Admirer of him though I may be, it's time for Newt Gingrich to step aside

While I wasn't directly in Newt's camp -- he was my second favorite candidate after Rick Santorum -- I agree with Dan Riehl.

Via Reuters, yes, I'd say Newt's campaign is very much in doubt, alright. Now, he'll only hurt his reputation with many in the base if he remains in the race...

"This really was his last chance to show whether he had the ability to win," said Natalie Davis, professor of political science at Birmingham Southern College in Birmingham, Alabama. "If he can't win in Alabama ... he really can't win anywhere. This was his last stand and he lost."

...I backed Newt after Perry dropped and didn't turn on him after he imploded in Florida, while also having a terrible debate. I've been content to watch it play out, not hitting either him, or Santorum. But all Newt can be from here on is a spoiler.

The bottom-line is, whether you back him, or not, Santorum has won himself the right to go one-on-one with Romney and settle things cleanly and once and for all. Not only will Newt begin to lose more and more friends across the conservative base by staying in - they'll see it as his ego and Adelson's money keeping him in - he's likely to begin performing worse and worse, only making it all the worse for him.

By losing as he did last night, he proved he can't win much of anywhere. His candidacy is not viable. The only honorable move left for Newt is to drop out. Do the right thing, Newt. Enough GOP primary voters have spoken that, in my opinion, the best thing Newt can do now is to show some respect for them.

What's been fascinating about Santorum's rise is that he's done it even though Gingrich (and earlier, other conservatives) split the base's vote.

Romney's problem is that he abandoned the base from the start. That doesn't seem to me to be a viable plan to win the primary, much less the general.


Related:
• In defense of Rick Santorum.
• Rick Santorum for President.

Exclusive Photo: Lost Jonas Brother Wants Free Contraceptives

The entire handling of this affair is deserving of severe mockery.

As an aside, Newt Gingrich obliterated David Gregory on Meet the Depressed this morning.

To My Friends in Arizona and Michigan: It's Time to Take a Stand

Before I begin this rant, let me make my stance regarding Mitt Romney perfectly clear.

I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a radioactive goat over Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends in Arizona and Michigan

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends in Arizona and Michigan: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.

Fact Checking National Journal's "Fact Check": Yes, Obama Voted to Legalize Infanticide. Not Once, But Twice.

"National Journal" (if that is its real name) is a political analysis website that appears to get its content from the deepest crevices of the far left Beltway machine. Its latest hilarious missive is entitled "FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch":

Obama did not vote to legalize infanticide, and the media did not ignore the issue.

In answering a CNN debate question about birth control, Newt Gingrich lashed out at the media for giving President Obama a free pass during his 2008 bid.
“Not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion.

According to Politifact [Ed: Politifact, far from the unbiased arbiter it pretends to be, is a provably left-wing outfit] ... Obama voiced his opposition to the new legislation as a state senator because it would have given legal status to fetuses and would thus have been struck down by the courts, and because Illinois already had laws to ensure infants who survived abortions would be given medical attention.

This is, to put it in terms progressives can understand, horsecrap.

Physical evidence (the actual IL General Assembly vote tally [below]) shows that on March 13, 2003, Barack Obama voted for an amendment making the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal Born Alive bill.

Obama then voted against the amended bill, making him more pro-abortion that any other U.S. senator, who all voted unanimously for Born Alive. It makes Obama more pro-abortion than [even] NARAL... which went neutral on the federal Bill.

Yet after the Saddleback Showdown on August 16, 2008, Obama stood by his lie when asked about it by CBN's David Brody, as shown on CNN.

David Freddoso at the National Review puts it in stark terms.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Want to see the actual differences between the federal and state laws? Non-existent other than the stylistic changes for Illinois wording. The identical neutrality clause as added by Obama is present.

On March 12-13, 2003, the Illinois state senate committee chaired by Senator Barack Obama amended the proposed state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) to exactly track the language of the already-enacted federal BAIPA, by adopting Senate Amendment No. 1, 10-0.  The committee then voted to kill the amended bill, 6-4, with Obama and the other Democrats on the committee voting against it.  The bill that Obama and his colleges voted to kill, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law.  The entirely non-substantive points at which the state bill language still differed from the federal law are shown in brackets below (except we have ignored differences in capitalizing).

