Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Cernig’s Excited [Dan Collins]

Remember Rush Limbaugh calling for Republicans to change sides for a day and vote for Clinton in Texas and Ohio just to keep the Dem primary bloodfest going a while longer?

He has a wee problem:

While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party’s principles “under penalty of election falsification.”

A [sic] assume that encouraging others to commit a felony is itself illegal – aiding and abetting, isn’t it?

Interestingly enough, Michigan had a closed primary this time around, and I seem to recall Kos promoting the idea that Dems ought to cross party lines to vote Republican. I bring this up once again, because as before it presents very interesting questions regarding privacy and First Amendment principles.

It appears that some people who feel that one ought to be able fraudulently to lay claim to having received a Medal of Honor on free speech grounds–seeing as one cannot legally compel reverence towards even the flag of this Republic–feel that it is nevertheless in the interest of the Common Weal to enforce loyalty oaths to the two regnant political parties, or be effectively disenfranchised. Recently, we saw in Canada’s Star Chamber proceedings against Ezra Levant a reversion to Tudor mechanisms of state censorship that was effectively ignored by the same Leftopia that daily screeches over FISA. Now we have the return of loyalty oaths, not to the monarch or Church, but to political parties that are nowhere instaurated in the foundational documents of this country.

It’s not surprising that things have come to this among people who have privileged political discourse to the extent that they regard it with religious reverence. What is startling, at least if one is as naive as I, is that they seek to make the law an instrumentality, without full consideration of its effects toward their comrades or society at large.

And all of this leaves out any consideration of the sanctity of the ballot that would include identification requirements, of course.

52 Replies to “Cernig’s Excited [Dan Collins]”

  1. B Moe says:

    Rush has been begging them to bring charges against him all week.

  2. Jeffersonian says:

    The Democratic Party has principles? Did prospective voters have to stand there and sing “God Damn America”?

  3. and don’t you dare ask someone to prove who they are before they vote!

  4. jdm says:

    Nicely done, Dan.

  5. nawoods says:

    I can see it now,

  6. nawoods says:

    Let me try that again…..

    I can see it now,

    “Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?!”

    The irony, it would be quite tasty if not so scary.

  7. Cernig says:

    Thanks again for the link, Dan. I love that you hate our comparitively small blog so much that you forget the old adjunct to “insult upwards” – it does wonders for our traffic. You’ve already helped finace our move to our new site next month but if you keep it up we’ll be able to raise our ad rates!

    Warmest Regards, C

  8. Dan’s like Jeff in that respect… he’s a giver

  9. Deon says:

    What’s really pathetic is that there’s not even a loyalty oath. I looked up the Ohio voter’s registration form; all you have to swear is that you can legally vote (you’re the right age, meet residency requirements, aren’t insane or a criminal, etc.) and that all of the information (name, address, and ID) are true. Nothing in there about loyalty to party principals or any of that crap.

    AND OHIO HAD AN OPEN PRIMARY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!

    /me catches my breath.

    So where’s the beef? Where’s the crime they’re purportedly outraged by?

    This is the most fabricated and delusional outrage I’ve ever heard of.

  10. Deon says:

    s/principals/principles/

  11. Techie says:

    I am soooo wanting someone, anyone to try and bring charges.

  12. Dan Collins says:

    Adjunct? Have you lost the faculty of vocabulary?

    I think you may mean injunction. But I don’t feel enjoined. I take my topics where I find them, Cernig, and I’ve certainly taken my whacks at Greenwald, recently. I’m glad that I could be of service, and best of luck in your move.

  13. darlas says:

    “Interestingly enough, Michigan had a closed primary this time around, ”

    your link says:

    “For the first time in 16 years, voters will be asked at the polls whether they want to cast ballots in the Republican or Democratic Party presidential primary.”

    That describes an open primary, not a closed one. No?

  14. BJTexs says:

    Wow! Will there be blacklisting?We haven’t had a good blacklisting, since, like, the 50’s. Oh! Oh, and shunning! I likes me a good shunning!

  15. Cernig says:

    Agreed, Dan’s like Jeff in that regard. It’s a well known fact among small lefty blogs that the quickest way to get a traffic boost is to get Jeff riled up. He’s very sensitive to anything that even remotely approaches criticism. I’m not sure his therapist would describe it as being a “giver” though.

    Regards, C

  16. Dan Collins says:

    Well, then, best of luck! Bon voyage!

  17. Pablo says:

    I’m glad to hear that you’re enjoying the mockery, Cernig. OTOH, having put Kos in the firing line, you’re sure to suffer the fate of the DLC.

    Booga booga. Or, heh. Whichever you prefer.

  18. huh, and here you didn’t even have to insult anyone and you got attention anyway. so, I’m sticking with “giver”

  19. BJTexs says:

    Now, now, Pablo be nice. It can’t be good for Cernig’s overall well being watching the Democratic party implode before his very eyes.

    You know, flying debris, collateral damage and SNIPERS, OH GOD THE SERBIAN SNIIIIIPERS!!!!

    heh

    As for the idea of prosecuting someone who doesn’t vote on a party line? How very … Stalinesque.

  20. “For the first time in 16 years, voters will be asked at the polls whether they want to cast ballots in the Republican or Democratic Party presidential primary.”

    That describes an open primary, not a closed one. No?

    um, I think it’s the idea that they have to declare a party and it gets recorded and shared that makes Dan call it closed. true they didn’t register beforehand one way or the other, but they are basically doing that when they vote.

  21. Cernig says:

    Dan, thanks for the edit job on my vocabulary. I meant “adage”. No excuse, just a mistake. And thank you too for the good wishes on the new site.

    Have you seen Rush’s defense? “Voting McCain would be voting for Democtrat principles too.”

    Regards, C

    PS BJ, I don’t really care, I’m not a Dem :-) They’re just the less messed up of the two main US parties to my mind. Last time I voted, it was for Alex Salmond.

  22. darlas says:

    “um, I think it’s the idea that they have to declare a party and it gets recorded and shared that makes Dan call it closed. true they didn’t register beforehand one way or the other, but they are basically doing that when they vote.”

    My understanding is that if anyone can vote whatever, then its open. If you have to register beforehand, then its closed. But here it doesn’t look like people are registering with a party — just that the system is open and you know in which election someone voted.

    But maybe Dan can explain why this is a “closed” primary.

    But whichever way it turns out, it looks like in Michigan’s system it is permissible to vote for either party. While in Ohio’s you have to vote for your registered party or swear that you believe in the principles of your new party that you just have to vote for on the spot. Looks like the effect is to keep it closed but let late registration changes still vote. That is, if nobody lies under oath.

  23. Dan Collins says:

    I think that’s correct, darla. But if they require some kind of statement of party affiliation, that seems to me effectually the same. The interesting bit of what you lay out about switching parties is . . . where’s the statement of party principles to which one is supposed to be pledging allegiance? Is that the same thing as a particular pols platform?

  24. B Moe says:

    …or swear that you believe in the principles of your new party…

    There seems to be some question as to whether you have to do this, darlas, and even if you do it seems unlikely it would be pass a Constitutional test. That is why Rush is so eager for someone to file charges, he knows he would make fools of them in court. And make the Democrats look like the fascists they have become.

  25. B Moe says:

    . . . where’s the statement of party principles to which one is supposed to be pledging allegiance?

    That is the other big snag: even if it somehow is ruled legal, it could take the Democrats decades to find a principle to use as an example.

  26. darlas says:

    “But if they require some kind of statement of party affiliation, that seems to me effectually the same.”

    It seems that Michigan isn’t asking for party affiliation, just which primary you want to participate in. And then making that list available.

    “Is that the same thing as a particular pols platform?”

    Probably not, since you’re voting among pols.

  27. darlas says:

    “There seems to be some question as to whether you have to do this, darlas, and even if you do it seems unlikely it would be pass a Constitutional test.”

    I suspect it would pass it if there was a way around it — register by the deadline 6 weeks before the election and you’re fine, register same day and you have to swear. But if you have to swear to change registrations period? Thats going to be a big problem. Then again the state could just close the primary to people who registered 6 weeks before or something.

    I think if there were to be prosecutions, they would be based on confessions — ie, people bragging they lied. Will it be fascist to prosecute people who brag about lieing under oath to subvert a closed primary system?

  28. B Moe says:

    Will it be fascist to prosecute people who brag about lieing under oath to subvert a closed primary system?

    No, but I think it is fascist to force a loyalty oath before you can vote. Period.

  29. MC says:

    Dan, it was a nice touch to douche baptize the post in blood there at the end.

  30. Jonas says:

    This all prompts the question: Why is the state government involved in administering the primaries for political parties in the first place, let alone passing laws that mandate the swearing of allegiance to a “party’s principles”?

    If some people want to band together and form a thing they call a “political party,” they can select their presidential nominees on their own time and their own dime. They can decide who gets to help do the selecting, and what those participants must “swear allegiance to” to do it.

    The state has no more business being involved in the candidate-selection process of some group called the “Democrats” or “Republicans” than it does being involved in some group called “my grandma’s bridge club.” Christ.

