Santorum Could Be Ineligible For 18 Ohio District Delegates -- Report

In a potentially ominous Super Tuesday setback for Rick Santorum, a campaign filing mishap in Ohio could leave him ineligible to be awarded 18 Buckeye State district delegates -- more than a quarter of the total at stake there, ABC News reported Friday.

Ohio has 66 delegates total, with 63 at stake on Tuesday. Santorum failed to qualify for any district delegates in three Ohio congressional districts representing nine delegates because he didn't turn in names there.

ABC News reported that in six other congressional districts, the former Pennsylvania senator's campaign submitted fewer names than required to be eligible for all three delegates up for grabs in each district. That would put another nine delegates in jeopardy.

Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley responded to the report by issuing a statement that sought to depict the issue as a continuation of a controversy in Michigan. Santorum contends he and Mitt Romney should have split the delegates evenly in that state, but party officials there awarded Romney 16 and Santorum 14 in a move that the latter has decried as dirty politics and is contesting.

"The attempt by the establishment to to deceive the voters of Ohio and further their hand-picked candidate will be met with resistance on Tuesday," Gidley said. "I want to be clear -- Rick Santorum's name will appear on every ballot in the state of Ohio, and every vote cast will go towards his at-large delegate allocation.

"As it relates to individual congressional districts, it's clear we aren't the establishment hand-picked candidate, and back in December we were a small effort focused on Iowa. Now that we've won several states, obviously much has changed, and we feel confident that we will do well in both the delegate and popular vote count on Tuesday."

But a Romney spokesman seized on the report as further evidence that Santorum is a vastly inferior candidate.

"Rick Santorum has failed to get on the ballot in Virginia, has failed to file full delegate slates in Tennessee, New Hampshire and Illinois, and has failed to submit enough delegates in several Ohio congressional districts," said the spokesman, Ryan Williams, alluding to other Santorum logistical pitfalls. "The fact that he cannot execute the simple tasks that are required to win the Republican nomination proves that Rick Santorum is incapable of taking on President Obama's formidable political machine."

If he wins in a district where he failed to allocate a full slate of three delegates, Santorum would be eligible to take only the delegates he has already allocated in that district. But the unallocated delegates would not be awarded to anyone else.

"On Super Tuesday, if Sen. Santorum were to carry a district where he has not seated a full delegate slate, he will be awarded delegates where he has submitted delegate names," Ohio Republican Party spokesman Chris Maloney told The Plain Dealer of Cleveland. "And the additional delegates in that district will be unallocated."

Such a situation, The Plain Dealer said, sets up challenges -- if not from Santorum, then from political rivals such as Romney or Newt Gingrich.

The Ohio state party told the newspaper it has not faced this situation before, but it has been reviewing its bylaws and is prepared, if there is a challenge, to convene what it calls a "committee on contests."

You don’t see much of anything, which is why you went full bore for an unstable candidate like Santorum. Once the result of this move, by so many like you, has become painfully evident, we are all being forced to live with the result.”

Your name is absolutely fitting. At least your honest. However, as my time stamped election morning video proves, I voted for Newt Gingrich here in Florida and urged all conservatives to do the same.

http://youtu.be/6ziDwbCSYPw

The problem is people like you who refuse to work strategically with other conservatives (Santorum & Gingrich) to defeat the liberal hi-jacker, Mitt Romney.

If we as conservatives would simply take the “snapshot” the night before the election and vote for THE -one- of whichever two conservatives is the leader in each respective state, then we could defeat Mitt Romney, his Superpac money would dry up and then Santorum and Newt could fight it out like gentlemen.

What is far beyond rational is the fact that a small percentage of conservatives have become just as infatuated with Newt or Rick - that they obstinately REFUSE to work together because their crushes are as bad as those by the Romulans for Romney.

It defies all logic because as much as I like Rick & Newt - neither of them are so pure as conservatives - to merit the degree of implacable devotion and veneration.

They are good conservatives, especially compared to the socialist, unacceptable candidate Mitt Romney.

But if someone is such a staunch purist to the degree necessary to justify deliberately allowing Romney to hi-jack this party because they will not vote for Newt or Rick when they live in a state where their preferred conservative is behind by 20 points in the polls - they SHOULD in that case be too much of a purist to actually support Santorum OR Newt Gingrich from the beginning.

Both of those candidates have some embarrassing compromises. It’s just that when you look at their entire body of work, they are undeniable conservatives. To stubbornly vote for the conservative candidate who is behind more than double digits, while the other is neck and neck with the socialist Romney is an example of the type
of impetuous infatuation that causes Romney supporters to consider his egregious trespasses.

This rational conservative who “doesn’t know anything” despite voting for Newt despite my personal preference - also was the first to propound the Gingrich/Winston Churchill comparison.

The next link http://youtu.be/XJ1EM7t32wo proves via time-stamped upload date, preceded by 10 days the famous Investors Business Daily column that also compared Newt to Churchill. It also preceded my election day video in which I endorsed and voted for Newt.

