dagblog - Comments for "Michigan Democrats, Don't Play Dirty Politics"

Wasting your time

NCD — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:23:56 +0000

In reply to I beg to differ. My honest

Wasting your time destor.

Muddy is either a hopelessly lame and naive Democrat with a measuring stick for 'shameful' broken off at 'zero or barely measurable', and is unable to quantify the shame differential between legal voting and lying the country into war and all the other stuff mentioned done by the GOP, or, Muddy is a Romney admirer. Either way Romney won, big deal.

Santorum's objective........

Resistance — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:56:29 +0000

In reply to Michigan Democrats, Don't Play Dirty Politics

Santorum's objective........ the same as the GOPs ..........RULE OR RUIN

I beg to differ. My honest

Michael Maiello — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:25:04 +0000

In reply to The purpose of open primaries

I beg to differ. My honest preference is that Rick Santorum win the Republican nomination. You're questioning my motivation for that preference. But in voting, motivation counts for exactly nothing.

The purpose of open primaries

MuddyPolitics — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:18:55 +0000

In reply to I agree that, absent the

The purpose of open primaries isn't to allow the other party to help elect the least-qualified or weakest candidate. It is intended, as you admit, to give all voters a chance to voice an opinion. If your PREFERENCE is Santorum, vote for him. But that isn't the objective of Operation Hilarity, just as it wasn't the objective of Operation Chaos.

I agree that, absent the

Michael Maiello — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 02:08:47 +0000

In reply to Two words that don't go

I agree that, absent the public subsidy of party primaries, open primaries don't make sense. But, since parties are basically giant private organizations anyway, very few laws pertaining to them make a ton of sense. Most of these laws just serve to perpetuate the real problem here, which is the dominance of the two parties.

Here's where my mind's

Verified Atheist — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:28:06 +0000

In reply to I think that the legality of

Here's where my mind's at:

I want to help Obama win, so I'm tempted to ignore the ethics involved. In fact, I've expressed before that I might vote in the Virginia Republican primaries. I still might. I'm still wrestling with it.
If I really think about it, though, it seems that open primaries serve the interests of the incumbents, and incumbents don't really need any more help. (I'm assuming you can connect the dots there, but if not, let me know.)
However, there's this thing about unilaterally disarming (what Obama said about super-PACs). That does feel a little like making excuses, but it's a pretty convincing one, IMO.
Finally, it just feels wrong.

So, that's two for, two against, as if numbers mean anything here. Like I said, I'm still wrestling with it, but I'm leaning against it.

Two words that don't go

Ramona — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 01:00:00 +0000

In reply to I think that the legality of

Two words that don't go together: "Elections" and "mischief". I'm a Michigan Democrat and I'm embarrassed by this kind of crap. And to me, party IS everything.

By the way, Republican dirty tricks of this same sort forced the wholly ludicrious and unqualified Geoffrey Fieger on us as the Dem gubernatorial candidate in 1998. We couldn't bring ourselves to vote for him, of course, thus opening the door for Big Business's BFF, John Engler, who nearly ruined the state before he went to work as head honcho of the Manufacturer's Association.

Maybe that's why I hate this so much. I hate that Michigan allows this, too. It makes no sense.

I think that the legality of

Michael Maiello — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:30:40 +0000

In reply to I agree with MP. I don't

I think that the legality of it is important. By having open primaries, the Michigan government is saying that the cost of receiving public subsidies for your election is that people outside of your party might express a preference as to your nominee. I'd be all for universally closed primaries, if the parties foot the bill for their own nominating process. In 2008, Democrats were too involved in their own nomination drama to have much preference about who on the other side runs. This year is different.

Beyond that, how would I feel if right wingers jumped into our primary to support a more liberal candidate that they think is beatable (but who I might prefer)? Great! If my own party won't back my candidate, I'll take the help where I can get it. Party isn't everything.

I agree with MP. I don't

Ramona — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:14:40 +0000

In reply to One other thing on this --

I agree with MP. I don't care if it's legal or not. Why play those dumb games? This is not a necessary moment.

Pretty hard to take the high road after you've been rolling around in the mud and enjoying the hell out of it. This is not the kind of dirty tricks Dems or unions or even Michael Moore should be encouraging. All it does is keep the cycle going.

"Well, they did it so why shouldn't we?" Nobody EVER wins that way.

It is a timid betrayal of

NCD — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:54:51 +0000

In reply to Republicans are shameful,

It is a timid betrayal of principles, and grossly naive, not to do everything possible, within the law, to try to steer the nation to a better future.