Watergate II: The Republican Plan to Retain the White House

The “CREEPS” are at it again. The Watergate dirty tricksterism of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (Nixon) is back in business, if it ever went out of it. Once the nominee of the party (McCain) was determined, GOP operatives have focussed their campaigning on trying to manipulate the Democratic primaries to their benefit. By all present indications, their operations are succeeding quite nicely, thank you.

Like all shady “operations,” this one needed to operate in the shadow of public awareness; but the bean-spiller Russ Limbaugh spilled a bowl of them just after the March 4 Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio when he “bragged” on the air that he had urged his friends in the Republican Party to vote for Clinton, since she was on the ropes after Super Tuesday and it was to the Republicans’ advantage to prolong the Democratic primary race to allow Obama and Clinton to clobber one another to help do the party’s dirty work for it. Of course the “dirty” Clinton campaign obliged and Republican bottom-suckers aided the clobbering process by going back through Jeremiah Wright’s old sermons and putting together a hair-raising montage of utterances designed to embarrass Obama which is, of course, exactly what happened. The loud-mouthed Limbaugh labeled all this muddy business Operation Chaos.

After the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, John Nichols wrote an article for Nation claiming that Chaos had little or no influence on the outcome of the PA race. I’ve done the math and some educated guesses on the election results (which I will be glad to furnish as a paste to this site if requested) to show quite the contrary: that of the 215,000 vote margin of Clinton’s win in PA, about 100,000 of them could be attributed to Republicans who, in PA’s “closed” primary, re-registered as Democrats and voted for Clinton; without that Chaos boost, she would have won by 5-6% rather than the 10% that was the agreed-upon “magic number” of the margin by which she had to win to stay in the race. After her “big victory,” the campaign contributions rolled in and she stayed in the race… at least until after May 6. Operation Chaos, Mission Accomplished!

Like other accomplished missions, this one is still a bit incomplete, especially after the semi-melt down suffered by Obama by virtue of his handling of the Jeremiah Wright “affair.”

Next to the plate step the May 6 twin primaries in Indiana and North Carolina and it remains to be seen whether Operation Chaos will still be operating. For reasons mentioned below, I rather doubt it.

To consider Indiana first, it is the first totally “open” primary since Limbaugh described the operation, one in which any voter can vote in either party’s primary. This might seem tailor-made for Chaos except for a couple of things. (1) There are other primary races, Congress for example, in which Republicans may feel that they have a stake, even if the presidential “stake” has been removed by McCain clinching the nomination. Some may feel, as I tend to agree, that the mission has indeed been accomplished and they can safely “stay home” and vote in their own party’s primary. (2) Although I called Indiana a “totally open” primary state, it is not quite that. True, Indiana does not even record party registration on voting records but when a voter asks for a ballot, he/she is expected to request the ballot of his/her “party affiliation:” that party in whose primary he/she has been voting in the recent past. If his/her indication of this affiliation (records of which are maintained by the state) is “challenged” (by whom?), the “challengee” will be required to execute an affidavit indicating his/her intention of voting for the “majority” of that party’s nominees at the next general election. But, as the “green pages” for Indiana elections point out, officials at the polling place do not have access tp a voter’s affiliation records and his/her actual voting at the general election is secret, so the truthfulness of the affidavits is seldom, if ever, challenged. So Chaos-bent persons could presumably violate their “affiliation” even after a sworn affidavit to the contrary, but would I (for example) want to risk the possibility of being prosecuted (in ignorance of the inefficacy of the “challenge” threat) because some hot shot “voter abuse” prosecutor wanted to make a test case of me… all because I was so Republican-or Russ Limbaugh oriented that I was willing to go to jail for a “cause” that had perhaps already been accomplished? No way. Bottom line: in contrast with PA, I don’t expect Operation Chaos will make much difference in IN.

