About Us

Name: Ed Lilly
Biography
Name: Disgruntled in NY
Email: disgruntled.blogger1@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Another reason not to trust the mainstream media?

With the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, there has been a lot of discussion from the mainstream media and their friends in the Democrat party about whether she has enough experience for the job of vice president.  Mrs. Palin has apparently been a city council member, mayor, and now governor of a state with a budget of something like $11-12 billion dollars and about 15,000 employees.

Regardless how you come out on whether she is qualified to be vice president, or ultimately president should that eventuality arise, you should take any concerns voiced by the mainstream media about the importance of succession planning with a grain of salt about the size of Rhode Island.

After all, when Tim Russert died unexpectedly, NBC had a slew of well qualified people ready to step in an make sure Meet the Press and their national election coverage would be taken over by the next generation of experienced, qualified journalists, right?

Um, not so much.  They wound up behaving exactly like their buddies in the Democrat party, dragging marble-mouthed Tom Brokaw out of quasi-retirement and thrusting him back into news coverage.

If the libs can't even manage to figure out how to come up with the next person most able to read a teleprompter and draw on a whiteboard, how much credibility do they have when worrying about anyone else's ability to pick qualified successors?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I don't remember everyone criticizing Geena Davis when she took over as President...

I never saw the show a couple of years ago where Geena Davis played the first woman to be President of the United States.  My understanding is that the setup was that she was selected to be the running mate by a guy who hated her, but believed he needed her to win.   Good luck for him - he wins the presidency!  Bad luck for him - he dies!  So Geena moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I remember reading posts and articles by commentators at the time that the show was just a Hollywood tribute to Hillary Clinton that was designed to get everyone used to the idea of a woman president for Mrs. Clinton's impending and unstoppable election.  Then the show tanked and was canceled, and Mrs. Clinton failed to make it out of her party's presidential primaries.  Life imitates art!

But I don't remember anyone, from the political right or left, getting upset with the premise of the show based on Davis's character already having responsibility for her young child, so that she should never have run for the vice presidency, much less accepted elevation to the presidency.

I guess life can only imitate art so far.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Finding silver linings whenever possible

I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the Townhall radio broadcasters such as Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt during the GOP convention.  A lot of the talk the past two days has been on the treatment Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has received at the hands of the Democrats and their friends in the media.  Dennis Prager played some comments made by Sally Quinn, apparently a columnist with the Washington Post.  Prager and many of his listeners were rightly and understandably very upset at the questions asked by Quinn in relation to Governor Palin and her decision to seek the vice presidency even though she happens to have several small children and a teenage daughter who is now expecting a child.

But in listening to the clip, the part that stood out to me was Ms. Quinn's matter-of-fact statement along the lines of, "look, we all know men and women are different."  Really?!  Liberals have known all along, and still know, that men and women are different?  Someone better get that printed in 50 point font and make sure the faculty at Harvard are apprised so they can get to work on apologizing to former Harvard President Larry Summers, and bringing him back.

Another aspect of the discussion of the media's treatment of Governor Palin involved an editorial, I think, whose theme was that "Average isn't good enough" in picking a vice president.  Apparently we need someone who is outstanding and exceptional to fill such a position.

After having had the message beaten into me over the past 15 years that we should not let children's athletic teams keep score so no one's feelings get hurt, that every team and team member in children's sports leagues get trophies so they can all be winners, and that having valedictorians, salutatorians, etc., is wrong, I found it refreshing to see that the liberals have finally gotten on board with the notion that some people do in fact achieve more than others in some areas.

Liberals still have a long way to go in overcoming their belief in government as the solution to all life's problems, but perhaps we're making progress somehow.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The return of the Fairness Doctrine? Let's try it this way....

I have a small proposal.  Seems there is a concern that a Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House will work together to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine, which would mandate equal time for political talk radio stations.  It was the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine during Reagan's presidency that led to the rise and success of radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and many others.  Democrats have not been happy with the fact that quite a few conservative talk radio shows have been very successful, and influential, while very few liberal talk radio shows can make the same claim.  So the Dems are promising to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine in hopes of taking Limbaugh, Hannity and others off the air.

Mike Pence, fighting the good fight and making Hoosiers proud, is trying to get legislation passed that would act as a permanent ban on the Fairness Doctrine.  Despite having, I believe, all of the GOP House members on board, as well as apparently quite a few Democrats, Speaker Pelosi is refusing to allow Pence's proposal to come up fo a vote.  Hardly a surprise.

