Posted on 12/24/2011 8:20:24 AM PST by shield
For those coming in late, let me summarize*: both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have been excluded from the Virginia Republican primary by the Virginia GOP. This has placed the VA GOP in an awkward situation, given that: they have excluded the current national and Virginian front-runner from their own ballot; have currently no write-in option on the ballot; do have an open primary that anyone can vote in; and generally have created an environment peculiarly suited for conspiracy theories involving Mitt Romney (and ones that won’t contain the word ‘Mormon’ anywhere in their description, by the way). The current defenses to all of this are “rules are rules” and “any campaign that couldn’t follow them are by definition poor campaigns:” I will leave it to the individual reader to decide just how either argument will play in, say, Peoria; I am frankly of the opinion that the above defenses are well-suited towards reassuring Romney and/or Paul voters – and will do very little to persuade the other 60-65% or so of likely Republican primary voters.
But since I’m telling Mitt Romney what won’t help his situation, it kind of behooves me to tell him what might.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
This whole thing REEKS! And it is the very thing that will break this reasonable election process.
Say hellow to Nominee Romney and second term President Obama!
I'm not attacking... I'm defending another Freeper that was attacked by C. Edmund Wright for having a different point of view. Yesterday C. Edmund Wright was not debating but insulting or ridiculing other Freepers that had a different point of view. Thus, that is an emotional reaction vs. a logical argument. You don't win people over by insulting or ridiculing them.
You can make a point of view without personally insulting or ridiculing another Freeper. Why do you think it's okay to insult or ridicule another Freeper with a different point of view??? Do you really believe that makes them want to listen to what you have to say?
We have similar problems with who should be included in the debates. Does anyone think that Huntsman has a shot at the nomination or Gary Johnson who has now switched to the Libertarian Party? Money and organization count in politics. Those are part of the tests in viability of a candidate. I have been on a panel interviewing candidates for state elections to determine which candidates our organization would support in terms of money. There were a number of criteria going beyond ideology. The candidates had to demonstrate they could raise money, had close community ties including conducting some internal polls, a good business plan on conducting the campaign, etc. And we had to weigh the demographics of the district and their Dem opponent to see if the candidate had any shot at winning. No matter how appealing the candidate, we wouldn't invest scarce resources in a race that wasn't competitive.
Rather than focussing attention on the requirements to get on the ballot, it would be better to address an open primary, winner take all format. I would like to see those changed.
You buy this with not even a second thought either.......No wonder we are seriously going to lose this election to Obama. (Or Romney)
>> No, YOU are talking shit. I said plainly the rules in play are the rules in play and if you don’t adapt to the rules in play then you lose. >>
Let’s examine your logic. Adopt the rules or lose, right?
Ok, fine. Obama Care is a rule. Let’s adopt it. The IRS tax code is a rule. Let’s not fight it, let’s just “play by it.” Same with every other ridiculous rule and law in society I guess.
Your problem is that that you fail to understand human nature; stupid rules are only changed when they come into focus with poor application and they are only changed by those offended by the stupidity of the rule.
Thus, attempting to follow it - as Newt and Perry have done - yet working to throw it out because it’s a stupid rule is exactly what a good conservative should do. Your “rules are rules” position, if taken to its natural conclusion, means we should simply live by every rule and law that is currently written and just “adopt it” or lose.
I refuse to live that way. Every true conservative does.
Good question.
Newt's a resident of Va., btw, so he didn't make his home state primary.
So either very smart people with very strong records of political success separately performed massive screwups, or something dirty is going on.
You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.
Can we all agree that if 5 of 7 candidates can’t make the ballot, there is something wrong with the process?
LOL. You joined this site on November 6, 2011 and I have been a Freeper since 2002 and you are calling me a troll?
That’s what “private reply” button is for.
But point taken.
<<< Can we all agree that if 5 of 7 candidates can’t make the ballot, there is something wrong with the process? >>>
Not the “rules are rules” crowd. The reasonable folks can.
>>>What’s your (lame) point?
Resist we much the Newt... ???
What stinks is the shit you are spreading around. I'll be voting for Newt in the Ohio Primaries because as far as I'm concerned he is the only Candidate who has a chance yet does not make me vomit at the thought of voting for him.
But Newt and the others could have got the Job done in Virginia and didn't. It was Newt's Job to get it done and he fell short. Crying about the rules after the fact makes you look like a whiny ass liberal.
The state of Primary Politics in the US is nothing new. Learn from it and move on or continue to suffer the same outcome.
WOW!
Neither campaign said that “THEY DID HAVE 10,000 VOTES”. Holly crap! Instead they are attacking the rules of the game. This is kind of like Al Gore wanting to change the rules after the election. They knew what the rules were and failed to meet it.
I have no doubt that their campaigns could get enough people, but it sounds like they were not addressing this seriously.
If either campaign can prove that they do have over 10K valid addresses, then yes they have a lawsuit they can easily win. However, if they just attack the law, then that confirms that there campaigns were just incompetent.
Astounding!
>> So why wasn’t this a problem in 2008 or prior to that? >>
First, I would not assume it wasn’t “a problem” - just because it didn’t go nuclear. It could have been a bubbling problem for cycles.
Second, our world is changing. In 08, there was not the focus on debates and social networking and the internet there is now - so the old timey hand written signature thing was more of a focus for the campaigns.
Things change all the time, including how campaigns are waged and what rules become obsolete or meaningless.
How the hell is that UNFAIR? Newt lives in VA. He should be able to cultivate political contacts and supporters. He could have collected 10,000 valid signatures since March 6th.
Virginia's Lt. Governor plays a major role in Romney's campaign. (No conspiracy there by golly)
Agree. There is no conspiracy except for those who are mentally unbalanced. Bill Bolling is free to support anyone he wants and to be his campaign chair. Jerry Kilgore was Perry's. Who is Newt's campaign chair in VA? You don't show up a week before the deadline in Arlington and expect to get the signatures needed.
What you put out in life is what you get back.
I just replied back to his public reply. If it was a “private reply” then I would have kept it private.
Nice try Jackwagon but again you don't get it. I said plainly you don't whine about the rules AFTER you lose you either do something beforehand or you must adapt and play on the field as is.
But you want to change the rules After THE GAME IS OVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO WIN AFTER THE CONTEST IS DECIDED. You know like liberals do in the courts after they lose and Election.
No, the rules weren’t followed. Either some of the signatures were not of registered voters or they didn’t have an address to verify. Any clown could sign a petition with someone else’s name (i.e., as we’ve seen, Mickey Mouse, the entire Dallas Cowboy team). The rules, clearly stated on the petition, require the person’s name printed/signed, and with a verifiale address where the signer is registered to vote in VA. That wasn’t done.
And, as those volunteers from across VA - each of whom gave up a day of their lives till 2:40am during the Christmas holiday to perform this public service - begin to talk about their experience - which was monitored by representatives of the disqualified candidates - you will learn that they were not told how to count or who to eliminate, other than according to pre-estalished rules.
This place is sounding today like SoreLoserman.
Things change when you have candidates who are disorganized and poorly funded that they can’t comply with the rules.
It was not a problem in 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.