Posted on 12/30/2011 8:33:03 AM PST by SmithL
NASHVILLE — Four of the nine Republican candidates in Tennessee's presidential primary ballot will have no committed delegates on the ballot with them on the March 6 ballot, while Mitt Romney has a surplus wanting to represent him at the Republican National Convention.
Candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Perry also had a substantial slate of committed delegates on the ballot to qualify before the deadline earlier this month. Candidate Jon Huntsman has three — two of them being former Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe and his wife, Joan.
Tennessee Republicans will elect delegates as well as choose their favorite as the party nominee March 6, though that part of the election gets relatively little attention. The candidates without delegates on the Tennessee ballot — Michelle Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Charles "Buddy" Roemer and Rick Santorum — can still win them at the polls and have delegates appointed later by the state Republican Executive Committee under party rules.
But getting delegates on the ballot does at least speak somewhat to a candidate's organizational effort in the state, said Tennessee Republican Chairman Chris Devaney, who stresses his neutrality in the primary.
"I do think it shows a certain amount of organization on the part of the candidates who have gotten a good number of delegate candidates to run," he said. "That certainly shows there's a level of organization and that they're thinking beyond the early primaries."
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
I agree, very good points.
The thought of Romney being the nominee makes me ill.
When I did not like the candidates in a primary, I used to select the delegates I trusted and not pay much attention to the primary candidates. Thus, in 2008, I voted for Huckabee, but mostly for Thompson delegates.
I can't agree with this.
On principle, federalism and state's rights are important. Setting election rules is primarily a state responsibility and I don't want to see the federal government or the national parties setting eligibility rules. Federalism exists for a reason, and giving the federal government or even the national parties more power over who can run for the presidency could easily generate serious unintended consequences.
Also, on pragmatic grounds, our current system is not bad. We have several early races in relatively small states — Iowa and New Hampshire — where presidential candidates are forced to run for office the way Iowans and Yankees run for city councils, boards of selectmen, mayor, and county commission. Forcing one-on-one contact with voters and forcing candidates to submit to questioning in small groups is not a bad thing. Adding South Carolina to put a Southern voice into that early state mix is probably going to end up being a good thing, too.
The result is candidates who would never stand a chance in large states because they don't have the money for major TV ad buys have the opportunity to get their message out to voters in one-on-one interactions. They're forced to have a very good on-the-ground organization in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both. That can generate the money for a grassroots candidate to emerge and get the money needed to challenge the better-funded “establishment” candidates in Super Tuesday and later races.
Without Iowa and New Hampshire, we would see both parties dominated by elite party insiders and an occasional wealthy independent candidate capable of self-funding. The result would be that conservative voices would be drowned out and never even get heard.
This year, the problem isn't that conservative voices aren't getting heard but rather that there are too many conservative voices and no solid “anti-Romney” has emerged. Maybe we don't have anyone in the current crop of candidates. Maybe we have several and they're destroying each other. I don't know. What I do know is we have a major problem if Iowa and New Hampshire don't do their jobs in narrowing the field.
Your first point in the debate is irrelevant as a result so there's no sense discussing the rest of your book.
From my perspective, whenever I say that Perry is the one with the money to go forward, I’m not even comparing him to Gingrich. I’m comparing him to Santorum and Bachmann.
I don’t think of Newt as being all that much different from Romney. He has a pretty conservative overall voting record as a congressman, but since those days he has been in the wrong place for a conservative numerous times.
Also, Newt shot to the top after wowing people who were wanting a debater and media critic...therefore, I compare Perry to the other second tier candidates who are trying to break out.
Under those criteria, CGG, Perry is indeed the one with the money to go forward.
There are two separate problems with your point, if I'm understanding you correctly.
First, let's go to the actual text of the Constitution and what it says about regulating election rules.
I'm assuming you're referring to Article I, section 4, and its provision that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
The point of the Constitution is that states have the primary role in setting election rules but Congress may overrule them with regard to federal elections if there is a public purpose in doing so.
