Rush to Bring "Operation Chaos" to PA

Update: I hear Rush is criticizing what I said on his radio show today, apparently confusing "posting online" with e-mails, as if I suggested the Government search e-mails for evidence of voter fraud. I never mentioned e-mails. What someone posts on a public blog or message board is hardly private. After all the times I stuck up for Rush, my feelings are hurt. (/sarcasm.)

Above is a 40 second clip of my answer to Dan Abrams on his show tonight on whether Rush Limbaugh could be liable as an aider and abettor to voter fraud for telling his listeners to register as Dems to vote for Hillary Clinton to give John McCain a better chance in November. (MSNBC has full segment here.)Backstory here, and from Wired and Alternet.

After Ohio, Rush moved on to induce Republicans in PA to register as Dems and vote for Hillary. [More...]

But, remember, for Pennsylvania, if you want to cross over there, you Republicans, you gotta register by 24th of March if you want to do it legally. We want Hillary to win Pennsylvania. You know what the strategery has been, you know the Limbaugh Effect, Operation Rush the Vote, Create Chaos.
Voter registration ended today in PA, we'll see how many he got. Will he get in trouble? Of course not. But it's very uncool to try and affect the outcome of an election by mischief voting.

< NY Governor Used Cocaine, Doesn't Apologize | This Site's Comment Policy and New Rules >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In order to have aiding and abetting (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:41 PM EST
    don't you have to have an underlying crime? What statute is violated by a voter trying to submarine another party's primary?

    In Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by zzyzx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    You have to sign an oath "stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote."   Some people were dumb enough to make mocking comments by the oath.

    A reminder about Texas/Ohio time w/ no complaints (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    I watched part of Abram's show, with Jeralyn tonight, and was sad that Abrams never cared (when I pointed out in email) what had happened in Texas/Ohio ABETTED by Dick Morris calling on O'Reilly for Repubs to please cross over and vote AGAINST Hillary.

      Re Texas, see this guide to Republicans that was very much posted and discussed in Free Republic and other conservative forums at the time and they were applying the idea to Ohio as well.



    That's odd. I'm in Ohio and never signed an oath. (none / 0) (#52)
    by trishb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM EST
    They just asked which ballot I wanted.

    Same here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Saul Goode on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    They just asked me which ballot I would be needing. I said "Democrat, but just for today"

    That got a giggle from everyone.


    Election Law in Ohio (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:35:59 PM EST
    Read the Wired article.  It's got the best summary of the law.

    If you want the statutes, check

    3503.011. Qualifications to vote in primary

    At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.

    ORC Ann. 3513.19

    (A) It is the duty of any judge of elections, whenever any judge of elections doubts that a person attempting to vote at a primary election is legally entitled to vote at that election, to challenge the right of that person to vote. The right of a person to vote at a primary election may be challenged upon the following grounds:

    ....   (3) That the person is not affiliated with or is not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote. Such party affiliation shall be determined by examining the elector's voting record for the current year and the immediately preceding two calendar years as shown on the voter's registration card....

    ...(B) When the right of a person to vote is challenged upon the ground set forth in division (A)(3) of this section, membership in or political affiliation with a political party shall be determined by the person's statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.

    3513.20. Statement of challenged person; provisional ballot

      Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election, the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. ....

    3599.11. False registration; election falsification

    No person shall knowingly make any false statement on any form for registration or change of registration or upon any application or return envelope for an absent voter's ballot.

    Whoever violates this division is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.

    Also, 3599.36. Election falsification (5th degree felony) and 3599.25. Inducing illegal voting and a few others.


    It's also fair to point out that Kos did the same (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    thing in Minnesota (I think it was - or maybe Michigan).   I remember being shocked when he suggested that Democrats cross over and vote for Romney to try to get the weakest Republican candidate.

    He's selling t-shirts, stickers and (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:44 PM EST
    coffee mugs with the Operation Chaos logo.

    And he finds the charges ridiculous considering the ads Obama ran courting Republican and Independent votes with that "change your party" commercial.

