//
Uncategorized

>Why This Conservative Voted for Hillary in TX

>And why righteously indignant Republicans should get off their high horse

Hillary wins in TXI voted for Hillary Clinton in last week’s TX primary and then again in the caucus. Why would I do such a thing? It is very simple really. It would be better for our country if the Republican candidate wins in November rather than the Democrat candidate. Therefore, I am generally in favor of that which hinders the Democrat’s chances of winning and helps the Republican’s chances of winning.

It seems to me that it would hurt the Democrat’s chances of winning in November if they have a protracted, knock-down-drag-out battle for the nomination that lasts through their convention in August. Both Clinton and Obama seem to be willing to get increasingly negative about the other and the winner could emerge from the contest very weakened. John McCain obviously had the GOP nomination wrapped up going into Tuesday and could spare several thousand votes. I believe he will beat either Obama or Clinton in November. So I decided to vote for Clinton in order to keep her campaign alive so that the Democrats can continue to slug it out for months to come. If Clinton was ahead and Obama was close behind I probably would have voted for him. There could be a downside to the continuation of their race such as McCain receiving even less media coverage since the Democrats have the only active contest now but the pros seem to outweigh the cons for Republicans. Exit polls show that a decent number of Republicans voted for Clinton in TX. Who knows whether this was the difference or not but it certainly helped her. Mission accomplished.

Some Republicans, not very many I think, are tsk-tsking those of us who used this tactic. Huckabee devotee Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost used the occasion of Tuesday’s election results to lambaste Rush Limbaugh for urging his listeners to vote for Hillary. He wonders if Republicans can really be so stupid as to have followed his advice. Now, I have nothing against Carter. I’m sure he’s a terrific guy. Evangelical Outpost is a good blog with a ton of readers whereas almost no one will read this meager contribution to the blogosphere. But, c’mon, give us some credit. Republicans in TX were talking about doing this way before Limbaugh ever mentioned it. The idea of voting for Hillary in this situation was obvious. I, for one, am not a regular Limbaugh-listener and was not even aware that he had made these comments until Election Day. I have followed politics for about 15 years now and can think fairly well for myself when it comes to these things by now. I understand that Carter is very bitter toward Limbaugh for the comments he made against Huckabee these past several months but I respectfully submit that those of us who voted for Clinton on Tuesday can’t be dismissed as “stupid” dupes who “Rush[ed] to Idiocy.” But apparently we are immoral.

Carter says he agrees with one blogger who was upset with the “shrill” Laura Ingraham who was cheering on Republicans who were voting for Hillary last week. He wrote,

“It seems to me that if you love this country you’ve got to hold the electoral process in a kind of reverence. The fact that there are cynical people out there who game the system doesn’t justify us, the people who say we believe in moral absolutes, in pretending to belong to a different party so we can sabotage its nomination process. If they did it to us, I’d be angry about it.”

Carter adds, “Say it ain’t so, Republicans; say you didn’t stoop that low.”

Reality check: we didn’t have to pretend to belong to a different party in order to vote for a Democrat in TX. We don’t declare party affiliation in TX so you are neither Republican or Democrat in the eyes of the state. I’m looking at my Voter Registration Certificate right now and there is no mention of party affiliation. There is one line that says “Voted in the ___________ Party Primary” for an election official to stamp because you can’t vote in one party’s subsequent run-off contest, if needed, if you voted in the other party’s primary. I’ve never been asked whether I’m a Republican, Democrat or otherwise. We have the freedom to vote in either primary down here. Sorry to mess up a good cheap shot there but I humbly suggest that you should know what you’re talking about before accusing those of us “who say we believe in moral absolutes” of acting immorally by pretending to belong to a different party. That didn’t happen.