Then there’s North Carolina which, like PA, is a “closed primary” state but, again, it was possible for people to change their registrations before the change deadline of April 11, in plenty of time to implement Chaos directives from the party. Did this happen? Current registration numbers show that, since the beginning of the year, approximately 105,000 have been newly registered as Democrats, about 14,000 as Republicans, suggesting some Chaos potential. With a state with a large black population so decisively leaning toward Obama, one might wonder how many of these 105,000 new “Democrats” are Chaos operatives who will vote for Clinton to “prolong” the race; and how many are respondents to Obama’s campaign to enlist those Republicans, mostly I should think, white males who are in fact attracted to a “black” candidate who is the closet racist’s dream of a black politician who would tell Jeremiah Wright, in effect, to go the back of the bus and New York City blacks, incensed by the exoneration of police who killed Sean Bell, to “accept the verdict” and to avoid “violent” reactions. So again, bottom line, I doubt that Chaos will have much effect in NC.

This brings me to a final observation on these Republican efforts to manipulate the Democratic primaries. Here I’m going to offer a guess at what the “operation” is all about; how I wish I had a “mole” who sits with these creeps and plots strategies. Failing that, I have to guess. I’m thinking that, all along, the Republican preference as a November opponent was Obama, who is vulnerable to the same kind of “swift-boating” operations that were the undoing of John Kerry in 2004. Whether it was his not wearing a flag pin, his suggestion of “negotiating” with Hamas, his association with Reverend Wright or maybe their ace in the hole, the real possibility of a criminal indictment in connection with the public housing scandal in Chicago, they would have a candidate who could be smeared far beyond the rather vague “Hillary hatred” that would make her as well a relatively easy November election opponent. In the several “open primary” election states leading through Super Tuesday, it is my impression (I haven’t done “the math” on these) that Obama won most of these states, perhaps with a boost from Republican voters–provided these occurred in primaries after the Republican primary contest was effectively decided. When it appeared after Super Tuesday that the “operation” did such an over-kill that it threatened to foreshorten the Democratic race and deprive the party of “dirty work” done within the Democratic Party, then Operation Chaos was born: an operation whose mission may indeed be accomplished so that Republicans can vote in what remains of “their own” primary contests and let happen what was originally intended: that a “flawed” Obama would be nominated.

One more thing I hope to accomplish by this article: to keep open a discussion, while the “pain” of the present election mess is still fresh with us, of needed structural changes in the way we “do business” in American democracy. Primary elections should, in my view, be reserved for participation to whose people who are genuinely committed to advance the causes of a party: “open” primaries are practically oxymorons. To prevent changes in party registration for the specific purpose of doing mischief with other peoples’ elections (a la Operation Chaos), states could enforce earlier deadlines for registration changes, perhaps to the beginning of an election season, before parties could calculate who was winning or losing in the other parties’ primaries. (Kentucky now does this, as registration changes for its May 20 primary closed on December 31, 2007). Finally, and this one is debatable for several reasons: the institution of a single “Primary Day” in say June or July could avert not only the situation in which parties with “already settled” races of their own would feel free to enter their rivals’ party primaries, but also perhaps obviate the bandwagon effect of earlier on later primaries. All these reforms are open to discussion and critique, but wouldn’t it be good strategy to begin the debates now while the problems with the present system are laid out before us?

Jerry D. Rose is a retired professor of sociology from State University of New York at Fredonia, now living in Gainesville Florida. He may be contacted at: jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. Read other articles by Jerry, or visit Jerry's website.

28 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rich Griffin said on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:29am #

    My hope is this backfires in one of two ways: either the Democrats grow some brains and choose somebody other than Clinton or Obama; or they use their brains and choose Hillary Clinton, who can win and will win if she’s given the chance. But I’m afraid the Democrats have no brains at all. Welcome to the McCain nightmare – a continuation of the catastrophe we have had for the past 7+ years.

    Vote if you have to for McKinney or Nader.

