Skip to main content

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.  

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat.  Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Two polls the last couple of days show a tight race: Strategic Vision (R) shows Romney within striking distance with 20 percent to McCain's 29 (Huckabee is third with 18), while Rossman Group shows Huckabee with the lead -- 23 percent to Romney's 22 and McCain's 18.

Now here's the thing -- without a real Democratic contest on the ballot, and a lack of party registration in Michigan, this is an open primary. Anyone can pick up a Republican ballot. So Michigan Democrats and independents who want to see the Republican battle royale continue should just take a few minutes on Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary.

If you know someone in Michigan, send them the email I've included below the fold. If you don't know someone in Michigan, send the email to your liberal friends and see if THEY have friends in Michigan. Get the word out, whether by blog, mailing list, MySpace or Facebook page, or whatever.

If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How "legitimate" will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point.

Michigan Democrats helped deliver their state to McCain in 2000 to spite their hated governor, John Engler, who had "guaranteed" his state to Bush. To prevent such future mischief, Michigan Republicans helped push through a unified tax-payer funded primary date to supposedly keep Democrats focused on their own race (prior to this year, party contests were funded by the parties). Let's make sure their meddling with the Democratic primary and their misuse of taxpayer funds backfires on them.

Michigan is Romney’s last stand.  He has pulled all advertising from other states for a last-ditch effort there. It’s sink or swim time for Romney, and we’re going to throw him a lifesaver.

So why are we doing this? Because we can. Because it'll be fun. And because we've suffered Republican meddling, stealing, and disenfranchisement in our elections for far too long.

So get the word out and get out the vote!. Email below the fold.

Dear [Friend],

We're not going to beat around the Bush. If you want to help make mischief for the Republican Party - and bolster the Democrats' chances for taking the White House this November - read on!

Are you a Democrat or independent registered to vote in Michigan? If you are, vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

Do you know any Democrats or independents in Michigan? If you do, encourage them to vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

And if you don't know anyone in Michigan, then forward this e-mail on to your like-minded friends - you never know who they might know.

Okay, so, I know - you must think I'm nuts to suggest that anyone ever vote Republican. But this situation is special. As it happens, the Michigan Democratic primary is uncontested. Barack Obama and John Edwards aren't even on the ballot. So that means even if you're a Hillary  Clinton supporter, there's no need to vote for her - she's running unopposed.

But the Republican primary is hotly contested. And Michigan law lets anyone - including independents AND Democrats - vote in the Republican primary. This means there's a great opportunity, as we say above, for us to make mischief!

So why should Dems and indies vote Romney? After his victory in New Hampshire, the press has declared John McCain the Republican front- runner. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, who won in Iowa, looks poised to do well in South Carolina, which hosts the next primary after Michigan.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. And the more Republican candidates who are fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for the Democratic candidates, of course! In other words, we want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

So Michigan Democrats and independents who want to see the Republican battle royale continue should just take a few minutes on Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary. And don't feel bad or awkward about doing so - the Republicans have done things just like this many times in the past. What's more, if Michigan Republicans didn't want Dems or indies to vote in their primary, they could have changed the rules. But they didn't, so here we are.

Again, if you've got friends in Michigan, send this e-mail along to them. If you don't, send it to all of your friends and relatives who want to see the Republicans booted out of the White House this year - they might know some folks in Michigan. And heck, if you live in Michigan yourself, then definitely vote Romney in the primary!

Remember, the message is simple: The more Republican candidates who remain in the race, the better it is for the Democratic candidates. And Mitt Romney is much likelier to stay in the race if he wins the Michigan primary. Democrats and independents can help make this happen - by voting for Mitt!

Good luck, and to victory in November!


Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:31 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Doesn't Ron Paul need some love too? n/t (8+ / 0-)

    If we Americans analyzed our social problems as much as we analyze pro football, there would be no more AIDS, homeless people, or pregnant teens...

    by wry twinger on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM PST

  •  Roll Mitt, Roll! (11+ / 0-)

    I am now Joshm Marshall.

    Don't Legitimize Fox News.
    "Democrats have the heart to care."

    by jeepdad on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM PST

  •  Romney's got the money to stay in after Michigan, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JTML, jeepdad, lothar779

    regardless of who wins. Might be better to vote for Giuliani (who hasn't placed anywhere near the top three  so far).

    One conversation in the real world beats one thousand diaries on the rec list.

    by haruki on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM PST

  •  LOL! (11+ / 0-)

    You had me laughing even before I saw that "Democrats for Mitt" promo on the right.

    p.s.  Can you smell the aftershave?  It smells like a combination of Listerine and gin.

  •  This hardly ever works (8+ / 0-)

    But if it did, it'd be great. I want nothing more than for Mitt to be the GOP nominee (other than Edwards to be ours, I guess).

    "democracy is the most revolutionary idea in the world" ~Tony Benn

    by surfbird007 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM PST

  •  I like it! (4+ / 0-)

    Although part of me would rather see a Huckaboom! landslide in Michigan.

    Thank you Senator Dodd!

    by jrooth on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM PST

    •  They're both campaigning as theocrats (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redwagon, Rupert, Pender

      of the rankest variety.  They both scare me, Huck even more so because he is more sincere.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  republican parents.. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emptywheel, Geotpf, Rupert, lgmcp

        My parents, like most Republicans, are genuinely dissatisfied with their entire field (I might get my mom to come around on Obama!  There's promise!)

        Being evangelical, middle class, and Caucasian, they make up the bulk of the vote here in conservative West Michigan.  They are torn between Huckabee, Romney, and not voting.

        My dad might go for Huckabee because he seems to think the FairTax is an ingenious plan.. puhlease.

    •  I just want McCain to not win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I don't mind Huckabee winning, because he'll do pretty lousy in the general, although not as bad as ol' Mittens.  But McCain beats Hillary for certain and probably beats Obama, especially if the Wilder effect is really still a factor, as it appeared in New Hampshire.

      But Kos is right-a three-way hurts them all.  That alone is enough of a reason to do this.

  •  Oh I SO wish I could be there (8+ / 0-)

    to vote for him 1/15. We need some serious Mittmentum!

    "People hate Bush and hate this war. It's that simple, and it's been true for quite some time" - Atrios

    by atrexler on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM PST

  •  This in pretty unprincipled (15+ / 0-)

    but very clever, I must admit.

    Clinton '08 // Putting People First

    by Berkeley Vox on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:15 PM PST

  •  I know gaming the primaries is legal and logical (22+ / 0-)

    but I have a hard time feeling that it's moral.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM PST

  •  Go Mitt!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, Loudoun County Dem

    This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

    by ablington on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM PST

  •  We did it for McCain in 2000, (14+ / 0-)

    I guess we can do it for Romney in '08.  But the thought of it just makes me c-r-r-r-r-i-n-g-e.

    Committed to voting "Uncommitted."

    by GOTV on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM PST

  •  Sorry, kos. I can't do this. (44+ / 0-)

    To begin with, I don't want to be spammed, robo-called, and deluged with direct mail by the Republicans.

    For another thing, I don't agree with you about Willard Romney. He'd make a formidable candidate because he's been outside the Beltway and has no pro-Bush voting record to exploit.

    I'm disgusted with our state Democratic Party, especially chairman-for-life Mark Brewer, and believe that everyone associated with this farce of a primary richly deserves censure. Having said that, I intend to vote "uncommitted" in the primary as a vote against HRC and the machine politics she embodies.

    A difference of opinion makes a market, a horse race, and yes, a primary election.

    "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:37:25 PM PST

  •  Mixed feelings about this... (9+ / 0-)

    On one hand, it sounds like it could be fun.  On the other hand, it wreaks of dirty tricks.  

    How does this differ from other "fun" things like late-night fake calls in a candidate's name or push polls asking "When did McCain stop beating his wife?"

    Ahhhh, what the heck.  Go for it Michigan Dems!  

    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan

    by John3 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM PST

    •  I don't think it's dirty tricks... (8+ / 0-)
      1. The rules in Michigan allow a Democrat to vote for a Republican and vice versa
      1. As a Democrat, who would you rather see as the Republican winner?
      1. You'd simply be voting your conscience

      If we Americans analyzed our social problems as much as we analyze pro football, there would be no more AIDS, homeless people, or pregnant teens...

      by wry twinger on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've got problems with this for other reasons (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emptywheel, BCO gal

        If somebody WERE to do this (oh, like the McCain protest voters did in OH in 2000), they need to know that they would be stepping into potential headaches. From here on, all of those folks will be treated as a potential repub voter. Now, they can throw out unwanted campaign mail and slam down the phone just like anybody else, but if they ever want to be active in their local precinct or party, they're going to have trouble.  

        For instance, should any of these committed dem folks ever want to be a poll judge, they won't be able to show a clear party identification to their county Board of Elections, so they won't be able to be appointed as a certified poll judge for their party. I was lucky enough to get appointed before they started checking for party crossers. I have a very good friend who's been a card-carrying dem for 40 years who has been blacklisted for just this sort of mischief.  I'm not kidding- she even faxed the Board of Elections the freaking card and still can't get appointed.

        While I'm all for wreaking havoc on the repubs, this isn't without a certain risk.

        "I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser." Mother Jones

        by histopresto on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Was it dirty tricks when Rs and Indys voted in (4+ / 0-)

      the Democratic caucuses in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire?  They crossed over and into the D's territory with the idea of influencing who Democrats chose as their standardbearer.

      Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

      by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:50:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Open primaries are like this! (0+ / 0-)

      Hawaii has the same thing and the Repukes tried to unseat Danial Akaka in the Senate with Ed Case who was a DINO. The republicans openly promoted republicans to vote in the Dem primary for Case. As it turned out Case lost and gave up his seat in the House. We replaced him with a real Dem progressive. I don't see much to lose in this case! I'd be voting Mitt looking for an exit poller to interview me on the way out!!

      Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

      by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rudy (0+ / 0-)

    Rudy is hoping for a Mitt win in Michigan, it was his plan all along to get to super tuesday and hopefully pull some delegates from the larger states instead of the earlier small ones.
    I dont really want Rudy in the news fear mongering, and this gives him a chance.  Screw voting for Mitt.

  •  Excellent Idea ! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loudoun County Dem, jds1978

    I will talk to people I know in Michigan. Lets go for it.

  •  I live in MI (10+ / 0-)

    ...and was already planning some "payback" for teh GOP.

    Kos, you read my mind

    Too weird to live and too rare to die.

    by jds1978 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM PST

  •  In that picture... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loudoun County Dem

    mitt sorta looks like Bush I. Look again...

    Giuliani: I was once attacked by ninjas. That means I am a martial arts expert

    by Mr Bula on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM PST

  •  This is why open primaries suck (10+ / 0-)

    We'd be, rightly, throwing up a shitstorm if Republicans tried to pull this crap in a Democratic primary.

    Michigan Democratic voters: Please Vote Hillary or Uncommitted.

  •  Several friends in MI,,,, (5+ / 0-)

    but first, I'd like to know what happens if Uncommitted gets more votes than Hillary.  Will she still get all the delegates?  And yes, I know the Dems claim the delegates will not count, but I'd like to be sure of this.

    Anyone got an answer?

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 3910+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

    by Miss Blue on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM PST

    •  Wow, if they decided (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, mjd in florida

      to count the delegates after Edwards and Obama relied on their assurances that would suck -- and be political suicide.

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If "uncommitted" crosses the 15% threshold (15+ / 0-)

      Then there will be uncommitted delegates to the convention. That's how I read the MDP delegate selection procedure.

      It looks at though uncommitted will top 15 percent. The MIRS poll had HRC at 48%, uncommitted at 28%, with the rest either unsure or voting for other candidates.

      "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uncommitted can win (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It would be such a bad news story for Clinton if she lost to "uncommitted," or in other words nobody. Democrats that support Obama and Edwards need to vote for Uncommitted, not monkey around like Kos advocates. Though Michigan doesn't really count, it still could have some say in the process and vote for change in "uncommitted."

        Further, if I were Edwards, I'd go up to Michigan and start barnstorming the state to get people to vote for Uncommitted. I might even run a TV ad or two there. Yes, he told the DNC he wouldn't do that. But his only chance is to knock Hillary our before 2-5, and the only way that happens now is Uncommitted winning Michigan.

      •  Do the delegates go only if the ruling is changed (0+ / 0-)

        I'm trying to get a handle on this and that's about the last "huh?" point I still have.

        I understand that if "uncommitted" receives at least 15%, there will be "uncommitted" delegates sent to the convention.

        But is that only true if the ruling throwing out all our delegates is reversed, or does that mean that even if the ruling stands, those delegates get to be counted?

        If you know, of course.

        "It's not about who represents the religious truth and who is basically running for office on his or her way to hell." --Bill Clinton

        by NeedAFence on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:08:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If nothing else, if "Uncommitted" beats Clinton (8+ / 0-)

      it will be all over the news. It would be a unique slap at the front runner.

      I got tased in The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7

      by Walt starr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed--Edwards should go to MI (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And barnstorm the state. That news story would be everywhere, and it'd again raise doubts about Hillary. It's really a long-shot for Edwards, but at this point it may be his only shot. I think he should barn storm the state, push people to vote for uncommitted, and run a few TV ads explaining you need to vote for uncommitted there.

      •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

        all it means is that the Edwards supporters and the Obama supporters didn't want to vote for her which is different from the other states how?  

        The fact is that combined the Edwards and Obama supporters outnumber hers.

        Of course if it were Obama the result would be the same the Clinton and Edwards supporters would outnumber his.

        Then there are the real uncommitted to add to the list.  It means nothing.

        ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

        by Rebecca on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          Recommended by:
          Dan Hogan

          There's your headline. The news would be about Hillary losing to nobody.

          I got tased in The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7

          by Walt starr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well apparently the headline should be (0+ / 0-)

            DEMOCRATS HATE HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            I'm getting tired of this irrational hatred of Clinton getting in the way of discussing politics here.  I've read more posts that fit on Free Republic or Redstate since Clinton won NH than I care to count.  If destroying the Clintons is more important to you guys than getting a Democrat elected you've lost me.

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not hatred (0+ / 0-)

              The only hatred I have is for the dogwhistle crap they've been running with.

              I got tased in The Great Markos Candidate Meltdown Cranky Pants Sting of Ought 7

              by Walt starr on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:40:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh? (0+ / 0-)

                and the other campaigns haven't used any dogwhistle crap?  

                Not to mention so much of the so-called dogwhistle crap I've seen talked about is just that crap.

                Bill Clinton calls both Obama and Edwards (did anyone notice Edwards is white?) boys and it's racism.

                The fact that Clinton is running on experience vs youth apparently doesn't cross their minds.  Yep racism cause calling a black man a boy is racist so don't ever use the word boy about one.

                Except that boys is a common usage for groups of men just a girls is a common usage for groups of women regardless of age.

                I thought it was a very smart play on both those points.  Using boys as in the common usage while carrying the connotation that they are not as experienced as everyone else.

                What is the smart response to this?

                Stretch the meaning of the words used by Bill Clinton to the breaking point and screaming racism?


                How about using his own words against him?  I remember from the 90's when Bill and Al were first running they were the up and coming young candidates.  Are you going to tell me they don't have a ton of articles and speeches speaking on that issue that supports Obama?  But I guess we have degenerated to Freeper status.  Instead of taking the meaning as intended and then working with that by doing research and coming up with some devastating quotes from the Clintons on their feelings about youth against experience we're going to distort and try to destroy their characters.  

                Oh and then there is that other one best recounted in that troll diary by Geekesque.  Hillary compares herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK and suddenly Clinton is attacking MLK.  Amazing.  

                What was the best response here?  Stretching and distorting to call for racism?


                Use the technique developed by Sen Lloyd Bentsen when Sen Dan Quayle compared himself to JFK.  

                Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

                Clinton is no where near LBJ.  Just point that out.  How hard is that?

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:27:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  It'd make for a fun floor fight. (0+ / 0-)

      (Try saying THAT three times fast).

      I'm not sure the DNC can count those delegates with Obama and Edwards off the ballot; it would just fracture the party and kill any morale coming out of the convention.  You make a ruling, you have to stick by it.

      •  HAHAHAHAHA...I love a good joke.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marjo, dskinner

        You make a ruling, you have to stick by it.

        The delegates will count.  There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the Democratic Party convention is going to exclude the voters' choices in any state this year.  Period.

        Yes.  I'm only guessing...but it's an educated guess.  Just put me in 'the home' if I'm wrong.

        Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

        by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miss Blue

          The voter's choices have already been excluded, because two major candidates aren't on the ballot.  The Michigan primary is meaningless, and to count its delegates would be a mockery of the primary process (which, admittedly, is already pretty laughable).

          It could all be moot (and my guess is that it will be).  But if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination by the virtue of that tainted Michigan primary, it will kill us in the general.

          Thus, I propose voting "uncommitted" to keep that from happening.

          •  Not just MI (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman, RoscoeOfAlabama

            We have the same thing happening in FL.

            What the hell were these states thinking?  Their entire leadership should be canned.

            "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 3910+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

            by Miss Blue on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They were 'thinking'..."Hey! We're the big guys (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miss Blue

              and we never get any facetime on TV like those little undeserving twerps in Iowa and New Hampshire...let's give them all something to think about!  Hey, Democrats...want our votes?  Get this..."

