Limbaugh's "Project Chaos" is a forseeable result of staggered open primaries, and should not be prosecutable under state or federal law.
HAHAHAOHWOW said 03/28, 11:24 AM
It is certainly arguable that Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton or switching parties to vote for her has helped sustain her campaign, to the detriment of the Democratic Party as a whole. TV pundits and other commentators have labeled it "Criminal" and "Unamerican." Those who have participated in this "project chaos" possibly face criminal prosecution in at least one state for violating "loyalty oaths." I would argue that loyalty oaths are questionable at best under constitutional scrutiny. Any eligible citizen should be allowed to vote for whatever reason they want, but only once on an election day.
The reason Project Chaos is even possible is because of the absence of a unified "closed" primary. Super Tuesday was supposed to serve that purpose. By and large it has with the exception of this election cycle. If this is to be permanently prevented, the entire nation, along with overseas nationals, must participate in a vote either on one day or across a week, tops. If the primary is closed, each party's voters will be more concerned about supporting their own party's candidates and won't switch sides to frustrate the other party.
IamFry said 04/01, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure about being a prosecutable offense, but it's certainly not a "foreseeable result" of staggered open primaries, and the DNC sure has a great civil case on their hands should they choose to pursue it. There is a precedent here:
Rush Limbaugh's fellow Dorito-loving demagogue, Oprah Winfrey made disparaging remarks about beef on her talk show and was sued by the beef industry for 12 million in 1996; Winfrey narrowly escaped a harsh verdict by holding to the claim that she never intended to disrupt the beef industry's livelihood. Limbaugh undoubtedly intended to disrupt the DNC.
A political party may be different from a retail business, but the principle is the same, as they are both institutions protected by the government. I'm not sure if the act was criminal, though it would be in some states, but you can't get much more "un-American" than disrupting our election system.
HAHAHAOHWOW said 04/01, 10:52 AM
I don't see how a case involving the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act is in any way analogous. The Democratic Party, arguably a corporate entity (it isnt a part of government) enjoys basic corporate rights and whatever statutory benefits are granted by the USC.
Open primaries are by definition subject to influence from members of any party, so to say that its not forseeable that republicans can affect the outcome of a democrat primary or vice versa is simply false.
In a system where we allow party changes so close to primary dates, and with primaries spread out over several months its negligent to not see things like "project chaos" as a distinct likelihood in close primaries! If you dont see it you sure as heck ought to see it coming.
I dont like to use the term "Un-American" in debate because it hinges on ad hominem attack. However this is not disruption of an election system. People cross over to vote in other side primaries each cycle. This is just the only instance in recent memory where it is an active campaign. If you want to keep this from happening, have all the primaries/caucuses within a short time span.
IamFry said 04/01, 02:40 PM
You don't like to use the word "Un-American"... but you've yet to fail using it in an argument so far (and now we both have, though I detest the word), but I digress.
I used Oprah vs. the beef people because it's an example of a public figure with an ENTHUSIASTIC fan base, like Limbaugh, possibly suffering severe penalties for persuading said fan base to engage in an activity to the determent of a large, national entity, comparable in size and 'corporate' structure to the DNC. You claim that the situation isn't analogous, but you don't explain why.
Again, Oprah Winfrey got out of paying damages by swearing up and down that she didn't mean to sabotage the beef industry; Limbaugh admittedly MEANT to sabotage.
The legality of Limbaugh's actions are for the state to decide, as every state has different rules, but it's wrong. I don't care that it's happened in the past or that it's been engineered by people from both sides of the aisle, it's still wrong. Is ballot-stuffing ok as long as you don't get caught or indicted? Of course not! We're talking about sabotage.
HAHAHAOHWOW said 04/01, 03:28 PM
The "unamerican" rebuttal is a red herring.
I exactly said why your analogy fails: Oprah Winfrey's statements were actionable under state law (though not in a criminal complaint) - the Plaintiffs cited a state statute for a cause of action, which is based upon the commonly recognized tort of slander. Limbaugh's actions arent actionable in civil court, and by and large aren't in criminal court, (though Ohio requires loyalty oaths of party registrants and that criminal statute was addressed previously). The only similarity they have is that in my opinion, both of them are engaged in constitutionally protected activity (Winfrey by decree of court, limbaugh by 1st amendment and suffrage laws)
You accuse republican crossovers of "ballot stuffing," but that would mean they cast more than one vote - thats a red herring. These are situations where each eligible voter casts one vote, not many! I would certainly agree that if someone is casting more than one vote in a primary election they should be prosecuted! These are legal actions you find morally wrong. You want to fix it? Take my advice and compress the primary process.
IamFry said 04/01, 04:42 PM
I know you want reform, but it's up to each party to decide how to run their respective primaries. It's really no business of anyone besides the Democrats how they run their primary, and the people on E-D are of mixed ideologies, so this isn't even a relevant forum for that.
I didn't accuse anyone of ballot stuffing; I used it as an example.
Engineering a sabotage isn't 'speech', it's 'action'.
I happen to agree that the system should be reformed, but a sloppy system doesn't excuse misrepresenting yourself, and that's what Rush's people did; they lied about who they want to be president. Lying on a ballot may not be ILLEGAL, simply because it's impossible to prove, but it is decidedly IMMORAL, and I believe that if you could somehow KNOW whether someone is lying or not, there WOULD be laws against it, but you can't so there aren't...
Of course, when the participants ADMITTEDLY make a mockery of our democracy by lying on the ballot there are grounds for legal action!
Comments
Add Your Comment
I disagree. There were a lot of conservatives disaffected at the republican primary system and the dearth of palatable candidates. Google republican party switching primaries and see the stories about it. Whether or not they are doing it as a result of limbaugh's "project chaos" may be arguable, but dont think that he has no affect whatsoever. There are hundreds of conservative talk show hosts, most if not all follow limbaugh's lead. he is not the only one coming up with the idea of voting for hillary to prolong the hillary/obama fight. im not saying it is the sole reason hillary is still in it, but to discount completely the role of republican party switching to vote in the primaries is to ignore the obvious.
HAHAHAOHWOW | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shawn, that's ridiculous, whether it "made a difference" or not; he ATTEMPTED to disrupt. You know, attempting to do something malicious is considered just about as bad, if not as bad as succeeding.
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
A rapper talking about murder isn't so bad, I'll give you that, but attempted murder is another story...
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
It doesn't matter what his intentions were, as there could be no law put in place saying you can't switch parties. That would defeat the whole purpose of having the primaries, where the American people can pick which candidate they like best, be it Democrat or Republican. While I agree it's not in the best of tastes to sway the democratic nomination one way, it's still not any different than having the liberal media choose the Republican nominee. I mean how much airtime did Huckabee or Ron Paul get during debates? 3 minutes max. It was all on McCain, the most liberal out of all Republican candidates.
ShawnF | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think Clinton needs to follow Mitt Romney's example and exit the race. I seriously doubt that she will ever be the first female president based on her merits.
yngster | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Limbaugh wasn't urging people to change their beliefs, he was urging them to sabotage a party he doesn't like. Because it's legal to switch parties up until right before a primary (in many states), that doesn't mean it's ok in this case; there are plenty of examples of a perfectly legal act comprising part of an illegal operation.
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
But thats the thing IamFry you cant create a conspiracy by conspiring to commit legal acts! In this case noone is: 1. voting more than once 2. disenfranchising a vote 3. violating state voting laws outside of Ohio's "party loyalty" cards. Your problem with it is that you find it morally wrong. I'm not going to morally defend the actions, but I will say that it should not be made criminal, and it should not be subject to criminal liability under existing laws. The solution to this "problem" is obvious: Run the primaries for one week, or just make a one day "super tuesday" and thats it. everyone votes altogether, people will be more concerned with voting for their own party, project chaos isnt possible.
HAHAHAOHWOW | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's not illegal to lie on official state documents? I agree with you on reform, but a sloppy system doesn't excuse corruption.
IamFry | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
I heard that the Democrats want to pass somthing called the fiarness doctrine because of what Rush did. Go onto Yahoo.com and type in Fairness Doctrine. As conservative, who enjoys whaching and listening those conservative talk shows, I find it outrageous.
yngster | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
I guess this is a new fairness doctrine. I didn't realize that there was another one passsed years ago. http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jan08/?s=al&promo_code=4862-1
yngster | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
This is a tough decision. I've been reading this deabte over and over again trying to decide who to vote for.
yngster | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
the fairness doctrine is another issue. i say vote for whoever you think put forth the best argument. hey if you want ill be devils advocate and you can argue against fairness doctrine?
HAHAHAOHWOW | 04/02/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Come on, Limbaugh's Project Chaos didn't make a bit of difference. It's not the fault of Limbaugh or the Republican party that Hillary wants to stay in the race and divide the Democratic party. Hillary would have stayed in no matter what, she's that stubborn. The Democratic party always looks to blame somebody, that's what they do best, and since Limbaugh is such an effective conservative talk radio host, he's an easy target to blame for the hardships of the Democrats. But prosecuting Limbaugh would be no different than prosecuting the rapper for murder because he talked about killing somebody.
ShawnF | 04/01/08
Report Offensive Comment