    He's also promising a legal defense fund (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    in case any of his listeners get busted.

    What're the odds (none / 0) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    that someone will get busted for it?

    Far less than... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:07:38 AM EST
    ...the odds that Limbaugh will financially benefit from this nonsense, which is all he cares about.

    That's no exaggeration.  I'm convinced that people like Rush are so far outside the concerns of "average Americans" that they don't care who wins in November.  Clinton or Obama?  He gets to throw garbage for four years and claim credit for anything she or he does that isn't perfect.  McCain wins?  He does a 180 and supports him, professing endless "shock and awe" at what a fantastic president he turned out to be and how we dodged a humongous bullet by not electing the Democrat.


    Jarelyn... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST
    How was Obama's lure for Republicans to register as Dems in PA different?  

    Intent (none / 0) (#31)
    by learningcurve on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:03:12 AM EST
    Obama attempted to register sincere supporters who were registered Republican, as Hillary has done. Rush intended to persuade Republican voters to cross over ostensibly to disrupt the process, not because the voters supported the candidate.

    How does anyone know intent? You have to be (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by derridog on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    psychic.  It bothers me when people excuse OR condemn people on the basis of their intentions.  It's actions we need to judge.

    In Nevada and Texas (none / 0) (#51)
    by Foxx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    did not Obama do EXACTLY what Limbaugh is doing? I agree, there should have been major news coverage then.

    and Rush was so effective (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:23:59 PM EST
    stopping McCain from getting the nomination...

    on the plus side, he did manage to do the impossible...He got Apple to respond

    No doubt (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM EST
    that this will be one of the things Obama points to when he tries to explain away why he got trounced.

    He'll be a fraudster then (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:39:30 PM EST
    because the exit polls clearly show that Hillary does better if only Democrats are considered.

    And no doubt Limbaugh knows that. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:45 PM EST
    Given the willingness of Democrats to make the lowest accusations against their Democratic opponents in this primary, this is another reason Limbaugh is doing this -- he does not expect to influence the election.  

    Limbaugh creates and believes his own myth (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by toddy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:51:51 AM EST
    If Limbaugh is so powerful as he wanted his listeners to believe in him, Romney would be the
    Republican nominee now.
    Weeks leading to the Florida primary,
    Limbaugh and his ilk in hate radio have been
    thrashing McCain to no avail.
    So now he wants you to believe he is responsible for
    Hillary winning in Texas and Ohio when he cannot
    even influence his own Republican primary.


    How is (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:15:22 AM EST
    what Rush is doing any worse than Obama's Democrat for a Day campaigns? He has run these in every single state. That is clearly the same kind of gaming, since he is suggesting people change party affiliation for 1 day only. This has always really irked me. I don't want republicans voting in our primaries for any reason - unless they have legitimately decided to change parties. Considering who has been in the WH for the last 8 years, I can understand that. But this isn't what "Democrat for a Day" is about. It is very obviously about gaming the system, and is using Republican Hillary-hate as the selling point. The fact that any democrat would ever run a campaign this way is repugnant, and one of the long list of things that make me extremely nervous about Obama.

    I don't think they are the same (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:50:02 AM EST
    Since Obama genuinely wants these people to also vote for him in the general election.

    They are pretty much the same.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by TalkRight on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    Lot's of people have fallen for this including you in the rationale to legitimize Obama's and Criticize Rush, and I have to strongly disagree with Jeralyn here.

    Obama tried to capitalize on the Right Wing's Hillary Hate to vote for him (hoping that he at least gets the Dem Nomination and taking a chance that even if they did not vote for him in GE). Of course he (and everyone else) will try the win the vote of every person (right or left) to vote for him. But his strategy of concentrating on the right wing is laid on the fact that right people are ready to vote against Hillary.

    On the Rush side even if we take your point and say that they are voting for Hillary just for the day, I think Rush (and many more) have made a case to encourage right wing's to vote for Hillary to defeat McCain in the GE. So your argument Obama genuinely wants these people is pretty loose at best.

