All's Fair in Love and War - and Senate Races
Have you heard about the latest scheme cooked up by the Vermont left? They are attempting to make sure that no one runs against Bernie Sanders in the November election.
That’s right. The self-righteous lovers of democracy, caretakers of the poor, and knowers of what is best for everyone, want their golden boy, Bernie Sanders, to run for a six-year term in the United States Senate with no opposition.
First, they organized to put Bernie on the Democratic Party primary ballot, so that no other person seeking the Democratic nomination would be able to oppose him.
Bernie of course will then decline the nomination because he is after all an independent. Just disregard all that Democratic Party fundraising for him.
Now the left is organizing a campaign to get people to vote in the Republican primary to write-in the deceased Fred Tuttle, eradicating any opposition from the Republican Party.
This would leave Bernie on the ballot facing no major party candidate, ensuring an easy victory.
This is what socialism is, folks, and this is why conservatives and libertarians fear it so. Socialists think they know what is best for mankind and therefore the end justifies the means.
So what if there was no fair election?
So what if there were no other candidates?
Bernie knows what is best. He will represent the people.
The end justifies the means.
26 comments:
What? where did you hear this was happening? Somewhere other than the comments on my blog, I'm guessing.
Anyone who votes for Fred Tuttle is a moron. He's not going to get more votes than Parke. If you want to stop Tarrant vote for Parke. Duh.
I hate to burst your bubble Charity, but it's Republican trolls floating this stupid "vote for Tuttle" nonsense.
Doesn't anyone have any respect for the dead anymore?
Hate to burst your bubble Haiky, but this farce is being legitimized by none other than the distinguished VDB.
I noticed it on your blog too. I wonder who that was.
I appreciate that you assumed I also heard about it elsewhere. At least you realize that I have some level of integrity.
I wonder who that was.
My guess is Tarrant. He know a lot of Independents will vote against him in the primary. He's trying to pick off a few well inteded dim-wits by convincing them to waste their vote writing in a dead man, rather than give it to Parke. Don't fall for Tarrant's tricks! Vote Parke September 12.
Oh BTW, you don't actually think lefties and socialists would propose something this stupid, do you Charity? I mean your post was a joke, right? You must realize it's Tarrant doing this. It is not in the left's interest to waste votes on Tuttle. Obviously there should be a contested election. Are you really so worked up about the non-existent possibility Fred Tuttle is going to posthumously beat Dick Tarrant?
As Chris Matthews would say: HA!
"I mean your post was a joke, right?"
Yes, in the sense that I was being over-the-top to illustrate the absurdity of it.
The fact that Philip has a post about it in which he calls it "beautiful" and says that Tarrant and that other guy "deserve" it, lends legitimacy to the idea.
The fact is that these schemes are the antithesis of democracy. In representative democracy, people have the right to choose candidates that represent them. If you have your Bernie, stay the heck out of the primary where I get to choose my guy. (I'm saying that in general, not to you specifically.)
VDB also says, "Email is criss-crossing the state, urging primary voters of all stripes to spread Fred, and ditch Rich," which tells me someone other than Tarrant's campaign is perpetuating this.
They (Tarrant) may have started it. That's an interesting notion. It would keep the left from voting for Parke. I never thought of that. Good point, Haik.
plez1: Are you saying that is evidence that Tarrant's campaign did start this, or that it makes it okay for the left to do this?
The whole thing is stupid anyway. There will not be enough write-in votes to beat the other candidates. It's the principle of it that bothers me. (Or should I say lack of principle?)
Also, I have no idea how the Sec. of State's office would handle it if a dead person won a write-in campaign.
Yes, Charity, so many of Vermont's liberals are a freedom-hating bunch, and much of the strain of liberalism can be found around Bernie. Everyone who really knows him or has worked for him knows he's a mean bastard, intolerant and extremely controlling. And it's that kind of mentality that rules much of Vermont's left. Sadly, it seems to be that much of it is born out of a distrust and even contempt for "the people" they claim to want to help. But to give those same people things like real ballot choices? Forgetaboutit. The Progs, for example, have learned a lot from Bernie. Look how Stalinistic they've become with their precious ballot, literally chasing people away and running fake write-in campaigns to control the process. It's really quite sickening. As George Lakoff writes in latest book, today's left has totally forgotten about its historical roots in freedom, thus allowing the right to mop on this issue. And then they wonder why the White House, Congress and the courts are dominated by Republicans right now. American's love freedom.
Liberals like Baruth like to giggle over these kinds of political games but sooner or later they're going to have to realize the damage it causes. Until then, they'll just keep worshiping the masters of a joyless, freedomless ideology.
Actually, yes the Democrats would do just exactly that. Down here (southeast Texas) they went to court to force the Republican party to leave Tom DeLay on the ballot, even though he has resigned, retired, and no longer lives in Texas. That was the only way they had a chance in a very strongly Republican district. We now have the choice of voting for a man who cannot legally represent us, or attempting a write-in campaign, which is difficult on the ballot system in use. Or of course, accepting the Democrat being forced on us.
geez. I was gonna post on is very topic, but closer to the priary. Now I have to spend more time on the computer today cuz its the hot topic. Oh well. Or maybe I can just link to this instead?
The "Ditch-Rich" movement might have nothing to do with Bernie.
I used to work for IDX, and I was "let-go" after more than ten years of service. I want to see Rich Tarrant lose this election in such a way that he is totally humiliated. I really don't care who his opponent is. I just want to see him lose. It is appropriate that people are starting to call him "Rich Tyrant".
Well, anonymous, then vote for Greg Parke, the other Republican primary candidate. :)
Odum, I read that (the linked comment) at the time it was on the front page. I really respect your integrity on that issue. I know there are people on both sides who cross over. I know Republicans who did it when Dean was in the presidential primary. I opposed it. I agree with what you said completely.
Sorry you sucked at your job, other anonymous.
This whole election is fishy on both ends. Tarrant comes out with the attack ads, so Bernie feels he has to respond with some of his own. I haven't looked into your post much, so I won't say anything until I do my own homework.
I am ready for this election to be done with. I am so tired of negative campaigning that it makes me ill. One of these days, I would like to see a politician focus on what they can do for the electorate, and not bring up old issues, and mudsling. I know I am being idealistic, but I lean more towards a candidate who focuses on the issues and not the other candidates.
In my experience, "the left" - if by which you mean the Dem or Prog Parties - dont get involved with these crossover-and-screw-up-the-other-team's-ballot things. They smell bad, seem like a waste of time, would bleed resources, and quite frankly screw with activist/targeting data (as well as party activists' eligibility to take part as delegates in party presidential stuff). Seriously, when I worked for the Dems and such things would come up, there'd always be collective eye-rolling before we'd just move on and fuggedaboudit. I presume the GOP and the Prog Party pros feel the same way for the same reasons.
This is not to downplay them at all - The Tuttle business showed how they can be a big deal without any party's blessing.
Instead of a dead man winning the primary, I have a better idea how to screw up Vermont's republicans. Vote for a guy who actually lives in Florda!
Haik, no one's fooled by the plez1, civilityplez1, and jeff pierce sock puppets. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Only one of those three is me. Sorry. Why don't you try to find out who writes "politics vermont?"
Because they've declared that they're going to remain anonymous and like most people who have been reading blogs for more than a year, I can respect that.
Anonymity is not dishonest. Maintaining multiple online personas that respond to each other is. Impersonating a real person while doing so takes it a step further, and not in a happy direction.
"I think that Haik is asking a very good question when he asks about the identity of PoliticsVermont."
It's nice that you think so highly of your own "analysis," Haik. To the rest of us, it's just like watching someone punch themselves in the face repeatedly.
"I wonder if that means that he is right."
Yeah, being told that you're wrong and that your method of debate is dishonest is a great indication that you're right. BTW, I guess you see nothing wrong in defending yourself as a sock puppet, even after it's been sussed. Maybe someday a real person will come along and agree with you, wouldn't that be something?
Charity do you know how to check the ip addresses of the people that visit and comment on she's right? I've been learning about it lately in order to track the HayesGroup's activities at BP. Get a "site-meter" counter. It's awesome. People from all over the world read my blog. Some regulars? US House, US Senate, Pentagon, Rainville Exploratory, HayesGroup and Aunty Annie's Pretzels out of Intercourse, PA.
If you review your visitors by outclick you can see who went to the comments, and sometimes pin down who made a comment. For example- I think this is you: 24.53.112.# (Adelphia.). Maybe Bob can confirm that. Anyhoo- my point is, if you were doing this, you would see that I am not "VTROCK" although after howling alone in the desert for weeks, I'm grateful for some company. Thanks VTROCK. This exact accusation has come at me on this blog before. It's pretty funny.
To that other dirtbag writing anonymously from the HayesGroup...Sue me for libel!! At least then I'd get your name on a piece of paper, you worm!!! (Although you will lose. Parody is LEGAL.)
In-kind campaign contributions need to be reported. That includes advice from "Madison Avenue" Hayes and "Hollywood" Jim Davis.
Politics Vermont is a Tarrant Shill. Get rid of it, or I'm going to wrestle you down until the election. You use Free Speech your way, I'll use Free Speech my way.
"Sue me for libel!! (Although you will lose. Parody is LEGAL.)"
Sorry champ, straight up impersonation isn't "parody" - unless you meant your whole bizarre, unsupported theory is one big parody. Lucky for you, I highly doubt anyone from the "Hayes Group" is monitoring this blog.
Lucky for you, I highly doubt anyone from the "Hayes Group" is monitoring this blog.
If by "this blog" you're talking about "She's Right," then I hope you are right.
But if you are talking about BurlingtonPol.com, then your doubts have zero bearing on my luck. (Expand JPEG)
Haik, I am insulted that you think I don't know my own IP address. Granted, Bob is far more computer nerdy than I, but knowing my IP address contributed to my high nerd score.
At any rate, I do have a stat counter. I went to look at it, but I got so much traffic today (three times my usual weekday traffic) thanks to the Second Amendment post, which has been circulating the gun rights blogosphere.
I thought I figured out who was who, but then I had some things that looked funny. It is too late to do this now, so I will try tomorrow.
You shouldn't let anonymous blog commenters get to you.
I will end by saying, it is quite possible that vtrock is not Haik.
You're kidding, right? You actually think there is an organized effort to get people who would ordinarily vote in the Democratic primary to vote in the Republican primary to write in Fred Tuttle's name? I hope you have more evidence than an offhand comment about email "criss-crossing the state". Like maybe you've seen one, or could refer your readers to someone who has actually seen one?
From my little corner of the left I'm pretty clear on this: I think a primary election is an internal decision-making process whereby a party chooses its candidate. I think the members of the party should make the choice, and I think people who are not in the party shouldn't vote. I discouraged everyong I could from crossing over to vote for Fred Tuttle when he was on the Republican ballot.
This year I've written that I think that people who run in party primaries should abide by the decision of the voters, whether it's in Vermont or Connecticut. This means that Joe Lieberman should listen to the voters and go home. It also means that Bernie should listen to the voters and stay on the Democratic line when he wins the Democratic primary. http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=393 It's also pretty clear that we don't need to write in a phony candidate to win the Senate seat in November.
Jack,
My post was sort of a joke, especially since there is virtually no chance that enough people would write-in Tuttle for him to be the top vote getter.
For it to be untrue that this is happening, then it must have been untrue on VDB, where I read it. Maybe it was a joke there, too. Philip has noted before that people don't get him sometimes.
Odum,
If this is happening, I do not think it is the party. By the left, I meant those die-hard foot soldiers y'all have doin' that grassroots thing all the time.
The Tuttle story is bogus -- I'm on all the good (lefty) email lists and not a single one of them has invited me to join this vast left wing conspiracy to write in a dead man (charming as Fred was...)
If I was inclined to meddle in a Republican primary (which I'm not, the mere thought of actually filling out a Republican ballot kinda makes me wretch), it would an easy choice. I'd be voting for Greg Parke for Senate and Mark Shepard for Congress (choices that Charity approves of).
Let's face it - those two are the two real Republicans in the race -- Tarrant and Rainville keep falling all over themselves saying that they're "independent" and pretending they're not Republicans. At least if Parke and Shepard won the nominations, then we wouldn't have a campaign with those Republican-lite candidates - we would have real honest to god conservative Republicans out there on the campaign trail defending Bush (and taking positions that appeal to about 30% of Vermonters.)
With Parke and Shepard leading the ticket, the Senate and Congressional elections would virtually be over on Sept 13th (and Douglas and Dubie would be wetting their pants over having to run on the same ticket as these guys).
And let's face it, all of Vermont (left, right and centre) would breathe a huge sigh of relief if Richie Rich got sent home after spending $5 million and couldn't even manage to win his own primary. We wouldn't have to watch any of those inane ads anymore.
It is almost enough incentive for me to fill out that Republican ballot -- and I would do it too, but I don't think there is enough hot water in the world to wash away the way I'd feel afterward!
Post a Comment