Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

At least 13 companies receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a lawmaker said Thursday.

The lawmaker, Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia and chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two companies owed more than $100 million each.

The House Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the companies receiving the most bailout money, Mr. Lewis said, as he opened a hearing on the issue.

“This is shameful; it is a disgrace,” he said. “We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here.”

The subcommittee said it could not legally release the names of the companies owing taxes.

Well, why the hell NOT??

If they can identify themselves to take OUR hard earned money, they can DAMN sure reveal themselves, or have Congress do it for them. That is absurd!

And John Lewis should sure know about shameful and disgraceful conduct, after the way he plunged the knife into Hillary Clinton’s back about a thousand times (you may recall, he was one of her early supporters who sang her praises up one side and down the other. Until the Black Caucus and Jesse Jackson, Jr., on behalf of Barack Obama, told him, and a few other African American congresspeople who supported Clinton, that if they did not toe the line and support Obama, they could expect to have some heavily funded challengers come nest election season. So, he caved. Yes, he did. In the “karma sucks” department, though, he is having to face a challenger anyway because he supported Clinton in the FIRST place. Obama is just a tad vindictive, you see. Serve’s his ass right, though, for having no freakin’ integrity.

That is to say, spare me the indignation, Rep. Lewis.

Get this:

It said one recipient had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second recipient owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004.

Mr. Lewis said that his panel planned to review tax records from other companies receiving federal money, but that he was unsure if it would look at every one.

Banks and other companies receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating that they had no unpaid taxes, Mr. Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.

The Internal Revenue Service, a division of the Treasury Department, said it would expect the unpaid taxes to be paid.

Oh, yeah – I’m sure Timmy Geithner is gonna get RIGHT on that!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But here’s the thing, Rep. Lewis. Y’ALL are the ones who crafted this document WITH NO OVERSIGHT IN SIGHT. And you’re going to come back NOW and pretend outrage that these companies, who owe MILLIONS of taxes, are getting OUR tax money??? Seems to me the Congress just helped them STEAL money. Our money.

And if they had to sign a statement stating they didn’t owe taxes and took BILLIONS anyway, then why aren’t they being brought up on CRIMINAL charges? And WHY WON’T YOU REVEAL THEIR NAMES???? So much for transparency, eh, Rep. Lewis??

Oh, and get this hilarious joke:

“The I.R.S. recognizes that those entities that receive taxpayer support have a special obligation to pay their taxes,” an agency spokesman, Frank Keith, said in a statement. “And these taxpayer accounts will remain closely monitored by the I.R.S. to ensure that the full amount of taxes due are paid.”

Mr. Keith said there could be many reasons for an unpaid balance, including the possibility that a bill was being challenged.

Yeah, sure, okay – because the IRS has proved to be so competent in retrieving these high dollar taxes. Just spare me already. Now the rest of us know what Geithner and Daschle have known for a while – the IRS isn’t exactly Johnny-On-The-Spot in securing taxes from the high rollers!

And while I am talking about Tim Geithner, my favorite economist, Paul Krugman, had this piece in the NY Times, Despair Over Financial Policy. Krugman writes:

The Geithner plan has now been leaked in detail. It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won.

The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.

To this end the plan proposes to create funds in which private investors put in a small amount of their own money, and in return get large, non-recourse loans from the taxpayer, with which to buy bad — I mean misunderstood — assets. This is supposed to lead to fair prices because the funds will engage in competitive bidding.

But it’s immediately obvious, if you think about it, that these funds will have skewed incentives. In effect, Treasury will be creating — deliberately! — the functional equivalent of Texas S&Ls in the 1980s: financial operations with very little capital but lots of government-guaranteed liabilities. For the private investors, this is an open invitation to play heads I win, tails the taxpayers lose. So sure, these investors will be ready to pay high prices for toxic waste. After all, the stuff might be worth something; and if it isn’t, that’s someone else’s problem.

Or to put it another way, Treasury has decided that what we have is nothing but a confidence problem, which it proposes to cure by creating massive moral hazard.

This plan will produce big gains for banks that didn’t actually need any help; it will, however, do little to reassure the public about banks that are seriously undercapitalized. And I fear that when the plan fails, as it almost surely will, the administration will have shot its bolt: it won’t be able to come back to Congress for a plan that might actually work.

What an awful mess.

Well, that’s the understatement of the 21st century.

I could be wrong, but didn’t people actually go to JAIL for the Texas S&L scandal??? Now Obama and Co. are actively PURSUING that strategy? What the hell is wrong with this picture???

Yes, this IS an “awful mess.” When are the grown ups going to come along and put a stop to it, I wonder? Oh, wait – WE are the grown ups, and we have to tell them enough, no more, stop giving our tax dollars to companies that can’t be bothered to pay THEIR taxes. Stop setting up plans that are identical to illegal strategies for which people have served time. Stop enabling this inept president who claims he didn’t even know what was in the Stimulus bill he signed into law, which included a provision his chief of staff and his Treasury Secretary set in place. Stop the freakin’ faux outrage, too, while you’re at it, because we aren’t buying the crap you are selling. And what you are selling is us down the river. Enough already!

Barack Obama has a coal problem. Responding to yesterday’s revelation that Barack Obama intends to bankrupt all plants that operate on energy generated from coal, Chris Hamilton, the Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal Association, called Obama’s comments in San Francisco “unbelievable.” I quote the West Virginia Record:

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama’s comments “unbelievable.”

“His comments are unfortunate,” Chris Hamilton said Sunday, “and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.”

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

“In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said ‘not here’ about building coal-fired power plants — this is exactly what will happen,” Hamilton said. “Financing won’t be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

“If we’re going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.”

In other words, the workers of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana and all the other states in which coal is mined, processed and converted to electricity should be prepared to have their jobs outsourced under an Obama Presidency. That is not the change the economically battered Ohio River Valley needs. It is also not the change those of us who consume electricity need. Just imagine the cost of our energy bills if coal plants, which generates 49% of our electricity, are bankrupted and eliminated.

American Girl in Italy asks No Quarter readers to disseminate the following recording of Barack Obama’s statement on bankrupting coal plants far and wide.

And I offer more information on who will be affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy in an essay I published yesterday.