    More Over the biggest difference is that in Obama's Case here the candidate himself is trying to abet this type of voter Behavior, where as in the second the it is not so.

    Obama's action also speaks volumes of his campaign tactics of playing (and abetting the Hate Card against Hillary all the way while trying to pretend to be the candidate of Unity.


    But it's still fair to point out (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:26:10 AM EST
    A percentage of them will not.

    Obama Camp "Dem for a day" fliers (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:25:22 AM EST
    specifically reassures voters they can switch back to Repub or Indy before Nov. after voting for Obama in the primary/caucus.
    So - no. Obama doesn't necessarily want them to stay Dems.
    And think of the expense to the states accommodating the switcharoos.

    He is telling them that (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    they do not have to be a Dem to vote for him in the GE...not that he doesn't want their vote in the GE.
    Some people want to keep their "Independent" or "Republican" status, but still support Obama. In order to vote in the PA primary, Obama rightly points out they have to register Dem.
    It is not nefarious and underhanded. It's a way to have your cake and eat it too.

    Obama only wants their vote for the primary (none / 0) (#59)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    >>>But this is not about some "hard sell" to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.



    That is exactly what I said (none / 0) (#66)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    anyone can vote for him in November, they do not have to stay registered as a Democrat. Have your cake and eat it too..it's the American way!

    I don't think it's that much different (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:36:03 AM EST
    As a matter of law, you could say it's different because Obama would intend for them to stay Democrats after they cast their primary vote and Rush does not.

    Intent is a big part of the law.  

    But I think a lot of us see through the strategy for what it is.  He's not saying "Come join the Democratic party and vote for me cause Democrats have great ideas."

    What's going on is "Join the Dem Party and vote for me cause a vote for me is a vote against Hillary."

    Problem is.  There won't a Clinton to vote against in the GE if Obama gets the nomination.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by mm on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM EST
    Obama has been deliberately appealing to the lizardbrains with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    My take on this (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Dave B on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:13:13 AM EST
    I'm not sure that Rush actually believes that Clinton will be easier to beat.

    I do however believe that he knows that what he is doing on the radio will further drive a wedge between the Clinton and Obama supporters.  That to me is what it looks like he's up to.

    Let's not forget who started these shenanigans. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by desert dawg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM EST
    It was Kos, back in the Michigan primary, telling Dems to vote for Romney to sow chaos for the Repubs.  I recall less than half dozen commenters taking him to task for stooping to dirty tricks.

    Prosecution in this matter is Fascist! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Saul Goode on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    Ummm...(wow)...if you and Abrams think Limbaugh should be prosecuted, shouldn't action be taken against Barry Obammie as well. After all, as a resident of Ohio, I received a robo-call in his voice telling me that Republicans and Indies could vote in the Democrat primary.

    I took his advice and voted for Hillary:). Go ahead...turn me in.

    What is really scary is that the Dems are actually insisting on signing a loyalty oath. Que Orwelliano!!

    Your legal argument, even you would have to admit, is silly. So then, shouldn't your outrage be directed to left-wingers who promoted the same idea? Where was your faux outrage when Kos posted this on his blog on January 10th:

    Are you a Democrat or independent registered to vote in Michigan? If you are, vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

    Do you know any Democrats or independents in Michigan? If you do, encourage them to vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

    I think it was just as appalling (4.87 / 8) (#17)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:49:41 PM EST
    when certain Democratic bloggers pulled the same stunt in Michigan with Romney.  And I get even more mad thinking of how the Obama campaign used the voters who might have crossed over to vote on the Republican ticket as part of his objection to the proposed re-vote in Michigan.  

    This sort of interference and gaming primaries should be condemned by both parties.  The people promoting it should be called on the carpet.  I don't care how long it has been going on, there is no better of an example than this year for the real damage it can inflict when trying to determine the will of the people.  

    I agree. But I think things like (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:01:31 AM EST
    these, particularly when led by national figures or national blogs, don't really affect much.

    Both situations were really intended to increase ratings and hits.  In both cases, it's crass manipulation of subscribers' political intensity to prop up the media personalities and outlets involved.