Now about this “hold[ing] the electoral process in a kind of reverence if you love your country” bit. First, where was this hyperbole when the McCain and Huckabee supporters “gamed the system” in West Virginia? Mitt Romney received the most votes but didn’t reach the 50% mark. So the McCain and Huckabee camps worked a deal to “sabotage the process” by swinging all the McCain voters to Huckabee in the second vote in order to prevent Romney from winning the state. These Republicans in WV “stooped so low” as to vote for someone they didn’t really want to win because it would help McCain in the long run and it was celebrated! Romney supporters were told to quit whining. But when Republicans in TX voted for someone they didn’t really want to win because it would help McCain in the long run they’re accused of being morally compromised idiots. Amazing!

What’s the difference between McCain supporters voting for Huckabee in WV and McCain supporters voting for Clinton in TX? The only reason I can see why it was OK for McCain supporters to game the system in WV is because it helped Huckabee. Again, we have an open system and don’t declare party affiliation in TX so don’t tell me the difference is that we voted in another party’s primary. If its sabotage, stupidity, and stooping low for McCain supporters to vote for Clinton in TX in order to help McCain then it was sabotage, stupidity, and stooping low for McCain supporters to vote for Huckabee in WV in order to help McCain. McCain supporters in TX voted for Hillary at Obama’s expense in order to help McCain and McCain supporters in WV voted for Huckabee at Romney’s expense in order to help McCain. So much for holding the electoral process in a kind of reverence. It might be difficult for some Republicans to believe but we still love our country even if we didn’t vote the way you wish we would have on Super Tuesday II.

Second, the electoral process is what the state parties decide it is with these primaries and caucuses. There is nothing sacred about TX deciding to hold a primary for 2/3s of the delegates and then a caucus for a 1/3 of the delegates. There’s nothing morally absolute about an open or a closed primary or requiring a candidate to reach a 50% threshold in order to win. What’s important is that we have an open and free system where every citizen has the right to vote. TX decided to allow its citizens to vote in the primary of their choice. I decided to vote in the Democrat primary. I did it because I thought it might help the Republican candidate win in the long run which would be better for the country. I’d like to think that my love of country has been demonstrated in something like serving in the military in the Middle East on a few occasions. Calling our love of country into question because we voted fair and square as we saw fit according to the rules of our state hardly seems justified.

Not all Republicans agree with voting for someone in the primary when you don’t intend to vote for them in the general election. I understand that. But some Republicans, especially Huckabee supporters who had no problem with the shenanigans that helped their boy win in WV, need to get down off their high horse and quit with the ludicrous accusations of deceit, stupidity, idiocy, stooping low, lacking in love of country, and failing to act as someone who believes in moral absolutes. At least do a little homework next time so you can have your facts straight before making these kinds of over-the-top accusations against your fellow conservative and evangelical Republicans. And take a look in the mirror to be sure you didn’t give a wink and a nod to the same tactic you’re condemning when it was used to help your candidate win just a few weeks ago.

Post Script – Since I haven’t really dealt with the morality of the issue yet I will do so briefly here. On what grounds was voting for Hillary Clinton an immoral act? We don’t really know from either of the posts I cited above. They just assert that it was stooping low and implied that it was not a proper action for someone who believes in moral absolutes (not to mention that we were stupid and idiotic for blindly following Rush but we have already seen that this was not the case).

We can bypass appeals to the authority of the law because 1) it has already been demonstrated that our actions were in accordance with the law and election rules and 2) we know that some laws are immoral so appealing to the legality of a matter doesn’t necessarily establish its morality one way or the other.

The bloggers imply two reasons why voting for Clinton was an immoral act. First, it was assumed that we lied in order to vote in the Democrat primary but we have already established that this was a false accusation. Second, it was implied that we violated the Golden Rule: “If they did it to us, I’d be angry about it.” It shouldn’t be done because you should only do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It can be shown that we also did not violate this principle. How? The people of the state of TX have agreed to permit all registered voters to vote in the primary of their choice. It is known that those who are more closely aligned with the principles of the Democrat Party will vote for Republicans for whatever reason they choose to do so. It is known that Republicans can and will do the same if they so choose. Many Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton in TX and Democrats enjoyed the same freedom to vote for John McCain or Mike Huckabee. If Democrats voted for Huckabee in order to undermine the McCain campaign, more power to them. So we can see that we did not violate the Golden Rule since we did not do anything that we were unwilling to have done to us. We need to look to some other argument in order to understand why voting for Hillary Clinton in TX was an immoral act.