Clearly Obama’s statements will have electoral effects in West Virginia, where he has already garnered opposition from leaders of the industry that is that state’s main economic engine. But we must ensure voters in Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are armed with these facts before they cast votes tomorrow.

Sarah Palin is doing everything within her power to ensure voters in the Ohio River Valley understand the implications and ramifications of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on energy produced from coal. I quote CBS News:

(MARIETTA, OHIO) – Seizing on a newly released audio tape picked up by the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin took the opportunity here in coal country to accuse Barack Obama of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry.”

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”

The audiotape Palin was referring to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview.

“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin asked, leading someone in the crowd to shout, “Liberal media!”

“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

Marietta, Ohio, is located on the Ohio River on the border between Ohio and West Virginia. This is the perfect place to discuss Obama’s desire to bankrupt the coal industry, for many of the workers in that city and its environs earn their wages in mines and in factories reliant on coal.

And Sarah and the audience in Marietta, Ohio, are correct: we only learned about this now as a result of the venal and obsequious media’s suppression of any and all information that is unfavorable to Barack Obama. Just witness CNN’s attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

Contrary to her attempts to portray a media cover-up, audio and video recordings of Obama’s January 17 sit-down with the Chronicle editorial board have been freely available online for more than nine months.

In the interview, Obama said that his “aggressive” cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In the interview, Obama also made the case for alternative energy sources, adding that he does not believe coal production will be eliminated, and that he supports carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

John McCain also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions.

Regardless, Palin sought to use Obama’s words against him in a part of the country where coal has long been king.

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen.”

The media, it seems, will not inform working class voters of Obama’s attempts to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and raise our electricity bills. But Sarah Palin and those who care about the economy of West Virginia and other states in the Ohio River Valley will. And so will we, for we understand that the elimination of jobs in a region of a country Obama already insulted with his comments in San Francisco about those bitter small town voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio who cling to guns and religion will not solve America’s economic woes. Indeed, it will only exacerbate the current recession.

Let us stand with West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley and defend those who rely on coal for their economic livelihood. This is certainly what Hillary would do. I quote the Sun-Times article I cite above:

After the quotes [about "bitter clingers"] surfaced on a political blog Friday, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP hopeful John McCain immediately decried them as evidence that Obama is “elitist” or “out of touch.”

“My opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia. “As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves … Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them.”

And yes, Barack Obama is an elitist politician who “looks down on” voters in the Ohio River Valley and in other areas of the country that rely on coal. Hillary Clinton does not, and neither does John McCain. Here is John McCain yesterday campaigning in Pennsylvania:

SCRANTON, Pa. — Campaigning in coal-rich Pennsylvania, GOP presidential nominee John McCain pledged this afternoon that if elected president, he would ensure that the U.S. exports coal overseas — something that U.S. policy already permits.

At the same time, the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee reportedly launched robocalls in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other coal states attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on coal.

Mocking Obama for a comment he made in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January — “The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster,” Obama had said — McCain promised the audience at the University of Scranton that he’s been a proud coal cheerleader in the past, and plans to be one in the future.

“My friends, you know what Senator Obama said about a year ago, he said he had not been a, quote, coal booster,” he said, as the crowd booed. “My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The robocalls have been placed, but we must ensure the voters understand that Obama desires to bankrupt the coal industry and increase the prices of our energy bills. We have one day, and this must be done. Circulate the video I cite above.

———————————————-

[UPDATE]: Ohio Coal Association issues a scathing statement on Barack Obama’s statement. I quote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov 03, 2008 /PRNewswire–USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation’s coal industry.

“Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

“These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.
“It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

“Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

“In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation’s long-term energy security – a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

“Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.”

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio’s underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

Representing 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 associate members in related industries, the OCA will deliver many Ohio votes to John McCain.

Words do matter, I guess.

As you probably also know, Mr. Fund has written a book, “Stealing Elections, Revised and Updated: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.”

In 20 minutes following publication of this story — at 3:00 a.m. ET (Monday, Nov. 3, 2008) — BookTV.org (C-Span2) is airing a one-hour speech and Q&A with John Fund.

You may also watch the video at any time here at BookTV.org.

What else is going on so early in the morning? Have you caught the latest on the breaking news about Obama’s intentions to bankrupt coal-reliant businesses and industries? NOTE the states listed above in the categories; workers and businesses in all of those states, and more, could be devastated by Obama’s schemes.

Here’s what we know so far:

Among the LATEST NEWS: Sarah Palin is speaking out about Barack Obama and coal, according to Memeorandum.com.

If you missed our reporting on this breaking story, please check out:

• Truthteller’s Sunday afternoon story, “MEMO to Voters in States Producing and Relying On Coal: Obama Intends to Bankrupt Your Businesses and Your Industries,” and
• American Girl in Italy’s call to action, “ACTION ALERT – Obama has promised to bankrupt coal plants.”

We hope to publish more on this “hot” story later today.

Search all kinds of sites, mommy sites, restaurant/city blogs, online newspapers, grocery stores…anything and everything!! We need to get this message out to the people that this will effect. Those who don’t live this stuff 24/7. Look for sites that are supporting Obama, too.

Try to post this video on web sites in these states: Montana, Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia and Texas.

States like WV have experienced devastating consequences from collapsing industries. They won’t want more of the same.

See Truthteller’s earlier post, for a more in-depth look at this.

You can make a difference TODAY! This will change people’s minds.

Let Obama speak for himself, just copy and paste the headline and link to the video:

(and I’m sure I don’t need to remind people to be polite. :O)

Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Montana, Illinois, Virginia, North Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Utah, Ohio, Alabama and Arizona: these coal producing states will be adversely affected by Barack Obama’s energy policy.

Imagine mines closing, factories closing, jobs lost, towns abandoned, small businesses failing, pensions lost, wages dropping and widespread economic depression in states that rely on coal mining and processing. This is what Obama’s cap and trade system will engender in states such as WV, PA, MT, VA, ND, CO, IN, NM, OH and AZ. Just listen to this audio of Obama discussing how he will bankrupt factories and businesses that rely on power generated from coal when he was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008:

[[[TAKE ACTION!! RIGHT NOW!
Start posting this video on sites in the coal based states: Virginia, Montana, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado.]]]

Here is the transcript:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.“

Does Obama realize the number of jobs lost when he arrogantly states that plants will be bankrupted under his energy policy? Does he not understand the number of lives affected?

