Stir it up
Wednesday, Mar 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As we’ve discussed more than once before, there is a longtime gentleman’s agreement here in Illinois not to challenge rival presidential primary nominating petitions. The presidential primary has never meant anything here anyway, so there was no sense in making unnecessary intraparty enemies over something as silly as meaningless delegate filings.
But now that Rick Santorum won two southern states yesterday (even though Romney came out ahead in the day’s delegate count), all eyes are turning to Illinois. Nate Silver’s projection…
* It’s not about who wins the beauty contest, it’s about who wins the delegates. Back in January, Mitt Romney’s campaign decided to challenge everybody else’s petition signatures. This was the explanation that Treasurer Dan Rutherford supplied for challenging Santorum’s petitions when the other campaigns complained…
The Senator Santorum campaign in Illinois filed slates in 14 of the 18 Districts. Of the 14, only 4 had 600 signatures. No objection was filed for any District that had the required 600. One District had only 614 signatures and no attempt was made to vet signatures to bump them to be below the 600. There will be candidates for Delegate/Alternate for Senator Santorum on the ballot.
Rutherford decided that discretion might be the better part of valor, and since he is a statewide official who wants to keep the peace with his party’s various factions, especially if he runs for governor in 2014, Rutheford negotiated a truce…
Leadership from the Romney campaign (Dan Rutherford), Gingrich campaign (Bruce Hansen and Nick Provenzano), Paul campaign (Chris Younce) and Santorum campaign (Al Salvi and Jon Zahm) have agreed today to withdraw all petition challenges in Illinois against one another’s statewide and delegate petitions.
* Flash-forward to now, when Romney’s campaign is struggling for every possible delegate. Treasurer Rutherford and Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady explained that January decision this way to the Daily Herald…
“That’s when I visited with the Boston folks (Romney’s national campaign), and we said, ‘OK, let it be,’” Rutherford said.
Jon Zahm, Santorum’s Illinois director, also had filed a challenge against Romney, on the basis that his statement of candidacy was notarized in Massachusetts, not Illinois, as well as challenges to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
But soon after, Zahm said, Illinois campaign leaders began talking.
They agreed to a “mutual nonaggression pact,” Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady said.
“I don’t think it benefits the party as a whole if people are whacking each other off the ballot,” Brady, of St. Charles, said. “We don’t want to fight with Republicans.”
* But Buzzfeed is trying to make some hay out of this, and in doing so ignored all historical (recent and otherwise) perspectives…
The decision produced a quiet storm of outrage among Romney’s allies in the state, who were bewildered by the decision to make a slam-dunk race competitive, and to grant an opening in the desperate scramble to reach the 1,144 delegates required for the Republican nomination.
“When there is a challenge filed because a campaign doesn’t file the required number of signatures, it’s pretty much a no brainer,” said a senior Romney supporter in Illinois. “The conservative folks started screaming bloody murder, and Rutherford caved.”
“This isn’t about Romney, it’s about Rutherford,” he said.
Rutherford is thought to be planning to seek his party’s nomination for governor in 2014, and Romney’s other local allies accuse him of putting his interests above the candidate’s, and ingratiating himself to Santorum-supporting conservative activists.
“Either man up or get out of this game,” said another top Illinois Republican. “If Santorum picks up delegates downstate then shame on them.”
Romney’s local supporters say Rutherford acted on his own, but he and Romney’s aides in Boston are playing down any difference of opinion.
“We decided to be spirited and let it go,” Rutherford told BuzzFeed today, reached while on a day-long fly-around the state with former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to support Romney delegates. “The decision was a combination of ours and Boston’s.”
Romney campaign press secretary Andrea Saul told BuzzFeed that it was incumbent on them to force Santorum off the ballots in the states where he fell short of the required number of signatures. “We decided against doing that,” she said.
* So, you’ve got a couple of anonymous Illinois Republicans complaining two months after the fact about a decision made by Rutherford and Romney’s Boston HQ which was also approved by the state party chairman. We don’t know who these anonymous IL Republicans are, but I’d be willing to bet they’re not on board with Rutherford’s personal ambitions.
Either way, they should’ve stepped up two months ago with their objections (if they even had objections then) rather than Monday morning quarterback everybody now.