  2. Michael Kenny said on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:52am #

    The other way of looking at this is that it has diverted attention away from McCain. If the Democratic nomination was already sown up, the candidate would now be slogging it out with McCain. Having spent my teenage years among the white, Catholic working class in NJ, I can tell you they hate two things: Jews and Blacks (in any order!). They will not vote for Obama but have lost out heavily to the outsourcing McCain defends. On the other hand, Obama’s supporters, more liberal, are unlikely to prefer McCain to Hillary and, having burned their fingers in 2000, are sophisticated enough to see that a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. If Hillary can get the nomination, she will probably pull it off!

  3. Jerry D. Rose said on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:01am #

    Operation Chaos is a rapidly-developing story. I must have been reading Rush Limbaugh’s mind (a scary thought!) when I suggested in this article that I submitted yesterday that “all along” the ultimate aim of the Operation was to get a Democrat nominee, Obama, who was seriously “damaged goods” for the benefit of McCain. On my website the morning I published the link below to RL, as self-anointed “commander” of the operation, declaring an “operational pause” while he observed what he calls the Drive-By Media (what we call MSM) would do to or for Obama, whether they would give him a “pass” on his handling of Jeremiah Wright affair (as they seemed to be doing) by allowing him to appear “courageous” in throwing JW you-know-where; or whether they would hammer him so heavily that the Repubs might be denied their much-relished wounded opponent. Here’s the link and then here’s a quote from the capacious mouth of RL himself.


    ‘My gut reaction, after the audio sound bites, was to issue new orders, because I saw, you know, AP/Ipsos poll has Hillary up over McCain by nine points, 50-41. My gut reaction here, after hearing Obama, was to issue orders changing directives, i.e., vote Obama in remaining primaries. But I’m holding back. That’s why I’m calling an operational pause. Because I want to see what the Drive-Bys are going to do and I want to see how the superdelegates are affected by this.”

  4. Pat O said on May 3rd, 2008 at 10:14am #

    1 out of of the only 2 people I know voting is doing so as an operation chaos “agent”. Both are voting for Hillary.

  5. Pat O said on May 3rd, 2008 at 10:15am #

    PS I’m in Indiana.

  6. Robert Barney said on May 3rd, 2008 at 10:50am #

    Rush Limbaugh is advocating that Republicans do what Democrats have been doing for years – vote in their opponents’ primary. It was Democrats and Independents who gave us John McCain and no one in the mainstream media seems the least concerned about that. In Kentucky, where I live, we have tough pimary rules that ONLY allow Republicans to vote for Republicans, and Democrats for Democrats. Voters who switch party affiliations must do so 5 months before the primary or lose their right to vote in the primary of their newly registered party. It’s about time the rest of the nation adopted Kentucky’s fine rules, and then both sides can pick their own candidates, without the other side meddling in the other party’s affairs. In the meantime, I hope that Republicans teach the Democrats a good lesson, and keep Ms. Clinton alive in the race.

  7. Mike McNiven said on May 3rd, 2008 at 12:22pm #

    Please support Ms.McKinney and Mr.Nader, full force, so the whole world becomes better off!

  8. John Hatch said on May 3rd, 2008 at 4:28pm #

    One thing is certain, especially after Mr. Obama’s assertion that he would be willing to refer certain matters regarding the Bush/Cheney putsch to his new Attorney General for possible prosecution; the reptile Republicans will stop at absolutely nothing to ensure that McCain gets ‘elected’. I trust Mr. Obama realizes that he could be in some danger.

  9. hp said on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:59pm #

    If Obama becomes POTUS let’s hope he at least appoints an American as Attorney General and not some anti-Semitic Zionist Israeli faker.

  10. jacksmith said on May 3rd, 2008 at 9:00pm #


    If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. 🙁

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

    You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. 🙂

    Best regards

    jacksmith… Working Class 🙂

    p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! 🙂

    If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…

    You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. 🙂

    Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on…



  11. jacksmith said on May 3rd, 2008 at 9:01pm #


    It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

    Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her Pennsylvania victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources.

