Time Magazine featuring "Operation Chaos" today

When Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham are allowed to snigger triumphantly in the pages of Time about how they are spoiling the Democrats' election, it's time to wrap this thing up:

Meanwhile, Limbaugh opened his program Wednesday with a victory cry: "Operation Chaos is exceeding all objectives...this is just fabulous." Dubbing the Obama-Clinton face-off a "soap opera," Limbaugh says he will carry his campaign through to the final primaries in early June.

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

The way the article is written plays into the whole "hapless Democrats" meme that the GOP loves to deploy:

As if Democrats didn't have enough problems deciding upon their presidential nominee this year, now they must contend with the possibility that Republicans are deliberately crossing party lines to prolong the bitterly contested race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In recent weeks, conservative talk radio stars Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have urged loyal listeners to vote for the much-despised Clinton in open Democratic primaries so as to prevent Obama from sealing the nomination, and there are some indications that their calls have already been heeded in states like Texas and Mississippi.

Analysts are noting the difference between Republican crossovers before and after the Limbaugh campaign:

In both Ohio and Texas, Republicans and independents were a higher percentage of the votes than in other states. "Based on past results, you would think that favors Obama, who has done well in 'open' Democratic primaries where Republicans can crossover on election day," Mann said. Obama won among California independents 58-32%; Virginia Republicans went for him 72-23; and he won Missouri Republicans 75-21. But in Texas and Ohio the two Democrats split the Republican/independent vote. "The Hillary Republicans cost Obama Texas," Mann said.

Lest I be accused of being an Obama-bot, pinwheel eyes a-whirling like Wile E. Coyote after the Roadrunner inevitably deflects the beam from his Acme Home Hypnosis Kit, I honestly would say the it's time to wrap things up if he was behind now and the Republicans were boosting him for this reason and getting a boost for their nasty scheme from a magazine with national circulation.  Time, inadvertently or, more likely, advertently, is giving these yahoos a wider, mainstream, non-talk-radio listening audience, without a single second of questioning about whether this scheme is something that we really ought to be promoting.

•  Rush is goign to be in trouble

  The first rule of operation chaos is you do not talk about operation chaos.

  by greatn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:30:37 PM PDT

  •  An element of Operation Chaos

    (and I'm gonna break the First Rule of Operation Chaos by talking about it)

    Much political blood has been spilled in the last weeks over the words of the surrogates. Be it Hillary's a "monster" (fire her!), or Ferraro saying Obama's "lucky" to be black (fire her!), or Rev Wright saying GD America (disown him!).

    But finding and magnifying the wqords of the surrogates is a major element in Operation Chaos.

    The press and the blogosphere pay far too much attention to the words of the surrogates. It is a zero sum game. And the Dems are falling prey to it. We have two candidates that are extremely qualified to be president, but they must now both answer for every single person who may even peripherally connected to their campaign.

    Both Obama and Clinton have been set-up to take a hard fall and meet an impossible litmus test... yet our oh so smart progressive, netroots community, marches right along and plays along with this farce.

    Maybe that's why the First Rule of Operation Chaos is that we don'tt talk about Operation Chaos.

    by dannyinla on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:39:07 PM PDT

•  This gives them too much credit.

  They are merely playing on Clinton's vanity, not wreaking havoc with the system.

  Hillary is doing all of the work.

  by NotablyZen on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM PDT

  •  She Didn't Turn Out Thousands of Repub Voters

    for her. Limbaugh and company did that.

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:42 PM PDT

•  Did you stop to think he may support her?

  I think Limbaugh actually supports Clinton.  He is counting on her health care plan to give him better access to prescription drugs.

  by ford prefect 2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:33:47 PM PDT

  •  He Supports Her

    because it's good for his pay check.

    When he fights with the Clinton's, his ratings go up.

    $$ He is thinking of the bottom line. $$

    by Fawkes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM PDT

•  I chose a threat...

  but I think it's not ALL republicans that are a threat.  Just the Limbaugh/Hannity/Rove/Malkin/Coulter/Bush/Cheney republicans.

  by billlaurelMD on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM PDT

•  Sure helps those Super Delegates to decide

  who is REALLY more electable, i.e. who will get legitimate votes in the GE

  (hint: it ain't Hillary)

  by second gen on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM PDT

•  this is a wakeup call to the democratic party

  to change the way we nominate our presidential candidates.
  we should try and set up our state primaries so that they closely mimic what happens during the general election. and that is to grant delegates on a winner take all basis. either that, or do away with the electoral college altogether.
  we should not allow crossover voting, but that will have to be determined by each state individually.
  caucuses are undemocratic and imo should be done away with, or at least not allowed to spread any more than they have already... caucuses could tend to produce a winning candidate that couldn't win with a primary vote.

  by titotitotito on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM PDT

•  Not to jump on the MDD wagon

  Cause I don't think I'm unreasonable.

  But, this site was not better when Markos advocated people to vote for Romney in MI.

  Or if it was better, how?

  ducks

  by Particle Noun on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM PDT

  •  Exactly the Same. nt

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM PDT

  •  Nothing wrong with that.

    But, this site was not better when Markos advocated people to vote for Romney in MI.

    There's nothing wrong with trying to influence the choice of candidates of your non-favorite party (including voting for the one you think is the weakest).  And there's nothing wrong with advocating it. Limbaugh has done many stupid and evil things, but this isn't one of them.

    It's OUR JOB as democrats to take into account what the republicans our doing, and to judge whether their support for candidate A or B means the candidate is more electable in November.

    To me it speaks volumes that, prior to Rush Limbaugh, 5% of republicans crossed over to vote for Obama, and afterward, there is still 5% of republicans voting for Obama, plus 10% voting for Clinton.

    by codairem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM PDT

    •  I just want

      Obama supporters to remain as intellectually honest as possible.

      Let's not justify the "strike" by being mindless idiots.

      I agree with the above post, actually.

      by Particle Noun on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM PDT

    •  + your 5% v 10% - for 'nothing wrong' net 0

      The insight that there is a consistent 5% of GOP supporters who still support Obama is a sign of hope, since our national elections seem to have this odd habit of ending up a very small difference of votes seperating winner and loser.

      However, I could never say I'm proud of any who chose to did this cross-party attempt to create distortion in the will of a party. I would like to see an end to this 'tactical' side-swiping of another party's candidate through cross-over voting manipulation, and working so hard to cause a 'weaker candidate' to stay competitive or even to win.  It doesn't at all strike me as 'nothing wrong'.

      MI was one case where MI Kossacks may have pushed outcomes so they didn't really count right for the GOP, and we know how problematic the DNC outcome is.  Is this really how we want America to do it's political process?  People greatly resent having their will and vote negated or distorted.

      The Talk Radio ditto-heads are working at altering our primary outcomes in as many states as they can, trying to make sure Obama ends up as weakened as possible, to prolong the Clinton conflicts, and fan any controversy which helps to create a confused and frustrating rough parity between Obama and Clinton.  It's not just tit for tat.  Rush couldn't be content with just making up for MI, although McCain definitely wasn't the one he favored.  

      Rush has in mind wreaking destruction on the party, splintering unity and destroying political careers, wasting time, damaging D internal connections and disheartening large funding sponsors, ensuring convention conflict, and using the Clintons to cause a massive backfire in our fall chances...a feat which he of course would think a 'fair' thing to achieve.

      If by 'nothing wrong' you actually meant 'not really illegal', we would have little to quibble over.  However, I do think it is not just for any group to so interfere with political process so that the outcome is to force Americans to choose between the less deserving and weaker candidates from one party or both parties.  This isn't just 'stealing third' in backyard baseball, or dealing 'slippery' with the cards at a neighborhood poker game.  Our collective effort and process to reset our national direction and set a new agenda is being disrupted and distorted by malicious-minded meddlers who relish the role of spoilers.  

      Rush is morally blind to how he betrays American democratic process in doing this. We knew it was wrong, and still many went ahead, since 'it was legal'.  Rush's large scale multiple state efforts defraud our party voters of the meaning of their votes and distort the overall effort to capture the will and sentiment of the people.

      I think we should own up and speak out on what's wrong with this practice, and explain why it's bad for America to tolerate this.  The Congress and FEC should update election laws to prevent, or at least greatly reduce, this sort of cross-party meddling.  

      And for the politically savvy Clintons to play dumb about the true motives of these large 'numbers' of GOP 'supporters', Rush's 10% effect, and unquestioningly counting these outcome distorting 'votes' towards their balleyhooed 'popular vote' totals is both galling and preposterous.  The GOP crosshairs have been trained on Hillary for at least the last 6 years, presuming she'd end up the nominee.  This is the real target they hoped to have this fall.  

      Why are we tolerating a process that enables and advances the GOP's agenda to cause us chaos, personal destruction, and loyalty dissapating consternation?  I thought we actually wanted to win, win it right, and really clean up the messes of the last decade or so?

      by antirove on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:42:20 PM PDT

      •  Thanks antirove

        for your careful response.  Because you raise good points, I'll respond in some detail.

        By "nothing wrong" I mean "nothing morally or ethically wrong".  If I can affect the outcome of an election by doing something legal and effective, it's only right for me to use these means, considering what's at stake.  If the primary is open, there's nothing wrong with crossing over.  And if I want to switch parties to vote in a closed primary because I think I'll have more effect voting for a candidate of the other party, there's still nothing wrong with it.

        I fundamentally disagree with your characterization that this is

        to create distortion in the will of a party.

        There is no "will of a party".  There is the will of each citizen, and there are good and bad tactics. You say

        Rush is morally blind to how he betrays American democratic process in doing this.

        Rush is morally blind, of course, but how is he betraying the democratic process?  The process is what it is.  It's our job to take into account what the republicans are doing.

        Republicans have been very effective in advancing their agenda in Congress because they use every means at their disposal.  "Procedural" maneuvers are perfectly ok my book.  Yes, if a maneuver is used disruptively, change the procedure so this can no longer happen - but change it for the next time.  The rules for this time are set.

        Which brings me to your last paragraph:

        Why are we tolerating a process that enables and advances the GOP's agenda to cause us chaos, personal destruction, and loyalty dissapating consternation?

        We're "tolerating the process" because the process is what it is.  And the thing is, the process doesn't have to advance the GOP's agenda. Not if we see and understand what's going on.  Clinton doesn't HAVE to set the party ablaze rather than admit defeat; and if it looks like she will, I bet it would look the same way  without the cross-over vote, since Obama would certainly not have 2025 delegates by now.  So the bottom line is, the democrats in the remaining states and the superdelegates must heed what Limbaugh is saying, and Obama supporters must make them aware of it, clearly and objectively.

        Obama himself is doing precisely what I hoped he'd do: moving past Clinton, taking on McCain full steam.

        I thought we actually wanted to win, win it right, and really clean up the messes of the last decade or so?

        We do want to win, and we will win.  As for "winning it right", yeah, but we don't need to handicap ourselves. We'll certainly not clean up anything if we play by the Marquis of Queensbery's rules while the other side plays rough.

        by codairem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM PDT

        •  In Congress Robert's Rules of Order, or House or

          Senate rules prescribe the protocols to be followed.  They can vote to change them.  But we don't have (R) Senators pretending to be (D) Senators and voting in their caucuses--although we have had the odd (D) Senator end up emulating an (R) one (Liberman).  

          If the other side is violating rules, playing too rough, the game needs to be called, then the violating players flagged and benched...or impeached.  And that's what our DNC needs to do, but hasn't, even as our process is being attacked and eroded from within, and institutions sag under the bashing and corruption.  The primary vote is getting more and more distorted with the passing weeks, and still our leaders hesitate to flag the problem and acknowledge the distorting impact.  They fail to realize this erodes their moral authority, increase division, and strengthens the resolve of the minority to control us through disruption, distortion, and derision.

          The Clintons pretend to be blind that their 'support' is coming from those most intent on subverting our party's primary process, at the behest of gloating talk radio hosts, bathing their egos in the effects of their influence.  We can blame individual lust for power, racism among voter blocks and opposition voter blocks, eagerness to ensure the worst (D) candidate wins, or even megalomania reasons.  The problem has become our DNC's leadership irresponsibly continuing to allow what has become more and more of a charade to go on, unchecked, and pretending they can ignore that 10% distortion effect.

          I would argue our 'freedom of assembly' also includes some privacy protections, for the group or party of individuals attempting to organize themselves along some voluntary alignment of interests?  If you feel you have a free rein to taint, disturb, molest and corrupt the processes of other groups, thwarting the will of their majority, I can't put on the cloak of deception and go with you to do that.  But I'd want to ensure all our parties and groups could respect each other's process as well.  Now if we can't keep them out of our tent...we should at least acknowledge this, and then attempt to honestly correct for some or all of distortion introduced.

          If the primary process sucks, which I won't argue, we do need to make it better, ensure it's integrity, and yet make it possible to join in meaningful ways.  Now I don't think it would hurt to find some bipartisan way to make all our primary elections a little more admirable and respectable, to ourselves, our parties, and those around the world observing our election process chaos, and wondering why they'd ever want what we suffer through?

          I do not in the least like the way Motherhood, Turdblossom Pie, and Big Bucks Dirty Tricks has figured in these last decades of politics.  When 'hardball' politics changes to 'dirtball' and the slime catapults are brought out, and the election wheels unhinged and derailed, I don't want to be affiliated with any party where that is condoned, tolerated, or blindly sticks with the process as it careens into the ditch, and I imagine this is at the heart of the disaffected in America who don't see the point of connecting themselves with parties engaging in ape-crap fights like this.  So, we have to be smarter and wiser than that, and in so doing, we'd make the party more attractive to those who've given up hope of fair representation.  If we fail, we lose this essential moral differentiator.

          by antirove on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:13 PM PDT

  •  I might be an advocate

    of closed primaries.

    Or at least, primaries where only Dems/Independents can vote.

    So I don't think you're unreasonable.

    I think Rush has a bigger megaphone though, and is likely to do more damage to us than we did to him.

    by kismet on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM PDT

•  Too little too late

  Rush is having an impact, but IMO it is too small to matter now. If the Democratic primaries were winner take all or if Obama was behind then it would be different. Operation chaos is only changing the margins a little, not the overall result.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:41:37 PM PDT

•  Threat, But Not Because of This

  They're entirely allowed to do this.

  Their governance is unconstitutional and criminal, but not this.

  by Gooserock on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:41:52 PM PDT

•  Rush is like a rooster

  who thinks his crowing makes the sun rise.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM PDT

•  I just like this....

  ...half-sentence!

  Lest I be accused of being an Obama-bot, pinwheel eyes a-whirling like Wile E. Coyote after the Roadrunner inevitably deflects the beam from his Acme Home Hypnosis Kit,

  :)

  by SeanF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:42:26 PM PDT