PDA

View Full Version : Paul and Romney only candidates on Virginia ballot



Hedley LaMarr
14th January 12, 02:25 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/virginia-gop-primary-ballot/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/virginia-gop-primary-ballot/index.html)


NN) -- A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
The four candidates "knew the rules in Virginia many months ago," the judge wrote in his ruling. "In essence, they played the game, lost, and then complained that the rules were unfair."
Gibney, a 2010 appointee to the federal bench in Richmond by President Barack Obama, said his ruling denied the candidates' motion for a preliminary injunction.
"The plaintiffs have waited too long to file, and the doctrine of laches bars their claim," Gibney wrote.
"The Commonwealth is far along in the electoral process. The primary election is so close that the plaintiffs cannot gather the requisite signatures to get on the ballot. To place the plaintiffs on the ballot would deprive Virginia of its rights not only to conduct the primary in an orderly way but also to insist that a candidate show broad support," the judge wrote.
Two other candidates did qualify for the GOP primary: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
Gingrich told CNN's Erin Burnett the decision means "voters of Virginia have been denied five candidacies that ought to be on there."
"We're going to keep going," Gingrich said. "It just means that I have to ultimately, coming out of winning South Carolina (and) winning Florida, I'll have to beat Romney in enough extra states to make up for it."
The Paul camp welcomed the decision and said the campaign is now a "two-man race."
"Nothing new was learned here today, as the Virginia ruling merely confirms the suspicions of what many people feel about the viability of Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum," national campaign chairman Jesse Benton said in a statement.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said he didn't expect the ruling to be the last word in the ongoing case, which is expected to be appealed to a federal appeals court in Richmond.
"I am pleased that the district court is allowing Virginia's orderly election process to move forward," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "The ruling today dealt only with the request for a preliminary injunction. The litigation is ongoing."
Virginia holds its Republican primary on March 6, Super Tuesday. At stake in the primary are Virginia's 49 delegates.
Virginia state law specifically prohibits voters from writing in candidates not on the ballot in primary elections.
Huntsman and Santorum did not file petitions with the Virginia State Board of Elections that would have allowed them a place in the state's primary. Gingrich and Perry filed petitions that were rejected by the Republican Party of Virginia for not meeting requirements.
The four candidates sued the state's board of elections over laws they claimed were unconstitutional.
Virginia requires candidates to obtain 10,000 signatures from registered voters in the state, with at least 400 signatures coming from each of the state's 11 congressional districts.
CNN's Michael Martinez contributed to this report.


This little row in Virginia reveals the dysfunction in the Gingrich, Perry, Santorum and Huntsman campaigns. Simply put, they lack organizing power to pull off a national campaign. Getting disqualified from a state with 49 delegates is not a good thing. The Republican field has been effectively narrowed to two candidates, Paul and Romney.

The news media has crafted a pretty interesting narrative this election cycle, and I honestly don't know who will be the candidate. Romney is an absolutely terrible politician, but he has money. Paul has been effective at crafting a homespun character for himself that would not seem out of place in a Mark Twain novel.

At this stage in the game, I'd say the news media will start warming up to Ron Paul and give him a "dark horse" persona. He'll start winning blue state primaries (I think he will win in a landslide in Wisconsin. It's an open primary and there's no real Democrat contest going on, so liberals and college kids will be freed up to vote Ron Paul) and I think he will come out with more elected delegates than Romney. Romney will get most of the free agent delegates, probably enough to tie it up at the Convention. This will make for great ratings for Fox and MSNBC. I think Ron Paul will win more delegates, but Romney will be the candidate. This will insure an Obama win in 2012 and give the news media and military industrial complex 4 more years to avert the inevitable.

Cullion
14th January 12, 03:06 PM
to avert the inevitable? inevitable what ?

Hedley LaMarr
14th January 12, 03:37 PM
to avert the inevitable? inevitable what ?
The inevitable collapse or restructuring of the current political and economic system that will leave them all dead, broke or kings.

