Virginia AG working to allow Gingrich and Perry on the ballot, after all

posted at 5:30 pm on December 31, 2011 by Tina Korbe

When both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich failed to meet the requirements to appear on the presidential ballot in Virginia, the camps of both candidates claimed a certain degree of victimization. Perry has even filed a lawsuit and an individual activist not associated with Gingrich’s campaign has filed a lawsuit on the former Speaker’s behalf, as well.

Now, it looks like the two candidates are poised to receive help from Virginia’s prominent attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli suggests the ballot controversy is at least as much the fault of the Virginia system as of any of the candidates who missed the mark. He plans to file emergency legislation to allow more candidates to make it on the ballot. Fox News reports:

“Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a “legal and constitutional embarrassment.”

Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it.”

Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to support the emergency legislation, as well, according to the Fox News article.

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary — and, no matter what happens with this new legislation, it doesn’t reflect well on either Gingrich or Perry that they didn’t attend more closely to detail. Meanwhile, it does make sense to me that Cuccinelli, McDonnell and other prominent Virginians would want to remedy the problem, even if it wasn’t their fault, as the presence of Gingrich and Perry on the ballot will make for a more meaningful primary for Virginia.


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 3 4 5 6

I believe in criminal law.

I don’t put primary election “law” in the same category as criminal law.

Again, discretion is what separates the wise men from the not so wise. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Conservatives believe in the rule of law, your lack of same seems to put you outside the conservative movement.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 8:59 PM

For what it’s worth, I do believe in the rule of law. That’s why it bothers me that VA seems to be willing to let candidates on the ballot without proving that they have 10,000 legit signatures.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

I really don’t see a difference b/t Romney and Obama, other than one is a Republican and one is a Democrat.

Hard to get excited to vote for a man who still stands by RomneyCare and thinks the mandate was conservative. That guy is going to repeal Obamacare?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM

You seem kind of bitter that they are going to be on the ballot. :)

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 8:55 PM

You seem unable to defend your position and if I am “bitter” it’s because even a lot of so called “conservatives” want to toss out the rule of law when it suits them and are hence are no better than “liberals”. If Gingrich and Perry had gotten on the Virginia ballot without a-ffirmative action, it would have been more than fine with me. What is now fine with me is that with their Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton like demands for a-ffirmative action Gingrich and Perry are doing themselves no good.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

That’s why it bothers me that VA seems to be willing to let candidates on the ballot without proving that they have 10,000 legit signatures.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Checking the validity of signatures is a time and labor intensive process. I can see why they do it the way they do, I agree it’s not an ideal process. In the end, it’s up to the people of Virginia if that’s acceptable going forward or no.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

For what it’s worth, I do believe in the rule of law. That’s why it bothers me that VA seems to be willing to let candidates on the ballot without proving that they have 10,000 legit signatures.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

You must support a-ffirmative action or you are a racist.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:07 PM

You must support a-ffirmative action or you are a racist.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Not really. I just support VA enforcing its own law that says a candidate must have 10,000 valid signatures, which we can’t say with absolute certainty about Mitt Romney.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Have Perry and Gingrich failed to make the ballot in other states?

I don’t think so.

Case closed. It’s Virginia, not the candidates.

Dr. Tesla

Who can argue with child-like logic such as this?

What’s magical about the 10,000 name number?

Nothing.

Why not 8000? 5000? 15000? 20,000?

Because they said 10,000.

It’s some number they pulled out of their rear end.

Dr. Tesla

Maybe so. What’s your point? The number applies to everyone, no matter where they pulled it from.

Voters can punish Perry and Gingrich in the primary if Virginia ballot law compliance is what matters most to them.

What’s the big deal?

Dr. Tesla

So, basically, after a week of guys like you complaining about a rules change mid-stream that never happened, you now want them to change the rules mid-stream because your guy didn’t make it, lol. Too funny.

What other states have the boobs Newt and Perry failed to make the ballot in?

Is that not relevant?

Dr. Tesla

Not in the slightest. You know what is relevant? Not one candidate complained about the “unfair Virgina process” or the so-called rule change that supposedly happened months ago until now.

xblade on December 31, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Gingrich and Perry got on the ballot because of the color of their skin? Who knew?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Checking the validity of signatures is a time and labor intensive process. I can see why they do it the way they do, I agree it’s not an ideal process. In the end, it’s up to the people of Virginia if that’s acceptable going forward or no.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:06 PM

And I’m sure if they are not happy about Ken Cuccinelli’s intervention, they will make their displeasure known. I for one, not being from or living in Virginia, am giving him my moral support.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

For what it’s worth, I do believe in the rule of law. That’s why it bothers me that VA seems to be willing to let candidates on the ballot without proving that they have 10,000 legit signatures.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

In this case, you are arguing against the rule of law. The law specifies the cutoffs for both the minimum number AND the number for avoiding the kind of scrutiny that many now object to. If the law is an ass (h/t Charles Dickens), change it for the next election, but don’t ignore what it says in this one.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

The number applies to everyone, no matter where they pulled it from.

xblade on December 31, 2011 at 9:09 PM

But it doesn’t! It applies to those individuals who have less than 15,000 signatures submitted! More than that, and they just assume there to be enough legit signatures, or used a “streamlined” sampling process. That’s my complaint. Virginia isn’t enforcing its own law.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

For what it’s worth, I do believe in the rule of law. That’s why it bothers me that VA seems to be willing to let candidates on the ballot without proving that they have 10,000 legit signatures.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:00 PM

If Gingrich and Perry were actually conservatives, rather than cry baby little a-ffirmative action liberals, if they were suing it would not be suing to get on the ballot, as they blew that with their incompetence, but suing to have Romney’s and Paul’s signatures counted until they got up to 10,000 valid ones, or not.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

You know what is relevant. The Republican voters in Virginia, who wnated more options on the ballot.

