Bamboozling the American electorate again PART 1

[BlackVelvet04]

I received permission to post this article in it's entirety. Please give it a kick and recommend in GD:P. Thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4968997


Bamboozling the American electorate again
Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama, stripping delegates, inciting a riot at the convention and maybe even martial law...

(Print out article as a PDF File or skip to a section: Delegates/Conventions - Rezko Affair - Bush coup?)

Revised and Updated March 8, 2008

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets haven't done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy. Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the Democratic mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th, according to Fox News Channel. Called crossover voting, the tactic is playing a crucial role in what appears to be a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination. Even with his more well-known dirty tricks arsenal - phone bank sabotage, fake polling data, swiftboating, waitlisting, electronic voting equipment, Norman Hsu, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's generally popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter. (Several influential Republicans admit as much in a February 11th story for Politico.)

If, on the other hand, Obama wins the nomination (or even the VP spot), Rove's prospects brighten considerably. Largely unvetted by the media, the senator carries considerable baggage from his stint as a state legislator, particularly his 17-year relationship with Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko. So far, the mainstream press has paid lip service to the particulars of Obama's past and instead portrayed him as a fresh new face in American politics. The author of the Time article, Jay Newton-Small, offered the following explanation to account for the bizarre love affair G.O.P. voters say they're having with an African American senator on the other side of the aisle. "It seems a lot of Republicans took to heart Obama's statement in his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that 'there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.'"

Is he kidding? The conservative publication National Journal claims Obama's voting record is the most liberal in Washington, even moreso than Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Not everyone agrees with that assessment by a long shot, but it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern Mr. Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. And this through-the-looking-glass rationale is widely shared by journalists, pundits and politicians across the political spectrum, many of whom advance the equally suspect position that Clinton, the first viable female candidate for president, represents the past.

Last year, at the same time she commanded a huge lead in the national polls, political analysts and professional strategists retained by CNN and other broadcast networks began hammering across the notion that "the voters don't like her". The adjectives "unlikable", "divisive" and "polarizing" used to characterize Clinton have been repeated over and over in the same manner that "biological warfare" and "weapons of mass destruction" were employed during the lead-up to the Iraq War. In both cases, the terminology traces back to a cadre of right-wing, neocon ideologues who keep the studio seats warm at Fox News. "There is no candidate on record, a front-runner for a party's nomination, who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has," Rove told Reuters last August. Earlier this month, Bush's former senior political advisor joined Fox as a part-time election analyst.

Obama himself recites Rove's "high negatives" comment in press interviews whenever discussing Clinton. His often bitter criticism of the former First Lady and other "Washington insiders", who he says want to "boil and stew all the hope out of him", represents a staple of his core political message. His campaign slogan to the effect of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" is also reminiscent of the Bush 2000 campaign, which Rove managed. Perhaps that's not suprising when you discover that one of Obama's speechwriters is Ben Rhodes, the brother of Fox News VP David Rhodes. (Marisa Guthrie, of BC Beat, reported this connection recently.) The latter Rhodes has been with the network since its inception in 1996. You may recall that on election night in November 2000, it was Fox that called Florida for Bush, even though the other networks declared Gore the winner, citing the exit polls. How Fox knew the polls were wrong in advance of the vote tabulation has never been explained.

The Times of London reported on March 2nd that Obama is already interviewing Republican lawmakers like Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for key positions in his cabinet, if elected. "Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary." the story claimed. "Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a 'stretch'."

It may still be a little early to be talking about the transition team. To recap the primaries so far: On Super Tuesday, February 5th,Clinton captured sizeable majorities in the population-rich states of California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, considered crucial to a Democratic victory in November. While Obama won most of the the red states in play (plus Iowa and South Carolina before that), Clinton took Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Arkansas. Earlier, Clinton won the primaries in Nevada, Florida and New Hampshire. Obama later posted a string of victories in the caucus states of Washington and Nebraska, the Louisiana primary, then Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Wisconsin and Hawaii. On March 4th, Clinton won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, while Obama picked up Vermont, giving him about a 100-delegate lead, according to the Associated Press. Neither candidate is expected to reach the 2025-delegate mark needed to cinch the nomination before the convention in August.

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

[libbygurl]

1. Thanks, Black_Velvet. I've read this before, but didn't realise it had been updated.

Great, comprehensive coverage of the primary season thus far. Spells out everything that has been percolating in my mind all this time. On my way to K and R your post.