Now, if it had been said that it would have been preferable for us to have voted for John McCain I would not argue the point. We would have been positively supporting what we believe is beneficial rather than acting negatively by merely undermining what we believe to be detrimental. If we were discussing whether the former (voting for McCain) were preferable over the latter (working against the Democrats) then I would agree that voting for McCain would have been preferable. But that is not what these critics have argued. They asserted that our actions were immoral, deceitful, and stooping low. I will leave it to them to offer an argument demonstrating why this is so.

Advertisements

Discussion

18 thoughts on “>Why This Conservative Voted for Hillary in TX

  1. >Overall, Joe, I fail to see how you’ve adequately supported any of your assertions about our deceitfulness, stupidity, degradation, the immorality of our actions, etc. I appreciate that you have expressed your opinions due to your respect for the electoral process but, as you hopefully understand, we also respect our electoral process and love our country. While this is a “relatively minor point of contention” and you may continue to disagree with us, perhaps you can see why those of us who voted as we did find your charges against us to be inaccurate, overstated, and unfair. But, like you said, we will agree to disagree and move on to bigger and better issues. Take care.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 11, 2008, 4:23 am
  2. >Fourth, you said “I did it because I thought it might help the Republican candidate win in the long run which would be better for the country.” I seriously don’t understand the thinking behind this. Does anyone—aside from Rush—really think that a protracted battle between the Democrats helps the Republican candidate? How exactly does keeping the Democrats the focus of media attention for months while the GOP nominee is ignored help our candidate? I don’t know of a single respected political operative that believes (a) that the strategy would have any impact or (b) that if it did have an impact that it would be beneficial to the GOP. I admitted in my post that there is a downside to McCain securing the nomination while the Dems continue to fight it out. Karl Rove made some of the same points you mentioned about media coverage and I do not deny that. Rich Galen talks about the pros and cons. But no “respected political operative” believes that “that if it did have an impact that it would be beneficial to the GOP”? Interesting!Bob Novak: “The result is not only the prospect of seven weeks of fierce campaigning by the two candidates stretching out to the next primary showdown April 22 in Pennsylvania, but also perhaps what Democratic leaders feared but never really thought possible until now: a contested national convention in Denver the last week of August.”Michael Hirsh, Newsweek: “McCain declared: ‘The contest begins tonight.’ For McCain it certainly will. And he knows that the fierce rivalry between Obama and Clinton—which is likely to continue through the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 and could potentially last until the final primary in Puerto Rico in June—opens the way for him to define the terms of the fall campaign. That’s what happened to John Kerry in 2004. In that election Kerry actually secured the Democratic nomination in March, but stayed silent while the Republican machine branded him a flip-flopper—waiting for what one of his aides called the ‘regular campaign season.’ By the time of that summer’s Democratic convention, Kerry had been painted into a corner from which he never emerged. The problem for Obama and Clinton: by ratcheting up their attacks on each other, they risk weakening the eventual nominee in the general election against McCain.” Mike Allen, et al., Politico:“Obama’s failure to win Ohio and Texas and lock down the nomination — combined with Clinton’s newly defensible decision to press on despite a deficit in delegates — virtually guarantees Democrats a draining contest that will give Republicans a months-long head-start on the general election.”Susan Estrich:“No, what I’m worried about is what’s happening at the grassroots level among Democrats who support one or the other candidate and are coming to like their own candidate more, and the other one (and their supporters) less, the longer this goes on. I remember what it was like in 1980, when the Kennedy and Carter people still were barely speaking to each other within days of the general election.” Michael Scherer, Time: “As McCain celebrated wrapping up the nomination, the Democratic results painted a different picture of a divided party with more fireworks expected to come. In interviews Tuesday, Republican operatives described the increasingly nasty infighting between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a godsend. “Here McCain is getting another lucky break,” says Scott Reed, a Republican consultant who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign. “What Hillary has been saying in Texas is music to our ears.”Specifically, Clinton ran an attack ad in Texas, showing a young girl sleeping and a White House phone ringing at 3 a.m., that suggested Obama is not ready to take on the job of commander-in-chief. This is exactly the message that McCain will no doubt hammer over