    But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

    Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

    Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

    If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton: “You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it’s also clear that we’ve got nine more important contests to go.”


    Jacksmith… Working Class 🙂

  12. LanceThruster said on May 4th, 2008 at 12:46am #

    The Hildabeast is the choice of Rethuglicans as her negatives will help provide cover for yet another election theft. It is my opinion she is still in the race because of election fraud giving her timely boosts when needed.

    Though the line from “The In-Laws” occured to me when she was caught lying about Tuzla Airport, it works on other levels as well.

    “Serpentine! Serpentine!”

  13. Jerry D. Rose said on May 4th, 2008 at 1:55am #

    Robert Barney: from the string of anti-Obama and anti-Clinton comments that have been posted on this string ,I want to single out for response your observation about Kentucky as a singularly “pure” state in preserving its elections from cross-voting. In the last paragraph of my article I called for debate on “structural changes” in our primary system, for one of which Kentucky was held out as a model. Though it may be too much to ask that people think “structurally” while in the middle of a heated specific campaign, I don’t want to lose the power of this “teaching moment” to begin to focus on that debate. Of the various reforms mentioned, I think that having a single primary day is still an arguably good one, though it would be very difficult to accomplish: partly because the MSM would be deprived of an excuse for endless debates and coverage of an “odyssey” from the Jan snows of NH to the May heat of KY. Bloggers would be deprived of things to rant about; and we all might lose the opportunity to “think locally” through the ability to focus on conditions in individual states as their primaries come “up to the plate.” Failing a primary day, an effort to have the respective parties (or the legislators of the various states, I’m not sure of the political process here), eliminate open primaries is a little more feasible. (You, Robert Barney, are right: Democrats have done mischief-making intrusions on Republican primaries, since it’s not entirely the “serpentine” nature of the Repubs that is the problem.) Easiest of all, and perhaps one that would go a long way toward future versions of Operation Chaos, is the Kentucky way of closing the books on party registration changes before a primary election season starts. Maybe the current pain of chaos would be a motivating point to start the ball rolling on a “do-able” reform that can be done “in our life time.” What do people think of that? As Joan Rivers used to say, “can we talk?”

  14. hp said on May 4th, 2008 at 8:57am #

    Lance, I agree.

  15. ashley said on May 4th, 2008 at 5:43pm #


    thanks for a thoughtful article.

    I think the purpose of a primary should be for a Party to choose the most electable candidate. I agree that the quasi ‘general election’ style primaries staggered over 6+ months is overkill. On the other hand, given the huge size and scope of the US Republic, doing it all on one day would favour establishment candidates only given the way the media works in the US. If it’s all on one day, then the news cycle is only about 2 weeks leading up to it, meaning again that only very well known well entrenched candidacies will have a chance. So I suspect a 3-month caucus-only system would do the job fine, allowing for some sort of ‘positive purgatory’ in the process but keeping it short. Caucuses also have the virtue of being less infiltratable since the participants tend to know each other more.

    Beyond that, the root causes of the problem involve many issues, one of which is the totally corrupt voting methods used nowadays which no self-respecting democracy would tolerate. The US is no longer a bona fide democracy so until that is addressed in a substantive way that goes way beyond voting machine logistics, the whole thing is a waste of time.

    The only suggestion I have heard in years that makes any sense, embryonically, involves the Article V business. But I haven’t read anything yet that uses it properly. No matter what, deep changes are called for and they won’t be addressed within the current election cycle, even though you are right to point out that even in the heat of battle, a teaching moment exists.

