OK, It's a Stretch but Wouldn't it be GREAT if Rush Were Charged...

@anniepa (25834)
United States
March 24, 2008 9:09pm CST
Wouldn't it just be too funny if Rush Limbaugh, along with some of his flunkies who followed his instructions, were to be charged with fraud following the Ohio primary? When I read an earlier discussion about this topic, I admit I really hadn't done my homework throughly but now I've read up on it and I see it's not as far-fetched as it originally seemed for voters to be arrested for switching their party affiliation to Democrat in order to sway the Ohio primary. In Ohio, when a voter switches parties they have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party's principles "under penalty of election falsification." According to the report, "One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only." Some later bragged on online forums about the fraud they had just committed. The fact is, whether you like it or not, it's a fifth degree felony in the state of Ohio. http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberals-fantasize-about-voter-fraud.html I'm not even going to pretend I wouldn't be delighted to see Rush behind bars although realistically I know it's not likely to happen. But, what the heck, they couldn't get him for doctor shopping why not for party swapping. Seriously, I'd like to see whatever can be done under the law done in this case because this is against our election system for people of either party to be able to tamper with the other party's nomination process. What are your thoughts? Annie
10 responses
@rodney850 (2146)
• United States
25 Mar 08
You know what is really funny about this Annie? For all of the shock and disgust the Ohio democrats are showing about this obscure law and how it was broken in this primary, they forget that they (the democrats) have been practicing this for decades! First, Rush broke no law in encouraging these people to change parties and vote against Barak! Plain and simple, no law was broken by Rush! Second, exactly how do you enforce a law as idiotic as that law? Tell me how you PROVE someone (and I would underline or italicize but alas I still can't use the code)changed parties under false pretenses? Virtually impossible, and the reason is quite simple. The general election is open and no matter what you are registered, democrat, republican or independant you can still vote for whom you want! So what if someone changes party affiliation for every primary, it's a free country, with free elections and I believe, last time I looked (unless I woke up in Russia today)it is still the perogative of any person in America to change their mind as often as they like especially about politics!
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
25 Mar 08
First, it sounds unconstitutional to me to force someone to swear allegiance to a politcal party. That sounds like something that would happen in the gulag. I would imagine that if it came right down to it, that would be the first thing challenged in court. Secondly, I live down in Florida. When the Dems decided NOT to count the primary votes here because they moved up the date of the primary, Dems were flocking to change affiliation to vote in the Rep primary. I would imagine that the same thing happened in Michigan. (Just a side bar, in the past elections the Dems big chant was "Count ALL the votes". Now they are throwing out whole states worth of votes." In either case, party switching destroys the integrity of our electoral system. The only solution is to hold primaries like we hold the general election. The whole country votes on the same day. You can vote for whomever you want to vote for in either party. That would prevent election burnout that we are facing now. It would prevent party switching. It would save millions and millions of campaign dollars that could be better used in other ways. And it would give the candidates the time, energy and resources to debate the issues, not their personalities.
2 people like this
@rodney850 (2146)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Great post Guardian! The two things I believe that are anti-productive in or election process today are the "spread-out primaries" and the electoral college! All of the republican primaries held after Texas mean exactly, NOTHING! Republicans already know who their candidate is so this breeds apathy! America is as well informed today as they have ever been! News is instantaniously transmitted across the internet and available to virtually everyone! To say that America still needs a group of electors to hold their hand and cast the final vote is LUDICROUS! Let the popular vote stand! Didn't I read somewhere, "for the people BY the people"?
2 people like this
• United States
25 Mar 08
Thanks Rodney. Not too long ago I would have agreed with you about the electoral college. But since looking into it, I support it. Throughout our nation's history, only 4 times has a president won the popular vote but failed to win the white house due to the electoral college function. That was in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. So in 232 years, that has happened only 4 times. That is a pretty good track record. The other reason why I support it is that it prevents candidates from focusing exclusively on cities with huge population bases and ignoring the rest of the country. Even though some areas are more lightly populated, like Montana and Wyoming, they are just as important to our nation as New York or Florida or California. Issues effect them just as they do the rest of us and they deserve representation in the process as well.
2 people like this
@rodney850 (2146)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Guardian, The reasons you stated you like the electoral college are the very ones I dislike it for(sorry)! I believe that is exactly what candidates do now is concentrate on the Californias and the New York and Floridas and leave the Montanas and Dakotas alone! A person could actually win the presidency by only winning in only 12 states! Just 12! Those would be Florida, New York, California, Texas, Pennsilvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington DC. What about the other 39 (DC is not a state) and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico? Where is their say if this were to happen? I know it's a stretch but if it's possible numerically it could happen!
