I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

[BigV]

Speaking of dogs that won't be in fights:

Gingrich and Perry fail to collect enough signatures to qualify to be listed on the ballots in Virginia.

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the primary election in his home state of Virginia, the state's Republican Party said.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 primary.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also failed to make the ballot for the state's Republican vote. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia vote.

Gingrich (and probably Perry, too) can have write-in campaigns, of course. But this seems like a bit of a blow to their campaigns. One effect working against them is that write-in candidates are not as likely to succeed, usually because they're just... not on the ballot, they're not known. They require more work on the part of the voter. These two candidates don't have that problem though, they are known, but will they be remembered? Another effect, the Republican party has chosen to allocate their delegates proportionally, so maybe they can gather some scraps even if their chances of winning are reduced.

[SamIam]

You have to wonder what's wrong with Gingrich's and Perry's campaign staff that they can't even get organized enough to get 10,000 signatures on a petition to be placed on the ballot. If they can't accomplish a simple thing like that, how are they going to react to the far more complex duties of the presidency?

[Undertoad]

That story makes me sicker than the pepper spray murder story.

[Griff]

Organization trumping money, isn't that a good thing in politics? Granted, paying people to collect sigs is probably what most do but 10 thousand out of a population of 8 million seems like a low threshold.

[Lamplighter]

Maybe this contributed to the problem...

In Virginia, candidates face the further hurdle of having to show support
across the whole state, with at least 400 signatures in each of the state’s 11 Congressional Districts.

[Lamplighter]

Are GOP candidates likely to gain the US Presidency in the Nov '12 national
election with pledges such as this in their political history ?
Or, are they only getting their jollies in whipping up the fever
of the far right wing of the Republican party.

NY Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
December 22, 2011

Republican Presidential Candidates Embrace Granting Legal Rights to Human Embryos

Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard
that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s
and morning-after pills, could hamper in-vitro fertilization clinics and could, doctors warned,
discourage critical medical care for pregnant women.

It has also caused a bitter split in the anti-abortion movement, with traditional leaders,
including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, opposed to the idea on strategic grounds,
arguing that it would end in a legal debacle that only strengthens abortion rights.

These considerations have apparently not put off some of the Republican presidential aspirants,
who are polishing and trumpeting their credentials as Christian conservatives
in their efforts to be seen as the leading Not Romney.

This month, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have all signed
a pledge to support “personhood” at conception that was crafted by Personhood USA,
a Colorado group that has continued to push the idea in several states.

Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum have also agreed to celebrate the personhood concept
in a “Presidential Pro-Life Forum” in Iowa next Tuesday, Dec. 27,
that will be moderated by the conservative radio host Steve Deace
and broadcast live on his syndicated program.

And besides all that:

http://www.goddiscussion.com/87963/r...op-candidates/
God Discussion
December 24, 2011
By God Discussion Reporter

Ron Paul signs Personhood USA pledge, joining four other GOP candidates

Five GOP presidential candidates — Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry
and more recently, Ron Paul — have signed a pledge drafted by Personhood USA
in which the candidates promise to support a Constitutional amendment
and federal legislation imposing "personhood" laws.

Personhood USA seeks to "glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life
so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law."

The personhood legislation will recognize zygotes as human beings having constitutional rights
and ban assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research,
and "procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings."

IMO, a candidate signing this pledge is asking to be rejected by the general electorate.

[BigV]

It is a low threshold. It is the same threshold that, say, Perry and Paul were able to surpass. It is the published rule that everybody who cared about knew about. What galls me, what seriously turns me off about Gingrich is his PATHETIC moaning about the "failed system" has disqualified him. He reminds me of the peasant crying about being oppressed in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

His blaming the system for his own failure, his demonstrated willingness to blame the violence inherent in the system

-- Newt Gingrich, who says as president he would ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings he dislikes, has plenty of company among Republican candidates in vowing to blow up long-held premises of constitutional law. --

fills me with dread. We have co-equal branches of government, buddy. You should know that. And it is the definition of the judicial branch to decide, by using their JUDGEMENT, what the meaning of a law is and how it applies and the constitutionality of a law. Not the President, signing statements be damned.

