Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit
CNN ^

Posted on 12/31/2011 2:00:50 PM PST by smoothsailing

December 31, 2011

Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit

Kevin Liptak

(CNN) - Four candidates left off the Virginia Republican primary ballot joined Rick Perry Saturday in suing the state's board of elections over laws they say are "unconstitutional."

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum joined the lawsuit, originally filed Tuesday, challenging provisions that determine who can appear on the primary ballot.

All five candidates filing the lawsuit failed to qualify for the ballot.

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: Iowa; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: iowa; ricksantorum; va2012; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last
To: Windflier

Happy New Year, Windflier!


51 posted on 12/31/2011 5:19:48 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; SLB; Jim Robinson

FYI


52 posted on 12/31/2011 5:22:52 PM PST by Stonewall Jackson (Democrats: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat; Jim Robinson

Fail, absolute fail. You ignore the facts. The Mittbots gamed the system and got caught. Whine on Mittbot, whine on.

Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.

Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!

Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.

79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson


53 posted on 12/31/2011 5:27:37 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

ON NOES!!!!! not him. lol


54 posted on 12/31/2011 5:55:35 PM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Gee Wind, I wonder why Mittens and the *Crazy Old Coot* didn't announce their support for getting all candidates on the ballot :^)
55 posted on 12/31/2011 6:04:55 PM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Rush, Hannity......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Happy New Year to you too, Smooth!

Good will toward men. We’ll both still be here after the dust settles. I know you’re one of the good souls, who’s in the fight for the long haul.

In Freeperhood forever!


56 posted on 12/31/2011 6:18:53 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
I wonder why Mittens and the *Crazy Old Coot* didn't announce their support for getting all candidates on the ballot :^)

Heh.... things that make you go, "hmm...."

Their silence alone, is damning, wouldn't you say?

57 posted on 12/31/2011 6:23:54 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Good will toward men. In Freeperhood forever!

We'll be fine. Just don't let anyone know the secret handshake! :)

58 posted on 12/31/2011 6:37:16 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

What century are you living in? ALL Federal Courts have electronic filing (ECF), available 24/7, except when pre-noticed as being down for maintenance. Isn’t the internet just amazing?

Further, at Thursday’s hearing, the judge suggested others join the suit. So they are following the judge’s advice, including those who didn’t even try to get on the ballot.


59 posted on 12/31/2011 6:44:09 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

The AG intervention spoken of is with the state legislature, not the courts. If this suit proceeds, Cuccinelli’s Office has to defend the State Board of Elections for having done its duty according to the statute passed by the state legislature.


60 posted on 12/31/2011 6:53:58 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
...don't let anyone know the secret handshake! :)

Secret handshake? LOL. You and I know there's no secret handshake, or hidden rituals, right? Er...um....right.

61 posted on 12/31/2011 6:59:01 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Uh, oh yeah, that’s right! :)


62 posted on 12/31/2011 7:02:13 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Someone has to lead.

In this case, it was Rick Perry.

He’s a leader.


63 posted on 12/31/2011 7:05:23 PM PST by altura (Perry 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: altura
Someone has to lead. In this case, it was Rick Perry.

True dat, but it won't win him the nomination.

64 posted on 12/31/2011 7:08:46 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: altura; Windflier
He’s a leader.

Yes he is. But watch out for that Windflier, he doesn't know about the secret handshake. I think he's a spy! :)

65 posted on 12/31/2011 7:16:40 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: narses

Happy new year to all...even to the mittites — who know they will have trouble winning a majority of Republican votes, even if no one runs against him.

Mittites, you are supporting a demonrat who barely wants the name “Republican” applied to him. Maybe we should ask the leadership of his church what he told them about his positions on primaries?


66 posted on 12/31/2011 7:34:26 PM PST by womanvet (The lesser of 2 evils is Romney. No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

okay, I’m going to put in my two cents then stand aside.

There is something WRONG with this Virginia thing although it’s more the appearance of impropriety than anything perhaps illegal.

