Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?

The Democrats, especially Obama’s camp, need to make sure this story stays in the news. Via Alternet:

As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state’s 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore — under penalty of law — allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?

In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh, the nation’s top-rated talk radio host, was urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to skip their party’s primary on March 4 and instead cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the fight between her and Barack Obama. And that Tuesday, as media in both states reported, thousands of Republicans did just what Limbaugh and others had suggested — they changed parties to vote for Clinton.

“I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura,” Limbaugh told Laura Ingraham on Feb. 29, near the start of his Hillary crusade. “This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it’s obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don’t have the stomach for it, as you probably know.”

And on Wednesday, the day after the Ohio primary, Fox News asked Clinton if she owed Limbaugh a thank you. “Be careful what you wish for, Rush,” she replied. Later that day, Limbaugh played the Fox tape on his show and said, “How do you interpret this, folks? She could have said thank you. She could have said thank you! In fact, I was expecting in her victory speech last night to be thanked.

“I helped give Mrs. Clinton the biggest and happiest moment and night of the campaign season so far, maybe her life, and she tells me, “Be careful what you wish for, Rush”? Why, that sounds like a threat, does it not? I’ve got a Democrat presidential candidate threatening your host. Why, I am stunned! After all I did …”

While this all makes for great talk radio and sounds like fun, there is one catch: What Limbaugh encouraged Republican voters to do in Ohio was a fifth-degree felony in that state, punishable with a $2,500 fine and six to 12 months in jail. That is because in order to change party affiliation in Ohio, voters have to fill out a form swearing allegiance to that party’s principles “under penalty of election falsification.”

I think they need to go even further with this and disqualify the delegates Clinton won in those disputed races. If that happens, Obama would clearly have enough delegates to win the nomination right now.

Clinton big dollar donors threaten Pelosi and the DCCC

Hilary Clinton proves beyond a doubt that she cares more about her own quest for power than she does about the Democratic party and the rest of the country. She doesn’t care who she destroys in her attempt to get elected. She would rather hand the election to McCain than give in to the will of the people.

Her delegates from Texas and Ohio should be disqualified, since it’s clear that her wins in those states were a direct result of Republicans, who have no intention of voting for her in November, voting for her in the Democratic primary for the sole purpose of prolonging her campaign and weakening the Democrats.

Via Daily Kos: Certain people still think they can bully politicians by waving their checkbooks in their faces.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.'”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner

The Obama campaign responds:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it.  Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

One side is looking to build a consensus and win on the strength of voters, the other side is looking to divide and harm the party. It’s easy to see which is which.

Hope

A great article in Newsweek gives some good insight into Barack Obama’s personality and background. I believe his heritage gives him a unique perspective on America that would make him a great president. He makes me proud of this country and I think President Obama would raise the world’s opinion of us and repair the damage done by Bush.

For those who dismiss the cult of personality surrounding him, I’d like to point out that every president since Reagan has been elected based on their charisma and likability, not their policy. Bush didn’t win because people agreed with his policies, but because he was the candidate people “wanted to hang out and have a beer with”, while his Democratic opponents seemed cold & stiff.

Obama has a unique ability to unite the country and move beyond partisan bickering. Handling situations with diplomacy and respect rather than bluster & threats will make him a strong and effective leader.

obama_poster_small.gif

A view of Obama from South Africa

Someone emailed me a link to this article in which a white South African gives his views on Obama.

A racial divide, once lived, dwells in the deepest parts of the psyche. This is what was captured by Barack Obama’s pitch-perfect speech on race. Slavery was indeed America’s “original sin.â€? Of course, “the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crowâ€? lives on in forms of African-American humiliation and anger that smolder in ways incommunicable to whites.

It takes bravery, and perhaps an unusual black-white vantage point, to navigate these places where hurt is profound, incomprehension the rule, just as it takes courage to say, as Obama did, that black “anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.â€?

Progress, since the Civil Rights Movement, or since apartheid, has assuaged the wounds of race but not closed them. To carry my part of shame is also to carry a clue to the vortexes of rancor for which Obama has uncovered words.

I understand the rage of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, however abhorrent its expression at times. I admire Obama for saying: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.â€?

Honesty feels heady right now. For seven years, we have lived with the arid, us-against-them formulas of Bush’s menial mind, with the result that the nuanced exploration of America’s hardest subject is almost giddying. Can it be that a human being, like Wright, or like Obama’s grandmother, is actually inhabited by ambiguities? Can an inquiring mind actually explore the half-shades of truth?

Yes. It. Can.

The unimaginable South African transition that Nelson Mandela made possible is a reminder that leadership matters. Words matter. The clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years.

Like countless others, I came to America because possibility is broader here than in Europe’s narrower confines. Perhaps it’s my African “original sin,â€? but when Obama says he “will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible,â€? I feel fear slipping away, like a shadow receding before the still riveting idea that “out of many we are truly one.â€?

Clinton can thank Republicans for primary wins

Republicans have been voting for Hillary Clinton in open Democratic primaries in an attempt to damage the Democrats. According to exit polls, Republican voters have cast about 100,000 votes for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi.

Since Sen. John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November.

With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others think she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

“It’s as simple as, I don’t think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice,” said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. “I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough people to keep her out of office.”

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, 66, a retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio’s primary to further confuse the Democratic race. “I’m pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it’s great, it’s wonderful,” he said. “It broke my heart, but I had to.”

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

If we can verify the number of votes cast for Hillary by Republicans trying to disrupt the open Democratic primaries, those votes should be invalidated and Hillary should lose those delegates.

Obama's Speech

Obama’s speech was simply brilliant. He said exactly what needed to be said about race and religion in America. Drawing on his half-black, half-white roots, Obama urged Americans to break “a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years.”

The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Obama said sermons delivered by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “rightly offend white and black alike.” While Obama rejected what Wright said, he also embraced the man who inspired his Christian faith, officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and has been his spiritual guide for nearly 20 years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Obama said he came to Wright’s church because he was inspired by Wright’s message of hope and his inspiration to rebuild the black community.

Obama said Wright’s comments have sparked a discussion that reflect complexities of race in the United States that its people have never really resolved.

We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country, But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Obama said anger over those injustices often find voice in black churches on Sunday mornings.

The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.

Obama argued that the anger often distracts from solving real problems and bringing change. But he said it also exists in some segments of the white community that feels blacks are often given an unfair advantage through affirmative action.

If we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.â€?

Obama wrote the speech himself. These are his own words, not some speechwriter. Read the full text of his speech here.

Double standard

It looks like we have a bit of a double standard for candidates religious connections. People are up in arms over the statements by Pastor Wright of Obama’s church, yet they find nothing wrong with McCain’s support for Pastor John Hagee.

Obama’s religious beliefs don’t concern me since, like most Democrats, he understands that religion is a personal matter and can separate his personal beliefs from his public policy. No Republican seems to be capable of doing the same.

Is Karl Rove working for Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton seems to be running her campaign right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. She’s obsessed at winning at any cost with no regard to how much damage she does to the party and the country. Her tactics pretty much guarantee a Republican win in November when she can praise McCain while attacking Obama:

In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002” line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the “Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience” part of that sentence? (via Washington Monthly)

She’s now doing the Republicans job for them. Every poll has shown that she would lose against McCain while Obama would beat him. The Republicans have already chosen their candidate while the Democrats are still fighting. The longer this drags out, the less chance of a Democratic victory in November. If anything, Clinton is the one candidate who can unite the Republicans to insure a win for McCain.