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 ...
Pardon me I am wrong but I think that everyone that has posted to me that Perrys idea of a PT senate not working would be shouting this to the mountain tops as the best idea since sliced bread; if they’re candidate Newt,Palin,Jack Daniels,Sam Hill Fill in the blank ______ said it.
(because the only people that have said this idea is impossible for a POTUS to do as been a bot of some candidate.I am not a bot of any candidate it is too early to tell who I will support.
Pardon me I am wrong but I think that everyone that has posted to me that Perrys idea of a PT senate not working would be shouting this to the mountain tops as the best idea since sliced bread; if they’re candidate Newt,Palin,Jack Daniels,Sam Hill Fill in the blank ______ said it.
(because the only people that have said this idea is impossible for a POTUS to do has been a bot of some candidate.I am not a bot of any candidate it is too early to tell who I will support.)
No, I want a chance to vote for her in March.
I realize you're not making the claim that I'm being paid, just that I speak “like a paid political advisor.”
Just to avoid any misunderstandings, not only am I not paid by anybody to write what I'm writing, I'm losing money and harming my business by spending ***WAY*** too much time this week and last week reading about the Iowa caucuses, and for national news of the campaign, monitoring Free Republic (which, BTW, is the best news aggregator anywhere from a conservative perspective).
Am I a political junkie? Yeah, I guess so. In my view, paying attention to politics as an informed citizen is important. And yes, I've given a lot of informal advice in local elections over the years, but I've never been a paid political adviser for anybody, and this year I don't know what I'd advise anybody to do in the election because I don't know how I'll vote myself.
I realize that lots of people say on the internet that they're undecided, but in my case I truly don't know who I would be voting for if I still lived in Iowa, where I once worked as a reporter and where I've had personal and church connections for more than two decades.
By the time we get around to voting in Missouri, the race will be narrower and my choice will likely be clearer. But right now I don't know who I support.
What I badly want is a candidate who has the following characteristics:
1. A strong social issues conservative, especially on abortion and the “culture war,” which in the current race means Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. Ideally I'd prefer an evangelical, but I can live with a conservative Roman Catholic who is a supporter of capital punishment and free enterprise and national defense, ignoring the left-wing semi-socialist stuff that too often comes out of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I might be able to vote for a secular neo-conservative who I was satisfied held to traditional moral values and would appoint strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court. (That, by the way, is where I think Newt Gingrich falls, as well as some of our other conservative political leaders who may claim a church affiliation but don't seem to be deeply committed to their faith.)
2. A strong stance on national defense, which is the primary purpose of government. Having a prior record of being pro-police on the local and state level helps, but I don't believe the federal government has a constitutional role in local law enforcement. I think basically everybody except Ron Paul is okay on this issue, though some are better than others.
3. Prior experience in government is important to me, preferably executive experience. In the current race, only Perry qualifies as someone with successful long-term executive experience, though Gingrich and Santorum both have many years of successful legislative experience. I'd like to vote for a governor or maybe the mayor or county executive of a large city or large county since some cities and counties are bigger than some of our states. If you can't show me that you've been successful in the past, it's pretty hard for me to know if you'll be successful in the future.
4. A commitment to free enterprise should be assumed in the Republican Party, but that can't always be taken for granted. Free enterprise and capitalism isn't something new or different; it's the way the world always worked until socialist schemes of theft of private property started to be advocated. Having a candidate with solid experience in private business is much less important to me than solid experience in government — put bluntly, private companies can be run by their owners in ways that government cannot and should not be run because in America the people are the bosses of the politicians — but having a strong track record of support for private business is important to me if a candidate doesn't have private business experience himself.
5. Last but definitely not least important, we need a candidate who can defeat President Obama this fall. He is the target, not fellow Republicans. That doesn't mean I support a moderate nominee; on the contrary, I believe we need a nominee who can energize the conservative base to contribute money and time, who will turn out lots of Republicans to vote rather than stay home, and who can convince conservative independents and conservative Democrats to vote Republican on the ground that Obama is a dangerous socialist.
Unfortunately, it looks like the two candidates who are ideologically the best, Bachmann and Santorum, may turn out to be the least electable other than Ron Paul, who is a nut case and has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election.
Is that an argument for supporting Perry? Maybe, but he's seriously flubbed up in the debates in ways you don't expect a successful governor of a large state to do. As for Gingrich, even if he's electable by standard calculus, we as Republicans have worked for decades to make ourselves into the party of moral values and nominating Gingrich with his history of philandering will do tremendous damage to something we've worked more than thirty years to establish.
I could add quite a few more “nice to haves,” but commitment to moral values, commitment to protecting people's lives and property, and a track record of experience showing that the commitments are real and not just good-sounding words are all very important to me.