  31. Alec Leamas says:

    That’s it! I’m invading Canada. And I’m starting with one of those triple-nasty bottomless bars in Montreal with the ping-pong balls and mini whiffleball bats and Molson Triple X and such. The Twooneys will flow like Loonies that day, my friend.

  32. JD says:

    Alec – Can I join you, ride shotgun perhaps?

  33. JD says:

    I say we warm-up with Windsor before moving onto Montreal, and then the coup de grace, Vancouver.

  34. Alec Leamas says:

    I do believe that there are enough young lovelies named Colette and Celine XXX for the both of us, JD.

  35. JD says:

    Alec – We will always be at war with the Canucks. Let’s ride !

  36. B Moe says:

    Have you seen Rush’s defense? “Voting McCain would be voting for Democtrat principles too.”

    How big of a cluebat does it take for these people?

  37. Enoch_Root says:

    I’m not sure his therapist would describe it as being a “giver” though.

    never heard of this tool… but lemme guess… erm LA or NY. no one else goes to a fucking therapist. that’s teh gay.

  38. Jeff G. says:

    Who is Cernig, and why is he calling me by my first name?

  39. B Moe says:

    HATER!

  40. Enoch_Root says:

    You’ve already helped finace our move to our new site next month

    Dude – it’s a blogspot blog… when he says our servers, surely he doesn’t imply he works for Google…?

    plus his traffic is non-existent. I am guessing 20 unique visitors a week.

  41. Neo says:

    Then they better indict Pennsylvania Governor & former DNC chief Ed Rendell as well. In 2004, he prompted Democratic voters to registers as Republicans for the primaries to make sure that conservative Republican Pat Toomey lost to Arlen Specter, telling them that there was plenty of time to switch back before the general election in November.

  42. geoffb says:

    I thought it was a principle of the Democratic Party that you could vote in the other guys election to screw things up. Here in Michigan the Dems in Detroit have voted for McCain in both the 2000 and the 2008 primaries.

    It is an open primary BTW. All that was asked is which ballot you want, D or R. Then the names of those who voted in each parties primary were reported to the respective parties. Nothing stopping anyone D, R or I from voting in either one. The parties would know if there were crossover voters but there is no penalty. For going early the Republican Party cut the Michigan delegation in half, a much better way of handling it than the Dems did.

  43. Pablo says:

    Was Limbaugh in Ohio when he said it? If not, I see a jurisdiction problem. You can’t break Ohio law in Florida or NY. Though I’d love to see them charge him, the thing would get dismissed before there was much of an opportunity to wring any comedy out of it.

  44. psle says:

    I don’t know Ezra cause no one knows how to write. Canadians all stare at shit with their eyes closed and listen to voices. They trade diseases like SARS for fun and use lucifer to use human flesh like in a fetus with no fingers or something. They have to talk to themselves at home and while outside so they get ‘bought’ and there are no diseases or bad nightmares from the guy smoking all the stink dope next door who just wants to sell the stuff and screw his whores. Canada is really just lucifer’s playground and the people are too far gone to figure it out, even if you tell them a thousand times. So, we need to kill all the luciferians so we can have normal lives. Nukes are real old, some bio terror works fine and it should keep the things in Canada. Of course theres all those shooting and accidents and disease, but if they’re not alive, we can make sure they’re dead.

  45. Mikey NTH says:

    Canada is lucifer’s playground?
    I would have thought it would be somewhere warmer.

  46. McGehee says:

    We’ve been getting a lot of sockpuppet gibberish comments lately hating on Canada for no apparent reason.

    I think maybe somebody took the brown acid just before watching a “South Park” marathon.

  47. Erin says:

    People are seriously not allowed to change their politcal affiliation without filling out and filing some forms? That is ridiculous! This needs to be changed. What happens if some story comes out and people want to change their votes to another party – if there is not enough time to do so – do they just not vote?

  48. B Moe says:

    People are seriously not allowed to change their politcal affiliation without filling out and filing some forms?

    Not just forms, if you want to register Democrat you have to sign a loyalty oath to the party. Not to the US itself, that would never be tolerated of course, just to the party. Another not so subtle indicator of what the Democrats mean when they use the word Patriotism.

  49. Deon says:

    I really don’t think you’re required to sign a loyalty oath. It’s not anywhere on the registration form.

  50. McGehee says:

    I really don’t think you’re required to sign a loyalty oath.

    Well, without one, there’s nothing to defraud, so…

  51. datadave says:

    We know u like Southpark mcgeheehee. u’z a mccainishi

Comments are closed.