[ZenGum]

Gingrich scares me more than any of the other candidates. And that is saying a lot!

His constant failure to accept responsibility for his own screw ups is particularly scary. His statement about his affairs ... "things happened in my life that were not appropriate...". No Newt, things didn't happen - ... YOU ... DID ... THEM.
And now this BS with signatures. He's been in Washington for decades. he knows the rules and procedures. Either he didn't get his team organised to get the signatures, or (I hope this is the real reason ...) they couldn't find 10,000 people willing to sign for him. "Failed system" my arse.

That sort of evasion of responsibility, combined with the narcissism, treachery, self-indulgence and manipulation, makes me wonder if he is a high functioning sociopath.

[BigV]

actually, I misspoke. It is a threshold that ROMNEY, not Perry, and Paul have passed.

***

Gingrich also scares me, I believe he is smart. And he's a master politician. But I really really don't agree with his ideas. I believe he could get a lot of bad stuff done, like having the federal marshals drag the justices of the supreme court down to congress. just.. evil shit like that.


He could be President, but that would be a bad, very bad thing.

[BigV]

um... that write in plan? Looks like someone, myself included, didn't do sufficient research. Because it's against the law. There will be no write in candidacy in the Virginia primary election.

sorry Newt.

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

But Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C) rules out write-ins in its first sentence, saying: "At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot."

original article still in tab:

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the primary election in his home state of Virginia, the state's Republican Party said.

The former Speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 primary.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also failed to make the ballot for the state's Republican vote. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia vote.

Despite Gingrich's last-minute effort to submit his petitions by Thursday's deadline, the state party said on its website on Saturday that a verification process showed he had not submitted the 10,000 signatures required to qualify for the primary.

The Virginia state board of elections earlier said Gingrich, among the top three Republican candidates nationally, had made the ballot with 11,050 signatures.

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

After Gingrich staged two campaign events in the state last week, his campaign was confident he had made the ballot even as his last-minute scramble raised concerns about Gingrich's abilities to run a national campaign.

(Reporting By Sam Youngman; Editing by Bill Trott)

same article same link hours later:

(Reuters) - Leading Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has failed to meet the requirements to be in the presidential primary election in Virginia, where he resides, the state's Republican Party said.

Gingrich had been leading in a poll of Virginia voters and a spokesman for the former speaker of the House of Representatives defiantly pledged to run a write-in campaign for the March 6 vote. However, Virginia does not permit write-ins in primary elections, according to the state code.

The Virginia Republican Party also said Texas Governor Rick Perry's petitions also had failed to qualify him for the ballot. Only former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul qualified.

Three other members of the Republican field trying to unseat Democratic President Barack Obama - former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum - did not meet the Thursday deadline for submitting petitions.

Despite Gingrich's last-minute scramble to submit his petitions by the deadline, the state party said on its website on Saturday that a review process showed he did not have the required 10,000 verifiable signatures.

The Virginia state board of elections earlier had said Gingrich, among the top three Republican candidates nationally, had made the ballot with 11,050 signatures.

"Only a failed system excludes four out of the six major candidates seeking access to the ballot," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said. "Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates.

"We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice," Krull said.

But Virginia Code Section 24.2-644(C) rules out write-ins in its first sentence, saying: "At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot."

A December 22 Quinnipiac poll for Virginia had Gingrich ahead with 30 percent of the vote, compared with 25 percent for Romney and 9 percent for Paul. Virginia is one of 11 states holding a primary or caucus on March 6.

After Gingrich staged two campaign events in the state last week, his campaign had been confident that he had made the ballot even as his last-minute scramble raised concerns about Gingrich's abilities to run a national campaign.

(Reporting By Sam Youngman; Editing by Bill Trott)

[Griff]

Originally Posted by BigV

um... that write in plan? Looks like someone, myself included, didn't do sufficient research. Because it's against the law. There will be no write in candidacy in the Virginia primary election.

Wow. What kind of "democracy" they running down there?