2 people like this
@theprogamer (10543)
• United States
29 Mar 08
My thoughts? This is pathetic. Everyone forget about some people switching or voting for Kerry back in 04 just to get back at Bush? Everyone just not consider some voters felt betrayed by their parties and decided to go another route? Everyone forget its the citizen's individual vote, not Rush's votes, not Anniepa's votes, THE INDIVIDUAL'S vote? People can use that to vote for a candidate, vote against a candidate, vote for an idea, vote for a policy. How the #### was this missed!? Disgusting. I'll vote for who I want no questions asked. This antique law is just another item in the "you didn't vote OUR way... now its time to punish you" line of thinking. Why don't we do this. Anyone not voting the way Anniepa wants, or the way Obama wants or the way Hillary wants... lets just arrest them and throw them all in jail? While at the task, why not abolish free elections? Seems the country is no longer capable of handling it. Then it'll be proven once and for all that its just one nation under tyranny with liberty, rights and justice for none (or maybe just for the prop-puppets on the Hill). Union of Soviet State America here we come! (-_-) At the very least they've got nothing since I've yet to see the law and on description on the poll workers can challenge the voter's claim (isn't it swell people want it done here, but not for double voting or non-ID voters...) Good night country. -_-
2 people like this
@anniepa (25834)
• United States
29 Mar 08
Now, Pro, you know I'm not saying that. I merely started this discussion after reading and seeing about this law I hadn't been aware of in Ohio. "Everyone forget about some people switching or voting for Kerry back in 04 just to get back at Bush?" Unfortunately, not enough of them did that, did they, or we wouldn't be in the shape we are now. But, I agree everyone has the right to vote for whomever they wish. Those people who voted for Kerry in 04 didn't do so to help Bush get re-elected, did they? I agree with what Dam Abrams has said repeatedly, that while it may be legal most places to switch parties and vote for the person you want to LOSE in November it's not moral. I don't think it's my place to help the GOP choose their nominee either. OK, so these things have been going on for a long time; they were wrong then, too and they're wrong no matter which party is doing it. It all got more attention this year since Limbaugh put his two cents in. Annie
@theprogamer (10543)
• United States
30 Mar 08
Yes, but this was my reaction to the whole event either way. You may have been trying to be funny but I didn't absorb the humor (for certain reasons).
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Mar 08
It seems to me that many people thought it was fine when Democratics and Independents voted for Senator McCain and made him the Republican nominee. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain and once he appeared to have the nomination they went against him. President and Senator Clinton have encouraged Republicans and Independents to cross over and support her. Senator Obama has also encouraged cross over voting for the primarys. Will they also be charged with fraud? In an earlier post I suggested that all primarys be closed most people objected to that idea feeling we should be abe to vote for whomever we wanted. Early on when it looked like Senator Clinton was a shoe in many Democratics voted for the Republican Candidate they thought would be the easiest for her to beat in the election. Are you going to arrest all those people too?
2 people like this
@anniepa (25834)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Don't you feel guilty making people that aren't that familiar with our political system think Democrats are called "Democratics"? Some people here are confused enough! Any candidate has the right to try to appeal to every voter, there is no law against that in any state. They're certainly not telling them to switch parties to vote for them in the primary only to vote against them in the general, are they? Maybe McCain will have a senior moment when he forgets who or what he is, but that's beside the point...lol. I totally agree with the primaries all being closed, which is what the Ohio primary IS. As I understand it, Ohio is the only state that has this particular law against switching parties for the primary without signing a pledge. I didn't make the law I only started a discussion about it. Obviously, I'm not going to arrest anyone but I will say if any Democrats switched to Republican so they could vote for someone in the hope of affecting their nomination, I guess they should be arrested too if they choose to enforce the law they have on the books. I thought you guys were the law and order bunch! Annie
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Hello Annie, I agree! It would be absolutley terrific if Rush were charged for election fraud in Ohio. Why would I say this? Because if Rush is charged, then so too will Obama be charged, in kind. The difference is that Rush spoke the instructions for Republicans to disingenuously embrace a Democrat candidate. Where Obama put those same exact instructions in writing. Specifically on door-hanger cards instructing when, and how Republicans could take advantage of the idiotic, open primary, and vote for him. It's time to recognize that there is no 'good faith' effort to affect party cross-over, regardless of who's behind the shenanigans! The Democrats and Independents engaged in shenanigans to select John McCain as the Republican nominee. They did so believing that he was the least likely candidate to get the Republican nomination, as Conservatives did no support him. And, at the time of the Ohio Caucus, McCain's campaign was nearly flat-broke, and barely hanging on. So, the Democrats and Independents chose the Republican nominee in exactly the same way that some Republicans are trying to choose the Democrat nominee. The only difference is that Democrats only cried when the spilled milk was affecting them. Do I agree with this nonsense? No, I don't. Shenanigans is shenanigans -- and I don't support it! Though, what's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. If Democrats don't like to be subjected to shenanigans, then they need to step up to the plate and support closed primaries. No if's, and's, or butt's about it!!!
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Oops! I meant to add this to the end of the first paragraph. Personally, I would love to see Rush & Obama both argue against these charges. Both would win, the charges would be dropped, and finally we would see state's embrace closed primaries. Plus, I think Rush would have a dandy time fighting this one out in a courtroom!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25834)
• United States
25 Mar 08
We're really not in disagreement here, Ladyluna. I'm all for all primaries being closed but the point is Ohio does have a closed primary, they just have stricter regulations in place for those who choose to switch party affiliation right before the primary. If a state has an open primary then no candidate is breaking any law by appealing to members of the opposite party and independents for their votes. I'm opposed to that in that I'm opposed to open primaries in principle. I'm unsure what should be done for Independents, it doesn't seem fair for them to have no voice at all in the nominating process. In sumnation, this Democrat is stepping up to the plate and supporting closed primaries, no if's, and's or butt's about it. Annie
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
26 Mar 08
Hello Annie, I'm glad to hear that you are stepping up to the plate for closed primaries. Perhaps you could begin convincing other Democrats to contact the Democrat powers that be to follow 'in suit'. As for Ohio, I would hardly call it a closed primary if one can switch their party affilitation that close to the primary though. To better exemplify: In my state, a candidate can only run in the party that he or she was/is registered in/as six months before the scheduled primaries. Where our state primaries are held in June, the party affiliation had to be established by Jan. 1st of the same year --or six months in advance. It would seem to me that if we are to stick with the same primary process, then why shouldn't voters and candidates have to follow the same time schedule? That is IF both parties are really on board with honest, ethical elections. Truth be told, I would much prefer a single, open primary nationally, or seven rotating, regional primaries, to be held no more than two to three weeks apart in the North East, South East, North Central, South Central, North West, South West, and extraterritorial regions. One person = one vote, with the Electoral College still in place to protect the smaller states. The former is by far my preference, though candidates scream for more time for baby kissing and hand shaking. Of course, this change will never happen because the parties' leadership would never be willing to give up the power, or the cash that is generated in long primary seasons! Although, I have to say that this prolonged primary season is giving me much food for thought! Had we had a single national primary, then Hillary would have been coronated, just as she had expected. We would never have had a segment of the population take to seeing a halo over Obama's head -- as he would have never gotten up to bat. We certainly wouldn't have had McCain emerge as the Republican nominee -- we'd probably have seen Guiliani emerge as the nominee. So, all in all, I'd have to counter my earlier opinions about this prolonged primary season, and speculate that it has provided a more transparent opportunity for the voters to learn some valuable lessons about the party flaws, and a myriad of terribly flawed candidates. This election season has given the average American a glimpse of just how messy our political arena really is! So then, you would be on board with Rush, Obama, and now it seems Clinton all being charged for voter fraud? Because, as this story unravels, the hullabaloo is that Hillary has also attempted to lure Republican voters to her camp. So, if Rush faces charges, the so too should Clinton & Obama. The main difference is that Rush would enjoy it, and probably get a boost from it, while the Democrat front-runners would be excoriated by the media. So, the more that the Dem's push for Rush to be charged, the more that the G.O.P. will push for the Democrat candidates to be likewise charged. Hmmmm, what is the punishment for a candidate having engaged in election fraud????? Yup, that could be kind of fun to watch!
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Funny thing is, nowhere in that entire article did it actually spell out the law. There was also a complete lack of any citations linking to, or actually naming the law. Without that, there is no way to actually know what the law says. Everywhere in that article the law is paraphrased, or a section of it is just barely quoted. Regardless, it's a load of crap. From what I gather of the random and incomplete quotings of the law, you have to agree to support the beliefs of that party. There is however, no timetable in place as to how long you must support those beliefs or ideals or whatever. That means the "for one day only" bit can be completely valid so long as there is no evidence he did not support the Democrats for one day. As for Rush facing charges that bit is both impossible, and completely retarded. All voters by law are adults age 18 or older. As such, they make there own decisions. Rush didn't force anyone, nor did he pay, coerce, or reward anyone for voting in the democratic primaries. All he did is tell people to do it. I could say "Hey man, go rob that bank" If a guy robs a bank after I said that, I can't be blamed as I had no authority over the bank robber. Also, in the bits of the law mentioned, there was no mention of any law including "conspiracy to commit illegal party switching". Unless Rush faked being a democrat himself, the law in no way, shape, or form applies to him. Democrats just want to waste taxpayer money going after a Radio Show host because they'll reach for any straws possible to get back at republicans for Clinton's impeachment.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25834)
• United States
25 Mar 08
You may think it's a load of crap but according to the statute, as it was explained by attorneys on TV as well as in the article I linked to, Limbaugh could indeed be charged. Don't you think he's owed one? He should have gone to jail for doctor shopping as anyone else would have under the same circumstances that didn't have a famous name and millions of dollars. Annie
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Based on the statute that bobnmo linked to there is absolutely nothing that could apply to Rush Limbaugh. In addition to that the law is clearly not enforceable because if applied, it could potentially take away a person's voting rights if they voted differently in one election than the voted in the last two years. A person should not be afraid to vote as they choose and no law should be able to punish a person for voting as they choose. Frankly, I'm offended that such a law even exists. Either way, everything in that law applies to the voter's, not some guy who says that voters should change parties for a day. No, I don't think he's owed one. The doctor shopping bit isn't that big a deal. Frankly, it's not even that uncommon. It's actually rare for anyone to be prosecuted under it regardless of celebrity status.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
25 Mar 08
How far do you want to stretch. Reviewing Ohio Law the term is "election falsification". http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.19 The law requires that "that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote." I want to see that the Democratic Senator get reelected so I have to vote Democratic in the primary even though I may decide to vote for Senator McCain in the general election. I think is would be hard to prove voter fraud if you are switching parties for the primary. There are too many reason for wanting to change your party affiliation for the primary that the Courts would have to show what your thinking was at the time and we do have freedom of speech and the right to change our minds.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Thank you so much for posting a link to the actual statute. Now everyone can see clearly that the law is garbage and completely unenforceable. Even if it were, there is nothing in that statute that would apply to Rush Limbaugh.
1 person likes this
• Philippines
26 Mar 08
Everyone has a freedom of choice on who they want to vote but if they are cheating on it they should be punished but I don't think it is a big crime to put him behind bars. It would just make him worse inside.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8012)
• United States
25 Mar 08
Would you agree yo send your fellow Democrats or are you a hypocrite. What am I talking about, I will tell the great secrete, if Rush goes down we will take Obama, and Hillary with us. Both Obama, and Hillary campaign for both Republican and Independents, which is illegal under the law that YOU quoted. So what do you want to do, trade Rush for both of your Presidential candidates. If Ohio goes down this road the Republicans will fire back. 25% of those that voted in our primary where not Republicans. Maybe we should drag them into court. Why do Liberals hate so much. I thought Liberals where all about love. Conservatives as your buch keeps saying are the haters. Why do Liberals hate Rush so much. Maybe you all are the close mind people that the Conservative are being are always being accused of. Liberals are alway tring to shut-up opposition, but I thought that you all where open minded. I guess not.
@rodney850 (2146)
• United States
26 Mar 08
I know this is off subject (a little) but by saying Rush's actions are not acceptable what does that say about you for being willing to excuse Obama's pastor for racial and hate slurs toward the "rich white people" in America or his G** Da** America? Just a thought. By the way Annie, Gewcew might not have typed it in right but the meaning is something like the pot calling the kettle black. These two DID appeal to republican voters who were on the fence to switch and vote for them, still against that ridiculous law!
@anniepa (25834)
• United States
29 Mar 08
"These two DID appeal to republican voters who were on the fence to switch and vote for them, still against that ridiculous law!" I still say what they did is not against that law or any other law. They didn't ask people to switch to vote for them and then vote against them in November. Limbaugh made it clear he was encouraging people to commit fraud according to the law in Ohio. Annie
@stephcjh (32388)
• United States
31 Mar 08
It seems that these well-known people can get by with any and everything these days. they just get a little slap on the hand, if any, and they go on about their merry way. I think they should get what is coming to them. It isn't fair to the rest of the huiman population that have to pay for their misahps.