Will Defenders of DADT Be Held Accountable for Their False Predictions?

In the run up to the repeal of the discriminatory - and purely religion derived - Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, the haters of the far right hyperventilated and foamed at the mouth over the supposed dire consequences that DADT repeal would inflict on the U. S. armed forces. A funny thing has happened, however. None of the dire predictions are materializing thus proving that the justifications for the policy were lies. Yep, outright lies. But then, lying seems to be one of the hallmarks of the self-anointed defenders of "family values." The truth always seems to be the first casualty with these folks whether it's their peddling of fraudulent "ex-gay" programs to claiming that gays in the military serving openly and proudly would destroy the military. A piece in Huffington Post written by Nathaniel Frank, author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America", that I bookmarked last week asks the much needed question of whether those who peddled lies and untruths will be held accountable. Here are some highlights:

For years, defenders of anti-gay exclusion in the military have claimed that equal treatment was incompatible with a strong military. For nearly as many years, researchers pointed out that there was no evidence to support this claim that letting gays serve openly would harm cohesion, recruitment, or readiness, and that all the data actually showed the opposite: discrimination and dishonesty were what undermined the military; equal treatment strengthened respect for military law, helped expand the pool of qualified recruits, and removed an impetus for harassment and denigration that are anathema to good order and discipline.

This week . . . . marks three months since the new policy of open service went into effect. So how do we assess the change, and, equally important, now that it's behind us, does it even matter anymore?

in the U.S., fear and anxiety about change had swelled into full-blown paranoia. And this sentiment was being exploited and inflamed by political opportunists. There is even firsthand evidence that military and cultural leaders exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion throughout the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in an effort to give credibility to what was, at bottom, simple prejudice.

This is why assessing the ultimate impact of ending "Don't Ask, Don' Tell" matters. And it matters enormously. Throughout our history, opponents of equal treatment have insisted that it would wreak havoc on society, indeed that it would cause such grave disruptions that equality was an unacceptable threat to civilization. This "disruption" theory was wielded against African Americans, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, and transgender people, to name a few. It is perhaps the sharpest tool in the arsenal of people who refuse to rise above passions and prejudice . . .

For years, we heard that lifting the ban would undermine cohesion, spur a mass exodus of troops from service, hurt military families, and actually cost lives, that it would disrupt our defenses, weaken our country, and threaten civilization. Yet the ban ended three months ago, with little fanfare. Were all the naysayers wrong? Have any of them been held accountable? And will opponents of equality going forward get away with using the same "disruption" theory to convince policymakers to oppose full equality for LGBT and other Americans?

Because that's what they're trying. We hear that letting gay couples marry will disrupt the social fabric of American life, undermine marriage, kill a "culture of life," dry up the Western population, and threaten our civilization. If this is what was said about gay people serving openly (which it was), and if none of it happened, then the lesson is monumental: a culture of anxiety has become a politics of paranoia, which has pulled the wool over our collective eyes in service to maintaining an unjust status quo. Will we let it happen again and again and again? Will anyone be held accountable for steering us so terribly wrong?

The report, "Accountability and DADT," documents -- all in one place -- 60 of the main predictions of disruption that would allegedly result from openly gay service, and the names of the people who made them.

Below are excerpts of some of the most dire predictions. . . . . accountability is essential to justice -- past, present, and future. The next time you have a discussion about the costs and benefits of equal treatment, remember (whatever your position) what history shows: opponents of equality always claim it will disrupt society; almost always, it doesn't. If this holds true for ending DADT, will the naysayers have the courage to say, "I was wrong"?

