Gingrich struggles with state deadlines, while Indiana's signatures come under scrutiny

I started this blog after some negative experiences with voters on a day I was out collecting signatures for Mitt Romney to get on the ballot in Virginia. I was accused of all sorts of things that day, but the most interesting fallacy lobbed at me was that no other candidates were out collecting signatures. Maybe those supposedly well-informed voters just haven't been paying enough attention, because the state-by-state requirement to collect signatures is a hot topic this week.
Newt Gingrich may be suddenly enjoying a skyrocketing rise in the polls, and we will assume in his war chest as well, but his tardy to the party style is actually hurting him where it matters most- getting on the ballots. Each state has different rules for getting a candidate on the ballot for the state caucuses or primaries. (In Virginia a candidate must collect 10,000 signatures state-wide by mid-December.) Gingrich has already missed the requirements for getting on the Missouri ballot. The Missouri primary will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.* Candidates for the presidential primary from Missouri's "established political parties" (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution) had to have 5,000 collected signatures filed by 5 p.m. on November 22, 2011.
Gingrich now faces possibly missing the Ohio deadline as well. Ohio is a part of the first major "Super Tuesday" on March 6, 2012. The Gingrich campaign is scrambling to turn in the required 1,000 signatures today** by 4pm. (See below for a big asterisk on confusing, emerging information, that will likely lead to a court battle by unhappy candidates in the near future.)

Mitt Romney's political director Rich Beeson pointed out that the best time to collect signatures — during the previous general and primary elections — has passed. (Which is exactly what this writer was doing.) Of course, it goes to note that back on November 8 when other campaigns were out collecting signatures, Gingrich was still battling Rick Perry for third place.
Not surprisingly the Gingrich team is blaming the complicated system (that all of the other candidates managed to work with) rather than admit that he and his team messed up. The mark of a true politician!
Meanwhile, in Indiana, a voter fraud investigation is underway as it is suspected that at least 150 collected petition signatures for now-President Obama were forgeries. Obama only collected 534 signatures in St. Joseph County, where a minimum of 500 were needed. (The Clinton campaign collected 704.) Without the forgeries, Obama would not have made it on to the ballot. (Note: in the final election Obama beat McCain with 58% of the vote in St. Joseph's County.)

Source
Washington Times "Gingrich struggles with state deadlines for filing"
Talking Points Memo "Newt Catches a Break on the Ohio Filing Deadline"
Fox News "2008 Voter Fraud Investigation Heats Up in Indiana"


*(Point of confusing clarification from different sources: Missouri will hold its primary on February 7th, 2012, but this will not count for delegates toward the 2012 GOP convention. The Missouri Republican Party will hold a caucus on March 17th, 2012, which will determine the delegates sent to the 2012 GOP convention.)
**In Ohio, the deadline for filing to be on the primary ballot is 90 days before the primary on March 14, 2012 (in other words, today, December 7, 2011.) However, a new law has made its way through the state legislature moving the primary back to June, and effectively the state filing deadline. However, it gets a little tricky here because the new law won't be enacted until January 20, 2012. Making story even more complicated, according to Matt McClellan, spokesman for the Ohio Secretary of State, is that the candidates were advised by the Secretary’s office to adhere to the old December deadline just in case the legislature again changed the date of the primary (which it has done a few times in the last few months). So in other words, Gingrich et al better make that filing deadline today in order to be safer than sorry.

Who won the GOP National Security Debate last night?

GOP National Security Debate, Photo Source: NY Times (linked)

I read the news, so you don't have to!

So who won the GOP contenders National Security Debate as hosted by CNN? Let's do a quick recap of what the major media outlets are saying! (And in some cases what the different reporters at each outlet are saying.)


Washington Post's Stephen Stromberg - "Romney and Gingrich won. Romney because he is still the putative frontrunner and the likely nominee, and he did not mess up tonight. Gingrich because he held his own in the spotlight, unlike some of the previous anti-Romneys in this primary campaign. Otherwise, Perry still looked tired, Bachmann still sounded kooky, Huntsman was still too moderate, Ron Paul was still Ron Paul, and Cain still gave no sense he belonged on stage, even among this cast of characters."

Washington Post's Jonathon Bernstein - "I don’t think Gingrich has any plausible chance of winning the nomination... Beyond that, I agree with what seemed to be the Twitter consensus during the debate that Mitt Romney wasn’t doing especially well. He didn’t offer much to convince reluctant Republicans to resign themselves to him, but he didn’t do much to hurt himself, either. Given that he’s well in the lead, that’s probably an acceptable enough outcome for him. I do think that Perry continues to improve."

Washington Post's  Jennifer Rubin- "Both Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Jon Huntsman were predictably buffoonish, calling for pullout from Afghanistan, cuts in the military and other positions far to the left of the Obama administration. To sum up, then, the winners tonight: Romney, Bachmann, Romney, AEI and Heritage, and Wolf Blitzer. The losers: Cain, Huntsman, Paul. Potential problems: Gingrich on immigration."

Todd Graham for CNN - "Knowing your arguments and facts is one way to gain credibility. Mitt Romney fattened his credibility bank account at the expense of Rick Perry, who supported a no fly zone over Syria."
"on Huntsman made a similar deposit when he stated that sanctions on Iran would not work since "the Chinese aren't going to play ball and the Russians aren't going to play ball," and Iran has already decided to go nuclear."
"Another way to maintain credibility is to cite proof for your arguments. Michele Bachmann has said things in previous debates (President Obama wants Medicare to collapse) and in last night's debate (suggesting that the CIA cannot interrogate terrorist suspects any longer because the ACLU is in charge) that were not very credible. These frequent ATM withdrawals hurt Bachmann because a lack of believability spills over."
"Bachmann called Pakistan "too nuclear to fail," and chastised Perry for being naïve when he said he would not give Pakistan one penny until it proved it had America's best interests in mind."  (her naivety accusation was truly a highlight of the evening - in my humble opinion)
"Ron Paul is an enigma. He can provide such thoughtful answers at one time and later interject completely unsubstantiated statements."
"Answering questions with non-answers simply isn't credible. For example, Herman Cain twice last night reached into a very old bag of tricks to answer questions with the standard "I'd consult the experts" line."
"Finally, to save credibility, you should be prepared to defend your position when giving a potentially unpopular answer. Newt Gingrich had two answers that the conservative wing of his party might not like, but he defended them well."