The Ohio River Basin is one area of the country that will be decimated as a result of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on coal.

And while the economy of the Ohio River Valley is decimated, the following regions of the country will witness no job growth, as the following proposed plants will never be built:

Permits for these proposed plants have already been cancelled:

The West will also be adversely affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy:

Bankrupting an entire industry will destroy the lives of Americans across the country. Both coal produces and consumers will have to fire employees, and this will create widespread job loss and increased economic recession.

More discussion on Obama’s desire to bankrupt coal producers and consumers is available at Memeorandum.

Dear R:

Spread the truth to neighboring states.

Dirty tricks designed to mislead Texas voters have been spreading across the state, and many Obama supporters are getting incorrect information about the voting process.

Bogus claims about voting machines are spreading via email chains — and in one reported case, even broadcast on a Houston radio station — that could have a huge impact on voter turn out on Election Day.

Here is the truth that every Texan should know: If you vote a straight Democratic Ticket you will cast your ballot for Barack.

But Texans are not alone — voters in key neighboring battleground states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Missouri are receiving deceitful automated phone messages and mailers from the McCain campaign spreading vile lies about Barack Obama.

We can’t let dirty tricks and bad information sway this election. We need Texans to step up and spread the truth to other voters — not just here at home, but also in our neighboring states.

Will you stand up for the truth and make a short weekend trip to a key battleground state?

No one is certain who’s behind this latest attempt to influence the election and scare Obama supporters away from the polls on November 4th. But the intent is clear: to steal votes away from Barack and other great Democratic candidates up and down the ticket.

We can be sure that shameless tactics like these will intensify over the next 16 days.

That’s why your help is crucial to making sure that every voter knows the truth about Barack Obama and the change we need in this country.

Forward this email to your friends and family in Texas, then sign up to spread the truth to other voters:

http://tx.barackobama.com/DriveForChange

There is so much at stake in this election. Together, we can make sure that everyone casts their vote for change on November 4th.

Thanks,

Juan

Juan Sepulveda
Texas State Director
Obama for America

P.S. — If you’ve received an email with misinformation about the voting process, report it so that we can make sure that voters across America get the truth about Barack: www.fightthesmears.com/report

Um, Juan? People aren’t so worried they won’t be ABLE to vote. They are worried that too MANY people will vote. Like all those folks the ACORN people registered, often more than once. Often, more than 10 times. Or that people who don’t live there will be able to vote there.

And they are worried that the results will actually matter. You know, like how the caucus results did not match after your thugs commandeered the caucus packets early, and signed people up throughout the day. How they changed the numbers they called in. How they stole the caucus from Hillary Clinton, and the voters of Texas.

So, yeah, Juan, folks aren’t worried that they won’t be able to vote, they are worried about things like the following happening again:

Or like this, and not just in Texas, but Indiana, too:

More on the caucus fraud in Texas. And a Civil Rights Activist talks about what she saw in Indiana of voter suppression:

Frankly, listening to the Civil Rights Activist detail how an elderly woman was intimidated from voting stunned me. Someone who wants Obama to win must tell me WHY this kind of fraud, intimidation, and coercion is acceptable to you. Please. Make me understand why voter fraud is alright with you, because it sure as hell isn’t okay with me. To hear about the rampant, insidious fraud of the caucus system is shocking. But the image of a Civil Rights activist seeing an elderly woman get turned away by someone in her community from exercising her right to vote for whomever she chose is infuriating, and makes me sad beyond words.

But wait – there is one more part to this documentary. In this one, you’ll get a tast of how incredibly vindictive the Obama camp is toward anyone who does not toe the line they have established for them. It is very telling of the Obama camp mindset:

How? How did the Democratic Party get here? How, HOW, do Obama supporters justify this fraud, this theft of the nomination, as we are on the verge of the election? Make me understand, because I sure don’t get how any of this makes Obama an acceptable choice, I surely don’t.

Is Axelrod right? Could it be McCain has energized his base but that Obama remains ahead?

Using Electoral-Vote.com’s numbers, I created a list of red states and compared Obama’s numbers to Kerry’s percentages in 2004. All but three of the state polls are post-Palin.

This is not a comprehensive list of all red states. However, I believe it’s a fair representation of reliable Republican states. Our purpose is to see if there’s been an uptick for McCain over Obama relative to the previous presidential election.

All battleground states are out, regardless of who won in 2004. Additionally, I did not include red states which Obama is now actively fighting for, like Virginia, or historically red states like New Hampshire, which Kerry won. In most states, there’s no difference in the relative position between Kerry’s final result and Obama’s current standing; in other states Obama is actually doing better than Kerry.

Let’s take a look at Axelrod’s assertion that red states are becoming redder:

As you can see, Obama is faring no worse than John Kerry did. In fact, the current state of the race is remarkably similar to the final results in 2004. It follows, then, that state polls reflect similar numbers as 2004. Obama’s weak numbers, as I believe Axelrod is implying, are not coming from intolerant red state voters. According to Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by approximately 2%, and in 2004 Bush beat Kerry by 2.4%. Obama is performing in Republican states about as well as any Democrat could be expected.

Contrary to Axelrod’s statement, Obama’s decline in national polling is not due to inordinately low numbers in deep-red states. Indeed, the opposite is true: Obama is under-performing in reliably Democratic states. As Truthteller demonstrates with the spreadsheet below, Obama is under-performing in blue states such as New York (population 20 million) and New Jersey (population 9 million). These high population Democratic states will skew national numbers far more than low population red states like North Dakota (population 640,000), while Republican Texas (population 24 million), where Obama is in nearly the same spot as Kerry, is easily offset by the densely populated California and Illinois, both states where Obama is doing very well. Additionally, Obama is trending down in the swing state of Ohio:

	New York	New Jersey	Minnesota	Pennsylvania	Ohio
McCain-Palin	41	45	45	47	48
Obama-Biden	46	48	45	47	45

Because of these weak blue- and swing-state numbers, Obama now has to defend more real estate than McCain. Truthteller writes:

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama.

And Hill Buzz sees a potential map-changer in McCain:

If McCain was only leading in Utah by 5 points, we’d say this election was over, and that McCain would lose GOP strongholds.