First, Newt gathered 13,000 signatures. Romney gathered 20,000 sigs. Others gathered varying amounts. Va law requires 10,000 signatures with some 400 at a minimum from all the voting districts...ie they ALL can’t come from Richmond, for example. Virginians welcome to jump in and help or correct me here but I think I got the gist of it.

The REPUBLICAN PARTY has rules that have no verification at all if 15,000 sigs are gathered, thus Romney has no problem. Newt got 13,000 sigs and the VA GOP has a proctologist examining all his sigs and they’re having a field day disallowing his sigs.

Now you can argue that Newt shoulda got the 20K like Romney’s professional campaign, that the rules were known by all.

But what it APPEARS like, to the rest of the world, that with all those candidates on debates and everything, it makes the VA GOP look like snits that want to push Romney,

Come on...only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney on the Va GOP primary ballot? And Newt had enough sigs but not enough to avoid scrutiny while Romney’s was just right?

The jokes write themselves!

It’s a silly, silly system. I’m not exempting Newt or the others for not doing what they had to do, but I’m from Delaware where the Blue Blood Elite GOP here crushed our candidate, Christine O’Donnell.

This year we’re fighting the Democrats and the Blue Blood elites of the Republican party. They’ll do whatever it takes.

For they reach across the aisle with perfectly polished fingernails but they rip the heads of their own base who dare to challenge their proud positioon of Republican authority.


67 posted on 12/31/2011 7:35:39 PM PST by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Candidates join Perry's Virginia lawsuit

Well, that addresses part of the problem. Who's going to prevent the Democrats from eliminating the Republican they don't like in VA's open primary?

68 posted on 12/31/2011 7:43:54 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Look, you have to support somebody. You’ve already declared your contempt for Newt and Romney. This filing only helps your candidate, assuming you have one. You make no sense whatsoever.


69 posted on 12/31/2011 8:03:32 PM PST by mikhailovich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Can you please specify why the others who didn’t qualify for the VA primary ballot can be trusted to secure America, according to you, because your tagline singles out Governor Perry by only saying HE can’t secure America because HE didn’t get on the ballot??

But as you know, neither did the others - that you fail to attack - get on the ballot.

Merely calling everyone’s attention to your perpetual hypocrisy.


70 posted on 12/31/2011 8:09:47 PM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Is there some kind of "ignore" button or function here so i can put you and orgwhozit-whatshisname on permanent ignore? I don't stop by often, but between the two of you, it gets tiresome trying to avoid all your obsessive negativity.

If there's no ignore button, maybe you're handy with HTML and could use the < fontcolor=white > thingy... Only the cool people use it. I promise. You should try it.

71 posted on 12/31/2011 10:09:49 PM PST by Nita Nupress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
...he doesn't know about the secret handshake. I think he's a spy! :)

All things in due time, my friend. Tonight, we celebrate another day off the clock to Obama's final exit. I raise my glass to you (while I can still type... ;-)

Happy New Year!

72 posted on 12/31/2011 10:11:11 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

If getting on a State Ballot is to difficult a chore, maybe you shouldn’t by trying out for President.


73 posted on 01/01/2012 12:12:50 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

“Yes Virginia...there IS a Constitution...”

Thanks to it the Virginians may have little if any primary.


74 posted on 01/01/2012 12:47:54 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TwoSwords

“Newt should’ve verified every signature? He delegated. Stick it.”

With his resources he was lucky to get what he got. I doubt very much he had the time & money to closely scrutinize every one of his gathers and their product.

Got to remember he has to do this in all 50 states. Your talking Gigantic sums, and people get administratively less and less efficient the larger the organization.

This is one of the reasons the federal goverment being so big is such a big problem for us. Nobody can run & control it fully. It has in no small part developed a bureaucratic mind & agenda of its own. Not only have the people lost control, but I beleive their politicians have as well. If not for lack of ability to give orders & make law but effect & control the monstrosity rather then being manipulated & constrained themselves to largely follow.

This does nonetheless speak of Newts ability to make due with limited resources in effecting the same perhaps overly ambitious goals.


75 posted on 01/01/2012 1:05:53 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Nita Nupress

“Is there some kind of “ignore” button or function here so i can put you and orgwhozit-whatshisname on permanent ignore? I don’t stop by often, but between the two of you, it gets tiresome trying to avoid all your obsessive negativity.”

Negativity implies emotions and in this legal case against Virginia and the Virginia Republican Party and in every other case that goes before a court, emotions should not be involved in the final adjudication.

Instead, only the Constitution and applicable laws as well as previous court decisions should be considered.

Thus, when a poster writes something to the effect of “Virginia is ignoring the Constitution in this case,” they should be able to cite the part of the Constitution that is being violated.

And so far, no one has been able to cite a part of the Constitution that is being violated. A few have cited the “Equal Protection Clause” but it is clear that the “Equal Protection Clause” does not apply to the actions of political parties.

Moreover, many of those who support this lawsuit, seem to be rather uncomfortable with the idea of a federal court dictating to a state that they cannot require a picture ID to vote, but at the same time demand that a federal court intervene in the Virginia GOP Primary.


76 posted on 01/01/2012 6:01:58 AM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

“Can you please specify why the others who didn’t qualify for the VA primary ballot can be trusted to secure America, according to you, because your tagline singles out Governor Perry by only saying HE can’t secure America because HE didn’t get on the ballot??”

Primarily, because all their names would not fit into the tagline field.

Can you please specify why you want the federal courts to intervene in the Virginia GOP Primary, but do not want the federal courts to intervene against Texas and South Carolina’s Voter ID laws?

Do you believe that states have a right to run elections as they believe is best for their state?

Do you believe that state Republican parties have a right to determine standards for who votes and participates in their primaries? Should a state Republican party have the right to hold a Closed Primary?


77 posted on 01/01/2012 6:10:40 AM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; Cincinatus' Wife

Any half brain could post the following:

*If Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum can’t secure a spot on the VA primary ballot, how can they be trusted to secure America?*

But I’m supposed to take seriously someone who only posts that about one candidate who didn’t get on the ballot, and especially knowing of your expressed contempt for that one candidate? Really?

And also knowing of your casual, carefree willingness to possibly vote for the others who didn’t get on, either?

LOL

(I don’t happen to believe that it’s Gingrich or Santorum you support, anyway, but that’s another issue. Just going by what you CLAIMED.)


78 posted on 01/01/2012 6:23:00 AM PST by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer; altura; C. Edmund Wright; Conservative Vermont Vet; EGPWS; ez; Fishtalk; FrankR; ...
...this change from de facto ignoring the law regarding signature validity previously to now following that law as written constitutes a 'violation' of the law...

You are "making stuff up" so I assume it was your candidate (Romney) and his co-conspirators exposed...

There is no "law as written" are you referring to. Here are the two in question...

§ 24.2-506 is the VA code for the procedure of collecting petitions for any STATE office...
§ 24.2-545 is the VA code for the procedure of collecting petitions for any Presidential Primary...

The first law requires a "resident address" of the voter. The second law does not. Feel free to click on those and check!
The first law requires a petition's witness to be "qualified to register to vote, for the office for which he is circulating the petition" and the 2nd law does not.
For Presidential petitions, the gatherer/witness could be from Mars, it is not a requirement "by law".


But the RPV and State Board illegally chose to treat those as "required by law items" by strongly enforcing them starting this year, making it doubly hard to get enough signatures.

But what is worse and possibly illegal, is that on Tuesday Dec 20th, Romney's campaign manager, Bolling turned in 16,021 signatures to the RPV. So then (after possibly browsing thru the 16,021 overnight) the NEXT DAY, at 10am Dec 21st, David Rexrode, executive director of the RPV invented an un-dated "Safe Harbor" letter GUARANTEEING that Romney's petitions would NOT be examined.
http://www.rpv.org/sites/default/files/2012%20Petition%20Certification%20Process_1.pdf

The conspirators in that RPV office created that letter, because they were fearful that Romney might otherwise get booted by the same anal microscopic verification which they were planning in the next 36 hours for Gingrich & Perry petitions.

