Bamboozling the American electorate again

[Clinton Crusader]

Bamboozling the American electorate again
by Rosemary Regello
TheCityEdition.com
February 17, 2008

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democratic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. After rigging 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, Republican party activists have been organized by the G.O.P. to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Early in Obama's campaign, top Republican fundraisers flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn'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 magazine article goes on to explain that rank and file Republicans in red states have switched their party registrations, enabling them to vote in Democratic primaries. Some states, like Virginia, have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. Called crossover voting, The tactic is playing a crucial role in the Rove push to deprive Clinton of the Democratic nomination. Even with the usual arsenal of dirty tricks - swiftboating, waitlisting, paperless electronic voting equipment, etc. - Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If the contest isn't close, the vote-rigging won't matter.

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

[Qutzupalotl]

1. Happy primary day!

[scheming daemons]

2. Clinton is Rove's dream candidate......

as for this:

"Rove would be hard pressed to defeat Clinton in November, since she's popular nationwide and has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq."

Laughable.

1) Hillary has among the highest negative ratings of any candidate in decades.

2) Poll after poll after poll shows that Obama does better nationwide in a head-to-head matchup with McCain than Hillary does.

3) Hillary has NOT promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.


And as for this:

"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."

75% of Obama's donation have been in amounts less than $100. 250,000 individual contributors have contributed to his campaign, compared with just 23,000 contributors to Hillary's campaign.


Everything in that editorial is demonstrably false.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. Of course they want Hillary on the Dem ticket - to increase GOP turnout

and at least the GOP could take back congress.

It won't matter who is president if you have a GOP congress.
Nothing will get done except for new investigations on the Clintons.

[monomach]

8. IT'S A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!"

:rofl:

[LadyVT]

11. This is in Time Magazine; it didn't come from the Clintons

[FrenchieCat]

16. Time-Warner who also owns the Clinton News Network is for

Clinton!

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

Weapons Industry WarLords Back Hillary Clinton, along with Wall Street Investment Bankers: her position on wars is like Lieberman Options
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/72ddcef300b05e2a


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907O.shtml

[goldcanyonaz]

3. "Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Hillary"

:cry:

So many of us have been YELLING about this for the past few months too.

What can we do now?

[scheming daemons]

4. Nothing.... it is false.....

Obama does much better head-to-head against McCain than Hillary does.


You can't win the GE without independents and crossover GOP. You can't win the Presidency with just Democrats alone.

That's why Obama is the better choice for us. Hillary will win the Democratic voters... Obama will win the Democratic voters, the Independent voters, and disaffected GOP voters.

Hillary's only chance is a 50%+1 strategy in the fall. Obama has the potential to defeat McCain in an electoral college landslide.

Hillary will have no coattails, or even negative coattails, for Democrats down-ticket in competitive races... resulting in a smaller majority for Democrats in congress, or even a Republican takeover.

Obama will have STRONG coattails for Democrats down-ticket... especially those in red states.... resulting in a STRENGTHENED majority in congress for the Democrats.


Hillary CAN beat McCain... but it would be barely.

Obama WILL beat McCain... and it will be a bloodbath for the GOP.

[lapfog_1]

5. Why in the hell would they want to face Obama in the fall,

Well, I don't care anymore.

I know that the thought of a Hillary presidency scares the pee out of them. Maybe they've already figured to lose it to a Democrat so it might as well be Obama. I don't think repukes give a damn about McCain winning. Not the Karl Rove types. So maybe they have all figured to go ahead and let McCain have his shot, kinda like letting Bob Dole be the sacrificial lamb in 1996. And come 2012, they come back with a Trent Lott or Newt or somebody.

Frankly, I don't really believe the article as written (either the Time article or the TheCityEdition slant on it.

The repukes have wanted to run against Hillary from like 3 years ago. I just don't think they expected their nominee to be McCain.

[LadyVT]

12. watch Larry King's episode from tonight, the last 10 minutes

[anamandujano]

13. Could you tell us what it was about. I don't watch King.

TIA

[LadyVT]

23. Oh, poo--I shouldn't watch CNN either, they are so biased...but here you go

I wrote this in another thread, but in summary, in the last few minutes, a former Bush (!) scriptwriter confronted what seemed to be a pro-Obama talking head (who was actually a Republican strategist), asking her about her enthusiasm for Obama, given that she is a Republican. (And she was a really annoying person, IMHO, and few people genuinely annoy me.) Didn't she think Obama could beat McCain. She said Obama is a "monosyllabic" man who "grunts." She said the fact that an "unknown" man who rocketed to frontrunner status from one speech he gave in 2004 says a lot about the Democratic party, that they are willing to get behind a man whom they don't really know, who is, basically, insubstantial. She said it more clearly than I just did.

It was interesting, because she had been singing his praises for most of the show.

[anamandujano]

25. Thanks, they're showing themselves early; they must think he

has it wrapped up.

I used to watch CNN a lot, finally just got rid of cable to keep my stress level manageable (the less politics, the better).

[lapfog_1]

27. Most people don't feel that way and it would be hard to convince someone

of that.

monosyllabic grunts... an Obama speech? that's just silly and false on the face of it.

So... some airhead repuke strategist comes out and says some NEGATIVE things about Obama and believes that he will be easier to beat than Hillary. That would be Ms. Hillary Rodham CLINTON. You know, the one they think had Vince Foster killed. The one they believe did some financial shenanigans with a land deal called Whitewater. The one they have all kinds of campaign finance crap on, the one the base of the republican party knows and HATES with a passion. That one. She will be harder to beat than an unknown.

right.

And you are, apparently, buying this.