 ---------------------------------------------------------Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]
107th Congress
An Act
To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are
born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:  Section 5.  The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36.  Born-alive infant.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant  [Illinois: lacks this section heading]
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or
of any ruling [Illinois: rule], regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include
[Illinois: include] every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her  [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such
[Illinois: that] expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut,,   Illinois: no comma] and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.  [Illinois: Section 99.  Effective date.  This Act takes effect upon becoming law.] 

Obama's bald-faced fabrication is shocking. Perhaps that's the "Audacity of Hope": he hopes no one will call him on this audacious lie.

Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. The law was pushed after State Senator Patrick O'Malley heard the horrific story about an infant born alive after an abortion from Jill Stanek, a nurse... David Brody can play it as straight as he wants to play it. But, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He said it was because the state statute lacked federal protections for abortion. Once the National Right to Life Committee proved that excuse a lie, Obama called NRLC liars until the campaign admitted that, regardless of the facts, abortion laws would have still been hindered by the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

And during the 2008 debate over Obama's votes, the media was in full spin mode to protect their beloved candidate:

All the spin will make you dizzy... After the media ignored the Obama campaign admitting that he lied about a vote he made in 2003... now Obama is accusing others of “attacking” him with “outrageous lies”! ....Don’t count on the media to do any fact checking. If they were interested in doing that, the documents and facts are easily available. I can see why Obama thinks he can get away with this. The media ignored his lies once, they’ll most likely continue to eat them up. Meanwhile, Obama’s arrogance and audacity will continue to reach uncharted levels.

In summary: the National Journal's "FACT CHECK" (capitalized to make it extra believable!) is just as legitimate as Politifact. Which is to say, it's just a skosh to the left of Sean Penn.

Newt Gingrich: How Romney won "should sober every Republican in the country"

PJMedia's Tatler characterized Newt Gingrich's concessionary press conference in Nevada last night as "odd". I just watched it and don't agree. In fact, I thought one particular interrogatory was especially insightful (hat tip to Biff Spackle for the transcript):

Question: Mr. Speaker, have you considered that voters just aren't buying what you're selling? You've been on the ballot now in five states and you've won one, but you've lost four. And you also talk about debates, but you've had 18 of them and generally you've been considered to have done well in them, but still that hasn't shown up in the polls?

Gingrich: I'm not going to defend the outcome in a state where I was outspent five to one. And I'd suggest you're sophisticated enough to understand that the idea that taking a state where the other guy spent five times as much money, and many of his ads were false as by both the Wall Street Journal and National Review, that maybe that's not a very accurate measure.

When it was an entirely positive campaign, up through mid-December, I was ahead by 12 points in Gallup. And this may happen again. I was actually ahead in Gallup a week ago. So I think in a few more weeks, I'll be ahead in Gallup again.

Question: But is that just ignoring the reality of the campaign? He has gone negative, it's working...

Gingrich: So the "reality of the campaign", to use your words, is that he has gone negative and it is working. And what I am asserting to you is that, over time, I don't believe the American people will approve of a campaign which actually suppresses turnout.

I think it's amazing that if you look in Florida, every county that I carried in Florida had an increased turnout; every county that Romney carried in Florida had a decreased turnout. Now that should sober every Republican in the country.

If the only way Romney wins is suppressing turnout, how's he going to do that in the fall?

If the only way he wins is outspending someone five-to-one, how's that going to apply to a campaign against Obama, who's going to outspend him?

Those are damned good questions.

Florida Tea Party Leaders Endorse Newt Gingrich

Floridians: I urge you not to allow the Beltway establishment to bully, threaten or scare you. Mitt Romney is the weakest GOP candidate of the bunch and Florida's Tea Party leaders see that threat clear as day.

"The Florida Tea Party Coalition With Newt" endorsed the former House speaker on Thursday, saying they would "help defeat Massachusetts Moderate Mitt Romney and then President Barack Obama."

“It is clear to me and many others in the tea party movement that Newt is the Reagan conservative that America needs,” said Peter Lee, founder and director of the East Side Tea Party of Orlando.