The letter gave the RPV free reign to use whatever drastic examination procedures were necessary to discard "enough" Gingrich and Perry petitions, while knowing the same standards would not apply to Romney. ... Romney's petitions could have been collected by ACORN with half saying "Mickey Mouse" and Romney would have still passed.

Some have suggested that David Rexrode, Pat Mullings, and Bill Bolling should go to prison for this conspiracy. Or at very least banned from politics, tarred and feathered, and run out of Virginia on a rail.


When the RPV and the State Board pulled this "Obama-style disqualification" of their (Romney's) opponents, they were committing election fraud against Virginia voters, because, of their own free will, Virginia was NOT likely to choose Romney or Paul. Those two candidates only received a combined total of 10% of the VA primary vote in 2008, and were near the bottom in this year's VA polls.

But after the trickery of this RPV office, the voters had no free will. The situation made it virtually certain that Romney would get > 50% and therefore would be the "winner take all" of Virginia's delegates.
I'm in favor of the end result - allowing all seven candidates on the ballot, but it would be better if a judge ruled it for the sake of enfranchising all VA voters, AND allowing discovery of the co-conspirators records, and investigating the suggestion that Romney volunteers were improperly on the qualification committee.

79 posted on 01/01/2012 7:46:00 AM PST by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Oh, you are bad ~ DISCOVERY ~ right down to the short hairs.


80 posted on 01/01/2012 7:51:31 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

http://www.rpv.org/node/1037
“Candidates were officially informed of the 15,000 rule in October 2011, well in advance of the Dec. 22 submission deadline.”

So much for your conspiracy theory.

§ 24.2-545
“...at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth,”

Qualified voters in your world may include creatures “from Mars” LOL!
You probably let people from other states, countries and planets vote there too ‘to be fair’...


81 posted on 01/01/2012 8:00:24 AM PST by mrsmith (Start electing a 'Tea Party' House Speaker in 2012 now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

So much for your conspiracy theory.


A little more info that was available to the candidates should they chose to review and follow. Thus this wasn’t done in the dark as some would claim.

Deadlines, Duties and
Ballot Access Requirements
Presidential Primary Election
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ON MAY 25, 2011

.....snip down to the following:

Ballot Access Requirements
Candidates wishing to participate in the presidential primary must follow the procedures outlined
below.

Primary Filing Fee
§ 24.2-524
NO filing fee is required for the presidential primary.

Consent/Declaration
§ 24.2-545 B
This is a combined form.
Consent - Part A must be completed by the candidate if
petitions are circulated and filed by a separate group
organized in Virginia on behalf of the person seeking the
nomination of the national political party. If the group is
organized by the candidate Part A is not required to be
completed.

Declaration - Part B must be completed by the candidate.
The candidate must sign Part A, if applicable, and Part B of
this document before a notary or other officer authorized to
administer oaths.

Petition Requirements
§ 24.2-545
Circulate on or after July 1, 2011;

Must be on the form prescribed by the State Board of
Elections (copy enclosed). It is suggested that the candidate
or group complete the top portion of the petition form and then
print or photocopy as many copies of the form as needed.
The form may not be altered in any way. Must be signed by
not less than 10,000 qualified voters in Virginia, including at
least 400 qualified voters from each of Virginia’s eleven
congressional districts, who attest that they intend to
participate in the primary of the same political party as the
candidate named on the petition.

Because many people who are not registered to vote will sign
a petition, it is recommended that 15,000 - 20,000 signatures
be obtained with at least 700 signatures from each
congressional district.

Must provide the true signature, the printed full name and the
full resident address of each qualified voter and the date each
signed the petition.

Although the last four digits of the social security number is
requested, it is not mandatory that it be provided.

Must, on each page, provide an affidavit signed under oath by
the person who circulated it that s/he personally witnessed the
affixing of the signature of each voter on the page and that
s/he is registered, or eligible to be registered, to vote in
Virginia.