Robot Jesus
14th January 12, 04:23 PM
for generations 2012 will be remembered as the year things just got silly.

Cullion
14th January 12, 04:36 PM
The inevitable collapse or restructuring of the current political and economic system that will leave them all dead, broke or kings.

I don't think it will be that bad, but you will probably see America experience a similar kind of decline and loss of prestige to the one Britain experienced in the 20th century, in your lifetime.

resolve
14th January 12, 09:56 PM
There's no way Obama is getting re-elected.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th January 12, 12:06 AM
There's no way Obama is getting re-elected.

They said the same thing about Bush in 2004

Fact is the 'Pub are fielding a bunch of Kerrys


Sent by telekinesis via Cerebro

Keith
15th January 12, 12:09 AM
There's no way Obama is getting re-elected.

There's no way he's not.

The Tea Party handed it to him on a silver platter by radicalizing the conservative base and alienating the moderate swing voters. Any Republican nominee has to take such a conservative hard line in order to keep support of the base that it will make him un-electable in a general election.

resolve
15th January 12, 03:31 AM
I think you are underestimating my generation of voters... who are the ones that generally put Obama into power in the first place. They're all sick of his shit now.

Cullion
15th January 12, 06:09 AM
I don't think Romney has much chance against Obama. This is going to be about who they trust to lead America into a recovery of employment and rising middle-class disposable income

When it comes down to that fight, the Obama campaign will be able to truthfully point out that Romney made a vast personal fortune by asset stripping medium sized small town American companies. There are already lengthy indy documentaries out there on the net featuring interviews with salt-of-the-Earth middle-aged and elderly small town Americans who want to tell you all about what happened to their jobs and medical insurance when Bain capital invested in their employer.

This guy made hundreds of millions of dollars by buying up companies, borrowing vast sums in the company's name and then using the borrowed money to buy stock in his _own_ company, paying himself a 7 figure bonus and then leaving the little manufacturing company to pay back the loan (many of them just couldn't, but super-mormon was already away with the cash). Fucking prick.

Plus, when you look deep into Romney's eyes, there's just an emptiness, only occasionally enlived by a flicker of arrogance, and something like suppressed anger.

resolve
15th January 12, 12:01 PM
I don't think Romney will get the nod either.

But you are right about how people are beginning to understand him.

Let's see how things play out.

Robot Jesus
15th January 12, 12:07 PM
I think you are underestimating my generation of voters... who are the ones that generally put Obama into power in the first place. They're all sick of his shit now.

I think your over estimating the available republicans. for all their criticisms of Obama I don't see any of them suggest much in the way of competing policy. "we've spent our way into oblivion, now we need tax cuts to the wealthy to get ourselves out" makes about as much sense as tits on a duck.

Cullion
15th January 12, 12:09 PM
I think your over estimating the available republicans. for all their criticisms of Obama I don't see any of them suggest much in the way of competing policy. "we've spent our way into oblivion, now we need tax cuts to the wealthy to get ourselves out" makes about as much sense as tits on a duck.

The available choice isn't constrained to that.

Some of them want to start another war, too.

Obama will also start that war, he'll just do it with a shrug and act like he didn't want to, but had no choice.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th January 12, 12:09 PM
None of the 'Pubs are strong enough in appeal, mind, thought or character to rip the Presidency from Obama's hands. This will lead the general populace to enact an "evil you known vs. evil you don't know" mindset and will stick with Obama much like they did with Bush, as I said earlier, despit Bush facing a much stronger, vocal, well-financed and well-organized opposition from the beginning of his campaign in '99-pretty much 2009 when his usefulness as a whipping boy for all the world's ills ceased.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th January 12, 12:11 PM
I think your over estimating the available republicans. for all their criticisms of Obama I don't see any of them suggest much in the way of competing policy.

No. They aren't providing any OVERWHELMING plans for a competing policy. Whether it be through design or ignorance.

