The evidence is overwhelming .....Texas style.
Submitted by mad4clark on February 23, 2008 - 10:35am.
Barack Obama | karl rove | Democratic politics
Last week I posted evidence that the Republicans were gaming the system.
Well, here they go again.....
E-mail to send to Texas Republicans
Sat, 02/16/2008 - 10:49pm — afnighthawkAttention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!
On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!
Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!
Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.
After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.
I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!
Guess who they are afraid of facing in November?
The answer isn't Barack Obama.
Once again Democrats are being played for suckers, but I guess the old adage is still true......
We get the government we deserve.
...that the argument that Clinton is in danger of losing if she were to become the nominee due to prejudice against her doesn't hold a lot of water anymore. And that's for 2 reasons, in my opinion:
1) The general take that this is a more favorable election season for Democrats, and
2) That Hillary has become far better known (and liked) personally to voters over this extended season; a season that has greatly energized Democrats and Independents in general; far fewer folks are as apathetic as they have been for so long, especially on the Democratic side as this primary season has engaged them - as both candidates have made themselves known to them when their votes have mattered more than they have for so long.
Here's to us all...
LindaG
...the last thing the Republicans want is someone in the WH who will fight for a progressive agenda. But there is also the simple fact that every time the Clintons have taken on the Republicans, they have won.....twice for the presidency and twice for the Senate
An Obama nomination is a win win for them. He'll be easier to beat in November.....but if he does pull it off, they get a conciliatory Dem president who just wants to "stop the bickering".....which he blames just as much on the Dems as the Reps.....no really!
I guess he has been in a coma the past 7 years?
Anyone with half a brain knows that Republicans do not play the bipartisanship game. Even in the minority in Congress and with a President who's ratings are in the 30s, they have fought the Dems tooth and nail. They simply do not stand down. So the only way to stop the bickering is to capitulate and since Obama's campaign has been all about throwing progressive ideas under a bus and since he has a record of watering down legislation in favor of big business just to get it passed, he is certainly a good second choice for them.
They get a Dem president who will allow them to regain their respectability so they can regroup and make their come back.
Karl Rove couldn't be happier with the way things are turning out.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
to me, if he secures the nomination, and if he then secures the office, it still signals a rw victory in that the country took a big old side step to the right, once again, and claimed it as the center.
If this happens, I will have to be content with stripping the D I put next to my name for WKC off my voter registration & replacing it with an I, and being happy in that we'd then have a POTUS who was a constitutional law scholar.
Might I find a president at church, then, since I will find a pope as president?
I wish we'd follow the example of Australia & elect a heads down steady as she goes POTUS- oops, there goes that "she" again. ;)
whatever. I had a POTUS I couldn't stand the thought of for 7 into 8 years, this will certainly pale by comparison if it comes to pass.
there's something so fundamentally wrong with all of this.
Iraq - back burner - horserace- feels like we've been sloggnig through the serial obsession as Gore would call it of that for a year plus now already. The hyper-focus on the personality parade has squeezed all the oxygen out of the room. It's really something.
http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=carl%20rove%20sex%20setup&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Rove/Rove.html
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_8329426
GOP worker says Karl Rove sought sex info on then-governor of Alabama
By Ben Evans, The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 02/21/2008 09:09:04 PM PST
I posted A Blog for this, I think this is serious...for America...along with the info Mad posted..
WASHINGTON - A former Republican campaign worker claims that President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, asked her to find evidence that the Democratic governor of Alabama at the time was cheating on his wife, according to an upcoming broadcast of "60 Minutes."
Jill Simpson, who has long alleged that Rove may have influenced the corruption prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman, makes the claim in a broadcast scheduled to be aired Sunday, according to a statement from CBS.
Simpson testified to congressional investigators last year that she overheard conversations among Republicans in 2002 indicating that Rove was involved in the Justice Department's prosecution of Siegelman. She has never before said Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, denied the allegation.
"Mr. Rove never made such a request to her or anyone else," Luskin said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Except keep fighting it to the end...
If O wins the nomination, as I've said before: If all the Repubs and Indys who caucused for him here in NV come out for him in the GE, he will win the State of NV in an unprecedented landslide. We may just find out, if this works for them in TX.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
GOP Meddling Bodes Ill for Democrats Add to Hotlist
by sricki, Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:57:09 PM EST
Republicans have won five out of the last seven presidential elections. Not too shabby. And who is the only Democrat who's managed to beat them in the last 28 years? A lying, corrupt, backroom deal-making, racist Clinton - at least, that seems to be the way a lot of people view him. Read the posts of some (not all) Obama supporters. You'll see more venom directed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton than toward George Bush. I think that's a problem.Say what you will about the GOP, but you have to admit: They know how to play the game. If you guys think they'll give up the White House without a fight simply because they're dispirited, listless, and displeased with McCain, think again. People seem to have become overconfident because of the incredibly high turnout in Democratic primaries this time around, but let's not forget that turnout was pretty enthusiastic in 1988, too (almost double that of the Republicans). Yet the Democrats still lost.
This was brought to my attention this morning. It's basically a memo advising Republicans to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary in Texas. It assures Republicans that McCain has the nomination locked up and that voting for Obama will not affect their ability to vote for McCain in the fall. Besides, it's worth the trouble to ensure that we see "no more Clintons in the White House!" Obama supporters will probably think this is a good thing - it suits their short-term interests, and the GOP is a powerful ally. Besides, who cares that they're meddling in the nomination process? The end justifies the means, right? Well, maybe. But if you aren't concerned about the implications of all this, you're not thinking clearly. We hear a lot of Republican strategists on T.V. claiming that they'd rather run against Hillary in the fall because she'd be easier to beat. Okay... Then why are so many of them determined to knock her out before she reaches the general election, even if it means they have to run against a "more difficult" opponent?
But maybe this whole "vote for Obama to sabotage Clinton" thing is no big deal - just a few hardcore Clinton-hating Republicans out to help Obama, right? No. This is a big operation. If you haven't already read this, check out Karl Rove giving Obama (unsolicited) advice on how to beat Hillary Clinton. For me, this doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in Obama's ability to win the general election. Karl Rove, scum though he is, is a very formidable strategist. This is the man who managed to get George W. Bush elected to the presidency... twice. Do you honestly think he's just happily handing the White House over to Barack Obama? No, the man has a plan.
At this point, from much of the GOP's perspective, there's no way Hillary can recover; personally, I disagree, but as far as most Republicans are concerned, Obama is effectively the nominee. So now it's time for Rove and the rest of the attack dogs to go after him. Now that they think they're safe from Hillary, they can throw themselves at the man they assume will the last Democrat standing.
So once again, Karl Rove may play a huge role in determining who wins the presidential election, simply by "bamboozling the American electorate" yet again. Republicans don't like Clintons. A Clinton beat them. "Polarizing" figure though she may be, the GOP is still frightened of Hillary, and they will go to great lengths to take her down. Obama fans, enjoy your unlikely allies and strange bedfellows while you have them. But remember that they'll be lying awake, waiting to stab you in the back the moment you fall asleep. Republicans are just loving the conflict within the Democratic party, and they'll do anything they can to help things along and guarantee that there are a whole hell of a lot of bad feelings when it's all over with.
Talk about a vast Right-wing conspiracy.
The GOP is smart. Republicans are clever, sneaky, and brutal, especially during election years. And right now, they're practicing one of the cardinal strategies of politics: Divide and conquer.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/21/14579/9330
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Record it if possible. Rove is taken to task. My sister in Ca. alerted me, along with the websites i have posted above or below. VERY INTERESTING INFO there.
As Richard Murray, a renowned political science professor at UH, has talked about, this certainly reflects a deep prejudice within Republican circles about Hillary Clinton. But it also reflects the fear that this political season favors the Democrats in general; that *whoever* the nominee is will be in a better position to win in November. So the logic follows that if you want to stop the Dem nominee whom you most do not want to see in the White House, that begins with the primary because Republicans are not as likely to pull off the general this year.
Here's to us all...
LindaG