As I predicted, the ballot law was going to get broomed when Republican voters were angry only Romney and Ron Paul were going to be on it.

You can whine about it all you want but it seems to me the state of Virginia is changing course because of the people’s demands. That’s not a bad thing, in my view. A Romney-Ron Paul ballot is a joke.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

In this case, you are arguing against the rule of law. The law specifies the cutoffs for both the minimum number AND the number for avoiding the kind of scrutiny that many now object to. If the law is an ass (h/t Charles Dickens), change it for the next election, but don’t ignore what it says in this one.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Serious question:

Can you cite for me in Virgina state law where it provides for the method of verifying signatures? I couldn’t, but in all seriousness, it could be right under my nose and I could still miss it. The information I’ve been given here by various parties has been conflicting, to say the least.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I for one, not being from or living in Virginia, am giving him my moral support.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Your solution does not fit your professed issue.

If the issue is actual valid signatures, then the solution is to validate all of them, and remove those who wind up not having enough – not adding candidates who have already failed to do so.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:15 PM

If Gingrich and Perry were actually conservatives, rather than cry baby little a-ffirmative action liberals, if they were suing it would not be suing to get on the ballot, as they blew that with their incompetence, but suing to have Romney’s and Paul’s signatures counted until they got up to 10,000 valid ones, or not.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

An outcome which I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing. As I have said on this thread and elsewhere, I don’t give a shit whose ox is being gored. And besides that, if there’s any threat in either Romney or Herr Doktor getting challenged off the ballot, I think the threat is far greater to Herr Doktor.

At this point in time, assuming a static field, I would not vote for Huntsman, Perry, Gingrich, or Romney in the primary — but my support of any individual candidate is not what this is about to me.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I think in this case the people of Virginia are going to favor having a larger choice in candidates over some stupid party hack law. If this can’t be overturned by the will of the people, we’re really screwed.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 9:18 PM

If the issue is actual valid signatures, then the solution is to validate all of them, and remove those who wind up not having enough – not adding candidates who have already failed to do so.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Did I personally say anything about Virginia having a greater choice of candidates upthread? I don’t recall specifically griping about that issue.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:19 PM

It wouldn’t be as big a deal if Virginia allowed write-ins.

If I were a Virginia resident, and all I had to choose from was Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, I wouldn’t bother to vote.

DRayRaven on December 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I don’t recall specifically griping about that issue.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:19 PM

That is Cuccinelli’s solution, and you were praising him. If I’m mistaken then I apologize.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I don’t have it handy. H/A posted a link a while back to both the law and also to material that went out to the candidates making clear how petitions would be counted and processed.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 9:23 PM

That is Cuccinelli’s solution, and you were praising him. If I’m mistaken then I apologize.

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Oh yeah. I stand corrected. I did say I support Cuccinelli in whatever action he decides to take, didn’t I? It may be entirely possible that he fails in that regard, in which case I would take no small amount of joy in Ron Paul being challenged off the ballot — but I am no Newt supporter. I really couldn’t care one way or the other how things turn out for him.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:24 PM

I still don’t see what your point is. Are you seriously comparing a state moving its primary date to a state changing the requirements to get on a ballot after some establishment candidates failed to meet the criteria, and thus creating two sets of rules?

Dante on December 31, 2011 at 8:30 PM

I’m saying that if you’re going to have such a reverence for rules, then the Mittbots should have been whining just as loudly about states like Florida flouting the GOP’s rules in moving up their primary, with Iowa and New Hampshire predictably following. They didn’t seem to have much of a problem with that rules change. Only those that might not be optimal for their weak candidate.

And Romney’s not an “establishment candidate”? Good grief.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM

“Rick Perry’s complaint, to be heard in a Va court on Jan. 13th, contends that the state of Virginia, and the GOP in particular, violate his First Amendment rights due to the restrictive requirement that anyone gathering signatures for a candidate for a federal election must be a resident and/or a registered voter or eligible to register to vote, but only in the district where they are gathering signatures.

This rule has been found a violation of the First Amendment by the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th district courts.” – retire05

Comment thread http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/12/31/as-perry-gains-momentum-in-iowa/#comment-8009

workingclass artist on December 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Frankly, I agree with Ed: This was a kind of competence primary — and, no matter what happens with this new legislation, it doesn’t reflect well on either Gingrich or Perry that they didn’t attend more closely to detail.

Competency in what? Anyone who is able to get on Virginia’s primary ballot is competent to be President? Really?

Vince on December 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Gingrich and Perry got on the ballot because of the color of their skin? Who knew?

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:10 PM

Blacks, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Latinos and now Gingrich and Perry want to be added to that elite group.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

but my support of any individual candidate is not what this is about to me.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Then as someone who does not believe then end justifies the means, you may be a real conservative.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:30 PM

§ 24.2-545. Presidential primary.

B. Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States, or any group organized in this Commonwealth on behalf of, and with the consent of such person, may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate for whom the petitions are filed.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 7:59 PM

May does not equal must.
Legalese + lawyer politions = loophole for contingencies?

