Shame on Rush. People should vote for what they believe in and who represents that.

Honestly, it's been a strategy used so many times on both sides I really doubt it has that much of an effect.

I highly doubt Rush had that much of an effect on the results.

On the flip-side, I do believe Hillary and Obama are continuing to split their party the further this tug-o-war goes on, but I have no problem with that.

I agree that it's a strategy that's been used for many, many years. Unfortunately, I think it does have an effect this year because of the high-profile status of this race, on the Democrat side in particular.

Also, as a Texan, I know for a fact that a lot of voters voted Hillary b/c they feel McCain can beat her and can't beat Obama. I've seen polls all over the net that place Obama first, McCain second, Hillary third and Huckabee a distant fourth in terms of who voters want to win or whom they trust the most. So it only makes since that Republican Texas (and we are a Republican state) would use a tactic used for 50+ years, especially when the "all-mighty Rush" calls upon them do so, to ensure a Republican victory. The combination of the number electoral votes as Texas has and the closeness of the presidential campaigns over the past 8 years makes it a no-brainer to 'fight dirty' when possible, and McCain's runaway lead made it possible this time.

make that 'it only makes sense' ...darn homophones!

I think the Republican know they can beat Hillary, but they are unsure about Obama.

So far Clinton's strong points against Obama are experienced, foreign policy, and longevity ---> all from her time as First Lady, so not exactly a proven fighter who knows how to deal with a crisis and know the military like she claims in her commercials.

If she goes against McCain, I think it will be a no contest, everything she is good at he is 100% better, he knows more about foreign policy, about war, and has been in Washington the longest.

The second thing is the fact that McCain is quasi-independent, A LOT OF DEMS WHO DONT LIKE CLINTON WILL NOT THINK TWICE BEFORE VOTING FOR MCCAIN.

Proof of this is seen in how the FL governor (rumored VP for McCain now wants a re-vote b/c he knows it will help Hillary, if they feared her they wouldn't be helping her.

Obama is not a sure thing by all means but he is more dangerous, he won big in a lot of their (REP) states, those who dont like McCain might go for his Hope message, and the states Clinton won are most likely going to go Democrat anyway.

There's my political analysis.

I KNEW IT!!! How vile, but they won't prevail. Didn't help Hillary gain much ground, she's just feeding off the 'wins'. Math is very precise, you can't wish it away. I can't wait to see Obama go up against McCain(he's going to need all the help he can get) and I look forward to Bush will playing a HUGE part in his demise in this election.

We're not going to hear a lot more from Bush in regards to McCain. I believe he made his statement and the party will want him to move on.

I agree McCain against Hillary, McCain has the advantage. As for Obama against McCain, I used to be a little more nervous, but with Nader in the race and the poll that came out today that showed if Obama takes the nom a bunch of Dems would vote for McCain, I'm feeling pretty good. (Not overly confident, but pretty good.)

It's not so much McCain being better than Clinton at anything -- both candidates have their pros and cons, and both candidates have the baggage associated with long careers in national politics.

The leaders of both parties are well aware of the power of the Clinton name -- Republicans are focusing on the reality of her mobilization effect. Should she get the nomination, for every pro-Hillary voter she mobilizes, she'll mobilize two anti-Hillary voters (there's a big difference between an anti-Hillary vote and a pro-McCain vote)

She also needs to be careful about comments referencing the poor Democrats in Florida who had no chance against the Republican controlled legislature moving the primary against their will. The reality is that 1) a Democrat introduced the bill moving the primary date back to January in the Florida legislature, and 2) Sen. Geller of Florida (a Democrat) literally laughed his way through a last minute amendment to keep the Democratic primary later and only move the Republican primary back -- because that's what the DNC said he had to do. There's video footage available online.

Florida also does not have the money to pay for a redo of the primary -- in the first few days of session this week, the Legislature put together over $500 million in proposed budget cuts. If the DNC wants to win FL in the General Election, they need to quit their bickering and put their money where their mouth is.

Oh, and the best thing the Republican party can do if they want to win is have commentators and analysts suggest that Hillary will put Bill on the Supreme Court -- just the suggestion will turn out more conservative right voters than anyone can imagine.

I'm irked at these tactics, naturally, but they are par for the course. And in any case, even with all the "help" she got from the Texas Republicans, Hillary still didn't manage to pull ahead of Obama in overall delegate count. Rush can play as much dirty politics as he likes. I still think Obama will prevail.

I say...Jude C for President! Haha.

I was in line with a republican that voted for obama because he wanted to stick it to a friend he kept urging him to vote for Hillary.
Go figure.
These kind of antics are nothing new.
*yawn*

Only if I get to exile Rush Limbaugh as my first act in office

Geez. sleep deprivation has taken my mind

...because he wanted to stick it to a friend that kept urging him to vote for Hillary.