Sample Predictions of Harm and Disruption Resulting from Openly Gay Military Service (from the new report, "Accountability and DADT"):

"[Lifting the ban] may even prove decisive to the viability of the all-volunteer force. That viability may, in turn, determine our ability to avoid in the years ahead -- as we have for the past four decades -- a return to conscription to meet our requirements for warriors in those conflicts." --Frank Gaffney, Jr., Center for Security Policy, 2011

"[Surveys suggest that if the ban is lifted, a minimum of] 24,000 current members of the armed forces might be lost over and above normal discharge attrition in a one-to-three year period... Because these personnel would be completing one or more terms of service, they would, in fact, represent a hemorrhage of mature, skilled losses from the professional ranks. This is an enormous risk to the viability of our armed forces." --General Carl Mundy, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, 2010, in a letter addressing Congress

"If the law is overturned and open homosexuals are welcomed into the military, the number of homosexuals in the armed forces can only increase -- leading to a corresponding increase in same-sex sexual assaults." --Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council, 2010

Read the full report here to see more of the lies and untruths put forward and the hate and fear merchants who made them. Here's one from the utterly insane Elaine Donnelly:

Lifting the ban would lead to “inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community,” “forcible sodomy” and "exotic forms of sexual expression.” - Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness, 2008

Tea Party Nation Condemns Navy Kiss As "Sexual Aberration"

Last week many across the blogosphere hailed the "first kiss" Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta and her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell, when the USS Oak Hill returned to the Little Creek Navy Base after deployment. I was one of the bloggers cheering. Others, however, were outraged and the spittle has been flying. Among the groups condemning the Navy for sanctioning "sexual aberration" was Tea Party Nation. The action helps to underscore the fact that a huge majority of the so-called Tea Party movement are knuckle dragging Christianists who believe only they themselves merit religious freedom. The rest of us are supposed to shut up and accept their fear and hate based religious beliefs. Right Wing Watch reported on the Tea Party Nation statement. Here are some highlights:

In a message sent to Tea Party Nation members, the group’s resident bigot Alan Caruba wrote that the kiss proves the military is being “used by gay and lesbian advocacy groups as a petri dish to force social change” to help people who have an orientation that is a “sexual aberration”:


For generations of Americans, the most famous kiss between a Navy sailor and a nurse occurred during the celebration of V-J Day in New York’s Times Square on August 14, 1945.

The photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt was published in Life magazine a week later. It said everything you needed to know about the joy with which the nation responded to the end of World War Two and everything about the shared values of the nation.

So, when a photo of a homecoming kiss between Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta kissing her “partner”, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell went public on December 22, it set gay and lesbian hearts atwitter. What the predominantly heterosexual population thought of it was unreported.

But why? The answer is the way the U.S. military has been used by gay and lesbian advocacy groups as a petri dish to force social change. The other location for influencing such change is in our nation’s schools and manifests itself in charges of massive bullying and questionable sex education curriculums, many of which evoke outrage among today’s parents.

Gays and lesbians play on the inherent sense of fairness and tolerance that is a hallmark of American society. The result is that homosexuality is now widely represented in popular culture to the point of being accepted as “normal.” It is not “normal.” It is a sexual aberration involving a very small portion of the overall population, perhaps no more than four percent. Always was, always will be.

The photo of two Navy lesbians kissing represents the “progress” that a vocal minority has made, given the support of liberal politicians on both sides of the aisle working against the tide of resistance of majority Americans who are fighting the social implications of “gay rights”, the demands for “gay marriage”, and the influence over young minds passing through government school systems.,

The best description of today's far right and conservative "Christians" is "all hate all the time." Every policy ultimately traces back to selfishness and contempt for someone else in society. And if one challenges this sick social/religious mindset, you'd best expect to be denigrated and slandered.

The GOP's Assault on the Social Safety Net

I have noted before that the current Republican Party seems to want nothing less than to restore the so-called "Gilded Age" of the robber barons when the wealthy knew few limits on excess and everyone else struggled to get by. It was a time of few safety regulations and a time where the unfortunate often had nowhere to turn for help and support. Today, we are seeing Newt Gingrich attack child labor laws and a political party that obstructs every tax increase against the very wealthy yet resists any breaks for the already struggling and shrinking middle class. Adding to the utter hypocrisy of it all, the GOP claims to be the party of "family values" and most of its demagogic leaders wear Christianity on their sleeves - even as they totally disregard the Gospel message. In this setting, Obama is argued by some to be the true conservative seeking to maintain social stability. Here are highlights from a Washington Post column that contrasts the competing visions for America:

At a moment when the nation wonders whether politicians can agree on anything, here is something that unites the Republican presidential candidates — and all of them with President Obama: Everyone agrees that the 2012 election will be a turning point involving one of the most momentous choices in U.S. history.

Obama could not agree more. “This is not just another political debate,” the president said in his theme-setting speech in Osawatomie, Kan., earlier this month. “This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.”

[T]he Republican Party is taking a run at overturning the consensus that has governed U.S. political life since the Progressive era.

Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.

The GOP is engaged in a wholesale effort to redefine the government help that Americans take for granted as an effort to create a radically new, statist society. . . . . . Republicans are increasingly inclined to argue that any redistribution (and Social Security, Medicare, student loans, veterans benefits and food stamps are all redistributive) is but a step down the road to some radically egalitarian dystopia.

Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled. The rhetoric of the 2012 Republicans suggests they want to go far beyond where Reagan or Bush ever went.

America has already reached a level of income inequality that would make a former banana republic dictator blush. Yet what we are seeing is only the beginning if the demagogues of the GOP get to have their way.

More Christmas Male Beauty

Hate Group Leader Bob Vander Plaats "Pay-For-Play" Scandal

Among the likely self-loathing closeted gay Christianists, Bob Vander Plaats (pictured at right) has few rivals when it comes to how low he will stoop in order to denigrate LGBT citizens and strive to deprive us of civil legal rights. Thus, Vander Plaats and Rick "frothy mix" Santorum at first blush appear to be a perfect match and birds of a feather when it comes to outwardly preaching anti-gay hatred and intolerance. And not surprisingly based on this shared homophobia, Vander Plaats gave his personal endorsement to Santorum. Now, however, based on reports coming out of Iowa, more than a shared hatred of gays may have been involved in Vander Plaats' endorsement of Santorum. Indeed, it seems that Vander Plaats' endorsement was for sale to the highest bidder. Think Progress looks at the "pay for play" scandal that is breaking surrounding Vander Plaats who is a truly noxious element in Iowa politics. Here are some highlights:

Bob Vander Plaats’ endorsement of Rick Santorum has produced a backlash among conservatives in Iowa, some of whom are accusing the FAMiLY LEADER president of engaging in “pay for play” schemes and selling his coveted support to the highest bidder. Earlier this week, Santorum admitted that Vander Plaats approached the campaign with an indirect solicitation of money to help promote his support, but now other sources familiar with the talks between Vander Plaats and GOP candidates are characterizing the tactics as “corrupt.”

“Clearly the endorsement was for sale — without a doubt,” one source told ABC News’ Shushannah Walshe and Michael Falcone, stressing that Vander Plaats had tried to receive money for his support in past election cycles:

Though Santorum did not specify the dollar amount he and Vander Plaats discussed, multiple sources said he was soliciting as much as $1 million from Santorum and other candidates.

A former staffer for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential bid who is currently unaffiliated with a campaign said Vander Plaats came to them seeking money for his backing if he supported the former Massachusetts governor. “He wanted to be paid,” the former staffer said. “He was clearly looking for a paycheck. There was a conversation about him getting a title, but being a paid consultant was much more important.”

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum revealed yesterday that Michele Bachmann was not the only candidate Vander Plaats called to suggest she drop out. Both he and Rick Perry received similar requests.

Progress Iowa has launched a petition calling on the Federal Elections Commission to investigate The FAMiLY LEADER for potential illegal campaign coordination . . . . . Bob Vander Plaats’ solicitation of funds to promote his endorsement of Rick Santorum raises serious questions about further coordination between a political campaign and an outside group.

I have always viewed Vander Plaats as a despicable sleaze bag. This story underscores the reality that most of the "family values" leaders are morally bankrupt and make a tawdry whore look virtuous in comparison. I'd also note that given scientific research that has demonstrated that vociferous homophobes are the most sexually aroused by gay porn, Vander Plaats obviously has some serious mental health issues that need either (i) professional treatment by someone other than an "ex-gay" therapy snake oil merchant like "Marci" Bachmann, or (ii) a rambunctious round of hot gay sex to alleviate Vander Plaats' self hate and self-loathing..

Benedict XVI Disingenuously Calls For Peace Even as The Chuch Conducts a Jhad Against Gays

The hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy truly has few rivals. For those who don't have their heads buried deeply in the sand, it ought to be common knowledge that Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors and their servile sycophants in the lower hierarchy had a formal policy of protecting predatory priest who preyed on children and youths. Moreover, around the world, the Catholic Church is aggressively pushing an anti-gay agenda that, given the world's estimated 7 billion population means that conservatively, the Church has declared war on the civil rights and lives of some 210 million individuals. Yet, Benedict XVI still has the audacity to issue a Christmas message calling for peace in the world and a respect for human dignity. It's truly a case of do as I say and not as I and my henchmen do in terms of implementing what can only be described as a totally disingenuous message. CNN looks at Benedict XVI's meaningless blather. Here are highlights:

The speech, called "Urbi et Orbi" in Latin, came a day after the pope delivered a homily that focused on the "essence" of the holiday rather than the "commercial celebration" it has become.

"Today Christmas has become a commercial celebration, whose bright lights hide the mystery of God's humility, which in turn calls us to humility and simplicity," the pope said during Mass on Christmas Eve. "Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season, and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light."

The pope started off Saturday's celebrations by lighting a peace candle in the window of his study during the unveiling of a larger-than-life Nativity scene in St. Peter's Square. The scene, at 23 feet high and 82 feet wide, is dedicated to the Virgin Mary, according to the Vatican's news agency.

Thousands poured into the square and St. Peter's Basilica ahead of the midnight Mass, which was actually held at 10 p.m. this year. Before his homily, the aging pontiff rode down St. Peter's long aisle on a wheeled platform, waving to worshippers.

Humility and simplicity? Not from the Vatican that is infused with a level of hubris and arrogance that would make the Pharisees of the Gospels blush. As with the "godly Christians" at Rossville Christian Academy, the Vatican has increasingly become a driving force for what is wrong in the world. Benedict XVI's only true gods are power, control of others, and of course, money. Jesus would be appalled at what is done in his name by his nominal followers.

Christmas Male Beauty

More Anti-Gay Bigotry in Tennessee

As bad as things are for LGBT citizens in Virginia, the state of Tennessee and a number of Kool-Aid institutions in Tennessee seem to be working hard to make the bigotry and batshitery of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli look moderate in comparison. First we saw the enactment of state legislation in Tennessee that rescinded the efforts of cities and localities to ensure non-discrimination. Now we see private and "Christian" schools enacting policies that are starkly anti-gay. Apparently, the desire to conduct the equivalent of fellatio for the gratification of gay haters outweighs the desire to provide an atmosphere where modern, progressive businesses might actually want to locate to Tennessee rather than fleeing the state screaming. The latest episode of anti-gay hate and extremism comes from Rossville Christian Academy, a private 4K-12 school that according to WREG-TV 3 has adopted the following policy:

"Homosexuality is forbidden in scripture (Romans 1:27, Leviticus 18:22). A staff member or student who promotes, engages in, or identifies himself/herself with such activity through any word or action shall be in violation of this policy. Should the administration determine a violation of this policy, the person involved will be subject to disciplinary action with the possibility of permanent dismissal. Any applicant who is not in compliance with this policy will not be admitted."

Not surprising, part of the "statement of faith" required of attendees at Rossville Christian Academy reads as follows:

The Holy Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is the word of GOD and the final and supreme authority for faith and life. It is the inspired word of GOD and is without error in the original writings.

Yep, that's what passes for enlightenment at Rossville Christian Academy. Although, I guess one shouldn't be surprised since the chairman of the board of the school goes by the name of "Bubba Bateman." Why not just get your child a lobotomy rather than send him or her to Rossville Christian Academy where they will receive the academic equivalent of a lobotomy. Interestingly enough, at least one parent is waking up to the batshitery that goes on at Rossville Christian Academy. Here are more highlights from WREG-TV 3:

At least one Rossville, TN, parent is questioning school policy after her child's school sent an updated note defining its position on homosexuality. "My initial reaction is that it was specifically aimed at one person, and I felt very sad about that," said the parent, who did not want to be identified.