So my suggestion to Pence would be as follows:  create an amendment to the Fairness Doctrine the Democrats want to re-enact that would broaden the scope.  Atttach it to every piece of legislation and/or item that comes up for discussion and/or vote in Congress.  Make it apply not only to radio, but to television, newspapers, magazines, and, most importantly, federally elected officials.  So any time a member of Congress runs a campaign ad, or sends out mail to constituents, or schedules a townhall meeting with constituents, equal time has to be given to "the other side" of whatever issue(s) are raised.  Make the congress critters have to pay not only for their own message(s), but the contra message from opponents if the other side doesn't have enough money.  After all, that would be REAL fairness, right?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Barack Obama more popular than high school basketball in Indiana?

Senator Barack Obama will be campaigning in my hometown today.  Actually, there's probably a little bit of a dispute on that point, as he will be appearing at Concord High School's gymnasium, which I think is technically not located in the City of Elkhart.  The Concord school system is separate from the Elkhart school system, and I don't think all of the land in the Concord area has been annexed into the city.  In any event, the news stories are indicating that Sen. Obama is in Elkhart, so we'll all go along with that characterization for now.

As for the appearance itself, Sen. Obama will be at McCuen Gymnasium.  In talking to my father, I understand the gym hold about 1,000 people.  This would be a nice little rally in a town of about 45,000.

But Sen. Obama could have had a rally in an even bigger venue in Elkhart.  North Side Gym holds approximately 7,000 people.  This gym was built in 1954 and I believe it was one of the largest gyms in the state for high school basketball for a long time.  The gym is actually located at one of the junior high schools (now called middle schools) in town, and both of the Elkhart high schools play their home basketball games there.  As a young kid in the 1970s, I remember going to games on Friday and Saturday nights and the gym would be full.  For sectional and regional games when the state basketball tourney started, the gym would be overflowing, and I can remember sitting in cramped corner bleachers in the upper level for many games, feeling like the whole gym would collapse under the stomping feet of the crowd.

Things have changed over the years with high school hoops in Indiana.  It's now been over 10 years since a single team was crowned THE state champs at the end of the tournament.  Now there are four class champions, depending on the size of the schools.  There will never be another Milan Miracle, upon which the movie "Hoosiers" was loosely based.

And the crowds at Elkhart high school games are not what they used to be.  I went to some of the games when I still lived in town after law school.  North Side Gym was nowhere near full.  A lot of the bleachers in the upper level weren't even rolled out for use.

I'm a little surprised that Sen. Obama apparently could not muster enough excitement in his campaign appearance to at least match the crowds at North Side Gym that I remember.  I'm sure his campaign staff would not want to have him speak in a quarter full gym in a small town in Indiana.  It wouldn't make for very good pictures.  So the smaller venue at the newer school out in the suburbs will probably be just fine.  It will be full with a cheering crowd, like it was when Sean Kemp played for Concord almost 20 years ago.  I wonder if Kemp's name will come up in today's events?  He's probably the most famous athlete to have attended the Concord schools.  If someone on the campaign staff did their homework, it may not be a bad reference to make, at least to try to connect with local celebrity and former glory.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can anyone reconcile these two bumper stickers?

Here in New Jersey, I typically see a lot of Obama lawn signs and bumper stickers.  But in the Target parking lot this morning, I was actually stopped in my tracks by the two bumper stickers on the car parked across the aisle from mine.  The bumper sticker on the right hand side of the car was a standard Obama '08 model.  But on the left was a bumper sticker that read:

Work Harder!
Millions on Welfare are
Depending on You!

I still have no clue how these two bumper stickers go together on the same car.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How is the media playing the conviction of Obama's BFF Tony Rezko?

While the big news out of Chicago is still the Cubs and their performance to this point in the season, there has also been a verdict announced in the trial of political fundraiser Tony Rezko.  Rezko sounds like a pretty typical political operative, in that he has been found guilty of fraud, money laundering and a host of other charges.  What makes Rezko noteworthy for most people is his very close connection with Sen. Barack Obama, as well as current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

This may be a big deal in early June, but my guess is that by Labor Day and the real start of the presidential campaign, this will all be forgotten by those who intend to drink deeply from the Kool-Aid and pull a lever for Sen. Obama.