Instead, the opposite seems to be true. SoetorObama leads in NY by only 5 points, in NJ by 3 points, and in MI and PA by just 2 points.

To us, it looks like McCain could be the one changing the electoral map this year, with traditionally blue states having a better chance of turning red instead of the other way around.

Shortly after Obama’s grandiose trip to Europe, I wrote: “I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America.” There’s nothing earth-shattering in my suggestion, but I think that’s exactly what’s so troubling about the Obama campaign. It’s not the economy, it’s the arrogance. I think Obama’s odd trip to Europe — and the arrogance of selecting Biden over Hillary — is at the heart of many of Obama’s troubles today. The American people will vote for Ivy League candidates, but only those who come to their towns to listen and not to lecture.

Obama’s arrogance is now becoming a matter of concern for Democratic strategists. The statement below by an unnamed source in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph should send fear into the hearts of Obama’s supporters:

A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They’re the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won’t accept that they are losing and they won’t listen.”

With this mentality, it’s no wonder Axelrod is blaming Obama’s woes on red states. Ani writes:

Of course there is a bunker mentality. Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, must protect his carefully sculpted media creation at all costs. Their whole strategy has been to overwhelm their way into the presidency with huge rallies and concerts, presidential emblems, soaring rhetoric and platitudes.

As Americans, we expect certain liberties and rights that were granted us by our forefathers, who wrote documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “We the people” expect that these fundamental rights will always be protected. However, in the current Democratic Presidential Primary, this has not been the case. We believe that the The Democratic National Committee (DNC) made a grave error by depriving American voters of their choice of Hillary Clinton as Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton, by all accounts, except caucuses, won the Primary Election and, therefore, should be the 2008 Democratic Nominee. That didn’t happen, due largely to illegitimate and illegal acts. We have interviews of many accounts from caucus states recounting threats, intimidation, lies, stolen documents, falsified documents, busing in voters in exchange for paying for “dinners,” etc. There are at least 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, of irregularities directed towards the Obama Campaign, that have lead to a very fractured and broken Democratic Party.

The preview, all 33 minutes of it, is compelling. In essence, it is a visual companion to the work of Dr. Lynette Long at Caucus Fraud and Peniel Cronin on Primaries and Caucuses (which will appear at NQ shortly). In short, it is disturbing not just how this happened, but THAT it happened in our country.

I invite you to watch the preview to this documentary, about which the authors said this:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

This documentary contains powerful, important information. I urge you to spread the word however you are able. Now is the time.

To view, CLICK HERE.

My deepest thanks to all of those at “We Will Not Be Silenced” for your commitment to democracy, to the rights of Americans, all Americans, to vote. Thank you for your courage and integrity in getting this critical information out. And thank you for bringing the voices of these Americans out for us all to witness

He’s been called “the Faulkner of crime fiction.” James Lee Burke’s novels are more than just brilliantly-plotted thrillers; they’re lyrical explorations of the American soul. He’s won the Edgar Award twice, been nominated for a Pulitzer, and seen three of his books made into films (the latest, In The Electric Mist With Confederate Dead, is due out this year and stars Tommy Lee Jones as Cajun detective Dave Robicheaux.) Now he’s back on the bestseller list with Swan Peak, the 17th book in the Robicheaux series.

Listen to the livestream broadcast tonight from 9pm to 10pm ET on NoQuarter Radio. The call-in number for questions is (347) 677-0792.

An audio archive of the program will be available on NQR immediately following the broadcast.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

Frances Morey of Austin, a Clinton delegate to the party’s June state convention, noted that Obama lacks the 2,118 delegates needed to seal the nomination. (Projections put him over the threshold based on surveys of superdelegates — party dignitaries and members of Congress who don’t have to commit until the convention.)

“So why is he prancing around in Europe like he’s the president-elect?” Morey said this week. “I cannot vote for him. I cannot bring myself to vote for this poseur.”

Morey said she’ll likely skip the presidential election on her fall ballot.

She’s not the only Texas Democrat refusing to tow the party line.

Houston lawyer Abraham Levit described himself as a Clinton supporter who intends to vote for McCain unless the Arizona senator makes a foolish choice of a running mate.

“I just can’t see myself voting for Obama,” Levit said, listing as factors Obama’s relative inexperience, what Levit views as the “ruled-by-mob” style of the primary-night caucuses and news reports that the candidate has shifted to the right on some issues.

Still others remain on the fence.

Dallas lawyer Doug Haloftis and his partner, Realtor Trent Hagler, raised more than $500,000 for Clinton. They haven’t committed to Obama.

Haloftis said he told an Obama representative he’d be inclined to raise money if Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate.

“Obviously, my efforts would spring into action,” Haloftis said. “Until that (vice presidential) decision is made, it’s really hard to decide to get on board 100 percent.”

My hunch is that unless Obama goes into the Democratic convention trailing John McCain, Obama will not succumb to choosing Senator Clinton as his running mate. And even then, I tend to doubt that Senator Clinton is interested. She has certainly giving no indication that she is.

But don’t worry, Howard Dean insists that they will come around. Yeah, right. They might come around in 2012 if the Democrats revert to being the party that honours its working class roots. Otherwise, all options are on the table.

From my blog, By The Fault.

Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. … PUMA activities seem to be surging lately. …

JustSayNoDeal.com reports more coverage today, including a dynamite LTE, “Party leadership, Obama rejected by these Dems” published in today’s Indianapolis Star newspaper and an original article published at Raw Story, “Hillary supporters, still angry, frustrate attempts at party unity. The Raw Story report features the highly successful protest by PUMA members during Howard Dean’s speech in Charlotte, North Carolina:First, the IndyStar LTE which concisely sums up essential concerns about Barack Obama’s candidacy:

Party leadership, Obama rejected by these DemsWe know very little about Barack Obama, but we do know he is unwilling to take a firm stance on issues.He said he would accept public financing for the general election, and later rejected it.He voted in favor of the government’s eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies after promising his supporters he would reject it.He advocates both an individual’s right to own a gun and the government’s right to regulate ownership.He assured America he would negotiate a better deal with NAFTA and then winked to the Canadian government that this was simply political posturing.He assured his supporters he would pull all American troops out of Iraq immediately. Now he calls this impossible.The list is endless.I am a member of PUMA PAC (People United Means Action), a group of citizens who favored Hillary Clinton and are motivated by belief that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all Democrats in all 50 states. I and thousands of other PUMA members will not vote for Obama, the DNC’s selected, not elected, nominee.Dylan AsdalePUMA PAC DemocratAvon