News Channel 3 took the policy to University of Memphis Law Professor Steve Mulroy who said the policy is legal. "It's entirely legal. There's no federal or state anti-discrimination law that protects gay people," Mulroy said. Mulroy, who has fought for gay rights in Shelby County, says there are a few scattered local ordinances across the country that protect gays, but none in Tennessee.

We contacted several Rossville Christian Academy board members for interviews, but they either did not return our calls or denied our requests. The parent we spoke with says she will not go as far as to remove her child from the school at this point, but will continue to question policies. "If you're going to single out one thing that you say is a sin, then maybe we have to address every single thing," she said.

I'm sorry, but I see conservative Christianity as a blight and threat to democratic society. To be totally candid, I see those who blindly and slavishly follow the message of fear and hatred of others that is the core of this toxic version of religious belief as suffering from nothing less than a form of mental illness. Yes, some of it is due to the foul environment in which they were raised, but at some point if one has a modicum of decency and intelligence, they cannot help but reject such a limiting and hate based belief system.

Sounding Dissent Over Salvation Army Bigotry

I've written a number of times on this blog (and in my most recent VEER magazine column) about the anti-gay bigotry of the Salvation Army and suggested that those looking to make charitable contributions avoid the Salvation Army like the plague. Like the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army preaches that gays must live a life of celibacy devoid of intimate loving relationships. For students of accurate history, all of this condemnation is based on a few passages written in the Bible by ignorant nomads whose main purpose was to differentiate the Jewish tribes from other societies where homosexuality was accepted as a norm. As a result, per the Salvation Army, gays are doomed to a life of loneliness. It's ignorance and bigotry taken to the highest levels. Why give funds to an organization that embraces ignorance and engages in the same sort of self-congratulatory hypocrisy as the Pharisees whom Christ so frequently condemned and lambasted in the Gospels. Yet unfortunately, too many donors still do not know the real story of the Salvation Army. Fortunately, my friend and Bilerico Project editor in chief, Bil Browning has worked consistently to get the word out. Now, the New York Times has picked up on Bil's efforts and in the future people will hopefully know to direct that contributions elsewhere. Here are highlights from the Times story:

Bil Browning and his boyfriend were homeless. To protect the identity of the boyfriend (now ex-boyfriend), Mr. Browning will not say specifically where, just that it was in “southern Indiana,” about 20 years ago. But he is very explicit about who refused to give them shelter.

“The Salvation Army refused to help us,” Mr. Browning recalls, “unless we broke up and then left the ‘sinful homosexual lifestyle’ behind. We slept on the street, and they didn’t help when we declined to break up at their insistence.”

Mr. Browning’s boyfriend was wearing a “Silence = Death” AIDS pin on his jacket, which must have tipped off the Salvation Army worker. “He told us we needed to be saved,” Mr. Browning says. “If we were willing to attend church services, he could help. We would have to break up, only one of us could stay in the shelter, and if there was room for the other, he would have to be on the opposite side of the room, and we wouldn’t even look at each other.”

Now Mr. Browning, a writer and gay rights advocate, is using his blog to publicize a decade-old boycott of the Salvation Army. The boycott’s proponents say those who drop money into the Salvation Army’s ubiquitous red kettles at Christmastime, or shop in its thrift stores, often know little about the organization’s evangelical Christianity, its opposition to homosexuality, and its occasional attempts to influence public policy on gay rights.

On his Web site, Mr. Browning, whom the Christian magazine World recently called “the Red Kettle Menace,” encourages people to donate instead to other organizations, like the Red Cross or Doctors without Borders.

The Salvation Army’s “Position Statement” on homosexuality, found on its Web site, reads in part: “The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching. Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.”

In 2001, The Washington Post obtained a Salvation Army document that said the administration of President George W. Bush had promised to honor a Salvation Army request: that religious charities receiving federal money be exempt from local gay anti-discrimination laws. The day the request became public, the Bush administration said it was being denied.

