So Rush Limbaugh has been getting a lot of column inches in the last couple of weeks for his “operation chaos” plan.
For anybody who isn’t aware of it, Rush has been encouraging Republicans in the recent primary states to vote in the Democratic party primary (re-registering as Democrats where necessary) and to vote for Hilary with the express goal of prolonging the Democratic nominating process and cause Clinton and Obama to keep knocking lumps out of each other and avoid either of them being able to focus on the general election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos
Rush wasn’t the first guy to think about it, as detailed in the above article. A lefty talk show host suggested the same thing in the Republican race. Rush makes a claim that the Dems were doing it in NH and FL but I think that’s unlikely given the turn out in those states and the fact that a Dem race was still on. (though FL was supposedly not going to count for the Dems, while it did for the Repubs)
While I don’t like Rush’s plan, I can see why it might work and if you want to win the election by any and all means fair or foul, why you’d do it. I guess it could be considered “smart”
It was a dumb idea when proposed by the lefty host since there was still a real race going on for the Democratic nomination, though there is a good chance that the host in question was in the bag for one of the candidates and thought by getting people to vote Republican, their choice might squeak the Dem win.
Anyway, I just wondered what people’s thoughts were on a couple of issues.
1. Was it effective?
Rush thinks it was, he basically credits himself and his followers with swinging Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana for Clinton. However there’s a good case that Clinton would have won Ohio and Pennsylvania outright anyway, and for all Rush’s claims of success last Tuesday, we essentially saw the end of the Clinton campaign which is hardly what he was going for.
Obama’s camp are crediting Rush a bit as well, releasing stats that suggest Obama would have won Indiana were it not for Republicans voting for Hilary, though you can’t know if that was because of Rush or not.
His latest chat is to come out and say he now wants Obama to win and wants the super delegates to move to Obama and end the race as he thinks Obama is the easier candidate to beat and has been bloodied sufficiently. While this may be really what he thinks, I can’t help thinking that he saw his plan not working on Tuesday night and that he expects the supers to move to Obama, so by getting out in front of them and asking them to do what he expects them to do anyway, he can make the claim that he is the big puppet master in all of this and claim more relevance than he probably has.
I have no doubt that Obama has been negatively impacted by some of the stuff that has come out in the last couple of months, mainly from the Clinton camp or at least hammered home by them, but I expect she would have lasted this long without Rush’s effort and the exact same scenario would have played out. To put it another way, the Dem race going this long has played into the Republicans hands a bit* but whether Rush is to thank for that or not is debatable.
*You could argue that it has energized Dems more with large amounts of people registering in these late states that otherwise probably wouldn’t have and that could translate into higher turn out in November, we’ll have to wait and see.
2. Was it right?
Dio has made some good arguments on these boards in favour of voting in the other party’s primary. However, as far as I’ve seen, these center around the idea that a vote in your preferred primary would be less effective for one of the following reasons:
1. While you identify with the party, you don’t identify with the candidates, but you may prefer one candidate from the other party, over the rest of their field.
2. The candidate you like for your party has no chance of winning your state primary or at all, and you stand more chance of your vote having an impact if you cross to the other primary and vote for your favorite candidate there
3. Your party’s nominee is already selected and while you may want them to win in November, should they lose you prefer one candidate over the others in the primary of the other party
In each case, the reason for crossing the line is to vote for a candidate you prefer from the other party, and to participate in a meaningful and positive way in the election process.
I can certainly see the value in that and don’t have an issue with people doing this. This would probably apply to Dem voters in Florida who were told that their primary wouldn’t count. Had I been one of them I’d look at the Republican field, realize that I prefer McCain over all the rest of the candidates and if the Republicans win I’d rather he was prez than Romney/Huck etc. and I’d probably go and vote for him.
While practically this is no different from what Rush has proposed, ethically there is a big difference. Is it right to participate in the other primary with the express purpose of sabotaging the other party’s primary process / run at the general election?
For me the answer is a clear no. I’m quite sure there are Republicans in Indiana who prefer the idea of a Clinton presidency over an Obama presidency (and probably some vice versa) and I see nothing wrong with them voting for her for that, but those who voted for her to screw up the process are being assholes IMO.