  16. ashley said on May 4th, 2008 at 5:48pm #


    I was reading this article earlier this evening:


    Now, it deals with many issues, but if, for example, an Article V national movement was started in order to effect fundamental monetary reform along the lines sketched out in the article, that might do the trick. In other words, it is simply not enough to try to elect a President who serves within the current system. The underlying system has to be changed. Usually when one says something like this it is assumed one might be saying that we want to substitute ‘democracy’ with ‘communism’ and so forth. But the fact is that there is far more structurally going on with our current ‘system’ than the surface political structure which is largely nowadays a shell game. So reforming how the Democrats and Republicans go through their primary process is simply not enough.

  17. Jerry D. Rose said on May 4th, 2008 at 7:07pm #

    Ashley, thanks for the comments and the link. Global Research is one of my favorite “far out” web sites: meaning they do stuff where some other angels fear to tread. “Monetary reform” mention starts to glaze over my eyes, but it’s certainly worth digging into.

    As for Article V, I know you saw Joel Hirschhorn’s article, immediately following this one, because you posted a comment on it. Any body interested might look there to see some of the objections to it, I believe there’s also a link to the website of the agency that promotes it and with which Joel is associated. I’m officially in the “open mind” category.

  18. Max Shields said on May 4th, 2008 at 7:22pm #

    I am not sold on the notion that the existing two party system is salvageable regardless of primary alterations.

    Very simply infiltrating the existing system which is operated and owned by corporate elite and media who ultimately vet and offer “candidates” will rebuke with great nonchalance encroachment of a real progressive nature. That system cannot be wrested away from those powers. In other words, a head to head reform is energy consumed on a winless battle.

    The alternative is to create find opportunities to retrace the political landscape, enriching deep democracy locally. Germinating an community economics that taps into the nearly trillion “dollars” of non-monetary economic transactions.

    This is an under the radar transformation. To be sure the window of opportunity is illusive. Corporate coopting breeds quickly and will look for opportunities to undermine at each and every turn. But I offer it as a means to reinvent around core democratic and economic and social justice principles and values.

    The two headed hydra – Republicrats will not be transformed by restructuring without alternative forces (parties?) that change the dynamics. Structural changes like proportional representation and instant run off voting mean nothing in a duopoly.

    There is the issue of sheer size. The continental US does not lend itself to democracy. It will always be a caricature documented in the Founders visionary Constitution. That envisioned nation is no more.

  19. Jerry D. Rose said on May 5th, 2008 at 1:39am #

    Max, when I read well-reasoned posts like yours, why do I keep thinking “Myth of Sisyphus?” Maybe from too much long-ago reading of Albert Camus. You know, we’re “condemned to freedom,” condemned in this case to roll the stone of democracy to the top of the hill of a country that does not “lend itself to democracy.” I quite agree with the whole idea of a alternative or transformative movement outside the confines of the electoral competition of the duopoly that I call the Corporacratic Party, including efforts through 3rd parties and civic activism that transcends the political system entirely. I think you have to do BOTH the “reform the parties” and find ways to challenge their power things. As people will tell you ad nauseam if you mention transformative actions like a Nader, McKinney, Sheehan or Kucinich candidacy, that old hill of resistance to change looms there as well, as the “electability” wet blanket is thrown over any efforts in this direction. So I guess I’m sort of agreeing with you, but arguing as well that, at least for the moment when a two “party” fight is the focus of our easily distractable attention, we do that “teaching moment” thing to see whether, against all odds of success (which seems to be the reality of human strivings), we look to the effort to promote the democracy
    “at home” that we have so miserably failed to export.