and over again in the months to come, especially if Obama is his opponent. “All we have to do,” said Reed, “is run her ad and put a tag at the end, ‘Paid for by the Republican National Committee.'” McCain’s supporters also hope that the Democratic fight dampens some of the party’s enthusiasm. If Clinton wins the nomination, she is now almost certain to leave a bad taste among many Obama supporters, since she will likely do it without a majority of the pledged delegates. If Obama wins, Republicans hope that Clinton’s negative attacks dent his image as an inspirational figure who can transcend the politics of old.” Hugh Hewitt: “What’s “the community” going to think of this digit-by-digit deconstruction of the charismatic adopted son of the South Side? They were expecting it from the Republicans, but from establishment Democrats? It is finally their turn, but they have to watch 50 days of attacks on Obama simply because the Clintons want another eight years of power?The Democrats are now dancing on a cliff unlike any they have been on since 1968 when the demands for new voices and change ran straight into the entrenched interests of unions and special interest groups that have long made common cause with the D.C. Dems.The Dems shattered 40 years ago. The sequel may be even more destructive of the left.”The potential “benficial impact” for the GOP seems obvious to me but we’ll see how it plays out. I suppose I could continue to dig up quotes which show your claim about “no respected political operative” to be highly questionable, at least, but I think its sufficient to say that this statement is as hyperbolic as your claims about the deceitfulness and degradation of Republicans who voted for Clinton in TX.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 11, 2008, 4:03 am
  3. >Joe,Thanks for stopping by and offering some further thoughts on the matter. I agree, there are more important matters we can agree on. As two conservative Republican, Reformed evangelicals I’m sure this is the case. This is a “relatively minor point of contention” although I’m sure you can appreciate getting some push-back from someone who was on the receiving end of your very pointed comments (although some of the comments actually came from Mr. Walker which you expressed your agreement with). I understand your desire to move on to more important matters but I will offer my thoughts on what you have shared here nonetheless. First, I’m from TX so I understand how the process works. In fact, I think that the open primary is the right way to go about it. You should be able to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate for the position, regardless of party affiliation. I’ve actually voted for a Democrat for a state position once while voting all Republican on the rest of the ticket. Since you are from TX and understand how the process works it is difficult for me to understand why you would agree with Lars Walker’s comment about “pretending to belong to a different party.” Since you know how the process works you know that this is totally false. Second, as I wrote in my post, I don’t think Rush had an effect on this strategy. I think Rush is an amusing guy (sometimes) but gets way, way too much credit for being an influence on conservatives. Also, I’m not bitter about the comments he made about Huckabee. Rush is a follower so it didn’t really surprise me that he’d follow the standard talking points of the East Coast conservative elite. I don’t expect anything else from him so I don’t get that upset when he acts according to character.This “East Coast conservative elite” sounds like an interesting group! I suppose that is a reference to the many conservatives who were not interested in supporting a regional candidate such as Huckabee but that is beside the point so I will move on. Third, you ask “What’s the difference between McCain supporters voting for Huckabee in WV and McCain supporters voting for Clinton in TX?” I can’t imagine that your question is serious since the answer is rather obvious. A caucus system is set up so that if your first choice candidate isn’t selected, you can choose a second choice. McCain supporters backed Huckabee because they preferred him to Romney. At the end of the day, though, they were still trying to influence the outcome for the GOP nominee. Voting for Clinton was attempting to influence the outcome for another party—one that you have no intention of voting for in the general election.This is one of our larger points of disagreement so this is where I will spend most of my time. The question was rhetorical since the answer is obvious, although not in the way you perceive it to be, but it was certainly a serious question. I find it less than serious that you believe the primary reason McCain supporters backed Huckabee was because they preferred him over Romney. While some, perhaps most, McCain supporters may have preferred Huckabee over Romney (we don’t know) it is clear that McCain supporters were prompted to switch to Huckabee simply to prevent Romney from winning WV. Not because they liked Huckabee, but because Romney was the closest threat to McCain at the time. On the other hand, Huckabee, trailing both McCain and Romney in the overall contest at the time, posed no threat to McCain. McCain needed to prevent Romney from making up any serious ground on Super Tuesday so supporting