Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos A Success in PA?

I'm a peaceful man, but if that happens, I'll find him, and I'll beat the crap out of him.

I'm a peaceful man, but if that happens, I'll find him, and I'll beat the crap out of him.

If you decide to make that trip, let me know.

Rush already admitted he wants Hillary over McCain. This is no secret. He's using his listeners..he's duping them into thinking the reason he wants t hem to vote for Clinton is b/c he wants to keep the two dems fighting. But it's b/c he said from the beginning he can't stand McCain...and let's face it. No way is Rush going to root for the "Magic Negro" (his words, not mine).

I'm a peaceful man, but if that happens, I'll find him, and I'll beat the crap out of him.

If you decide to make that trip, let me know.

I normally don't advocate violence against the mentally retarded, but in this case I think it's well deserved.

"I'm a peaceful man, but if that happens, I'll find him, and I'll beat the crap out of him."

.....and what would be left?

Is this some type of matter to energy conversion plan you're working on? Because I have to warn you, that the amount of energy you would have to expend in this case, will not result in a surplus of useable fuel at the end of your effort. Lots of crap yes, but not useable fuel.

And I assure you, he does want McCain to win, he doesn't like him but he would take a Republican over a Democrat.

Are you calling Rush Limbaugh a liar?

"If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit . . . rather than a Republican causing the debacle," he said. "And I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the Congress paralyzed by having to support, out of party loyalty, a Republican president who is not conservative."

The fact that the man supports a scheme to undermine the Democratic voting process of the United States says a lot about his partisan blindness.

Such an effort is wrong and he knows or should know it. He sure would if a Democrat were doing it.

Catch22

I'm sure no one is suggesting that Rush would lie. We all know that he is a fair and credible source of information, with no bias, interested in accuracy and balance.......

Don't we?

Are you calling Rush Limbaugh a liar?

In this context, no - I think he was calling biggerthebetter a liar.

Well, if he was calling me a liar, Catch-22 set him straight.

:)

Thanks, Catch!

I disagree, In my understanding we are voting for what we believe will be the best result for our country, if that means that you vote to hurt the opposition whats the problem?

Such ends justifies the means is at the heart of moral relativism. First off you are mistaken, the result isnt better for the country, second even if it arguably were that justify the means. For an extreme example to illustrate your approach if you believe that the country was better off with JFK out of the way, does that justify the assassination? MLK? The attempted assassination of Reagan?

Does this justify voter fraud? Fixing voting machines? If you belive the result is better?

If a liberal were calling for Democrats to re-register for a Republican primary in a close primary in order to try to swing the Republican nomination to a weaker canddidate, I suspect you would have problem at all in seeing the dishonesty of such manipuation of the Democratic process. Perhaps you should try stepping outside you self certainty that you know what is best and try respecting the Democratic process or perhapaps you are among thoes who believe that the people need to be told who will lead them for their own good?

I find it amusing that conservatives who talk a great deal about deploring moral relativism will not hesitate to apply it.

Do the ends justify the means?....moral relativism indeed.

I understand your point ajs. But how do you define what "the best result for our country" is?

Is it a specific 'candidate'? Or is it the 'democratic process'?

The first is just 'partisan politics' as usual....and it's just 'schoolyard rules', the two sides can duke it out by whatever means they find necessary, excusing any and all of those means by just saying 'our side is better', while conveniently ignoring the damage they do along the way to the process and all other citizens; or at best excusing it by saying that they know what's best for everybody else.

Well.....says who?

This isn't a football game, no matter how much the 'hacks' on both sides would like to convince us ignorant masses that we should look at it that way.(no offense to you PH).

The stakes are much higher, and increasing. If we actually do want to continue to be a world leader, and reap the benefits of that....maybe we should act like we deserve it.

I wasn't calling anyone a liar.

Yes, I realize that. Catch-21 had asked if you were calling Rush a liar when it was biggerthebetter who was speaking (erroneously) on behalf of Rush that you were responding to. I was just having a little fun with it because I'm sure both Catch and BTB are devoted Rush listeners. Obviously.

Wait a minute. Are you stipulating that Rush has... smarts? (Bam! head explodes because you look right) It can't have been his idea.

