Comments on: Reflections on “Operation Chaos”

By: M. Stephen Lamb

M. Stephen Lamb — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:25:45 +0000

The writer rightly points to the Democrat’s “unbelievable concatenation of foolish rules” as being the prime reason for the success of “operation chaos.”

Uh, the Republicans have yet to incorporate these “unbelievable concatenation of foolish rules” into their primary season, so doesn’t this make the Democrats task of “counter-Chaos ops” doubly difficult?

Well, no, actually, because the really “stupid party” remains really stupid to this day. Ergo, I look for the Republicans to embrace these “unbelievable concatenation of foolish rules” long before the next presidential election. Hey, that’s what stupid parties do after all.

I mean, why should the Democrats have all the fun wreckin’ American elections, eh?

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:10:38 +0000

True Operation Chaos will happen in the three month runup to the Dem Concvention in Denver, as a Hillary pledged delegate has now switched to Obama. It should now be open season on pledged delegate, who, as Elaine Kamarck of the Dems’ Rules Committee recently observed at the National Press Club, must pledge to “vote in good faith” on the first ballot, a promise which can be interpreted just about any way. Look for Hillary’s people to lean on women pledged to Barack and Obama’s troops to counter by pressuring Hillary’s Af-Am delegates.

By: Kasey

Kasey — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:51:39 +0000

At this point, I think anything that gets people involved in the process is good. This whole thing might convince some people that their vote really does count. They might even stop to think about issue and candidates.

It’s a stretch, but some might even come to realize that votes for third party candidates aren’t actually ‘wasted’ even if there is that ‘be careful what you wish for’ danger like so many saw with Nader. Consider whether McCain would be talking about carbon emissions if it hadn’t been a decisive factor in a presidential election a few years ago.

In a way, voting has always been strategic. The idea that people want to back a winning horse has always been a factor preventing many from voting their conscience.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:51:15 +0000

Of course, the best way to prevent an increase in such “strategic voting” and “operation chaos”-type voting is to do away with the absurdity of “open primaries”. Limbaugh is merely taking advantage of an absurd system that others designed. It’s asinine to allow people to vote in primaries for parties of which they are not members. Why should a non-party member be able to decide who a party nominates for President? There should be a 30 or 60 day deadline before the primary for switching one’s sparty affiliation, and party primary voting should be limited to people who are registered members of that particular party. Open Primaries are a joke, and make a mockery of the the very notion of parties (leading also to an exaggerated emphasis on candidates’ personality and image at the expense of ideology and political principle). If I lived in an “open primary” state I wouldn’t even consider bothering to vote in a primary. Why waste time participating in a joke?