Robot Jesus
15th January 12, 12:17 PM
it comes down to the fact that no one really knows a surefire way to put everything back the way it was, the weakness of Obama's position is we're still not back, the weakness of the Republican positions is that they don't have much better ideas then what is already taking place.

Talking about tax policy in moral terms isn't helping much though.

Cullion
15th January 12, 12:26 PM
There isn't a unified republican position.

There's Mitt Romney's mainstream neo-conservative foreign and economic policy with minor variations, that seems essentially intended to start world war III so that the American public are distracted whilst he and 2000 of his richest friends escape with everybody's money in a spaceship.

Then there's Ron Paul's media-disapproved 19th-century-rebooted-for-the-Internet Republicanism which is scares the shit out of public sector unions, the military industrial complex and much of wall street, but comes from a fundamentally different philosophical outlook.

resolve
15th January 12, 12:47 PM
Then there's Ron Paul's media-disapproved 19th-century-rebooted-for-the-Internet Republicanism which is scares the shit out of public sector unions, the military industrial complex and much of wall street, but comes from a fundamentally different philosophical outlook.

Most of the people I know in the military really like Ron Paul. At least they've all been spamming this video on their facebooks lately...

IUrX9t9v3rY

Spade: The Real Snake
15th January 12, 12:52 PM
it comes down to the fact that no one really knows a surefire way to put everything back the way it was, the weakness of Obama's position is we're still not back, the weakness of the Republican positions is that they don't have much better ideas then what is already taking place.

Talking about tax policy in moral terms isn't helping much though.

The weakenss of the Republican candidates is they are focusing too much on this simple fact:

Obama's position hasn't driven us down as far as we will be going as opposed to their individual plans of how to stop and reverse it

Cullion
15th January 12, 12:54 PM
Most of the people I know in the military really like Ron Paul. At least they've all been spamming this video on their facebooks lately...

IUrX9t9v3rY

When I talk about 'the military industrial complex', I don't mean the people in uniform, I mean the people whose benefit it is run for.

resolve
15th January 12, 12:54 PM
Gotcha.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th January 12, 01:06 PM
He means Dick Cheney

Robot Jesus
15th January 12, 01:20 PM
There isn't a unified republican position.
.

I agree, that's why I said positions, plural.

although they do tend to agree that small government is the answer, just some of them have quotation marks around it.

Cullion
15th January 12, 06:26 PM
Not really. Mainstream neoconservatives believe in a large, highly active state. They just don't believe in expending much of that effort on soft, squishy things, like American citizens.

Robot Jesus
15th January 12, 07:37 PM
as I said small government as opposed to "small government".

elipson
16th January 12, 06:15 AM
The US desperately needs a third political party.

It seems like every Republican wants to either start a war with Iran, or to fix the economy by drastically reducing services to the lower classes so that the upper class can spend their way out of recession, or both.

The Lower and Middle class are not going to buy the trickle-down-economics line enough to have anyone beat Obama, but that is the only economic option that will get a Repub elected in the primary. And as much as some people hate Obama care, millions of people now have medical insurance that didn't have it before. You think they are going to vote to have it taken away?

That's why Ron Paul wouldn't beat Obama. His Principles and foreign policy may appeal to a large swath of voters, but his economic policies are too neo-liberal. He is basically saying a more extreme version of Reagonism is what will save America, despite not being able to back this claim up with any real-world examples (people believe what they see, not what your saturday night textbook tells them).

The Repubs are going to learn the hard way that their hardline principles are worn out on the American public.

Spade: The Real Snake
16th January 12, 08:01 AM
fix the economy by drastically reducing services to the lower classes so that the upper class can spend their way out of recession, or both.

The Lower and Middle class are not going to buy the trickle-down-economics line enough to have anyone beat Obama
The Middle Class do buy this as they will benefit from both reduction of services to the lower class and will benefit from the resulting tax breaks

Cullion
16th January 12, 08:14 AM
It seems like every Republican wants to either start a war with Iran, or to fix the economy by drastically reducing services to the lower classes so that the upper class can spend their way out of recession, or both.