You have a pretty good memory, as what you say about my arguments for cross-voting is pretty much dead-on. However, I really see no ethical problem with cross-voting simply to harm the other part’s chances. The bottom line is, you get only one vote, and you’re legally and ethically entitled to cast it as you see fit. In voting to disrupt the other party, or to nominate the weaker candidate, you’re still voting for your own preferred candidate to win. If you don’t want any of the candidates and really don’t care who wins, and you’re voting just to try to cause trouble, that’s a bit more questionable. The election of folks to run our country is serious business and shouldn’t be messed with just for the fun of it. But, the bottom line is, I see it as my responsibility to do whatever I reasonably can to see who I think is the best candidate elected. I don’t just consider McCain as the better of three good choices. Actually, I see him as the least bad of three terrible choices. If voting for a weaker candidate or voting to prolong the process in the Democrap party is likely to help McCain win, I actually see it as a responsibility to do just that.
It’s hard to say how effective it is. The race is tight and Hillary has had some wins. But what’s the root cause? It’s very hard to say. There’s a saying in magic, “Take credit for everything.” I think that’s at least partially what Rush is doing. Why not take credit for it? But is he the cause of it? I dunno.
Really, are there significant numbers of Rush listeners going out and voting for Hillary? Can they quantify any of that? It’s very fun to listen to though, from both sides. The “progressives” on talk radio say that Republicans are leaving the party and this is Rush’s attempt to cover that up and explain it away. This implies that maybe some Republicans are cross-voting. The reasons may be in dispute but I’ve heard several liberal hosts say similar things, that Republicans are voting in Dem primaries. They credit it to switching affiliations. Rush says it’s operation chaos.
I don’t have any ethical problem with it. Thems the rules. Can anything within the rules be considered unethical? It’s a strategy to win, no different in my mind from just about any other voting or campaigning strategy that is within the rules and legal.
You have a pretty good memory, as what you say about my arguments for cross-voting is pretty much dead-on. However, I really see no ethical problem with cross-voting simply to harm the other part’s chances. The bottom line is, you get only one vote, and you’re legally and ethically entitled to cast it as you see fit. In voting to disrupt the other party, or to nominate the weaker candidate, you’re still voting for your own preferred candidate to win. If you don’t want any of the candidates and really don’t care who wins, and you’re voting just to try to cause trouble, that’s a bit more questionable. The election of folks to run our country is serious business and shouldn’t be messed with just for the fun of it. But, the bottom line is, I see it as my responsibility to do whatever I reasonably can to see who I think is the best candidate elected. I don’t just consider McCain as the better of three good choices. Actually, I see him as the least bad of three terrible choices. If voting for a weaker candidate or voting to prolong the process in the Democrap party is likely to help McCain win, I actually see it as a responsibility to do just that.
I see a difference between voting for a Hil because you don’t want Obama to win, and voting for Hil because you want to draw the race out.
In the first case, you are using your vote to help a candidate in that primary, Hil might not be your choice but she’s the lesser of two evils and if the Dems win you’d like her better than Obama say. The purpose is a positive one.
In the second case, the purpose is malicious. While the net effect might help the Republican candidate, the act is a malicious attempt to subvert the democratic process for the other party. It’s a case where in my mind, morally the ends do not justify the means.
I guess the difference to me is that if you’re voting for a candidate it’s good, if you’re voting for a purpose (i.e. if Clinton had swung back into the lead on Tuesday, Rush would be telling people to vote Obama, it’s not about the candidate) then you’re on shaky ground.
Voting in the Dem race for the candidate you think would be easiest to beat is one thing, voting to try and avoid there being a candidate any time soon is another.
Rush has said his goal was to cause chaos at the convention and hopefully it would result in riots on the streets (I don’t know how serious he was being on that part), that’s where I think he’s out to cause trouble.
Let us try to remember that this is a PRIMARY! The guvment doesn’t care which candidate you put up for whatever party, or how you go about it (ie: caucus or vote). The general election is the only election that really counts. Each party has a right to decide how they choose their candidate. It’s not the same as a city council (non-party vote) primary. The Dems are just pissed that Rush is dippin’ in their party. There is nothing illegal about it. If they don’t like it, they can change their nomination process.
A lefty talk show host suggested the same thing in the Republican race.
Democrats have been doing it for years. I asked around (in California) why so many republican statewide candidates were such morons and dufuses and the answer was the democrats vote in our primary and select them… so we have stupid candidates who can’t win.