              Their party people want to be players in the big game...tired of sitting on the bench, evidently.  It doesn't pay all that well...

              Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

              by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  P.S. Their leadership is chosen by the Democrats (0+ / 0-)

              in the party in those states...not by the national party or the rest of us...autonomy...hmmm...

              Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

              by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If we could just fix the damn primary system (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dan Hogan

              so it isn't always NH and Iowa, we wouldn't have this front-loading nonsense (and, as an added bonus, every once in awhile my vote would count in a primary).

              It's so damn simple; just do it already!!!

  •  I would love a Mitt candidate, easy to beat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dc 20005, lgmcp

    but I can't say that I support this, it just seems wrong to mess with their primaries, let them choose, whoever they pick, we can take on with any of our candidates!

  •  Romney would be the easiest guy to beat (6+ / 0-)

    way too many televised flip flops.

    McCain and Huck are dangerous. Giuliani doesn't have a chance to win the repub primary (he'd be easy too)

    Giuliani: I was once attacked by ninjas. That means I am a martial arts expert

    by Mr Bula on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM PST

  •  Is this wise? (9+ / 0-)

    Openly calling for mischievous interference in another party's democratic process doesn't look too good.

    Just sayin'...

    It rains on both the just and the unjust, but the just gets wetter, for the unjust has stolen his umbrella.

    by Fischer on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM PST

  •  Anybody but Romney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, northsylvania

    I do think that Romney would be easy to beat in the General election, but since I know that Democrats sometimes find a way to loose elections they should have won, I am hoping McCain will be the Republican Nominee because he is the least objectionable.

    I know that he will be the toughest to beat, but I don't even want to think about the potential of a Romney presidency, no matter how remote it is likely to be.

  •  Maybe there should be a poll on this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, Mr Bula, captainlaser, miproggrrl

    ...and maybe Michiganders here might agree to try to get people to all vote the same way.

    Which way, the Republican's Romney, Huckabee, or Paul, or the Democrat's Undecided?  Anyone else?  

    I'm thinking it should probably be someone close enough already to possibly win (so maybe not Paul and certainly not Thompson).  Alternatively, we could all agree to trust kos' instincts on this one.

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM PST

  •  In General, I Would Concur (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but I would only fear that if our nomination race somehow becomes essentially decided as of Feb. 5 or shortly thereafter, while the Republican side remains wide open, they'll get all the media coverage (for better or worse).  And there's a risk that in the course of all their sparring with one another, one candidate will finally hit upon a message that actually resonates with voters and could be successful in the fall campaign as well.

    I know, I'm sounding overly doom-and-gloom here, but I just think we should be aware that there might be this potential downside to any mischief.

    Ron Paul, on the other hand, should definitely be encouraged to continue to wage his fight all the way to the GOP Convention.

  •  I can't jump on board for this. (9+ / 0-)

    I feel like we should be above this.

    Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Sometimes they run for President.

    by Sixfortyfive on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM PST

    •  I can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      It's not a question of rising ABOVE anything--think of it as the ability to rise to the occasion, and take the opportunity!

      If you could go back in time and a few dirty tricks could keep Bush out of the 2000 elections, wouldn't THAT be the most moral choice?!?  A mere few hundred thousand lives would get saved!

    •  above what? (0+ / 0-)

      To my mind this is a vote for which ever dem candidate gets the nomination. I'm content with any of them. i want the dems to win, so my vote needs to maximize the chance of the repubs losing

  •  As Randy Quaid said in 'Independence Day' (6+ / 0-)

    "Payback's a bitch, ain't it?!?"

    Love this idea. Hope you folks in MI will take this opportunity to fubar the GOoPer race even more than it's already self-fubared.

    Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.

    by bwintx on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM PST

  •  Democrats did this in 2000 for McCain... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lots of Dems moved over to vote for McCain because they really liked the guy (at the time).  But, there were some high-profile Democrats in Detroit that pushed this so they could fight W.  

    Let's stay out of this one.  I'd rather see Dems go to the polls and vote for either Hill or uncommitted.  Let's show the country that Dems are so fired up that we'll show up even if its just to stand up and be counted.

    Just stopping by, wish I could spend more time here.

    by Dan Hogan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:41:00 PM PST

  •  Great idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I know people over there, but they're all Republicans, dammit.

    The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

    by Korkenzieher on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM PST

  •  Candidate campaign stops in MI (6+ / 0-)

    This one's my favorite:

    Friday January 11, 8:30 p.m. : Mike Huckabee stops by the homeschoolers' basketball game between the St. Johns Warriors for Christ and the Lansing Chaps, Wilson Center, St. Johns.

  •  Well, I'm Not Sure... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...Willard is the WORST...but since they all stink, let's keep them in there fighting as long as possible!

    Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:41:37 PM PST

  •  Robocall for Huck in Detroit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, Geotpf

    I live in a very Dem ZIP code near Detroit.  I just got a question/answer robocall about 3 minutes long.  I identified myself as a Dem. The recording encouraged me to crossover and vote for Huck in the Repub primary.  That was very strange.

  •  MIxed feelings, but I'll forward this to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpro, Geotpf, BCO gal

    everyone I know from Michigan, without comment, and let them decide.

    "The history of the past is but one long struggle upward to equality." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    by Joelarama on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:42:16 PM PST

  •  Vote for Huckabee and drive Rush Limbaugh nuts (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Geotpf, Subversive, Dinclusin

    Limbaugh and the Country Club Nobility of the GOP hate, hate, hate Huckabee.  The WSJ thinks he is a RINO of the lowest category, a troll in human form, and worse, someone who really believes that brainless Evangelical nonsense.

    Evangelicals are supposed to send money and votes, they are not supposed to run for office and get elected, where they might get carried away or have a divine revelation and mess up the tax system, help the poor, or something similarly stupid!  NOT acceptable.

    If you want to drive both Romney and the GOP crazy, help Huck Thin win Michigan and become the face of Republican nuttiness for a week or two.  Or else, just stay home and the GOP will do something equally nutty without any help from anyone else.  Did you listen to McCain's rousing victory speech?  I'm glad he is keeping his blood pressure and respiration rates under strict control like his Doctor told him to, but gosh his "oration" sure fires up the crowd, doesn't it?  One sensed the room dropping in temperature as he spoke!

    •  I want credit for this characterization (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Huck Thin"

      I have been struggling to find the snarkiest nickname for Huck, with only moderate success up until now.  "The Huckster" was probably accurate, but almost sounded romantic.  "Huckleberry Governor" was so-so, but lacked bite.

      But Huck Thin really encapsulates his entire life story, doesn't it?

  •  We did this to Bush in 2000. (4+ / 0-)

    Mucho Dems crossed over and voted for McCain to stop Bush's momentum.

    McCain won big and it almost worked.

  •  Money (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpro, LordMike, jamesmcyang

    I think the biggest point for Mitt as opposed to anyone else is his money. He is the biggest single source for negative ads against Republicans right now, and is far more valuable than any two or three others combined.

    If he loses another he might finally drop out.


  •  On many levels, great idea. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, SecondComing, jds1978

    Focus on the screwed up primary process, ratfuck the ratfuckers, keep inside the rules, pick against whom we want to run.

    Now is not the time to be idealist and do the right thing. We will be Republicans for only a day, promise?

    Do you have a child? Will you send her to the war?... anon

    by andreww on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM PST

  •  I know this is probably going to be a dumb.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..question, but why is Hilary alone on the Michigan ballot?  It's not as if she's an incumbent. Just curious.

    •  Edwards and Obama took their names off (6+ / 0-)

      They didn't want to face DNC sanctions for campaigning in a state that violated the primary calendar.

      I'm not amused by their decision.

      "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:46:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not amused is the understatement of the (4+ / 0-)

        campaign.  I think the appropriate word is 'stupid.'

        In sports/campaign lingo, it's the difference between the jayvees and the varsity.

        These are good lessons for the young 'uns...(ducking)

        Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

        by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  They more likely wanted (3+ / 0-)

        an easy out of a state that was heavily favored to vote for Clinton. She wins without them on the ballot, it's no big deal, but if she cleans their clocks in a large state with everyone on the ballot, it is a big deal. I know it's not that simple in it's totality, but my opinion is that it was a large part of the decision.

        If anyone can add to legitimate reasons they took their names off the ballot (promising not to campaign doesn't fly, since you aren't required to campaign to keep your name on the ballot) please inform me.

        You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take. ~ Wayne Gretzky (Attention congress....this applies to more than hockey!!)

        by dskinner on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Michigan (3+ / 0-)

          Um, Michigan is a labor state. One of Edwards' top advisors, David Bonior, is a popular Michigander.

          Back in the early fall, Obama had more supporters in Washtenaw County, MI, than in any other county in the country (per a local Obama supporter).

          You think those men didn't want to go head to head with Hillary here? If they're not going to take her on in a state that has natural advantages for them, where do they expect to take her on?

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  While MI is a labor (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            state, and Bonior is somewhat popular, it obviously wasn't enough to even keep their names on the ballot to let their popular and many surrogates from working on the same playing field as Clinton.

            I am a union member and that does not make me an Edwards supporter. In fact none of my union brothers I'm working with would be voting for him. Most are unhappy with the whole crop of dem candidates, though many are concerned about gun ownership issues, and won't be convinced that the NRA is a GOP mouthpiece. So union support is not a guarantee for a candidate who talks union talk.

            You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take. ~ Wayne Gretzky (Attention congress....this applies to more than hockey!!)

            by dskinner on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  BRILLIANT!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, iowabosox, jds1978

    I love it! Thanks.

    We're one, but we're not the same

    by belly on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:45:03 PM PST

  •  this is utterly DIABOLICAL (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, belly, jds1978

    ... and I love it. Great idea! Emails already sent.

  •  This is the greatest idea I've ever heard (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cioxx, Geotpf, belly, jds1978

    Absolutely brilliant.

    I can't think of a better way to spite the GOP.

    I support Barack Obama because I believe in a Democratic Party that will fight any Republican, anywhere in the country.

    by Skulnick on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM PST

  •  Kos- good job (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iowabosox, jds1978

    I think it probably is a little risky to propose this on the front page, but if I can think of anyone, I'll let them know.  

    I'm moral... yada yada... but, this is really harmless fun at the expense of the richest contestant in a bumbling beauty pageant of ignorance.  

    Thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. Vonnegut

    by otto on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:45:58 PM PST

  •  Open Primaries Are a Bad & Stupid Thing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpro, Geotpf, jds1978, R Rhino from CT4

    in a two-party system.

    Why call them party primaries when the gen pub, as it were, can make the decision for the party members?  Why stop at open primaries if you want to let unaffiliated voters decide party politics, let anyone vote -- no one needs to register.

    All primaries should be closed.  If you're not registered with a specific party, then you don't get to play a role in picking the candidate of that party.  Period.  Otherwise, why have political parties?

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM PST

  •  send in the clowns... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    cue the concern trolls; someone is sure to snivel that we shouldn't stoop to Rethuggish tactics.  But, why don't you suggest helping out the Huck?  Wouldn't he be the best opponent for Dems to face?  I love the idea of the Talibaptists in charge of the 'thug Party .

    don't always believe what you think...

    by claude on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:47:17 PM PST

  •  not a fan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan, Sixfortyfive

    it's an interesting idea, but it's definitely below the belt. It's the same logic the administration used when amping up torture of detainees... they do it, so why shouldn't we do it? we wouldn't have much of an ethical standing in the future if we pulled a stunt like this (and pulled it off). vote uncommitted.

  •  Brilliant, kos! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I love it!  Will forward this notice to my friends in Michigan!

  •  McCain is a dangerous neocon (5+ / 0-)

    to give additional incentive to help bring him down.

    After his "100 year" occupation or Iraq remarks, there is no question in my mind that McCain is a dangerous neocon (sort of deranged as well, in terms of his apparent acceptance of the neocon ideology). Lieberman endorsement should be a wake-up call for us.

    If he has his way, I think that McCain is highly likely to start some new preemptive wars, while continuing the occupation of Iraq, which will almost certainly result in a military draft and cause the usual terrible consequences of wars like the Iraq war.

    The videos below, along with his co-sponsorship and hawking of the Iraq like Lieberman, clearly establish McCain as a Neocon:

    It's time to get back to bringing down McCain.

  •  Kos, you're losing me, man (8+ / 0-)

    This is just a classic example of stooping to their level.

    So why are we doing this? Because we can. Because it'll be fun. And because we've suffered Republican meddling, stealing, and disenfranchisement in our elections for far too long.

    Markos, exorcise your inner cynic and just keep fighting the good fight.  

    •  THAT"S WHY the GOP ALWAYS WINS the WH!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, kimg, Paper Cup

      It's about time we played the damn game and quit acting like wusses.

      The GOP never thinks twice about "stooping" if it means win--and that's why they always win the presidency (only exception:  Carter/Clinton in 50 fucking years!)

      Let's try to fight and win for a change.  The "immorality" here is allowing the GOP TO DOMINATE THE SUPREME COURT, strip our liberties, and send thousands of troops to their deaths in a new war because many in our party don't want to do a LEGAL manuever to keep a loser spending his fortune to hurt their frontrunner.

      I look forward to the day when pansies don't make up such a block of our party.

      The Seminole Democrat
      A blue voice calling from the deep red

      by SemDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:54:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how is this stooping? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't care which dem gets the nomination. If i can vote to weaken the repubs, then this strengthens the dems. IMHO, this is a dem vote.

  •  Obama or Edwards supporters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Dan Hogan

    might want to vote "Uncommitted" in the Dem primary, which would leave Hillary an embarassment.

    Otherwise vote Romney, as it would keep him in the race and keep the Rethug race a huge giant mess.  If Romney loses Michigan, his campaign is over, and McCain has the inside track to the nomination.

  •  I planned on voting for Dodd. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marjo, jds1978

    But he dropped out.

    Obama was really fucking stupid for pulling his name off the ballot.

  •  NO! FUCK NO! (10+ / 0-)

    If you're for clinton, vote for clinton.

    If you're for obama, edwards, or other, DEFINITELY vote "Uncommitted."

    DO NOT artificially boost repiglican turnout figures. and DO NOT hand the Clinton campaign delegates they did not earn - particularly given the unprincipled refusal to remove their name from the ballot.

    Doing as the diarist suggests simply rewards the slimy state Dem machine for fucking up michigan's primary AND defying the national party mandate.

    Hillary Clinton: Refreshingly evitable.

    by RabidNation on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:50:06 PM PST

    •  Not sure if you got the memo (6+ / 0-)

      But nobody will be handing anybody any delegates no matter how they vote, the Michigan Dems don't have any.

      Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

      by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't worry about the delegates (6+ / 0-)

        It's all about the headlines on 16 January.

        THey'll be either "Clinton Wins Michigan, Takes Commanding Lead in Race"  or "Uncommitted Defeats Hillary: Campaign Suffers Second Loss."

        That's really all that matters.

        Granholm and Dingell want you to not vote Uncommitted so that their rigged election for HRC can get them the "Clinton Wins" headline.  If you want to piss off the Hillary folks that strong-armed this through the MDP and the State House and Senate, the best way to piss them off is to vote Uncommitted.

        •  I Have No Interest (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dskinner, tiredntexas

          In pissing them off.  I am not participating in their primary because they have effectively disenfranchised me in it.  And I don't really CARE if Hillary gets the nomination, I am thrilled with the entire Democratic Slate, though I would vote for Obama if my vote mattered.

          Every single time I have heard a pundit mention Michigan on TV they have said, "Of course the Democratic primary there doesn't mean anything since they don't have any delegates."  Hillary isn't campaigning here and neither is anybody else.  I am not interested in headlines I am interested in getting to vote.

          Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

          by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  it looks as though (4+ / 0-)

          the media will pay as much credence to Clinton winning Michigan as it did to Mitt winning Wyoming... which is to say, not at all.

          However, if "Uncommitted" wins, that will be news.

          (-3.00, -7.54) Feingold '08 - Because reality is unacceptable.

          by Bundy on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:20:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  we in MI are already screwed (0+ / 0-)

      we're forking over $10M for the stupid primary, the voter lists are private for the parties only, half the dem candidates aren't on the list, and the delegates won't be seated anyway. wtf.

      Again, this is a vote for whatever dem candidate gets the nomination. I can't affect it any other way.

  •  I suspect a good chunk (0+ / 0-)

    of those Michigan repub voters in 72 who crossed over to vote for Wallace did so because they genuinely approved of him.

    I believe Wallace also carried the Wisconsin and Maryland primaries as well.

  •  That Sounds About Right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    On one hand, it sounds like it could be fun.  On the other hand, it wreaks of dirty tricks.

    Spoken like a true Democrat! The Republicans would already be voting if their Dear Leaders commanded it.  Damn us progressives and our independent ethics!

    The Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM PST

  •  How mature (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Dan Hogan, tiredntexas, Chichibabin
    Hidden by:

    Kos strikes again with his stupid logic.  Yeah, let's have a little fun, shall we?  Never mind we're supposed to be the adults when it comes to politics.  I'm so sick of Kos and his juvenile antics, whether it be this or "having fun" by trying to think of names we can call Bush.  Kos, will you please grow up for Christ sake.  Like this is going to make any difference in who the republicans end up nominating.  It only serves to make us look like children out to spoil a legitimate election.  Never mind what they did over the years - this isn't junior high - GET IT?????

