It's amusing how far some people will go not to give someone credit for something they have done especially if that deserving someone happens to be an ostensible political enemy. In this case we find CBS discussing Republican crossover voters in these primaries, the network newser telling us how crossovers will "skew primary results," and then they tell us who is responsible for egging on these crossovers. Now, for those of you in the know, you'd automatically assume that CBS is talking about radio host Rush Limbaugh who has been carrying on his "operation chaos" program to encourage Republican voters to re-register as Dems to vote for Hillary, right?
Not to CBS. No, CBS has decided that the real story is that what we have here is "right-wing radio commentators" and "the bloggers" are who is responsible for "operation chaos." But, in truth, few other radio people are pushing their listeners to re-register and no high profile conservative blogger I know of is doing so either. The whole thing is the brainchild of Rush Limbaugh, not "right-wing radio commentators" -- commentators as in plural, more than one.
CBS is bending over backwards in order NOT to mention Limbaugh's name so as not to give him publicity, apparently. But, it simply is not factual to say that "right-wing radio commentators" are responsible for this crossover voting effort when it is basically ONE "right-wing radio commentator." This spiteful avoidance of naming Limbaugh makes their report factually incorrect.
Let's be honest even if CBS cannot; this whole crossover voter plan is the effort of Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh alone. It is not the plan of "the bloggers" and "right-wing radio commentators."
But on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, both Douglas Wilder(D-VA) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned that there would be unrest if "young voters" did not get them some Barack at the democrat Party National convention. Additionally, both blammed "the bloggers" and "right-wng radio" without mentioning Limbaugh by name.
Wilder said that the Democrats faced a "riotous" convention if the will of the people - in terms of a candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates and primary or votes - was usurped by the party's superdelegates. "People would be tremendously upset," he said.
Not to be outdone, Representative Clyburn jumped the there-will-be-blood bandwagon.
Clyburn, however, went further, believing that such a decision might inspire violence.
It would certainly breed discontent, he said, especially among younger voters, as he described his visits to historical black colleges and universities in his district: "That is what these young people were saying to me. They were very, very upset with all of this talk about superdelegates overturning their energies and overturning their efforts.
Two high profile black leaders both claiming that violence will occur if the Democrat Party does not pick Obama seems like pretty big news. Yet, not many news outlets are talking about this.
There is also another aspect that the MSM are ignoring about this whole crossover voting drama. In 2000 the MSM was all a flutter over the fact that thousands of Democrats were re-registering as Republicans to vote for John McCain. This was universally reported as an item of interest if not something to be encouraged. The MSM was thrilled that Democrats and moderates were rooting for McCain during the 2000 primaries and they joyfully reported it as a sign that "the maverick" was the man to solve the partisan rancor in Washington DC.
Yet, now that it is Republicans crossing the aisle to vote in the Democrat primaries, suddenly this is something to be alarmed at? Something that might cause riots?
One has to wonder why the different treatment of the same idea? Why was it OK in 2000 but not now? And, there is a substantive difference between what Limbaugh is doing now and what Democrat voters did in 2000. Limbaugh's aim is to make the Democrat primaries last as long as possible so as to give Barack Obama more time than the media was willing to give him to make mistakes and to reveal himself more fully to the voters. Limbaugh claims not to have an interest in which one, Hillary or Obama, becomes the Democrat Party nominee. On the other hand, in 2000, Democrats were actually trying to pick the candidate who would be running on the GOP ticket.
Yet, here we have CBS and Face the Nation painting Limbaugh as trying to pick Hillary as the Dem candidate and they are reporting on it as if this represents a danger to the process. Apparently, it's only a "danger" if it is the Democrat Party's process that is being meddled with because they didn't care about any meddling in the GOP's process in 2000. In fact, they thought it was great.
Like I said, one has to wonder why the different treatment of the same idea?