Sooo, turn about is fair play. But if anyone wants to change to the rules to prevent this kind of thing in the future, I’m good with that too (as in general I’m against it)… as long as the rule is applied both ways…
Let us try to remember that this is a PRIMARY! The guvment doesn’t care which candidate you put up for whatever party, or how you go about it (ie: caucus or vote). The general election is the only election that really counts. Each party has a right to decide how they choose their candidate. It’s not the same as a city council (non-party vote) primary. The Dems are just pissed that Rush is dippin’ in their party. There is nothing illegal about it. If they don’t like it, they can change their nomination process.
Yeah, I understand that, I’ve no legal oposition to this, and as LD says it is all within the rules.
I think it’s true with pretty much any kind of non-government vote, if people join a group for the specific purpose of participating in a vote in order that the outcome of that vote is inconclusive, I think it’s kind of a dick move.
sl0re, I’m with you, I don’t care which party is behind it, it’s a dick move either way. Not sure how there would be rules to stop it.
EDIT: I guess if I give it some thought I might get an obvious answer, like making people register to vote before the first primary happens (so as not to really know if you’re party will have a nominee by the time it gets to your state) that would of course come with it’s own heap of problems, and it wouldn’t really fix what you’re talking about in California though.
In France, they have an interesting system for electing their President. Each party nominates someone (convention style, no primary) to represent them in the race. The first round of elections everyone is running, then they take the top two vote getters, and they run for POTROF.
Rush has said his goal was to cause chaos at the convention and hopefully it would result in riots on the streets (I don’t know how serious he was being on that part), that’s where I think he’s out to cause trouble.
A little history lesson and also a lesson on context (i.e, what Rush is actually talking about and not what the pundits want you to believe) :
The 1968 Democratic National Convention of the U.S. Democratic Party was held at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois, from August 26 to August 29, 1968, for the purpose of choosing the Democratic nominee for the 1968 U.S. presidential election.
1968 already had been a tumultuous year for the United States, with the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. in April and Robert F. Kennedy (then a U.S. senator from New York) in June during his campaign for the Democratic nomination, and widespread protests against the Vietnam War. The convention achieved notoriety because of rioting between protesters and police, and the generally chaotic atmosphere of the event. The turmoil was widely publicized by the mass media on-hand for the convention, resulting in a nationwide debate about the convention and leading to a flood of articles and books about the event.
The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year because of the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election (announced March 31), and Robert Kennedy’s assassination (June 6). On one side, Eugene McCarthy, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, from Minnesota, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson’s, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.
The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.
Rush is just referencing Chi-town ‘68 because it’s come full circle, in some ways. Read the part I put into bold. That’s exactly what’s behind the hullabaloo in ‘08. Forty years gone and they’re in just as much CHAOS as they were all those years ago. Rush is just pointing out some historical symmetry, and if you know the outcome of ‘68 it can only make one wonder about the outcome for this year. There’s nothing malicious about it at all, and if there was it doesn’t matter. Politics has always been malicious and will always be…
I heard a democrat insider on NPR the other night that gave Rush credit for helping to keep Obama from winning Indiana, if that’s worth anything considering the success of CHAOS. I think it’s a good thing, actually, as it truly brings out the ruthlessness of Billary Clinton, when she’s not telling people that she’s the better candidate because whitey will vote for her more than they will for Chance Obama. Rush says that the purpose of Operation Chaos is to bloody up whichever democrat will be their candidate, and it’s definitly helped in doing that.
1. Did it work? Don’t know. You Americans would have your finger on that pulse a little better than me. But Rush does seem to be rather self-important. He is the most important issue he discusses. He’d love to embellish his own role in history. It’s the same with Sean Hannity. I use to watch him a bit, but I got sick of him talking about Fox News all the time. At least Bill O’Reilly is funny.
2. Is it right/wrong I agree with Frenchy, it’s the Democrats race, if the thing collapses into chaos they only have themselves to blame, they set the rules. I wasn’t particularly familiar with the various primary processes until this year. It seems to me that the Democrats have the same conflict between idealism and pragmatism with regard to selection that they do with policy. It’s like they’ve gone in search of some perfect, ideal process to make sure everyone is “represented” and ended up with some wild delegate jungle that no one can find their way out of.
I think that’s part of his act… he plays up being sort of bombastic… but it seems ironic / sort of a joke…
He’s definitely an entertainer… and that is not a Moore like thing to say he shouldn’t be blamed for saying things that are wrong… just that he has a public persona with an act… and a big chunck is to play up being self important.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, I don’t see much of another vast right wing conspiracy going on as folks over at, say, the Democratic Underground are just doing their own business as usual - slander and revisionism.
I recall a time when twas Xtian cowboy Reagan worse than Hitler. A mere C-list actor (and a bad one at that) who tried to start his personal nuclear war across Europe just to destroy the Commies, and also to quell the burgeoning Green movement.
Navy and Woodstock vet Country Joe once fittingly dedicated his song “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-To-Die-Rag”
to then-governor of California “Ronald Raygun” which became a popular request on the radio after Reagan was elected.
After 8 years of living in abject, crippling terror of nuclear holocaust (the Euro economy suffered) , and enduring countless scandals like the sordid Iran-contra affair (which we suffer from to this day), my pummeled, bloodied Euros were saved when Reagan, at the end of this rule, came to visit and quipped: “Gorbachev tear down this wall” and Gorbi actually called his bluff!
Reagan was dubbed the Great Communicator, but the true credit went to Gorbi as A-list actor/singer/drinker David “Night Rider” Hasselhoff (drinker of German descent) sang his anthem “I’ve Been Looking Looking for Freedom” to the millions of Euros milling around and perched atop the open Berlin Wall.
In the 1988 presidential campaign, the Republican candidate, Vice President George Bush, was said to have the best resume in Washington. Bush won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War II, made a fortune in the Texas oil business, and then, went to Washington where he served as a Congressman, ambassador to the United Nations, envoy to China, and director of the CIA. His Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, was a serious, hardworking son of Greek immigrants.
Unfortunately also about as exciting as a chunk of Styrofoam painted flat grey.
Mudslinging and personal invective are nothing new in American politics, but the 1988 campaign was unusually vacuous and cynical. Real differences between the candidates were submerged in a battle over character, abortion, prison furloughs, school prayer, and patriotism. The campaign dramatized a development that had been reshaping American politics since the late 1960s: the growing power of media consultants and pollsters, who marketed candidates by emphasizing imagery and symbolism. At the end of a race that saw both candidates use negative campaigning, Bush was elected the 41st president of the United States with 56 percent of the popular vote.
In his inaugural address, Bush signaled a departure from the avarice and greed of the Reagan era by calling for a “new engagement in the lives of others.” He promised to be more of a “hands on” administrator than his predecessor, and he committed his presidency to creating a “kinder, gentler” nation, more sensitive and caring to the poor and disadvantaged.
During his first years in office, President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress addressed many issues ignored during the Reagan years. For the first time in eight years, the minimum wage was raised from $3.35 to $4.25 an hour. Congress amended federal air pollution laws in order to reduce noxious emissions and acid rain. For the first time since 1971, Congress considered child-care legislation, and ultimately, voted to provide subsidies to low-income families to defray the costs of childcare. In other actions, Congress prohibited job discrimination against the disabled, required nutrition labeling on processed foods, and expanded immigration into the United States.
In two areas, critics accused President Bush of reneging on his promise of a “kinder, gentler” nation. He vetoed a new civil rights bill bolstering protections for minorities and women against job discrimination on the grounds that it would lead to quotas. Bush also vetoed a bill that would have provided up to six months of unpaid family leave for workers with newly born or adopted children or for emergencies. In November 1991, however, Bush signed a compromise, the Civil Rights Act, which made it easier for workers to win anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Many Americans believed that the end of the Cold War would bring a huge peace dividend, which could be used to reduce the federal budget deficit and fund domestic social programs. Soon after Bush took office, however, Americans learned that much of the peace dividend would have to be spent to clean up nuclear wastes produced at federal facilities and to bail out the nation’s troubled savings and loan industry.
The roots of the savings and loan crisis were planted during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. High inflation and high interest rates threatened to bankrupt those savings institutions that could not compete with other financial institutions permitted to pay high interest rates.
The savings and loan industry’s problems began in the mid-1980s. Falling oil prices led to a collapse of land values, especially in the Southwest, creating huge losses for institutions that had invested in real estate. By the end of the decade, these institutions began to fail in large numbers. The mounting bills for the savings and loan bailout propelled President Bush in 1990 to violate his 1988 “no new taxes” campaign pledge.
This all sounds vaguely familiar?
lower oil prices = lower land values
higher oil prices = lower land values
2. Is it right/wrong I agree with Frenchy, it’s the Democrats race, if the thing collapses into chaos they only have themselves to blame, they set the rules. I wasn’t particularly familiar with the various primary processes until this year. It seems to me that the Democrats have the same conflict between idealism and pragmatism with regard to selection that they do with policy. It’s like they’ve gone in search of some perfect, ideal process to make sure everyone is “represented” and ended up with some wild delegate jungle that no one can find their way out of.
I certainly agree that the Dems have a crazy fucked up system. I also didn’t really know much about it until this year.
I’m still having trouble with squaring the idea that they are the Democratci party yet the candidate is being picked by super delegates.
I did some quick math the other day and if I remember right, Minnesota has just over 60 delegates, we also have 16 super delegates from Minnesota. I got a population figure from wiki and basically worked out that each super delegate vote from my state is equal to about 700,000 regular votes.
WTF?
(I don’t think that super delegates are handed out specifically on the size of a state are they? Still, the point I’m making is that it actually seems quite undemocratic to me to say that my vote, if I had one, was worth 1/700,000 of Amy Klobashars.)
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated George Bush and Texas businessman Ross Perot to become the first Democratic president in 12 years. The campaign was a bitter, three-way contest marked by intense assaults on the candidates’ records and character.
President George Bush, whose popularity had soared to 90 percent after the Persian Gulf War, only received 38 percent of the vote--largely as a result of a stagnating economy.
He looked like a piece of gray Styrofoam next to the charismatic aw-shucks Clinton.
But two of his proposals alienated many voters. In the face of vocal opposition, President Clinton backed away from a promise to let gays serve in the military and instead instituted a compromise policy of “don’t-ask, don’t-tell.” This policy satisfied no one.
In the mid-term elections of 1994, Republicans won control of both houses of Congress.
Public support for President Clinton rebounded, however, after the Congressional Republicans temporarily shut down the federal government in an effort to force budget cuts and tax reductions. Public support further deepened after anti-government extremists blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people--including 19 children--and injuring 624
The low-point in Clinton’s presidency began when he was accused of encouraging a 24-year-old White House intern to lie to lawyers in a sexual harassment lawsuit about whether she had an affair with the president. For seven months, the president denied that he had an inappropriate relationship with the intern, but ultimately, acknowledged the relationship and admitted that he had misled the American people about it.
While a majority of the American people told pollsters that they did not approve of President Clinton’s behavior, they continued to support his policies, in part, because of his success in handling the economy.
If any of the bolded items above sound in any way new to you, you must young, or, perhaps encouraged by your “friends”, too busy writing your own smears and revisions.
Suddenly nobody wants these hob-nobbing Clinton yokels back in office. Sure, they offered comic relief, entertainment and boosted the economy after the first Bush. But now they’re tainted. Redneck bubbas from the sticks.
These are Different Times. Sure.
Assume there is a divide-and-conquer agenda underway to ensure Obama’s election. Assume its a gamble perpetrated by right-wing whites who want Obama in office because he can’t possibly deliver on all the expectations, nay, demands black people will want him to meet. Mired down by his attempts to please all and having to say “no” too often, he will soon be rendered ineffective as a leader, a sitting duck. A piece of brown Styrofoam.
America is not ready for a black president. Which is why we should all vote for Hillary.
1. Did it work? Don’t know. You Americans would have your finger on that pulse a little better than me. But Rush does seem to be rather self-important. He is the most important issue he discusses. He’d love to embellish his own role in history. It’s the same with Sean Hannity. I use to watch him a bit, but I got sick of him talking about Fox News all the time. At least Bill O’Reilly is funny.
2. Is it right/wrong I agree with Frenchy, it’s the Democrats race, if the thing collapses into chaos they only have themselves to blame, they set the rules. I wasn’t particularly familiar with the various primary processes until this year. It seems to me that the Democrats have the same conflict between idealism and pragmatism with regard to selection that they do with policy. It’s like they’ve gone in search of some perfect, ideal process to make sure everyone is “represented” and ended up with some wild delegate jungle that no one can find their way out of.
It’s like slOre stated, it’s all part of Rush’s act. He’s an entertainer and casual, drive-by listeners and uptight liberals don’t get it because they don’t give him enough time to pick up on his “rhythm”, as it were. But, as I pointed out in my previous post, he’s a pretty decent historian and uses it to his benefit. He’s, as they say, crazy as a fox when it comes to entertaining people.