Note that a circulator cannot witness his own signature.
Falsely signing this affidavit is a felony under Virginia law.
The petition NEVER can be left unattended. It is suggested
that petition pages be filed in locality order (counties followed
by cities) to facilitate the processing of the filing. The State
Board recommends that each petition page contain signatures
from only one county or city and, therefore, circulators should
prepare a separate petition page for each locality. If signatures
are tracked by congressional district you may enter the district
number on each petition page.

Petitions for a primary election must be delivered in sealed
containers. These containers may be opened only by the
State Chair of the candidate=s party. Immediately after the
filing deadline, the containers, together with any required
attachments (see below), will be delivered to that Chair by the
State Board of Elections.

A statement, signed by the candidate under oath, setting
forth his name and the number of signatures on the petitions
in the sealed containers must be attached to the first
container. See Suggested Oath on the next page.

Petition Requirements

If the Party’s delegates will be selected at the primary
election, then a list of the names of persons who would be
elected delegates and alternate delegates to the political
party=s national convention if the candidate wins the
primary, also must be attached to the first sealed container
of the candidate=s petitions. The slate of delegates and
alternates must comply with the rules of the national and state
party.

If the Party’s delegates will be selected using state and
congressional district conventions, then NO list of delegates
and alternate delegates is required.

Must be filed with the State Board of Elections no later than
5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 22, 2011.

End snips.......

From:

http://rpv.org/sites/default/files/Deadlines%20Duties%20and%20Ballot%20Access%20Requirements%20for%20the%20Presidential%20Primary%20Election%203_6_12%20Rev%205.pdf


82 posted on 01/01/2012 8:27:40 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater; mrreaganaut

Oh really!? Thanks for posting that. I’m not surprised that Mittens sigs were not examined. Can’t look too close in Mitten’s case, he might be discovered for the lying sack he is.

Mr. R ping.


83 posted on 01/01/2012 8:29:42 AM PST by reaganaut (Mormonism is all about glory to self, not Glory to God. - which explains Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

I’d like to believe you, but can you dive a bit into your two supporting links:

For non-pres, it says:
10,000 signatures, including the signatures of at least 400 qualified voters from each...

Okay, sounds like mickey mouses can apply, as long as there are 400 real non-mickey-mouse voters per district. I’d go out on a limb a bit on this, as it depends on what the meaning of “qualified” is - but I’m assuming somewhere else it defines it as a current registered R/U.

In the pres case, it says:
10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each...

so, it would appear to me, the as yet unconvinced, that the pres is a bit more restricted in that the 10000 total cannot be of the mickey-mouse flavor.

How do I have this wrong (I *WANT* to believe, but cannot yet)?


84 posted on 01/01/2012 8:54:30 AM PST by C210N (Dems: "We must tax you so that we can buy your votes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Wow. So the establishment RINOs have now become as criminal as the Democrats. This is stunning.


85 posted on 01/01/2012 8:59:23 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater; sheikdetailfeather

bttt for #79


86 posted on 01/01/2012 10:06:17 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater
But the RPV and State Board illegally chose to treat those as "required by law items" by strongly enforcing them starting this year, making it doubly hard to get enough signatures. But what is worse and possibly illegal, is that on Tuesday Dec 20th, Romney's campaign manager, Bolling turned in 16,021 signatures to the RPV. So then (after possibly browsing thru the 16,021 overnight) the NEXT DAY, at 10am Dec 21st, David Rexrode, executive director of the RPV invented an un-dated "Safe Harbor" letter GUARANTEEING that Romney's petitions would NOT be examined. http://www.rpv.org/sites/default/files/2012%20Petition%20Certification%20Process_1.pdf in other words the fix is in..gop wants Romney or else
87 posted on 01/01/2012 10:14:49 AM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
So the establishment RINOs have now become as criminal as the Democrats.

Think it's one of those *It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..........* things.
What's even more telling, the MSM is helping the *Rinos* just like they would be *Rats*(on a smaller scale, the trolls here on FR also)...........For the time being.

88 posted on 01/01/2012 10:31:58 AM PST by The Cajun (Palin, Free Republic, Mark Levin, Rush, Hannity......Nuff said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; potlatch

The excellent Texas BOOM TOWN Goose Step. It’s a joy to behold.