This clause is part of the constitutional foundation of the 1960’s era civil rights laws giving federal review over state election laws to the federal government, which, to put it mildly, is a rather controversial issue in conservative circles. I'm all for defending minority voting rights and fair elections, but is federal review of state voting laws for civil rights compliance really needed in an era when the President is African-American, the former head of the Republican National Committee is African-American, and until recently a leading Republican presidential candidate appealing to the most conservative parts of the Republican Party was African-American?
However, here's an example of how that clause can work which probably won't be controversial. Not that many years ago, Congress decided to require that a federal ballot be provided to military personnel who haven't met state deadlines to register to vote but showed up even as late as election day and wanted to vote in the presidential election. I don't have a problem with that.
The Constitution presumes that there will be a variety of procedures in each state. Why is diversity bad?
The second problem with your point is that the Constitution says nothing about political parties. We're talking here about primaries and caucuses, not the general election. If the Republican Party doesn't like the way a state has set its election laws — an example is my own state of Missouri — it, as a private organization, has every right to decide to select the national convention delegates via a caucus system completely independent of the state-approved election process.
The federal government has **ABSOLUTELY** no business telling the political parties how to handle their own internal affairs. The private organization status of the parties doesn't come up often since in most cases the leaders of the parties are also leaders in government, but it does happen sometimes, and one of those times happened this year in Missouri when the Republican Party decided that it wasn't going to do things the way our Democratic governor and Democratic secretary of state wanted, and the Republican-controlled legislature didn't take action in time to fix the problem. (I'm simplifying here, details of the Missouri mess aren't relevant to my point.)
This becomes a **MUCH** bigger deal when a state legislature is heavily dominated by one political party and tries to dictate rules to the minority party, or if a Congress controlled by one party tried to dictate rules to states controlled by the other party.
Federalism exists for a reason, and centralized control is to be avoided whenever possible. For a few things (national defense being one) central control is not just helpful but critical. Most other decisions are best made at the state and local levels — and that includes election rules.
We have no disagreement that what happened in Virginia was bad. However, it seems to me that the Virginia, as a major state, did what it was supposed to do, namely, exposing which candidates didn't have sufficient organization to meet stringent ballot access requirements. I never expected that Gingrich or Perry would have problems meeting those rules and this exposed serious weaknesses in both of their campaigns.
Stuff happens. Candidates can recover from missteps, but for a long-term experienced political leader like Gingrich or Perry, the problem shouldn't have happened in the first place.
I hope he gets the nomination.I am open to Santorum or Bachmann but Perry will be the last one standing.Screw Romney.
CGG is not LDS.
CGG is definitely “legalistic”.
I thought we invented this country right here in Fairfax county VA. George Washington was one of the neighbors.
There is no value whatsoever in laws that leave the selection to a small group of professional politicians.
Not arguing with that, but I know she isn’t LDS.
Bingo Rush nailed the issue firmly to the Progressive leadership in the Republican Establishment. They are running a second McCain like campaign hoping to reclaim a small majority in the Senate at the expense of the Conservatives.
The show last night was a rerun from last week, but it was Rush at his best.
You are as convincing as the drunk who says he is ok to drive.
The whole premise is controlled by the Establishment Progressives, and all the Campaign managers who sell their allegiance to the highest bidder.
Tokyo Rove tells us nightly why everyone who is losing, would be winning if they just played his game. If you don't think the Republican Leadership has designed the Primary process so they can control the outcome, then you don't think at all.
You do realize that this statement sounds like something that comes n talking points issued to insiders, right? You know those people that you claim to have no clue who they are?
Spoken like a paid political advisor.
see drudge. what happens if Gingrich/Palin turns out to be a repeat of 2008? I am not convinced Newt is a true conservative.I like the Perry talk of PT senate.Newt to me would be the same ole same ole but a little better than Romney.
It sounds very good, but the President has no authority to set the rules in the Senate or House, I guess he can call for a special session, but I am not sure he has any authority to compel them to attend.
This election is all about the professional organizers and has nothing to do with the will of the people.
it is possible if you have the people and the POTUS putting the heat on they’re 6 figure salaries for doing nothing and a few tea party people creating the bill it could happen.google Cantor and no more insider trading bill.with the right majority in there DC can get cleaned up.
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.