The Lower and Middle class are not going to buy the trickle-down-economics line enough to have anyone beat Obama, but that is the only economic option that will get a Repub elected in the primary. And as much as some people hate Obama care, millions of people now have medical insurance that didn't have it before. You think they are going to vote to have it taken away?

That's why Ron Paul wouldn't beat Obama. His Principles and foreign policy may appeal to a large swath of voters, but his economic policies are too neo-liberal. He is basically saying a more extreme version of Reagonism is what will save America, despite not being able to back this claim up with any real-world examples (people believe what they see, not what your saturday night textbook tells them).

The Repubs are going to learn the hard way that their hardline principles are worn out on the American public.

Ron Paul does not espouse Reaganite economics. It's a fairly common error amongst liberals in the anglosphere to confuse any economic policy involving lower taxes with Reaganism/Thatcherism.

He can cite lots of real countries as examples. Obamanomics is a re-run of the Carter years.

resolve
16th January 12, 03:12 PM
Obamanomics

That word is an Obamanation.

But yes, people don't get Ron Paul because there is a mass media frenzy to basically lie about his actual policies.

Spade: The Real Snake
16th January 12, 03:21 PM
But yes, people don't get Ron Paul because there is a mass media frenzy to basically lie about his actual policies.
No it's because he looks and speaks like a creepy old creep, and lacks the shallow charisma of his closeted homosexual son.

elipson
16th January 12, 03:39 PM
No its because he wants to go back to the gold standard, go to a flat tax, eliminate the EPA and several other federal departments, completely stop all international aid (some people may like this, many don't), and eliminate the benefits that help anyone not in the upper class.

No one is lying about his crap. They don't have to.

Ajamil
16th January 12, 04:12 PM
They said the same thing about Bush in 2004

Fact is the 'Pub are fielding a bunch of Kerrys


Sent by telekinesis via Cerebroexcept this time ron paul isn't there to drain anti-war votes.

Oh yeah,

RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL

Cullion
16th January 12, 05:14 PM
No its because he wants to go back to the gold standard, go to a flat tax, eliminate the EPA and several other federal departments, completely stop all international aid (some people may like this, many don't), and eliminate the benefits that help anyone not in the upper class.

You just proved his point by flatly claiming something as a Ron Paul policy that isn't.

elipson
16th January 12, 07:01 PM
You just proved his point by flatly claiming something as a Ron Paul policy that isn't.

Alrighty lets do this.


No its because he wants to go back to the gold standard,

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/ron-paul-on-return-to-gold-standard.html


go to a flat tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_taxes
"However, during the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech.[31] A citizen would be able to opt out of all government involvement if they simply pay a 10 % income tax."


eliminate the EPA and several other federal departments,
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_spending_and _smaller_government


completely stop all international aid

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/03/18/ron-paul-says-kill-foreign-aid-cia


and eliminate the benefits that help anyone not in the upper class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Health_policy
"Paul rejects universal health care, believing that the more government interferes in medicine, the higher prices rise and the less efficient care becomes."
"He opposes socialized health care promoted by Democrats as being harmful because they lead to bigger and less efficient government"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/30/ron-paul-defends-eventual-end-to-federal-student-loans/


Did I miss anything?

Cullion
16th January 12, 07:08 PM
Yes, he isn't planning to shut down social security or medicaid.

You can't eliminate a benefit that doesn't exist yet, so opposition to Democratic healthcare plans doesn't count.

So you're wrong, as usual.

elipson
16th January 12, 07:34 PM
Did I say social security or medicare?


He plans on undoing Obamas health legislation.


So you're condescending and narcissistic, as usual.

Lollius Urbicus
16th January 12, 07:37 PM
http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Everyone Else/images-3/you-gonna-get-raped.jpg

Cullion
17th January 12, 02:57 AM
Did I say social security or medicare?


He plans on undoing Obamas health legislation.