And in 2004, in response to a City Council ordinance requiring that organizations with city contracts offer benefits to gay employees’ partners, the Salvation Army threatened to stop operating in New York City. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg did not have to enforce the ordinance, which had been enacted over his veto; the Salvation Army never left New York City.

[A] dollar dropped into a red kettle in New York City, a quarter of a penny ends up at national headquarters, where conversations with the government — not lobbying, Mr. Hood says — may take place.

As to the complaint of discrimination based on sexual orientation, he says it is against Salvation Army policy. “If they were legitimate clients looking for food, they should have been helped,” he says of Mr. Browning and his ex-boyfriend.

While the Salvation Army tries to dance around and deny that it's a nasty, bigoted organization, I side with Bil Browning and others I know who have been discriminated against first hand. As a result, I'd frankly rather light my money on fire before I'd ever place it in a Salvation Army kettle. Like many other far right Christian organizations, the Salvation Army makes me long for the day when Christianity - or at least the version propounded by the Salvation Army - is a dead religion. There is no place for hate and bigotry in the world and organizations that foment it need to be thrown on the trash heap of history.

Perry and Gingrich Fail to Qualify for Virginia Primary

UPDATED: I noted this morning that Newt Gingrich - who is as always engaged in a tempestuous love affair with himself - failed to qualify for the GOP primary in Virginia. Now, the hubris fulled blowhard is ranting that his failure to be on the Virginia ballot is the equivalent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Here are some highlights from Think Progress on this ridiculous diarrhea of the mouth:

Reeling from their own ineptness, the Gingrich campaign quickly announced that it would “pursue an aggressive write-in campaign.” But as we noted yesterday, Virginia laws prohibit such a write-in campaign.

The New York Times assessed that Gingrich’s failure could “shake the confidence of voters.” The National Review called both Gingrich and Rick Perry “idiotic.” On Fox, Karl Rove said flatly, “This is a problem — if you’re the front runner and you can’t organize your campaign so you can meet those filing deadlines. It’s elemental. It’s the fundamental thing you do.”

[Gingrich] Campaign director Michael Krull . . . . agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action.

Gingrich, who fashions himself as an historian, frequently employs Peal Harbor analogies and anecdotes. In fact, he has co-authored an historical fiction book about Pearl Harbor, which literary critics blasted for its shoddy quality.

I can just imagine the vile ads that will run in advance of the Virginia Republican primary. Fortunately, two candidates will not be on the ballot, not that we won't hear lots of their batshitery nonetheless. The Virginian Pilot reports that both thrice married serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and Texas Christianist Rick Perry have failed to garner the 10,000 signatures required to be placed on the primary ballot. Gingrich is having a childish tantrum and blaming Virginia's ballot requirements rather than face the fact that he and his campaign staff failed to get their act together. Here are some story highlights:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a scathing critique of Virginia's nomination process after he and Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to qualify for the March 6 Republican primary in the commonwealth.

The Republican Party of Virginia announced the developments Friday and early Saturday, saying that the two have failed to submit the required 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot, considered setbacks in their bids for the Republican presidential nomination.

That Gingrich and Perry failed to get on the ballot in this state that votes on Super Tuesday underscored the difficulty that first-time national candidates - many with smaller campaign operations and less money - have in preparing for the long haul of the campaign. The Gingrich campaign today said Virginia has a "failed system."

It also illustrates the advantage held by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He's essentially been running for president for five years, and his team, smaller than in 2008 but larger than most of his 2012 opponents, has paid close attention to filing requirements in each state. He will appear on the Virginia ballot, along with Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who also has run a national campaign before.

"After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary," the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.

Failing to get on the ballot will be a major setback for Gingrich, who has tried to use his recent upsurge in popularity to make up for a late organizing start. Ironically, Gingrich had a slight lead over Romney, with others farther back, in a Quinnipiac poll of Virginia Republicans released earlier in the week. The load of catching up on organizing work and a lack of advertising money to counter an onslaught of negative ads from his rivals have been major disadvantages.

Meanwhile, Virginia's Democrats said President Barack Obama's re-election campaign gathered enough signatures to get him on the state's primary ballot though he was the only candidate who qualified.