S. D. on December 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Blacks, gays, lesbians, Muslims, Latinos and now Gingrich and Perry want to be added to that elite group.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:28 PM

That’s completely dishonest and you know it. You just know Romney’s a weak candidate and would greatly benefit from clearing the field in any way possible. That’s the liberal Democrat attitude.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM

politicians

S. D. on December 31, 2011 at 9:34 PM

May does not equal must.
Legalese + lawyer politions = loophole for contingencies?

S. D. on December 31, 2011 at 9:31 PM

They also deemed Romney’s signatures as sufficient so perhaps that is a way out as well?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Then as someone who does not believe then end justifies the means, you may be a real conservative.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:30 PM

You know, for all your griping about “affirmative action,” you sure don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that someone who gets 15,000 signatures will be held to a different standard than someone who gets 14,999.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I don’t think this action is fair. And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, my favorite candidates are Perry and Gingrich. At least, they were. I’m not sure I can vote for either one now because this whole thing bothers me on several levels. To sue and claim victimization is a dem tactic. When did it start being ok for our side to do it as well? I thought we were supposed to be above that. The bottom line is Perry and Gingrich didn’t submit enough valid signatures. Period. Paul’s were counted and I think Romney’s should be as well (even though he made the 15,000 signature threshold) to avoid questions in the long run. I’d respect him alot more if he demanded that his be counted, but that’s unlikely.

For those who say that Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman should be allowed on the ballot as well, that’s BS. They didn’t bother to submit any signatures at all. Why should they benefit from this fiasco?

By the time this primary is over we’ll hate all the candidates, the nominee, and each other. You do realize the dems are laughing at us, right??

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM

By the time this primary is over we’ll hate all the candidates, the nominee, and each other. You do realize the dems are laughing at us, right??

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I already think all the candidates stink, and anybody who thinks we’re ready to embrace constitutional government again just because we elect another Republican is a moron. So I guess that does mean I hate most of the rest of the rose-colored glasses-wearing commenting crowd here. And we’re still days away from the Hawkeye Cauci. I think your timing estimation was a little off, Daddysgirl.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

By the time this primary is over we’ll hate all the candidates, the nominee, and each other. You do realize the dems are laughing at us, right??

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The horror.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:45 PM

That’s completely dishonest and you know it.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 9:32 PM

What is dishonest is Gingrich and Perry suing to get on the Virginia ballot when they could just as easily have complied with the rules. So yes, clearly they want a-ffirmative action, but worse than others who do, they won’t admit it.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:46 PM

For all the back and forth on here, not much of this really matters. Revised laws in VA take effect on 1 July, too late for Gingrich and Perry. An emergency bill could also be passed, but that requires a 4/5ths super-majority (VA Constitution, Sec 13), and the D’s just aren’t going to be that interested in helping the R’s out of this C-f-

msr on December 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

VorDaj you seem to completely misunderstand what affirmative action is. Your jokes can’t be funny because of this.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Somebody on this thread is wound way too tight over this.

Aitch748 on December 31, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You know, for all your griping about “affirmative action,” you sure don’t seem to be bothered by the fact that someone who gets 15,000 signatures will be held to a different standard than someone who gets 14,999.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:35 PM

You have a short memory.

If Gingrich and Perry were actually conservatives, rather than cry baby little a-ffirmative action liberals, if they were suing it would not be suing to get on the ballot, as they blew that with their incompetence, but suing to have Romney’s and Paul’s signatures counted until they got up to 10,000 valid ones, or not.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

15,000 was the dividing line set by Virginia, so anyone with 14,999 or less signatures should already have been subject to a count for valid signatures.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:51 PM

VorDaj you seem to completely misunderstand what affirmative action is. Your jokes can’t be funny because of this.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I understand completely what affirmative action is. It is special treatment, which is exactly what Gingrich and Perry want. It is so obvious that even you should be able to see it.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:54 PM

I, MJBrutus, declare that I will support whoever wins the GOP nomination will receive my vote for President of the US in the 2012 general election and that I will exert my efforts towards his or her victory.

Who’s with me?

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:53 PM

That’s the sanest quote I’ve heard on Hot Air since open registration
:-)

You just went up, in my book

+111!1!11

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 10:00 PM

I already think all the candidates stink, and anybody who thinks we’re ready to embrace constitutional government again just because we elect another Republican is a moron. So I guess that does mean I hate most of the rest of the rose-colored glasses-wearing commenting crowd here. And we’re still days away from the Hawkeye Cauci. I think your timing estimation was a little off, Daddysgirl.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:43 PM

You’re right. I was being optimistic. We already hate each other before even one vote has been cast. With that said, how do we come together after the primaries to elect someone who will help put this country back on the right path? Personally, I don’t think we can. There’s been too much hate and animosity thrown around. The country, and the party has been hopelessy divided (you may have noticed this based on the comments on these threads).

And for the record, I’m not one of the “rose-colored glasses-wearing” crowd. I don’t think this country can be saved by one election, or two, or even three. There’s too much corruption on both sides. It’s going to take many cycles to weed the bad ones out. This cycle, I’m willing to do my part in voting for the best of the worst to try to, at least, get the current admin out. You know why? WE. DON’T. HAVE. ANYONE. ELSE. RUNNING!!!

