Erick Erickson: Mark Levin and Sarah Palin unable to gauge true conservatism

I usually resist the urge to engage in internecine warfare, but RedState's Erick Erickson's attacks on Rick Santorum have moved me to action. As Rick Perry has faded in the polls after some disastrous debate performances, Erickson has likewise thrashed about trying to pump up the candidate. And similarly with Newt Gingrich, who -- after a brief surge in the polls -- has faded. Believe me, I'll happily support either, but right now Rick Santorum appears to be the most conservative candidate with momentum.

Erickson has been left with the proverbial dead parrot returned to his store, and must resort to arguing that it's still alive.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Dear Erick,

So you're saying Mark Levin, who is a personal friend of Santorum's and knows him as well as anyone (Santorum was an early campaigner for Reagan in 1980 in Pennsylvania with Levin) is wrong?

That Mark Freaking Levin is supporting a big-government Statist?

That Santorum's leadership work on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- arguably the most successful re-engineering of an existing entitlement program ever -- is not worth discussing, especially now?

That Santorum's obvious knowledge and support of national security is to be dismissed as China prepares for war and the Middle East boils over?

That Santorum's brave battle for a Balanced Budget Amendment was all a sham?

That cherry-picking a couple dozen from thousands upon thousands of votes that Santorum cast -- many of which were thrust upon the GOP caucus by the big-spending Bush 43 administration -- are somehow representative of his personal interests?

That because he lost an election in a disastrous year for Republicans nationally, a year that swept the Democrats into power, as the most conservative Senator from Pennsylvania in the last half-century?

Why, didn't Barack Obama lose a Democrat Primary to Bobby Rush just a decade ago by 31 points? Uhm, yes. Yes, he did.

No. I don't get it. So Mark Levin and Sarah Palin don't know that Santorum is really a big-government guy, that he's fooled them for all of these years.

All candidates are imperfect, some more so than others.

But tearing down good conservative candidates like Rick Santorum to me makes no sense, especially when other good candidates like Gingrich and Perry appear to be losing momentum.

Some introspection, I believe, is necessary.

ACTION ALERT: Virginia GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month; Here's How to Contact Them and Demand Changes

Based upon several reliable reports at RedState, it would appear that Virginia's GOP establishment changed the rules of ballot access just last month. Front-runner Newt Gingrich, for one, saw his campaign hurt badly by reports that it bungled the Virginia ballot process. He and Rick Perry were excluded despite each turning in over 10,000 signatures. But if the new reports are true, the state GOP has a hell of a lot to account for.

Moe Lane provides the introduction:

...the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done...

...There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.

One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed. In November of this year.

So what changed?

...prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law.

Under these rules, of course, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would have qualified easily.

And why did the rules change?

...On October 24th independent state delegate candidate Michael Osborne filed suit against the Republican party of Virginia [challenging the signature review process and who performs it] ... according to Winger the VA GOP decided in response to bump up from 10K to 15K the threshold for simply deeming the requirements as being met.

...I think that John Fund’s general comment is correct: this is going to go to the courts. John was not discussing this specific wrinkle, but his larger point that Virginia’s ballot access policies have systemic problems gets a big boost when it turns out that the state party can effectively increase by fifty percent the practical threshold for ballot access – in a day, and in the middle of an existing campaign.

...If it is true that the Republican party of Virginia decided in November of 2011 to increase the threshold for automatic certification from 10K to 15K, then it is reasonable to suggest that this was a change that unfairly rewarded candidates who had previously run for President in Virginia.

Lane asserts that the state GOP has ultimate control of the ballot and could, if pressed, decide to certify Gingrich and Perry.

Either way, the issue is going to the courts.

And, either way, the Virginia GOP looks incompetent... or ill-intentioned against conservative candidates.

Action Alert: I urge you to contact the Virginia GOP and demand that they include Gingrich and Perry on the ballot. Be polite, but firm. There's no excuse for issuing new rules at the last minute that just happen to exclude the leading candidates. In fact, it's an outrage.

• Email: Contact Form
• Phone: 804-780-0111
• Fax: 804-343-1060
• Facebook: www.facebook.com/VirginiaGOP
• Twitter: @va_gop

Make contact now. Time is growing short.

Report: Virginia GOP May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich

Tom White has an exclusive that could be an important development in Virginia's ongoing GOP soap opera:

I know that it is highly improbable that I am the only person in the country that has actually read the Code of Virginia on Presidential Primaries, but the requirement that signatures also include an address IS correct for a statewide election, but not for a Presidential Primary, though the number of signatures are identical.

Anyone know an election attorney available on Christmas?

###

Various reports have stated that the signatures turned in by Newt Gingrich included at least 2,000 that were invalidated because there was no address given with the signature.

If this were a Virginia Statewide office, that would be correct. But this is a Presidential Primary. And while the rules are similar, they are actually addressed in two separate sections of the Virginia Code.

There is a requirement in a Statewide General Election that the address be included, but there is no such requirement for a presidential primary. The number of signatures are the same, 10,000 and 400 per Congressional District. But the address requirements are different.

Tom suggests that Gingrich and Perry request that the signatures excluded for lack of address be reinstated and a recount be initiated.

If this report pans out, it could be another huge story attributed not to legacy media, but to what I like to call the new mainstream media.

Shocking: Gov. Perry Receives Pension Along With Salary (Shhh: No One Discuss Michelle's $200K Raise After Hubby Was Elected to Senate)

Well, this is a stunning revelation (if you're a left-wing hack with a hate on for the U.S. Constitution):

Gov. Rick Perry is double-dipping, drawing retirement income from the state in addition to his salary as governor since late January, newly released records show.

Perry's move to begin drawing from his pension early this year while remaining governor, which his staff says is legal and consistent with state retirement rules, was unknown to the public until federal financial disclosures were made public on Friday.

...The governor's gross annual salary is $150,000; his net salary is $133,000. The net monthly annuity check Perry started receiving Jan. 31 is $7,698. Combined, his net pay from the state is now more than $225,000 annually.

To put this into perspective, the media was curiously silent regarding the timing of a raise of nearly $200,000 that Michelle Obama received after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Below you'll find a helpful chart and timeline explaining Michelle Obama's ultra-critical position at the University of Chicago Hospital (UCH), a position coincidentally created just after her husband's election to the Senate... and dissolved just minutes after she resigned to move into the White House.

Sandwiched, of course, by Sen. Obama's $1M earmark to UCH.

In 2002, Michelle Obama was hired by the University of Chicago Hospital as its "Executive Director for Community Affairs" at a salary of approximately $120,000.

In January of 2005, Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator. "Coincidentally", in March of 2005, Michelle Obama was promoted to "Vice President for Community and External Affairs" and her salary bumped nearly $200,000 (from $121,910 to $316,962). This position was "newly created" for Mrs. Obama.

In February of 2006, Barack Obama requested a $1 million earmark for a new hospital pavilion at the University of Chicago.

Effective 9 January 2009, Michelle Obama resigned her position at UCH. And just five days later, effective 14 January 2009, Michelle Obama's VP position was eliminated, its functions absorbed into another executive's position. This prompted business writer Don Rose to ask "[If] that work can be folded into another guy’s, why was it separate in the first place?"

Operating with this kind of blatant double standard, you simply have to wonder how legacy media stays in business.

Although given their declining subscriber base, that question may be strictly rhetorical.