Operation Chaos is interesting. If it's effects are real, it wins. If it's effects are overstated, and Democrats miss the real causes of trouble and instead blame Limbaugh, it wins. If it distracts from other kinds of political discourse, it wins. If it validly points to prevalent causes of true discord, it wins. If it makes people question each others' genuine Democrat allegiance, it wins. If it lengthens the battle, it wins. If it causes an unnatural end to the battle, it wins.

If it puts Hillary, who I detest, in the white House instead of either McCain or Obama, both of whom I respect, then it doesn't win. I am a Republican, but I root for both parties to provide with the best candidate possible so that we have the best choice possible. (Of course, he believes that she would be a better candidate than Obama, so he's doing the same thing I suppose)

It does win in that situation, actually, just doesn't end up with the outcome you want. Rush's desired outcomes involve McCain v Hillary, a drawn-out Democratic process, a Democratic process that ends badly, and a major distraction from other shenanigannery in the process. The only way it wouldn't work is if no one listened to him.

Well, I don't.

Good on you for that. :) But apparently somebody does.

"Operation Chaos is interesting."

Maybe from a clinical sense....the same as the workings of a deadly virus is 'interesting' to a researcher. But viewing it from such a clinical distance ignores the damage it does to the election process, and what little trust the public has left in that.

If someone was advocating 'stuffing the ballotbox'....wouldn't both parties and the public at large be outraged? Where is the difference here?

As far as what is Rush's desired outcome....he detests all democrats and moderate republicans. He benefits most from whichever provides him the most ammunition for his talk show.

Good on you for that. :) But apparently somebody does.

I have tried listening to radio personalities and watching network news, but I find that they all seem to take a stance that never seems objective to me. They either lean and spew propaganda for the Democrats or the Republicans.

Arn't the super delegates going to decide the Dem candidate anyway and not the voters.

I hate to be this way, because it's not really funny, but I laugh at the voters in Florida all the time. Once again, their votes don't count. The last time those people's vote counted, they were wearing "I like Ike" buttons.

I really don't get this stance. Arn't the super delegates going to decide the Dem candidate anyway and not the voters.

More ugly moral relativism and backwards political apology. IF this dishonest plan works THEN it will be decided by super delagates. The whole point of this "operation" is to sabatage the voting process and leave it to the super delegates. Assuming it would have happened is circular. The super delegates only decide if the process is too close as you should and Rush Limbaugh knows. They are also influence by the voters.

In any case its dishonest, and I really dont get the stance of anyone who pretends otherwise.

What is the rational stance to defend such dishonest tactics in a Democracy?

IDK, catch. It's like these suits are playing a game, and we the people are simply how they keep score. Limbaugh has pulled a very clever move on Hillary's part here.

If it's effects are real, it wins.

if i were a super delegate, this is all i would need to cast my vote for obama..

if you consider that a good number of hillary's votes are coming from 'pubs' that have no intent on casting a ballot for her in a general election, it skews her numbers to the point where it's certain that obama is the people's choice for the democratic nominee.

it's obvious to me that rush is all about putting the weakest and less electable candidate on the dem ballot, so im hoping the dem leadership takes his activities into account when deciding on mccain's opponent.

as dirty as things are now, the democratic party will rally behind obama rather than submit to another 4 years of idiotic bush-like policies and war mongering under mccain.

if rush wasn't already brain dead, i too would join the call for his premature demise, but in reality, most people with brains see right through his bs, and his zombie ditto-heads will probably all meet with some darwinian fate before they can die of old age anyway.. it's just too bad that they begin to breed at such young ages.

Does anyone claim to know what the true direct effects of Operation Chaos have been so far? They seem hard to measure, but perhaps someone has some hard numbers somehow. My personal suspicion is that there is minimal direct effect, that the indirect effects are where the "meat" is. Therefore, the way to defeat it is to simply ignore it...