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 10:25 PM

I think that the system is sufficient to exceed a reasonable doubt standard. You are demanding complete certainty. As I said, given the controversy and in hindsight perhaps certainty would have been worth the expense. When the law was written it was hard to foresee that serious candidates would treat the process so cavalierly and create such problems for themselves.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

The issue I have with your reasoning is that I think it assumes too much before drawing a conclusion.

The VA GOP made an assumption that a 50% margin of extra signatures – a 50% disqualification rate – was enough to not justify checking signatures, because no candidate could reasonably be expected, given the margin of their assumption, to surpass that failure rate.

They were proved wrong after the Perry count, as his was near 50%.

So, either Perry’s petition people either were unusually unsuccessful, or the margin of error which they determined would be sufficient to forgo actually checking the signatures was too low.

A key piece of missing information for me is the Gingrich disqualification fraction. 100 Quatloos to anyone who can dig that up, because it would shed a lot of light on Perry’s position.

What really bothers me is that Romney’s disqualification rate cannot be truly checked, unless his signatures were checked in the same manner as those of Gingrich and Perry.

Regarding Paul’s numbers? Something is still hinky there, as the numbers released by the VA GOP said he had fewer than 15,000. But then, someone *asserted* last night, with no link, that Paul’s signatures indeed had been verified, in the same manner as those of Gingrich and Perry. Given the strength of his organization, and the evident fanaticism of a certain portion, who knows if something is amiss with the Paul numbers.

But, setting that aside, I am bothered by the idea that Perry approached a 50% failure rate, because that means it CAN be done.

Earlier, you yourself said that Romney’s signatures were sampled. I would be very interested to hear more from you on where you got that. Going to Google, after your statement upthread, I found the assertion from a Romney aide that Romney’s signatures had been sampled, and found to have an 80% validation rate.

First, coming from a Romney aide, I don’t give it prima facie credit, as he obviously has a bias. But, I would like to know if you have a source from the VA GOP that can tell us how many Romney signatures were checked, how broadly they were checked, and what his validation percentage was.

If his signatures were sampled, the sample would have to be broad and large enough to be reliable. Were I the head of the validation operation, I certainly would want extremely strong evidence that Romney had an 80% success rate, before I would take such a serious and momentous action as to actually rule that Romney had fulfilled the law requiring 10,000 valid signatures – that’s for sure.

What the VA GOP has done is to take a leap of statistical faith.

If they have backed themselves up with a statistically credible sample, then I will allow them the discretion to declare that Romney has satisfied the 10,000-valid-signature law.

However, and this is an important “however,” to do this, the statistics must be unimpeachable. Otherwise, their “deeming” that submitting 15,000 signatures means, ipso facto, that the candidate has satisfied the 10,000-valid-signature, runs afoul of the latter statute if it’s not statistically supported.

Maybe Romney’s statistics are impeachable. Maybe they aren’t. We don’t have the information to judge.

The missing pieces of info:

1. Gingrich’s disqualification percentage.
2. The depth and breadth of Romney’s sample.
3. Reliable, non-partisan evidence that such sampling occurred.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 10:25 PM

By the time this primary is over we’ll hate all the candidates, the nominee, and each other. You do realize the dems are laughing at us, right??

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM
The horror.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 9:45 PM

And I rest my case.

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 10:31 PM

By the time this primary is over we’ll hate all the candidates, the nominee, and each other. You do realize the dems are laughing at us, right??

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 9:41 PM

So you’d rather good conservatives sit quiet while the Establishment forces Mittens on us?

We have serious problems and need a conservative to fix them. Nominating another Progressive Repubican is only going to lead to a slow death for America as opposed to a quick death under Maobama.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM

But, setting that aside, I am bothered by the idea that Perry approached a 50% failure rate, because that means it CAN be done.

Earlier, you yourself said that Romney’s signatures were sampled. I would be very interested to hear more from you on where you got that. Going to Google, after your statement upthread, I found the assertion from a Romney aide that Romney’s signatures had been sampled, and found to have an 80% validation rate.

First, coming from a Romney aide, I don’t give it prima facie credit, as he obviously has a bias. But, I would like to know if you have a source from the VA GOP that can tell us how many Romney signatures were checked, how broadly they were checked, and what his validation percentage was.

If his signatures were sampled, the sample would have to be broad and large enough to be reliable. Were I the head of the validation operation, I certainly would want extremely strong evidence that Romney had an 80% success rate, before I would take such a serious and momentous action as to actually rule that Romney had fulfilled the law requiring 10,000 valid signatures – that’s for sure.

What the VA GOP has done is to take a leap of statistical faith.

If they have backed themselves up with a statistically credible sample, then I will allow them the discretion to declare that Romney has satisfied the 10,000-valid-signature law.

However, and this is an important “however,” to do this, the statistics must be unimpeachable. Otherwise, their “deeming” that submitting 15,000 signatures means, ipso facto, that the candidate has satisfied the 10,000-valid-signature, runs afoul of the latter statute if it’s not statistically supported.

Maybe Romney’s statistics are impeachable. Maybe they aren’t. We don’t have the information to judge.

The missing pieces of info:

1. Gingrich’s disqualification percentage.
2. The depth and breadth of Romney’s sample.
3. Reliable, non-partisan evidence that such sampling occurred.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Your post is a very good one. I had not heard that Perry’s rate was near 50%. That is shameful and smacks of corruption within his campaign. I do know from an article I saw linked by Drudge a few days back (yes, if it can be believed) that Newt had a worker who, by just himself, turned in enough fraudulent names (1200 or so IIRC) to drop him below 10k.