So you're condescending and narcissistic, as usual.

No, you said he'd eliminate benefits programs that help people. Voting against programs before they exist doesn't count. Passive-aggressive dullard.

resolve
17th January 12, 05:55 PM
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/the-us-budget-explained.jpg

Robot Jesus
17th January 12, 06:18 PM
and that's the problem; no one, other then Paul, wants to deal with this rationally. at the very least the Dems can at lest argue that running up a debt is a temporary tactic. generally the GOP seems to be focused on the flawed idea that tax breaks pay for themselves.

in the choice between bad economic plan vs terrible economic plan and completely change every aspect of government and hope things work out; I'll take the first one.

resolve
17th January 12, 10:59 PM
Obama LOL...

IIipD1PF0Oc

Robot Jesus
18th January 12, 02:19 AM
he's still polling higher then any republican candidate, and he hasn't started campaigning yet. I think you may be overly certain of his defeat.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th January 12, 12:12 AM
he's still polling higher then any republican candidate, and he hasn't started campaigning yet. I think you may be overly certain of his defeat.
he's a sitting President with the strongest grasp and greatest usage of social media who is tied (give or take 1% point either way) with Romney.

jvjim
19th January 12, 02:04 AM
Even though I personally think these stumbling blocks to get on the ballot are bullshit, it's pretty telling about the other candidates leadership abilities that they're not more careful about 46 delegates.

Robot Jesus
19th January 12, 08:17 AM
he's a sitting President with the strongest grasp and greatest usage of social media who is tied (give or take 1% point either way) with Romney.

who has had to deal with the biggest shit sandwich since Hoover. Calling it one way or the other at this point is a bit silly, there are a great many factors involved and we are still very early in the game.

Cullion
19th January 12, 09:06 AM
who has had to deal with the biggest shit sandwich since Hoover

The public aren't always forgiving about these things, but I don't think Romney could beat him.

Robot Jesus
19th January 12, 09:35 AM
After the effort the republicans put forward to stop the Obama administration from doing anything they could easily have to wear the economic conditions as well, holding a record number of filibusters should have some consequences.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th January 12, 10:24 AM
who has had to deal with the biggest shit sandwich since Hoover.
since Carter.

wait...what?


Calling it one way or the other at this point is a bit silly, there are a great many factors involved and we are still very early in the game.
as I stated several posts back, at this point in 2004, every major news outlet, save Fox, was calling it for Kerry and tried to do every damn thing they could to ensure Bush lost, up to and including actual election day when I heard several outlets calling it for Kerry at 11AM based on "early returns".

Romney needs to bring it strong from the hip to beat Barry, cuz like in boxing, you need to demolish the champ to pull out a split decision.


After the effort the republicans put forward to stop the Obama administration from doing anything they could easily have to wear the economic conditions as well, holding a record number of filibusters should have some consequences.

Except that pesky 2 year total control of both houses of legislative and executive branch. He got the one thing he wanted: Health Care, but he wasn't strong enough to get it the way he wanted it. Clinton would have, but Barry is no Clinton.

If Barry is so impotent he got fucked in the ass by a flaccid Republican penis, he doesn't deserve to be elected to anything.

Robot Jesus
19th January 12, 10:45 AM
I don't think Clinton would have done any better with the current political climate.

Commodore Pipes
19th January 12, 11:15 AM
Yeah, the self-serving insularity of the parties has never seemed clearer, at least to me. We really need to dissolve them and let new ideas take hold.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th January 12, 11:47 AM
I don't think Clinton would have done any better with the current political climate.
Yes, he would have.
He was a skilled and experience politician who knew the benefits of alliances and wasn't a spoiled brat.

Feryk
19th January 12, 04:51 PM
He needed better taste in interns.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th January 12, 05:32 PM
He needed better taste in interns.
he shared his cigar with you?

Angry Mandrill
15th February 12, 12:42 PM
even the jews rode in trains


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIDPtL5qT9A&feature=related