...or maybe that's how it wins... ;)

But anyway, the real purpose, is to "raise awareness". To make one aware of these and other issues. It is a multivarious teaching tool; most malleable, specific and vague, exciting and new, come aboard... we're expecting you; let it flow, it flows back to you! One need only know that it's purpose is to serve the cause, one needn't, no one cannot, ask for the specifics. To question it's purpose, would be to identify you as an opponent of it's cause, a cause worthy by definition. For those of you in Rio Linda, Chaos is Love, and Operation Chaos is an expression of love; the love of the democratic process, the love of the Democrats, the love of the country. You see, this is the highest, the truest form of love. The greatest way to be for something... is to stand against it. Only through opposition and aggravation, can one find unity. Surely this all makes sense, to anyone who has followed, analyzed, and learned from the profound offerings thusfar revealed in this election. ;)

Or on a more serious note, one could theorize that for a conservative who gives priority to conservative principles before party line, defense of the Republican party from a continued shift away from conservative values takes priority to short term goals, direct party advocacy, or simply following or mouthing party line. It even takes precedence over garnering immediate political power, or a distaste (disdain really) of a political adversary. To the extent that the Republican party deserts or simply fails to advocate a conservative stance, it risks being an empty vessel for such interest. There is little value to a party, if that party does not represent one's views for the most part, or at least hits the majority of one's key values. There is little value to offering compromise, service, or advocacy to such a party as a political force.

In essence, one could estimate Obama and Clinton to be the lesser threat, compared to the loss of conservative advocacy by the Republican party. You see, whereas a "chaos" exists amongst Democrats, a "gutlessness" exists in Republicans, and has developed for some time, in regards to advocacy for conservative American principles. Though one could hardly call McCain gutless in a typical sense, in this specific regard, he may prove to be... or more importantly, he may represent this character flaw that is the Achilles heal of the Republican party at large. Operation Chaos may be less about disruption of the Democrat, as it is about disruption of the Republican.

Or maybe it's a cool topic that will engage peoples minds and offer ongoing stimulation, thought, and entertainment... and good old fashioned naughty fun... which translates into ratings for any talk radio show.

Where's the fraud? I don't necesarily support this 'operation' but unless you can point to people voting multiple times or other examples, then fraud is not then 'voter fraud' is not a correct term.

Who's to say that with the GOP nomination cinched, there may be moderate Republicans who actually prefer one of the Dem candidates over the other (and maybe even over McCain)? People have a right to vote for who they want to and if Republicans want to use their vote to vote for Hillary Clinton, then that's there business. It may not be noble but it's certainly within their bounds and it's within their bounds to do what's allowable and legal to influence an election.

Who's to say that with the GOP nomination cinched, there may be moderate Republicans who actually prefer one of the Dem candidates over the other (and maybe even over McCain)?

Nothing wrong with that. Of course, the people you describe are not only not typical listeners of Rush Limbaugh but are often ridiculed by him as not true Repulicans.

People have a right to vote for who they want to and if Republicans want to use their vote to vote for Hillary Clinton, then that's there business.

That doesnt make a dishonest vote any less dishonest. Its an abuse of the primary process and everyone knows it whether you can effectively stop such a dishonest vote or not. We live in a free country where States try to make people as free as possible to change their minds in good faith. Taking advantage of that in bad faith is dishonest and pathetic. For those who claim to be Patriotic and true Americans is especially sad and pathetic.

It may not be noble but it's certainly within their bounds and it's within their bounds to do what's allowable and legal to influence an election.

Was is sad is to see so many self described conservatives who claim to stand for moral values, who are so quick to toss them asside when convenient. Anyone who thinks that legality defines morality is badly confused or just plain corrupt. We dont live in an authoriarian state where legal and right and wrong are synonmyms and to pretend as much is to invite toltariianism. Its dishonest whether legal or not, and we dont even try to outlaw everything that is dishonest since it would require infrining on autonomy too much.

The voting registration asks what party you are affiliated with. You can equivocate all you want but when a person who knows they are a Republican writes Democratic they are being dishonest.

PENALTY FOR FALSIFYING REGISTRATION DECLARATION
WARNING: If a person signs an official registration application knowing a statement declared in the application to be false, makes a false registration, or furnishes false information, the person commits perjury. Perjury is punishable, upon conviction, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or a fine not exceeding $15,000, or both, at the discretion of the court. Submitting an application containing false information may also subject a person to other penalties, including loss of the right of suffrage, under state or federal law.