I can concede that with such high rates of fraud that it may indeed not be reasonable to allow any of the campaigns to escape a thorough check of all the names on their petitions. I find it a stain on the entire party that any of our candidates have a demonstrated failure rate as high as that.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM

As I posted last night, if Romney is the nom then fine I’m behind him, but he can’t pull a McCain 2.0 and not go after Obama in hopes of appearing like a nice guy in the general. Romney cannot be President unless he actually WINS the general, and failure to show Obama for who he is won’t cut it.

Stray Cat on December 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM

As I posted last night, if Romney is the nom then fine I’m behind him, but he can’t pull a McCain 2.0 and not go after Obama in hopes of appearing like a nice guy in the general. Romney cannot be President unless he actually WINS the general, and failure to show Obama for who he is won’t cut it.

Stray Cat on December 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Don’t expect Mittens to be something he’s not. Over the last 3 years he’s been absent on the issues of the day. Look what he did on the debt ceiling, saying he was only against raising it after there was enough public backlash.

The icing on the cake was refusing to call Maobama a socialist showing that Mittens is indeed McCain 2.0!

Time to rally behind a conservative in Santorum to stop Mittens!

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 10:52 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Hey G,

You and cane_loader have won me over. Thank you both for making the case so well for counting all of the names for all of the campaigns!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I will address this:

If [snip] but suing to have Romney’s and Paul’s signatures counted until they got up to 10,000 valid ones, or not.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Not this simplistic, name-calling spitball:

Gingrich and Perry were actually conservatives, rather than cry baby little a-ffirmative action liberals, if they were suing it would not be suing to get on the ballot, as they blew that with their incompetence,

You have a good point, in that the first amelioration would be to count Romney’s and Paul’s in the same manner, to see if they reach 10,000.

You then undercut it with immature, intellectually lazy ad hominem.

Aside from the immature part of your posting, I would agree with you, but there is one more, deeper issue that would have to be addressed – that of the notice given to the campaigns.

From all the back and forth here, no one has been able to refute that the campaigns weren’t notified of the intent to individually check signatures that were submitted, in batches of fewer than 10,000, until October or November.

Seeing as the informal Iowa campaign began LONG before then, this is am important issue.

A candidate such as Romney, who has been in Iowa, with very little let-up, since 2006, or a candidate such as Paul, who has a fanatic, long-standing base in Iowa, has many more ways to gather signatures very quickly, in a pinch.

Other candidates who have not run perpetual campaigns, such as Gingrich, Perry, Santorum and Huntsman, do not have this emergency, go-to reservoir of signature-gathering capability from longstanding networks.

A change this late to the “rules,” (I have heard so many lamenting the “changing” of “the rules,” when a candidate is running a 50-state campaign, can impose a much larger burden on a non-perpetual candidate such as Perry or Gingrich.

How late was the notice?

How clear was the notice?

These are unresolved questions that speak to the heart of whether Gingrich and Perry were “incompetent,” or bushwhacked by a late change and unable to comply.

I find it unfair to call Gingrich and Perry unfit to lead, based on this imputed “incompetence,” until more facts are known.

Regardless, I don’t know if it should be a point of pride that Romney and Paul have been doing nothing but running for president for years.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Breaking!
=========

Va. attorney general intervenes in ballot flap; Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman join Perry’s suit – @FoxNewsStory metadata:
Submitted 54 mins ago from http://www.foxnews.com by editor

http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

Virginia AG Intervenes in GOP Ballot Dispute as Blocked Candidates Join Suit

Published December 31, 2011
****************************
****************************

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is intervening in his state’s presidential primary dispute and plans to file emergency legislation to address the inability of most Republican presidential candidates to get their name on the ballot, Fox News has learned.

Meanwhile, four GOP candidates on Saturday joined fellow candidate Rick Perry’s lawsuit against the state, urging the Board of Elections to either allow them on the ballot or at least refrain from taking any action until a Jan. 13 court hearing.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs. Perry and the four candidates joining the lawsuit — Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman — did not.

The failure of other candidates to qualify led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.

Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns and plans to take them to the legislature while the candidates work through the courts.

“Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient,” he said in a statement Saturday. “Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly.”

Cuccinelli’s proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.

Two former Democratic attorneys general are backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.

Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a “legal and constitutional embarrassment.” Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it.”

A spokesman for Virginia Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell appeared to defend the state’s strict ballot rules, but opened the door to reexamining them.
(More…..)
===========

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/31/virginia-attorney-general-intervenes-in-gop-primary-ballot-dispute/

canopfor on December 31, 2011 at 11:03 PM

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Here is the VA GOP response, which may or may not answer your questions:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/12/rpv-defends-decision-disqualify-gingrich-perry/2042101

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 11:04 PM

***************Happy New Year Gang****************************
———————————————-:)

canopfor on December 31, 2011 at 11:04 PM

15,000 was the dividing line set by Virginia, so anyone with 14,999 or less signatures should already have been subject to a count for valid signatures.

VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Then I don’t ever wanna see the words “affirmative action” together in another one of your posts on the matter. Clearly it does matter to you when it’s your ox being gored.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM

The icing on the cake was refusing to call Maobama a socialist showing that Mittens is indeed McCain 2.0!

Time to rally behind a conservative in Santorum to stop Mittens!