  20. Jerry D. Rose said on May 5th, 2008 at 6:15am #

    Here’s an “update,” as promised, on Operation Chaos. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050208/content/01125112.guest.html Limbaugh has apparently decided to continue the operation after the “pause” he called a day or two earlier, because on last Friday he was getting a report from the “commander” of the Wolverine Unit in the field in Indiana. The exchange, recorded in this link, is maybe the best indication that the operation in Indiana will fail because neither he nor the “commander” seem to know what they are talking about so far as the mechanisms of “challenge.” He seems to be reporting (to Russ’ approval) that he has put himself and his wife and two children in great “danger” of prosecution after mouthing his intention as a Republican to go into the Democratic primary and vote for Hillary: the very kind of “brave soldier” that Limbaugh wants: brave and stupid, that is. Limbaugh is obviously making a self-serving spectacle of his “Operation,” but I can’t help wondering if the CREEPS of the GOP, who almost by definition operate clandestinely, aren’t trying to pull off some dirty tricks of their own: maybe to try to engineer IN and NC wins for Obama themselves, if they are in fact assured that Obama is the “unelectable” candidate and are ready to take him on as the raw meat for their own campaign. Just wondering.

  21. Tony S. said on May 5th, 2008 at 6:25am #

    The real dirty tricks will start when McCain picks his vice-president. McCain will be forced to pick a Neo-Con (Eben though Mitt Romney has been all over the place politically, his Blackwater ties make him a Neo-Con favorite). Then after McCain is elected, some mysterious ailment will prevent him from executing his duties, and Blackwater will essentially be governing the United States.

  22. Jerry D. Rose said on May 5th, 2008 at 7:47am #

    Tony S., very interesting speculation on a dirty trick that we might put in the Beyond Limbaugh category. If I remember, RL was saying a while ago that it might be worth it to the conservative movement to have a (from his perspective) very “flawed” candidate like McCain defeated after which people on the right would see a turn to their “real” choice, Romney. I’m not sure what the mechanism of pressure could put Romney on the ticket, but I don’t doubt it may be tried and may work.

    Now, here’s an “update” of Operation Chaos, as promised.


    Limbaugh’s website has a “dispatch from the field” by his “commander” in Indiana, head of the “Wolverine unit,” in which he reports on Democratic plans to threaten him and other Republicans like him if they go into the Democratic primary to vote for Clinton. Both the commander and his “chief” show a degree of ignorance of challenge procedures in Indiana that makes one wonder about the sincerity or at least the viability of their “operation,” Having loud-mouthed his intentions all over Indiana radio, the local guy describes himself and his wife and two children who will also do Chaos, as being in great danger of prosecution and Limbaugh praises him for his bravery. Apparently what he wants in Indiana is exactly what Bush wants from his soldiers in Iraq: troops who are brave enough to do the mission and stupid enough not to question it.

    Apparently Limbaugh has now lifted the suspension of the operation that he “called” a couple of days earlier and an Obama defeat remains the stated purpose of the operation. However, since I’m reluctant to believe that the usually-efficient CREEPS of the GOP would hang their operation on as thin a reed as the egomanical and publicity-seeking Limbaugh, I have to wonder if they are working on a more clandestine operation with Chaos as a cover: perhaps my suggested scenario that at some point (and probably May 6 is the best point) they would decide to lay off the cross-voting for Clinton and go back to their earlier pattern of voting for Obama, as they might perceive that he’s damaged enough to be a “worthy” (i.e. weak) opponent for McCain and they fear that Clinton (with, ironically, their help) might actually pull off the miracle and become a very “unworthy” (i.e. strong) opponent for JM. That’s a lot of shrewdness, of which Limbaugh might or might not be capable, but does anyone question Karl Rove’s credentials in the clandestine shrewdness category?

  23. Max Shields said on May 5th, 2008 at 7:58am #

    Yes the infinite struggle of the human condition.

    I wasn’t implying futility, the exact opposite. I’m looking for windows of opportunity. As of late I’ve succumbed to the natural science of complexity and find in it models of transformation.

    Large nation-states seem to be unresponsive by nature. There is a natural limit to how big you can be on the one hand and how democratic you can be on the other.

    The gall of thinking that one can be the “leader” of this mass is just amazing to me.