The fact that no one will be prosecuted doesnt make it less dishonest. If such behavior became routing it would threaten to undermine the Democratic process and invite more stringent application.

So is one to believe, that upholding of the law is somehow a good thing all of a sudden? One must be cautious with this concept. It could spread dangerously to things such as illegal immigration ;)

So to oppose Operation Chaos on a legal ground, one is wedged into becoming a conservative, on various legal issues! Clever, no?

Of course, realistically, no expectation of consistency exists. That is why this is mere edutainment, and preaching to the choir. No self respecting "liberal" would limit themselves to integrity of principles such as this. (Well, perhaps Hitchins would consider it since he's an honest chap, but few others -- and he's a socialist & Marxist, not a liberal ;) It would be blasphemy and far too limiting in a practical sense.

Most who value such principles, are also aware enough to recognize these things as mocking of those who lack them, not actual practice of criminal activity. Especially, the call for people to hire illegal immigrants to cast votes for Hillary. That was a gem. I catch only a few hours a week at most, and that much only recently, but I'm glad I caught that one! Many laughs. ;)

So is one to believe, that upholding of the law is somehow a good thing all of a sudden?

Who said it was sudden to see dishonesty as bad? Who said fraud was a good thing in the first place? Who do you imagine even remotely asserted that the only reason this should not be done because it it is illega? I certainly did not.

As I actually stated, its wrong whether illegal or not, whether done by one party or another. There is malum prohibitum and malim in se. This is both.

It could spread dangerously to things such as illegal immigration ;)

Yes, why are people like Rush who are so upset about illegal immigration but advocating breaking the law here?

Unlike the fraudulent voting there is nothing inherently wrong about immigrating, so you are mixing two different issues.

In Rush's case he is advocating deceptive action that is both illegal and immoral whether or not it was illegal or not.

IN the case of Immigration there is nothing inherrentally immoral about immigration.

Is that paragraph in italics to notify us of a cartoonish rant or because you are quoting someone elses ridiculous polemic.

Ironic you attack liberals for inconsitency, when the only person displaying obvious hypocrisy in this seed Rush Limbauh who no doubt would be up in arms if a liberal advocated sabotaging Republican primaries in a simlar fashion.

Is that your intended point in drawing up this strawman?

Especially, the call for people to hire illegal immigrants to cast votes for Hillary. That was a gem.

Sounds like another myth. Of course that would also be obviously wrong so what is the intended point again? That there are other blowhards like Rush Limbaugh out there?

There is no such thing as an "illegal vote". To claim so is an affront to democracy itself and belies the true motives of those who oppose Operation-Chaos. ;)

There is no such thing as an "illegal vote". To claim so is an affront to democracy itself and belies the true motives of those who oppose Operation-Chaos. ;)

So you are just a troll. Your response is utter nonsense. Who are you quoting anyway?

Democrats have been voting in Republican primaries in California for many years. The intent is to pick the weakest opponent for the Republican nominee.

The funniest part of all this is that people believe enough people would do this that they are concerned that it did happen. It is not likely that many if any REALLY did it. The idea that they MIGHT is causing enough chaos on its own.

Democrats have been voting in Republican primaries in California for many years. The intent is to pick the weakest opponent for the Republican nominee.

Those of us in open-primary states are unfamiliar with this practice. In my state you don't have to declare a party affiliation when you register. You're free to vote in either primary but you can only vote in one primary. If there's a run-off election and you voted for one party in the first primary, you're locked into voting for that party again in the run-off. In all honesty, there are generally compelling reasons to vote in one party or the other without considering switching to the opposing party to vote for the weakest candidate. I would have to be supremely confident that the rest of my preferred candidates would win their primary races to even consider voting for the weakest person in the opposing party, and I have never had that level of confidence.

Democrats have been voting in Republican primaries in California for many years. The intent is to pick the weakest opponent for the Republican nominee.

First, you have still completely failed to provide any evidence for your blanket assertion.

Second, if it is true then it would be wrong for Democrats to do so. Do you agree or disagree?

Third, its wrong for Republicans to do so.

In summary the alleged wrongs done by Democrats in California are both unsubstantiated AND totally irrelevant.

If you assume that all Democrats support and and are responsible for every action done by any other Democrat, you are obviously wrong.

Why do you believe that such actions are remotely relevant to this discussion?

There is no such thing as an "illegal vote". To claim so is an affront to democracy itself and belies the true motives of those who oppose Operation-Chaos. ;)

This known as parody. For example, just in time for tomorrow, from the New York Collective of Radical Educators:

No Human is Illegal! - ¡Ningún Ser Humano es Ilegal!

If you learn what parody is, and remain informed enough to spot it, you may have more clue to certain facets of Operation Chaos.

This known as parody.

I know what parody is. The problem with your writing is that so much of it so non-sensical that its never clear where the intended parody is and where it ends.

Perhaps you should learn more about how to use parody in your writing, it really needs work. Blaiming the reader for your own poor communication is kind of pathetic. Your attempt is poor because it is a total non-sequitor and attempts to parody an approach that has nothing to do with issue at hand.

HINT no one had brought up NO Human is illegal and thinking your are clever is not the same as being so.

Perhaps you need to learn more about the art of communication.

HINT no one had brought up NO Human is illegal

To quote myself above in #7.4:

So is one to believe, that upholding of the law is somehow a good thing all of a sudden? One must be cautious with this concept. It could spread dangerously to things such as illegal immigration ;)
.... Most who value such principles, are also aware enough to recognize these things as mocking of those who lack them, not actual practice of criminal activity. Especially, the call for people to hire illegal immigrants to cast votes for Hillary. That was a gem.

Indeed there is no such thing as an "illegal vote". To declare votes illegal (as in those of Republicans who sneaked across the border into the Democrate party), is to be anti-voting, anti-democratic, and anti-American. You can't argue with that logic, can you? ;)

Happy May 1st, by the way! Stay Red! In following the "dialog" about illegal immigration one cannot help but notice the "No such thing as an illegal alien" or "No Human Is Illegal" response to the simple request to enforce immigration law (the risky infectious notion I proffered). Perhaps this is an indirect literacy test on issues, and I didn't mean to disenfranchise you by such, but disenfranchisement is en vogue right now and I got caught up in it. ;)

But point taken, friend, next time I parody a nonsensical position, I will indeed try to make more sense. Or maybe you're just pretending not to get it, and are fooling me, right now! Is that the case? If so, touche. But please include a marker like I do... such as ;) or other.

The problem with your writing is that so much of it so non-sensical that its never clear where the intended parody is and where it ends.

You must be from middle America. It's ok, I know that your bitterness over economic issues has driven you to resent me. It's not your fault. I forgive you and I will indeed try harder to reach out to you with my brilliance.

thinking your are clever is not the same as being so.

I admit, I used to wear an "I am clever" lapel pin. But I stopped wearing it a while ago, when I became disgusted with the false parody that many people were offering at the time while wearing such pins. The only way to be truly clever, is to not be clever at all. On this, I know you and I both agree, because you exemplify this so well. ;)

At the end of the day, the majority of Americans who actually get to have their votes recorded get the government that they deserve.

Perhaps that's why they try so hard to discourage or prevent the rest of us from voting.

"It's so sad that these ideologues think they're patriotic."

Well, Senator McCarthy called himself a patriot too. What do we call him today? Nothing good.

But you're being unfair to the Tories, they WERE patriots....but to a different cause, their distant King instead of their home colonies. Many of them died for their beliefs, or suffered for them. Many lost everything they had, leaving or being driven out of their homes and communities.

The current crop of ideologues aren't known much for their suffering, just their poisonous rhetoric, and in this case an attempt (successful or not) at vote manipulation.

The Democratic Party is a freakin' mess. I've never seen so many people looking at each other, not knwoing what to do. I may not agree with the policies of my Republican Party, but I know we are organized. This isn't that hard. Put the man into the election that the people have decided they want. In this case, it's Obama. (unless Hillary makes a miracle comeback and manages to win North Carolina and Indiana both).

Not that Democratics didn't already have plenty of that.

To the extent that it can trick Democrats into blaming and hating Rush instead of addressing their real problems, Operation Chaos also wins.

"You've cost the country countless lives and treasure in the interest of your BITTER partisan politics."

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Bush administration's incompetent handling of the Iraq war and use of the war for partisan political purposes while wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives?

