Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli
Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, has decided to get involved in the matter of ballot access for the primary elections in his state. It’s something of an oddity to see this happen because while one could certainly make the case that the late rule changes in the way petition signatures are validated, it’s likewise true that “rules are rules.” The funny thing about this is that when it was revealed that only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney would be on the ballot, many in the GOP establishment figured they had it all sewn up. This way, they’d be able to exclude Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann and Perry, and thereby have a virtual walkover. Not so fast, as I pointed out: This opened up the possibility that Ron Paul could win that state’s primary, either purely on the basis of Virgina Republican voters in disgust at the party, or because with nobody opposing Obama in the Democrat race, they’d be free to cross over and vote for Ron Paul just to muck things up a bit for Romney.
That realization finally settled in, and then we saw the preposterous “loyalty oath” business, whereby voters in the GOP primary were to sign an oath promising to vote for the GOP candidate in the general election. That clearly turned into an embarrassment for the Virginia GOP, and rightfully so, but thereafter they were left with no way to stave off the Ron Paul disaster they now feared they would face. Now enters the Attorney General, who will propose to the assembly that they enact a change to ballot access, that will effectively allow all of these candidates in. It would require only that the candidate had met the criteria and was in fact receiving federal campaign matching funds, and that would enable them to be on the ballot.
This hasn’t yet been accomplished, of course, but this is the general direction in which it’s now being steered. The intent in this case seems to be the attempt to deny Ron Paul a shot at outright victory, and to keep the conservative side of the field otherwise diluted, in order to permit Romney to walk with the lion’s share of delegates. Some is better than none, which would be the result if Paul won in a two-candidate race. (The primary is “winner take all” unless none obtain a majority, in which case there’s some sort of apportionment.)
This entire spectacle is a stunning revelation about the electoral process in Virginia, but it also demonstrates how disconnected the GOP is from its base in Virginia. “Loyalty oaths?” That absurd work-around should never have seen the light of day, but in the reflexive attempt to retain control of the results, they tipped their hand and showed the people of Virginia how thoroughly dominated by the party establishment the Virginia Republican Party really is. This story really does deal a serious black eye to the Virginia GOP, and Cuccinelli’s attempt to salvage it is really too little, too late. Besides, these are “rule of law” proponents, aren’t they? Who changes rules in the middle of a contest? Imagine playing blackjack with these people. Imagine trying to carry out anything under the rules, knowing they could change at any moment. This is as much a problem of credibility for the national party as it is for their Virginia operation, and they’ve tried to settle this quickly with minimal bad press.
Too late.
"Absurd" is a very good word for this treachery disguised as inclusiveness, along with "outrageous", "insulting", and "hypocritical." It is so obvious that even a blind person could see that they want to rig this for Romney.
Yes, I do not like seeing the "boys in the back room" changing the rules of a contest when the results are not to their liking.
But George Will, says there no GOP establishment LMAO
Were the name 'Republican' replaced with 'Democrat' in the Virginia story, I would have said, "Now, isn't that just typical of how the left-wing Progressives manipulate the system to accomplish their devious ends. Typical Saul Alinsky philosophy that ends justify the means."
As you said, Mark, "…they tipped their hand and showed the people of Virginia how thoroughly dominated by the party establishment…they are." It should be clear to everyone now to which party they owe alliegiance – the Progressive Party.
Yes, this situation is a black eye for the Virginia GOP. Yet, I believe it is even more serious for the national organization. I feel your recent essays, 'The Politics of False Unity' and 'The Candidate We Want But Can't Have', clearly implicated their Progressive focus. And I think the Tea Party regulars throughout America have gut feelings in the same vein. That may be why it has been difficult to rally behind any current candidate – they know deep inside that they're being manipulated by the other side of the Progressive Party.
We need a leader. We need someone who tells the truth today and it remains the truth tomorrow. That person is out there. S/he knows they're going to have to fight the machine. I only hope there is sufficient time available for him/her to step forward to rally the forces. The enemy is strong and is all around us.
I happen to know Cuccinelli. He is a good man. Not perfect, of course, but much closer to a statesman than the vast majority of the politicians we have in office on every level (local, state, federal).
I know that I may anger some here. But, IMO, Ron Paul as the GOP candidate or as the head of a third-party ticket will guarantee that Obama gets re-elected. The DNC full well knows this — as does the msm.
Always On Watch, I agree that Paul is unsuited to the presidency, but here's the thing: I support the conservatives in Virginia, who may decide that poking a finger in the eye of the establishment is more important in this instance, and decide to support Paul as a protest against the preposterous machinations of the GOP in Virginia. I have no doubt that Cuccinelli is a good man, and I was happy to see him reverse himself on the question of intervening in this matter, not because I want to see these others kept off the ballot, but because rules are rules and we can't change them in the middle of the process. That said, I think the Virginia GOP rules are absurd, and they ought to amend them in time for the next election, and if Cuccinelli wishes to do that, I think many would be supportive.
I am so relieved to hear that Cucinelli has acknowledged that changing the rules midstream would be wrong. I have grown to admire him for his principled stance against Obamacare, and based on the explanation his has given about the Virginia fiasco, I am grateful for people like him. We need more men like him.
Mark, what specifically do you find unsuitable about Ron Paul? I'd like to hear what you have to say about Paul.
Hilda, I've written many articles in part or in whole about Ron Paul. If you'll check the Ron Paul category on the right side-bar, you'll find most of them easily. The condensed form is this: I don't think his foreign policy is entirely suitable to the 21st century, and the very real threats we face. I also don't agree with his reliance upon the 10th amendment on some issues where it really doesn't apply.
I don't hate Ron Paul, and in fact, I admire his view on the monetary system, fiscal policy, and individual liberty generally.
I don't mind his views on foreign aid, in a general sense, but in specifics, I think there are some rare instances in which it is tantamount to national defense.
That sums up the important things.
BTW, while I don't support his candidacy in general, I'd support him defeating a squish like Romney all day long.
I am fairly new to your blog and was unaware of all your topics, so I'll do a search and read what you have written. I am supporting Ron Paul because the GOP needs and deserves a real wake-up call. But most of all I am supporting Ron Paul because he is the only one who truly believes in individual liberty and capitalism. Paul understands the monetary system, the importance of sound money, and because he seems to be the only one to take our debt seriously. He is not perfect but I think he's the best of one.
I forgot to thank you for the brief summary in answering my question above. Thank you!