nonsense, again all anyone has to do is read your comments in this thread. Dishonest? Go look in the mirror.

Dr Evil on December 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM

You’re a liar. And that is not name calling or opinion. It is an unvarnished fact as the thread shows. Your dishonest remarks here only dig the hole deeper for you. I did not say that Mitt being the only qualifier on the ballot was a good thing. I said that his being the best was a good thing.

You can try to put words in others’ mouths and then accuse them of all manner of crimes. But you only reflect and compound your own short comings by the effort.

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 11:12 AM

(jerrym51) States are perfectly legal and with in their rights as states to charge a filing fee for candidates to be on their ballot.But to require a certain number of signatures of so called register voters disfranchises some candidates who may have raised money to file for a election,but do not have the man power to get all of the required sig. These petitions are ripe with fraud.A candidate with state GOP connections can get a update list with names of current reg.voters.How do we know that Romney and Paul did,t turn in their same list from their run in 2008?If Romney list came down with lets say 10001 verified names and Paul,s was 10006 Perry,s was 9999 and Newts was 9998 Then the state gop said Romney and Paul were on the ballot and Newt and Perry were not.You know full well the crap would hit the fan and all 4 would be on the ballot.

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Gideon7 on December 24, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I love this. There is no defense.

Gideon7, if you’re new then Welcome Aboard. If I missed you over the last few years, then Thanks! for speaking out.

Merry Christ’s Mass and ABO!!!

Who is John Galt on December 25, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Newt and Perry didn’t respect voters enough to get the right forms printed? How hard can it be to punch “recto-verso” into the photocopier? And now they’re whining?

Also this is Virginia law, not GOP.

Plus the get-out clause was 15,000 signatures. If I were running, I’d tell my guys to get more than 15,000. Not about 11,000 on wrongly printed forms.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 5:52 AM

What was the purpose of changing the requirement to double sided paper this year? A test of how the candidates respect the voters? A test of how the campaigns can follow detailed instructions? Or simply a convenience factor for state party officials to cut down on the amount of paper they need to handle?

Like I said, I don’t think we should invalidate the will of the voters who signed single sided forms in good faith because it made it inconvenient for VAGOP workers.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

so your saying these are from 2008. then that means that every collector of the signatures who then had to notarize that they saw the voter sign on such and such date is LYING. Now that is a CONSPIRACY.

If you have one shred of proof of this you should bring it forward.

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Just 1 finial though before i hang it up for today.Lets say the primary goes ahead with just Romney and Paul,s names on the ballot.Then after the vote Romney wins .Then it,s discovered out of Romney,s validated signatures of lets say 10529 530 were people who had died before the primary but were still listed as reg.voters.would Paul then be declared the winer?Or both men had lost dead voters that put them both below the 10000 mark.Then would all the delegates become uncommitted.Just my opinion and does not may it the right one.

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM

It’s not real complicated & Leadership matters.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Most things appear to complicated for Perry.

Elizabetty on December 25, 2011 at 11:41 AM

(gerrym51) I would never accuse any candidate of a conspiracy.After all we all know that politician especially the ones from Chicago are as pure as snow.

logman1 on December 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

No, the facts are that Viginia has rules. Like them or loathe them, they are the same for everyone.

Hope on December 25, 2011 at 10:16 AM

No the rules are not the same for everyone. Ron Paul was certified without the same scrutiny even though he has less then 15,000 votes.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Can’t win, wca. Obviously, the “rules” apply only to certain people…..and this is called “fair”? LOL! Do they realize how this is going to hurt Romney, his supporters, and the state of VA?

What a crock, and the reason that both VA and supporters of Romney/Paul are being shown for what they are: crooked insiders. The supporters here just prove it by their comments.

Repost from RedState from a person who lives in VA who should know:
That’s an interesting point texasroots
Scope (Diary) Friday, December 23rd at 9:16PM EST (link)

The filing deadline was yesterday a 5PM. Less than 24 hours later, they have already looked into the more than 11,000 signatures for the Perry ballot qualification. There have been some very very close contested races here and it has taken them weeks to verify the votes. Keep in mind that our Gov. McDonnell appointed the Secy. of VA State Board of Elections. He was the prior election board head for Fla. and was actively involved in “civil rights issues.”

McDonnell said he won’t endorse because he was friends with a few candidates. Then you have the second in command in VA, Lt Gov Bill Bolling as the Romney VA Campaign Chair. McDonnell keeps his nose clean, even after campaigning with Romney, and he puts the attack dog Bolling in charge of supporting Romney. I can promise you that the VA Romney fix is in.

I’ve read that VA has the hardest ballot access rules. They say that they want to insure that fringe or outlier candidates don’t get the support of VA. Perry is tossed, yet the real fringe kook idiot is going to be on the ballot. Does that make any sense to anyone?

The VA GOP, the higher ups, as Cucinelli called them, have all been bought out by the Romney. I don’t know what will happen, or even how to go about this fight in my state. I guess I now see why VA is considered a purple state. The VA GOP insures that we never get anywhere near a conservative. Please, those of you who think McDonnell would be a great VP, don’t go there. I promise McDonnell has opinions that conservatives should hate. What conservative conservative would support green energy initiatives. I promise McDonnell has actively supported non-competitive positions in the state. It’s his ongoing fight with Perry to attract businesses. We have one, read that one, healthcare company insuring more than 90% of the insured in VA. There is no competition in the state. I promise McDonnell is Romney II.

http://www.redstate.com/hooah_mac/2011/12/19/rick-perry-for-commander-in-chief/#comment-370

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM

(gerrym51) I would never accuse any candidate of a conspiracy.After all we all know that politician especially the ones from Chicago are as pure as snow.

The filing deadline was yesterday a 5PM. Less than 24 hours later, they have already looked into the more than 11,000 signatures for the Perry ballot qualification. There have been some very very close contested races here and it has taken them weeks to verify the votes. Keep in mind that our Gov. McDonnell appointed the Secy. of VA State Board of Elections. He was the prior election board head for Fla. and was actively involved in “civil rights issues.”

to both of you-if you have any proof of conspiracy-or-otherwise come forward. also we have no real idea of why peerys and gingrich did not make it. on one blog i read it did not have to do with actual checking of voters.

it had to do mostly with declarations not being done correctly not that the voters were actually invalid. virginia law says they have to be on certain forms,notarized,marked specifically etc. I think on both perry and gingrich it never got to actually checking voter.

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM
to both of you-if you have any proof of conspiracy-or-otherwise come forward.

What more do you need? This is from a person who lives in Virginia. She has other posts on that same site about Virginia that aren’t complimentary. If you want to see the inside story on what’s going on in VA, go to that site and click on her name and you’ll see all her posts.

She lives there and probs knows more about what’s going on in VA than anyone outside of the state.

The filing deadline was yesterday a 5PM. Less than 24 hours later, they have already looked into the more than 11,000 signatures for the Perry ballot qualification. There have been some very very close contested races here and it has taken them weeks to verify the votes.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM

your not paying attention. It appears that Perrys and Gingrichs signatures were not chcecked for actual voter verification. it appears that ballots were thrown out for other =CLERICAL= reasons. thats what made them less than 10,000. Perry and gingrich are not babes in the woods. don’t you think they’d have lawyers going through this.

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM

your not paying attention. It appears that Perrys and Gingrichs signatures were not chcecked for actual voter verification. it appears that ballots were thrown out for other =CLERICAL= reasons.

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Exactly. Perry and Gingrich got over 10,000 signatures but were invalidated for a technicality; clerical reasons. The question is, do we really want our elections to be decided over “clerical reasons”?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

At a minimum we need someone who is competent enough to assemble and manage a team capable of navigating bureaucracy. Do you imagine that the Fed government is less bureaucratic than the VA GOP?

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Exactly. Perry and Gingrich got over 10,000 signatures but were invalidated for a technicality; clerical reasons. The question is, do we really want our elections to be decided over “clerical reasons”?

those are the rules of the state of virginia not the republican party. complain to the state of virginia.why didn’t they just follow the rules. again even allan keyes got on the ballot,and all 6 in 2008.

also one of the clerical errors may have been not getting 400 from all 11 congressional districts. the pont is we don’t know exactly

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 12:25 PM

At a minimum we need someone who is competent enough to assemble and manage a team capable of navigating bureaucracy. Do you imagine that the Fed government is less bureaucratic than the VA GOP?

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I disagree. I want someone who will destroy arbitrary bureaucracy like this rather than trying to navigate through capriciousness of its members. Seriously, invalidating over double sided paper?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM

WWAAAAAHHHH!!!!!! My candidate wasn’t smart enough or organized enough to make the cut!!! WAAAAHH!!!! The rules are unfair!!!! WAAAH!!!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 25, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Newt is a loser. He’s never win anything important, and he only dares about himself, his wallet, and Lincoln Douglas debates where he can say things like profoundly a lot and sound smart. Boot him imo.

akaniku on December 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Please if a pathetic wack-job like Ron Paul can make it, your candidates just suck.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I disagree. I want someone who will destroy arbitrary bureaucracy like this rather than trying to navigate through capriciousness of its members. Seriously, invalidating over double sided paper?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM

News flash: We are discussing the election of our next POTUS, not King. The POTUS must act within the laws that Congress has and will pass. It’s great for him to work to reduce bureaucracy but he doesn’t get to destroy it all by himself.

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM

invalidated over “clerical reasons”

Clerical reasons?
LOL!

Never mind that these types of laws are destroying our democracy, nor are an embarassment to the Republican primary process. There is a bit of humor.

avagreen on December 25, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Never mind that these types of laws are destroying our democracy, nor are an embarassment to the Republican primary process. There is a bit of humor.

clerical reasons required by the state of virginia. BLAME THEM

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM

“At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person’s name on the official ballot…”

I think that this law is being misinterpreted. Just because the law says that certain things are lawful doesn’t necessarily make the inverse set of things unlawful.

The law doesn’t say that it is unlawful to write in candidates in a primary election; it guarantees the right to write in a candidate in any election other than a primary election, and it appears to reserve the right to political parties to exclude write-in candidates in their primaries.

This is important, because otherwise a small political party could have their primary sabotaged by write-in votes by people from another party.

But it does not say “It shall be unlawful in a primary election for any voter …”

Presumably the Republican Party, being the organization in control of the Republican primary, could explicitly authorize and provide for write-in votes by providing a space on the ballot. I don’t think that this would be unlawful under the Virginia code, and at this point it’s probably what the Republican Party should do if it wants to restore any integrity to the now-broken Virginia primary.

jms on December 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Exactly. Perry and Gingrich got over 10,000 signatures but were invalidated for a technicality; clerical reasons. The question is, do we really want our elections to be decided over “clerical reasons”?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 25, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Clerical reasons? These are VA’s laws, not “clerical reasons”. Don’t like ‘em – then change ‘em. But until you do follow the law.

independentvoice on December 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Errrmmm……exactly what HAS Perry’s team said about all this? Putting words into someone’s mouths isn’t the same thing as a fact.

Yes, it is. And you are indeed correct: without a doubt Perry’s reaction reflects much better on him and his campaign than Newt’s does on his. Perry’s inability to get on the ballot in VA was a humiliation equal to Newt’s (it may have been Newt’s home state, but Perry had a lot more money to spend on this than Newt…it evens out) but his manly acceptance of responsibility for the outcome is exactly the right tone to strike. It reminds me of how he handled the “oops” thing at the debate — bad, bad moment, but he played the fallout like a champ and made me like him more than before. I give him and his team real credit for that…on this level at least, they are adults.

The truth is, I actually like Perry. On a gut level he seems like my kind of guy. I have no problems with his policies (though I think his late stab at the socon vote in Iowa is poor marketing given the accomplishments he could and should be running on). My issue with Perry is that he doesn’t seem to be up to snuff when it comes to running a national campaign or convincingly articulating his values to the country. Whereas I genuinely dislike Newt as a representing the true worst of inside-the-beltway Washington lobbyist sellouts.

Esoteric on December 25, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Made an ‘oops’ mistake myself in my last post there. Remove the “Yes it is” opening sentence…makes no sense at all in the context of what I ended up writing.

Esoteric on December 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM

News flash: We are discussing the election of our next POTUS, not King.

MJBrutus on December 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM

POTUS my ass. What you want is a bureau chief. “At a minimum” they should be able to navigate through the bureaucracy. Optimally they should increase that bureaucracy.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM

i have a feeling Newt and Cain were mostly in it for the book sales

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/gingrichs-campaign-still-looks-awful-lot-book-tour/45977/

yeah, i’m that cynical. I’m not saying that they didn’t come to believe their own PR…that happens all the time…but the initial intent? Sell books.

r keller on December 25, 2011 at 2:14 AM

So what’s Romney’s motivation? Only the most noble, I assume.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I do agree with Keller- Gingrich and Cain were absolutely in it to sell books and possibly to get a Cabinet spot if the GOP was to win in 2012..

