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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If the goal is to simply populate the government with Republicans -- by any means necessary -- then your plan may be worth trying. However, if the goal is to build an expanding base of constituents based on conservative ideologies, then I suggest that you target your efforts toward educating the masses who are most likely ignorant of the consequences of supporting a liberal agenda.

Conservatives have superior ideas, we just do a lousy job of promoting our message.

Twist on another cliché: trick a man and he will vote for a day; teach a man to think and he will vote conservative for a lifetime.
Well Mr. Hill, I think you're a little confused,

The goal of this is to populate the government with Republicans BAMN (By Any Means Necessary.) It is not, however, a plan to educate the people about Republican and Conservative ideologies, that is a battle worth fighting for, but this particular plan doesn't reflect that battle.

This plan is a internal plan (internal-as in the RPV) for Republicans to participate in a Democratic Primary. As far as I know we have open primary system (or at least a semi-closed.) After all, we would just be exercising are right to vote.

Take our Republican Primary for Attorney General, We have three very fine candidates running. But look at how we are going to decide who gets nominated, in a Republican Convention, through a delegate process. We didn't put our primary on the June ballot, probably because of the same reason: Dems crossing-over. With the DPV deciding to have an election, they open the door for us to cross over.
Travis,

I can assure you that I am not confused concerning your proposal, but neither am I blinded by party affiliation. I promote a return to conservative philosophies, not an agenda to put just anyone in office because they have an (R) after their name.

For eight years Bush and so-called "Republicans" promoted pork-laden spending bills, ignored illegal immigration, expanded Medicare entitlements and, for a grand finale, further advanced socialism through the initial TARP bail-out. Look where that got us! We are no better off than if Democrats had controlled the purse-strings. If fact, we are arguably in worse position because Dems could blame Republicans for failed policies that are right out of the liberal play book.

You can play games if you want, but in the end we will not be better for it. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that a RINO actually does more harm than good. I want conservatives in office, otherwise, I would just as soon have a Democrat. At least then we could legitimately mount an opposition.

I know what you are trying to do (and it is not morally wrong) . . . I'd just rather see time and resources devoted to building up conservative ideals rather than making it easier for potentially weak Republicans to win elections.
Excellent post Bradley. Let me correct one thing you said. Since 2006 the Democrats have controlled the spending, they are not innocent. I agree that the Republicans before that were like a teenager with a new credit card, which destroyed what being a Republican is all about. I do not consider myself a Republican, I am a conservative, just as you are. I agree with you that to play the game of BAMN, will do nothing to further the party, but, really isn't anything any worse than not having a solid message to offer the voters.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Travis,

I can assure you that I am not confused concerning your proposal, but neither am I blinded by party affiliation. I promote a return to conservative philosophies, not an agenda to put just anyone in office because they have an (R) after their name.

For eight years Bush and so-called "Republicans" promoted pork-laden spending bills, ignored illegal immigration, expanded Medicare entitlements and, for a grand finale, further advanced socialism through the initial TARP bail-out. Look where that got us! We are no better off than if Democrats had controlled the purse-strings. If fact, we are arguably in worse position because Dems could blame Republicans for failed policies that are right out of the liberal play book.

You can play games if you want, but in the end we will not be better for it. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that a RINO actually does more harm than good. I want conservatives in office, otherwise, I would just as soon have a Democrat. At least then we could legitimately mount an opposition.

I know what you are trying to do (and it is not morally wrong) . . . I'd just rather see time and resources devoted to building up conservative ideals rather than making it easier for potentially weak Republicans to win elections.
Sandy, technically you are right (I knew someone would catch it), but until the '08 election Dems needed the cooperation of a few weak Republicans and Bush's signature to pass anything of consequence -- Eric Cantor still needs to justify his support of TARP. That's why I extrapolated my illustration through the entire Bush term.

P.S. Lest anyone confuse my loyalty, I generally supported Bush, but he was not, unfortunately, a fiscal conservative (just like his dad).

Sandy Cope said:
Excellent post Bradley. Let me correct one thing you said. Since 2006 the Democrats have controlled the spending, they are not innocent. I agree that the Republicans before that were like a teenager with a new credit card, which destroyed what being a Republican is all about. I do not consider myself a Republican, I am a conservative, just as you are. I agree with you that to play the game of BAMN, will do nothing to further the party, but, really isn't anything any worse than not having a solid message to offer the voters.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Travis,

I can assure you that I am not confused concerning your proposal, but neither am I blinded by party affiliation. I promote a return to conservative philosophies, not an agenda to put just anyone in office because they have an (R) after their name.

For eight years Bush and so-called "Republicans" promoted pork-laden spending bills, ignored illegal immigration, expanded Medicare entitlements and, for a grand finale, further advanced socialism through the initial TARP bail-out. Look where that got us! We are no better off than if Democrats had controlled the purse-strings. If fact, we are arguably in worse position because Dems could blame Republicans for failed policies that are right out of the liberal play book.

You can play games if you want, but in the end we will not be better for it. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that a RINO actually does more harm than good. I want conservatives in office, otherwise, I would just as soon have a Democrat. At least then we could legitimately mount an opposition.

I know what you are trying to do (and it is not morally wrong) . . . I'd just rather see time and resources devoted to building up conservative ideals rather than making it easier for potentially weak Republicans to win elections.
Mr. Hill,

I do whole-heartily agree with what you are saying. You are right, especially when you say that we should elected real conservatives and not just a politician with an (R) after their name. I did mis-speak (or rather mis-typed) my meaning. This plan is designed to help get Bob McDonnell elected and it could be used again in the future.
Bradley- I have been harping about Cantor's vote for TARP for some time. It wasn't only his buy-in to the sky is falling by Paulson, it was his TV face time after the House Republican message, by Cantor, that the reason they didn't go for it, was only because Pelosi made a speech a little earlier before the vote that she made it a very partisan vote. It would have been much better if he would have talked about the fact that there was no plan, no goal and no projection of what the bill was to accomplish. I looked at that as, if you can buy into a plan, with no explanation, you are a fool. It has been proven since then that those that voted for it were fooled, even by the Bush Admin. BTW- I live in Cantor's district. I posted my displeasure on his VA website, my post was taken down.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Sandy, technically you are right (I knew someone would catch it), but until the '08 election Dems needed the cooperation of a few weak Republicans and Bush's signature to pass anything of consequence -- Eric Cantor still needs to justify his support of TARP. That's why I extrapolated my illustration through the entire Bush term.

P.S. Lest anyone confuse my loyalty, I generally supported Bush, but he was not, unfortunately, a fiscal conservative (just like his dad).

Sandy Cope said:
Excellent post Bradley. Let me correct one thing you said. Since 2006 the Democrats have controlled the spending, they are not innocent. I agree that the Republicans before that were like a teenager with a new credit card, which destroyed what being a Republican is all about. I do not consider myself a Republican, I am a conservative, just as you are. I agree with you that to play the game of BAMN, will do nothing to further the party, but, really isn't anything any worse than not having a solid message to offer the voters.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Travis,

I can assure you that I am not confused concerning your proposal, but neither am I blinded by party affiliation. I promote a return to conservative philosophies, not an agenda to put just anyone in office because they have an (R) after their name.

For eight years Bush and so-called "Republicans" promoted pork-laden spending bills, ignored illegal immigration, expanded Medicare entitlements and, for a grand finale, further advanced socialism through the initial TARP bail-out. Look where that got us! We are no better off than if Democrats had controlled the purse-strings. If fact, we are arguably in worse position because Dems could blame Republicans for failed policies that are right out of the liberal play book.

You can play games if you want, but in the end we will not be better for it. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that a RINO actually does more harm than good. I want conservatives in office, otherwise, I would just as soon have a Democrat. At least then we could legitimately mount an opposition.