"Only if I get to exile Rush Limbaugh as my first act in office"

DONE!

This guy's a mean bully, and my mom always taught me to just ignore those people in school. I doubt anyone's going to follow his orders. Of course, I guess they don't call them "dittoheads" for nothing - just follow along blindly without actually using their own heads.

As to the strategy - I find it a bit unethical to vote for someone that you don't support just so that person might get the nomination (be it this bobblehead or daily kos). The purpose of a primary is to get the person that you want to represent you in your party. I'm even torn with the idea of independents voting in the Dem (or Rep) primary. I'm not a member of a party, so I shouldn't be trying to choose that party's candidate. Switching parties just to support someone even if you don't support the party also seems questionable, but at least that's got a more ethical motivation. You want someone because you support that person, not because you don't support the person.

He's a jerk.

"I'm even torn with the idea of independents voting in the Dem (or Rep) primary." - Rem, we're close to seeing eye to eye again, a little scary, but on I go.

Rush has over 20 million listeners a week! There is no way that he wouldn't have an effect. Now, whether its a strong or weak one I'm not sure, but he certainly has avid followers.
I think its a great strategy. And no one can fight it because all parties are guilty of this tactic. Hillary's wins were by no means good news to Obama.
There will be more fighting, accusing, and defaming the Democrats will do...to each other, just another thing John Mccain doesn't have to worry about or do for that matter-and his hands will stay clean as well.
Obama has played his cards, people already know he is hopeful and optomistic, with universal healthcare plans, etc...hes going to have to bring something new to the table. And there is no doubt that Hillary is going to play hardball, so I think we will be seeing a slightly newer Obama in the future of these Democratic Primaries.
Definitely calls for an interesting and fun scenario to watch, atleast for me!

Rash Limbarge is so gross. Go away.

Both my parents are Texas Republicans. They voted for Obama because they despise Hillary. They have no intent on voting for him come Nov.

Minor stuff like national elections and the presidency completely aside, I say, let the carnage continue! I'm quite enjoying it, and I think it will get worse before it gets better.

As for Supreme Court Justice Bill, what's the current status on his law license? Doing a quick check, it look like the five-year suspension was due to end in January 2006, but I don't know if he requested reinstatement to the bar. Besides, I can't imagine that he would want to return to regular work, I'm sure he has enough to keep him busy already.

For Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary, they have to sign something stating that they are in fact crossing over to the Democratic Party and will be voting as a Democrat in the General Election. Naturally there is no way to enforce this but does mean that you can only vote in the opposing primary if you are willing to lie. Lying is not a Republican or a Democratic value. Anyone who does this and feels it is more important that his or her candidate get the presidency than that the election be an honest one should forfeit the privilege of voting.

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting, racist, sexist, person. He is filled with bitter hatred and stands against everything that Americans should be for. I wish the media would stop giving him a platform. And yes I realize I'm a hypocrite for even commenting on him but he just makes me so sick. It breaks my heart that there are people out there who think he's great. America is better than that.

I don't think that the status of Bill's law license really matters. I'm pretty sure that, technically, there are no required qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice (I know that's the case in Florida, and pretty sure the US is the same). Comforting, isn't it? Realistically, legal qualifications (and other issues) are addressed in the Senate confirmation process -- so the make up of the Senate when a seat becomes available may be the best measure of his confirmation chances (should his wife get the nomination and win the election).

Rattenfreund, are you from Texas? Just curious, because I know it's different in different states. Also, like qbert said, I know MANY people who usually vote Republican who switched over and voted for Obama just because they really don't like Hilary. They know McCain has a better chance against Hilary, but would rather see Obama become president than see Hilary become president.

Lilkombo - I am from Ohio, although I studied in Austin TX. I don't think there is any problem with people crossing over - just in people crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries with an intention of voting Republican in general elections (or vice versa).
I am the only liberal in a family of lifelong Republicans but all of them are voting Democrat because they do not recognize their party's core values in the neocon agenda. But they have been registered as Democrats since before the last presidential election.

Oh, I was just curious, rattenfreund, because I'm actually from Ohio, also, and no one had to sign anything at my polling place when they got their primary ballots. They just asked which ballot you wanted.

They are actually supposed to have you sign something to register you as a Democrat. My stepmother's brother had to sign one but from what I understand, they ran out of forms and even ballots in many places. They were handing out Xeroxes of the form at his polling station.

Oh an fellow Ohioan =)

Interesting...I wonder if there was something on the screen where people had to verify or something at my polling place, since they have electronic voting machines.

It isn't on the screen. In Ohio you have to show id and verify that you are on the list for that polling station. As long as you are on the list, they send you right through to the machines. If you are not on the list you get a provisional ballot to prevent you from going to more than one polling station or from voting in a primary if you are registered with the opposing party.

I know that you have to show id, but what does that have to do with which primary you vote in? I just don't see what showing id has to do with switching parties. I have talked to people from other Ohio counties as well, and they just had to say they were switching parties for that election; no one had to sign anything.

You show id because you have to be matched to the list. My nephew and my sister both had to fill out forms - they were uncomfortable with it because the forms were xeroxed. It is very likely that some poll workers did not take the time to do the checking. The poll worker is supposed to check which primary you voted in the last time, however, and challenge the voter if they are switching affiliations. In Ohio, there is not a deadline to switch, however you are supposed to fill out an affidavit (form 10-X or 10-W) as described below. That is done to prevent precisely what did happen - Republicans voting to upset the choice of the Democrats in deciding their own candidate. While it is unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted, a voter who signs a false affidavit can be charged with a 5th degree felony in the State of Ohio

Here is the paragraph from the Ohio Revised Code:

Ohio Revised Code 3513.20 Effect of challenge to voter at primary, states in part:

“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. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets . . . . “
The statute that deals with people falsely voting in a primary who have no intention of voting Democrat in the general election is as follows:

3599.36 Election falsification.

No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.

Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree.

Every paper, card, or other document relating to any election matter that calls for a statement to be made under penalty of election falsification shall be accompanied by the following statement in bold face capital letters: “Whoever commits election falsification is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.”

Interesting...I wonder if the rules are different in Texas and that's why Rush was encouraging people there to change affiliation and not people in Ohio.

I don't know what the rules are in Texas, but in Ohio, Bill Cunningham was urging Republicans to vote for Hillary.

Ultimately, whether it is a felony as in Ohio or not, it us unethical to vote in the opposing primary to try to push your own party forward. There seems to be a prevalent notion that the ends justify the means and that it is more important to get your candidate in office than to allow everyone their equal vote. Attempting to skew the vote by pushing for an opponent you think is easier to beat (or that prolongs an primary race and hence drains the resources of whomever the final candidate will be) is cheating. There are no upstanding "family values" there.

I wasn't arguing that it's not unethical, I was just suggesting different possibilities to spur the discussion. By the way, Democrats did this in large numbers when Clinton was up for re-election, so please don't act like this is something that is exclusive to Republicans.

Finally, most Republicans don't even follow Rush any more. On Citizen a while ago, there was an article that stated that neither Republicans nor Democrats really like Rush all that much.

By the way, something unethical in politics, never!

I never said you argued it wasn't unethical - I expressed my own view. Going into all the details about the legal issues behind changing political affiliation is really beside the point. I presented it in answer to your anecdotal evidence about Ohio polling station practices. My last post brought the discussion back to the actual issue at hand.

I was also very clear in my posts above that it is unethical for either party to pull this kind of stunt. I did not "act like this is something that is exclusive to Republicans." In particular my above post in which I say "... it us unethical to vote in the opposing primary to try to push your own party forward", post 23 where I say "Lying is not a Republican or a Democratic value" and in 27 where I say "I don't think there is any problem with people crossing over - just in people crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries with an intention of voting Republican in general elections (or vice versa)" Please refer to these posts for the complete context.

As for Rush Limbaugh - I am completely uninterested in anyone who follows Rush Limbaugh but am equally non-plussed by anyone who ever followed him, ceding their judgment and the necessity to think for themselves by declaring him- or herself a "ditto-head." I view these people as a small subset of individuals whom I do not believe are representative of either Republicans or Democrats. As I mentioned, I am the only Democrat in a family of Republicans, but not a one of my family members would waste a minute of their time on Rush. They are traditional Republicans, not neo-cons and we see eye to eye on many issues despite widely divergent political affiliation.

I have enjoyed our discussion and look forward to exchanging ideas in future. Please do not look for cloaked personal attack in what I say. We don't have to believe the same things to learn from each other or to share a political discussion. If I did not respect your opinion I would not have taken the time to engage with you.

I wasn't directing that comment at you in any way, just at people in general who makes comments like, "Oh, Republicans are so unethical." And I was simply stating my view, as you did.

Maybe you should heed your own advice and not look for personal attacks in my comments, either. Anyway, I have to return to work, but I also respect your opinion and look forward to exchanging ideas in the future.

Where was the concern,the outrage when Democrats were urged to vote for McCain over Romney. What goes around comes around.

"Where was the concern,the outrage when Democrats were urged to vote for McCain over Romney. What goes around comes around."

"They started it" didn't work as an excuse in the 4th grade. I don't think it should be allowed to serve as a response in the political arena.