Lee was joined by statewide tea leader Patricia Sullivan, who said, “I stand with Newt because I know he will stand up to the establishment and insist on fiscal reforms."

In all, more than 30 Florida-based tea activists signed on to the coalition. The geographically diverse representatives ranged from the Panhandle to Broward County.

Separately, the TEA Party of Florida, the only political tea party registered with the state Division of Elections, endorsed Gingrich.

The GOP establishment's -- and, specifically, Mitt Romney's operatives' -- unconscionable attacks on Gingrich should motivate every undecided primary voter to support Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum.

And I'm glad Florida's Tea Party leaders are playing hardball with the RINO mushes who won't fight Obama as hard as they fight conservatives.


Related: Debunking the Beltway Hacks' Latest Spin: Gingrich Will Harm Down-Ticket Republicans

Egotistical, bombastic embarrassment claims Newt Gingrich is... an embarrassment

For a guy who has never done anything at the national level; who has a personal cameraman following him around to capture those special "YouTube moments" where he confronts public sector union members; and who has taken troubling positions on gun control, illegal immigration, judges, global warming, and Obamacare (to name but a few), it takes real hubris to pillory Newt Gingrich.

I speak, of course, of Chris "Krispy Kreme" Christie, one of the darlings of the RINO establishment, who is doing his level best to sandbag conservatives.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Sunday dubbed Mitt Romney’s showing in South Carolina “clearly disappointing,” but quickly turned his focus to Newt Gingrich, saying he has been “an embarrassment to the party.”

Christie, a key Romney surrogate in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, blasted Gingrich on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his ethics violation fine and losing the speakership in the House, saying that “sometimes past is prologue... Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he'll do it again in the future I don't know, but Gov. Romney never has,” Christie said on NBC's “Meet the Press.”

"I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that has had a very difficult political career at times, and has been an embarrassment to the party," Christie added.

...While Christie has pointed to Romney’s difficulties in connecting with people before, he said Sunday it’s due to Romney being a “reserved guy.” He then turned to what he deemed Gingrich’s liabilities... “Strategic adviser? That is the oldest Washington dodge in the book. That's because he didn't want to register as a lobbyist,” Christie said.

...Christie also addressed the vice presidency question once again, saying, “If I'm approached I will listen, but my inclination, I want to make it very clear, is that I want to stay governor of New Jersey."

News flash, Krispy: you ain't gonna be the VP. And, by the way, Newt Gingrich has accomplished 20 times more for the conservative movement and the Republican Party than you have.

The results of Gingrich's ethics probe are publicly available; they involve a course that Gingrich taught at Kennesaw State College while serving in Congress. The trouble revolved around the fact that the course was backed by a tax-exempt group. Gingrich taught Constitutional, conservative values, which the IRS found were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes.”

The whole thing was a political setup. And doesn't Newt's "ethics violations" seem quaint given the likes of Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and the rest of the modern miscreants of Congress who have mysteriously made millions in office?

So, Krispy, I'd advise you to keep your pie-hole shut. You're the embarrassment -- and we're not going to let you try to tear down conservatives in pursuit of a VP slot that you'll never get.

Romney loses South Carolina by 31 points, Karl Rove hardest hit

Yes, Mitt Romney lost by 31 points.

       40% Gingrich
       27% Romney
       18% Santorum

The anti-establishment candidates -- Gingrich and Santorum -- literally crushed Mitt Romney 58 percent to 27 percent, a margin of 31 points.

Erick Erickson describes these results as evidence that the GOP conservative base far outnumbers establishment RINOs -- and that the conservatives are pissed.

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since...

...Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence. Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency. They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.

I support Rick Santorum over Newt and Mitt. I support Newt over Mitt. And I support anyone over Barack Obama.

But Doug, you might ask, what about Ron Paul? What about him? Ron Paul is a kook, an anachronism, a Kucinich Libertarian wearing GOP clothes, whose views on foreign policy are so outside the mainstream that they can and must be dismissed.

Congratulations to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Oh, and here's a private word for Karl Rove: pfffffffffffffffffffffffffttttt.

The 'Give the Mullahs a Case of the Squirts' Ticket

That sound you hear in the distance is Debbie Wasserman-Manhands' head exploding.