  •  In 2000 I Voted For McCain (6+ / 0-)

    Not to spite Engler, but because I believed that Mccain / Gore would be a choice between two candidates I could stand having as President, and I thought Bush was a dumb douche.  

    Turns out I was wrong about McCain (though I think he's changed quite a bit in the last few years).

    Anyway I'm not going to vote "Uncommitted" in the Democratic primary because I'm furious with the Michigan Democrats for farking the primary up and I feel that participating in it AT ALL is tantamount to endorsing the way they did it.  Your idea sounds fine, and it shall be so.

    Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

    by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:51:00 PM PST

  •  Wonderful Plan of Sabotage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarianman, jds1978

    Makes me proud to be an American.

  •  Leave Michigan to the Michiganders Please (12+ / 0-)

    Edwards and Obama grassroots and netroots are encouraging Edwards and Obama supporters to vote in the Democratic Primary for Uncommitted (and the MDP says that's what you should do).

    Mischief in the Republican Party is frankly a dumb idea since we'll be swamped by by Republicans and can't really effect things and since we can influence the Democratic primary still.

    Don't have "fun," try to help Democrats get the best nominee -- Edwards or Obama -- and not one who is DLC and has the worst chance of getting elected.

    Kos, leave Michigan to the Michiganders, we know what the hell we're doing.

  •  Too bad we don't get to participate (0+ / 0-)

    in a meaningful Democratic primary.  Perhaps the Democratic leadership, both in the state and in DC should have considered that their bungling not only deprived Michigan Democrats of the ability to participate in the Democratic process, but served to DEMOBILIZE democratic voters.  Just what you don't want to do in a battleground state like Michigan.

    Maybe since I don't get to participate in a meaningful primary, I'll just sit out the general election too.  There is a risk to taking voters for granted, you know.

    As far as Feiger goes, he's not a quack.  Just because you are not part of the establishment doesn't make you a quack, kos!  Are you getting "establishmentarian" on us?

    Finally, you should be carefull what you wish for.  Imagine that if Romney wins MI, he might go all the way to win the nomination.  With his vast fortune, he can afford a complete image transplant, via MSM, and next thing you know, he might be POTUS!

    Impossible, you say!  O. K., tell me this.  Do you think there is any chance in hell this country could elect a Yale-"educated" rich-boy frat-boy who failed in every business he ever was part of, went AWOL during his military service, was a drunk and doper (complete with DUI), with an intellect so low he can't even learn to speak the English language?  Impossible, right.  Look at the White house and tell me how impossible it is!

    Romney is more dangerous than you give him credit for, mainly because he has the big bucks and is supported by the wealthy class, who are experts at marketing bullshit to the voters.  A good campaign full of lies along with heavy voter suppression and some vote stealing where necessary, and presto, it's president Romney!

  •  our turn (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarianman, Paper Cup, jds1978

    This should be only the beginning of our dirty tricks.  We can't stay above the fray--at some point, the only way to fight fire is with more fire.  Sad but true.

  •  Or, how about we don't vote for Republicans, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan, Berkeley Vox

    and let them raise their tallies on their own? We've been showing record turnouts as a party. Let's hang onto those, instead of trying to play with the numbers on the other team's locker.

    One conversation in the real world beats one thousand diaries on the rec list.

    by haruki on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM PST

  •  be careful what you wish for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimberlyweldon, captainlaser

    not written in stone that Romney is their worst candidate, or that GOP chaos could not give the nomination to someone actually electable, like 9u11ani. I mean, a lot of us thought GWB was the worst candidate Republicans could nominate.  The country would NEVER vote for someone that stupid, right?

  •  WTF KOS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan, Berkeley Vox

    How is a mean spirited primay battle bad for the republicans but great for the democrats?  You were all a glow about a democratic primary fight on tuesday night.

    •  Because their candidates suck, and ours don't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, Paper Cup

      So the sooner the GOP gets their field down to one sucky candidate, the better for them.

      Democratic voters, on the other hand, are turning out in droves to vote for whoever they like best out of a field that they actually like.  So a longer primary battle keeps up interest, excitement, voter turnout - and that will help carry over to the general.

  •  kos, why don't you just... (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:

    claim this for what it really is. A strategy to keep Clinton's numbers low. Such class and intelligence out of yet another Obamazombie, I guess.

    •  Are you serious? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      "No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown (-5.38, -7.08)

      by AUBoy2007 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do not think you have thought this through (8+ / 0-)

      Clinton's numbers will be unaffected.  People who support her can still vote for her.  If anything it will make the PERCENTAGE of her inevitable victory go up because instead of having "Uncommitted" come in a close second those uncommitted people will cross over and vote for Romney.

      If Kos was saying only Hillary supporters should vote for Romney I would say you are on to something.

      Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

      by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not buying it.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dan Hogan

        This Edwards backer still thinks it stinks fishy. I'd much rather see a high Democrat turnout that votes for Clinton to show the Repubs that Dems are large and mighty, no matter the circumstances. Now I understand those who won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, just I refuse to vote for Obama at any time during this primary or general election. Still, voting for a Republayuck as some dort of chucklechuckle -- MITT, NO LESS!!!!! No thanks and really no thanks.

        •  Well that's fair (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          I wouldn't want anybody to feel FORCED to do it.  I just have no moral objection to it.  And it definitely does nothing to hurt Hillary's "numbers" or whatever that person above me was talking about.

          Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

          by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Vote Uncommitted Michiganders! (12+ / 0-)

    The word to vote uncommitted is getting out there.  There are stories in local newspapers most everyday, Conyers is running radio ads in Detroit, and Edwards and Obama folks are organizing including a Letter to the Editor campaign.

    Here's my LTE, should be in the Grand Rapids Press on Monday:

    I encourage all supporters of John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Al Gore to vote Uncommitted in the Democratic "primary" on Tuesday, January 15.

    I’ve been privileged to lead the local grassroots movement for John Edwards for the last year.  We’ve had great successes.  We marched in the Labor Day Parade, held a reception for Elizabeth Edwards, picketed with Elizabeth and striking GM workers at the Wyoming Plant, attended County Party events, had numerous parties, and some of us even traveled to Iowa for their caucuses.  We were looking forward to launching a big campaign in West Michigan for Edwards.  Unfortunately, the Michigan Democratic Party decided to break national party calendar rules and therefore all candidates pledged not to campaign in our state.  Our candidate ethically lived up to his promise and took his name off the ballot.  We had hoped our state leaders would see reality and move back to a caucus in early February, but they continued their failed policy of brinkmanship.

    Now we Democrats are left with a confusing ballot that includes only one serious candidate.  While "Write-In" is on the ballot, the state will not be counting any write-ins, so do not be fooled.  Do not spoil and void your ballot.  Instead, vote Uncommitted.  Uncommitted delegates will be free to vote for Edwards or Obama at the national convention in August.

    Along with the Michigan Democratic Party, the West Michigan Edwards grassroots urges Edwards and Obama supporters to vote Uncommitted in the Democratic primary.

    Kos, leave Michigan to the Michiganders.

    •  before there was no Dem race, now there is one (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CJB, philgoblue, marjo, Dan Hogan

      like no other.  Kos, play games with your own state.  Every campaign not on the ballot is recommending "uncommitted" and that's what I'll do Tuesday and recommend to everybody I know.

      Can't let a moral victory out of here just because somebody left Kucinich's / her name on the ballot.  Mark Penn will spin this thing anyway he can, and a Romney win will be discounted anyway since he's from here.

      This primary is messed up enough already.  Stop it.  

  •  Fun! Just what MLK would do. (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    R Rhino from CT4
    Hidden by:

    Still workin' for the CIA, Kos?

    This smells like mischief.

    Yeah, I could see MLK suggesting something like this.  It would be "fun."

  •  guilty as charged (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, LordMike, dskinner, jds1978

    i was a republican back when i was an undergrad, and i was one of those who voted for feiger in the primary, and i told the person working the polls that's what i was doing.  in the thumb where i lived, which was (and is) quite conservative, there were a lot of people who were doing this to keep larry owen from having a chance at beating engler.

    it worked then, and it can work now from the other side...

  •  Somebody should post this at redstate and LGF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    birds and bees

    Make all of their pointy little heads explode!

  •  We did the same once (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarianman, Paper Cup

    Remember Democrats coming out for John McCain in Michigan in 2000 to try and prevent Bush?

  •  2008 should be a principled march by Dems (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan, TakeUSBack, tmeyer, tiredntexas

    I know the Republicans play dirty, and yes, we should be scrappy and tough, but we shouldn't stoop to their level.

    Clinton '08 // Putting People First

    by Berkeley Vox on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:56:32 PM PST

  •  Do we want 2 stoop 2 the level of the Republics? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, TakeUSBack, Berkeley Vox
  •  Too much chance to backfire (5+ / 0-)

    I'd beware of unintended consequences or some sort of weird butterfly effect.

    I don't think Romney would be that weak of a candidate if he did turn it around.  He's got that young purty boy thing going for him.  Don't want another Bush on our hands for 8 years.  Don't even want to give him added credibility for future races.

    Also if if skews the results and helps someone like Huckabee or Guiliani in the overall repub race there's just no telling where it would lead over time.

  •  A little off topic... (2+ / 0-)

    But I just found out there is a Jews for Mitt.
    I guess you CAN find anything on the internet.

  •  Oh, Yeah! We're WILD. We can't be stopped. (0+ / 0-)

    Wish I lived in Michigan

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM PST

  •  Plus Buchanan in 1996! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, malickyman

    Don't forget -- thousands of Michigan Democrats voted for Pat Buchanan in 1996 to mess with the Republicans. I did it and it was fun!

    In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel

    by JoelBloom on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM PST

  •  Michigan and McCain (4+ / 0-)

    I'm a Michigan Democrat and voted for McCain not out of spite in 2000 but because I thought I could live with him as President if Gore lost.  I know many progressive Dems here who did the same thing.

    I am not voting in the GOP primary.  Because it won't allow me to express my true opinion (Obama), I will vote "Uncommitted" in my own primary to try to deny Clinton a sweep of the state. I am disgusted with her husband's thuggish comments that demean the Presidency, and her own Cheneyesque invocation of terrorism to sway people to vote for her.  I'm ashamed she voted to allow Bush to go to war; I'm even more ashamed that she has gone over to the dark side.

  •  Vote Uncommitted Michiganders! (8+ / 0-)

    Here's a friends Letter to the Editor:

    I urge supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama to vote Uncommitted in the Democratic primary on January 15th.

    Sadly, our votes as Michigan Democrats may not count for actual delegates to the National Convention in August because of the dishonest shenanigans of Governor Jennifer Granholm and party powerbroker Debbie Dingell who work on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  In September, they signed on with Republicans to support a bill that would move up the Michigan primary ahead of the line, even though they knew that they were breaking rules that the Michigan Democratic Party had agreed to a year earlier.  For breaking the calendar rules, the Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all our delegates, but the pro-Clinton forces strong-armed the Michigan Democratic Party into sticking with this farce of a so-called primary.  Now we’re stuck with no candidate visits, no campaigning, no discussion of Michigan issues, and probably no delegates.  We’ve been disenfranchised by some of our "leaders" in Lansing in a bid to use us to help the Clinton campaign nationally.  

    I’m voting Uncommitted on Tuesday since Uncommitted delegates will be able to cast votes for the change candidates who wanted our Michigan votes to count for something – John Edwards or Barack Obama.  I’m also voting Uncommitted to show my anger with Granholm and those that tried to force a one-candidate coronation on us.  I want a headline after the fake primary that reads "Uncommitted Defeats Hillary."  Write-in’s will not be counted, the protest vote is for Uncommitted.

    •  I do not agree (7+ / 0-)

      "Uncommitted" is not a protest vote.  Uncommitted is an ANTI-HILLARY vote.  To protest this dumb primary, you don't vote in it at all.  

      Your letter says that "Uncommitted Delegates will be able to cast votes for the change candidates."  Guess what, that's not true either.  None of Michigan's Democratic delegates will be able to vote for anybody, because we have been stripped of our voting rights at the convention.

      Accusing Granholm of wanting Hillary to be coronated is also unfair.  When the Democrats in the house put together a bill to put Obama, Edwards, et. al back on the ballot Granholm said she would sign it and the Republican state senate killed it.

      I respect your position but I do not agree with you on this at all.

      Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54 Obama! Not that my vote counts...

      by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've talked to congressmen, State Reps, and State (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marjo, Dan Hogan

        Senators as well as County Party Chairs.  This was all pushed by Granholm and Dingell with extraordinary pressure on Brewer and the State Senators and Reps (who balked at the "force them on the ballot" Republican bill).

        If you're angry you were disenfranchized, then vote Uncommitted.  Since the folks that disenfranchized you did it so that Hillary could get the "Hillary Wins Michigan" headline.

        On the delegates: remember, I've got 250 words, it's hard to get into details.  But, it's not false, from what I've heard from folks that talked with Dean, the likely outcome is 1/2 of Michigan delegates will be seated (none of them from the MDP CC), but they won't be allowed on the committees and will only have floor voting rights given to them just in the nick of time to go on TV and vote for the nominee.

  •  Kos, you're going to make the bastard weep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman


    I do not trust Hillary Clinton.

    by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM PST

  •  Aren't we better than this? (6+ / 0-)

    Given that Clinton is the only canidate on the ballot, we don't have much else to do; but I don't think it's necessary to stoop.

    Isn't that supposed to be a distinction between us and them?

    Given all that has happened in the Republican party over the last 8 years, if we can't win honestly . . . we don't deserve to win.

    Is this the start of "I'm rubber and you're glue politics?"  What's next, a game of Red Rover at our convention?

  •  Well, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, librarianman

    since I wasn't really all fired up to show up and vote for "uncommitted" anyway, I'll definitely consider it.  Nice to see Michigan playing some type of role after all...

  •  Mitt Romney (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    would be the most difficult candidate to beat in GE.

  •  wouldn't Ron Paul winning mess them up more? (3+ / 0-)

    seriously, if Ron Paul were to win a primary, then they would all suddenly have to spend a lot of their time attacking him, and he's the sanest of the bunch. I think the Republicans efforts against Paul would hurt them more in the long run. Plus, the longer he stays in, the more chance his crazy followers will go after O'Reilly next....

    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...

    by 2501 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM PST

  •  It's clever. It's evil. It's fun. (8+ / 0-)

    What's not to like?

    May I have ten thousand marbles, please? - Flounder

    by SecondComing on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM PST

  •  I hate open primaries (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, librarianman, Treg

    This is a cute idea, but this really highlights why open primaries are so utterly stupid.

    The point of the primaries is to win delegates.  In this case to the GOP convention.

    Those delegates should be...Selected. By. Republicans.  Not by Democrats, or Libertarians, or Greens, or Independents, or anyone else.


    The only reasons we have open primaries are (a) people reasonably feel constrained by the 2-party system, and feel that allowing independents to vote in primaries allows lots of people to participate in the electoral process, and (b) people seem to have bought into the "centrist" line that members-only primaries lead to "extremism."

    None of that is a reason for people not to rat-f*ck the GOP in Michigan, but I think we should remember how outrageous it actually is that this is possible.

    "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

    by Pesto on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:01:22 PM PST

  •  Vote for Clinton. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dskinner, Rumarhazzit

    Sen. Clinton cared enough about Michigan and its voters to get on the ballot, unlike the other no-show Dems. She should be rewarded with many votes.

  •  Don't like it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan, Red Bean

    Count me among those who think that it's dirty pool.  The closest analog I can think of in terms of what Republicans are trying to do now is the CA electoral college vote-grab.  Assuming for a minute that a state's holding a ballot referendum (rather than putting the issue to the legislature) to decide how to allocate its electoral votes is constitutional, which is debatable, the CA vote-grab is a perfectly legal thing to do.  Of course, we all understand what its motivation is, which is why we decry it.  But they both embody the same philosophy -- because the law ALLOWS me to fiddle with the voting system to screw the other party to do it, I will.  There are all sorts of legal, yet still very dirty tricks that we can put into this category.  Sorry, but I'd like to think we're better than this, and I'd like to think Kos is better than this.  

    •  I dont get these moral/ethical complaints (0+ / 0-)

      My vote for a dem won't count.
      All I have is a vote to weaken the repubs.
      I'll use what I have. Nothing dirty about it.

      Blocking the shot isn't as sexy as making one, but it can make the difference in winning the game.

  •  I would say to do the same with Fred Thompson (0+ / 0-)

    But clearly no one will vote for him anyway because his fucking face is melting off his skull and he's perpetually hungover.

    Wake up and smell the Obama, people.

    by jaystyme on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:04:03 PM PST

  •  bonus! we get Mitt to waste millions of his $$ (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, Geotpf, Treg, jds1978

    on lying about how great he is and telling the truth about how bad his opponents are.

    History is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. --Henry Walpole

    by Zacapoet on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:04:11 PM PST

  •  I hope Romney Kicks Ass In Michigan (6+ / 0-)

    because it will increase the size of the civil war going on in the GOP.

    We can't afford to let "Let's stay in Iraq for 100 years" McCain start to get traction in this race.