Huckabee was an attempt to help McCain by hurting Romney, his closest challenger. They used their vote to hurt their closest competitor because it would help their candidate. As a Huckabee supporter I can see why you would like to think that this was simply a show of support for Huckabee because he was such a great candidate but this seems like wishful thinking. If you cannot see this then I can understand why you cannot see how this is no different than McCain supporters voting for Clinton. McCain supporters in WV knew their candidate could not win just as I knew my candidate, Fred Thompson, could not win. So they went with plan B just as I had to. Since they knew their candidate could not win, the next best thing would be to help their candidate by undermining his closest competitor. You stated above that primaries (and therefore caucuses, I assume) are for “vot[ing] for whoever you think is the best candidate for the position.” Yet this is not what McCain’s supporters did in WV. If this is the only morally legitimate option then they should have voted for McCain again on the second vote. Did they all of a sudden have a change of heart and come to believe that Huckabee was a better candidate than McCain? Of course not. They simply devised a strategy that would help McCain. They wanted to undermine the candidacy of McCain’s closest competitor and they did this by voting for Huckabee. We also wanted to undermine the candidacy of McCain’s closest competitor and we did this by voting for Hillary Clinton (whether Obama or Clinton should be considered McCain’s closest competitor is inconsequential. Whoever wins will be his competitor and it can be argued that the continuance of their campaign has at least the potential of undermining their general election campaign). The party label is the difference for you although it should not be. The actions of McCain’s supporters in WV are morally acceptable to you because they took place within the Republican caucus while the actions of McCain’s supporters in TX were morally bankrupt because they crossed party lines. However, the morality of the tactic lies within the act itself rather than a party label. Elsewhere in your reply you state, “I’m a bit disgusted that Christians are buying into the idea that we can act in dishonest and disrespectful ways because the ‘ends justifies the means’” and “I think they [Republicans who voted for Clinton] have degraded themselves and the process by stooping to such childish—dare I say Democrat—tactics.” If this is the case then the ends justified the means for the McCain supporters in WV. According to your reasoning, these voters also degraded themselves and the process. They acted childishly by choosing to undermine Romney’s campaign rather than respecting the process by voting for their man McCain. Clearly they did not vote for whom they determined was the best candidate. Instead, they used their vote to weaken McCain’s closest competitor. With your fifth point you said, “the reason we cast a vote in the primary is to select the best available candidate for a political office. By casting your vote you are saying that Hillary is the best candidate. That is not what you intended to say but that is the result. All the post hoc rationalization doesn’t change the fact that a vote for a candidate is a vote for the candidate.” Do you believe that over 90% of the McCain supporters in WV had a sudden change of heart between the first and second votes? Of course not. Ron Paul was eliminated by coming in fourth but they still could have voted for McCain the second time around. Either they were genuinely converted to Huckabee’s campaign because they came to realize that he was the best candidate or they strategically used their vote to help McCain by preventing Romney from winning. I know you don’t actually believe the former so surely you admit the latter. If you believe we acted immorally in TX, degraded ourselves and the process, acted childishly, disrespectfully, and dishonestly then you must make the same charges against the McCain supporters in WV. You must believe they acted immorally and deceitfully by failing to follow your principle of only voting for the best candidate. I believe that the actions of the McCain supporters in WV were, in fact, not immoral. They did what they thought was best with the circumstances at hand according to the rules provided to them. I believe that it may have been preferable for them to follow the principle that says that you should vote for the candidate you think is best but I understand that they were also helping their candidate by voting for someone else in order to undermine the chances of their candidate’s closest competitor. As I have already stated, it would have been preferable for us to have voted for who we thought was best in TX but we chose to vote against McCain’s competitor because we knew that could help him too. Despite your continued charges of dishonesty, you know that we were in no way dishonest if you know how things work in TX. As a duly registered voter I walked into my precinct’s voting location, chose a primary to vote in, showed my identification at the Democrat table, they found my name on the list, I signed my name, and cast my vote. You know that we are not registered as Republicans and Democrats in TX. There was nothing to hide. No dishonesty, no deceit. [continued]