I find it especially interesting that the Republican establishment keeps telling us that the nomination is a fait accompli for Mitt Romney; yet, somehow, the man can't seem to get even 40 percent of the vote. And, with proportional delegates in the states, the race remains wide open.

Further, Florida gets only half of its delegates this year because it jumped the primary line. So I encourage Newt and Rick to keep at it. When their respective constituencies combine forces, I predict a very unhappy Karl Rove.

Erick Erickson: Mark Levin and Sarah Palin unable to gauge true conservatism

I usually resist the urge to engage in internecine warfare, but RedState's Erick Erickson's attacks on Rick Santorum have moved me to action. As Rick Perry has faded in the polls after some disastrous debate performances, Erickson has likewise thrashed about trying to pump up the candidate. And similarly with Newt Gingrich, who -- after a brief surge in the polls -- has faded. Believe me, I'll happily support either, but right now Rick Santorum appears to be the most conservative candidate with momentum.

Erickson has been left with the proverbial dead parrot returned to his store, and must resort to arguing that it's still alive.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Dear Erick,

So you're saying Mark Levin, who is a personal friend of Santorum's and knows him as well as anyone (Santorum was an early campaigner for Reagan in 1980 in Pennsylvania with Levin) is wrong?

That Mark Freaking Levin is supporting a big-government Statist?

That Santorum's leadership work on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- arguably the most successful re-engineering of an existing entitlement program ever -- is not worth discussing, especially now?

That Santorum's obvious knowledge and support of national security is to be dismissed as China prepares for war and the Middle East boils over?

That Santorum's brave battle for a Balanced Budget Amendment was all a sham?

That cherry-picking a couple dozen from thousands upon thousands of votes that Santorum cast -- many of which were thrust upon the GOP caucus by the big-spending Bush 43 administration -- are somehow representative of his personal interests?

That because he lost an election in a disastrous year for Republicans nationally, a year that swept the Democrats into power, as the most conservative Senator from Pennsylvania in the last half-century?

Why, didn't Barack Obama lose a Democrat Primary to Bobby Rush just a decade ago by 31 points? Uhm, yes. Yes, he did.

No. I don't get it. So Mark Levin and Sarah Palin don't know that Santorum is really a big-government guy, that he's fooled them for all of these years.

All candidates are imperfect, some more so than others.

But tearing down good conservative candidates like Rick Santorum to me makes no sense, especially when other good candidates like Gingrich and Perry appear to be losing momentum.

Some introspection, I believe, is necessary.

Newt Gingrich just rang up a few extra points on my tally: says Palin would be a viable VP or Secretary of Energy

If swear to all that's holy that I would pay serious money to watch the reactions of the moonbats when President Gingrich and Vice President Palin are sworn in.

Newt Gingrich said that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be among the candidates that he would consider when considering a potential running mate, adding that the former GOP vice presidential nominee would be an ideal candidate for secretary of Energy.

Gingrich, speaking Wednesday during a conference call with conservative voters hosted by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, was asked by one of the attendees whether he would consider Palin as a running mate.

"She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities," Gingrich said...

I wonder how hard a Vice President Sarah Palin would kick Lisa Jackson's ample posterior (metaphorically speaking, of course)?

ACTION ALERT: Virginia GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month; Here's How to Contact Them and Demand Changes

Based upon several reliable reports at RedState, it would appear that Virginia's GOP establishment changed the rules of ballot access just last month. Front-runner Newt Gingrich, for one, saw his campaign hurt badly by reports that it bungled the Virginia ballot process. He and Rick Perry were excluded despite each turning in over 10,000 signatures. But if the new reports are true, the state GOP has a hell of a lot to account for.

Moe Lane provides the introduction:

...the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done...

...There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.

One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed. In November of this year.

So what changed?

...prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law.

Under these rules, of course, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would have qualified easily.

And why did the rules change?

...On October 24th independent state delegate candidate Michael Osborne filed suit against the Republican party of Virginia [challenging the signature review process and who performs it] ... according to Winger the VA GOP decided in response to bump up from 10K to 15K the threshold for simply deeming the requirements as being met.