So you intelligent people can see that I have a long track record of objectivity and am not infatuated by either candidate specifically. They both have strengths and weaknesses but I will support either one of them in the general.

The problem is that neither of them will make it to the general and we are all just pissing in the wind, wasting our time - if people listen and heed emotional appeals such as your acrimonious post. It’s like trying to overcome someone with a school girl crush, much like with Rombots.

I am really surprised that you are regurgitating the pabulum about Obama wanting to face Rick Santorum...

National polls have recently shown that Santorum fairs better against Obama than Romney does.

The Democrats for the past year from Axelrod on down to ALL of the liberal media pundits have been FLOODING the media telling us, out of their benevolence, that Mitt Romney is the best candidate the GOP has to face Obama and has the best chance of beating him.

Do you believe they have inculcated us for the past year that Romney is the best candidate for us to nominate because they (like Axelrod) just want us to have the best possible chance to defeat Barack Obama? Seriously?

So, is it just possible that after they see Santorum RISING in the polls and winning several states including the trifecta, is it just POSSIBLE that these evil and cunning people might employ the OPPOSITE strategy against Rick Santorum by inculcating us with the notion that they actually “dream” of facing Santorum?

Of course it is possible. It is more than possible; it is glaringly transparent.

If you do a news database search over the past 4 years searching “Mitt Romney” + “individual mandate” - you will see literally tens of thousands of columns like the following.

If you can read this and still not figure out that they are using psychologically deceptive strategies to manipulate the passive Republican voter into nominating the candidate they want - than obstinance and dogmatism is the real problem.

SAMPLE COLUMN (of thousands):
HEALTH CARE DOCTORING THE PARTY LINE - “ Individual mandate ‘: A GOP baby, disowned
Free Lance-Star, The (Fredericksburg, VA) - Monday, January 3, 2011

“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,” health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School told The Associated Press.

In fact, during debate over the Clinton health care plan in 1994, Hatch himself co-sponsored a bill that included an individual mandate . Back then, the mandate was seen as a free-market alternative, far preferable to the employer mandate President Bill Clinton was pushing.

More recently, Massachusetts Gov. Mitch Romney signed a law instituting an individual mandate as part of his state’s effort to provide universal coverage…Despite the hue and cry over the “socialist” Obamacare plan, this highlights the fact that the Affordable Care Act is actually an extremely moderate approach-some might even argue a conservative approach-to health care reform, and that, for some, the constitutionality of a provision depends chiefly on who proposes it.”

“In an interview with USA Today , Axelrod goes out of his way to credit Mitt Romney for implementing a universal health care plan when he was governor of Massachusetts that shares many similarities with the White House-backed law that has proved so unpopular with Republicans.

I am copying “all” because this is a recurring argument that needs to be addressed. If we cannot work together as conservatives and vote intelligently and for our interests or we are just wasting our time.

That's quite a breathtaking analysis.

Since you said you're not kidding, would you kindly show us where Rick Santorum or a significant supporter has advocated theocracy, or a religious utopian form of government?

Charges like that are even more lacking in facts than those of the liberals who think Rick Santorum wants to outlaw or legally restrict access birth control — which was, by the way, the law in some American states within living memory of a fair number of current voters.

Santorum isn't advocating rolling back the clock to the laws of some states of two generations ago, let alone advocating some sort of theocracy.

I'm painfully aware of some of the problems with Rick Santorum. I can understand why a conservative Republican may believe Newt Gingrich is a better candidate. Gingrich hit the nail on the head about the differences between the two candidates when he said Santorum is a team player and Gingrich isn't. He's right, and Republican voters need to take that into account.

But let's stick with facts, not stuff that has no basis in fact.

88 posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:01:29 PM by PSYCHO-FREEP: “But his misguided supporters still believe that if they can just get him the nomination, he will be vastly popular among ALL Americans and win in a landslide. Which in turn, will usher in the new “Moral America” which will gladly accept a return to a Theocratic/Religious Utopian form of Government. I kid you not!”

I actually agree with you on the problems with Santorum’s campaign and lack of organization.

However, does that mean you're Romney supporters? Gingrich failed to get on the ballot in Virginia, and didn't bother file for the primary in my state of Missouri.

I'm not happy with the lack of organization in either the Gingrich or Santorum campaigns. I've said publicly and repeatedly that we, as conservatives, are in a position where we should not be. We have the best chance in years to strike a devastating blow against liberalism and we're blowing it with screwups like this.

The problem is that the same complaints can be made against Gingrich. I don't consider Ron Paul to be a serious candidate since even he doesn't think he'll be elected and is merely trying to get enough delegates to have a libertarian influence on the party, and Romney is the only one of the serious candidates who had enough organizational aptitude and money to get on the ballot in all the states and do what should be standard for all candidates.

So blast Santorum all you want. You've got a good point. The problem is the disorganization complaints apply to Gingrich as well.

2 posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:16:28 AM by Reagan69: “Rules is rules, Ricky.”

3 posted on Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:16:45 AM by A. Morgan: “LOL Oh my, and people are actually thinking of voting for this guy. LOL”

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.