I know what you are trying to do (and it is not morally wrong) . . . I'd just rather see time and resources devoted to building up conservative ideals rather than making it easier for potentially weak Republicans to win elections.
I think I get the point of the original post. It has nothing to do with our ability to elect conservatives. The FACTS are that in the last presidential election we did not get the most conservative candidate because liberals crossed over and voted for McCain in large numbers. We could argue ideology with our own side all we want but what we should be doing is reforming the method by which we select our nominee. I also do not have a problem with beating them at their own game so long as it does not detract from our efforts to select conservatives on our side.

Let's keep holding their feet to the fire whenever they step left as well. We cannot let them get away from their conservative routes when they get to Washington as Cantor did with the TARP bill.
With all do respect to everyone, I think you guys are over-thinking it. It is just a plan to help get Bob elected.
Great Idea, However I think that Deeds would have the best chance of winning statewide as He would peel off rural counties, I think a full fledged pro-stimulus liberal would be the easiest to beat.
True, but what where would that leave us if the pro-stimulus liberal got elected? But hey, we still got a lot of time before June to come up with a collective answer.
I live in Cantor's district, too, and sent him a letter before the vote to let him know that if he supported TARP I would not support him in the upcoming election (which I didn't). He sent me a nice form letter assuring that he was "fighting" for me and then reeled-off a bunch of nonsense. This episode showed me that he has become drunk with power and will tow the party line, even if it conflicts with conservative (and presumably his own) principles. Term limits anyone?

Sandy Cope said:
Bradley- I have been harping about Cantor's vote for TARP for some time. It wasn't only his buy-in to the sky is falling by Paulson, it was his TV face time after the House Republican message, by Cantor, that the reason they didn't go for it, was only because Pelosi made a speech a little earlier before the vote that she made it a very partisan vote. It would have been much better if he would have talked about the fact that there was no plan, no goal and no projection of what the bill was to accomplish. I looked at that as, if you can buy into a plan, with no explanation, you are a fool. It has been proven since then that those that voted for it were fooled, even by the Bush Admin. BTW- I live in Cantor's district. I posted my displeasure on his VA website, my post was taken down.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Sandy, technically you are right (I knew someone would catch it), but until the '08 election Dems needed the cooperation of a few weak Republicans and Bush's signature to pass anything of consequence -- Eric Cantor still needs to justify his support of TARP. That's why I extrapolated my illustration through the entire Bush term.

P.S. Lest anyone confuse my loyalty, I generally supported Bush, but he was not, unfortunately, a fiscal conservative (just like his dad).

Sandy Cope said:
Excellent post Bradley. Let me correct one thing you said. Since 2006 the Democrats have controlled the spending, they are not innocent. I agree that the Republicans before that were like a teenager with a new credit card, which destroyed what being a Republican is all about. I do not consider myself a Republican, I am a conservative, just as you are. I agree with you that to play the game of BAMN, will do nothing to further the party, but, really isn't anything any worse than not having a solid message to offer the voters.

W. Bradley Hill said:
Travis,

I can assure you that I am not confused concerning your proposal, but neither am I blinded by party affiliation. I promote a return to conservative philosophies, not an agenda to put just anyone in office because they have an (R) after their name.

For eight years Bush and so-called "Republicans" promoted pork-laden spending bills, ignored illegal immigration, expanded Medicare entitlements and, for a grand finale, further advanced socialism through the initial TARP bail-out. Look where that got us! We are no better off than if Democrats had controlled the purse-strings. If fact, we are arguably in worse position because Dems could blame Republicans for failed policies that are right out of the liberal play book.

You can play games if you want, but in the end we will not be better for it. If recent history teaches us anything, it's that a RINO actually does more harm than good. I want conservatives in office, otherwise, I would just as soon have a Democrat. At least then we could legitimately mount an opposition.

I know what you are trying to do (and it is not morally wrong) . . . I'd just rather see time and resources devoted to building up conservative ideals rather than making it easier for potentially weak Republicans to win elections.

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