You seem to illustrate blindness caused by bitter partisan politics through your ranting quite well.

Catch 22- I think SL was trying to be 'funny', not serious..............at least I hope so.

You've cost the country countless lives and treasure in the interest of your BITTER partisan politics.

I wouldn't know for certain what the commando meant, but this could refer to the cost of impeding progress in the war on terror, in the name of the hateful anti-Bush rhetoric and political posturing for political party gain (despite Democrats having been "complicit" in authorization of the war).

The key practice is of giving terrorists hope. Hope, that if they blow up enough innocent people quickly enough, and create enough chaos, and impede Iraqi redevelopment and reconciliation to a great enough extent, we will deem ourselves and the Iraqi people as failures, abandon the war (reconciliation & stabilization efforts) and withdraw.

On the other hand, presenting a united stance against AQI, Sunni extremists, Shia extremists, Qods, Special groups, and violent criminal opportunists... making it clear that we will see this war thru until Iraq can stand on it's own, would neutralize their strategy of "defeating" us by provoking internal US dissension, and a call for immediate withdrawal. Remember, terrorism doesn't expect to offer military success, it aims at social/political/economic manipulation or damage thru soft targets. Not only are the terrorist acts in Iraq directed at Iraqis, they are directed at American civilians at home. In most cases, to be effective, people have to give in to the understandable instinctive fearful and fatiguing reaction (which is also buttressed or coerced thru propaganda efforts). Similarly, in most cases, it can be "defeated" at a simple level, via simple (but difficult) defiance. And in some cases, it can be discouraged by clearly communicated resolve.

There will be hard core fanatics from various sources to deal with regardless. There is also fundamental strategic incentive for Iran (and others) to make the Iraq war as costly and drawn out as possible, to minimize prospects for even more direct confrontation. There is no claim that anything would be "easy" if people held more resolve and unity of purpose. But offering up a U.S. defeat, teasing that it is just a few more suicide bombers and a little more chaos away from certainty, is arguably enticing more bad actors to such violence.

This may have been the observation that the commando was making. Or maybe not. Either way, it is one manner in which Democrats have, in trying to capitalize on anti-war sentiment and posture and recast themselves, served to aggravate the war effort, prolonging it, and exacerbating its most horrible aspects to nobody's benefit, except perhaps their own selfish gain. One must also keep an eye on support or opposition to the non-kinetic aspects of the "war"... this is another aspect where risk of impeding progress exists.

The key practice is of giving terrorists hope.

Actually you have no basis for that statement whatsoever. The terrorists are trying to sew chaos as you suggest, but also fear and hate. Their movement is fed by hate of America as well as religious fanatacism. This isnt about hope as much as hate and religion.

Bush has become a recruting tool for Al Queda. Just as he tries to use them to make himself popular they use him to help their own causes.

The war in Iraq has made Al Queda and Iran stronger and not weaker. The ongoing war in Iraq serves as a training and recruting bonaza. They thrive on the hatred that the Iraq war has brought. Spending billions of dollars on Iraq has weakend the US not strengthened it. Torturing people undermines our nation and weakens our position in the world while again offering a recruitment bonanza for those who hate us. Spying in violation of the law undermines our nations principles and does not help us. Lowering ourselves to their level is what they want, because unless we do they can not compete.

Indeed those who level hate at Bush and further anti-American propaganda have become tools.

...but also fear and hate. Their movement is fed by hate of America as well as religious fanatacism. This isnt about hope as much as hate and religion.

Sorry I got distracted by a clip of Rev. Wright on the radio while I was reading your comment... my mind wandered a bit... ;)

Oh yeah. Terrorists. What terrorists are you referring to? EIJ? al-Zawahiri? perhaps former regimes that used to collaborate with these and fund suicide bombers?

Lowering ourselves to their level is what they want, because unless we do they can not compete.

Nah. This is your injection of your own agenda. To accommodate them, we must die or submit, and I'd be surprised if they accepted any but a most thoroughly imposed and regulated notion of submission. There are others, with ostensibly "simpler" ambitions, such as wiping Israel off the map. They want us to lower ourselves to these goals. Some are willing or unwitting.

But to return to the topic at hand and put it in this context:

Meanwhile Democrats solely lament watching their party eat itself alive. Do they not extend concern for the country in this regard?

Now it is your turn to mis-characterize my stance as being against dissent, against freedom itself...

Where is this well, exactly?

Are you using that newfangled recycled waste water technology?

The Democrats in California have been 'crossing lines' for years to select the weakest Republican candidate for years.

Any real proof of this happening?

Now that it is being done by Republicans it becomes wrong?

It's more widespread than people might believe. The main difference here seems to be a deliberate and organized push for such a crossover. That's rather unprecedented in my experience.

It seems someone posted a seed in the last day or two quoting Romney, where he says the GOP votes for the weaker Democrat in Massachusetts all the time.

The Democrats in California have been 'crossing lines' for years to select the weakest Republican candidate for years.

Says who? Is that wrong?

Now that it is being done by Republicans it becomes wrong?

Its always been wrong. Dont you agree? Why do so many Republicans now labor under the delusion that it isnt wrong?

Catch 22 - you hit my point exactly. The Dems do not think it is wrong to influence the Republican choice now that the Repubs are returning the favor it is suddenly wrong. Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander.

SH 17.3-

It was Pamela Drew #1.5 on this board...but it's not a quote.

Catch 22 - you hit my point exactly. The Dems do not think it is wrong to influence the Republican choice now that the Repubs are returning the favor it is suddenly wrong. Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander.

First, who do you mean by "The Dems"? Are you confusing a tiny number as representing all Democrats? Who do you have evidence for?

Repubs are returning the favor it is suddenly wrong.

Wrong again.

Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander.

No you are wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right, what was wrong for the Goose is still wrong for the Gander. If you accept your approach it becomes an infinite regress where one side just says the other side did it first. You allege it happened in California, next someone claims some other state.

There are people in this thread saying its not wrong to take this action, why dont you direct your comments at them, or do you only disagree with Democrats?

So what is your point? Thats its always wrong? Or its ok for Republicans so long as they have a pretext?

I have always thought it was wrong to vote in an opposing parties elections. The Democrats have not complained as long as they were doing it. That is what my "sauce" remark refers to. It cannot be right for one to do but wrong for the opposition.

I have always thought it was wrong to vote in an opposing parties elections.

Me too. So why are you arguing with me? The only people in this thread who say it isnt wrong are rightwingers and republicans, yet you spend all of your comments attacking those who agree with you. Why is that?

The Democrats have not complained as long as they were doing it. That is what my "sauce" remark refers to. It cannot be right for one to do but wrong for the opposition.

Do you reallly think the Democrats are some form of monolithic entity? Its not right to be hypocritical, then again no one here has been, you just assume they are? Are you responsible for all of the hypocrisy of all other Republicans or Conservatives or whatever? If so you should beating yourself up since there are lot of Republicans who support this while being against it if Democrats did.

Stop assuming that all Democrats are exactly the same, you are being a hypocrit since you dont appear to treat Republicans as if they were all the same. Try applying that sauce to yourself for a change.

I have not said which party (if any) I "belong" to. You are making gross and unsubstantiated assumptions. Bill Press was State Chairman of the Democratic Party when the strategy was first used.

I have not said which party (if any) I "belong" to. You are making gross and unsubstantiated assumptions.

You can be a hypocrit whether you belong to a party or not. Your biases are pretty obvious and the point is clear whether you are republican or not. There is nothing "gross" or unsubstatiated and your pretending otherwise is just a way to dodge the real issues. If you prefer you can be a rightwing hypocrit or an anti-Democratic one, I dont care, the point the same whatever label you prefer or dont prefer.

Bill Press was State Chairman of the Democratic Party when the strategy was first used.

So what and where is your evidence? You make a gross and unsubstatitead assumption by asserting that all Democrats supported whatever you allege he did. He doesnt represent me or anyone else in this thread as far as I know, so you have neither showed that he did such a thing or that anyone supported it.

That would depend on the rules of each party. They ARE private clubs and can make whatever rules they wish for members.

What is the method of enforcement currently that keeps one from being simultaneously in the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Marijuana Parties? Are you saying that the Democrat party has access to the roles of the Libertarian so they can exclude on this basis?