Follow up on the Limbaugh/Ohio discussion

[GrayMatterWife]

Hey, I couldn't remember which thread the topic was in, but recently, we discussed whether Rush Limbaugh could be held criminally responsible for his advocacy of illegal primary voting in the State of Ohio. I saw this article this morning out of the Columbus Dispatch on the issue. Personally, I don't think this "absolves" Limbaugh; it was still a low character thing to do, in my opinion. But there are lots of things that are perfectly legal but are low in character. There are a lot of other ways to get your base fired up and engaged. But that's just my 2 cents.

Limbaugh safe from voter-fraud charges
Radio host encouraged fans to vote Democratic
Friday, March 28, 2008 2:59 AM
By Mark Niquette

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been telling his audience for days now that he could be indicted for encouraging Ohio Republicans to take a Democratic ballot in the March 4 primary in what he calls "Operation Chaos."

Could that actually happen?

Not likely, Ohio officials say.

"We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime," said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

When asked whether she has concerns about what Limbaugh did, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, replied, "I think it's very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions."

Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states holding presidential primaries is designed to help presumptive Republican nominee John McCain win the Nov. 4 election.

The idea is to encourage Republicans in those states to vote for Hillary Clinton as a way to prolong the Democratic fight for the nomination with Barack Obama, possibly making it more difficult for Democrats to unite in the fall.

Some critics have complained that Limbaugh is improperly encouraging voters to break the law.

In Ohio, party-switchers are supposed to sign a form attesting, under penalty of election falsification -- a felony -- that they support the principles of the party whose ballot they are obtaining.

But Jennings said it would be difficult to prosecute anyone because they also have constitutionally protected freedom of speech and it's hard to prove voter intent.

"You can't just make the assumption that someone is lying," Jennings said.

Neither Limbaugh nor a spokesman could be reached, but Limbaugh has a transcript posted on his Web site addressing listeners concerned about being charged with voter fraud.

"I wouldn't worry about it," Limbaugh said. "Look at this as a badge of honor, ladies and gentlemen. If anybody gets indicted, if anybody has to go jail, it will be me -- and I'll do my program from jail for the short amount of time I will be there before I am excused and the charges dismissed.

"I had the temerity, ladies and gentlemen, to tinker with a tradition, a liberal Democrat tradition: voter manipulation."

[DCJenn]

Re: Follow up on the Limbaugh/Ohio discussion

One thing for Rush, the man is very good at getting himself free publicity.

J.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Follow up on the Limbaugh/Ohio discussion

This article from the Post Magazine is hideously long and probably not worth reading in its entirety, but I thought it had an interesting point about Rush:

The peril of listening to Limbaugh and O'Reilly at the same time is that you tend to compare them, and these are dangerous waters for an unapologetic, unreconstructed New Deal liberal like me. The comparison makes you actually like Rush. He's funny; O'Reilly is not. Limbaugh teases and baits his political adversaries; O'Reilly sneers and snarls at them. Limbaugh is mock-heroic; O'Reilly is self-righteous. So, when Limbaugh speculates that the Democrats in the House committee went after Roger Clemens because liberals hate cherished American institutions such as churches, the Boy Scouts and baseball, you know he's sorta kidding. When O'Reilly says liberals who oppose torture of prisoners just don't care how many people will die in a terrorist attack, you know he's as serious as an aneurysm.

That's a great contrast of Rush and O'Reilly. I don't admire what Rush did in Ohio, but I generally enjoy listening to him. You may not like him or agree with his conclusions or premises, but he is logical in his argument construction. I do not like O'Reilly because there's nothing intellectual there. It's just...pompacity (did I spell that right?). And half the time, he's wrong either in fact or in argument construction.