* It’s not Rutherford’s fault that Romney can’t close the deal in other states. And Republicans will be here in Illinois long after Romney passes through next week. What Rutherford did was try to build a tiny bit of party unity in a state that hasn’t had any such unity in years. He was right then, and he’s right now.
- anon - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 1:27 pm:
Unity or Gov run 2014 ? Dan has never been for unity unless it can help him climb the next rung on the political ladder .
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
===* It’s not Rutherford’s fault that Romney can’t close the deal in other states. And Republicans will be here in Illinois long after Romney passes through next week. What Rutherford did was try to build a tiny bit of party unity in a state that hasn’t had any such unity in years. He was right then, and he’s right now===
A-MEN!!!!!
Romney should have closed this deal STATES ago. I dinged Rutherford and his Crew for the challenges, and even though Zahm was protecting his Crew, I dinged him too for taking part in the “Breaking of the Gentleman’s Agreement”.
We are suppose to be a party! I said this too, to those who beefed about NOT challenging, I said for them to challenge if they must and then be done with it! But, that is NOT the way its suppose to be done, especially when we can’t get two or more GOP candidates in one room and agree on anyhting.
No matter whose “guy” you are with, or not with, Illinois is far enough down the Primary calendar that if your “guy” could close the deal, then they should have.
“Anonymous” GOP operatives? Put your name to this specific issue or stop yapping. You had your chance to challenge on your own!
Cripes, it’s amazing the Dems don’t run even more of the state than they already do!
Treasurer Rutherford and Crew:
You did “Right” … You know you did right. In 6 days, it ain’t gonna matter.
Further, Illinois is not in play for Romney, nor Santorum, nor Gingrich, or even Paul. Illinois is an Obama state more than a Dem ro Repub state this Presidential cycle.
If our word is no good to each other in the GOP, how can we get the voters to trust what we tell them? Romney, his Crew, and all the other candidates and their Crews … it ain’t Illinois’ fault NONE of you can close!
- chad - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
The practice of challenging-off plainly defective and signature-deficient petitions is good for the State and its citizens. Candidates that are not sufficiently serious to get this accomplished do not show the mimimal dedication and interest to serve the positions sought — and the Illinois requirements to file as a delegate are just not that difficult. While some may think it “gentlemanly” to not challenge petitions at the primary stage, there is no long-standing unwritten rule not to do so in the Illinois Republican Party. The standard approach is always to take out the non-serious opponent when you have the chance, and to do otherwise is campaign malpractice. The challenge on the out-of-state notarization was an entirely worthless argument, so the bargainer here did not gain anything. I’m not one of those late-comers who is complaining about Rutherford or anyone else. This just shows lack of toughness on someone’s part. The legislature is filled with members who gained their seats at least in part by taking out candidates who filed screwed-up documents. Run to win, not to show how nice you are.
- so.... - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 1:59 pm:
While I respect that Rutherford was trying to foster some badly-needed party unity, the people who were most upset about challenging the Santorum petitions are the ones chiefly to blame for the poisonous atmosphere in the Illinois Republican party.
There’s no point reaching out to those people, they’ll chop off the hand offering an olive branch every time.
- mark walker - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:06 pm:
If eveything’s by gentleman’s agreement among party leaders, then let’s do away with the petition process completely.
I still say that if you blatantly ignore the legal requirements to get on the ballot, and turn in a petition which is obviously many names short, and doesn’t even purport to meet the minimal requirements on the face of it, you should be disqualified at the board of elections, without need for a formal challenge. That’s regardless of your party.
Yes, O’Willy suggested that I file a formal complaint if I felt that way, but I would actually prefer Santorum as the GOP standard-bearer.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:18 pm:
- chad -
All that is great about being “dog eat dog” and survival of the fittest. We are talking about “delegates” …”delegates”. We are all members of the same party, a “Minority” party, where we are under 50% of all the Illinois voters, so we need ALL of us GOP voters and then some to get a senator or a governor elected.
So, it’s great to show “toughness” and knock out “delegates” so… when you go to those GOP operatives later for something Illinois’ GOP needs, a grudge will stop the party from coming together?
Guess what? We already have at least 2 factions going, so you want to add “delegate” grudges too?
chad, Illinois is a fly-over state. The GOP nominee will “wave from the plane” as he flies to Colorado, or Nevada … North Carolina or Virginia. Where are we … crying about a Romney or Santorum delegate beef that aint going to help the ILGOP.