Still, I was curious how the various media outlets would promote the story, if at all, in their online coverage of this breaking news.  What peaked my curiosity was the link at Refdesk.com, which noted simply in its "In the News" headlines:


Political fundraiser convicted in corruption trial - Jun 04 9:09 PM US/Eastern

Pretty bland stuff.  Why in the world would anyone even have an interest in reading the story on some anonymous political fundraiser?  Oh, you mean he has close personal and political ties to the now apparent Democrat presidential candidate?  Huh.  What a shock that somehow that angle didn't show up in the link to drive a little more traffic.  That's what the tubes of the internets are all about, right?  Driving traffic and getting clicks and eyeballs?  I guess when you only have 10 "In the News" items listed, there's no need to make all of them attention grabbers.

So how did other news/media outlets do in providing headlines or links?  Let's take a quick tour, moving alphabetically through the online news outlet sites linked at Refdesk.  First, here's ABC News:


Fixer With Obama Ties Found Guilty

Ok, they at least noticed the connection to Obama.  How about CBS News?

Bupkis.  Nothing on their homepage, under the breaking news at the top of the page, or further down in their links to stories on politics.  But of course, in true keeping with the traditions of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather in providing the world with all the (mis)information it can, CBS did manage to link to the breaking story that Chicago made the short list of possible hosts for the 2016 Olympics.  Well done.


CNN?

Developer linked to Obama guilty in fraud case

Pretty similar to ABC.  Good for them.

How about Fox News?


Rezko Convicted on 16 Counts in Corruption Trial

So no mention of Sen. Obama and his ties to the story from the famously biased, right wing zealots of Rupert Murdoch's empire.  I suppose the counter to that would be that "everyone" who goes to Fox News' website or watches Fox News has been trained to know who Rezko is, so it's superfluous to mention Sen. Obama.  Whatever.

NBC?  Actually, this is from the MSNBC site, as that's apparently the online presence for NBC News:


Fundraiser Rezko found guilty in corruption case
And this was provided under a banner on Sen. Obama, so that gets some credit.  Though detracting from full points is the fact that the Obama banner under which the tiny Rezko link is located makes sure to highlight the Obama campaign's latest talking point:

Obama: GOP will attack on patriotism

So the "big" news for MSNBC is the charge of upcoming nefarious tactics by the Republicans, while actual criminal wrongdoing involving Sen. Obama's close friend, financier, mentor and next door neighbor gets buried further down.  But at least they reported the story, unlike CBS.

Moving to other media outlets, how about PBS?

Again, nothing.  Plenty of stories on the groundbreaking historical achievement of Sen. Obama "claiming" the nomination.   But no time to notice the unpleasantness from the Chicago courtrooms.

NPR?  Also nothing.


Let's check out Reuters.  Never been to their site before.  Here we go:


One-time Obama fundraiser guilty in corruption trial

Clever.  Makes it look a little like it's some fundraiser who, at one time, raised some money for Sen. Obama.  That's a little like describing Rev. Wright as a minister who, one time, spoke at Sen. Obama's church.

So kind of a mixed bag overall, but something tells me that when news broke involving Jack Abramoff, who had ties to various Republican politicans, all these news outlets who have ignored the Rezko verdict were trumpeting the Abramoff story, and his ties to Republicans, every chance they got.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So who joined Trinity United Church first? And will it matter?

The big news from last night appears to be Sen. Obama's decision to leave his radical Chicago church.  Moreover, the news reports indicate that both Sen. Obama and his wife are leaving the controversial church.

I have been unable to find the answer online, but I am mildly curious whether Sen. Obama or his wife joined their church first.  I thought I had read something a while back that indicated Mrs. Obama was either the first of the couple to join the church, or it could have been that she was the prime reason they stayed in that particular church.

My interest in this question was prompted by several comments I have seen on the web about how Sen. Obama's willingness to cast aside anyone who creates problems for his political ambition, as now shown by his defenestration of his entire church congregation, may cause those close to Sen. Obama to become a bit nervous at wondering when their time will come to be sacrificed for his career.

Which made me think of Mrs. Obama, and how I really do not want a replay of the Clinton years with questions of what the "real" nature of the President and First Lady's marriage happens to be.