On to part 2. The dems aren’t torn between idealism and pragmatism, the leaders, anyway. They just had to figure out a way for them to nominate the candidate that they want, not what the peoples want. They’re much more enlightened than the peoples and know better what the peoples need than what the peoples do. Seriously…
I was ticked when I heard Democrats were crossing to vote for McCain early in the election. It’s certainly something I wouldn’t do. But I wouldn’t call it unethical, illegal, etc. I’d just call them pricks for doing it. A primary is about choosing the candidate that the party wants.
And I doubt if Rush had little if any effect, he’s a blowhard.
So Rush Limbaugh has been getting a lot of column inches in the last couple of weeks for his “operation chaos” plan.
For anybody who isn’t aware of it, Rush has been encouraging Republicans in the recent primary states to vote in the Democratic party primary (re-registering as Democrats where necessary) and to vote for Hilary with the express goal of prolonging the Democratic nominating process and cause Clinton and Obama to keep knocking lumps out of each other and avoid either of them being able to focus on the general election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos
There’s a very important point to all of this that is missed by all who have a predisposition to poo-poo what Rush Limbaugh says/does/thinks, and the bolded parts above are two glaring examples of what’s being missed by many. First, it’s the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party, and Operation Chaos exposes in vivid detail why there’s nothing democratic about the Democrat Party. A cabal of elitist party hacks will elect a nominee, and the millions of votes by every-day Democrats are 100% meaningless in a race this close with so many singularly liberal issues on the line. At this point, the primary/caucus system is irrelevant. No matter who has the most popular votes or pledged delegate votes (and it’s likely that neither candidate will be able to lay claim to both), it’s the Super Delegates who make the decision. How anyone can refer to the party or the process as “democratic” in light of that fact is baffling. That’s one goal of Operation Chaos, to expose the dictatorial and elitist ruling class that controls the Democrat Party, with literally no rules that mandate the foot-soldiers’ votes count for anything at all. Without Rush and Operation Chaos, the vast majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike, would have no understanding of the wholly unamerican system the Dems have set up for themselves.
As far as Rush causing or being the impetus for riots in Denver, puhleeeaaase. He has done nothing more than report what many well-known liberal people and organizations are saying and threatening. From Al Sharpton to Roseanne Barr to “activist” websites such as Re-Create ‘68, liberals are threatening to shut down the Democrat National Convention if Obama is denied the nomination. But guess what? Obama cannot win now. It is because of Operation Chaos that Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are household names, and Obama is forever saddled with them. He can’t shake his relationship of 20 years with Wright by simply saying “I denounce him now that it’s affecting my ability to attract the patriot vote” no matter what race those patriots happen to be. Same with his long-standing relationship with a known, self-admitted, unapologetic terrorist, William Ayers. These relationships would’ve been publicly known without Operation Chaos, but what good would it have done if Hillary had been beaten in Ohio and Texas? That would’ve been the end of her campaign, at least as a viable, winnable one, and McCain has vowed not to criticize Obama in any way, really not even on policy issues. He just expresses his disagreement and won’t go to battle, so who better to go to battle in his stead but the other leading Democrat candidate? That’s the main goal of Operation Chaos, to have Democrats do to each other that which McCain and the Republican Party refuse to. McCain isn’t doing it. The Republican Party isn’t doing it. Hell, Rush isn’t even doing it. They’re doing it to each other and Rush is simply reporting on the carnage, while doing his part to keep the two combatants “competitive,” not for votes by The People, but for votes by Super Delegates! The irony is just delicious!
So to summarize, liberals are threatening to make ‘68 look like a leisurely walk in the park if the Supers don’t go for Obama. But the Supers are all career politicians who have two competing issues to deal with; they know Obama can’t win in November, but they know that their jobs are at risk if they go against their uber left-wing base of voters by nominating Billary on the minuscule chance that she can overcome half the country already hating her! Operation Chaos didn’t create these delicious ironies, it just provided a way for conservatives to participate in a process which has basically shut us out with the win for the McCain nomination, and a way to highlight to all Americans how un-democratic the Democrat Party really is. At the same time, liberals’ claimed championing of women and minorities is being exposed for the scam it is.
It’s true to say that Operation Chaos is great entertainment, but anyone who thinks that’s all it is has lost touch with any semblance of reality. 22 million listeners per week and growing makes Rush Limbaugh as influential as any mainstream media-wonk, which is precisely why so many in the media are trying to pass Operation Chaos off as nothing more than amusing entertainment. Don’t fall for it.