- so -
Are we finger-pointing? Both sides were Dopes, and that is why you have a “truce” so no one says, “They started it”, “Why reach out, all they do is chop it off!”
Enough! Cripes, these are delegates! Illinois is still not a Kingmanker! Romney, Santorum, Gingrich … none are going to claim the nomination here.
If “your” guy was going to close, they should have already. Illinois has no benefit in the delegates game. Nothing!
“There’s no point reaching out to those people, they’ll chop off the hand offering an olive branch every time.”
No wonder Madigan loves the ILGOP!
Unity is a 5 letter word, not a 4 letter word!
- chad - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:28 pm:
The Santorum backers mentioned in the press include fully-competent attorneys who know how the process works. They had no substantive or moral leg to stand on at the time they requested this relief, and as I said above, there is no historic tradition of avoiding petition challenges in the GOP. I look forward to hearing the “party unity” statements from these folks if Romney wins the popularity contest.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:37 pm:
Not sure if I agree with this assessment, but even it is true at this point as an Illinois Republican I will take unity for someones personal political gain…
Also with the fighting that would have gone down (they may have been able to toss Romney) as well as ticking off segments and some activists of the party what good would it have done. Again, no one expected Illinois to be worthy of TV commercials for the presidential primary a robocall or two at best.
Heck yeah I will take some peace. The social conservatives in the party always feel like the man is keeping them down, this could come in handy down the road.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:38 pm:
==if you blatantly ignore the legal requirements to get on the ballot, and turn in a petition which is obviously many names short, and doesn’t even purport to meet the minimal requirements on the face of it, you should be disqualified at the board of elections, without need for a formal challenge.==
I have never understood why this is not the case. It is not a judgement of the signatures, just a count.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:40 pm:
Then Romney’s Crew should have “Takin’ em’ OUT!” … Then let it go to the courts on the Dopey Notary issue … for Delegates!
I say here and now.
This should have all gone to the Courts! We should have strung each other up, have Santorum with 6 delegates, and possible NO delegates for Romney … YES! … Everybody OFF the ballot …We are not one party, we are a bunch of tough guys who know better, and are willing to cut off our noses to make sure all is right with the world …
YES! … no political deals … no Gentleman’s Agreement, we want properly notarized documents that all factions fight fair amongst each other, and in the courts … and then let the Dems laugh at us …
YES! … Politics of the courts, not our word … not the binding aspect of party unity!
chad … I guess I am with you … Sue ‘em all, not one person trusting on each other’s word … that is out ILGOP!
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:42 pm:
The Republican slog goes on, Alabama and Mississippi proves the South will only vote
for someone with good Christian values.A Morman does not fit their of a criteria of a Christian.
Who ever though thse primary rules up must be nuts.Does anyboy think anyone of this flock will beat Obama?
- chad - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:44 pm:
OW: Just read your note. Politics in Illinois requires having your act together from both a policy and technical standpoint. Those who approach politics here in a passive or sloppy way usually fail. This is not the Kiwanis Club, church, student council, or Indiana.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:44 pm:
mokenavince, never confuse a primary result with a general election result. People do this all the time. For the most recent example, try to remember that Obama lost states to Clinton that he won in November. And he won states that he lost.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 2:50 pm:
- chad -
You know we are talking about Delegates … they ain’t voting on a Constitution … they ain’t voting on any laws … they are going to go to a convention, eat, play golf, drink, have dinner, listen to some speeches, and be the LAST Illinoians to see the Nominee, because he AIN’T commin’ to Illinois!
I agree with you chad … Sue Em’
From now on, Sue Em’
Attention ILGOP - We must all stop doing what is best for party unity … what we need to do is Sue …
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:07 pm:
Rich Obama and Clinton were better canidates.
- Easy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:09 pm:
help me out here on the party unity stuff, especially since nearly every pundit believes this is the most negative gop presidential primary in decades.
Is it party unity when Romney runs $2.2 million of negative ads tearing up Santorum? Is it party unity when we are pounded with robo calls from Romney eviscerating Santorum? Is it party unity when Gingrich launches into his class warfare arguments on Romney?
Campaigns are campaigns and they are waged on different battlefields. One of the battlefields is tv, one is the field ops, but one is also ballot access.