Being in agreement with such a creature (repuke strategist) should be your first clue that something isn't right with this picture.

I don't watch CNN because of Wolf, Dobbs, King, William Bennett, Sanjay Gupta, Soledad O'Brien, and Jeff Toobin.

I like Cafferty and Christiane Amanpour... but they aren't on frequently enough to make up for the decided FOX like tilt of the network. I think of CNN as FAUX-light.

[lapfog_1]

14. No... I never watch CNN

or the Clinton News Network.

Especially Larry King.

So you can either tell me what happened or provide a link to the good bits that you want me to watch.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Frum, the guy that wrote Bush's AXIS of EVIL speech was taking up for Hillary......

and later he and the Blonde GOP Chick said that they would get Barack on National Security.....cause we all know we prefer a War Monger to Barack anyday.

Frum also said that Barack had not accmplished anything....although he has, of course, and the world will know this better.

So Hillary people are trying to find an electibility argument for their First Lady morphed into Commander in Chief whatever way they can. Grasping at straws and turning it into what they hope folks will buy......especially the superdelegates.

It's actually pitiful.

To think that a First Lady Warmonger is somehow suited to go up against a War Hero Warmonger.

The Hillary people don't understand that Warmongers come a dime a dozen.......and if left to choose if anything of National Security happens, it won't be Hillary, who can't even run a decent campaign, that will come up on top.

[FlyingTiger]

6. Hilarious.

Did Bill learn that he could start writing under a pseudonym?

[Emit]

9. Hillary had to have known this would happen

seriously, did she suspect anything less?

[LadyVT]

10. Yes, of course. They aren't just going to take defeat, are you kidding?

These are smart, sophisticated people with a lot of money. While the country sings songs and chants change! change! hope! hope!

Sigh.

[lapfog_1]

17. And you are thinking... what???

that all these smart people with all that money have decided that they can beat Obama EASIER than they can beat Hillary???

Really?

You honestly believe that?

Even when every poll already taken shows McCain having a tough time against Obama... but a much easier time against Hillary. So these smart rich people go out and spend their money to make sure they have a HARDER campaign?

Because that is what the OP says they are doing... basically vote rigging the system with cross over voters to ensure that Obama wins.

Why in the hell would you believe that?

[LadyVT]

20. Because the Republicans haven't even begun to take Obama apart yet.

Did you not witness the past 30ish years of American politics? They wait until there is a nominee.

[lapfog_1]

24. That doesn't answer any of my questions.

So they haven't started in on Obama yet. So what.

Why would they WANT to start out in the hole with ground to make up?

Everybody has the poll numbers. Everybody knows that McCain currently loses to Obama, and maybe beats Hillary or it's a tie. Why start out by preferring the candidate that they DON'T have umpteen years of accumulated dirt, the candidate that doesn't have negatives in the high 40's, the candidate that ISN'T the one that really motivates their base???

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. I recommended this ...

because it already had 4 recs and it was only a matter of time before another Hillary supporter hit the button. So what the heck.

:P

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. Here's a dumb question...

Why would Rove be trying to deny the nomination to someone who consistently loses to McCain in head-to-head matchup polling? Someone whom nearly everyone agrees would mobilize the Republican base to get out to the polls so they can vote against her? Especially since that would also help them take back the House and Senate?

Take your time.......

[LadyVT]

21. Before Obama was a known entity, Clinton was "inevitable," remember?

If/when Obama knocks her out of the race, they will start examining his record, his church, his conservative religious beliefs, his speeches, his plans, his background, his drug use, everything. They've thrown what they have at her already. They haven't begun to launch on him yet. He isn't Teflon man, he's a human being, and although his Democratic supporters may be unwilling to listen, there just may be a lot of others who will be.

They only need just less than half the vote to win the election, remember!!!

[FlyingSquirrel]

22. Oh, believe me I know.

But he doesn't start out with such high negative numbers. She already has so many people dead set against her, their job is already mostly done. Still doesn't answer why they would not rather run against Hillary when she does such an effective job of turning out their base for them.

[anamandujano]

26. Repukes have been working on Hillary's negatives since she hit

the scene, $300 million alone just for health care. And she's still standing. They know they can't win against her.

They won't have to spend that much money to take Obama down. That's why they want him in the general. They're trying to defeat Hillary in the primaries with Repuke crossovers and their always ready medal.

[goldcanyonaz]

28. Exactly, and she still is standing. She's a fighter!

[FlyingSquirrel]

29. I've heard the "still standing" argument before.

She's "still standing" in a safe Democratic seat. Well, I'll let you have the last word if you want it. I just know in my bones that if she is the nominee she will go down in flames. Everyone I have talked to in real life feels the same way. We'll just have to agree to disagree - I think Obama and Clinton supporters both feel the other camp is sadly mistaken and it's too bad there's such a division in our party right now but then again, unifying around Kerry early on didn't help us either. I'd say God help us, but if there were a just God, Bush would never have been inflicted on our country.

[lapfog_1]

30. Your concern is appreciated.

but misplaced.

I, sadly, have about 12 freeper like beings in my family of voting age. To a person they have told me that they will vote against Hillary. However, especially in the younger set (my nieces and nephew and their spouses) 5 or maybe 6 have told me that they will vote for Obama should he be on the ballot.

Anecdotal... sure. But I suspect that this is actually very widespread.

They have rooms of files on Hillary and the Clintons. Don't forget Richard Mellon Scaife. The base hates her, the party elite have spent millions of their own dollars to dig the dirt on her and Bill, Hillary is who they want to face. Hillary is the one that they already have the smear videos made, the swiftboat books written. Not Obama.