...I think that John Fund’s general comment is correct: this is going to go to the courts. John was not discussing this specific wrinkle, but his larger point that Virginia’s ballot access policies have systemic problems gets a big boost when it turns out that the state party can effectively increase by fifty percent the practical threshold for ballot access – in a day, and in the middle of an existing campaign.

...If it is true that the Republican party of Virginia decided in November of 2011 to increase the threshold for automatic certification from 10K to 15K, then it is reasonable to suggest that this was a change that unfairly rewarded candidates who had previously run for President in Virginia.

Lane asserts that the state GOP has ultimate control of the ballot and could, if pressed, decide to certify Gingrich and Perry.

Either way, the issue is going to the courts.

And, either way, the Virginia GOP looks incompetent... or ill-intentioned against conservative candidates.

Action Alert: I urge you to contact the Virginia GOP and demand that they include Gingrich and Perry on the ballot. Be polite, but firm. There's no excuse for issuing new rules at the last minute that just happen to exclude the leading candidates. In fact, it's an outrage.

• Email: Contact Form
• Phone: 804-780-0111
• Fax: 804-343-1060
• Facebook: www.facebook.com/VirginiaGOP
• Twitter: @va_gop

Make contact now. Time is growing short.

Report: Virginia GOP May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich

Tom White has an exclusive that could be an important development in Virginia's ongoing GOP soap opera:

I know that it is highly improbable that I am the only person in the country that has actually read the Code of Virginia on Presidential Primaries, but the requirement that signatures also include an address IS correct for a statewide election, but not for a Presidential Primary, though the number of signatures are identical.

Anyone know an election attorney available on Christmas?

###

Various reports have stated that the signatures turned in by Newt Gingrich included at least 2,000 that were invalidated because there was no address given with the signature.

If this were a Virginia Statewide office, that would be correct. But this is a Presidential Primary. And while the rules are similar, they are actually addressed in two separate sections of the Virginia Code.

There is a requirement in a Statewide General Election that the address be included, but there is no such requirement for a presidential primary. The number of signatures are the same, 10,000 and 400 per Congressional District. But the address requirements are different.

Tom suggests that Gingrich and Perry request that the signatures excluded for lack of address be reinstated and a recount be initiated.

If this report pans out, it could be another huge story attributed not to legacy media, but to what I like to call the new mainstream media.

Surprise! Poll with ties to SEIU and Daily Kos says... Ron Paul getting close to leaders in Iowa

Before you put too much stock in the most recent PPP poll, you may want to review this April 2011 Hill article:

A top union and a top liberal blog announced Tuesday that they'll team up to sponsor polling through the 2012 elections. Daily Kos and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said they will join forces to conduct issue and campaign polling in key states and races over the next two years...

...The SEIU/Daily Kos poll will use Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic firm that uses automated polling rather than live, over-the-phone survey methods. Moulitsas contracted with PPP in June of 2010 after severing ties with Research 2000, which faced allegations of producing faulty poll results.

So when you read news like this, take it with a grain of salt.

Oh my: Ron Paul within one point of Gingrich in Iowa? ... "There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%."

Really? Methinks that the PPP poll is patently bogus. The Intrade prediction market, probably the best indicator of reality, has Gingrich trading at a 47% chance of winning Iowa versus 29% for Paul.

And let's not forget who Ron Paul really is:

• A man who claims that bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists are morally equivalent to Americans?

• A man who vocally encourages the despicable 9/11 Truther movement?

• A man who embraces virulent anti-semites and is inspired by those who despise Jews?

• A man whose foreign policy prescriptions are so "far left" that they are outright dangerous?

• A man whose strongest supporters vilify Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ed Meese, Sarah Palin, etc.?

• A man who despises Israel, a beacon of freedom in an otherwise barbaric Middle East?

• A man so power-hungry that he refuses to rule out a third-party run, which would very likely help reelect Barack Obama?

Jeffrey Lord offers the quintessential summary of Ron Paul for conservatives:

The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.

I don't care how well-organized the Paulbots are in Iowa. I put as much stock in PPP polling as I do in lunar cheese. No thinking Republican would ever cast a vote for a man who advocates a George McGovern foreign policy. Ever.