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 10:52 PM

I know. That is what I’m afraid of. I would even go for Newt, but I don’t think anyone but Romney is going to make it out of the primaries. I see the new death star….the emperor pulling strings with vader by his side.

Stray Cat on December 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Hey G,

You and cane_loader have won me over. Thank you both for making the case so well for counting all of the names for all of the campaigns!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I can’t tell if you’re mocking me or not. So thank you, I think.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM

As an aside: In Virginia, the attorney general, who is not a member of the legislature, can file emergency legislation?

Shump on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Raw Video: US Troops Ring in 2012 in Afghanistan
************************************************

Published on Dec 31, 2011 by AssociatedPress

US soldiers and those serving with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan celebrated the New Year at the NATO base in Kabul, Afghanistan on Saturday. (Dec. 31)
———————————————————-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM2pSaipa2s

canopfor on December 31, 2011 at 11:15 PM

canopfor on December 31, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Cuccinelli’s right. Virginia’s system is hosed.

Political campaigning is a unique and largely silly process, and if there’s one thing we should have learned from the Obama ascendancy, it’s that being good at it is not a sign of anything morally important.

Few candidates have sailed through a campaign looking like they called all the shots perfectly. Reagan certainly didn’t in 1980. He fired his first campaign manager and lost some significant battles before surging in North Carolina. If we went solely by how well candidates are held to have campaigned, we’d have to give Barack Obama the first-place trophy for at least the last 50 years. That ought to tell us something.

Any fool with a talent for bureaucracy can get on the ballot in Virginia. And if it isn’t clear why needing a talent for bureaucracy IS THE PROBLEM, please read that last sentence again.

J.E. Dyer on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM

As an aside: In Virginia, the attorney general, who is not a member of the legislature, can file emergency legislation?

Shump on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 PM

If it’s like most states, he can request that the legislature meet in an emergency session to consider legislation that he’s drafted — which any public official can do.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Not a bit of it. My post was very sincere.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Not a bit of it. My post was very sincere.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 11:21 PM

Well then, thank you. Happy New Year, MJ.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 11:23 PM

MJBrutus,
Extrapolating from this story, Perry had between 6,000-6,999 validated signatures. That comes out to a DQ rate, lacking an exact number, of between 41.2% and 49.6%.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/28/lawsuit-implies-nearly-half-of-perrys-virginia-petition-signatures-struck-down/

According to the Virginia GOP, Perry turned in 11,900 signatures, well over the required 10,000 — in years past, that would have automatically qualified him for the primary ballot, no questions asked. But in the campaign’s court filing, the text explains that Perry “submitted to the Board over 6,000 petition signatures from qualified Virginia voters,” suggesting that nearly half of Perry’s petition entries were examined by the state party and struck down.

It is not clear exactly why so many signatures were struck down, or exactly how many the Virginia GOP actually ruled to be invalid, but logic dictates that team Perry would cite as many legitimate signatures as possible on their legal complaint.

The Perry campaign and the Virginia GOP did not respond to requests for comment.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:25 PM

So you’d rather good conservatives sit quiet while the Establishment forces Mittens on us?

We have serious problems and need a conservative to fix them. Nominating another Progressive Repubican is only going to lead to a slow death for America as opposed to a quick death under Maobama.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Um…no. I’d just like for the other candidates to do their due diligence. Is that too much to ask? I don’t want Mitt either. That doesn’t mean I think the other candidates should be given a pass. Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman didn’t even submit 1 signature, let alone the 10,000-15,000 minimum required. And you think they deserve to be added, along with Perry and Gingrich?

Perry and Gingrich did just over the minimum required (which doesn’t allow for many bad signatures). I don’t know about anyone else, but to me this screams that they are not serious about winning. They have to be serious, and not make mistakes, if they are going to go up against the current administration and win.

I think the establishment thrusting Romney on us is sleazy. However, not doing what they (Perry and Gingrich) are supposed to do and then crying foul is pretty disingenuous. I have a hard time with that. The time for lawsuits was when the states moved up their primaries. It was obvious then they were doing it to give Romney the edge.

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Your post is a very good one. I had not heard that Perry’s rate was near 50%. That is shameful and smacks of corruption within his campaign. I do know from an article I saw linked by Drudge a few days back (yes, if it can be believed) that Newt had a worker who, by just himself, turned in enough fraudulent names (1200 or so IIRC) to drop him below 10k.

I can concede that with such high rates of fraud that it may indeed not be reasonable to allow any of the campaigns to escape a thorough check of all the names on their petitions. I find it a stain on the entire party that any of our candidates have a demonstrated failure rate as high as that.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 10:45 PM

This is why it is key to determine the Gingrich disqualification fraction. Maybe people should not be tarring Gingrich and Perry with the same brush.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:28 PM

J.E. Dyer on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM

:):):)

Aslans Girl on December 31, 2011 at 11:29 PM

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Hey G,

You and cane_loader have won me over. Thank you both for making the case so well for counting all of the names for all of the campaigns!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 10:55 PM

WOW!

Diogenes goes out looking for a Hot-Air poster with integrity, and finds MJBrutus.

I’m sure we’ll clash again, and I remember that we did clash awhile back over Perry and immigration (IIRC?)

But that kind of straight-forward intellectual interplay is what made Hot Air great, and what can keep it great, if we can survive the current wave of noob shills and trolls.

Thank you for crediting your opposition. Only with that level of intellectual honesty, can we make a difference here.

:-)

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Smart. Current local sentiment (mine included) is that VA GOP had better find a way to back down.

SarahW on December 31, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Um…no. I’d just like for the other candidates to do their due diligence. Is that too much to ask? I don’t want Mitt either. That doesn’t mean I think the other candidates should be given a pass. Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman didn’t even submit 1 signature, let alone the 10,000-15,000 minimum required. And you think they deserve to be added, along with Perry and Gingrich?

Perry and Gingrich did just over the minimum required (which doesn’t allow for many bad signatures). I don’t know about anyone else, but to me this screams that they are not serious about winning. They have to be serious, and not make mistakes, if they are going to go up against the current administration and win.

I think the establishment thrusting Romney on us is sleazy. However, not doing what they (Perry and Gingrich) are supposed to do and then crying foul is pretty disingenuous. I have a hard time with that. The time for lawsuits was when the states moved up their primaries. It was obvious then they were doing it to give Romney the edge.

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 11:27 PM

My bad. I just saw one of your posts and thought you were mad that conservatives were vetting Mittens. I’m used to seeing that so much….

I didn’t realize you were only talking about the Va ballot… not very smart of me since that is the topic of the thread.

On that issue I agree with you. It’s Newt’s and Perry’s fault for not getting on the ballot.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Here is the VA GOP response, which may or may not answer your questions:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/12/rpv-defends-decision-disqualify-gingrich-perry/2042101

Rebar on December 31, 2011 at 11:04 PM

WOWWW.. That’s a very…. dense document.

I just read it all….. and, on New Year’s Eve, don’t have the concentration to address it point by point. But one section – about the short time given to verify the signatures is alarming. Lots of fancy words, but they say that the VA GOP validation chief is given 5 days – over Christmas – to validate upward of 50,000 signatures – and that the whole 15,000-vote presumption is geared toward addressing that burden. They’re letting their own artificial time constraints drive the process.

Just like 0bama and Congress’ endless games of chicken over the debt ceiling, hard up against a recess.

There is the heart of it. A stupid timeline that imposes an unrealistic amount work in a short time, and then makes a statistical assumption to make it all work.

Folks, this is a prime example of procedure driving the product – a.k.a. the means justify the end.

Everyone on this thread needs to read rebar’s link. It pretty much explains everything.

Bureaucracy was at fault.

Go figure.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Thanks to those who stuck with it and fought the good fight here.

The conclusion is that the VA GOP put protections into their rule to prevent cheating, unless you cheat REAL BIG, then all protections go out the window.

It’s like the system was set up to reward ACORN-style “signature gathering.” Now, I’m not saying that Romney’s campaign cheated, he’s got the money and organization that I don’t think he’d need to — but I sure wouldn’t put it past Paul’s supporters. They’ve proven themselves cheats time and time again, in this election and the last.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Happy New Year to those of you on the East Coast…., coming up in a few.

We have the Civil War down here in Louisiana. The neighbors in every direction always buy the huge, public-park sized skyrockets…. so there’s a show in every direction, and the horses are running around the pasture like mad.

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 PM

If Gingrich and Perry were Paul and Gary Johnson nobody would give an eff and this would not be an “injustice”.

In the end, as ED said – I could care less if they end up on the ballot because we all know they did not really make it. I know here in Oklahoma, we also have perhaps the most difficult 3rd party rules in the state. In the last Presidential election we had McCain and Obama on the ballot and not one other person.

I stayed home and played video games. I was NOT gonna be responsible for either one of them. Both war mongering progressives.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 31, 2011 at 11:50 PM

My bad. I just saw one of your posts and thought you were mad that conservatives were vetting Mittens. I’m used to seeing that so much….

I didn’t realize you were only talking about the Va ballot… not very smart of me since that is the topic of the thread.

On that issue I agree with you. It’s Newt’s and Perry’s fault for not getting on the ballot.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 11:36 PM

No worries. I think we’re all frustrated. I know I am and I got a little heated. And our candidates’ shinanigans aren’t helping. Sometimes I wonder if they’re doing it on purpose….

daddysgirl on December 31, 2011 at 11:52 PM

The conclusion is that the VA GOP put protections into their rule to prevent cheating, unless you cheat REAL BIG, then all protections go out the window.

29Victor on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Whether they intended it or not, yes the final set-up did invite the “big cheat.”

I am now very curious about Perry’s signatures. MJBrutus brought this up.

A failure rate of nearly 50%, when, for so long, the campaigns thought the signatures wouldn’t be individually verified….

I’m not saying anything… but hmmm, wouldn’t it be a hell of a thing if someone on Perry’s team just got caught?

I’m dying to know Gingrich’s DQ rate, especially after he’s already admitted he had a fraudulent petition gatherer.

This story just… could….. have legs.

….

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Happy New Year to the East Coast folks! (Already afternoon, here)

Flotsam Jetsome on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 PM

This story just… could….. have legs.

….

cane_loader on December 31, 2011 at 11:54 PM

You mean as in, Perry and/or Gingrich’s petition gathering efforts were intentionally sabotaged. . ? That would be… interesting to say the least.

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM

It got real quiet here…. lol

I guess now we know that all the Gassers live in D.C.! :-D

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:04 AM

You mean as in, Perry and/or Gingrich’s petition gathering efforts were intentionally sabotaged. . ? That would be… interesting to say the least.

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I’m sayin’… there are a lot more questions than answers here. A cub-reporter’s dream, back in the day.

Sabotage…fraud……who knows.

Seeing that late rule change….there’s a reason two of the main guys fell short, and probably not just because they’re “incompetent.”

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:06 AM

You mean as in, Perry and/or Gingrich’s petition gathering efforts were intentionally sabotaged. . ? That would be… interesting to say the least.

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM

I dunno about intentionally sabotaged, but I’m with J.E. on this one…

Any fool with a talent for bureaucracy can get on the ballot in Virginia.

J.E. Dyer on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM

And it’s pretty clear to me that needing a talent for bureaucracy is the problem.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:07 AM

To really throw a conspiratorial slant on it: in a smuggling movie, Mitt would have gotten a tip there was going to be a roust, so don’t get caught short.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:08 AM

I dunno about intentionally sabotaged, but I’m with J.E. on this one…

Any fool with a talent for bureaucracy can get on the ballot in Virginia.

J.E. Dyer on December 31, 2011 at 11:20 PM

And it’s pretty clear to me that needing a talent for bureaucracy is the problem.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Oh, okay. Gingrich lacks a talent for bureaucracy? Who knew?

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Oh, okay. Gingrich lacks a talent for bureaucracy? Who knew?

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM

That’s sure what this looks like to me. I dunno when the last time was that Gingrich or Perry had a difficult time making any ballot deadline.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:16 AM

We all need to unite behind the strongest candidate, Romney, sooner rather than later.

bluegill on December 31, 2011 at 6:21 PM

No we don’t.

tmontgomery on January 1, 2012 at 12:19 AM

That’s sure what this looks like to me. I dunno when the last time was that Gingrich or Perry had a difficult time making any ballot deadline.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:16 AM

You know, 0bama has so much stuff that can be used against him now that he actually has a “record” that the GOP would have to try very, very hard to contrive a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012. We’re (GOP leadership) apparently putting in overtime to achieve just that. *sigh*

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:23 AM

I wonder if Romney can counter-sue the state for past expenses now?

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM

He should…then they would scrutinize his signatures and we would have the number of valid signatures from his lists.

tmontgomery on January 1, 2012 at 12:36 AM

You know, 0bama has so much stuff that can be used against him now that he actually has a “record” that the GOP would have to try very, very hard to contrive a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012. We’re (GOP leadership) apparently putting in overtime to achieve just that. *sigh*

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Sucks, doesn’t it?

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Sucks, doesn’t it?

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 12:38 AM

That’s good for a start. I’d finish the rest of that thought, but I’m not quite prepared to have my brief tenure at HA expire just yet. ;)

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 12:42 AM

if I am “bitter” it’s because even a lot of so called “conservatives” want to toss out the rule of law when it suits them and are hence are no better than “liberals”.
VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Give this person cigar,key to the city,or a big wet kiss.

your statement is the absolute truth!! thank’s and happy new year hotair.

svs22422 on January 1, 2012 at 12:47 AM

if I am “bitter” it’s because even a lot of so called “conservatives” want to toss out the rule of law when it suits them and are hence are no better than “liberals”.
VorDaj on December 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

The rule of law is only good until it becomes bad law. Then it must be fought.

The flawed VA laws, set up in opposition to themselves, created this mess.

Thos. Jefferson also said that we needed a revolution about every 19 years.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Well, I’m going outside to watch the sky light up.

The neighbors for miles around are starting up the artillery :-)

Happy New Year to all youse fools ;-)

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:58 AM

The rule of law is only good until it becomes bad law.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:57 AM

absolutly.

svs22422 on January 1, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Happy New Year to all youse fools ;-)

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Youse too. Dress defensively for the display. ;)

Flotsam Jetsome on January 1, 2012 at 1:06 AM

It’s D-Day here, as far as I can hear, in every direction.

My heart is racing from the concussions; I don’t know how our soldiers withstood that sort of sustained noise…. especially knowing some of it was aimed at them.

cane_loader on January 1, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Changes to election law should be made with sober deliberation including hearings in both Houses of the General Assembly, with an adequate period for witnesses to be heard and public opinion delivered. Rushing to change the law just because some people screwed up and need a boost is more of the leftist playbook.

Conservatives should be willing to accept responsibility for their failures.

Very disappointing from Cooch, who I had regarded very highly up to now.

Adjoran on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Very disappointing from Cooch, who I had regarded very highly up to now.

Adjoran on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 AM

I think he believes he’s doing the right thing. Time will tell.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Conservatives should be willing to accept responsibility for their failures.

Adjoran on January 1, 2012 at 1:11 AM

It is also worth noting, I do not believe that Gingrich somehow failed in not getting on the ballot in VA. With one set of standards for those who submit 1000-14999 signatures, and another for those who submit 15,000+, this doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I’m saying that if you’re going to have such a reverence for rules, then the Mittbots should have been whining just as loudly about states like Florida flouting the GOP’s rules in moving up their primary, with Iowa and New Hampshire predictably following. They didn’t seem to have much of a problem with that rules change. Only those that might not be optimal for their weak candidate.

And Romney’s not an “establishment candidate”? Good grief.

ddrintn on December 31, 2011 at 9:27 PM

1. States get to determine when elections will take place, not political parties. The GOP’s rules are for its party; they cannot dictate to a state when a state can hold its elections. The GOP’s rules are meaningless in this regard.

2. I didn’t say Romney wasn’t an establishment candidate. Good grief yourself.

You don’t have a point at all.

Dante on January 1, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6