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 11, 2008, 3:28 am
  4. >Jeff, Thanks for offering me the opportunity to reply. I regret that we see differently on this issue but appreciate that we can agree on more important matters. Since you asked, here is what I think about the issue: First, I’m from TX so I understand how the process works. In fact, I think that the open primary is the right way to go about it. You should be able to vote for whoever you think is the best candidate for the position, regardless of party affiliation. I’ve actually voted for a Democrat for a state position once while voting all Republican on the rest of the ticket. Second, as I wrote in my post, I don’t think Rush had an effect on this strategy. I think Rush is an amusing guy (sometimes) but gets way, way too much credit for being an influence on conservatives. Also, I’m not bitter about the comments he made about Huckabee. Rush is a follower so it didn’t really surprise me that he’d follow the standard talking points of the East Coast conservative elite. I don’t expect anything else from him so I don’t get that upset when he acts according to character. Third, you ask “What’s the difference between McCain supporters voting for Huckabee in WV and McCain supporters voting for Clinton in TX?” I can’t imagine that your question is serious since the answer is rather obvious. A caucus system is set up so that if your first choice candidate isn’t selected, you can choose a second choice. McCain supporters backed Huckabee because they preferred him to Romney. At the end of the day, though, they were still trying to influence the outcome for the GOP nominee. Voting for Clinton was attempting to influence the outcome for another party—one that you have no intention of voting for in the general election. Fourth, you said “I did it because I thought it might help the Republican candidate win in the long run which would be better for the country.” I seriously don’t understand the thinking behind this. Does anyone—aside from Rush—really think that a protracted battle between the Democrats helps the Republican candidate? How exactly does keeping the Democrats the focus of media attention for months while the GOP nominee is ignored help our candidate? I don’t know of a single respected political operative that believes (a) that the strategy would have any impact or (b) that if it did have an impact that it would be beneficial to the GOP. Fifth, the reason we cast a vote in the primary is to select the best available candidate for a political office. By casting your vote you are saying that Hillary is the best candidate. That is not what you intended to say but that is the result. All the post hoc rationalization doesn’t change the fact that a vote for a candidate is a vote for the candidate. Sixth, I do think it is a bit disrespectful to say to our Democratic neighbors that we want to come in and screw up their process by lamely attempting to game the system. If you think your friends and neighbors who vote Democrat are wrong then convince them by argument and reason. If you can’t persuade them then have enough respect for them to respect their process. I’m a bit disgusted that Christians are buying into the idea that we can act in dishonest and disrespectful ways because the “ends justifies the means.” Seventh, this is all just my opinion. Everything I’ve written is said because I have a deep respect for the electoral process. It isn’t perfect but I think it is worth fighting for (which is one of the reasons I served my country). I realize that my fellow Texas Republicans who voted for Hillary probably did not do so out of malice. I’m sure they thought it was a clever way to “play the game.” I disagree. I think they have degraded themselves and the process by stooping to such childish—dare I say Democrat—tactics. But when all is said and done it’s a relatively minor point of contention. I’ll be glad to agree to disagree with them on the issue and move on to more pressing