Here’s a quote from the section of the Raw Story report about that dramatic Charlotte, N.C. protest:

Protesters brought their anger over the supposed mistreatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party to a Howard Dean appearance in Charlotte Friday, some carrying signs that read “Dump Dean.”Two dozen of the New York Senator’s supporters shouted down the Democratic National Committee Chairman with a chorus of, “I own my vote!” the Charlotte Observer reported.The protest was sparked by a rumor that Clinton’s name would not be put in for nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month.The supporters were loud enough that Dean was forced to stop his speech to the 150 people who showed up for the voting rally and address the demonstrators. …

Read all of the Raw Story report, which also covers PUMA members’ statements and strategies in Texas and elsewhere.

In order to “save” the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call “The Architect”.

…………………………..

BY ROSEMARY REGELLO

It’s not every activist politico who gets to write a post in the Washington Times that begins like this: "As I sat by my window and staring out at the wonderful Washington, D.C., landscape, my office announced a phone call from Air Force One."

Evidently, Donna Brazile was reminding all the little people on Capitol Hill that she had friends in high places. In summer of 2007, Bush senior advisor Karl Rove wasn’t answering any subpoenas from Congress, but he didn’t mind talking to Brazile. From his perch at 20,000 feet, he informed her that this was probably a good time for him to get out of Dodge.

“Mr. Rove’s resignation is not a retirement,” Brazile reassured readers of the right of center newspaper. “It’s just another opportunity for him to create that lasting Republican majority he envisioned years ago and to spend his waking days doing what he so enjoys — beating Democrats in the alleys and gutters. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Rove’s target when he called in to speak to Rush Limbaugh. He couldn’t help it. Mr. Rove just had to take one last shot before riding out of town. More to come, Team Clinton.”

Brazile’s breezy account confirms what many have long since suspected. Rove’s claim to be sitting out the 2008 race is hogwash. The mastermind of today’s unraveling U.S. constitution is in no position to kick back, down gin fizzes and watch the country collapse under an Administration he put into office twice. The list of crimes that Bush’s top henchman could potentially be charged with – everything from fraud to war crimes – should be enough to keep him and his fellow Sopranos in hair-trigger mode until the next president gets sworn in. And the notion that he’d leave the choice of commander-in-chief in less capable dirty hands than his own requires more than the willing suspension of disbelief. It requires medication.

That’s why the Rove-Brazile tryst merits further exploration. They first hooked up some time in 2002, according to a New York Times article. The connection might have been a means for Brazile to expand her clientele, but she dismissed that angle in an interview, implying she had bigger fish to fry. It was the Democrats’ lackluster relations with African Americans and poor track record in elections, she said, that led her to start trailblazing new frontiers. To put it in a Brazile nutshell, the Republicans had a better machine.

”The idea is to re-energize the African-American electorate and revive the Democratic Party at the same time,” she told Times reporter Katharine Seelye, ”I want to revitalize the party from the grass roots up. We’re losing voters.”

With that noble cause in mind, she and Rove began to "chirpily exchange e-mail, chat on the phone and write letters, indulging in their shared zeal for the inner workings of politics," Seelye wrote.

Rove said he’d sometimes call Brazile before a press appearance to get feedback on various Bush policy angles he planned to discuss. In exchange, he furnished Brazile’s clients with access to White House social events.

"People think I’m crazy talking to Karl Rove," the strategist confessed to the Washington Post a month after the Times story appeared, "but there’s something about this guy."

Yes, there certainly is something about Karl Rove. In consultation with Vice-President Cheney’s office, it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame’s C.I.A. identity over a flap about uranium in Niger. Three years later, those subpoenas were overflowing his in-box because he’d told Alberto Gonzalez to fire nine U.S. Attorneys who refused to do his bidding. Rove is also under investigation for an entrapment scheme that put Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman in prison for two years.

Those Republicans sure do know how to close the deal in politics. In addition to basking in The Architect’s dapper charm and irresistible company, Brazile opened diplomatic ties across town with archconservative Grover Norquist. Norquist heads one of Jack Abramoff’s favorite charities, Americans for Tax Reform, and is famous for his remark that he’d like to see federal government crippled to the point where he can take it home and drown it in his bathtub. For a brief window of opportunity, he set aside that morbid fantasy to help one of Brazile’s closest friends, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes, push some legislation to increase revenues in her district.

According to the same Times article, “Mr. Norquist said he and Ms. Brazile, both Washington residents, were devising a plan to urge Congress to allow the city to raise the height limit on buildings as a way to broaden the tax base and improve schools.”

Brazile served as Holmes’ chief of staff and press secretary during the nineties. In that same action-packed year, her old boss teamed up with other D.C. officials to schedule an unauthorized, nonbinding earlybird presidential primary for 2004. DNC chair Terry McAuliffe sent sent out calls to the candidates to boycott the affair, but Howard Dean didn’t heed the directive. The former Vermont governor swept into D.C. and gobbled up almost as many endorsements as another candidate, Rev. Al Sharpton. Who needed those arcane DNC rules, anyway?

The Brazile Factor

At the time of these contentious political developments, Brazile chaired the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, a program set up after the Florida recount debacle in 2000. During that earlier episode, she’d experienced firsthand Karl Rove’s unscrupulous knack for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Now she was tasked with brainstorming new strategies to prevent any future gaming of the electoral system.

In 2004, Dean ended his presidential bid after the Wisconsin primary and Kerry lost the general election. This time, Rove generated thousands of extra Bush votes in key Ohio precincts where only a few hundred Republicans lived. Not surprisingly, Brazile remained unimpressed with her party. That winter, she submitted an essay for the left-leaning website Slate.com, which was running a series called “Why Americans Hate Democrats – A Dialog”.

Hard as it must have been to top that inspirational title, the political strategist managed with her piece “Tapping the Obama Factor”. The Chicago politician had just been elevated to the U.S. Senate, but instead of offering an introduction to him, she mostly dwelled on her own life story – rising up from poverty in Louisiana, listening to her grandmother read scripture, etc. etc. Eventually, the essay worked its way back to the stated topic.

"This is a new moment to identify and recruit better messengers," she wrote. "Perhaps it’s time to tap into the ‘Obama’ factor: Scour statehouses for young, energetic, inspiring, and emerging leaders with the ability to connect the head and heart. Too many of the old Democratic guard have stayed in Washington, D.C., too long to fully recognize how most Americans live their lives."

It was a novel way to spin the Illinois election. Obama did score a landslide victory that year, but it had little to do with his age, energy level or the obsolete nature of the Democratic Party establishment. His campaign manager David Axelrod ran the classic Rovian smear campaign, first accusing Obama’s top primary contender of sexual impropriety. After disgracing Blair Hull out of contention, Axelrod used the same device against the G.O.P. primary winner, Jack Ryan.

Of course, this is where things get interesting. House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided he must stick his oar into the battle, calling on Ryan to end his senate bid. The candidate dutifully bowed out, and in his stead, the Illinois Republican Party fielded an unknown, African American bible-thumper from Maryland named Alan Keyes. Clearly, the G.O.P. wanted Obama to win that election. No other explanation can account for the party sacrificing a senate seat to a (supposedly) liberal Democrat who’d (supposedly) spoken out against the Iraq War in 2002.

A Hollywood script writer couldn’t have come up with this storyline. Within a year of arriving in Washington, Brazile’s rising star – the product of a globe-trotting Kansas woman and a philandering tribal leader in Kenya – had launched his presidential exploratory committee. The Internet fundraising team of Howard Dean signed on for the ride. So, too, did some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks, corporate law firms, and energy giants. By the end of 2007, Obama would post a record-breaking haul of $100 million in campaign contributions. And all while he was still "introducing himself", as Brazile and other analysts put it, to the American public.

Who exactly brought the banks and oil companies to the table still remains to be ferreted out, but it wasn’t Dean or Brazile, or even the man who placed Obama on the speaker’s list at the 2004 Democratic Convention, John Kerry. It’s more likely that Karl Rove huddled with top Bush fundraisers to set that gravy train in motion. Among the candidate’s money bundlers were George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar, both oil industry executives. Other Bush campaign pioneers joined the bandwagon soon afterward.

Now Brazile was impressed. Judging from another My Day installment penned in 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, she sounded like a woman who had been born again:

“While my family was hurting, when they were on the edge feeling left to fend for themselves, the last thing I wanted to do was whine. I got into the groove quickly and contacted Ken Melhman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and an old friend, Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House.”

Then she started tossing out the cupcakes: “President Bush, who promised to rebuild the Gulf coast in a speech at Jackson Square, invited some African American leaders over to the White House on December 7th to discuss a broad range of issues…To my great surprise, the meeting with President Bush was cordial and candid. The President listened intently and reassured us that his Administration would not drop the ball.”

Funny how such innocuous fluff takes on a new and sinister meaning when read in hindsight. Yet even from the perspective of a contemporary audience, those claims were a stetch. For people living in New Orleans, the Katrina ball had already been dropped. When the levees broke, Sec. of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was attending a conference on bird flu, the President relaxing on his Crawford ranch. Back in Brazile’s home state, over a thousand people drowned during three days of waiting for rescuers to reach their homes. Several million homeless residents survived, homeless, only to a second disaster called FEMA.

But Brazile didn’t let facts on the ground spoil her picnic. Continuing her upbeat dispatch, “Since then, I have met once more with President Bush and other leaders who are committed to working together to restore the lives and the communities devastated by these two hurricanes…I can tell from the meetings that the rebuilding of Louisiana remains high on his list of priorities.”

Preparing for Battle

One can only speculate on Brazile’s motives in streaming out that hallucination. As she would mention in the Washington Times article two years later, her “old friend” Rove had hit the ground running with the start of the 2008 election cycle, appearing on talk shows to bash frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Behind the scenes, G.O.P. rank and file activists were organizing crossover voting drives to knock Clinton out of the race before November. In the red states, they could easily outnumber Democrats at the caucuses, enriching Obama’s delegate count and allowing him to boast later “I’ve won more states.”

To recruit additional foot troops for this effort, New Hampshire G.O.P. leader Stephen DaMaura started the Facebook website “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).”

On the Democratic side, it became Brazile’s job to smooth over Obama’s path to the nomination. That required manipulating the primary calendar. Picking up on the diversity argument of Eleanor Holmes and the D.C. coalition, she pressed for an earlybird South Carolina primary and a Nevada caucus to augment the Iowa and New Hampshire dates.

While the advantages of South Carolina were obvious, by necessity the second contest required a less obvious, more covert action plan to avoid any accusations of stacking the deck. Although the Clinton camp didn’t realize it at the time, a caucus in Nevada (like a caucus anywhere) would naturally benefit Obama, since her base of blue-collar, older and non-English-speaking supporters would not be driving across town to attend some meeting run by disorganized volunteers. On the other hand, motivated Republicans could be counted on to show up, especially if the G.O.P. candidates could be persuaded not to campaign in the state. (They didn’t.)

Nevertheless, the reason for adding more earlybird contests in the first place centered on ethic diversity, so selling the DNC (and the public) on Nevada required some tweaking of those caucus parameters. That’s why arrangements were made to allow the state’s casino workforce of some 60,000 predominantly Latino workers to attend specially set up caucus sites just for them.

But wouldn’t this huge Hispanic voting block put Clinton over the top in Nevada? Not necessarily. It turns out that the union representing casino employees, S.E.I.U., would be backing Obama, just as they had supported Dean in his presidential bid. So those voters could now be added to the Obama column.

Thus, with caucuses scheduled in Iowa and Nevada, a primary in South Carolina with its near majority African American demographic, and the New Hampshire Republican brass on the job in that state, the chance of Clinton heading into Super Tuesday at cruising altitude had spectacularly diminished.

“Including two more states will not only be good for our country, it will be good for our party and good for our nominee," Brazile told the Los Angeles Times in August 2006.

Sounding an early portent of doom, the South Carolina delegate on the rules committee said in the same article, “If you campaign in a state that is outside the rules, then you’re not entitled to delegates from that state."