None of the Republican candidates who are actually running perform well on the five-point standard I've just listed, though some are better than others and some (Romney and Paul) are definite no-gos because I can't trust them to protect the life of unborn babies or to protect our country against foreign enemies. I can think of former governors who I might wish were in the race, but they aren't. We're stuck with a set of choices that I, for one, am really unhappy are our only choices.
migraine BTTT for later
RCP http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2826799/posts?page=42
Gingrich beginning to pick up Undecideds.
Mitt 17
Gingrich 16.7
FruitLoops omitted
The rino right GOP is fixing the primaries as is their evil way. I see no difference between the leftists communists and the rino right liberals, their minds are destroyed and they are evolving into liberals election by election.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord but sin is a reproach to any people.
Can you tell me why Gov Nixon vetoed the bill to change the date of the primary in Missouri?
Before I give an answer representing Nixon's views, I want to check my facts and provide links. I don't want to misrepresent Nixon's position — I'm about 90 percent sure of his position, but 90 percent is not good enough.
I feel more comfortable representing the Republican position. The standard Republican position is this is a waste of taxpayer money for no valid reason, and that because of national Republican Party rules, the Missouri primary date would have cost the state a significant part of its delegates. Makes sense to me.
The other side (and this is not necessarily the Democratic Party position, some Republicans make it too) is that these “beauty contest” primaries do have precedents many years ago before our modern nomination process developed. In a lot of states, convention delegates were selected largely by state political machines and direct voter input was not as common as it is today. The “beauty contest” primaries gave political leaders a “heads up” on what the voters thought, and were a factor in keeping political leaders from making decisions contrary to the will of their own people. An added factor is that with Missouri's primary being when it is during a “down time” in the cycle, the vote is likely to carry some influence even with no delegates attached to it.
Hope that is of some help.
He pretty much said he was going to support the final nominee on Fox News this morning. Even he knows he doesn’t have a chance. What is your problem????
What do you mean what is my problem? If you want to stop Romney, Perry is the best bet and I’m glad to hear Perry say he will support the eventual nominee. I agree with him—again.
What I mean is that Perry is going to get fifth place in Iowa. Santorum is who you should be supporting. He will get no less than third place in Iowa. He will do very good in South Carolina and all the conservative states. He is clearly the most conservative in the grouping. I would put Perry third in conservativtism after Bachmann who is second. Perry could easily have had this in the bag a long time ago but he botched up the debates so badly that he can’t recover. He said it himself that he will not win the nomination on Fox News this morning. He was a bit depressed about it. I felt bad but he has to start looking at what is best for the United States which is Santorum!!!!
I’m sure if we strung together all of Newt’s footage from the last 10 years of his Fox News and other cable appearances, we’d see just as much of a 90% conservative as he was in Congress. The problem is people are unfairly picking out a tiny amount of clips to smear him. Why do you think there’s only a handful of stuff they’ve been able to come up with that you keep hearing repeated over and over? I saw him on Fox many times arguing with Colmes and other liberals and defending conservative positions.
You are OUT OF YOUR MIND if you think Santorum can win the nomination. Even thinking he has a better chance than Perry puts you squarely in la la land.
Perry is indeed the one with the money to go forward.
I don’t think he has as much money left as you think. He started with 12 million and gained 300K since the initial quarter that he received a lot of money so he has a grand total of 12.3 million. He spent 6 million in Iowa and probably will spend another 2 million in December. So that is 8 million which leaves him 4.3 million which is a drop in the bucket espcially since he will be 5th in Iowa and then dead last in New Hampshire. I think that will hurt and he will run out of money quick. He will spend 1 million in New Hampshire (which I wouldn’t if I were him, but he made up him mind already). South Carolina he will spend what is left and will be busted after a 3rd place run in SC and then drop out because there is no way he could even get a 3 second commercial in Florida where it is the most expensive for TV. Sorry but he is cooked. He will be fine and finish out Texas. Can he run for Gov again in TX? If they like him he could be there forever. Not a bad gig. He has not done a days work in months so obviously it is an easy job. Very well suited for him.
Oh we will see there smarty. Santorum will finish in Iowa no lower than third. Perry will finish 5th. In New Hampshire, Santorum will finish 5th and Perry will be dead last. So now what are you saying?????? Who is off their rocker now??????
Bachman....go home....your 15 minutes are up.
Can you spell her name right? It is Bachmann. Sheesh. You are so disrespectful to the second most conservative candidate we have after Santorum.
So you’re saying that Perry said he cannot win the nomination? If he’s saying this, then why isn’t he heading back to TX?
Why would he waste all his supporters money? He can wait until Wednesday to go back to Texas. I think he will stay until the day after South Carolina and then pack it up.
Thanks for posting. Happy New Year!
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.