89 posted on 01/01/2012 10:32:14 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Very good news.


90 posted on 01/01/2012 10:33:32 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Wow...imagine that...”our” candidates actually working TOGETHER for a common goal instead of attacking each other...

Imagine that....Will wonders never cease, huh?


91 posted on 01/01/2012 10:44:31 AM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Hi, Orgie! It’s nice to see you, stranger! I hope that you’re doing well and have a Happy New Year.


92 posted on 01/01/2012 10:49:27 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk
If the non qualifiers had copied a few pages out of the respective phone books to reach a 15,000 count, they would have lawfully qualified, because they would be above the threshold for validation..

But since they tried to get actual signatures, and in newt's case exceeded 13000, he did not qualify.

OK

93 posted on 01/01/2012 10:51:34 AM PST by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

Doing Well took a trip, feeling fine, same to you.


94 posted on 01/01/2012 10:57:19 AM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and nervous supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater
I'm not for Romney, I'm for Santorum. And as I explicitly I wrote i my post "I'm no lawyer, and certainly not an election law specialist." So please allow me a little slack for non-lawyerly imprecision.

The thrust of my post clearly wasn't to discuss the de jure specifics of the legal case, but rather the de facto reality that 10k, or 15k, 'collected' signatures this year didn't result in nearly as many 'accepted' signatures as the same number of 'collected' signatures in the past and the claimed explanation was more thorough signature checking based on a pending law suit. The changed validation process invalidates criticism of Messrs. Gingrich and Perry's failure to reach 10k through comparison with the relative ease of reaching it in prior years, a criticism many made initially. Finding that many submitted petition signatures were ineligible suggests that bothering to check at election time would turn up ineligible voters as well.

I wasn't trying to comment on the specifics of either Gov. Perry's lawsuit nor of the actions by Virginia's AG that have been joined by 4 other candidates. The hopes of three of the latter (including 'my' candidate) to get on the ballot, in spite of submitting no signatures, also requires more legal mental agility than I possess. I not only have no idea how the legal process will turn out, I don't believe any result there much affects my points.

I'd seen reported that the VA GOP changed to these procedures proactively trying to avoid future legal challenges which might arise from a pending lawsuit. So I assumed they were now trying to follow the law strictly and believed their prior procedures might now be adjudicated as not following the law strictly enough. I wasn't intentionally "making stuff up," certainly not for or against any particular candidate. I was trying to express my interpretation based what had been reported, what seemed to fit the actions of the VA GOP, and my personal bias for tighter election standards.

95 posted on 01/01/2012 11:17:38 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Thank you. [smiles]


96 posted on 01/01/2012 11:35:20 AM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Future Useless Eater

Thanks for the ping, and I hope Virginia is made to do the right and fair thing for all candidates. It was so transparently biased as to be ridiculous!


97 posted on 01/01/2012 11:57:59 AM PST by LUV W (This tagline reserved for a hero.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

“Any half brain could post the following:”

Why don’t you dispose of the insults for the new year and explain why you advocate the Federal Courts dictating to a state and a state political party how they must operate their Primary Elections?

Do you want the Federal Courts to dictate to all states and all political parties how they must operate their Primary Elections or do you only want the Federal Courts to intervene when it is convenient for you?

Are you a hypocrite or are you simply a Cafeteria Constitutionalist who wants to pick and choose when the Constitution should and should not be followed?


98 posted on 01/01/2012 12:13:19 PM PST by trumandogz (If Rick Perry cannot secure his name on the Va. ballot, how could he be trusted to secure America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; All

And meanwhile, how is the loyalty oath issue working for the VA GOP?? I suspect a massive stay-at-home vote.


99 posted on 01/01/2012 12:54:35 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

[The excellent Texas BOOM TOWN Goose Step. It’s a joy to behold.]

LOL, after you do the boot-kickin, you ‘Waltz Across Texas’!

Happy New Year TOL!


100 posted on 01/01/2012 1:25:16 PM PST by potlatch (*snip*~ Having the right to be angry does not give one the right to be cruel. ~*snip*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson