RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

For those of you who don't know Operation Chaos was a strategy used by Rush Limbaugh and his listeners to vote for the weakest Democratic candidate, so as to create tension in the Democratic Party. Rush advocated for votes for Hillary Clinton during the primary season so the ongoing primary between her and NObama would last longer.

Let me introduce you to my Operation Chaos. On June 9th. The Democrats will choose there nomination for Governor. Either Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran, or Creigh Deeds will get the nomination. With that said, I propose a Republican Strategic Voting Guide for the election.

The Guide will include three guidelines: (in order of importance)

1. Who of the three has the worst chance of winning in the General Election against Bob?
2. Who is the most Conservative of the Three?
3. Who is the lowest in the polls of the three Dems?

With this,

Guideline One, which is the most important, would give us a good stronghold for the general election.
Guideline Two, which is a worst-case strategy, if Bob should lose, we should have the most conservative leaning Dem in the Governors Mansion.
Guideline Three, is of little importance but it is a small plus if the candidate who meets the first two guidelines, is also the lowest in the Primary Polls. So if the weakest candidate wins the primary, it will cause tension in the Democratic Party.

So you're probably saying, "well Travis, just who is the Democratic Candidate that fits those Criteria?"

The answer is State Senator Creigh Deeds. I believe Deeds meets all of the guidelines. He has lost to Bob before, Bob has a +9% gap over Deeds (as opposed to a +3% gap over Moran and a +7% over McAuliffe.) ((Source: Rasmussen Reports))

Deeds is also the most conservative Dem running.

And, You guessed it, he is the lowest Dem as far as the Primary Polls, (McAuliffe 18%, Moran 18%, and Deeds 11%.) ((Source Public Policy Polling))

For those of you, who may be questioning the morals of this plan, let me say this, John McCain won the primary due to Dems crossing over. They thought he was the most liberal and the easiest to beat. I personally supported McCain from Day One, but that's in the past. My point here is, the Dems do it, why not us??

In conclusion, this is my plan, I hope you like it, I hope it works, and it is subject to change with more up-to-date polling results. I am happy to throw my support to Deeds in the Democratic Primary for Governor. I am even more happy to support McDonnell for the General Election for Governor.

~Travis Strickland

P.S. I would love to hear your thoughts and comments!

Views: 63

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree Sandy. What I find strange is that Bush, throughout his Presidency was willing to do things that made him unpopular with either side. Why would you then say he was spineless with TARP. If he truly believed he had to do it he was actually very courageous. He did something that he had to know would alienate the few conservatives who still supported him.

If he did something he didn't believe in then yes he was in this case spineless but who was he trying to please. Remember that while this truth commission has been set up, Bush would only have needed to make a deal with Obama to protect himself. I do not believe for a minute that Bush would have done that because I don't think he really gives two hoots about his legacy. I believe he made decisions based upon his principals. That doesn't mean he couldn't have jumped the gun on TARP. It will be the one thing about his Presidency that I believe he will personally regret because I think he trusted his people and made a hasty decision based upon bad information.

I also think he is now and will forever regret not fighting the dems as hard as he fought the terrorists. He backed down on Social Security Reform, Fannie Mae Reform, School Vouchers, he allowed an expiration date on his tax plan, he signed on to a liberal expansion of Medicaid, and he refused to hold the line on spending. Somewhere he actually must have thought he would get credit for trying to bring both sides together.
Mark- I am not trying to be funny, or difficult, but, principals are in charge of schools, principles are what guide the Conservatives. It would be great if all Principals were guided by Principles.

Bush was long known as a "Compassionate Conservative." Apparently he missed the Conservative lesson that it is much more compassionate to give people the opportunity to better themselves, through personal responsibility, without government entitlements and intervention. You bring up yourself all of the legislation that he should have turned away from, such as Medicare part D. He, along with a R majority Congress should have pushed hard for SS Reform, Medicare Reform, School Vouchers and etc. He also should have cut the government debit card in pieces. He was too compassionate, or he was trying to hard to bring everyone "under the tent." My point about his TARP support is that Paulson came running to him with a sky-is falling scenario. Paulson was not his only advisor, and before it passed, there were many credible economists that said it was a very bad idea. The majority of the citizens said, please don't do that. If he didn't have the "spine" to look further into what so many were saying, he decided to do what was necessary to help the new incoming administration to begin the push toward Socialism. Has it not been proven since the original tarp bill that it wasn't such a crisis that needed to be solved today. Could he have not slowed down the legislation until he got more ideas and information from a variety of people who could have contributed to a better solution. Why did it become so necessary to start bailing-out everyone with a red balance on their books? Shouldn't it be that the strong and well managed survive, and the poorly managed fail? Again, I don't want any dang ownership in a government owned and controlled bank.

Mark Collins said:
I agree Sandy. What I find strange is that Bush, throughout his Presidency was willing to do things that made him unpopular with either side. Why would you then say he was spineless with TARP. If he truly believed he had to do it he was actually very courageous. He did something that he had to know would alienate the few conservatives who still supported him.

If he did something he didn't believe in then yes he was in this case spineless but who was he trying to please. Remember that while this truth commission has been set up, Bush would only have needed to make a deal with Obama to protect himself. I do not believe for a minute that Bush would have done that because I don't think he really gives two hoots about his legacy. I believe he made decisions based upon his principals. That doesn't mean he couldn't have jumped the gun on TARP. It will be the one thing about his Presidency that I believe he will personally regret because I think he trusted his people and made a hasty decision based upon bad information.

I also think he is now and will forever regret not fighting the dems as hard as he fought the terrorists. He backed down on Social Security Reform, Fannie Mae Reform, School Vouchers, he allowed an expiration date on his tax plan, he signed on to a liberal expansion of Medicaid, and he refused to hold the line on spending. Somewhere he actually must have thought he would get credit for trying to bring both sides together.
I was thinking that it was his principals from which he gained his beliefs. Like back when he was in high school.

I totally agree with you on TARP. My point was that he did have people (mainly the American people from the conservative right) telling him that this was a bad idea, wrong, not going to work, and wrong. If he believed he was doing what had to be done then it was brave of him to do so because he did it in the face of strong opposition. If he didn't believe in what he was doing then I don't understand what could have motivated him to make such a blunder.

Another thing that he missed was in the budget deficit. He showed throughout his terms that you could increase government reciepts by lowering taxes on the wealthy. He could have put an exclamation point on that by lowering spending in his first six years and running a surplus. Instead you have the libs saying that lowering taxes lead to the deficits when in fact reciepts were at record levels. Only out of control spending lead to the deficits.

OMG how far from the original topic have we gotten?!
You are so correct Mark- we have threadjacked the original intent. I challenge you to start a seperate thred to talk about these issues. So very sorry Travis!

Mark Collins said:
I was thinking that it was his principals from which he gained his beliefs. Like back when he was in high school.

I totally agree with you on TARP. My point was that he did have people (mainly the American people from the conservative right) telling him that this was a bad idea, wrong, not going to work, and wrong. If he believed he was doing what had to be done then it was brave of him to do so because he did it in the face of strong opposition. If he didn't believe in what he was doing then I don't understand what could have motivated him to make such a blunder.

Another thing that he missed was in the budget deficit. He showed throughout his terms that you could increase government reciepts by lowering taxes on the wealthy. He could have put an exclamation point on that by lowering spending in his first six years and running a surplus. Instead you have the libs saying that lowering taxes lead to the deficits when in fact reciepts were at record levels. Only out of control spending lead to the deficits.

OMG how far from the original topic have we gotten?!
Hey no problem I was enjoying the conversation. LOL,

P.S. to W. Bradley

Speaking of Eric Cantor, did you know that he had the gall, to send out letters asking for money for his campaign, when I don't even live near his district?? Sad part is another Repub from ARIZONA wrote asking for money.
Travis - I do not recall receiving a funding letter from Cantor, but I'm not surprised. I also do not agree with the growing trend of supporting candidates (for any office) that will not represent us. It happens on both sides -- candidates looking outside of their constituency for support. A "fat cat" in Chicago should not be able to influence representation in VA, and vice-versa.

P.S. I started a separate thread to discuss fiscal matters, if anyone is interested.
Very true- I wouldn't mind supporting my next door region but he is 6 districts away!
I'd like to revive the discussion of Operation Chaos one more time. If given the chance to go back in time and vote in the Democratic primary for President, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW, how many of us would go to the polls to cast a vote for anyone other than Obama? I certainly would. I don't know which candidate I would have voted for; perhaps we could have organized a write-in across the country.

I do plan to participate in the Democratic primary this year, and I will vote for the one least dangerous to the unborn and to our security, in that order, if such a candidate exists. It is not being dishonest; I am merely exercising my right as a Virginian to do what I can to prevent the greater evil in the event that McDonnell does not win.

Just to add a little humor to the mix, check out the chicken-sh*# candidate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D14s42rL4UM&feature=player_embedded. Um, did Terry hire John McCain's adviser?
Thank you Sue for reviving this thread. Im sure most of us knowing what we know now would have voted in the Dem primary. Like I said at the beginning, I hope that Deeds wins his nomination, he is the easiest to beat, and the lesser of the three evils. I am still trying to find out who to support for the Dem nod for Lt. Governor.
If I had a chance to go back in time and help select a Dem. pres. candidate OTHER than Obama, I'd RUN to the polls. From what I've read, Moran's record seems to indicate that he might be somewhat moderate compared to the other two. I think the one flaw to an operation chaos would be nominating someone that is believed to be "unelectable", so given the fact that McDonnell is not a guaranteed winner, I will go and vote for the "safest", least radical Democrat in the primary, just in case.
Well, with all due respect, I have know idea where you would get Moran is the moderate conservative. Maybe in a contest between Moran and McAuliffe, Moran would be the most conservative. But out of the three, Deeds is the best choice. Now don't get me wrong, I want Bob to win in November.

You can find where Deeds stands on issues here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Creigh_Deeds

And Sue, I'm not saying Deeds is unelectable but if you check the polls I posted about two weeks ago, Bob is beating all of the Dems and beating Deeds by the most percent. Not to mention that Deeds is losing the polls in the primary, which is why republicans should vote for him in June, not November.


Sue G said:
If I had a chance to go back in time and help select a Dem. pres. candidate OTHER than Obama, I'd RUN to the polls. From what I've read, Moran's record seems to indicate that he might be somewhat moderate compared to the other two. I think the one flaw to an operation chaos would be nominating someone that is believed to be "unelectable", so given the fact that McDonnell is not a guaranteed winner, I will go and vote for the "safest", least radical Democrat in the primary, just in case.
Oh Brian, Oh friend, Oh buddy of mine,

First, I really don't mind our open-primary system. It works when both parties have a primary, just like last year during the primary. Plus, if we did make people register as Republican or Democrat, imagine all of the "independents" that would be up in arms. Just seems like more trouble than it is worth. Being that we were the smart party that chose a convention to settle our Lt. Governor, Att. General, and Chairman races. it gives us the opportunity to vote in the democratic primary. Now, if the RPV chose to have a primary instead of a convention, I would have never created this thread.

Secondly, Yes Moron, excuse me Moran, is a weak Democrat, and so is McAuliffe. Also you have a good point that McAuliffe is a good fund-raiser. He was DNC chairman, (can you a former or current imagine the DNC chairman being our governor....oh never mind)

Third, the reasons I want Deeds to be the Dem nominee are:

~He is pro-second amendment.
~He is viewed as unfavorable.
~McDonnell has beaten him in the past.
~He wants Ft. Monroe to be a National Park (Bob is kinda neutral but he wants to protect the historic aspects of the Fort.)

As for getting the most conservative candidate, I want to consolidate our possible losses. I want Bob to win in November, but given the possibility he wont, we would at least have a blue-dog, and not a radical.

Fourth, Most people (on both sides) don't get into politics as much as people like us do. Most people just vote party line, without considering the issues, or they just vote on one issue. So I don't think Deeds being a blue-dog will hurt us. Now independents win elections, I think Bob has the advantage over independents, due to the horrible Dem leadership.

So Brian and Sue, I hope you vote for Deeds in June, but if not, I still look forward for all of us to be united in November!



Brian W. Schoeneman said:
There's nothing wrong with an Operation Chaos type grassroots effort by Republicans to get out and support the weakest Democratic candidate in their primary. Until Virginia wakes up and recognizes that open primaries and conventions are a bad way of choosing candidates and we get voter party registration and closed primary elections, this is a viable tactic and one we shouldn't eschew out of some misguided notion that there is something unseemly about it.

I would suggest that those who want to do this vote for Moran. At this point, he's the weakest of the three Democrats and he is doing significant damage to himself with the Democratic base by launching a variety of poorly thought out attacks against McAuliffe. Generally, I think both Moran and McAuliffe are weak candidates, but McAuliffe is a better fundraiser, which makes him a greater threat.

The whole idea that we should choose the most conservative of the Democrats in case we lose doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were both considered to be fairly moderate for a variety of reasons, but we all know full well that neither of them were conservative on the issues that mattered. In the end, the only way we can be sure that we will have someone in office who represents our Republican principles is by electing a Republican.

You also need to remember that there is far more to being Governor than just the individual in the job. All of the various appointments made by the Governor matter too, and if Deeds wins, those will all go to Democrats, regardless of whether they are as conservative as Deeds or not. Those people will all have influence and they are likely not going to be conservatives like Deeds is.

Whatever we do, we should be focused on ensuring that McDonnell gets elected. The best way to do that is to put the weakest Dem up against him, and right now that is Moran.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2022   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service