It’s true there has always been a gentleman’s agreement on petitions for delegates, but it’s not for party unity, it’s to avoid mutual assured destruction.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:13 pm:
===It’s true there has always been a gentleman’s agreement on petitions for delegates, but it’s not for party unity, it’s to avoid mutual assured destruction. ===
- Easy-
I hear ya … and agree 100% … delegates …
But, breaking the delegate agreement flies in the face of unity after, and long after, presidential elections.
I am with you.
- ZC - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:15 pm:
Unrelated to the bottom of this post but connected to the top: While everything he writes is must-read, Nate Silver’s “who will win” projection percentages just aren’t that good. Like he says, all he’s doing is aggregating state polls in a sophisticated way and if the polls miss, so does he. His model missed in a big way for Mississippi just the other day, here is his postmortem: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/why-is-santorum-overperforming-his-poll-numbers/#more-28713
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:39 pm:
Dan Rutherford has a chance to get Romney a ton of delegates. He should’ve challenged Santorum’s petitions to the tilt and reminded Santorum’s people that to get on the ballot you actually have to follow the letter of the law and do the work. And who cares if the Santorum folks and social conservatives are upset? Might they be worried that such a socially conservative doofus of a former senator might not have been able to field an adequate number of delegates in the first place? If the social conservatives are faced with deciding between Dan Rutherford and someone like Lisa Madigan, I would hope they wouldn’t hold an insider baseball deal from 2012 against the State Treasurer.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 3:49 pm:
===If the social conservatives are faced with deciding between Dan Rutherford and someone like Lisa Madigan, I would hope they wouldn’t hold an insider baseball deal from 2012 against the State Treasurer.===
Gotta get through a primary, and there WILL be a GOP primary for governor … So Dan, Sue Em’ … Remind all these county chairs … and their wives … and then ask …
“I know I knocked your wife off the ballot to be a delegate, and I know she hadn’t missed a convention since 1980 … I had to teach her, and you, a lesson …I was just wondering where I can send my Gubenitorial petitions for your organization to pass out for me … Hello? …Hello? ….”
Yeah, Sue Em’ Dan …teach em’ a lesson …I’d just Sue…
- the Dark Horse - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 4:30 pm:
Jon Zahm is an ameteur wannabe and I am not surprised that Santorum will lose for, among other reasons, having a completely inept staff and organization.
- the Dark Horse - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 4:34 pm:
Sorry - I meant amateur (darned keyboard). Here is a classic example of Zahm’s work: the vote no on Kilbride campaign, which consisted largely of Zahm collecting donations to pay himself. FAIL. I won’t vote for Santorum just because he surrounds himself with clowns.
- Liz - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 5:43 pm:
One of the papers reported that Rick Sanctimonious, oops, I mean Santorum, failed to file paperwork in four congressional districts, so can’t get any delegates from those. If anyone knows, what four districts are those?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 7:09 pm:
=What Rutherford did was try to build a tiny bit of party unity in a state that hasn’t had any such unity in years. He was right then, and he’s right now.=
You’re right, Rich. Whatever his motivations, Dan did good.
- anon - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 8:53 pm:
What everyone forgets (or didn’t know) is that as of Christmas of last year, there was no Santorum campaign in Illinois. No delegate candidates, no paid staff, no volunteer staff, nada.
Zahm went to Iowa and asked Santorum if he wanted an organization STARTED in Illinois. From the 25th to the 31st Zahm found people to run as delegates. Petitions were delivered to most of them on or about January 1st.
From January 2nd - to Jan. 5th people scurried around to get signatures for the deadline on Jan. 6th. The fact that as many delegate and alternate delegate candidates were found in that short time is something of a minor miracle.
Also, the Romny people would rather have two conservative candidates on the ballot instead of just Gingrich. Watch what happens in the four districts that have no Santorum delegates (4th dist., 5th dist., 7th dist., and 13th dist.) betcha some of them win - most likely in the 13th., but maybe one or two in the Chicago districts.
So stop complaining. Everybody got what they wanted.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 14, 12 @ 9:46 pm:
Penny Pullen was a driving force, as well.
- dr. reason a. goodwin - Thursday, Mar 15, 12 @ 10:42 pm:
I agree that the State Board of Elections should sua sponte dismiss any petition that does not have the required number of signatures. Otherwise, is 1 enough?