Even Newtie is not delusional enough to believe he could actually beat Obama!

Could anyone tell us the last time a mere CONGRESSMAN was elected president of the United States?!!

I believe it may have been Rutherford B. Hayes!

Gingrich: took Fannie Mae payouts, bigtime K Street Lobbyist, fat old white guy, despised by large sections of the population, has not even won a local election in 14 years, has never run for statewide office, his own campaign team quit on him in disgust last summer, he was accused and convicted of ethics violations when the Speaker, Clinton beat him like a rented mule for three years…

and with all that, not to mention the MULTIPLE times he has gone against conservatives (global warming, Andy Stern and SEIU, Sharpton)

some still want to nominate this guy?!!

are you insane?

AirForceCane on December 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

So what’s Romney’s motivation? Only the most noble, I assume.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Mitts doing it for the money

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

AirForceCane on December 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

…and I suppose you have somebody in mind. A governor, perhaps? No, not that one–somebody with a conservative record. No, not that one–somebody who can make it through a debate without drooling. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

ElectricPhase on December 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

It is hilarious that any sentient human being could possibly believe that a Gingrich who can not EVEN GET ON A STATE BALLOT could possibly beat the Chicago political machine!

Really?! the guy who LIVE IN VIRGINIA but does not even know Virginia elections law is going to win 272 electoral votes against Obama?!!

you have to be clinically insane or just a plain moron to believe that a candidate with the executive skills of a Newton Gingrich is qualified to be nominated by the GOP..

I bet Palin would have gotten the required signatures in three weeks!

AirForceCane on December 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I bet Palin would have gotten the required signatures in three weeks!

AirForceCane on December 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Ding!

ElectricPhase on December 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM

So what’s Romney’s motivation? Only the most noble, I assume.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Mitts doing it for the money

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Yeah, he’s about as hard up as paupers like Gingrich and Cain.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 5:35 PM

I do agree with Keller- Gingrich and Cain were absolutely in it to sell books and possibly to get a Cabinet spot if the GOP was to win in 2012..

Even Newtie is not delusional enough to believe he could actually beat Obama!

Could anyone tell us the last time a mere CONGRESSMAN was elected president of the United States?!!

I believe it may have been Rutherford B. Hayes!

Gingrich: took Fannie Mae payouts, bigtime K Street Lobbyist, fat old white guy, despised by large sections of the population, has not even won a local election in 14 years, has never run for statewide office, his own campaign team quit on him in disgust last summer, he was accused and convicted of ethics violations when the Speaker, Clinton beat him like a rented mule for three years…

and with all that, not to mention the MULTIPLE times he has gone against conservatives (global warming, Andy Stern and SEIU, Sharpton)

some still want to nominate this guy?!!

are you insane?

AirForceCane on December 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Ummmm…is this a buildup to sell us on…Romney? ROFL

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 5:37 PM

“Please if a pathetic wack-job like Ron Paul can make it, your candidates just suck.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM”

Are you kidding me, Ron Paul has cult following. I swear those people think once he is King, he will smite all government waste while making pot free and legal. They are devoted, note how they attack any candidate ruthlessly, insult you and then tell you to vote for their savior Ron Paul! He and some of his people maybe unbalanced, but they have been at this for years!

Africanus on December 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Mitts doing it for the money
gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Yeah right, the same Mitt Romney who accepted $1 (ONE DOLLAR) for his position as CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics. The same Mitt Romney who accepted $1 (ONE DOLLAR) to act as governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is the same Mitt Romney who vowed to work for free (or $1) as President of the United States of America. Clearly, Mitt is NOT in it for the money.

You Romney-haters sure know how to talk smack, but cannot back it up.

ROMNEY IS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!! OK?

Firecracker729 on December 25, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Firecracker729 on December 25, 2011 at 7:27 PM

hey firecracker, if you read my posts you’ll find i;m a Mittbot,
I was being sarcastic. Romney is worth 200 million dollars

gerrym51 on December 25, 2011 at 7:34 PM

hey firecracker, if you read my posts you’ll find i;m a Mittbot,I was being sarcastic. Romney is worth 200 million dollars

Sorry gerrym, with the Mitt-haters on this site, I simply assumed you were one of them. I’ve seen comments against Mitt that were more irrational than I thought yours was. :-)

Firecracker729 on December 25, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Are you kidding me, Ron Paul has cult following. I swear those people think once he is King, he will smite all government waste while making pot free and legal. They are devoted, note how they attack any candidate ruthlessly, insult you and then tell you to vote for their savior Ron Paul! He and some of his people maybe unbalanced, but they have been at this for years!

Africanus on December 25, 2011 at 7:23 PM

So… Paul and his followers are unhinged and crazy…. but the guy who can fix the country isn’t competent enough to get his signatures in.

Seems a bit like voting PRESENT….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM

So… Paul and his followers are unhinged and crazy…. but the guy who can fix the country isn’t competent enough to get his signatures in.

Seems a bit like voting PRESENT….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Oh, I’m sure it’s just the fault of the ‘liberal media’ or something, he really truly is a genius!

/sarc

MelonCollie on December 25, 2011 at 8:33 PM

ROMNEY IS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY!!! OK?

Firecracker729 on December 25, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Of course he’s not in it for the money. He’s just trying to nail down a resume item that eluded his father.

ddrintn on December 25, 2011 at 9:38 PM

How is Newt doing with his gathering of signatures at Pearl Harbor for the Hawaii primary?

profitsbeard on December 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM

Newt is a loser. He’s never win anything important, and he only dares about himself, his wallet, and Lincoln Douglas debates where he can say things like profoundly a lot and sound smart. Boot him imo.

akaniku on December 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM

…yes, but we are told that we must be in awe of Newt’s supposed gargantuan intellect. As you point out, he says “profoundy” a lot. Never mind that Newt comes off like a pompous blowhard; anyone who uses the word “profoundly” so often and with such ease will no doubt sail to victory in the general election!

bluegill on December 26, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Newt is a loser. He’s never win anything important, and he only dares about himself, his wallet, and Lincoln Douglas debates where he can say things like profoundly a lot and sound smart. Boot him imo.
akaniku on December 25, 2011 at 12:38 PM

…yes, but we are told that we must be in awe of Newt’s supposed gargantuan intellect. As you point out, he says “profoundy” a lot. Never mind that Newt comes off like a pompous blowhard; anyone who uses the word “profoundly” so often and with such ease will no doubt sail to victory in the general election!
bluegill on December 26, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Don’t forget “fundamentally flawed”.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 7:25 AM

No the rules are not the same for everyone. Ron Paul was certified without the same scrutiny even though he has less then 15,000 votes.

workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Give me a non-Politico source that said that Paul’s signatures were not checked. Do note that Politico has a bit of a history of playing fast-and-loose with the facts, with a glaring example in their “Paul’s signatures were not checked” story – they also claimed Paul did turn in at least 15,000 signatures.

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 8:05 AM

No the rules are not the same for everyone. Ron Paul was certified without the same scrutiny even though he has less then 15,000 votes.
workingclass artist on December 25, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Give me a non-Politico source that said that Paul’s signatures were not checked. Do note that Politico has a bit of a history of playing fast-and-loose with the facts, with a glaring example in their “Paul’s signatures were not checked” story – they also claimed Paul did turn in at least 15,000 signatures.
Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 8:05 AM

So far I haven’t seen any official numbers, just hearsay. It’s silly to believe that Paul would be unable to muster at least 15,000 sigs; his true believers are small in number, but they got hustle. All you need is just 50 fanatical followers to get 300 sigs each over 6 months time.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM

” Candidates are required not only to collect over 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot but have to have at least 400 from each of the state’s eleven congressional districts. Both Perry and Gingrich cleared the first hurdle by at least a thousand signatures, but it appears they may have stumbled on clearing the second. We don’t know this for certain — the Va. GOP hasn’t explained why Gingrich and Perry failed to qualify– but this seems likely.

Gathering enough signatures from enough of the different districts proved too tricky. In at least one district that’s a tall order. Virginia’s 3rd and 8th congressional district, for example, are among the most Democratic in the country, with a PVI score of D+20 and D+16, respectively. Woody Allen may be right when he said 90% of success is just showing up, but it is hard to show up when there is effectively no Republican party in some congressional districts.

Worse yet, Virginia’s House of Delegates complicated matters further when voters may not know which congressional district they live in thanks to an ongoing state-wide fight over redistricting. Virginia Republicans submitted a map in April 2011, but Virginia Democrats seemed insistent on pushing the matter to January 2012 and then to federal court if they don’t enough black–and therefore Democratic–congressional districts. They would sue the state under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and toss the matter of redistricting over to the federal courts.

It’s the prerogative of any state party to set up the rules that govern its primary but it sure seems short-sighted to disqualify two candidates that fulfilled the 10,000 signatures requirement, especially given how much Virginia GOP could benefit from a renewed focus and all that earned media attention on the Old Dominion…”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/is-the-fix-in-virginia-gop-eliminates-4-of-top-6-republican-candidate

workingclass artist on December 26, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Mr. Paul turned in 14,361 signatures, Mr. Perry turned in 11,911 and Mr. Gingrich had 11,050, according to the state Board of Elections. Mr. Romney’s Virginia campaign chairman, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, submitted more than 16,000 signatures on Tuesday, and President Obama’s campaign delivered over 15,000 earlier this month.

The Democratic Party of Virginia earlier Friday certified the signatures for Mr. Obama. In a statement, party chairman Brian J. Moran said since the president was the only candidate to qualify for the for the Democratic primary, he expected the State Board of Elections to cancel the scheduled presidential primary in the state.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/23/ginrich-perry-leave-little-margin-error-va-nominat/?utm_source=

workingclass artist on December 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM

workingclass artist on December 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Sorry, wca, but the Washington Times isn’t an official source. If you have a link to the State Of VA or the VA Republicans with these same numbers, that would work to make your point.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM

workingclass artist on December 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM

That WashTimes story does not say or even insinuate that Paul’s signatures were not checked line-by-line. Again, give me a non-Politico source that claims that.

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas! My brother and I spent part of it playing “MacGyver” because my 5-year-old nephew managed to fly his new radio-controlled helicopter into an inaccessible second-floor rain gutter on its first flight – to no avail. We need a monkey to climb up and get it! LOL

Having caught up on the thread, here are some of my thoughts:

To those who say that the law is the law, fine. I think that Virginia has no legal business writing state laws that govern how a private political party like the GOP functions. Here’s what this does:

It leaves the state wide open for an “Equal-Protection” lawsuit from Gingrich and Perry, on disenfranchisement grounds. The idea that a group of 15,000 signatures does not get checked at all for accuracy, while a group of 14,999 signatures does, gives greater weight to the signatures in the 15,000 group – because voters with mismatching info vis a vis voter rolls in the 14,999 group are not being given the benefit of the legal doubt that those in the 15,000 group enjoy.

This means – and I’m not accusing Romney and Paul of doing this – that the door is left wide open for mass submission of fraudulent/inaccurate signatures. Does anyone doubt that 0bama would charge right through this loophole with massive fraud?

To me, it is much like Al Gore’s cherry-picking counties in the 2000 recount; the votes of the cherry-picked counties were vetted by different eligibility standards than those in the non-cherry-picked (Republican) counties. This brings up a basic unfairness.

I recognize that these are signatures, not votes. However, as the effect of this unequal treatment in Virginia does deny the right of a signer for Gingrich or Perry to vote for their chosen candidate, it does still amount to a disenfranchisement.

If the 15,000-signature requirement were a private GOP affair, it would be different. But if I read this thread correctly, it is state law.

The effect on fairness is the same as if the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow cherry-picking had been allowed to stand.

As far as disenfranchisement in general, the rejection of signatures because they were not on double-sided forms is as arbitrary a rejection standard for the voter’s right to vote as it gets. If the signature is valid, then it is a breathtaking act of disenfranchisement to take away a vote because the VA GOP, backed by state law, doesn’t want to expend the effort to check a signature on a single-sided form. That’s Mickey Mouse. Last time I looked, our country was supposedly based upon the people’s right to choose.

Were I a Virginia voter who wanted to vote for Perry or Gingrich, and found that state law had backed the GOP in disallowing my candidate from the ballot, you bet your bottom dollar I vote for Ron Paul, just to show that my state can’t FORCE me to vote for Romney. Americans don’t like being dictated to, and this is definitely a form of dictating by the VA GOP, backed up by VA state law.

One last thought: If it’s true that the 15,000-signature requirement were pushed through only last month, then that is unacceptably short notice. Candidates have to compete in all 50 states, and manage their time and resources accordingly. this smacks of a “gotcha” jerkaround that benefits candidates with money, and or rabid support, who can instantly gin up enough signatures. As well, again, the idea that all you have to do is submit page after page of 15,000 signatures that say “Osama bin Laden, 666 Inferno Street, Hell,” and they are allowed to fraudulently place the candidate on the ballot, is a ridiculous loophole that you could drive a fleet of semis through, side by side.

If Virginia wants to play fair, then all of Romney’s signatures must be vetted, too. And if/when Perry and/or Gingrich sue for this, they’ve got a darn good case, under the “Equal-Protection” clause, because the state passed actual state laws, which can be challenged in court. If Romney’s signatures are not checked, then there is no way to tell if he actually fulfilled the 10,000-signature requirement. The 10,000-signature requirement and the 15,000 signature loophole are in conflict, because the second blocks the ability to enforce the first.

cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

workingclass artist on December 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM

That WashTimes story does not say or even insinuate that Paul’s signatures were not checked line-by-line. Again, give me a non-Politico source that claims that.

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM

As I said, the only authorities on this would be either the State Of VA or the VA Republicans. I haven’t seen anything from either yet on the things wca brought up. The only official thing I’ve seen was on the VA GOP’s Twitter feed, which was simply a mention of the candidate’s name and whether they met the criteria or not.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:05 PM

And if/when Perry and/or Gingrich sue for this, they’ve got a darn good case, under the “Equal-Protection” clause, because the state passed actual state laws, which can be challenged in court.
cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Cough (Al Gore) cough, cough…

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM

As I said, the only authorities on this would be either the State Of VA or the VA Republicans. I haven’t seen anything from either yet on the things wca brought up. The only official thing I’ve seen was on the VA GOP’s Twitter feed, which was simply a mention of the candidate’s name and whether they met the criteria or not.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:05 PM

So all interviews where the interviewee does not post his or her own copy of the interview on the web don’t count?

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If the Romney team is as good as everyone says, they had better stay as far away from this Tar Baby as they can. If they get involved, then it’s not just the Gingrich and Perry teams that are “incompetent.”

cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

If the Romney team is as good as everyone says, they had better stay as far away from this Tar Baby as they can. If they get involved, then it’s not just the Gingrich and Perry teams that are “incompetent.”

cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Unless it is to say, “Give our guy’s petitions the same scrutiny.” The fact that hasn’t happened, despite Moe Lane making the suggestion since Saturday.

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Unless it is to say, “Give our guy’s petitions the same scrutiny.” The fact that hasn’t happened, despite Moe Lane making the suggestion since Saturday.

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Good point! I agree.

cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM

As I said, the only authorities on this would be either the State Of VA or the VA Republicans. I haven’t seen anything from either yet on the things wca brought up. The only official thing I’ve seen was on the VA GOP’s Twitter feed, which was simply a mention of the candidate’s name and whether they met the criteria or not.
whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:05 PM

So all interviews where the interviewee does not post his or her own copy of the interview on the web don’t count?
Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Not when they’re quoting specific numbers which should be on the record in at least several places. e.g. if a reporter interviews someone who says “99 percent of Americans” support Obama, you’d ask from whence they derived that figure.

Even in an above comment wca cites this from Gateway Pundit:
“the Va. GOP hasn’t explained why Gingrich and Perry failed to qualify” which would seem to argue against positing any figures at all and, in effect, nullifies his own entire argument.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Unless it is to say, “Give our guy’s petitions the same scrutiny.” The fact that hasn’t happened, despite Moe Lane making the suggestion since Saturday.
Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Except when your opponents have dug themselves into a hole you don’t offer to help them out of it.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Except when your opponents have dug themselves into a hole you don’t offer to help them out of it.

whatcat on December 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Romney calling for his signatures to recive the same scrutiny as everybody else’s signatures, assuming at least 10K/400 per district does withstand severe scrutiny, actually ensures Romney doesn’t get swallowed by the hole.

Right now, the only one who doesn’t look bad regarding the ballot access fiasco is (gulp) Paul because his signatures (despite the claims of Politico) did survive the scrutiny. Something tells me I can safely quote Jules Winnfield to you: “But I don’t want that, and you don’t want that, and Ringo here definitely doesn’t want that.”

Steve Eggleston on December 26, 2011 at 6:47 PM

To all:
This entire thread is worth a look.It appears that according to a date stamp only one day after Romney turned his signatures in the rules 0were changed. I would be really interested in any input from here.
RG

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2825195/posts

rodguy911 on December 26, 2011 at 8:57 PM

cane_loader on December 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

*applause*

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 1:50 AM

rodguy911 on December 26, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Very, very interesting reading in that thread. With Red State and Big Government already picking this up, I hope Hot Air, Ace, and Drudge are next!

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 2:41 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11