How could the church resignation bring up such a thought?  Well, as I queried at the outset, I was wondering if Sen. Obama or his wife joined the church first.  If Mrs. Obama became a member of the church before her husband, or if she was the primary reason the family stayed in that church, then it raises the possibility that Sen. Obama's political necessity of resigning from the church could create a division in his marriage.  By forcing his wife to leave her chosen church, he may have partially dealt with one problem, yet created another in the form of speculation about whether Mrs. Obama will leave over church/religious and other disagreements.  After 8 years of hearing about how the Clintons had a "sham" marriage that was really just a business arrangement, I have no real desire for a replay with the Obamas, with Mrs. Obama in the role of the wronged spouse, forced to leave the church she loved, who simply has to take whatever grief her more powerful husband gives her so that she can maintain her proximity to power.

I hope that all this speculation is needless.  But if anyone has a clue on the answer to which of the Obamas joined their church first, I'd love to check out the citation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As close to a correction as we're likely to see

I suppose this is about as close as the mainstream media ever gets to apologizing for lying about a Republican presidential candidate:

Rubin says in the Huffington Post that he provided "a full question and a full answer. Nothing was left out of the question or the answer. Nothing is taken out of context."

I think it was a mistake for Rubin not to have released both portions at once. It's not that McCain's second answer totally undercuts the first, but it certainly qualifies it and provides a fuller picture. I don't think Rubin was trying to be intentionally misleading, but he gave the media only part of the story.


Of course, this comes not from the editorial board of the Washington Post, or as an official “correction” of James P. Rubin’s lies about Sen. McCain.  Instead it’s buried near the end of a media column by Howard Kurtz.

Pathetic.  Doesn’t Rubin’s own statement, still refusing to acknowledge the full context of McCain’s comments, pretty much negate Kurtz’s Pollyanna-like view that Rubin wasn’t trying to be intentionally misleading BY giving only part of the story?

I guess you don’t need to have any ability to think logically to write a column for the Washington Post.  Especially when it may mean having to reach obvious conclusions about the lack of character of political comrades.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't this how Nightline started?

We have now hit Day 4 with no apology or correction from the Washington Post editors to address James P. Rubin's lies in his op-ed of May 16.

Some McCain campaign staffer should probably have a "Truth Held Hostage" ticker put on the campaign website to keep track of the Post's irresponsibility.

My guess is that if someone tried to sell this to Sen. McCain as an attack on his honor and integrity, it may actually get his attention.  Seems like that's about the only kind of unacceptable personal attack he recognizes.  But as it's coming from his beloved mainstream media and not another Republican, I can see how he's having trouble recognizing it.

Hmmm, maybe if it was pitched to McCain as "McCain's Integrity Held Hostage".....

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WaPo Fails to Apologize - Day 3

Just checked in this morning with the Washington Post to see if they have managed to stir themselves to issue an apology yet for Jamie Rubin's lies in his op-ed in last Friday's paper.  Still nothing.  Though they did manage to get one of their sports writers to correct an attribution for a quote by an NBC analyst and former jockey on whether he had ever seen a thoroughbred racehorse accelerate as fast as Big Brown did in the Preakness this weekend.  One can only imagine the volume of e-mail and telephone responses that must have poured in demanding the record be set straight.  It's probably why the tubes of the internets were so slow from the time the original story went online and it was finally corrected.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike & Mike, and Mike, with Predictions Sure to Go Wrong

ESPN’s Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic have a recurring called “Predictions Sure to Go Wrong.”  It is usually an amusing segment where they predict the outcomes of future sporting events, which makes sense as they host a sports radio talk show during morning drive time.

While I don’t get to listen to Mike & Mike very much anymore (for some reason the local radio station that used to be an ESPN affiliate switched format a few months ago), I was reminded of their segments when I read through Michael Goldfarb’s (hey, another Mike!) comment at The Weekly Standard’s blog on an apparent “controversy” involving former Clinton Administration official Jamie Rubin and presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain.  Rubin wrote a column in Friday’s Washington Post accusing McCain of hypocrisy and saying that McCain’s position with regard to meeting with terrorists such as Hamas is the same as presumptive Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama’s, so it’s unfair for everyone to think that only Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats are appeasers.

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the mainstream media actually did their jobs and corrected Rubin’s editorial lies.  Of course, the media only did so after having had the relevant facts put in front of them by Sen. McCain’s campaign.  But still, at least the truth did eventually make it out.