    Posted by Joe Carter | March 10, 2008, 7:01 pm
  5. >I live in California, and back in 2000, I remember Rush acting indignant over the cross over Democrats who voted for McCain in the primary. That was back when I was his fan.But when politics is an entertainment sport (to Rush, it is a huge revenue generating making sport), anything goes.For the record, I voted for Ron Paul because my beliefs align with his more closely than anyone in the field.

    Posted by David Cho | March 10, 2008, 5:46 pm
  6. >Keep them Dems a fighting, when they get done with the campaign, and lose, we don’t want em taking those bucks and partying for life…Actually, I don’t know how it works at the Federal level. Are they able to keep the unused campaign dones? In our state you could get down right rich losing. Even if you win. I know the Feds wiped the Golden Parachutes but I don’t know how it works for losers.Anyway, the longer the mud wrestle goes on the dirtier the candidates will be. Then there is the money thing. MCCain’s all dressed up and nowhere to go but to the bank.Frankly I am still waiting for one Dem or both to self destruct. They both are so dirty, it makes me want to take a bath just thinking of them. Not to say MCCain isn’t also, but I’m not carin anymore bout him. He may die halfway through the national campaign, anyway.Now my fantasy is that Hillary is so embarassed by her past she drops out. The the fascist black separatist label sticks to Obama. Both campaigns tank, unknowns fill the ticket, MCCain has a stroke, and Huckabee sails to a landslide win.Yawn…time to wake up…just hit the snooze…this dream is too good to let go…catch ten more minutes of bliss…ten more…ten more…

    Posted by thomastwitchell | March 10, 2008, 4:34 am
  7. >”I don’t understand the caucus.”Its supposed to be a mechanism that ensures that the little people get their voices heard. That’s the theory. How that really happens I couldn’t tell you. How they don’t have their voices heard in the primary I also couldn’t tell you. 2/3 of the delegates are given as a result of the primary vote and 1/3 from the caucus. Its basically a second vote.We showed up at 7pm (some were still walking in to vote after 9pm). They told the Obama people to line up over here and the Clinton people to line up over there. Then you wait in line and sign your name and voter ID number and a form. They totalled up the vote and Obama won 100-61 in my precinct. So Obama got 11 delegates and Clinton 6 in my precinct. It was just a second vote basically. Like Gunny said, its silly.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 10, 2008, 3:00 am
  8. >”Who was giving you a hard time?”No one was giving me a hard time specifically. A couple of blogs had some very negative things to say about Republicans who voted for Hillary. Of course you already read that when you read my post. 😉

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 10, 2008, 2:54 am
  9. >I don’t understand the caucus.

    Posted by M. Jay Bennett | March 10, 2008, 2:32 am
  10. >Who was giving you a hard time? I would have voted for Hillary as well, if I wasn’t a Christian that is.;-)Actually, I was *this* close to getting in the Democrat line. Honestly, if I wouldn’t have had to get in their line to get my cag, I would have gone Hillary without a doubt.But, we’re in a small town and I actually did wind up seeing folks I knew and I thought, “You know, your one measly vote ain’t gonna matter much, so you don’t need the drama that would come from voting in the Dem primary.”Plus, I wasn’t gonna be able to caucus, so I figured I didn’t want to half-heart it. But, the fact that Hillary’s peeps were out front giving out FREE Double Dave’s pizza rolls REALLY made it hard to resist.So, I got in the Republican line. I originally went Fred Thompson, since I thought, “I should try to make a conservative statement and he was my boy.” But then I thought, “If you’re gonna make a statement, why not go Ron Paul, he’s even more so.”So, I went from Fred to Ron.I was about to go with that and then I thought, “Grr. I just don’t know.”So, I asked my 4 year-old son, “Fred Thompson or Ron Paul?”He said, “Hmm. Don’t know.”I rolled my eyes and turned to my 3 year-old daughter and asked her the same question.Through a mouthful of pizza roll she said, “Fwed Thomason.”I thought, “Close enough.”So, that’s how I kept my justification intact on Tuesday.But, hey, I ain’t mad at you.J. Wizzle asked:”Jeff, do you still believe that caucuses and open primaries should be done away?”Though not my question, I think the primaries should be open, but I think the extra effort (the “Texas Two-Step”) is just silly. Get rid of the caucus tomfoolery.