  •  Why Kos, you mischievous little devil... (6+ / 0-)
    you really do have a soft spot for Karl Rove style "brass-knuckles" politics.  For Pete's sakes Kos, are you trying to engineer a democratic victory?

    Go for it!

  •  Michiganders and People Who Know Michiganders (8+ / 0-)

    PLEASE, do not follow Kos' bad advise.

    Urge your friends to vote in the Democratic Primary for Uncommitted as a protest vote against Hillary Clinton.  Uncommitted delegates can vote for Edwards or Obama if our delegates, or some of them, are seated in Denver.

    I'll be writing a diary soon, but I've got to take the Christmas lights in before the ice storm hits GR.

    Kos, should, frankly, butt out of Michigan.

  •  keyes! he is certifiably insane. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dont Just Stand There, edwardssl

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM PST

  •  This is BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!!!! (6+ / 0-)

    go go go go GO MITT

    love it

    Dewey Defeats Truman!!


  •  Personally (4+ / 0-)

    I don't like this kind of distortion of the political process.   Just because the lesser party does it, why should ours?

  •  That is bad. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, jds1978, Rumarhazzit

    That is horrible.

    That is truly evil.

    Makes me wish I lived in Michigan.

    Sadly, we can't pull this sort of tom-foolery in California since the Greasy Old Pederasts closed their primary.

  •  What a exquisite idea! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, jds1978

    The Natives are Restless

    by MantisOahu on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:07:41 PM PST

  •  Romney is counting on a win in Michigan... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, cfk

    to jumpstart his campaign. He's the stepford candidate. Don't risk it.

  •  Mitt the Wafflemeisterwill feel right at home ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R Rhino from CT4

    He'll just think he's been able to pull a fast one, with all his changes of position on issues.

    "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

    by SteinL on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM PST

  •  Heh..I like it! (4+ / 0-)

    Email missles have been launched.

    Time waits for no one, the treasure is great spend it wisely.

    by mojavefog on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:09:15 PM PST

  •  We're not them (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Makeda, Red Bean, michstjame, tiredntexas

    Republicans pull tricks like this because they WANT voters to lose their faith in democracy. Let's not go down that road.

    And besides, how are you going to feel if Mitt goes on to become president? Gonna tell your grandkids he was almost done, but you voted for him?

  •  No way in hell. (8+ / 0-)

    I'll be voting uncommitted.

    Any force that tries to make you feel shame for being who you a form of tyranny... And it must be rejected, resisted, and defeated. ~Al Gore

    by Sinister Rae on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM PST

  •  I'll Toast to that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I had wanted Michigan Dems to vote for Ron Paul, but given that Romney is in trouble, let's keep him alive and have them vote for Romney.

  •  Is MichEEgan denying ballot access for (0+ / 0-)

    Ralph Wiggum?

    "You don't need a weather man to tell which way the wind blows" - BD

    by demotarian on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM PST

  •  The Dogs Mom is was a Dem (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, jds1978, Rumarhazzit

    pol for 20 years in MI, she thinks this is a great idea! She is e-mailing her entire supporter list from her run for State Rep in 04!

    Goooo Mitt!

    If you live in fear, then the worst that can happen to you has already happened. Will You live in fear?

    by Something the Dog Said on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM PST

  •  Let's have them vote for Ron Paul instead n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

    by Spud1 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM PST

  •  this is an idea (0+ / 0-)

    and I think a good one.

    I support the idea.

    However if someone wants to vote uncommitted or for HRC, that is their choice too.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM PST

  •  Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb... (9+ / 0-)

    This is a stupid idea.  Some of us are old enough to remember that Democrats hoped that Ronald Reagan would the GOP nominee in 1980... We were gleeful when Reagan won the nomination.

    But let me tell you why this is really stupid.

    Mitt Romney is not taking matching funds.  He's a self funder.  This means that if your stupid idea works, Mitt Romney will have $100 million to spend between the end of the primary season and the conventions.

    John McCain is taking matching funds.  He won't have any money to run a general election campaign between the primaries and the convention.  During this time the Democratic nominee can build his negatives and make him unelectable by the time the convention rolls around.

    This is a stupid idea.  And if Mitt Romney does indeed revive his campaign on the backs of Daily Kos readers and wins in November with $250 million campaign, you'll be to blame for it.

    Also, I'll remind you that your predictions in New Hampshire were awful.  Stick to electing Democrats.  This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.  STOP IT!

    •  Mitty can't win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Trust me, he's just so seriously flawed as a candidate...lots of southern religiosos will not be able to come and pull the lever for him in the general, no matter how much $$$ he spends (look at his Iowa and NH finishes, and witness just HOW much money he spent! It's gianormous!)

      Besides, I don't think he's going to get the nom. I think McCain is slated to get it (by the power invested in him by the R Establishment) or Huckabee might actually survive the oncoming onslaught because he's the most credible religious conservative. Willard is sort of getting some biz backing, but he isn't get the "security Republicans" or the religious ones for the most part.

      •  Seriously Flawed??? (0+ / 0-)

        Mitt may be seriously flawed, but his money -- $250 million in a general election -- will help GOP House candidates in marginal districts and GOP Senate candidates in marginal states win races they shouldn't win.

        McCain won't have the money to pull Congressional Republicans across the finish line.  Romney will.

        STOP IT!  This is insane.  

        •  Again, I point to the data... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman

          He lost so very badly in Iowa and NH after spending scads...he's just a terrible candidate, and I really don't believe that money can save him.

          I thought he ran terrible in 2002 also, but mostly because the MA Dems ran a TERRIBLE guv candidate in 2002, Mitt got in. There was almost instant buyer's remorse...he became smarmier and smarmier and by the time he left MA, I was surprised there wasn't tomatoes thrown at his back. He doesn't wear very well, and this is a looooooong campaign.

          And you cannot underestimate the depression his nom would put on the evangelical vote, I'm serious. In fact, that's why he won't get the actual nomination in the first place. Two of the stool legs of the Repub party don't like him much.

          Honestly, I like our chances against pretty much all the R's. They all have some major downsides in a general election. For Mitt it's that his party don' like different so much. Huckabee it's his religious fervor, which I don't think is faked nor will it completely be moderated, which will NOT appeal to the general election voter. Rudy doesn't have a shot in getting the nom, but he's a one trick pony with a LOT of gaffes and scandals in his past (and his creds as the Security Daddy are easily undermined). McCain == Bush, we just have to remind people, plus as you said, money woes.

          There's a reason why the R's don't have a solid nom yet, though they are normally a top-down party, and that the chances are high that it'll be a brokered convention for them. It's because they are all pretty bad choices.

    •  McCain has filed paperwork... (0+ / 0-)

      ...for matching funds for the primary.  He has not confirmed he will accept them.  I believe he has not said whether or not he will accept them for the general-I believe he will not.

  •  I can't believe all the people in this (6+ / 0-)

    thread who are unwilling to get on board with this because they feel it is immoral, or unpalatable, or we'd throw up a shitstorm if the repugs did it. They already did it for gosh sakes. Whatever happened to fighting to win. And considering the stakes, fuck being nice. Gouge their freakin' eyes out. Get in their and fight, Michigan!

    Hillary Clinton, ready to go on day one!

    by Rumarhazzit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:16:24 PM PST

  •  The prospect of having fun.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SadTexan, Dan Hogan

    by voting for Mitt leaves this old coot cold. Think I'll vote for uncommitted and thereby "protest" an uncontested Clinton "funfest". Voting for nobody is the best an anti-Clinton Dem can do in this State, IMO.

    Random chance suggests that sometime some Dems are going to stand for something. If or when that happens, I hope someone is left who notices.

    by keepinon on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:17:35 PM PST

  •  That's evil! (0+ / 0-)

    I love it!

    "[We] cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."-Edward R. Murrow

    by electricgrendel on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:18:32 PM PST

  •  Oh, please... just once... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, Dan Hogan, jds1978

    I want the Democrats to actually have a chance to run AGAINST a dour, charisma-less boob from Massachusetts...

  •  Bad idea (4+ / 0-)

    I think this would backfire on us in two ways.

    1. It would just fan the flames and give justification (in the eyes of republicans) for their voter fraud arguement. Even though it may not actually be voter fraud; they would hold it up as proof that voter IDs are needed to prevent tampering.
    1. If anything, the contrast between the responses to's General Betray-Us ad and Rush Limbaugh's phony soldier comment has shown us that Republican's will always be able to out-slime and out-sleaze Democrats. Maybe it's just because Democrates are basically decent people, or that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk will stoop to any level to get what they want and have no sense of shame, but in a battle of dirty tricks, Republicans always win.
    •  MI started requiring ID with the last election (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, marjo, Flintcitylimit

      cycle, so item no. 1 really doesn't apply to your argument anymore.
      item no. 2 is pretty common knowledge, and while I agree with it whole heartedly, what does this have to do with voting for Mittens?
      I am from Michigan, and I vote here.  Like you, I started voting in '72.  Under no circumstances will I vote for a Republican in this or any other election, just to 'mess with them', or otherwise.  
      Stupidist idea I've ever heard of, Markos.  Stop promoting silly shit like this.  Laughing at us from MI because of Brewer's miscue is beneath you.
      I truly wish I could cast my vote next Tuesday.   I wish I could cast it for my chosen candidate.  But I can't.  I take this voting gig very seriously, but some clowns in Lansing decided to take that 'right' away from me for reasons they never consulted me about.
      I'll vote for uncommitted, but my next job will be to help put Brewer out of a job.  Nice work, Mark, you idiot!  

      The nose of a mob is its imagination. By this, at any time, it can be quietly led. Edgar Allan Poe

      by WSComn on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I cast my first vote in Michigan's 1972 primary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I voted for Shirley Chisholm.

    I don't live in Michigan any more, but your strategy is good if it doesn't backfire.  If we openly do this the Republicans can do the same and vote for Clinton and upset the Uncommitted movement many Dems have in Michigan.

  •  But, but, but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    demkat620, kkjohnson

    I really, really, really wanna vote for Huckabee.
    He's so deliciously out of touch.

    I mean the Mittster is OOT, but in a 15th century way, whereas the Huckster is the real Dark Ages deal.

    And now you say It will discombobulate the 'thugs more if Mitty wins?


    It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

    by clio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM PST

  •  Will special Mormon undies be required (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rumarhazzit, tmeyer

    for non-traditional Mitt voters?  Perhaps they would protect me from the lightning strike that would undoubtedly result if I were to vote for Romney...

    •  Please don't bash Mormons. (0+ / 0-)

      There are plenty of Mormons that frequent this site, and plenty more on 'our' side.  I'm one of them.

      Let the other side do the bashing.  If we remain tolerant, we get more coming to our side.  We are the big tent party, remember :).

  •  Has KOS EVER been TR'd before ? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan, tmeyer, WSComn


    It's a CUTE idea,
    but this is going beyond the pale.

    Of course, thanks to the state and national committees,
    our vote is worthless.  

    But if y'all think we're willing to play games
    with our VOTE, it's time to come to Michigan
    and hang out for a while in the cold and the snow.

    A worthless vote.  Shit, KOS.

    Welcome to America.

    •  You've got to be kidding! (8+ / 0-)

      Beyond the pale?
      Politics is blood sport in Michigan.
      I voted for McCain in 2000 about equally 'cause I admired his war record and to make Engler look silly, not that he needed much help.

      The Michigan Republicans have done their damnedest to ruin this state and its people.  The damage Engler and his cretins have inflicted will take generations to repair.  

      I am delighted to thrust a spoke in their wheel whenever possible.

      It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

      by clio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blood sport doesn't BEGIN (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paper Cup

        to cover it.

        DNC, MDC, and the GOP have TRIED to take away my only weapon for self defense: my vote.

        When its only value is to possibly play games,
        and to amuse those who HAVE a real vote,
        I STILL claim the sole responsibility of how the worthless vote is cast.

        Beyond the pale.
        What is beyond the pale is being told to go use my vote as a joke.

        I'll vote for whom I choose, when and how I choose to do it.

        If that isn't progressive enough for you,
        take a hike.

      •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        clio, Phoenix Woman, Paper Cup

        Beyond the pale?
        Politics is blood sport in Michigan.
        I voted for McCain in 2000 about equally 'cause I admired his war record and to make Engler look silly, not that he needed much help.

        The Michigan Republicans have done their damnedest to ruin this state and its people.  The damage Engler and his cretins have inflicted will take generations to repair.  

        I am delighted to thrust a spoke in their wheel whenever possible.

        I'm not out to win only.  I want to destroy the GOP as a political party.  It's a front for criminals at both the national and international level.

        Thanks for posting this.

        Too weird to live and too rare to die.

        by jds1978 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, indeed, jds 1978! See you at the polls! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

          by clio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  decimate them by voting for their best candidate. (0+ / 0-)

          good plan.

          •  <sigh> (0+ / 0-)

            ..OK, spelling this out.

            1.  Mittster is tanking nationally.
            1.  Mittster is doing relatively well in MI (His dad was gov. here)
            1.  The longer the GOP nomination process goes on without a clear front-runner the better for Dems (more $$$ wasted, more skeletons drug out of the closet, more chaos in general)
            1.  Mittster winning MI means you would have had 3 primaries/caucusses in a row without a clear (national) front-runner for the GOP.  Keep in mind that the GOP almost always has a coronation-this year is different and we are going to take advantage of it.

            Too weird to live and too rare to die.

            by jds1978 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Remember the "Make him spend it all!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    bumpersticker?  Resurrect that one...and may have to do it again if wannabe Bloomberg gets in the race...

    Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.

    by oldpro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM PST

  •  Two notes (4+ / 0-)

    First, this "meddling" will be FAR more democratic (little "d") than THEIR meddling in MI Dems primaries...all we'll be doing is holding the door open more candidates for states down the line to have an actual choice on the R side. This is what has happened with the Iowa/Obama then Clinton/NH win: despite my opposition to Clinton, the good side affect of her "comeback" is that we still have a race, the votes still matter in other states, and superduperpooper Tuesday when MA votes, we'll feel like part of the actual process. Let's give the R's this great feeling of CHOICE!!! (Notwithstanding Mitt's flipflopping on choice, heh!)

    Second, Mitt could use this "crossover" effect to make the argument to future R primary voters that he's more "electable" in the general than any other R, "see, I can get independents too!!" Wouldn't that be a hoot?

    This is a great idea!

  •  awesome (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, Paper Cup

    A+ idea.

  •  The Great Orange Overlord shows his true stripes! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    demkat620, holocron, R Rhino from CT4

    Get us to vote for a Repug once, and maybe it'll be easier the next time!

    /snark, I think!

    The Kucinich Plan (Simplified): 1) Be a Democrat, lead like one, vote like one, think like one and live like one.

    by rjones2818 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM PST

  •  I already plan to vote for Willard in Utah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I already plan to vote for Willard (Mitt) Romney in the Utah Republican primary February 5.  It's a closed primary but anyone can switch party preference on the spot.  My preference in the Dem primary, Bill Richardson, has dropped out of the race so why not?  BTW, all the real Utah Republicans will vote for Romney too.

    "Everything's shiny, Captain. Not to fret."

    by rmwarnick on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:25:12 PM PST

  •  ok, forwarded to address book (0+ / 0-)

    i know not a soul in michigan, but i do have friends in ohio that i have no doubt would delight in participating in the fun. perhaps they know somebody who can actually play.

    The Natives are Restless

    by MantisOahu on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:25:13 PM PST

  •  Kos, I disagree. Strategic voting is never (4+ / 0-)

    a good idea. Let me be very succinct here. If you or I or someone in Michigan voted for Romney and he became the nominee and he actually won the election (you don't know what is going to happen between now and Nov.) you would have contributed to that happening, you would have supported it. In other words, this is a "bad action." Period. Moreover, I say this as someone who pleaded with my friends and colleagues in 2000 not to vote for Nader, for the exact same reason. And these were my exact words: what if your support of this candidate throws the election to GW Bush and he brings fascism to America, how would you feel and what would your "action" mean? It means that you would have supported and contributed to that happening. The reason why I said that is not because I am psychic (I wish), it's because the Left said the exact same about Hitler (his win will galvanize the Left, etc.) in Weimar Germany (so you had the idiocy of Leftists, based on these boneheaded ideas of "strategy," supporting Hitler). This kind of strategic voting is NEVER a good idea. You vote for who you want, period.

    •  If Romney wins in November (0+ / 0-)

      then it is a flat out certainty that McCain would have won, and probably by a wider margin. Huckabee I'm not sure about, but I am also MUCH more scared of him as President than wishy-washy Mitt, who in several incarnations was actually quite liberal.

      •  Romney was "liberal" because he had to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        where he was elected (he could never have been elected had he not been more "liberal"). If you've never been a Mormon, then I don't think you know how scared you really should be. And I agree with you that Huckabee is scary as hell.

    •  And If You DON'T Vote For Romney... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lightiris, Boris Godunov, liberte

      ...and that helps McCain win the nomination--Mr John "I'm OK with keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years, and while we're at it, let's  ba ba bomb Iran" McCain--then you would have contributed to it happening by not trying to weaken the Republicans and make them spend more money and have a more bloody partisan fraticide.

      As for your idea that it's never a good idea, tell that to the Republicans who voted for Geoffrey Feiger in the Dem primary in 1998.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not my point. It's not about forecasting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Proud SW FL Lib, tiredntexas

        the future. It's about "acting" in a way that is ethical. we are creating the world that we live in at this moment in time based on our actions and these actions, more often than not, are based not on rationality (as this idea of strategic voting postulates), but desire. So, my point is this: what is the desire (thought, feeling, etc.) behind this action, wthat are you bringing into the world by this action? You have to take responsibility for this.

        •  Ethical Behavior Can Only Be Done With... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...a sense of "predicting the future."  What Max Weber called the Ethic of Responsibility requires a political actor to take account of the easily foreseeable consequences of his actions, as I explained here.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My formulation here is based on NIetzsche's (0+ / 0-)

            eternal return. I wouldn't call it "predicting the future." I think that formulation misses the point (especially with N, which is not about the "future" or the past, but the untimely). of course, there are limits to the ethical thought of the return, which I have actually written about extensively in my work.

            •  Nietzche? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              People like Lyndon Johnson had more useful things to say about the material effects of voting in American elections than does Neitzche.  

              The "untimely" isn't going to make it easier or harder to defeat the Republicans in November and bring in larger Congressional majorities.  I guess I'm more of a materialist, in that I want to see the material results of winning, like getting out of Iraq, a national health care plan and serious action on saving the planet.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  again, that's not my point (0+ / 0-)

                it's about the relation between desire and politics. and if you think there is no relation between desire and politics, if you think it is all rational . . . what was that about Hil. crying? politics is fundamentally about mobilizing desire. my post wasn't about the "untimely" (I was simply responding to your forecasting remarks). It's based on the ethical thought of the eternal return: in all that you will (desire) you begin by willing to take that action an infinite number of times (to infinitely repeat it). If you ask yourself this question in every act you engage in, you start taking things a lot more seriously.

                Given the history of strategic voting and the things it has historically helped to bring into the world (Hitler, Reagan, Bush) there's just no justification for it. The poster below me said it, perhaps, much better than I: be careful what you wish for. That's all that I am saying.

                I could say the same thing you say above about LBJ with regard to Max Weber. But, I don't think this is the appropriate response (it's not an ideological issue) or the forum for such a discussion.

                •  Let me add that this is perfectly "material" (0+ / 0-)

                  What is the material ground of politics today? It's not rationality. It's an abstraction, it's an image, it's desire . . . The Republicans know this, the Fascists knew this, the Left in America for the past 40 years seems not to know this and it's been detrimental to them (and continues to be, judging by DailyKos).

                •  Politics is About Power (0+ / 0-)

                  Who has it and what they do with it, to whom, on behalf of whom.  And this would make it more likely that we will attain greater power in 2009 (and also more likely that Michigan will scrap their horrible system which has rendered Democratic votes pointless).  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:31:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  The end justifies the means? (4+ / 0-)

    very Republican thinking.

  •  It may be legal, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Proud SW FL Lib, Dan Hogan, jockyoung

    but it stinks.  

    This'll go a long way toward pushing the old voter fraud shit they're screaming about.  Is it?  No.  Does that matter?  No.

    Gaming sucks just as badly when we do it.

    •  The meek shall inherit the earth... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paper Cup, j1j2j3j4

      unfortunately, after the strong get done with, it won't be worth anything.  I say fight the bastards anyway you can that isn't illegal or immoral.  Voting in their primary in Michigan is A-OK.  It's politics, nothing more.

      It's nothing like the voter disenfranchisement they pull every year.

      In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

      by TampaCPA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  don't see the fraud inherent in this (0+ / 0-)

      my dem vote means nothing. my repub vote means a little. it's still a dem vote in my eyes.

  •  We are the good guys, this is just wrong. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan
  •  Let me just add this: if Romney were to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    win in Nov. you and I and the entire country would be in a helluva lot more pain than we are now and I say that as an "ex-Mormon." The Mormon religion is predicated on control. If you bring that theology to a a form of governing--and I mean this in the larger sense of the form of governing of our time--that is already based on control, then  what do you have . . .  You should retract this immediately.

  •  Romney for the win! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I was just thinking about how I could help the Mittster.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:01 PM PST

  •  this is just one example (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Dan Hogan

    of an effort by those on this blog who like to think of themselves as "tough" and "realist" and "strategic," that comes off more as a half-way joke. Most democrats will rightly keep to their own primary, and those who do cross over are much more likely to vote for the Republican they mind the least (most likely McCain) than to unify behind some half-assed online effort to back Romney.  

    (-3.00, -7.54) Feingold '08 - Because reality is unacceptable.

    by Bundy on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM PST

    •  What Democrat (0+ / 0-)

      is going to vote for the only Republican perceived as having a real shot at winning the general election?  Open primaries have been taken advantage of for a long time, and it's perfectly legal, so it seems like Democrats not doing so only puts them at a disadvantage.

      •  Democrats who like McCain. (3+ / 0-)

        Don't tell me they don't exist; I meet them all the time. Even here on dailykos, there were some who wanted him to be Kerry's VP!

        I don't think we're putting ourselves in a disadvantage. We're not nearly as politics savvy as we think we are. How do we know Romney couldn't get elected? Bush did, and he was perceived as less electable than McCain in 2000. And as some others have said, there was a similar story with Reagan in 1980. I say, it's better (and safer) to vote your convictions.  

        (-3.00, -7.54) Feingold '08 - Because reality is unacceptable.

        by Bundy on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Question...if in Florida one could pick the worst (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Repug to vote for, who would you pick, so as to help (D)'s.

    Don't assume anything...Verify! It's as easy as 3.14159265

    by Mr SeeMore on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM PST

  •  Kind of weird... (0+ / 0-)

    I'll admit to being out of step on this site...a red dot awash in a sea of blue, but...

    I caught part of the Limbaugh show today, and he was worried that Romney might drop out if he does poorly in Michigan.

    From his perspective, McCain and Huckabee might as well be Democrats in most of their policies.

    If it seems weird for Democrats to vote Republican, how much weirder to be doing Rush Limbaugh a favor!!

    Not that it matters.  Most of the candidates are vomit-inducing this year.

    Obama is my senator, and he's ok, but he strikes me as the Democratic equivalent of George Bush in 2000.  A bit of an unknown, preaching compassion and unity.  We all know how that turned out.  Add in the fact that he is a product of the Chicago machine...

  •  Terrible immoral idea (4+ / 0-)

    We are trying to build a positive movement for change. This kind of attempt to game the system really sucks and throws away all our credibility in fighting against Republican dirty tricks. This kind of thing is far more likely to backfire than to have any positive affect.

    •  Agreed. It's completely unethical (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dan Hogan, land of the free
      •  Well, no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I've got one vote.  

        I want my vote to ensure a victory for the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who that is, because every Republican nominee espouses positions which I find immoral (health care, choice, Iraq War; bankruptcy, market regulation, taxation), dangerous (Iran, North Korea, Palestine/Israel; food and drug safety) unconstitutional (government involvement with religion, wiretapping, habeas corpus) or downright stupid (evolution, degradation of science, global warming).

        In pursuit of my goal of both a presidential victory and increased majorities in the House and Senate it's possible that my one vote would be most effectively used to support the Democratic candidate I  most firmly believe can win the general election.

        But it is also possible (especially this year in Michigan) my vote might be most effectively used to weaken the opposing party's candidate. Especially if I believe that a weak presidential candidate will weaken the whole Republican ticket.

        Voting in the opposing party's primary might be an ineffective use of a vote, so in that case it would be unwise.  I cannot see that it is immoral or unethical.

        Indeed, if I truly believe that another administration like the one we are enduring now would be a catastrophe for this country, it would be immoral not to try to prevent that by any legitimate means I can find.

        It is far better to be thought a fool than to invade Iraq and remove all doubt.

        by clio on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:14:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Namby Pamby (0+ / 0-)

      I bet you pay $200 for a guaranteed 5 star room at too!

    •  How Is It Immoral? (6+ / 0-)

      Seriously, what moral code does this violate?  

      And is it a legitimate system that's being gamed?  And if not--since none of the Democratic votes really count, the delegates aren't going to be sat, and two of the three leading Democratic contenders aren't even on the ballot--how is gaming a flawed and illegitimate system immoral?

      I'm serious, that's a fairly strong accusation you've made, and I'm curious what the answer is.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The system is only partially legitimate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        land of the free

        But the moral aim should be to make it as legitimate as possible. We need to get a system of counting votes that insures that votes are properly counted and that people are not kept from the polls via dirty tricks or dirty laws. In the longer term we need to deal with the corrupting influence of money and the corrupting influence of big media and stupid media.

        If we are really serious about working towards fair elections then what is the sense of a tactic that helps make it a more unfair election. It works against our long-term interests and worse, I think that anything that helps to make elections more unfair is immoral.

        •  That's All Irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cp1919, Paper Cup

          This has nothing to do with vote counting.  The votes will be counted fine; Michigan has pretty good voting procedures.  No, the problem isn't the voting, the problem is the votes in the Democratic primary are meaningless.  Only one candidate is on the ballot, and no delegates will be honored at the Democratic convention, because Michigan went too early and is being sanctioned by the DNC.  

          If anything, this is a form of EMPOWERING people to cast a vote that actually matters.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you like it when Repugs have gamed elections? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dan Hogan, land of the free

            The way to fight that is not to play the same dirty tricks. It is to change the rules to help avoid it, like by only allowing Democrats to vote in Democratic primaries.

            Yes it is a big problem that people can't vote for their choice in the Democratic primary.

            But it is NOT empowering people to cast a vote for someone they dislike. It is a cynical game and that kind of game is not empowering anyone. And what happens if Romney gets elected president? How will you like the game then? (As someone commented up above they voted for Reagan in the primary thinking he would be the weakest choice. I can imagine people voting for George W. Bush in the primary thinking he would be the weakest choice).

            Let's do this as legitimately as we can. I think that the vote for "uncommitted" for someone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is casting a vote that matters at least a little.

            And it does not align us with the bad guys.

        •  beautifully said n/t (0+ / 0-)

          I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

          by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Great idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSC on the Plateau, demkat620

    Seriously, I think it is a great idea since there really is no Democratic primary.

    The press is already itching to coronate McCain as not only the GOP nominee, but also as the next President.   A Romney win will still keep this a 3 man race on their side.

    McCain is the only GOP candidate that I fear because he is the only one that I feel could win.  And we all know that he is already itching to stay in Iraq for 100 years and expand the war into Iran.  Helping to stop him now would be a great thing.

  •  I'm lovin' it`Let's give Mitt the gold! (0+ / 0-)


  •  Why the quack at Fieger, kos? (0+ / 0-)
    That was, ahem, most fowl.

    Did Fieger come out in opposition to illegal immigration?

    You can't even spell his bloody name!

    He's a John Edwards-class trial lawyer, and if they all quack like ducks.  His firm did pro bono work for a woman who has been denied the right to see her father -- dying by degrees from Alzheimer's -- for the past four years.

  •  Careful What You Ask For (5+ / 0-)

    I employed exactly this strategy in the 1980 Wisconsin open primary.  I voted for Reagan because he seemed like such a nutball that he'd be the easiest candidate for the Democrats to beat.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM PST

  •  Very unwise move (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, kimberlyweldon

    Romney is very dangerous.  Of course he is flawed in many ways and the social conservatives are unlikely to support him, but he has the money and clearly has absolutely no convictions. This is only about power for Romney and he could readily mutate his image and be formidable in the general election.  He is the worst kind of politician and I wouldn't underestimate him.

    Patriotism is supporting your country and your government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

    by Arjuna on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM PST

  •  Is Kos trying to help Obama here? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm just a bit confused.  Several days ago I'm pretty sure I recall Kos claiming that he guarantees that the Michigan delegates will get seated at the national convention.  That no one is going to want to piss off the Michigan Dems because we'll need every one of them badly in the general election.

    Then yesterday or early this morning, Kos admitted he is planning to vote for Obama.

    So... if Democrats all over Michigan crossed over, it hurts HRC who is alone on the ballot and would be likely to have received all Michigan delegates.

  •  This is fundamentally undemocratic (3+ / 0-)

    I appreciate the idea, but it seems to me that playing around with the vote is somehow disrespectful to democracy. We vote for who we believe in.  My vote is somewhat sacred to me, frankly, and I'm not going to diminish it by playing games with it.

    All this really does is annoy people and diminish our reputation as people trying to improve the system and the country. "Because they do it" is kind of an immature attitude, really.

    Love ya, Kos, but this one's a little silly.

    "I beseech you,... think it possible you may be mistaken." -- Cromwell/Bronowski

    by jockyoung on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM PST

    •  How? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris Godunov, Paper Cup, jds1978

      What's undemocratic about citizens voting in a publicly-funded election?  

      Do you think the current system in Michigan, where Democrats' votes are essentially meaningless if cast in the Democratic primary, is a legitimate system worth venerating?  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:01:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That wasn't really my point (0+ / 0-)

        OK, maybe undemocratic is the wrong word, because voters are still freely choosing.  But I'm hoping that some day elections will be about people choosing the leaders they want, so I'd kind of like to stick to that idea as much as possible.  My idealistic side, perhaps.

        As for Democratic votes being meaningless in Michigan, is that just because of the delegates being stripped?  I thought people were saying last year that we can safely assume the Florida and Michigan delegates will be re-instated, as the presumptive nominee is not about to piss off potential general-election voters in two major swing states.

        "I beseech you,... think it possible you may be mistaken." -- Cromwell/Bronowski

        by jockyoung on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Undemocratic? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paper Cup

      I thought a Democracy meant people could vote for whomever they wanted for whatever reason they chose.  Is that not the case?

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:56:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some thoughts, (0+ / 0-)
    1. Fundies won't vote for him. But they dislike both Hillary and democrats more than they do Mormons. You can't underestimate GOP GOTV ability.
    1. Mitt hasn't much talked about his resume; rather he did, but not completely. He has a terrific business and executive experience. As much as I loathe him, his combined experience will be extremely hard for Hillary and Obama to beat, especially if Iraq continues to be less violent and Economy becomes the most important issue of the day.
    1. McCain carries Iraq baggage and Huck carries Jesus's luggage. If either end up becoming a nominee, Obama and Hillary have excellent chances of beating both of them.

    Plus, asking dems to go out and vote for GOP is irresponsible, if not downright stupid.

    •  Also Agree Romney Very Dangerous... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think Romney could actually be very difficult to beat...I agree that he has a good resume, is articulate, is the "best looking" of all the Repugs (and a lot of apolitical Americans might vote for him based on his looks alone), and I also think that if he's the nominee, he will increase the chances of Michigan itself swinging to the GOP in November (and lately, the general elections all seem to come down to just one state...I would hate that to be Michigan in the GOP another win...much of the older generation in Michigan will support Romney as the "native son",  etc.) would be terrible if this came back to bite us....

  •  NO! Vote Huckabee instea (0+ / 0-)

    That's the guy we really want to win Michigan.

    Unlike Romney, the GOP establishment and all the hate radio talk show hosts hate him.

    Vote Huckabee and make Rush Limbaugh cry.

  •  Have forwarded this to my family in MI (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, jds1978

    asked them to do the same.  Great idea.

  •  Lest anyone forget... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    Rick Santorum backed a Green Party candidates effort to get on the ballot in 2006 in an attempt to split the Dem vote.  I see parallels to this current effort in Michigan.

  •  Kos you are wrong (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, philgoblue, marjo, Dan Hogan

    Michigan Democrats needs to vote uncommitted next week. If our delegation does get seated in July than it is imperative that the delegates don't go to a single candidate by default.

    It is really unfortunate Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Dingell sided with state Republicans for this early primary foolishness and thus violating rules they personally voted for at the 2004 convention.  I'm not sure removing their names from the ballot was all that smart for Obama and Edwards but I appreciate the gesture toward following the rules.  The best response is to vote uncommitted.

    I will tell you this...if David Bonior had won the Democratic primary for Governor in 2002 this wouldn't have happened.  I am fed up with GOP-lite Granholm screwing over our party on issues of policy and procedure. Her HRC endorsement was the tipping point to putting me in the Edward/Obama camp.

    I can't wait until 2010 when a Democratic President can come to Detroit or Lansing or Grand Rapids to help us elect a REAL Democratic Governor.

    •  I fail to see (0+ / 0-)

      how voting repub ensures HRC to get all the (non-existant) delegates.

      This is all fractions of the vote we're talking about. Only a few dems will cross over, but we might affect the repub vote. There will be massive screw ups on the HRC/undecided/write-in level, but I expect that HRC will not get all the delegates which will not be seated anyway.

  •  That picture looks like Leslie Nielsen (0+ / 0-)

    Frank Drebin for President!

    Nielsen's brother actually was Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.

    Lobbyists are just the piano players in the whorehouse; you could abolish them and the girls upstairs would still be doing business.--al Fubar -6.50 -5.69

    by Dvd Avins on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:02:54 PM PST

  •  Be careful what you wish for. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, kimberlyweldon

    First decide whether you REALLY want Romney to be the Repub nominee. (I do -- see below.) Because the voteapalooza coming on Feb 5 favors the candidate with the most money to run a nationwide campaign, and that is Romney, Romney, Romney. (How much? This much..)

    I want Romney to be the Repub nominee because he's BOTH the Repub who'd be easiest to beat (due to reputation as an unprincipled flip-flopper) AND the Repub who'd be easiest for a Dem Congress to work with, should he actually win. (As an unprincipled flip-flopper who's actually a highly competent manager in a technical sense, I think he'd pretty much go along to get along in order to achieve whatever's realistically achievable.)

    -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

    by HeyMikey on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM PST

  •  Another Michigander here.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Well, after weeks of slowly getting information (MDP has done an outrageously lousy job of disseminating information. Fancy that...) I've decided to go with "uncommitted."  My thinking is that if "uncommitted" gets more than 15% of the vote, then Obama and/or Edwards will have those delegates to add to their count. Given that the final delegate counts may be be exceedingly close, those "uncommitted" delegates could, if seated (a huge "if" at this point), give Obama or Edwards an additional increment of clout for candidacy or for furthering a progressive/populist agenda and platform for the party.  

    •  Nobody Gets Delegates (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paper Cup, jds1978

      The DNC has taken away Michigan's delegates for jumping the line and holding the primary too early.  No delegates will be awarded on the Democratic side, which is why nobody is contesting the primary.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hope (or perhaps denial???) springs eternal... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I realize this. I'm still holding onto the increasingly unlikely hope that we might get our delegates back. Although the loss of the reserved hotel rooms for Michigan delegates at the convention certainly sends a message. I gather that you don't think there's any possibility that they'll restore our delegates. I'm still having trouble fully digesting and accepting this....  

        •  They May Restore Delegates, But... (0+ / 0-)

          ...I don't see how it will be in relation to the primary vote, when neither Obama or Edwards are on the ballot, and everyone knows "uncommitted" probably won't get as many votes as write-ins for Obama and Edwards.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

            It's being highly publicized not to write in a candidate as it will spoil the ballot.  On the TV, in the paper, on the radio, I hear voting uncommitted being pushed a lot. Unless someone lives in a dark closet, in which case they probably won't vote anyway, they'd have to be totally oblivious to not know about this.

            Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

            by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Two wrongs don't make a right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan, auntiebembem, tiredntexas

    If you want people to come over to your side, because it is a better way it is not a good idea to play dirty.  Your then no better than the lowest common denominator.

  •  You're evil, Kos. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And that's a good thing.

    Recommended by:

    the blackwater-connected neocon gets his michigan win from democrats?

    JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.  i've seen it all.

  •  If I Lived In Michigan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSC on the Plateau, Paper Cup

    I'd do it.

    "...I think, time wounds all heels." John Lennon

    by SherriG on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM PST

    •  I do live in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Michigan (Ann Arbor) and I'm not going to do it.

      Now is not the time to play games, if your candidate is not the ballot then vote uncommitted, if you like Clinton, then vote for her.

      Dems here are pretty po'd about not having there candaites on the ballot. The democratic party seemed to let us down here, while the republicans get the whole group of candidates.

      And I know here on this site people don't like clinton and this is just a way backhanded way for Kos to say, "Don't vote for her" because he doesnt want her to be the nominee.

      Well guess what, I am voting for her.

  •  I don't think our votes should be manipulative (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dan Hogan

    My rule, generally, is: vote for the person you like and agree with.  Voting for Romney may help Democrats in November, but, maybe it won't.  Who really, completely knows how the result of one election will affect the race in several months?  No one.  What we DO know for a fact is, there are multiple people on the Michigan Democratic ballot (people like Kucinich who won't be elected).  Hillary Clinton is not the only person on the Democratic ballot, and if you're a Democrat, or otherwise sympathize with Democrats, I think you should vote for whomever you like most rather than trying to affect the election somehow.  Your one single vote will not affect the outcome of the race, so you might as well vote for the person you want to be president, rather than inflate the numbers of someone you don't.

  •  Maybe I'd care (0+ / 0-)

    If the author of this post wasn't echoing right-wing slams on Geoffrey Feiger, who is derided because he has the courage to stand up to religious right.

  •  Voting "uncommitted"? (0+ / 0-)

    I basically cross-posted this at MyDD.  Hopefully somebody can explain this particular "strategery" to me...

    The idea that voting "uncommitted" would help any non-Hillary candidate seems extremely remote to me and based upon numerous assumptions that are unlikely to come to pass.  1) the MI delegates would actually have to be counted, without it causing a riot; 2) somehow the uncommitted vote would be divided up amongst the candidates other than Hillary, despite the fact that the votes would represent an aggregate of votes for multiple candidates - who's going to ensure that that process is fair?; and 3) the difference in delegate totals between Hillary and the second-place candidate would have to be less than the total number of Michigan delegates, in order to push Obama (let's say) over the top.  If #3 really were the case, and that's what helped win Obama the nomination despite the fact that the candidates were told that those delegates would not be seated and there would be no way to verify Obama's actual MI vote total, then in my opinion it would cause a full-scale Democratic civil war. Hillary's camp would say that her nomination was stolen, and rightfully so if this scenario came to pass.  Heck, if the difference in delegates really was that small, Hillary's camp would be advocating against recognizing the delegates.

    The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

    by rfahey22 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM PST

  •  Totally wrong, kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, hastingspete

    Mitt Romney is the scariest Republican of the bunch. Not only because he would probably be the most formidable opponent (a smooth-talking self-funder who could compete in the Democratic Northeast) but also because he is the most obviously unprincipled and most clearly aligned with the neocons. The sooner this slimeball is out of the race, the happier I'll be. The idea of encouraging the progressive netroots community to help him keep his campaign alive is beyond criminal.

    •  Can't agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paper Cup, malickyman

      Romney has proven to be an incredibly weak candidate.  Did you see the exit poll results for him from Iowa and NH?  He scored so low on matters of trustworthiness, consistency and such from Republicans.  And he can't compete in his own backyard very well, as NH proved.  Don't forget that he's also a Mormon, and the Evangelical wing of the GOP might very well stay home should he be the nominee.

      I think the Republicans are just savvy enough not to nominate Mitt, which is why he's tanked.  I don't think his winning Michigan would help him get the nod, but I do think it would muddy the waters enough to keep the GOP side in turmoil a bit longer.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You want some real chaos? (0+ / 0-)

    If Ron Paul is on their ballot, vote for him so he gets some delegates.

    Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

    by Yamaneko2 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM PST

  •  1 vote for Mittens (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daryln, malickyman

    Yes, Romney has more attack ads than the rest put together.  He can single handedly fund these ads right through to the convention.  It will keep them off balance and spending money.

  •  i don't know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    i fear mitt more than any other republican, and would love to see him go down in Michigan. What about voting for Thompson?  mccain can't win because of the war, rudy mussolini can't win because of his personal problems.  huckabee, well huckabee just might do it with his faux economic populism and friendly demeanor, but he'll loose too much money from the rich republicans to the democratic nominee, so long as its not edwards, so he's probably dead in the water.  

    as unappealing as all of us find Mitt, remember that this guy was the governor of massachusetts.  

    •  voting for thompson doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

      you need to vote for someone with a shot at winning

      It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

      by AtlantaJan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, this is a great opprtunity (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSC on the Plateau, daryln, Paper Cup

    And let's make sure everyone in MI knows what happened.

    Mitt Romney is the liberals' choice. Kiss.Of.Death.

    "I'm not a member of any organized political party, ... I'm a Democrat." Will Rodgers

    by CCSDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM PST

  •  This is a terrible idea. (4+ / 0-)

    This has all the earmarks of backfiring. don't do it!

  •  This makes you all no better than Republicans. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan, Zach Alexander

    I thought you Obamaniacs were about "Uniting Us".  Really works for me when you want to have a "protest vote" against my chosen candidate.  I ask again, are you really Dems?  

    News Flash, not all of us have sipped the Obama  koolaid and would appreciate a little respect.  It's the democracy - Stupid.

    This stinks.

    Bill Clinton - the real man's First Lady. Go Hillary!

    by Antifish on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM PST

    •  Assuming by "this" you mean "voting uncommitted", (0+ / 0-)

      what on earth is wrong with not voting for Hillary if she's not someone's candidate of choice???

      Do you also oppose write-in votes?

    •  Why do people have to vote for your candidate? (0+ / 0-)

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:48:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me??? I never implied that people should (0+ / 0-)

        vote for my candidate.  I saw many references here to a Hillary protest vote and this entire little Mitt conspiracy stinks.  Do you not think the right comes on here to snoop around?  This discredits the entire website.  

        Know what, never mind, I'll go somewhere where an ethical Democrat is welcome.  Later.

        Bill Clinton - the real man's First Lady. Go Hillary!

        by Antifish on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:53:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You were lamenting a "protest vote" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zach Alexander

          Maybe your post was badly written, but you seemed to be whining about a protest vote against Hillary.  I don't see why that should be a problem for you, especially in an essentially meaningless contest.

          As for "unethical," hogwash.  There's nothing unethical about Democrats deciding to make their votes count and going over to vote for a weaker Republican.  That's how the system is set up, after all.  If that's the only way Michigan Democrats can have an impact in the primary, more power to them.  I see no ethical difference between voting for a candidate one supports versus essentially voting against candidate(s) one opposes in a situation like this.

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  People have voiced concerns about the Mitt thing (0+ / 0-)

          so I don't see why you think "ethical Democrats" are unwelcome.

          People were getting on your case not about your opposition to that, but your opposition to people voting uncommitted in the Dem. primary. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    •  What, exactly, is undemocratic about this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's an open primary.  Period.  

      Anyone, from any part of michigan who is legally registered to vote can vote for ANY party's primary ballot they choose.  Period.

      It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
      PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

      by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:35:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't believe I read the noun "hilarity" and it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    made me think of You-Know-Who.

    Dear God. I think I have Secondary Primaryitis.

    I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

    by revenant on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM PST

  •  Great Idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    This is nothing short of brillant. At best we could keep Rommney in the race with a strong showing and cause the Republicans to have to keep fighting it out, rather than focusing their ire on Barack or Hillary.

  •  This is pure, unfiltered genius. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daryln, ohcanada, Paper Cup

    Markos, you've nailed it with this.

    I'm 100% on board. Every part of your argument makes sense. I think this is a terrific idea.

    I'm sending this to my MI friends.

  •  I wanted to do the same thing (0+ / 0-)

    in Florida.  But you actually have to register as a Republican 30 days before the primary to vote on the Republican side.  JUST. COULD. NOT. DO. IT.

    Sorry, don't even want to get anywhere close to the Rethugs- even if just for kicks.

    In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

    by TampaCPA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM PST

  •  Sorry Kos, I have to disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Besides Romney having a lot of money and sucking, the GOP establishment here LIKES him. They want Romney to win.

    My other mischief choices would be McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul and Hunter. The first three are electable. Huckabee's the best of a bad lot there so I hope he wins. Paul is a racist nut. Hunter is unknown. I can't go for any of those.

    I'm sticking with my own primary. I'll vote for Kucinich most likely and influence the convention away from corporatism with Edwards not on the ballot.

    Support Fair Trade. Buy American! Keep jobs at home.

    by John Lane on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:48:04 PM PST

    •  no shit! he's the best bet the neocons have!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that's so fricking obvious, just WHAT IN THE FUCK could he be THINKING?  amazing.  unreal.  surreal.  this is a new low.  i can't even express just how alarming this is to me.

      how irresponsible, truly.

  •  Absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    While the political naifs are wringing their hands, everyone else can mess with the Republicans.   Vote Willard in the Mitten State!

    First Amendmently Yours,

    by lightiris on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:49:42 PM PST

  •  Hmmmm. May try that myself... (0+ / 0-)

    that's one way to stop being undecided!  :)

    You can be as free as you want, so long as Republicans control birth, death, sex and marriage. And whose vote counts.

    by ultrageek on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM PST

  •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    I am so tired of the "We're better than they are" argument. That's what kept us from challenging the Swift Boaters.

    I personally voted for Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Georgia primary to screw with the Republicans. Only time in my life I ever voted Republican.

    Didn't work. But, hey, it's still useful for bar talk.

    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

    by AtlantaJan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM PST

    •  re:swiftboating (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dan Hogan

      apples and oranges. The correct response to the swiftboaters would have been for kerry to stand up strongly and call their bullshit (I'm the candidate who is the war hero, and might I remind you what my opponent did when it came to the armed services), not swiftboat them back. would you advocate a campaign to question whether john mccain really was ever a POW?

      i'll say again, i think the ethical (and political) capital we could hold onto by not doing this would outweigh (the actual gains from romney winning michigan)*(the probability of it actually working).

  •  ok dammit I'm in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daryln, ohcanada, Paper Cup, siamesewonka

    and I'm three degrees of seperation from every leftist nutjob in Michigan, so I don't take sending that email lightly.  But off it goes, tonight.

    I may even make up a "Kitten for Mittens" button to wear Tuesday and, natch, wear my mittens to the poll. oh dear god and I'm going to unleash my sister.  Brace yourself for a Mittens landslide.

    This will be the ultimate act of heroism on my part.  Someone somewhere owes me.  

    •  that's NUTS. (0+ / 0-)

      you are really going to vote for a blackwater-connected neocon?

      •  Consider it (0+ / 0-)

        a vote against McCain.  It's a protest vote more than anything else.  Considering otherwise their vote is meaningless, I say, more power to Michigan Democrats.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:08:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  for chrissakes. WAKE UP. they HATE MCCAIN. (0+ / 0-)

          or don't you recall?  

          i can't get over just how motherfucking stupid this is.

          •  True. but keep in mind the evangelicals. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boris Godunov

            evangelicals will not vote for romney period!

            Kucinich 2008: Impeachment, Universal Health Care, Marriage equality, true progressive values.

            by siamesewonka on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  They hate ALL their candidates (0+ / 0-)

            But they're starting to realize McCain is going to be their best bet in November and are coalescing around him.  The non-evangelical conservatives will abandon their core principles for an electoral win every time.  So they'll pick McCain, guarantee, and he is EASILY going to be the toughest to beat in November.

            Romney will be a cakewalk, as the GOP is discovering.  He won't even carry his home state in the general.

            And you seem to keep ignoring the fact that the religious bigots on the Right will not turn out for a Morman in November...

            I finally put in a signature!

            by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:34:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  did you watch the repug debate tonight? (0+ / 0-)

              the neocon news channel hosted the republican debate tonight...

              they're so obvious.  they're so blatant.  when huckabee would talk, they're switch the camera to romney giving skeptically amused looks... then they gave romney leading questions that helped him clarify his positions... the answers were so - "presidential" - they'd span the camera across all of the candidates when romney spoke, as if his were the only voice...

              it was scripted from top to bottom, and intentionally favored romney.  

              and if you think his religion is going to stop people from voting for him, you don't get it.  maybe you're insulated from the right's berage of information to its base - but all of it is full of romney's position on his religion, making that square peg fit in the round hole very nicely.

              they're investing a TON of money to control this message, and they're pretty successful.  i see romney's consistent 2nd as stronger than huckabee's or mccain's support, as they do not have consistent support state to state.  romney does.

      •  i will wear gloves (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paper Cup

        and a face mask and take a two hour shower afterward.  In holy water.

        •  fuck this. it's not cute, this is our future. so (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dan Hogan

          DON'T MESS WITH IT.

          •  get off (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            This is old-hat.  See all the very well written posts up and down the thread about how arcane and open to gamesmanship open primaries are... you should have to declare D/R/Other/I.  It's still open to gaming, but you have to declare when you register or months before...

            Republicans in MI have done this numerous times...frankly, rules like this are for's like saying "guns are dishonorable, so I'll never bring a gun to a fight..." and then showing up to a fight and everyone else has guns...except you.  

            Standing on principle is good, but when it's washing away underneath you, don't be surprised if you are left treading water.

            It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
            PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

            by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Amen (0+ / 0-)

              All this moralizing, meh.  These people probably never had to vote for Feiger because the Repubs foisted him on us, and they never had to fight off school vouchers or Dick DeVos or face the money of the Amway and Dominoes fortunes.  They make me want to spit.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That was one of the toughest (0+ / 0-)

                votes for me -- Engler or Feiger?  What kind of choice was that?  Of course I couldn't vote for Fatboy John and Geoffrey got my vote, but I wasn't pleased.  He was certainly the lesser of two evils for me.

                Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

                by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:46:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I live in Michigan. I think I will do this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    Romney's definitely their least electable candidate.  And our caucus here doesn't matter anymore.

  •  I posted about this earlier-Living in W. Michigan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    Romney is pulling out all the stops here in Western Michigan. Ads, Ads, and more Ads. The local news coverage is all about Mitt some McCain and absolutely nothing about Huckabee.
    I asked people to vote to see what I should do about this. Majority was to vote uncommitted. Which is a tough one for me to swallow. I was one of those crossovers in 2000 for McCain and will be glad to do it again to another repub candidate. I see what your saying about Romney, its a good one. Huckleberry just scares me. All you have to do at the polls is request a repub or dem ballot and they keep track. Whoop de doo. That's all there is to it. Nothing to sign up for. Most of if not all MI democrats are disgusted and fed up with our state's Democratic leadership.
    If we all get on the same bandwagon about Romney then let's roll with it. It will make a huge difference in the republican outcome whether they like it or not.

