Please forgive me. I’ve been sniffing lavender oil for morning sickness, and I think it’s going to my head.

The correct use is as follows: The point is moot.

Or did you just drop the t by accident, Matt?

Not that anyone cares. Just sayin’

Regardless, I think they’re terrible, and for the same reasons that voir dire perjury traps are terrible. If it takes Rush Limbaugh to point that out, even if he harpoons your (and my) favorite Democratic candidate in the process, then so be it.

Supreme Court would be hard pressed to uphold a loyalty oath for a party primary. Especially if state funds are used to host it.

That article smells like BS. First, the parties are private parties, not governed by laws (although some governmental laws apply to politicking, ‘natch). Secondly, I did exactly what was described in the article when I changed my party affiliation to Republican to support Ron Paul.

That article’s author has done everyone a disservice by not being more specific. Perhaps that’s the point?

I notice that your “insignificant” tag is still sitting there like the big, fat LIE that it is. (You know what I’m talking about.)

You cannot maintain a claim to integrity if you’re going to indulge in that sort of thing because you think it’s “necessary” to get some bastard out of political power.

– The whole country is shot through with this sort of ethical weaseling now, and it just won’t do.

I think we’d all benefit if you did.

What he ^^^ said. All dispassionate analysis appears to be flying straight out the window in a seeming desperate attempt to keep George Bush from, uh, being elected to a third term.

As if the permanent bureaucracy in Washington is going to change more than about 3% no matter who’s perched on top of the dungheap next.

(Were it not for the fact that I live here and would suffer the consequences, I would otherwise be eagerly desirous of everyone getting what they asked for — good and hard — from an Obama Presidency. I’d get to enjoy four straight years of saying “I told you so, but would you listen? Nooo…..”

I don’t think it’s a great law- if I was a registered republican but decided that I liked Obama better than McCain and McCain better than Clinton, I might change parties to vote for Obama in the primary, but if Clinton won the dem nomination I’d vote for McCain in the general. I’d probably be violating the letter of the law although not the spirit. But I don’t think you could write the law so that it differentiated between someone who wanted to vote for the best person regardless of party versus someone trying to purposefully manipulate the “other” party’s primary for their own party’s gain.

Heh.
Nice retrospective. Oh, all this anarchy out there! Unfiltered by the “experts”. How dangerous! People actually thinking for themselves!
Wonder if that guy is still that full of shit.
Heh.

“they changed parties to vote for Clinton. One problem. That’s basically illegal.”

If KBCraig is right, and it’s not illegal, we should be all over the author for trying to “create” a stupid law. If KBCraig is wrong (which I doubt, but if he is), then that seems like the ultimate repudiation of anything resembling freedom. Illegal to vote for someone? Geez. What does Ohio think they are, Russia?

There is no party registration in Texas. Anyone is free to vote in either primary (but only in one).

I don’t care for the idea of voting for the other party in order to influence the outcome in favor of your party, but it’s hardly fraud.

Or else every voter who voted for one party last year and a different one this year is ALSO committing voter fraud.

But then again, I bet that’s the goal.