[Undertoad]

fuck that "will of the voters" shit, so overrated!!!

thank goodness it will actually be illegal to vote they way some people want to!!!

sadly there are two candidates left, i was hoping for just one, choice is an illusion!!!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

fuck that "will of the voters" shit, so overrated!!!

thank goodness it will actually be illegal to vote they way some people want to!!!

sadly there are two candidates left, i was hoping for just one, choice is an illusion!!!

I'm guessing you forgot your sarcasm smiley, but I've been wrong before....

Let me take the bitter out and address your point about choice. I *AGREE* with you, that we voters should be able to vote the way we want to vote. Why in the world would such a law be in place? In Washington (...*sigh*, my Washington, that is) there was a big brouhaha about the state primary elections. The fight was between the established political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party (apparently these Parties are actual legal entities, with real interests) and... I forget who the other half of the lawsuit, the State of Washington, or some band of angry peasants... doesn't matter.

The point was that we, the people, wanted an open primary. I should be able to vote for whomever I like, anywhere on the ballot, including write-ins. The Parties strenuously opposed this! And they won. Our primary elections allow ONLY Party choices. (Note, this is not exactly what is happening in Virginia, as that has to do with who appears on the primary ballot, not who you may choose in a primary, but closely related.) The point of the lawsuit by the Parties was a successful effort to CONTROL who would be allocated the state's delegates. It's all about the PARTY'S control of the process. I haven't followed Virginia legislation, but I'm certain the highlighted part of the law that precludes write-in candidates in primary elections was put there by and for the Parties.

Please note that this does not pertain to the general election. Not only may a voter cast their ballot for either *party* ticket, but write-ins are also allowed. This "poison pill" is just for the primaries, so they can decide who can be called the Party's candidate. In WA, this prevented our largely blue state from voting for the most stupid, least likely to win red primary candidate (there's a term for this kind of defensive voting which escapes me at the moment).

I am not in favor of this Party only system for the primary election. I agree, it fucks over the small d-democratic process. I believe a proportional distribution of delegates, and eventually electors will dilute this poison.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by BigV

<snip>

Please note that this does not pertain to the general election. Not only may a voter cast their ballot for either *party* ticket, but write-ins are also allowed. This "poison pill" is just for the primaries, so they can decide who can be called the Party's candidate. In WA, this prevented our largely blue state from voting for the most stupid, least likely to win red primary candidate (there's a term for this kind of defensive voting which escapes me at the moment).

I am not in favor of this Party only system for the primary election. I agree, it fucks over the small d-democratic process. I believe a proportional distribution of delegates, and eventually electors will dilute this poison.

V, let me disagree with you in these last 2 paragraphs... and talk only about the primaries.

It's sort of like the Boy Scouts of America. It seems some organizations should be open to all,
but because they are legal entities they have the right to say who can and who cannot be members.

Consider a minor party wanting to put forth it's candidate in accord with
it's own mission statement or ideals or preferences or whatever

But then the alternate (nefarious) approach of the local major party decides to flood
the primary selection process with it's own larger number of votes.

Tough, they say! The election is open to everyone to vote as a "small d" democracy.
And in the long run, bye bye minor parties.

[BigV]

Lamplighter, I welcome your disagreement. Good thing too, because we have one here.

I'll take your last statement first. Bye bye minor parties. Presto, magico, the future is here. The minor parties ***are already gone***. Look at Buddy Romer. Because he doesn't have the endorsement of the Party, he's going nowhere. What is the value of a Party anyhow? Why is it desirable to have one, major or minor? Aren't we all supposed to be working for our collective good of the nation, for federal elections of course.

The ability to crush a minor party candidate as you outline is extremely likely, easy even. And that would suck for the minor party. But let me ask you this, why do we have primaries even? If there were a minor party, how many candidates for their party nomination would they likely have? By definition they're minor already. Might there be two competing Fraxion candidates vying for the Fraxious Party nomination? Maybe. How much can be lost?

I guess I'm just not a fan of the party line voting. In fact, Washington will have no primary this year. Bye bye minor party? Screw that, bring on the General Election. If I had to choose a primary system, I'd choose something like the "Montana Primary" where the top two vote getters advance to the general election, party be damned. But that didn't fly here either.

I'm voting for a person, a person will be governing, not a party. Or, at least I believe it should be the person, not the party.