    •  do you know what you're saying? (0+ / 0-)

      romney is the best they have.  he's a neocon.  he's a liar.  he's a corporatist.  he's connected to blackwater.  he either bought, or attempted to buy, Clear Channel WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

      and you're going to do your part to push him into the candidacy for laughs?  how funny will that be?

      you think romney's mormonism is a problem?  ask bill kristol.

      this is the most insane shit i've ever seen.  romney is the most potentially successful candidate they have.  between your now unsolicited "joke" support and the HRC machine insisting on running against her party for the democratic nomination, there is some high-pitched fever to lose and lose big, that i just can't fathom.  

  •  Why it is a bad idea: It's FREEPING (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to vote for somebody with whom you are in perfect agreement, be prepared to put your name on the ballot : Tom Schaller

    by captainlaser on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM PST

  •  Disappointed in kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan, tiredntexas

    I think this is unethical.

  •  This is moronic! Romney is no idiot - He is a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, hastingspete

    terrible choice for our nation but he will be formidable with the republican attack machine behind him. He looks the part and that is all that matters to them. He will be manipulated just like Bush to what they want except he is actually intelligent and accomplished.

    "And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night." Matthew Arnold

    by Cantinflas on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:15:24 PM PST

  •  Let Us Not Take Counsel of Our Fears (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clio, DHinMI, cp1919, liberte, arainsb123

    I have been reading a lot of the comments on this thread and there appear to a large number of people who are concerned about possible GOP retaliation for this scheme.  I really have to wonder where these people have been for the last ten years.

    Do they think that the Republicans aren’t going to hit us with anything and everything that they have no matter how we choose to play our hands?  Do you think that they won't blame their actions on us no matter what we do?  The GOP sounded no quarter back in '98, if not sooner.  It's time we recognized that fact.  It's time for us to stop worrying about what the enemy is going to do to us and start thinking about what we're going to do to them.  The way to win in politics is to stay on the offensive.  Even when we are forced to play defense we should be thinking about going over to the offensive.

    I can see two legitimate arguments for rejecting this scheme.

    1. It is unethical.
    1. Romney is the GOP's strongest candidate.

    I am not wholly convinced by either of those arguments, but they, at least, are relatively sound and both of them give me pause about pursuing this scheme.

    However, urging restraint on the grounds that the GOP will extend us the same courtesy is simply stupid.  It shows a profound failure to learn from what has happened in the last ten years.

    The GOP is going to attack us no matter what we do and their media puppets are going to dutifully tut tut whatever we choose to do to them.

    For better or worse, that’s how the game works.  It will do no good to wish it otherwise or imagine a better world in which that is not the way.  If we want our country back, we are going to have to take it back because no one’s going to give it to us as a reward for good behavior.  If we want fair play from the GOP we are first going to have to whip them so badly that they will beg for a return to the days before they poisoned our public discourse and public institutions.

    Appeasement never works with bullies.

    •  You are SO right! (0+ / 0-)

      It's the same problem I have with the argument that Hillary can't win, because of her negatives or that Barak is the best because he wants to play nice. The repubs will do every thing they can to destroy the Dem nominee and he/she will most likely limp into the whitehouse if we let them. Destroy them.

      BTW, I think mccain is their strongest.

      •  I agree about McCain (0+ / 0-)

        I think he is far and away their strongest candidate.  I think Romney is a lot stronger than people here seem to think, but I do want him to win the Michigan primary because that sets the field up for total chaos, especially if Giulliani can win Florida.  Then we'll have a national free-for-all for Super Tuesday with lots of internecine mud slinging.

        •  Y'know, it's odd... (0+ / 0-)
          I really want a contested Democratic convention, because I think it will make us stronger. And I also want a contested repub convention, because it will finish breaking them apart.
          •  I'm with you (0+ / 0-)

            I'd love to see a contested convention.  My pipe dream, of course, is that we could then draft Gore as a consensus candidate, but I know that's only a pipe dream and most likely will never happen.  I just don't want to see someone anointed before August. We have three strong candidates.

            Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

            by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:42:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Just emailed my niece (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    She's pretty pissed that her vote won't, essentially, count. Probably won't vote at all (at least till now-Go Mitt). Unlike most people here, many Dems simply won't vote instead of voting uncommitted (can you say record low turnout?). If they have a little fun and vote for Mittsy, no harm, no foul. Go forth and email those discouraged Dems and give them a reason to vote!

  •  If we lose in nov, it'll be cuz of you morons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, thechosenone021

    Let's do a recap here:

    -The War in Iraq is unpopular yet at it's best levels, it's not going to get any better, it can only turn out worse between now and Novemeber

    -The economy is going to be, at the very best, a de facto recession

    People are tired tired tired of BushGOP, every ad is going to be "you want 4 more years of Bush-Romney/Bush-McCain/etc"

    The election has been all but handed to us, the only thing that could work is a swiftboat against Hillary/Edwards/Obama, and yes it can work, see Fox News if you want examples

    One problem though, with all the things going against the GOP, even desperate negative ads can not save them, they also need a candidate who appeals to moderates and seems "above the fray" because of some character issue, that person is John McCain, if we get smeared by 527s and we smear him back, he'll pull out his Prisoner of War stuff, all his experience, how he's a maverick and sided with Kennedy/Fiengold to help America, he's a moderate blah blah and we're in serious risk of losing that scrap to the average voter who sees "liberals" picking on a man who was tortured in the line of duty

    John McCain is the ONLY Republican who can win, we have to do every LEGAL method to stop him from getting nominated, otherwise we'll get conservative judges like Alito

    You guys say you don't like Romney, he and McCain will appoint THE EXACT SAME ULTRA-RIGHT JUDGES, and they'll get a majority on the supreme court and say good bye to your rights

    I don't know what idiot is thinking "well if a republican wins...lets try and pick the best one" THEY ARE ALL HORRIBLE BEYOND WORDS AND WILL ALL EQUALLY FUCK OVER OUR COUNTRY

    If McCain wins in November, I'm blaming these kossack morons who honestly thought Romney had a chance, and when he appoints these ultra-far right judges, invades Iran/Syria/Venezuela i'll remind you HE'S DOING EXACTLY WHAT MITT ROMNEY WOULD BE DOING


    The only difference is VOTERS PERCEPTION, and for some reason, they give McCain ULTRA LOW NEGATIVES while they give Obama/Clinton Negatives in the 50s, ridiculously high

    Do not fuck up 2008 by helping McCain into the white house

    The Liberty Lounge Political Forums -- non profit messageboards, free registration

    by mhinds01 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:27:50 PM PST

  •  I vehemently disagree with this advice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, philgoblue, Dan Hogan

    for it implies that two wrongs make a right.  That we should stoop to the level of the Republicans implies that we should also engage in voter suppression, dirty tricks and so forth because they've done it to us.  We're better than that.  Whether it's Romney, Huckabee, Mc Cain or someone else is something that Republicans should decide -- with no mischief from us in the mix.

    We should leave the GOP primary to the Republicans and stay the hell away from it.  In fact, since nobody else is on the ballot but Hillary, I'd encourage a vote for "uncommitted" in the event that a Michigan delegation is eventually seated at the convention.  Let the campaigns fight over who the uncommitted delegates actually are and who they support after the primary.  That's the small and big "d" democratic way to handle this.

  •  Regardless of where you stand on Kos' idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, malickyman

    Mitt is the weakest of their major candidates. His Mormon religion is absolutely, positively going to prevent a certain portion of their voting bloc from pulling the lever for him, now or in the general. And unlike McCain and Huck, both of whom gather occasional leftie praise/respect even on these pages, no Dem (and I'd bet few indies) will swing for this proven Slick Willie.

    Personal ethics are a valid reason not to be in favor of this scheme, but Kos' basic argument holds water. It would make me extremely happy if he won their nomination ahead of McCain, or secondly, Huck.

    •  My mom, a lifelong Dem, thinks he's ok (0+ / 0-)

      I cannot fathom this myself as he is obviously a soulless robot who will be a neocon puppet.  And he gives me the holy creeps. But something about him is apparently palatable to older moderate Dems like my mom who think he's the most competent of the bunch.  Ergo, I wouldn't underestimate his blank slate appeal.

      Personally, I wouldn't mess with their primary when the immediate results could be a recharge to Mitt's campaign, leading nationally to a longer term result we can't foresee.

      "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths . . . I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" - B. Bush

      by The New Politeness on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:42:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul!!!!11!!one!!! (0+ / 0-)

    If we could get Ron Paul to come out on top of the Michigan Republican primary, now that would be something...

    Sure, he's a creepy racist kook. But, even if he doesn't win, a good showing would force Fox News to include him again in their debates, and allow him to continue throwing off the Republican messaging on Iraq.

    •  Note to self: read thread before posting... (0+ / 0-)

      I see I'm about the one-hundredth person to have this very original idea.

      •  Ron Paul!! are you kidding me? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        supporting ron paul at all is the worst idea I think anyone could come up with.  He has pretty massive grassroot support...sickening and he has probably the furthest right message of any candidate outside Pat Buchanan.

        Kucinich 2008: Impeachment, Universal Health Care, Marriage equality, true progressive values.

        by siamesewonka on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:01:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like the idea, but... (0+ / 0-)

    You are advocating the wrong candidate. Vote for Ron Paul, or Duncan Hunter. That'll show them.

    By the way, I did this in the 1992 Ohio primary. I voted for Pat Buchanan. The downside was that I started getting junk mail from the GOP and National Review subscription offers.

  •  I don't know if... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup

    ..this proposed caper was meant to bring out the purity trolls in full force, but that has been the result.

    Neoconservatives never err. They are only victimized by the flaws of others.-Glenn Greenwald

    by wyvern on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:42:41 PM PST

    •  Why not hold ourself up to that higher standard? (0+ / 0-)

      Why not take away our oppositions ammunition.  

      And for me, the big one in this...  This sort of thing is the reason so many people are turned off by politics.  This is why we have low turnout in all of our elections and why it is so difficult to get new people involved in the discussion and the process.

      If you are convinced now, put this in the back of your mind the next time you are working on a GOTV effort.

      Just stopping by, wish I could spend more time here.

      by Dan Hogan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:48:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You Got That Right (0+ / 0-)

      I'm half expecting them to next start a drive for the reimplimentation of prohibition.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:46:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Open Primary (6+ / 0-)

    I note that some posters have moral qualms about Democrats voting in a Republican primary that is part of an open primary.
    My understanding is that open primaries were originally devised so that a truly bipartisan candidate could receive the support from voters whether or not those voters were members of that candidate's party.
    The fact that open primaries are so, if you'll pardon the expression, open to corruption is the reason most states have done away with them. Michigan's Republicans could have but didn't; because they were so busy corrupting the Democratic primary.
    One could look at it this way: who would you like to see as the Republican presidential candidate? Since it is only a presumption that the reason a voter votes for a candidate is to elect that person, there is no reason not to vote for Romney.

  •  Switched GOP in FLorida--thinking of voting Romne (0+ / 0-)

    GOP only took half of the delegates, Dems took all.  Many of us switched to GOP so our vote would count.  

    I am thinking of voting Romney to keep him in the game.  He can't win, but he CAN weaken the front runner for us because he is nasty and desperate.

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM PST

  •  Open primaries are a perversion of democracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And this post makes the perfect case for that.

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News

    "Philosophers only interpret the world, the point remains to change it." - Karl Marx

    by elishastephens on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM PST

  •  They tried to do it to us in NH (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, siamesewonka

    On RW Talk Radio in Boston (Jay Severin) a caller was talking about how she and her friends, all republican leaning independents (in NH independents tend to be R or D, except in name), voted for Hillary to try to help her derail Obama's momemntum and well...what Kos said basically because they viewed her as unelectable in the general. Granted it was anecdotal, but I have to believe that there were plenty of others who did this or at least thought about it. I can't believe it had much of (if any) statistical effect on the outcome and do not care either way as I am a fan of both.  

  •  Great idea, but define worst... (0+ / 0-)

    Worst for the front running Republicans?  Or worst in general.  IMO, if I had to choose between Romney, McCain, or Huckabee, I'd have to go with Romney (shiver).

  •  RoseTattoo from Kalamazoo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm in.  I will hold my nose while I vote republican for the first time in my life (and a Romney at that -- ugh) if it's for the greater good.

  •  It's not gonna happen... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, Dan Hogan, dkosdan

    Here's the way it's gonna go in Michigan: the word is spreading here that to secretly vote for Obama and Edwards one must vote for "uncommitted". Hope that our Democratic delegates will count at the last minute will fuel most Democrats in Michigan to vote either for Hillary or Uncommitted. Republicans here, meanwhile, hate Hillary much more than they like the Republican field. They will be the ones that cross over to vote for Uncommitted on the Democratic ticket. "Uncommitted"  will therefore be the Democratic nominee from Michigan.

  •  This sucks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Dan Hogan, keepinon

    I don't have a problem with crossover voting, but this diary is a slap in the face to the Edwards & Obama supporters.  They've been fighting this train wreck of a primary for months.  Their last chance was to max out the uncommitted vote.  

    •  You're so right, Christine (0+ / 0-)

      I'm appalled, actually, that there's a movement now to vote for Mittens.  We need as many uncommitted votes as possible.  John and Monica Conyers have started running ads to do this and there's a big Vote Uncommitted rally somewhere in Detroit tomorrow.

      Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

      by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:36:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This guy must be a Romney plant! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cat4everrr, kimberlyweldon

    How desperate must they be at Romney HQ to try to fool Dems into voting for this asshole! Get Mitt OUT of the race NOW!

  •  This worked out real well in Wisconsin (3+ / 0-)

    One of the Wisconsin Senate seats had been in the hands of the LaFollette family for 40 years, when, according to Wisconsin political lore, the Democrats decided to "have a little fun" in 1946.  They voted in the open primary for a little-known candidate named Joe McCarthy.

    I think we should let the Republicans pick their own candidates.  It doesn't always turn out so great when we start causing trouble.

    •  AMEN... about democracy (0+ / 0-)

      thanks for providing an excellent example of why we shouldn't do this.

      Here is another:

      If we actually care about preserving little-d democracy, we shouldn't fuck around with the system.

      Let us remember that just because the Republicans play tricks like this, doesn't mean it's okay for us to do it.

      I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

      by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:19:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's wrong. (7+ / 0-)

    Yes, of course the Republicans did this.

    They also deliberately intimidated black voters in the South, stole an election, swiftboated a Vietnam vet, and sent 4,000 Americans and half a million Iraqis to their deaths. Do we do the same? Because we can?

    It's wrong, it stinks, and we're better than that.

  •  I thought we wanted Democrats to show some spine (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jqb, siamesewonka

    And yet there are all these people here talking about whether this is "moral" or "stinks"?  

    Here is a 100% LEGAL opportunity to CAST A VOTE AND AFFECT THE OUTCOME.  Hell, your single vote in the general election in November is not going to have NEARLY as much impact as THIS LEGALLY CAST VOTE.  

    You're not being asked to commit voter fraud.  You're not being asked to cheat.  You're being asked to GO VOTE, and since the Democratic primary is irrelevant, vote on the Republican one.  YOU'RE ENTITLED.

    You frickin wussies.

    •  Yes you are being asked to cheat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      land of the free

      And it is really dumb besides. This is just the perfect thing to make people view Kossacks as a bunch of juvenile jerks who are messing with our democracy. Yes I know the Republicans have messed a hell of a lot more with our democracy but I doubt most Americans think that.

      And don't give me the argument that Republicans will attack us in any case. I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about independents, about plenty of Democrats too who will look at us as assholes because of this.

      Hell I have been a fan of Daily Kos for years and I think this sucks. This has nothing to do with spine. Cheating is not showing spine and I think there is a much better chance of hurting our cause this way than of helping it.

      Reforming our rotten electoral system is one of our highest priorities now. Acting like idiots gaming the system is hardly going to work in our favor.

      •  CHEAT? (0+ / 0-)

        getting kinda hot under the collar for that one.

        I've already chosen to vote this way -- I have a repub absentee ballot sitting on my desk. This is the only vote I have which makes any difference.

        yes the system needs work. but my vote is on tuesday, not after the utopia arrives.

  •  I've an idea (0+ / 0-)

    Convince the Republics to vote for Uncommitted in the Dems whilst supporting Mitt in their primary!!!

    Kucinich 2008: Impeachment, Universal Health Care, Marriage equality, true progressive values.

    by siamesewonka on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:58:14 PM PST

  •  Vote For MITT-en (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marjo, daryln

    Vote for MITT-en;
    He's warm and fuzzy like a KITT-en;
    In him I am quite SMITT-en;
    In the White House he should (not) be SITT-en;
    For him to win Michigan would be FITT-en;
    So vote for MITT-en;
    Or you will get BITT-en.

    Feel free to add on some more verses!

  •  Reasons this REPULSES me (6+ / 0-)

    As a Michigan voter, I'm disgusted with the whole primary boondoggle. Mad at the MDP and their wonderful little cabal with Saul Anuzis (MRP chair) to fuck up our right to vote. They all completely misjudged the situation and the stakes.

    I must say that Kos' suggestion pisses me off. There is no way I'm going to engage in such games.

    As mentioned in a different diary, I have a few good reasons why crossing over is a bad idea. I'll elaborate here:

    Romney could actually win. There's a lot of money behind him, and certainly will be a lot more if he's the nomminee. A Romney nomination would not be fun nor a "slam dunk" for the Democrats.

    Yes, the Democratic party nominee would probably beat him - but what if Romney pulled out a win in the General election? It could happen, if the GOP were to coalesce in an "anybody but (Dem nominee) way, and certainly if there are some "unexpected" homeland security issues in August, September and October.

    Many Michiganians are saying they'll cross over and vote for Ron Paul or Romney, just to muck up the Republicans for fun. Frankly, I'm not going to do that, for two reasons:

    1. Why give the appearance of legitimacy to Ron Paul's crazy and racist ideology? Do you really want to give the racist, homophobic, and crazy far-right liberterian ideology any legs?

    2. Why give Romney any momentum going into Super Tuesday? Sure, he's a weak candidate right now, but he has spent a lot of money, and will spend even more. While I'm happy to see the GOP field in a flux, with no clear frontrunner, I can't see how giving Romney - a well-liked candidate by many of the deep-pocketed corporate bigwigs in the GOP - help would be a great idea.

    3. People fought, struggled, and died to give us the power to vote.
    I will not disrespect them nor insult their sacrifices by voting for repulsive candidate simply to play games.

    I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

    by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM PST

    •  .... (0+ / 0-)

      4.  Rules are for the people who are willing to follow them

      Your fellow citizens have no problems breaking #3 above when it suits them.  The change you want to be is nice, but this is a simple calculus...

      It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
      PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

      by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:25:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's about DEMOCRACY (0+ / 0-)

        if you care about democracy, then cheating should not be an option.

        Just because some people might not have scruples does not mean that I should feel comfortable messing with the little-d democratic process.

        I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

        by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:38:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then don't (0+ / 0-)

          The converse to anyone, like kos, saying "if you're up for it, let's try this" is "if you're not, don't!"

          It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
          PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

          by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:43:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

          It's called an OPEN PRIMARY.  It's not as though kos is telling people who are registered Dems to re-register as Republicans simply to screw up their primary.  Any michigan voter with ANY political party affiliation can pick ANY one party's ballot in the primary booth, no questions asked, nothing illegal or unethical.

          It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
          PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

          by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:44:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  $$$ (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm hoping no ones taking the next step and donating money to Romney,

            Kucinich 2008: Impeachment, Universal Health Care, Marriage equality, true progressive values.

            by siamesewonka on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  it's unethical in my opinion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and it's disrespectful to those who struggled to give us the right to vote.

            We should use our votes wisely, casting them for who we want to lead us. Not to be snarky.

            I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

            by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              land of the free, brein

     I said before, it's your choice.  I don't live in michigan any more...if I did I would be FURIOUS with the Michigan and National party for essentially telling me "your wishes in the primary don't matter because your state party and the national party couldn't act like adults".  This whole situation sucks.

              It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
              PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

              by floundericiousMI on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:01:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is where (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I agree with you. I can't possibly explain how pissed off I am at the MDP and Debbie Dingell. They completely misjudged the situation, and were far too cozy with the Republican state party. They screwed us all, and I'm sure the Republicans are laughing, because our Democratic state party has wasted a ton of time, money and resources on this.

                The MI state party needs it's money. We have a term limited Governor, several state-level and some national Congressional jobs may open up, and we don't benefit from pissing away a lot of money on something as foolish as this.

                They should have backed down and changed the primary date back. They were too proud to admit their error. And the Michigan voters are the ones who get screwed (not to mention many candidates, who could not campaign here nor have any help from the Michigan volunteers for states like Iowa and NH. Four years ago, I spent months phonebanking, mailing, and organizing for Kerry prior to Iowa. This year, there are no offices for any of the Democratic candidates I'm aware of here... perhaps Clinton has a local office, but I haven't looked because she's not my #1 candidate).

                This truly does suck.

                I feel very bad for the poll workers. They are going to be slammed. Most voters don't know that many candidates are off the ballot and that write-ins will spoil the ballot. It will be a mess.

                I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."

                by land of the free on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  When this boondoggle started to backfire (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  we should have gone back to our original caucus plan.

                  I heard Lt. Gov. John Cherry speak at a Birmingham/Bloomfield Dem club meeting last night and the room erupted when someone asked a question about the primary.  People are pissed.  John, of course, touted the party line about how it was important that we did this and stood our ground.  No one in the room was buying it. I can't wait until Mark Brewer's term is up.

                  Mark and Debbie Dingell voted for the DNC rules and then turned around and violated them.  Disgusting!

                  Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

                  by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:33:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  SharonRB... (0+ / 0-)

           there anything you've seen that lays out what happened and who did it? I'm really really curious how Michigan wound up in this position...

                    It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
                    PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

                    by floundericiousMI on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:24:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It was orchestrated by (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cp1919, floundericiousMI, hangnail

                      Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin and Gov. Granholm, for the most part, but Debbie D was the strongest driving force.  They thought this would make Michigan more relevant and would make the candidates spend more time here and more time on our unique issues.  Obviously, it didn't work and we should have gone back to Plan A. We made our point that the system needs to be changed so that more states are relevant in the process and it would have at least started the conversation for change for the next election.

                      To top it off, Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell were on the DNC committee that set the rules and then they violated them.  It's just disgusting.  I think this is the first time I've totally disagreed with Gov. Granholm on anything, but I think they were all dead wrong.

                      I think it got to a point that Carl was willing to go back to the caucus, but went along with it.

                      The state legislature, both Rs and Ds, voted for this. It's gone through a couple of court battles and the Republican-leaning court has continually ruled that it's legal and can go forward despite the fact that people are being disenfranchised and that the parties alone get the lists of who took which ballot to use for their own purposes.

                      Mark Brewer, the state chair, at first was against it, but then went along.  He went around the state to county meetings, district meetings, meeting of clubs, etc. to get the feel of the people.  The people overwhelming were against it once we knew that it was going to hurt us rather than help us and we wanted to go back to our original Feb. 9 caucus plan.  Obviously, this message from the voters didn't matter to the powers that be and this fiasco was hoisted at us from the top down.  

                      I'm so sick of the powers that be telling everyone what to do -- the democratic process should work from the bottom up, not the top down.

                      Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

                      by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:40:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  don't see it (0+ / 0-)

              I don't see the ethical problem, it's the only vote I have which counts towards anything. I'd rather I had a real vote, but i don't.

              I'm pissed at the party, and not looking forward to throwing away a whole mess of absentee ballots which can't be counted (gonna be tons of write-ins) on tuesday, but that's where we are right now.

    •  I agree with you and will be voting for my (0+ / 0-)

      favorite candidate on Tuesday -- UNCOMMITTED!

      I want Edwards, but will be happy with whoever we wind up with among the top three, as long as they can win in the general.  I'm not convinced that Hillary can win the general if she's up against McCain, which I think is a distinct possibility.

      Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

      by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:30:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A more intelligent option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    berkeleymike, siamesewonka

    Dennis Kucinich (and Mike Gravel FWIW) is on the ballot in Michigan.  Instead of handing Hillary one more state, vote for Kucinich!  Make your vote actually worth something instead of being petty.  Romney will stay in the race until Super Tuesday regardless.  He has the money to do so.  Don't waste your chance to stand up for change.  Isn't that what CliBamWards say they want?  We can give it to them right here in Michigan!  Vote Kucinich!

  •  I am searching and searching in these comments, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and I am not seeing anyone challenging the notion that somehow Jesse Jackson needed Republicans to win primaries in 1988.

    He had a great platform and won the delegates of eleven primaries, not just Michigan. I have said before that I cast a vote for him in Michigan and was proud to do so. He was a leading candidate at the time of that primary, with a great deal of press attention.

    An great African-American orator with the slogan "Keep Hope Alive..." and a plea to unite the country. That'll never work, I guess?

    The difference was that the candidate then had walked the walk, over and over and for many around the country.

    Unintentionally or not, this is a shameful aspersion to cast on a historic run for the presidency that was much more successful than this entry would lead younger readers to believe.

    The law is slacked and judgment doth never go forth: the wicked compass about the righteous and wrong judgment proceedeth - Habakkuk 1:4

    by vox humana on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:12:02 PM PST

  •  this is no time to play kiddie games (0+ / 0-)

    this man is dangerous.  stay away from him

    •  Check the nat'l polling: McCain's MUCH stronger (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Hillary's our weakest in the general, and she beats Mitt like a gong.  Obama does even better.  Edwards wins by an obscenely huge margin.

      The ONE Republican that can best a Democrat is McCain.  He beats Hillary easily, Obama with difficulty, and loses to Edwards.

      That's why we want Mitt to win here -- so he can block McCain.

  •  Am I nuts or is the DNC nuts? (0+ / 0-)

    Can someone explain what meaning is behind this paragraph?

    For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

    I don't understand what happened there.

  •  Oh my, I would boycott H. Clinton in a minute (0+ / 0-)

    for those shenanigans of the DNC. They call that a vote?

  •  Kos, I really, really don't like your suggestions (0+ / 0-)

    why do you want to do the same shit the Republicans do? Don't you have dignity?

  •  Romney=Creepy-Vote UNCOMMITTED against Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    sounds screwy to me.  Romney creeps me out too much.  go ahead and let them unite behind someone and the n notice all of their flaws.  Romney just disgusts me.  I would never encourage anyone to vote for him period.  
    Vote Uncommitted.  Its a voice for alternatives to Hillary.

  •  HRC and Uncommitted (D) top McCain and Romney (0+ / 0-)

    in the uncontested primaries of MI and FL - now that would be headline news.

    Ultimately, MI Democrats can define the only narrative I'd like to see, that is, as a referendum against Bush and like minded. Plus, this would be a good drill to practice showing up at the polls and voting Democrat.

  •  Who's who (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt looks more like Rudolf Hess than George Romney.

  •  No, go for Huckabee... (0+ / 0-)

    Kos has lost it on this one.  Romney's nomination has been fervently desired by the Republican party establishment and its major donors for quite some time.  They see him as one of their own, someone who will assuredly protect their existing arrangements of power in Washington, but be much more articulate and competent while doing so than Bush.  In short, they see in him more of Bush's substance (such as it is) without Bush's blunders.  To them, McCain is uncontrollable, Guiliani's background is a mess and may actually scare the public when it comes to the war on terror, and Huckabee might end up alienating everyone who doesn't take the Bible literally.  Besides, they expect Romney will cease trying to propitiate the right wing once he's nominated, and end up being the reincarnation of Dwight Eisenhower -- safe, comfortable, and believing that "what's good for General Motors is good for America."  If you want to confound and split Republicans, vote for Huckabee.  He may be more personally likable, but any candidate one of whose fundraisers has said that no effort should be made to stop HIV, because that would be interrupting God's punishment of sin (among other preposterous ideas by the Huckabee crowd), would be ripe for general voter rejection by November.

  •  Compromise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1. Those who worry about Mitt, can safely vote for Ron Paul- a vote for him will definitely help Dems, though possibly not as much as a vote for Mitt.
    1. Those who agree with Kos that Mitt is the weakest major Rethug, and think that he will swift-boat all of the other Rethugs can vote for Mitt.
    1. Those who have ethical problems with the above two can vote for undecided in the Dem primary.
  •  Too late Kos, I already voted for Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

    on an absentee ballot.  Frankly, I'm just as angry at Howard Dean and the DNC for not giving Michigan's economy the attention it needs even if it means screwing the HOLY LANDS(Iowa and NH).  These RICH SPOILED KINGMAKERS have ruled this nation with an iron fist for too long.  Voting uncommitted lets the DNC off the hook, no way.

  •  Not Mitt- but Ron!! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a Michigander and I'm Pissed! I'm ready to throw the Legislators & the Governor out of office. Who thought putting us in this political posistion would be beneficial- Why are the Dems limited to one candidate & the Repugs get to viote theri whole field? this is Not Democracy by any strectch of the imagination- Heads will roll for this BS.
    As to Who to vote for.. I don't vote with my vagina, so Hillary's out (She has consistently made the wrong decisions since she has been in the Senate- she has constantly voted to support this Admins agenda. She's a Turn Coat and might as well be on th erepug Ballot anyway. I was voting for Kucinich for the Primary- to send a loud messege the rest still have not hit the mark. I'm disgusted by the 'Field of contenders' - Liked Obama, but has not really done anything to stop the downward slide. Actually would love to see Fiengold run.
    But if screwing up the Repugs is the plan- I'm voting for Ron Paul. My conscious will not allow me to vote for such a card board cut out!! I want Mitt gone, along with Rudy, Mike, Fred... If all were to go insane (or stolen again) I'd feel slightly better if the win went to John, I think there is still an ounce of honor still left in his bones -somewhere.
    Now if Michigan votes win it for Paul, what will that do to the contenders? I refuse to take the risk you are suggesting. My first move will be to see if there are any 'off' party canidates to send a messege to my own party- Don't think you've got this blue state all tied up (Hillary).
    We are the canary in th ecoalmine folks and we are well into a 'recession'- why becasue the auto industry has been sleeping with the oil industry (domestic & foriegn) for about 40 yrs. those who've 'been around' will be either kicked or voted out of office soon. Watch us vote a 'commoner' into all the various offices- Enough of Career Politicians (Corporate Whores)!

  •  A minor correction (0+ / 0-)


    Geoffrey Feiger is not a quack. He's a shyster.

  •  This is a bad idea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hastingspete, hangnail, DFutureIsNow

    If we all cross over, then it will be handed to Hillary on a silver platter.  All Obama and Edwards supporters are strongly encouraged to vote "Uncommitted" to show our disgust with the way this has gone down.  If Uncommitted gets at least 15% of the vote in a district then uncommitted delegates will be elected so that if we wind up getting seated (which I am doubtful of, but which I heard our Lt. Governor say last night that he thought would happen) we'll have people there who can vote for Edwards or Obama on the first ballot, at least.

    If we don't get uncommitted delegates, then Hillary will get all of our delegates by default, which is great if you support her, but not so great if you support Obama or Edwards.

    Please, folks, do not cross over!  Vote Uncommitted!

    In addition, if you get a Republican ballot you will start getting lots of phone calls and mail from them, as your name will be handed over to the Republican Party to do as they please with it.

    Re-elect Gore in '08 -- accept no substitutes!

    by SharonRB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:19:26 AM PST

    •  Check Out RON PAUL Before You Vote Un-committed. (0+ / 0-)

      After checking out why it is that RON PAUL's Campaign is the fastest growing Campaign even though the Corporate 'U.S.' TV 'News' Media hate him and have tried their best since day 1 to obfuscate, slander, and push asunder his Constitutionalist Platform.

      See for yourselves what the RON PAUL rEVOLution is all about and if you still aren't convinced that RON PAUL isn't one of the best Presidential Candidate We The People have ever had the opportunity to put into the White House, then just Vote Un-committed, so that Slithery Hillary nor the Repub Bush wannabe's don't get the delegates.

      For me, if RON PAUL doesn't win the Republican Nomination, I will be doing everything in my power to get Obama elected President.  I just don't like Obama's stance on Amnesty for Illegals.

  •  Silly (0+ / 0-)

    I think this is a pretty silly idea.  Not that there's anything wrong with silliness, per se, but it seems pretty pointless to waste cycles on it.

    I don't know why one would think that we'd sow any confusion in the Republican ranks by doing this.  Their ranks are confused enough as it is.  I don't pretend to know what what would be good and what would be bad for Republicans, and I don't think Markos does either.

    I find myself almost in agreement with The Captain, and that can't be right, can it?

  •  Don't vote for Romney! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Romney's victory in MI propels him to become the GOP nominee, and Clinton becomes the Dem nominee, Bloomberg would likely enter and attract the independents and Obama Democrats. The unfortunate result would be 4, maybe 8, years of Romney.

    Save us from that! Politics is not chess, trying to strategize in the manner suggested might come back to bite us big time.

  •  If an oil company was caught fixing a vote.. (0+ / 0-)

    ...this web site would throw the biggest shit fit around.  How is it OK for you to encourage the same thing?  Your "fun" in Michigan isn't a game.  Voting is serious business and for you to cheapen it to that level is low and on the level price fixing gasoline.

    For that matter why does the republican party deserver the very worst?  It's not like politics on either side are all that deserving of praise or for that matter loyalty any more.  It makes me sad when people advocate a political party based on ideology rather than individuals that may actually be good leaders.  Let people vote how they want without you tossing your sense of justice on them.  You wouldn't want someone doing it to you.

  •  voting for Romney (0+ / 0-)
    1.  For starters, my finger would burst into flame if I ever pulled a lever for a Republican. No matter how clever this might sound, its an obscenity to vote Republican in this sort of election. That's their mudpile and let them root around in it and produce something we can beat.
    1.  I would never want to see Republican voter numbers inflated by virtue of Dem votes.  Its shameful that a third of this country considers themselves members of that party - why give them the solace of thinking there are more of them?
    1. Am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences when you think you are being too clever by half.  Careful careful. You might get what you voted for (Romney).

    Summary: for god's sake, don't do it. you're a DEMOCRAT.  Your hand will burn!

  •  lets have a little fun in michigan (0+ / 0-)

    If we have to vote republican shouldn't we ta least make it worth while and I must say Romney isn't it. I mean really just check out what you are going to vote for:
    as well as: or then again we could go this route:
    how about this one:
    or this one: