The Loyalty of the Left
March 25th, 2008
Dan Abrams (and several other like-minded commies) have their undies in a bundle over Rush Limbaugh’s suggestion to his listeners to cross parties and vote Democrat (for Hillary) in the Ohio presidential primary. Not only are they whining about it, they’re also calling for those who followed Rush’s advice –and Rush himself– to be legally prosecuted.
To reiterate Abrams very revealing, Stalinist-infused rhetoric:
ABRAMS: He’s at it again! Rush Limbaugh trying to subvert democracy and inject dirty tricks into the Democratic nomination process. I think it’s un-American to encourage people to vote for a candidate they don’t want to win in order to corrupt the process. But in Ohio it may now also be illegal. The question: did they lie when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party?
Pledging allegiance to their party? Yeah, to hell with pledging allegiance to the United States of America. This is all about the party.
How “democratic” of you, Dan.
I find this whole story very interesting, but not just because of the obvious anti-democratic, communist-style “party before country” garbage that’s being lapped up by the American left (and right, for that matter, but let’s save that for another post…). What’s more baffling to me is that those who share Abram’s justifications for prosecuting legal citizens for voting outside of their usual party in a state presidential primary have at the same time fought tooth and nail against Voter ID legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from voting in any American elections.
This isn’t about Rush Limbaugh or Republicans ‘behaving badly’. This is about the continual double-standard attacks being perpetrated by the left on issues that aren’t important, such as this primary election nonsense. They selectively ignore the issue of true voter fraud when it really counts; when people who are not citizens of this country and who pledge no allegiance to our country (let alone a party, as Dan Abrams wrings his troubled hands over such a thought) are allowed to vote without showing proper identification before doing so.
Loyalty? I know where mine lies, Dan, and it’s to my country. I think you just did a great job of proving to America where yours lies, as well.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Party politics is private business and the states have no business assisting the parties in selecting their candidates. Nor does the criminal system have any business with the process of the parties selecting their candidates. If a party wants to sue someone for a contract violation I say let them, but the state should flatly refuse to criminally persecute anyone for crossing over to vote in any party’s primary.
In fact, I would say participation in selecting a party’s candidate should be limited to paid members of the particular party, i.e. closed caucuses.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I’m not sure that I agree with you on your last comment, Marcus, but I’m going to ponder it for a few days. That’s something I need to think through a little more before commenting on.
My initial reaction is “No friggin’ way”, but again, it’s an idea worth entertaining.
I do, however, believe that no state should prosecute crossing over. To suggest such a thing before passing voter ID legislation is irresponsibility at it’s worst.
On November 1, 2006, the secretary of state (Ohio) issued an order suspending the requirement that voters present photo ID at the polls for the November 2006 election.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I agree that republican and democrat primaries should not be voted on with official ballots. Is the green party or the libertarian primary on an official ballot? why not?
March 27th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“Like minded-commies”? How about politically naive? There’s too many boy and girl scouts playing in party politics today. Crossing over party lines and voting has been going on for a long time.
There’s too much “it’s not fair” and not enough understanidng that getting kneed in the political nuts is part of the primary and general election game.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that Dan Abrams and the other people (including attorneys) on his program are anything resembling “naive”. “Intellectually dishonest” is a better label.
I agree with you that the “it’s not fair” stuff has gotten out of control, but to say that Abrams and his buddies are naive is naive in itself.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
What do you backup your “Stalinist-infused rhetoric” statement with? How does Abrams fall into that category? He seems to be expressing a legitimate view — which I don’t share — on crossing over to vote for the other party in a primary.
You seem to using Michael Levine-infused rhetoric. Perhaps you have an example or two from Stalin that would help to backup you rhetoric…
March 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
*sigh*
Wilber, Wilber, Wilber.
Don’t you know anything about Stalin? For him, loyalty and assimilation to the party was paramount to national loyalty, which is the exact garbage that Abrams is spewing.
If you don’t believe me, look it up.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
That sounds like what Sean Hannity spews. That like the “patriots” attacking Obama for no wearing a flag pin. I’m sure you can find things that Stalin did that Jesus or Ghandi or Mother Theresa did.
Maybe you could provide some actual Stalinist rhetoric that will provide the point you were trying to make.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
As Karl Rove once said: “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
March 29th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Pheisty people,
Here’s the real kicker….
The party complaining that their opponents are trying to Subvert Democracy ????? That’s the party which, about 25 years ago, set up a system of Superdelegates who could reverse the decisions made by the people, should the people be foolish enough to thwart the will of the party bosses and nominate a candidate who was, for instance, Black. Or not insane. Or not a Clinton.
For a while, I was outraged by the Clintons’ insistence on staying in the race.
The longer this goes, the more it hurts the Dems.
Pass the popcorn. This movie’s great ! ! !
March 29th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Wilbur, you have issues. You use circular reasoning and argue like a child.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama wearing or not wearing a flag pin, and you bringing it up in this conversation shows your inability to use simple logic.
Stalin demanded party loyalty above national loyalty. I don’t know how much more I need to say about it to get my point across, because it’s a known fact. Don’t argue with me, argue with history.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
The angst is mostly coming from the Hillary supporters as the Barack camp is pushing for GOP voters to switch over and vote for him (which they’re doing). I don’t really like Rush, but he’s not doing anything wrong here.