Someone wrote after the South Carolina primary: “More analysis: I am expecting both the establishment and the Left to absolutely crucify Newt now that he is no longer written off as a has been.”
But see that’s the difference. We are so accustomed to candidates who just stand there and allow themselves to be pummeled and do nothing about it. The GOP has low expectations, and I still think is afraid — like the Stockholm Syndrome — of the news media.
Newt may be far from perfect.
The fact that so few candidates have learned these lessons narrows the circle of GOP candidates who can take on the assault and win, and over come it.
But Newt is not going to offer a stationary target, allow the artillery to get the range, and just sit their and take incoming artillery shells.
It would be better if we had a candidate who (a) knew how to fight but (b) did not need to defend himself on so many issues.
But Newt knows how to make his critic hurt MORE than his critic hurts him.
What happened with CNN John King v. Newt Gingrich is that Newt transformed a CLEAR LOSER, and a very BAD attack, into a WIN.
He didn’t just survive the barrage.
He converted a bad thing into a good thing. He actually gained ground by an attack that would have devastated most other candidates. He profited from the attacks.
So what distinguishes Newt from the typical candidate is that he is going to *PROFIT* politically from many of the attacks on him, and make his attacker hurt worse than the attacker hurts Newt.
NOTE: Mitt Romney did the same thing with Bain Capital, and almost destroyed Newt heading into the debates. Romney probably should have sunk the knife in.
Romney’s team converted the questions about Bain Capital into a NET BENEFIT by claiming that Newt and Santorum were adopting a left-wing view of economics and talking like liberals who did not understand business and want government regulation of everything. For a while, Romney was clobbering Newt and Santorum on that theme. Romney was actually GAINING more than he was losing on that theme. Had Romney been able to milk that issue a little further, he might have nipped Newt in the bud in SC.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Lessons Learned from Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney: REPUBLICANS HAVE TO LEARN TO FIGHT
A key argument by moderate Republicans is that putting forward THE PERFECT CANDIDATE is the trick. If we simply choose the right candidate, everything else will fall automatically into place.
My argument is that it does not matter which candidate you choose. The GOP has to learn how to FIGHT (rhetorically and politically, of course)… and to fight in UNITY.
And, yes, that means being PERSUASIVE, not simply cantankerous. Success is measured by whether the listener is persuaded, not by how you feel saying what you want to say. Success is when the hearer says (even quietly to himself) “You’re right” not just if you are being loud and ornery (like me).
I suggest that recent events in the GOP Primary highlight what I was saying. (And, no, I had NO foreknowledge of any attacks on Mitt Romney. I just spoke from 28 years in Republican campaigns, from being co-chair of Reagan/Bush 1984 at the University of Florida in 1984.)
There is NO candidate who is immune from being attacked.
You have to be geared up for (political) battle.
You can’t avoid the battle by hiding behind a candidate whom you believe is perfect.
The mistake that Mitt Romney and his team made was that they SAW the “baggage” for which Newt Gingrich could be attacked, BUT THEY WERE *BLIND* TO THEIR OWN BAGGAGE. Just because it hadn’t attracted attention yet, they though they were immune to criticism.
So Mitt Romney started a mud-slinging war ASSUMING that it would only affect Newt, and Romney would come out smelling like a rose. Nothing would stick to him.
Just because a candidate hasn’t been criticized YET, doesn’t mean he WON’T be.
So Mitt Romney decided to go negative and spark a war thinking that he could smear Newt, but nothing could be said negative about Mitt Romney. You can’t run a campaign ASSUMING that nobody can find anything negative to say about you. Your opponents will *ALWAYS* find something negative to say — even if they have to fabricate smears out of thin air.
So what’s the lesson? GIVE UP? NO!
If you think Mitt Romney, is a better candidate, FIGHT for him. Don’t think you can coast to an easy victory.
Contrast this with Newt Gingrich’s opening in last night’s SC debate:
Newt used a brilliant political tactic, when opening last night’s debate. He did not want to talk about or dwell on the substance of the question of his ex-wife’s comments. Marianne Gingrich’s interview had (has) the potential to totally destroy Newt’s candidacy, because people will assume he can’t win the general election. They may not care in the primary, but they have to wonder “Would a Newt nominee survive the general election and beat Obama?”
THAT was one of Christine O’Donnell’s points in making her controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney: Christine expressed her analysis that Newt Gingrich would be savaged over his personal baggage in the general election, leading to the re-election of Obama.
BUT NOTICE THE POLITICAL TECHNIQUES USED BY NEWT:
In opening last night’s debates, he changed the story to being about the WAY that he responded. He took a losing topic, his ex-wife’s comments, and turned it into a winner — HOW he fought back, showing himself to be a fighter who can take on tough challenges. I am sure he planned ahead on this — to highlight his strength, energy, and boldness in fighting back, to OBSCURE the substance of the discussion, and convert it into being all about his debating strength. So you no longer think about WHAT they were talking about, but only about HOW he said it. I am sure he planned that all along.
I would feel much better about a Mitt Romney nomination if Republicans who mostly are his supporters UNDERSTOOD *HOW* to take on Barack Obama in the same way.
I don’t mind Mitt Romney at all. But I think the GOP needs to know how to fight and win (not just fight for fighting’s sake, of course).
REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AMONG THEMSELVES, SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT AND WIN.
We don’t know how to fight for *ANY* candidate, so we are blaming the candidates, instead of ourselves as campaigners.
By the way, don’t get me wrong:
I suspect that Christine O’Donnell is genuinely pained by (in her view) watching a re-run of the party acrimony of 2010. I haven’t spoken to her in a while, but I understand from her comments, and her “Tweets” that pop up on our Facebook feed, that she really dislikes the prospect of another self-destructive civil war.
I suspect that for Christine it is like watching a car accident happening in slow motion and you can’t do anything to stop it. So her response to a ridiculously excessive number of candidates was to feel the need to all get behind one.
One of the smartest things that Mitt Romney supporters could do would be to fly Christine O’Donnell down to Florida to make that passionate appeal that the Party needs to unite behind one candidate, that we cannot beat Obama divided. She assumes that means coalescing behind Romney. But she’s not the only one, from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Nikki Haley to Ann Coulter, and many others.
My concern is not with the choice of candidate (even though I do lean elsewhere), but with the underlying assumption that we don’t have to fight for every vote if we pick the “easy” candidate.
My argument is that it does not matter which candidate you choose. The GOP has to learn how to FIGHT (rhetorically and politically, of course)… and to fight in UNITY.
And, yes, that means being PERSUASIVE, not simply cantankerous. Success is measured by whether the listener is persuaded, not by how you feel saying what you want to say. Success is when the hearer says (even quietly to himself) “You’re right” not just if you are being loud and ornery (like me).
I suggest that recent events in the GOP Primary highlight what I was saying. (And, no, I had NO foreknowledge of any attacks on Mitt Romney. I just spoke from 28 years in Republican campaigns, from being co-chair of Reagan/Bush 1984 at the University of Florida in 1984.)
There is NO candidate who is immune from being attacked.
You have to be geared up for (political) battle.
You can’t avoid the battle by hiding behind a candidate whom you believe is perfect.
The mistake that Mitt Romney and his team made was that they SAW the “baggage” for which Newt Gingrich could be attacked, BUT THEY WERE *BLIND* TO THEIR OWN BAGGAGE. Just because it hadn’t attracted attention yet, they though they were immune to criticism.
So Mitt Romney started a mud-slinging war ASSUMING that it would only affect Newt, and Romney would come out smelling like a rose. Nothing would stick to him.
Just because a candidate hasn’t been criticized YET, doesn’t mean he WON’T be.
So Mitt Romney decided to go negative and spark a war thinking that he could smear Newt, but nothing could be said negative about Mitt Romney. You can’t run a campaign ASSUMING that nobody can find anything negative to say about you. Your opponents will *ALWAYS* find something negative to say — even if they have to fabricate smears out of thin air.
So what’s the lesson? GIVE UP? NO!
If you think Mitt Romney, is a better candidate, FIGHT for him. Don’t think you can coast to an easy victory.
Contrast this with Newt Gingrich’s opening in last night’s SC debate:
Newt used a brilliant political tactic, when opening last night’s debate. He did not want to talk about or dwell on the substance of the question of his ex-wife’s comments. Marianne Gingrich’s interview had (has) the potential to totally destroy Newt’s candidacy, because people will assume he can’t win the general election. They may not care in the primary, but they have to wonder “Would a Newt nominee survive the general election and beat Obama?”
THAT was one of Christine O’Donnell’s points in making her controversial endorsement of Mitt Romney: Christine expressed her analysis that Newt Gingrich would be savaged over his personal baggage in the general election, leading to the re-election of Obama.
BUT NOTICE THE POLITICAL TECHNIQUES USED BY NEWT:
In opening last night’s debates, he changed the story to being about the WAY that he responded. He took a losing topic, his ex-wife’s comments, and turned it into a winner — HOW he fought back, showing himself to be a fighter who can take on tough challenges. I am sure he planned ahead on this — to highlight his strength, energy, and boldness in fighting back, to OBSCURE the substance of the discussion, and convert it into being all about his debating strength. So you no longer think about WHAT they were talking about, but only about HOW he said it. I am sure he planned that all along.
I would feel much better about a Mitt Romney nomination if Republicans who mostly are his supporters UNDERSTOOD *HOW* to take on Barack Obama in the same way.
I don’t mind Mitt Romney at all. But I think the GOP needs to know how to fight and win (not just fight for fighting’s sake, of course).
REPUBLICANS ARE FIGHTING AMONG THEMSELVES, SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO FIGHT AND WIN.
We don’t know how to fight for *ANY* candidate, so we are blaming the candidates, instead of ourselves as campaigners.
By the way, don’t get me wrong:
I suspect that Christine O’Donnell is genuinely pained by (in her view) watching a re-run of the party acrimony of 2010. I haven’t spoken to her in a while, but I understand from her comments, and her “Tweets” that pop up on our Facebook feed, that she really dislikes the prospect of another self-destructive civil war.
I suspect that for Christine it is like watching a car accident happening in slow motion and you can’t do anything to stop it. So her response to a ridiculously excessive number of candidates was to feel the need to all get behind one.
One of the smartest things that Mitt Romney supporters could do would be to fly Christine O’Donnell down to Florida to make that passionate appeal that the Party needs to unite behind one candidate, that we cannot beat Obama divided. She assumes that means coalescing behind Romney. But she’s not the only one, from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Gov. Nikki Haley to Ann Coulter, and many others.
My concern is not with the choice of candidate (even though I do lean elsewhere), but with the underlying assumption that we don’t have to fight for every vote if we pick the “easy” candidate.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
What is Marxism?
From my friend Sevil Kalayci:
"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
Saturday, January 14, 2012
BREAKING NEWS: Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry APPEALING Federal lawsuit to appear on GOP Presidential ballot
At 9:51 PM Newt Gingrich APPEALED, and at 4:13 PM on Saturday, Gov. Rick Perry APPEALED the decision of Federal Judge in Richmond, to appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican presidential primary ballot. So the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide if Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry should be on the ballot in Virginia.
Friday, January 13, 2012
"NO" says Federal Judge to Virginia Presidential Primary Ballot Lawsuit by Rick Perry
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
Thursday, January 12, 2012
GALLUP -- TWICE AS MANY VOTERS ARE CONSERVATIVE THAN LIBERAL
Running conservative candidates is the winning move.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Federal Judge HALTS printing of VIRGINIA BALLOTS for March 6 Primary
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
POLITICAL BOOT CAMP -- HOW TO: HERE IS A TACTIC CHRISTINE O'DONNELL COULD HAVE USED & YOU CAN LEARN FROM:
Tea Party 2.0 is a project of the Northern Virginia Tea Party to teach tea party activists how to move beyond waving signs to changing the country. The tea party needs to learn the political techniques of success. So here is an idea that occurred to me:
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Is RON PAUL appealing to Jew hating ANTI-SEMITES?
Blaming "International bankers" has been an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory for several centuries. Ron Paul excuses CONGRESS who VOTES TO SPEND THE MONEY and instead blames "central banking" and the monetary system for Federal spending and national debt.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
Moderate Republicans Search for a Mirage: The Lazy Man's Candidate
On a Delaware political blog, a moderate Republican argued:
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Also, most independents will support Mr. Romney. You will also see some democrats cross over and vote for Mr. Romney.
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
The American people are fed up with inexperienced leadership.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