A year later, that scenario unfolded like a bad dream for the DNC. Over the objections of Florida’s state Democratic Party, a Republican-controlled legislature moved its primary to January 29, 2008, one week before the official February 5^th cusp adopted by both the Republican National Committee and the DNC.

On August 25, 2007. the DNC rules and bylaws committee met to adjudicate this unspeakable crime. State party chair Karen Thurman testified at the meeting, walking the committee through the chronology of her long and fruitless battle to overturn the date switch. The Republicans had attached it as a rider to another bill, one authorizing the replacement of electronic paperless voting equipment with more traditional optical scanners. Unable to defeat the rider on a partyline vote, the Democrats begrudgingly approved the larger measure.

Anyone who has watched the re-broadcast of those DNC proceedings on CSPAN can’t help but be dumbfounded by the discussion that followed Thurman’s presentation. A slam-dunk case for a rule waiver turned into a shameless bout of piling on, as committee member Brazile and several others accused the state party of not trying hard enough to change the date. (One also noticed from the broadcast the unusually high number of African Americans on the 30-member committee, as opposed to near zero representation for other minorities.)

When asked by Brazile why she hadn’t made any plans to hold a caucus in place of the primary, Thurman balked. The logistics and $8 million price tag, she said, were beyond comprehension, given that Florida boasts 4 million eligible Democrats.

"I understand how states crave to be first,” Brazile blustered in a Washington Post interview the next day, as if none of what Thurman told her had registered. “I understand that they’re envious of the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played, The truth is, we had a process . . . We’re going to back these rules."

Later, the head of the DNC Voting Rights Institute published an op-ed in the same newspaper, this time under the combative heading, “Why We Stood Up to Florida”. With the cockiness that was fast becoming her trademark, Brazile griped, “It was hardly an extraordinary act, although you wouldn’t know it from the furious reaction that ensued in some quarters…Why the uproar? It’s simple: state envy.”

She went on to list all the economic benefits coveted by states vying to hold early primaries, again diverting from the core issue of Republican meddling in Democratic affairs. Inexplicably, the press coverage of the showdown also overlooked the G.O.P.’s role in moving up the primary date.

The same week the rules committee stripped Florida of all its convention delegates, Michigan’s state legislature voted to move up its primary to January 15th. Both states could have easily been pegged as Clinton strongholds, making their exclusion from the election cycle suspect. Michigan is an industrial blue-collar enclave with few of the upper-middle-class voters and college students that represent Obama’s base. Florida’s Hispanic population is huge, and combined with an abundant supply of New York retirees, would likely also resist the Obama "surge".

Moreover, using Republican crossover voting to shave points off Clinton’s victories posed problems in both states. In Michigan, native son Mitt Romney had a significant campaign apparatus in place, while Rudi Giuliani was expecting to draw his line in the sand in Florida. Where these battleground territories were in play, neither gentleman would appreciate Rove siphoning away their voters. Better just to invalidate the primaries on the Democratic side. That way, Clinton’s delegate lead could be held in check on Super Tuesday.

"Seeds of Doubt"

With the votes of the country’s fourth and eighth largest states thus consigned to the junk heap, Brazile turned to other pursuits. Hired as a paid election analyst for CNN, she carried on a double life – one as an official DNC spokesperson, the other as a partisan campaigner for Barack Obama. In February, when best-guess estimates gave Clinton the support of two-thirds of the superdelegates, she declared, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

If party leaders were as worried about negative fallout and damage control then as they claimed to be a month later, they might have reeled in their contract employee at this point for a heart-to-heart chat. That didn’t happen. Brazile just reloaded her pistol and repeated her empty threat to all who would listen. On another occasion, she accused former President Bill Clinton of being a racist. It was inexcusable, she said, that during a speech Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid" and suggested his presidential bid amounted to little more than a "fairy tale".

"And I will tell you," Brazile bristled with emotion, "as an African American I find his words and his tone to be very depressing."

To be sure, Clinton said Obama’s evolving position on the Iraq War was a fairy tale, not his candidacy. As for alluding to his youth, Brazile and other cheerleaders for the Illinois senator had been doing it themselves for the past four years. It was a classic example of the Mark Twain quip that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put its shoes on. Only CNN’s presence in the equation gave the adage literal meaning. Surely, the DNC would intervene now that Brazile had insulted a former Democratic president on national television. But nothing.

Notwithstanding the character smears and 24/7 swiftboating by the American media, Sen. Clinton persevered, scoring big wins in the Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio on March 4^th. On March 5th, she was accused of engaging in a “negative” campaign designed to "destroy" her adversary.

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” Brazile informed the Associated Press that day, “If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate. But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

(ABC’s Jake Tapper went Brazile one better, claiming Clinton was exercising the "Tanya Harding option".)

In response to the call to arms, Dean promptly petitioned Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to intervene in the protracted race, while Senators Dodd, Richardson and Leahy demanded that Clinton end her candidacy for the good of the party.

Now this sounded familiar. Jack Ryan must have been chuckling to himself from his perch inside a bar, drinking rot-gut whiskey. In Washington, meanwhile, Reid promised that “things will be done” to determine a nominee before the convention. Pelosi told George Stephanopolis on his Sunday talk show that the superdelegates should not overturn “the will of the people”, but denied rumors that she was telling members of Congress that Clinton, if nominated, would be a "drag" on their own campaigns. As the Democratic Party version of the Adams Family was thus occupied in their hand-wringing, chest-beating and sharing of apocalyptic visions, Clinton pressed ahead, picking up 9 out of the final 13 primaries. Three of them she won by more than 30 points.

But no sooner had the daylight begun to shine at the end of the tunnel when another Rove-Brazile shoe dropped. For some reason, her triumph in the popular vote was not matched proportionally by delegates earned, and it had something to do with Obama’s phenomenal gains in the caucus states of Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. One would not have expected an African American liberal to clobber his opponent by a two-to-one margin as he did in many cases. More importantly, her delegate gains in the primaries involving millions of voters seemed to pale in comparison. This made no sense.

In late May, a disability activist named P. Cronin appeared on scene to sort out the Twilight Zone phenomenon. Cronin, who like most disabled people is not a big fan of caucuses, spent some time in late May analyzing the tallies from the 2008 Democratic contest, comparing the impact of the two different voting methods on the race.