    I would suggest a eco mimic or mimicing nature as a means of both understand and synchonizing with a path that demilitarizes the human condition. That’s basically what I’m saying. The Green Party has actually tapped into this through its strong community based priniciples. The loci of all of this is of course local, human scale in dimension.

    More later…

  24. hp said on May 5th, 2008 at 10:36am #

    What becomes of a myth when it is no longer a myth, but the truth?

  25. Tom Joad said on May 5th, 2008 at 2:12pm #

    None of this matters. Come November the Republicans are going to get hammered. Even fools are starting to figure out just how badly their leadership of the country has failed.

  26. Jerry D. Rose said on May 5th, 2008 at 2:55pm #

    Tom, if the world were going to end in November (which it probably won’t) I’d agree with you. But if it doesn’t, we’ll have an indeterminable number of elections in the days to come that will have the same problems unless they are addressed and what I’ve said is that the current agonies are just a “teaching moment” to prod us to deal with the problem before it comes back. If it’s not broke not fix it; if it is broke….

    Is your name really Tom Joad? If it is, you’re my all-time hero, my man, even though you are “fictional.”

  27. Tom Joad said on May 5th, 2008 at 3:44pm #

    Jerry, the struggle between Good vs. Evil will always be, just as it always has been. Therefore the fight must continue. However, Nov. 4, 2008 will be a bad day for the Republicans.

  28. ashley said on May 10th, 2008 at 1:54pm #

    thanks for your reply. This thread is over now, it seems but one suggestion I might offer in terms of working within the current situation, although this involves more the General than the current Primary and is already too late for this year is simply this: the US electoral system should be overhauled to be fully verifiable and then monitored by international organisations that do this sort of thing all over the world but not here.

    This will not fix everything, of course, but the PROCESS of actually being able to have a fully auditable and verifiable system will involve confronting many entrenched and underworld interests that currently stand behind the current basket-case voting machines etc. system. So the process of getting at least a proper voting system in place, which surely is non-partisan in essence, would help foster a dynamic that could then, hopefully, address broader and deeper issues.

    Things are so bad in the US, however, that I very much doubt that such a thing is possible. And if this is correct, what does it say about the status quo and the US as a so-called ‘democracy’.

    This is why again I think only and Article V initiative will effect substantive change. Procedurally it is anchored in the bedrock premises laid out in the founding constitutional documents which makes it a radical undertaking only in the root sense of the word. Politically it could unite progressive elements on both the right and left of the spectrum and strategically speaking it simply ignores the current RepubloCrat duopoly and demands that those pursuing such an agenda do so without the support of the mainstream media, lobbying groups, Beltway funds and so forth, so it would have to stand on its own feet to gather traction.

    With the internet-based media still being very much open and available to large percentages of the population, such an undertaking is more feasible now than at any time since the nation’s founding. However I have yet to see a good cause for mustering such a movement. It is not enough to simply want to overthrow the existing order or to push a single issue (like my monetary reform suggestion above). There has to be something positive and articulated that a People’s Resolution of this nature would have to effect. Although that said, I suspect that if a good, practical, fundamental single issue – or list of them – could be found, that might do the trick. In other words, more than ideology or complaint alone.

    1. Changing the electoral system including media access, voting methods, funding laws.
    2. Changing the monetary system: dismantling the private-sector led Fed established by banking cartel players in 1913 and returning to some sort of solid currency not based on usury.
    3. Single payer universal healthcare
    4. Eliminating foreign or corporate lobbying groups or ensuring that any proposals are made in public and published for all to see, whatever.
    5. Reducing or abolishing Federal Income tax and returning the bulk of taxation proceeds to the States and in turn a far higher percentage of that to local communities. The tax structure should be, from the POV of the individual, for every $1.00 paid: 75% to local, 20% to State and 5% to Federal. This alone would transform the way power is distributed in the nation, undermine most of the centralist-style corruption now infesting Washington most of the past century, and so forth.

    My two cents!