So where does the story go from here, if anywhere?  Here’s Goldfarb's post:


CNN Reports: Jamie Rubin Lied

Here's the transcript:


    CNN'S DANA BASH: "You remember these interviews were done shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Lou, the McCain campaign just in the past couple of hours, found a link to more of Jamie Rubin's interview from back then. In it, I'll read you a quote from the rest of or at least more of the interview, In that quote Sen. McCain says, 'I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.' Now the McCain campaign, as you can image, says that this is proof that Senator McCain has been consistent all along, and I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him."

    CNN'S LOU DOBBS: "Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying."


Yes, it does seem to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying. Rubin initially claimed that McCain "was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government." But the full transcript shows that any business with Hamas was contingent on Hamas meeting certain conditions, i.e. renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist. This is no different than his position today.

Rubin now offers a pathetic defense of his smear at the Huffington Post, complete with the exculpatory response from McCain that engagement would depend on Hamas, not the United States. But does anyone believe that he had not seen the full transcript before writing his piece in the Post? Or that the paper's editors would have allowed him to publish this smear if they'd seen the full transcript themselves? The Post got hoodwinked, and they must be furious. It's hard to imagine they don't rebuke Rubin with a prominent correction in tomorrow's paper.


Let's focus on this last (highlighted) part.  A prominent correction in tomorrow’s paper?  Really?  Should we truly expect the Washington Post editorial board to be so outraged by Rubin’s antics that they will address it in the way Goldfarb anticipates?

Color me skeptical.  So, I figured I’d fire up the tubes of the internets and see what the Washington Post has to say in today’s (Goldfarb’s tomorrow’s) paper.

Naturally, I am as shocked, shocked as Casablanca’s Captain Renault to find that the Post has not followed through in the manner predicted by Goldfarb.  Here are today's corrections, in full:


· A listing in the May 16 Weekend section incorrectly said that a program at the Arlington Planetarium is for ages 7 and older. "Larry, Cat in Space" is for ages 2 and older. Also, admission is $3, not $2.50. For seniors and children 12 and younger, it is $2, not $1.50.

· The Working item in the May 15 Business section mischaracterized Charmaine Ruppolt's commute. She bicycles to Washington from Alexandria, not Arlington. Also, she said she skips about three weeks of bike commuting a year because of vacations and bad weather, not simply because of weather.

· The Alexandria-Arlington Community Events section on May 15 incorrectly said that the Del Ray House and Garden Tour's sponsor is Del Ray Artisans. It is Del Ray Citizens Association. Tickets for today's event are available at A Show of Hands and Del Ray Farmers Market.

· The nutritional analysis for the Honey Double Gingerbread recipe in the May 14 Food section gave an incorrect amount of fiber. It is 0 grams, not 26 grams.

· A May 13 Health-section item about chocolate and pregnancy incorrectly said researchers tested women's blood in their first and second trimesters. The tests were done in the first and third trimesters.


Pretty hard hitting factual errors, no doubt.  And I can see where it was much more important for the editors at the Post to make sure the correct ticket prices for “Larry, Cat in Space” make it to their readers.  After all, there’s only so much newspaper space and bandwidth in the world.  Tough decisions have to be made in allocating resources.

I guess it wasn't so hard to imagine not rebuking Rubin's lies after all.


UPDATE:  As of Sunday morning, it appears that the Washington Post (at least in their online edition) has still failed to issue a correction to Rubin's lies about Sen. McCain.  Good luck to Sen. McCain in his ongoing love affair with the mainstream media.

SECOND UPDATE:  Just to make sure, I sent the links to Mr. Goldfarb's and my blog posts to the corrections@washpost.com e-mail address.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the correction.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Say what you will about Obama and appeasement...

... but you have to admit that he's done what he probably intended, which is to get all of the focus at this point on an argument between himself and President Bush, who obviously isn't Mr. Popularity right now.  So Obama kicks a sitting president when he's down in order to bolster his campaign and his image as the inevitable Democrat candidate.  At the same time, he has rendered Clinton's latest primary victory completely irrelevant in terms of media coverage and sucked all the air from the Democrats' room, in a rather surprising turn of the tables on the Clintons as that was a frequent complaint about President Clinton when he tended to leave no room on the liberal side of the aisle for anyone but himself.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There's more than corn in Indiana

Or so the catchy tune promoting my native state taught me years ago.  Turns out, it may not be only Hoosiers who take this view.  Here's a description from Rashawn Biddle of the American Spectator that I never thought I would hear applied to the place of my birth (h/t Instapundit):

"The biggest mistake by Clinton was in presuming that Indiana was like just another Rust Belt state. The reality is that it is a microcosm of the entire nation, with the almost all the same socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. In some ways, its combination of rural and urban gives it more of a resemblance to nearby Illinois or New York than Ohio or Iowa. "

Unfortunately for those who are tied up in party politics, my understanding is that President Bush's good friend Mitch Daniels hasn't exactly won the hearts and minds of Hoosier Republicans.  Not sure what, if anything, that means for the fall elections, but there it is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crossover voting, open primaries, and the "Limbaugh Effect": One voter's tale

My lovely wife, a lifelong Democrat, is having a tough time of it with the current primary battle.  As a conservative who has never been much for party politics, I had never participated in a primary election before this year.  When the New Jersey primary rolled around (and I have already forgotten when it was) Romney and McCain were still the main contenders for the Republican nomination.

Because New Jersey allows anyone to declare a party at the polling station, my wife requested that I vote in the Republican primary and cast a ballot for Mitt Romney.  Being a good husband, and not really having a strong objection to Romney, I agreed to vote for him.  And for what it's worth, not long after my vote was cast, Romney dropped out of the race.  My record of backing long shots continues.

Still, did my beautiful bride make this suggestion because she wanted Romney to be a nominee or the president?  No.  She's still leaning toward Clinton as her candidate of choice, but in ranking the four leading contenders at the time of the NJ primary, she put McCain as her least favorite choice.  So she wanted me to vote for Romney to prevent McCain from getting the nomination.  Thus, she sought to manipulate the other party's nomination process.

So how did my wonderful wife react to my lifelong Republican father's crossover vote for Obama in Indiana's primary yesterday?

She decided this morning that it was ethically wrong for him to have done this, and that he should let the party members decide who the nominee will be.

When I reminded her of her own impassioned plea for me to do exactly the same thing, but in the Republican primary, she of course decided that was somehow different.

"You're SO a Republican," she explained.

"No, I'm a conservative, but I'm NOT a Republican," I pointed out.

I think she realized she wasn't going to get very far trying to parse a distinction that would sway me, but it didn't make her any happier with the thought of Republicans crossing over and mucking around in the Democrat primaries.

But it's an interesting question.  Apparently my mother, also a long-time Republican voter, declined the opportunity to vote in the Democrat primary, and instead cast a ballot for Huckabee.  She presumably thought it would be wrong to vote in the other party's primary.

Clearly, my father sees it differently, and I essentially agree with him in practice.  My own reasoning is probably more cynical than his, in that I figure there's no ethics in politics anyway, so it's silly to cite a moral or ethical prohibition against such type of scheming with one's vote.  His view was a more pragmatic one, seeking to put an end to the Clinton era once and for all by supporting a candidate who at least talks the talk of trying to bring people together to solve the country's problems.  Of course, he's also enough of a realist to not have very high expectations that, should Obama actually take office, he will deliver anything near the unity and healing he has touted in the primaries.

And for what it's worth, in talking to my father this morning, he indicated that he thinks there must have been a huge crossover vote in the Democrat primary in my hometown county.  He must have read the local papers already this morning, because he cited the following general numbers to indicate his point:

2004 presidential primary:  23,000 total votes / 15,000 Republican / 8,000 Democrat
2008 presidential primary:  43,500 total votes / 16,500 Republican / 27,000 Democrat

It's hard to know how much of the increase in turnout for the Democrat race is due to young, first-time voters and just generally higher interest, and how much may be Republicans crossing over.  But the county as a whole has voted consistently Republican as far back as I can remember, so it would be hard to believe that in the last four years there has somehow been a demographic and/or political shift of such significance that it took a predominantly Republican county to an overwhelmingly Democrat one.  Should be interesting to see what the vote totals show in the general election by way of comparison.

As for my wife's concern with crossover votes?  I keep trying to tell her it's up to the parties to make the rules.  If they want to only allow party members to vote and prevent voter shenanigans, they better change the rules rather than somehow try to deny human nature.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »