RINO Michael Medved Supports Open Primaries

[Don]

On today's broadcast RINO talk show host Michael Medved is advocating "open primaries" rather than party primaries. This means liberals and "moderates" get to chose Republican candidates for us. Isn't that nice?

His theory is that it will broaden political participation by the masses and will produce more Conservative Republicans. What?????:confused:

This Zionist weasel has always supported illegal immigration and initially opposed the Tea Party Movement. He discourages conservatives from going to the "streets" because it' just not what we do. The Tea Party movement is the best thing that's happened in years. It's kind of floundering and looking for direction at the moment, but it's like the big tent they're always talking about and people can just come out and get involved. What could be more healthy?

A few months ago, Medved interviewed some liberal author who wrote a book about "conservatism" and said conservatives should spend more time learning the works of Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli. Got that? Mexico is invading your town, transforming your neighborhoods into slums, ruining your public school, beating up your children, bankrupting your hospital and ruining your quality of life. Why aren't you reading more Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli? What the Hell is wrong with you?

Medved is a consistent supporter of the enemies of this country. He has supported the Mexican invasion and the "pathway to citizenship" because it isn't "amnesty" if we make them pay a fine. Liberals want to give the country away to Mexicans. Medved wants to sell it to them for the price of a "fine."

These RINO traitors like Medved and Hugh Hewitt are tremendously destructive. They are basically opposed to anything that is directed toward saving the country. They talk about drivel like Edmund Burke. Regretfully, they're very well entrenched and very powerful.

These RINOS uniformly opposed Tom McClintock and supported Schwarzenegger. They also supporting McCain over anti-immigration candidate J.D. Hayworth in Arizona's senate race.

[Twoller]

On today's broadcast RINO talk show host Michael Medved is advocating "open primaries" rather than party primaries. This means liberals and "moderates" get to chose Republican candidates for us. Isn't that nice?

His theory is that it will broaden political participation by the masses and will produce more Conservative Republicans. What?????:confused:

....

More fallout from the rising tide of registered voter with NO POLITICAL PARTY.

Here is an advocacy website on open primaries:

http://www.openprimaries.org/

And here are some Wikipedia entries on the subject of open primaries:

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

An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party's ballot and vote for that party's nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the runoff election. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates appear on the same ballot and the two highest voted candidates proceed to the runoff, regardless of party affiliation.

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

An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party's ballot and vote for that party's nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the runoff election. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates appear on the same ballot and the two highest voted candidates proceed to the runoff, regardless of party affiliation. The constitutionality of this system was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008,[1] whereas a partisan blanket primary was previously ruled to be unconstitutional in 2000.[2]

....

Notice that the runoff is for just two candidates. This is more enforcement of the "two party system" infection on our political system. The supreme court has pronounced this constitutional, but I don't see how. There is no constitutional requirement that you belong to a party at all in order to qualify for election anywhere and open primaries do not appear to provide for that. It also enforces elections for a party to choose a candidate and that would most certainly be unconstitutional.

Open primaries are an absurdity that forgets the whole reason we have primaries in the first place which is to provide the public service of elections for political parties to choose candidates. But there is nothing that says the public should have to do that and it isn't even necessary that political parties have elections at all to choose their candidates.

Currently (in California) when you go to the polls for the primary election like the one we expect to have in June, the poll workers look up your name and see what political party you belong to and they issue you a ballot. But if you are "decline to state" you have the option of choosing a "decline to state" ballot with no party candidates on it, or some political parties are already allowing decline to state voters to vote with their ballots and participate in their party's election. But you can only choose one political party.

We don't need political primaries and this is becoming increasingly obvious, especially to "decline to state" voters.

Get rid of the primaries. And laugh in the face of people advocating open primaries.