Redstate

he of all people has no excuse for not recognizing Obama for exactly what he is.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

the problem is he thinks Carter was a Great President.

I know what you mean, but that sounds like......well, Rush is somebody's prison wife or something.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

And shout at the kids to get off my lawn.

I really resent the implication that McCain's victory in our nominating process was fueled by democrats making mischief. There really is no evidence for that.

If thats not what you mean by payback, then i apologize

McCain 2000, 2008

Long before Limbaugh proposed Operation Chaos, Daily Kos advised Democrats to vote for Romney in the Michigan Republican primary, as a way to prolong our nomination battle:

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!
...
Mitt Romney desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. And the more Republican candidates who are fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for the Democratic candidates, of course! In other words, we want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Hmmm, I don't recall Chris Matthews whining about that.

It's a democracy. People get to exercise their vote to pick the guy they like. Just because you don't like them crossing over strategically to help their own side, too bad.

The Democrats crossed over into the Republican primary and pay back is hell.

But you know what? It's a democracy and the voters who crossed over had as much right to cross over as you. That they got to really screw with the Democrats was an added bonus.

Fight On!

"It's a democracy."

Obviously. Taint it as you will.

Just remember, the Democrats are the ones who decided they needed an extra non-democratic measure of security in choosing their nominee through super delegates.

Fight On!

You think any of us actual regular Dem voters like that system in the slightest? Mark my words, that crap won't last much longer. It shouldn't have survived Gary Hart, but I know too many people are too pissed off to let it stand.

It is a fair criticism of how the party works, yes.

It's a more common practice than many may think, especially on local levels. Democrats cross over in Republican primaries & Republicans in democrat primaries. It seems to be a negative for the MSM only when Republicans cross over to the democrat primaries...

being totally hacked off at a bunch of Democratic voters crossed over in MI and threw the state to J-Mac. ALl Rush Limbaugh did was take that old page out of the Democratic Party's quadrennial primary playbook and nationalize it. How's that crossover strategy working out for you guys now?

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Now you can mark mine:

Your hated system will still be there, virtually unchanged, four years from now. If it hasn't pissed you off since Gary Hart, how bad could it be?

Who are you to tell me why I may or may not vote?

Look, chump, the Dems think it's a hate crime to ask for an ID at the polls, so where do you get off telling me I need to supply an "acceptable" reason as well?

As usual, the word "taint" means "not according to my liberal ideology." I'll bet it really burns you up when people vote for reasons you don't agree with. See also, Fairness Doctrine.

The modern liberal is defined as one whose sense of guilt has exceeded his capacity for restitution - making it not only forgivable, but morally superior to raid someone else's larder to pay his bottomless debt.

It is precisely because I DO respect a multiplicty of views in elections that I am appalled at this sort of behavior. I have never lifted a finger to dissuade anyone from voting if that vote was for someone I didn't like or agree with.

"Chump" indeed!

You lose your bet. I've got plenty of Republican friends. I don't spend time in my fortress of solitude lamenting their wayward electoral endeavors. We disagree. We respect one another and we get on with our lives.

"Not according to my liberal ideology" - I believe I condemned the Kos kiddies for their behavior, "chump." The principle is the problem, not the particular application. Vote for whatever reason you like. You'll just have to live with the scorn of a guy on the internet. I'm sure that "really burns you up."

Thanks for the name-calling and the projecting!

I mean if you really hate the country, why not leave and vote somewhere else.

So if your being appalled means you don't like but are not suggesting trying to prohibit it, thats great.

Lots of things are appalling when living in a free country. There just isn't a remedy--we will all be appalled from time to time.

to falsify documentation and swear allegiance to a party in order to intentionally manipulate the outcome of what's actually the voter's opposing party. The intent is not to "exercise their vote to pick the guy they like" but rather an attempt to pick someone that is not electable, prolong the battle of the opposing party, and/or cost the other party money. Just because this illegal practice is near impossible to prosecute and the Dem's are just as guilty, does not justify your statement of "It's a democracy and the voters who crossed over had as much right to cross over as you".

Or is "intent" suddenly enshrined into the Constitution as well?

I'm not sure how you interpret that an "intent" to break the law is a person's given right and consistent with the Constitution.

Seriously, get over it. Folks can vote however they want -- heck, they can write in Superman if they want to -- and the self-righteousness you and Han Pritcher are spouting in this thread is more than laughable when one considers the D party's penchant for (a) registering people with no history of voting and no idea what's going on, busing them to the polls and telling them who to vote for, and (b) trying to round up stoned, ignorant college kids with threats ("Vote or Die") and driving them to the polls because they too can be influenced to vote for "the right guy."