According to Cronin’s study, nearly all of Obama’s 138-delegate lead over Clinton could be traced to 12 red state caucuses. In most of these contests he routinely won by 2-1 margins, even though polls in those states showed the candidates much closer. In Idaho, for instance, with its scant African American population, few colleges and relatively few Starbucks outlets, he captured 15 of the state’s 18 delegates.

Something fishy was going on here. Did Dean’s so-called 50-state strategy include the recruitment of pro-Obama activists to organize on the candidate’s behalf in caucus states? Did the number of DaMaura’s G.O.P. crossover voters wildly exceed expectations? Or was there just downright lying in the computation of the vote tallies?

The case of Washington state underscores the mystery of this Bermuda Triangle for Clinton delegates. On February 9^th, Obama earned a whopping 52 of the Washington’s 78 delegates after a 36-point victory in the party-run caucus. Over 240,000 allegedly eligible voters cast ballots in that contest. But a week later, just ahead of a state-run certified primary, the polling data showed that Clinton might actually win the election. On February 19th, after 650,000 ballots were counted Obama eked out a 5-point victory, hardly the 2-1 margin responsible for his 26-delegate net gain in the state. Unfortunately, the primary was non-binding.

Cronin notes in the study that those states that furnished the newcomer’s vast delegate booty contribute a grand total of 69 electoral votes in the general election. Few of these territories have voted Democratic since 1964.

It also appears that the votes of those lucky caucus-goers counted for 5-10 times more than the traditional Democrats who attended primaries. Obama netted more delegates in his Idaho win, for instance, than Clinton in her entire Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island romp on March 4th. The following table illustrates the questionable validity of these dispersements. Notice that the last column shows the delegate gain for the winner:

2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election © 2008 P. Cronin
—————————-

Even in the Navada caucus that Clinton won, Obama was awarded more delegates. The New York senator couldn’t seem to win for winning. There, the S.E.I.U. endorsement dissolved into wishful thinking when the casino workers broke for Clinton two to one, giving her a 6-point victory. A few months later, Obama left the state convention with 3 more delegates.

While there’s no evidence implicating Dean in Obama’s caucus routs, the DNC had maintained staff on the ground in all 50 states since 2005, when he first became the chair. In August 2007, a few weeks before his rules and bylaws committee stripped Florida of its delegates, he announced in a press release that his 50-State Strategy project, the Voting Rights Institute and another DNC division known as the National Lawyers Council were collaborating on a nationwide survey of voter databases, registration procedures and other "election mechanics". According to the release, DNC staff would work with local election boards in gathering information in advance of the 2008 presidential election. "Protecting the right of every eligible American to vote is a top priority for our party," Dean and Brazile said in a joint statement. "Every eligible American deserves the confidence that when they go to the polls to cast their ballot they can do so without fear of intimidation or harassment, and that their vote will be counted fairly and accurately."

Throwing Mama Under the Bus

On May 31, 2008, the rules committee reconvened to discuss those "eligible Americans" living in Florida and Michigan. A week before the meeting, the Democratic Party tried to attach an air of legitimacy to the proceedings by having legal counsel weigh in on the dispute. Although by Brazile’s own account, the Supreme Court gives political parties wide latitude for determining how they pick their nominees, the lawyers claimed it would be unlawful to fully honor the certified votes of January 15^th and 29^th . The committee could do no more than restore half the nearly 350 convention delegates up for grabs.

Always amenable to compromise, the Clinton campaign accepted that limitation but rejected a proposal for Obama to receive some of her Michigan delegates, plus those of all the other candidates in the Michigan primary. After all, the Illinois senator voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, then vetoed a re-do primary which Clinton donors raised $10 million to fund. In a sane world, one could argue that he forfeited the state and therefore deserved no delegates.

Former Governor of Michigan Jim Blanchard didn’t present that line of attack, however. The Clinton spokesman stuck to the modest request that the candidate receive delegates in proportion to the votes cast for her. A few minutes later, it was Brazile’s turn to speak, and the CNN analyst first took the opportunity to congratulate herself for displaying restraint in the meeting up until that point. Then she repudiated Blanchard as if he were a child.

"My mama taught me to play by the rules and respect the rules…When you decide to change the rules, especially, in the middle of the game, it’s called cheating."

Dispatching the governor to go stand and in a corner and contemplate the error of his ways, Brazile’s committee allocated the Michigan delegates according to a fruitcake-like recipe involving exit polls, alleged write-in votes for Obama, the palm-reading of a psychic (just kidding) and the actual tally. In the end, Clinton gained a mere 4.5 delegates from the contest.

Any masochist following the 2008 election knew by then that Brazile had disregarded her own mother’s counsel long ago. Neither she nor her co-horts have lost any sleep over the thousands of complaints filed about the conduct of the caucuses, including some 2,000 submitted in Texas alone. Voter intimidation, stacks of fabricated sign-in sheets slipped in with the legitimate records, phony declarations from Republicans about their intention to switch parties, votes delayed until deep into the night, inaccurate tallies called in by phone, and other dirty tricks have yet to warrant even a cursory investigation by those who preach that playing by the rules represents a core value of the Democratic Party.

Even in the aftermath of her power grab, Brazile continues to denigrate those who challenge the authority of the party’s new African American leadership. In a July 22nd post on Daryl Cagle’s website, she groaned, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it? Sen. Barack Obama is the party’s nominee. He won. He will get to choose his running mate. Obama sets the agenda for the convention, and, while I understand their passion in wanting Hillary to be on the ticket and to have a prominent role at the convention, it’s not her decision… As much as we all would have loved to see a woman in the Oval Office, it wasn’t Hillary’s time. Period."

It’s ironic when you think about it. The DNC’s Voting Rights Institute was created to stop exclusionary practices and increase participation at the polling booth. Now its chairwoman is presiding over one of the most hostile and fraudulent campaigns since those newspaper delivery trucks ran over the boy scouts in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

"Mr. Rove proved you can win elections with rumors, fear, division and manipulation." Brazile wrote back in 2007, after that friendly exchange with Air Force One. "But you can’t win hearts that way."

No, you can’t. But then, this influential political fixer no longer appears to have use for that particular organ. Which may be why she finds men like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist so appealing.

- Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com

(For more on the G.O.P. manipulation of the Democratic Primaries, see our in-depth report Bamboozling the American Electorate Again)

Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com