    Posted by GUNNY | March 10, 2008, 2:21 am
  11. >Gunny, did you end up voting for Huckabee or Hillary?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 10, 2008, 2:04 am
  12. >”I haven’t heard of any widespread effort by Dem’s to get Dem’s to vote for McCain.”In my situation, “widespread efforts” didn’t have much to do with my decision. I just put two and two together and decided to vote for Hillary. I started to talk to friends about it and some of them were considering doing the same thing. Then Mike Gallagher started talking about it (he didn’t think it was a great idea) and then at the very end I heard that Limbaugh had encouraged his listeners to do the same thing. I guess it looked like a widespread, concerted effort because of the heightened media attention due to the importance of TX & OH.There may not have been widespread efforts on the part of Dems to get other Dems to vote for McCain but we do know that Dems have been voting for McCain. Were some of these votes from Dems who have no intention of voting for McCain in November? Who knows.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 10, 2008, 1:53 am
  13. >Dems have been voting for McCain throughout the entire primary process.I haven’t heard of any widespread effort by Dem’s to get Dem’s to vote for McCain. The only story like that I heard was when the Daily Kos tried to get the Dem’s in Michigan to vote for Romney.Not sure. What will we do with Independents? They get to choose which primary to vote in. Seems like you limit yourself if declare a party affiliation. I would be in favor of closed primaries if Independents did not get to vote in the Dem or Republican primaries. Otherwise they’re not really closed primaries.It’s different from state to state. Some states lets independents vote but they can only pick one primary to vote in (open). Most closed primaries don’t let independents vote. The only way they can is if they declare themselves for a certain party, which would mean that they are no longer an independent.

    Posted by J.Wizzle | March 10, 2008, 1:30 am
  14. >”…let’s admit that if a whole lot of Dem’s came over and voted in the Republican primary and skewed the results we would be pissed.”Dems have been voting for McCain throughout the entire primary process. “Jeff, do you still believe that caucuses and open primaries should be done away?”Not sure. What will we do with Independents? They get to choose which primary to vote in. Seems like you limit yourself if declare a party affiliation. I would be in favor of closed primaries if Independents did not get to vote in the Dem or Republican primaries. Otherwise they’re not really closed primaries.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 10, 2008, 1:05 am
  15. >If I lived in TX I would have either voted for Huckabee or Hillary. So I don’t blame you for voting for Hillary. You didn’t break any rules or anything like that. With that said, let’s admit that if a whole lot of Dem’s came over and voted in the Republican primary and skewed the results we would be pissed. So while voting for Hillary definitely isn’t breaking any rules and isn’t immoral we know that it would anger us if the shoe was on the other foot. I don’t think it was wrong to do that…Like I said, I might have even done it myself if I lived in TX. You played by the rules. The question is, should the rules be changed? Jeff, do you still believe that caucuses and open primaries should be done away?

    Posted by J.Wizzle | March 10, 2008, 12:29 am
  16. >For the record, I’m not trying to take a shot at Carter & Walker (the “other” blogger) behind their backs here. I’ve left a link to this post at Evangelical Outpost and invited Carter to reply. He’s under no obligation to do so, of course. I just wanted to mention that I made him aware of this post and am not trying to comment about this on the sneak.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 9, 2008, 10:38 pm
  17. >I feel so affirmed! I understand why some Republicans chose not to vote for a Democrat in TX and OH. But questioning our love of country and morality for doing what we did went too far. I don’t mind them questioning our intelligence so much because our reasons for voting for Hillary could be weak. It would be interesting to see them go beyond the assertions and actually argue for the immorality of our vote. Who knows? Maybe I could be convinced of the wrongness of my actions.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | March 9, 2008, 10:21 pm
  18. >I think it’s your right to vote for whoever you want, however you want, whenever you want. Regardless of your motives or reasons, your right to vote should not be manipulated and cast back at you as if you had acted in some unspiritual or un-Christian way.As those great theologians the Isley Brothers once said, “It’s your thing, do what you want to do. I can’t tell you who to sock it to!”

    Posted by Mark Mathews | March 9, 2008, 10:12 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles © 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: