[alabama24]

If the rules are "party rules," there should be no problem changing them when needed. There is no good reason the rules should and could not have been changed.

The rules are stupid, because as I said before, even if 100% of voters in a district are opposed to a candidate doesn't mean they should not be given an opportunity to run. Furthermore, the rules ensure that only those with the best political "machine" will be elected. Having the best "machine" requires large amounts of money. This should not be.

[jbock13]

If the rules are "party rules," there should be no problem changing them when needed. There is no good reason the rules should and could not have been changed.

The rules are stupid, because as I said before, even if 100% of voters in a district are opposed to a candidate doesn't mean they should not be given an opportunity to run. Furthermore, the rules ensure that only those with the best political "machine" will be elected. Having the best "machine" requires large amounts of money. This should not be.

Exactly. The rules were rigged for Romney. It just so happens that Paul supporters are so well connected that they were able to meet the requirements.

Quite frankly the best way to get the VA GOP to change the rules is to punish them by not giving them campaign contributions.

[El Scorcho]

Furthermore, the rules ensure that only those with the best political "machine" will be elected. Having the best "machine" requires large amounts of money. This should not be.

You say "machine", I say "organized campaign". Frankly, if you can't organize 10,000 signatures to get yourself on the ballot in Virginia, then there's absolutely no way I'd want you sitting in the White House. I think the rule did its job in exposing some of the campaigns for the mess that they are.

[ALUmnus]

Yes, because we all need better community organizers in the White House.
The inability to separate the candidate from the campaign here is weird.

[Liberty4Life]

If you can't get 10,000 people to support you in one state, you're not going to get the 70,000,000 needed to win a national election.

Obama may have been a community organizer, but at least he knew how to run an effective campaign. You can't say the same about all the candidates on the GOP ticket.

[ALUmnus]

If you can't get 10,000 people to support you in one state, you're not going to get the 70,000,000 needed to win a national election.

Fuzzy logic, as the two have nothing to do with each other. Not to mention that just because something didn't happen doesn't mean that something can't happen. Do you honestly think that Perry, Santorum, or Gingrich CAN'T get 10,000 signatures? Or that they happened to hire some people to take care of things that failed to do so.

You doctor Paul guys are nuts to think this is an advantage to doctor Paul, it helps Romney way more than it helps doctor Paul.

[Liberty4Life]

For starters, I honestly think that Perry can't get 10,000 signatures. He only beat me in New Hampshire by 1,800.

And what you just did is open the door to is some unelected official (a judge) being able to determine who is / who is not worthy enough of ballot inclusion. Congratulations. You just turned us into Iran.

Furthermore, you did not address my original statement, which was that you need to have some sort of minimum standards in order to get on the ballot. These guys did not meet the minimum standard, therefore, they should not be allowed on the ballot. While I disagreed with the lack of a write-in option, it is still the rule of law. The rule of law must be upheld, and if you don't like it, change the law. Don't hope for a judge to adjudicate away your errors. Judicial activism is bad.

...and I'm not a Dr. Paul guy.

[ALUmnus]

Is that in response to my post? Because I don't know how you read all that in what I said. I didn't make a single reference to ballot rules or court cases. I was just pointing out some false statements made by a few people.

[skywalker5291]

If the rules are "party rules," there should be no problem changing them when needed. There is no good reason the rules should and could not have been changed.

The rules are stupid, because as I said before, even if 100% of voters in a district are opposed to a candidate doesn't mean they should not be given an opportunity to run. Furthermore, the rules ensure that only those with the best political "machine" will be elected. Having the best "machine" requires large amounts of money. This should not be.

I agree with you that the rules are stupid but saying the rules only favor the guy with the most money is just stupid. Dr. Paul is by far underfunded for a top teir candidates but he has supporters who are crazy enough to stand up for what they believe in (i know on this board that is a sin and we should all conform and vote for Romobama) but saying it favors the one with the most money is cray. None of the other campaigns were organized enough to get the votes. Not my fault that's their fault.

This race is a two man race bc their are only two candidates on the ballot in all 50 states. Stop listening to Fox News and CNN and pick a side. Its either Romney, Paul, or Obama and if you think its not then you are insane.

[El Scorcho]

Yes, because we all need better community organizers in the White House.
The inability to separate the candidate from the campaign here is weird.

Their campaign is their business for the entirety of the time they're seeking office. The candidate is the president of that business and is responsible for hiring the managers of it. If you can't appoint managers responsible enough to ensure you're actually on the ballot in Virginia, why in the world would I expect that you could pick effective managers for your staff as President? They're often the same people. Or as appointees?

The campaign is a reflection of the candidate just like a company is a reflection of their CEO. The buck stops at the top and if you can't make the ballot, you didn't effectively manage your campaign. I'm not saying that there's not more to a candidate than how they manage their campaign, but I am saying that when a campaign is as incompetently managed as some of the GOP candidate's campaigns have been, it says a lot about them as managers and executives.

[ALUmnus]

Right, and doctor Paul should not be shackled to his associates or rabid supporters, or whoever thought it was a good idea to let him on Leno.

[RubberMallet]

could be worse. you could have to deal with chicago politics.

[Purple Haize]

could be worse. you could have to deal with chicago politics.

Those are more entertaining. Sorta like pro wrestling. You know who is going y win but the process is so much fun to watch

[skywalker5291]

Right, and doctor Paul should not be shackled to his associates or rabid supporters, or whoever thought it was a good idea to let him on Leno.

The Leno interview was the fairest interview i have ever seen Dr. Paul given.

[jmdickens]

Alumnus

Can you give me a logical explanation as to why the rules should be changed at the moment? Loaded question, but that is the only way to ask it because all these candidates failed to meet certain criteria that has been established as clear rules for the GOP of Virginia.

[ATrain]

Quite frankly, my opinion is if you can't hire somebody to get 10,000 signatures in a state with over 8 million residents, or are unwilling and unable to do it yourself, what makes you think I'm going to trust you to hire someone who can competently manage 1-2 wars, our country's infrastructure programs, our country's finances, etc...?

[ALUmnus]

Alumnus

Can you give me a logical explanation as to why the rules should be changed at the moment? Loaded question, but that is the only way to ask it because all these candidates failed to meet certain criteria that has been established as clear rules for the GOP of Virginia.

Please read through the thread again. I'll say it for the second time, not once did I ask for the rules to be changed, or even complain about the rules. I just have a problem with some of the comments being made, particularly from doctor Paul supporters.

[skywalker5291]

Alumnus

Can you give me a logical explanation as to why the rules should be changed at the moment? Loaded question, but that is the only way to ask it because all these candidates failed to meet certain criteria that has been established as clear rules for the GOP of Virginia.

Please read through the thread again. I'll say it for the second time, not once did I ask for the rules to be changed, or even complain about the rules. I just have a problem with some of the comments being made, particularly from doctor Paul supporters.

What is your problem with what Paul supporters have said?

[El Scorcho]

Right, and doctor Paul should not be shackled to his associates or rabid supporters, or whoever thought it was a good idea to let him on Leno.

Paul's campaign seems to be going pretty well. But okay.

[ALUmnus]

Right, and doctor Paul should not be shackled to his associates or rabid supporters, or whoever thought it was a good idea to let him on Leno.

Paul's campaign seems to be going pretty well. But okay.

Sigh. Point: Paul supporters want to tie the other candidates' competency to the screwup in Virginia. Yet it's off-limits to tie Paul to his extremist supporters, associates, and newsletters. It's just very disingenuous. It's nearly impossible to find fault in their leader and find anything good to say about the other candidates. That's not a vetting process, that's blind allegiance.

[El Scorcho]

Sigh. Point: Paul supporters want to tie the other candidates' competency to the screwup in Virginia. Yet it's off-limits to tie Paul to his extremist supporters, associates, and newsletters. It's just very disingenuous. It's nearly impossible to find fault in their leader and find anything good to say about the other candidates. That's not a vetting process, that's blind allegiance.

I've never said that. In fact, I just recently had a long and honest discussion with a liberal friend on Facebook where I readily admitted that Paul needs to own his newsletters and is not my ideal candidate because of some of his past.

I'm not sure how you hold any candidate responsible for extremist supporters, though. Those exist for most candidates on both sides of the aisle. And, isn't this the opposite of what I was criticizing the other candidates for? Too much support rather than a lack of it?

I have no doubt that you're correct that some Paul followers are doing it out of a cult of personality. I, in general, don't like those at all. However, I also know that for a lot of people (myself included) the allegiance isn't blind at all. It's actually quite informed and completely out of principle. I think it's easy to mistake allegiance to principle to blind allegiance.

My point: Paul is the only candidate from a major political party promoting the ideas that he promotes. It's not like someone with libertarian ideals can just switch to Mitt Romney as a secondary candidate. His political agenda is completely different from Ron Paul's, starting at its core. It's not that people are "Paulbots". He's just the only major party candidate promoting their political ideals.

At least that's how it is for me.

[thepostman]

I have always said Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is the only candidate that I could vote for without feeling as if I am compromising not only what I believe but also how I feel this country was meant to be run to begin with.

[El Scorcho]

I could vote for Gary Johnson (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/), but since the two-party system is the only one with a real chance, I'm supporting Ron Paul for now.

[skywalker5291]

Scorcho you put it perfectly. I feel like people mistake Paul supporters dedication to Libertarian ideas has blind faith. But unlike the rest of the Republican party Paul supporters cant jump ship every two days to the next anti-Romney bc none of the others believe close to what Dr. Paul believes.

[jbock13]

But what is up with the wacky supporters screaming Ron Paul 2012 in people's ears? lol I exaggerate only for effect, I really like the guy but it's not an obsession. But it really seems to be for some people.

Please note, none of the Paul supporters on here are that bad.