I don't remember this level of problems with ballot qualifications, either, in prior years.
However, unlike some on Free Republic, I don't think the rules are the problem.
The problem seems to be that we have a higher number of candidates with lower levels of qualifications and experience. In prior years many of these people wouldn't have been taken seriously, but this year they have attracted support from the anti-incumbent Tea Party movement. That's certainly not all bad; the Republican Party's leadership is part of the problem today, just as it was in the late 1970s before the Reagan Revolution. What is bad is that people who do not have the level of organization we would typically expect in a presidential candidate, rather than being ignored, are getting “flavor of the week” treatment and dividing the conservative vote rather than leading to us uniting behind a single candidate.
That is doing serious damage because the conservative vote this year is fragmented. That's a problem because it helps Romney. Hopefully we'll be able to fix the problem before we have to deal with Romney as the Republican nominee.
I hope that Iowa, New Hampshire and other relatively early states like South Carolina do what they're supposed to do, namely, narrowing the field. If that doesn't happen, we have a much worse problem on our hands.
I don't want to think about the consequences of a race that leads to a brokered convention, or worse yet, that leads to Mitt Romney as the nominee because no “anti-Romney” ever gained traction.
They do that in Banana Republics!
I agree, very good points.
The thought of Romney being the nominee makes me ill.
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.