There's little or no difference there at all; it just takes one dumb kid or hippie off the street who stumbled into the polls on his way to the liquor store or was taken there by D party buses to effectively cancel out an informed vote by that person's betters, yet I don't see you screaming to high heaven about that being "against the law."

As long as there is a voting franchise, people will use it as they see fit. Bitching and moaning when someone dares use it differently than you would like is both unseemly and childish.

Besides, that's why y'all have Superdelegates, remember? The people with the franchise aren't smart enough or trustworthy enough to be allowed to actually decide a primary, so their votes are largely symbolic anyway. None of this melodrama matters at all in the big picture -- or it wouldn't, anyway, if your SuperDs weren't such wusses that they didn't dare declare allegiance now, out of fear of letting the mask slip and allowing people to realize that individual votes really don't count in a D primary.

After all, there's so much less room for screaming about Disenfranchisement by the Rs when the world knows that your party doesn't even need to count the votes, because it set up its system specifically to overrule those voters, whatever their intent may have been.

...trying to round up stoned, ignorant college kids...

I am not stoned. Ignorant, maybe, but not stoned. Besides, I thought the problem was that we college kids never actually show up at the polls...because we're all stoned perhaps? But not me, I actually voted.

You're part of a preciously small number.

I don't believe any of the people who crossed over in either party broke any laws.

Not sure if this counts, nor am I taking a side on this matter, but how about this?

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar10/ch1.html

IC 3-10-1-6
Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;
as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6.

Since our political processes involve secret ballots, the relevant portions of the text you quoted are clearly unenforcible without violating other constitutionally protected rights. Therefore those sections of the law are unconstitutional. I didn't follow the link, but usually these sorts of things have the usual cut and paste verbiage at the end stating that if any part of the law is found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the law shall continue in force. Therefore anybody can register with any party they so choose.

I had a similar reaction to you when I first read this little bit of law. Did I vote for a majority of X party's candidates? None of your business! Do I intend on voting for their candidates next time? Uhh...sure...

Hahaha. Don't make me laugh in your face even more!

a) What documentation is being "falsified" if someone is registering for a party, using their own name and address? And isn't your party the one against documentation or ID of any kind in the voting process?

And next time you talk to Obama, ask him how all those dead folks who financially support and vote for him in Chicago are doing. They may not technically, you know, exist, but I bet at least their "documentation" isn't "falsified" -- or you might get angry!

b) "swear allegiance"? You guys are the ones always shrieking to high heaven about you Patriotism being questioned while you protest everything this country does -- yet, while you do that, you talk about swearing allegiance to a "party." That's rich....by the way, how about all those folks who are lifelong Ds who don't vote the way you want? Also violating that Oath of Allegiance? Maybe need to be prosecuted for treason against the Party?

Go back to Mother Russia, Comrade. Here, we actually have things above The Party that matter -- and we don't make up laws as we go because someone dared use the franchise to vote for the person we don't support.

When one changes parties in many states, they sign a document that says they swear an allegiance to that party. Intentional misuse is often even punishable by fine or prison. One example might be if I paid a group of people to change parties to vote for my candidate. The law is quite clear and an orchestrated "Operation Chaos" falls into that same category. Simply because it's nearly impossible to prosecute does not make it legal.

Your comparison of rounding up the stoned and ignorant, selling them on fear mongering, and busing them to the polls differ because it falls within the law(granted, there may be issues of being intoxicated, etc. that vary from state to state and that should be enforced if so). Are you suggesting a certain degree of education should be required? Perhaps a hair drug test? Make eligibility contingent on how often one frequents the liquor store? Even if so, this is not an issue with our present laws. I'm an advocate for the prosecution of registering dead and fictitious voters and if it was as blatantly open as Operation Chaos is, I think you'd see that happening.

Jeff, my comment wasn't meant to strike a nerve or to take a side of one party. It wasn't meant to defend those on the left. My intentions was to say that we as free people, have laws. It's not within one's rights to justify a disregard of the law because of the other sides incompetence or deplorable behavior. If we deviate from the law simply because we're not likely to be prosecuted, what next?

Also, for what it's worth, I've never talked to Obama, I don't shriek to high heaven, and I've never been to Mother Russia.

People who produce and add value to society, and who don't take from the public treasury. Nobody should be able to vote themselves their neighbors' funds.

I'd restrict the crap out of the voting franchise.

of 18, I was still in school, smoking but not inhaling pot, women on my mind, and so on, I owned nothing. I was pretty green, cared less about politics, and was having a good time. I voted but from what I'm hearing, perhaps I shouldn't have been eligible. Later on, I was raising a family, working 16 hours a day, 6 1/2 days a week building my business, and knew nothing at all about politics. I didn't have time and didn't care. I never missed a vote because I felt it was an obligation. Due to my lack of knowledge, I suppose that right should have been revoked. God forbid someone try to sell me on voting for a candidate in my ignorant state.
What I'm wondering is, considering that George W. Bush, from his own admission, spent the majority of his adult life an alcoholic, getting DUIs and such, should have been eligible to vote?

Working 6 days a week building a business makes you a productive member of society. Just because you did not have a clue about who was for what has no bearing.

Now if you lived in public housing, received welfare and voted for John Candidate because he promised you more public largess presents a clear conflict.

I'm with Jeff on the limiting of voting to people who are certain members of society. Certainly not some foolishness like race, gender or DUI convictions but property ownership or long term residence in a rental property, say 3 years. There is no way this would ever be implemented though, it would destroy the Democrat party and bring rise to other national parties, and we can't have that now can we?

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

Have any of the people in Hollywood who have had their bouts with drugs 'n pills had their right to vote summarily revoked? Paris Hilton? Lindsay Lohan? Can Britney Spears still vote?

Does Keifer Sutherland vote? What about his father, Donald Sutherland? How about any of these people?

Does Gary Busey still vote? How about Nick Nolte? What about Gene Wilder? We know Gene Wilder supports Barack Obama, so does he intend to vote? Has he been drug free during the majority of his adult life?

In fact I think if you did a comprehensive analysis of the top 100 celebrities who try to exert political influence in this country, you'd find an awful lot of them have "spent the majority of their adult lives as..." in addition to living in fantasyland.

Does Cher still retain her right to vote? She still supports the troops, so one would hope so.

How many liberal lions have had trouble with alcohol and drugs but still retain their right not just to vote, but to influence the votes of others? I mean, aside from the big ones? Recently Sidney Blumethal plea-bargained himself away from not being able to vote (and not having a license to practice law in D.C.) after his aggravated and reckless drunk driving in New Hampshire. He wasn't only drunk, he was doing more than twice the speed limit in a residential area.

Donald Sutherland may or may not smoke dope in real life: I have no way to know personally. But he played...

...the [of] part Professor Jennings a pot-smoker who also spends his time seducing female students.

And I say it was easily his most honest and true-to-life character in film. It all came so easily to him, like falling off the proverbial log!

This is my JOB!

-- Professor Jennings, reminding students about Milton.

I guess what people really fail to understand is that having a DUI or a drug conviction in Hollywood isn't really thought of as a career-ender, much less cause to prohibit them from voting.

Instead, it's the exact opposite: Having widely-publicized trouble with drugs and alcohol in Hollywood and in Democrat politics is a well-worn route back to "redemption" and a common publicity stunt to revive a failing career!

In fact, it's usually the abstainers in Hollywood -- who never avail themselves of the free publicity that getting arrested for being a drunk/druggie/degenerate but "trying to turn their lives around" -- that are the ones who are missing out on all the fun and the Second Careers.

Some people would call that a drug culture, or at least one that relies on drugs to keep itself going, but it doesn't stop them from having political influence.

They just don't want to be punished too much for it.

I mean, take people like Al Franken. As one of the original (marginal) cast members on SNL, I would be truly shocked and surprised if he didn't partake deeply in the drug-soaked milieu at the show. But that has never stopped him from going to Harvard University and assembling a team of crack research students as a Harvard Fellow to research his books. He's kind of a Harvard Paragon, because he can recapitulate American History in a single sentence and make it sound like you should support him, Al Franken!

Franken's big windup is a riff about meeting with college students, "many of whom were too young to remember a president who was articulate." As the audience whoops, he adds, "They don't remember when America was the most respected country in the world, a country that defeated fascism and communism, rebuilt Europe after the war, sent a man to the moon, mapped the human genome, and had enough juice left over to invent the Internet and rock-and-roll."

And of course the crowd applauds this analysis, coming from a guy whose entire life has been devoted to making a laughingstock of everything it represents, and then body-slamming people who don't agree with him.

[Yes, I realize this is a bit of a threadjack. I apologize to the author of the post on Chris Matthews, but I got started and just had to finish. I'm done.]

...that Al Franken served as the principal investigator of a research group at Harvard studying cocaine.

As you wrote: But that has never stopped him from going to Harvard University and assembling a team of crack research students as a Harvard Fellow to research his books.