    If you look at the OH an TX exit polls (4.80 / 5) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:47 PM EST
    Republicans either split their votes 50:50 or favored Obama.

    Whatever Rush is trying to do hasn't been working, and so as usually I just think he's playing publicity hound.

    Rush is a sad excuse (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    for a human being

    So if Hillary wins by more than 15 (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:28:04 PM EST
    will it be the Rush effect?  ;)

    It's kinda amusing, we have Rush, Hillary and Obama all registering voters in Pa. Go figure . . .

    These things don't work. (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by Joelarama on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:32:03 PM EST
    People aren't going to turn out in great numbers just to cause mischief.  It's hard enough for people to find time to get to the polls in the first place.

    It's a publicity stunt intended to increase ratings.     In fact, it reminds me of a stunt that a certain big blog in the Left Dittosphere tried to pull in Michigan.

    Hey, if Ann Coulter (4.50 / 2) (#16)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:47:36 PM EST
    can get away with breaking election laws, Rush can too.  This is not 'mischief', this is skewering what this country was founded upon:  democracy.  Rush is the ultimate un-Patriot.  IF someone had a bullhorn as loud as his OR if one of the candidates CONFRONTED him on it, it would stop.  Their (r) candidate is FLAWED, as well as their party, and they know it. Typical republican/conservative behavior...conducting themselves as if they had NO home-training.  It's almost as if they have no adult characteristics to them at all.

    the republicans (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:15:11 AM EST
    have been gaming elections since at least nixon, so this is nothing particularly new. i tend to agree with those who surmise rush's is more a ratings ploy than anything else; the average "dittohead" probably hasn't a clue how to go about changing his/her party affiliation, solely for the purpose of messing with the democratic primary.

    i'm not clear: is it his intent to buff up mccain's chances in the GE? if so, getting sen. clinton the nomination is probably not the best approach, as almost all national polls have indicated.

    but then, no one ever accused mr. limbaugh of being the brightest bulb in the box.

    respectfully disagree... (4.00 / 1) (#20)
    by white n az on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST
    One of his primary boasts is that he can take anyone on with half his brain tied behind his back.

    You obviously don't listen to Rush or you would know that he very much feels that he IS the brightest bulb in the box...just ask him.

    Not to mention the ditto-heads...there are a surprising number who believe he is the real thing.

    It's a comedy though...detach, listen to him. Though I have to admit, it was much more fun to listen to him when Bill was in the WH. I will say this about Rush, he isn't wrong 100% of the time...but he is insufferable and pompous.


    Waiting for the pickets (none / 0) (#22)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:07:07 AM EST
    When will he tell people to go out and picket all Obama events? This would sort of follow logically from his vote for Hillary routine. Get the dittoheads out there making a spectacle to remind people of Obama's unpatriotic associations. If this does not happen, we will know how much of a following he has.

    "Aiding and Abetting??" (none / 0) (#27)
    by sar75 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:35:43 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh can say and do whatever he wants (so long as it doesn't violate FCC rules or incite violence).  

    Everyone I know who re-registered (none / 0) (#32)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:12:22 AM EST
    Now I do not speak for the whole state, but everyone I know who changed from GOP are for Hillary. Period.Rush had nothing to do with it and I don't want him taking credit for Hillary winning Penna. She was leading here long before Rush opened his mouth. He is just boosting ratings on a sure thing. I am proud of my friends who changed over with no prompting from me. They made the decision themselves based upon their own judgement. And it was not all women either.

    I'm (none / 0) (#34)
    by tek on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    still trying to believe that anyone listens to Rush Limbaugh.  

    I hope that one person's story will be the norm, the gut who's friend could only find one person who hadn't already made up his mind.  Then he registered as a Dem and announced he's voting for Hil.

    Im betting it's roughly (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    the same demograph that sends tens-of-millions in "spirit seed" money to corporate jet riding televangelists; the same ones that just know I-raq attacked us on 9/11.

    The thugs have found a way to make galloping, brutish stupidity work for them and they're not going to give up the tack any time soon.


    Rush's endorsement (none / 0) (#36)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    Rush tries to torpedo Obama.  McCain is tag-teaming Obama (joining Hillary's attacks).  At least we know who the REPUBLICANS fear most and prefer not to run against in November.  

    Hardly (none / 0) (#45)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    Republican commentators applauded Obama and expressed outrage at those nasty Clintons until it looked liked he might be a sure thing for the nomination.  Then they turned their fire on him.  See more here.

    Confession (none / 0) (#38)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35:04 AM EST
    I like to watch Comedy Central to relax...almost always for Stewart and Colbert but sometimes I don't turn off the T.V. after they're finished.  I recently saw an episode of South Park in which a character named "Butters" begins calling himself "Professor Chaos (?)"  Do we have a new Professor Chaos on our hands?  
    Rush and "Butters" are now inseparable in my mind.  I'm going to be chuckling all day.

    Does anyone think.. (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST
    ..that Rush actually thinks HRC will beat McCain, which would be good for him personally?  If McCain wins, Rush has another 4 years of beating up (but not so much) another Republican administration, but if HRC wins, than that is the jackpot for him.  I think he's betting his ratings on this election.

    Well, he has done well (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    during the W years, so I don't think he is concerned.

    There is no suggestion that it was (none / 0) (#46)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    illegal to cross over in Michigan.

    And the Brooks Brothers (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desert dawg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    revolt probably wasn't illegal either.  Nor was the Supreme Court's 5-4 Bush v Gore decision.  But were they right?

    Since there is no party registration (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST

    Since there is no party registration in Michigan, there is really no such thing as a crossover.  Everyone that asks for a Dem ballot is a Dem for that moment.  Everyone that asks for a Rep ballot is a Rep for that moment.  What a person's thoughts were the moment before or the moment after is neither knowable nor relevant.  

    I didn't take him to task. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    But I didn't see the point in it.  I think even back then, kos wasn't a Hillary supporter.  I think that if I had to choose between Hillary, Uncommitted and Republican, I'd skip voting for a Republican.  I'd be more interested in sending a message than meddling in GOP affairs.

    Peripherally on topic... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    ...Rasmussen has it Clinton 49, Obama 39 in PA now (Clinton down 2, Obama up 1 from their last poll).  If subsequent polls reflect this tightening, even before Obama's 6 day bus tour there, that's bad news for Clinton, who needs a blowout there.

    The change (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    is within the margin of error, which means it isn't actually a change.

    Somebody once said about (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    publicity.... call me anything, just spell my name right.


    And if anyone is getting "aided" in this it's the "Big Guy."

    Here is the form (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    10W (pdf) which states right on it that it's a 5th degree felony to lie.

    It's not clear that poll workers have to give the form to everyone switching parties. I read in one article that the  Secretary of State has said so but it's not in the statutes that I could find.

    Forms are only given to those who are challenged by a poll worker. In most cases, news articles say poll workers didn't give out the forms. Even if they do ask for a voter to sign the form, the voter can refuse and still vote, but it's a provisional ballot which will be reviewed later. Their vote may or may not count after that review.


    Rush isn't thinking past tomorrow (none / 0) (#64)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    I really don't think he cares who wins the nomination. He's a relentless self-promoter who has everyone talking about him in the middle of a Dem primary, when his opinion should be irrelevant. I wish Obama supporters, in particular, wouls stop whining about how Rush single-handedly affected the outcome of the Texas and Ohio primaries. He doesn't even need to promote himself when he's got so many Dems ascribing to him the power to change elections.

    There's a tendency to think that there's a mass of people out there who aren't as enlightened as us. We would never make the effort to vote in the other party's primary, but supposedly tens of thousands of Republicans would. Most Republicans I know have political views that I can't comprehend, but they're not retarded. They repeat stupid rumors as fact, but most of the stuff isn't any stupider than constant refrains of "as far as I know." And many of them just have a different idea of what's best for the country.

    I think we'd all be better off pretending the guy didn't exist. I can only imagine the satisfaction he gets froim seeing Dems get hysterical every time he opens his mouth.

    Misc. Dems for a Day for Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    Regarding 'cross-over voting', here's a story from the 3/17 Boston Globe: Many Voting for Clinton to Boost GOP. What's startling, is the de facto assertion that all 'cross-over' votes for Clinton are bogus, while 'cross-over' votes for Obama are assumed to be legit. Is that also the case for every other MSM story on the subject?

    BTW, the Boston Globe expressed no concerns as to the legality, or ethics, of GOP voters meddling in the Democratic nomination.

    In this particular story, the Clinton 'cross-over' vote is framed as the reason for both some previous Clinton wins, and Obama losses.

    Particularly, they're suggesting that Hillary won TX and OH because: "just prior to the TX and OH primaries", Limbaugh started urging Republicans to vote for her, to drag out, and otherwise hamper, the Dem nom process. (Is that timeline on Limbaugh's alleged influence even accurate?)

    Curiously, there's NO mention of the Obama Dems for a Day campaign; like the 'TEXAS MEMO' from the "Republicans for Obama" website, that Jeralyn first linked to on 2/22/08, (with a follow-up on 2/26/08.)

    P.S. The "Republicans for Obama" website no longer links to the original 'Texas Memo' - the above link is to a copy of the text which I included in the comments section to one of Jeralyn's posts on the issue.

    QUESTION: Has anybody seen anything in the MSM suggesting that any of the professed GOP/Indie support for Obama is bogus?


    Operation Chaos II (none / 0) (#67)
    by What I Learned This Week on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:10:24 AM EST
    Corruption of the Democratic Primary process is now en vogue, as proven by Conservatives, and encouraged by Rush Limbaugh, who believe that a protracted Democratic Primary season will ultimately serve Republicans well. The reasoning offered to support this strategy, as we have been given, is that a "Bloodied Up" Obama & Clinton will be the result of revealed faults and short-comings. Operation Chaos participants have proudly claimed, as accounted on Talk Radio and Internet Blogs, have taken to registering as Democrats in established Open Primaries (state provisions that empower the electorate to vote without respect of party in the candidate election process - primaries) and supporting Sen Clinton with the hope that neither Sen Clinton nor Sen Obama will emerge as the victor until the Democratic National Convention in August. The anticipated, and hopeful, result of this effort is that both Democratic Candidates will sufficiently flog the other and subsequently prove themselves unelectable.

    Conservatives, as we have been told, are guided by a concept of morality and values that extend throughout all endeavors, political aspirations, social and personal responsibility. Democrats & Liberals, as we have been told, are guided purely by a desire for power, at the expense of morality & values. The former, as it appears, no longer applies. The justification for Operation Chaos, as we have been able to determine, has been the same Moral Relativism despised by Conservatives, that being... "They do it too."...Accepted.

    That said, Democrats are left with but a few options, as we have been able to determine. Any argument or dialog that denounces the strategy of Operation Chaos will likely result in Democrats being further defined as "Weak" and "Whining", an option obviously explored far too often. Democrats have spoken of Operation Chaos in low tones, on Talk Radio and Internet Blogs, denouncing its effect, rather real or perceived. What matters most is not its effectiveness, as touted by Conservatives, but how to leverage the net result, Media coverage. In their quest to maintain a stage for the Democratic Presidential candidates to "bloody" the other, Conservatives have given the Media a greater call to explore the nuances of the Democratic campaign, thus, broader coverage. Democrats can realistically benefit from Operation Chaos by continuing a soft-ball approach to differentiation during the next several weeks, conduct themselves civilly, and shape the dialog, as Sen McCain takes a back seat..... Operation Chaos II

    Operation Chaos II may be the Saving Grace that both Sen Clinton & Obama need
    to further articulate their positions on issues that have been tracked as being the most important to all Americans. Consider it Political Crisis Management, Operation Chaos II may very well be the best approach to campaigning for Democrats nationally.

    What I Learned This Week   |   Operation Chaos II