Ratfucker in Chief

Ratfucker in Chief

On May 31, 2008, I witnessed what could turn out to be the beginning of the end of democracy in our country. Obama’s henchmen on the Rules and By-Laws Committee of the DNC stole votes and delegates that had been awarded to Clinton by the voters of Michigan and gave them to Barack Obama. Of course, there’s hardly a footnote of this from any of the MSM coverage of that event. But I saw it firsthand, and it is the main reason that I will never support Barack Obama, and why his cronies like Brazile, Wexler, Dean, Germond, Fowler, et al. need to be run out of our party for high crimes against democracy itself.

See, Obama’ssurrogates at the meeting contended that it was unfair to award delegates in the Michigan primary by using the actual vote tally.  Obama and Edwards had removed their names voluntarily from the ballot to pander to Iowa voters, and Clinton had left her name on the ballot.  Not surprisingly Clinton received the majority of the vote.  Many Obots would later declare that this was unfair although the only sanction against Michigan for having the audacity to decide when to schedule its primary was that the candidates could not campaign there.  No one ever suggested they take their names off the ballot (and in Florida, which was under the same sanctions, nobody did).  It was only after the fact that the red faced screechers from obamaland cried foul.  And the RBC, using polling that pretended to be able to determine what voters would have done if Obama had been on the ballot, not only awarded him all of the uncommitted votes, but also every single write in vote (which were illegal, and never even opened), AND votes from people who had actually voted for Hillary Clinton (4 of the delegates that would have been hers based on the votes she received were reallocated to Obama).  Clinton backers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement at the time:

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself.  Because it doesn’t take a tinfoil hat to see that the RBC decision had been in the can for sometime.  One only needs to look at the actions of the Obama campaign leading up to the primary that they were laying the groundwork for this very outcome.  An outcome, by the way, that  would give Obama the very tiny margin he would need to declare himself the presumptive nominee.  Markos kicked off the ratfucking festivities by encouraging his readers to vote for Romney in the Republican Primary:

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.  

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat.  Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he’s out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Two things.  First, a personal note to Markos: go fuck yourself.  And take your ratfucking strategies back to the Republican party where you came from.  Second, either his plan backfired or all of what was to come after was carefully planned.  I’m leaning towards the latter.  My reasoning?  Well, Michigan has a rule that you can only vote once (I know, how DARE they, right?).  And so later, when the Obamans were trying to convince the RBC that Obama deserved some of the delegates that Hillary had earned, they argued that many Democrats had voted in the Republican primary because they were under the impression that their votes in the Dem party wouldn’t count.  In Obama’s world, if he is not on a ballot, but weasels his way back onto it later, he is entitled to votes from fictitious voters who supposedly would have voted for him.  Even if those voters are ratfuckers who were trying to game the other party’s primary. 

But it is even worse.  In true Obama form, whenever they cry “NO FAIR!!”, not only does it usually indicate that the results were fair, but that Obama team was cheating on the side to gain an advantage for themselves.  This as exactly the case in the Michigan primary.  As I said before, the only sanction on the candidates was that they were not allowed to campaign in the state.  Hillary Clinton did not, abiding by the rules.  Obama and his allies broke the rules.  They were very keen to get the word out that his supporters should vote “uncommitted” in the primary.  Congressman John Conyers and his wife even had an ad on the radio saying as much:

In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state’s delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote “uncommitted” and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

An “uncommitted” vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted.

“People are already frustrated here in Detroit because they can’t cast a ballot for Obama. Many on their absentee ballots many have tried to write in Obama, but they have spoiled the ballots,” said Sam Riddle, Monica Conyers’s chief of staff. “We know we’ve got to educate the voters in a hurry.”

That seems like a clear cut case of them “breaking the rules” and campaigning for Obama, but of course this got absolutely no coverage from our media.  They were focused on the fact that Clinton had not removed her name, implying that it was, if not a violation of the rule, a violation of the “spirit” of the rules.  (of course this is patently absurd.  Removing ones name from a state sanctioned ballot is actually detrimental to the democratic process, and in many places illegal, including Florida, where all names remained despite the sanctions).  It was especially important, because “uncommitted” –a state recognized entity–had to reach the threshold for being awarded delegates in the primary.

The groups hope that a significant turnout by uncommitted voters will generate national attention for their candidates. Also, under Michigan election law, if at least 15 percent of votes in any district or statewide are for “uncommitted,” the corresponding percentage of delegates may back any candidate.

Because neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Edwards registered as write-in candidates, any write-in votes for them will be thrown out.

The RBC changed two parts of this equation.  First the uncommitted delegates were not allowed to choose which candidate they would back, they were assigned to Obama in DC, not Denver.  And all of the write-in votes, presumably still gathering dust, unread, somewhere in a warehouse in Michigan, were also awarded to Obama.  Regardless of who’s name was actually written on them.

Of course this is all old news by now.  I bring it up to point out the unmitigated AUDACITY and HYPOCRISY of the following news now coming out of Michigan.

— Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing Michigan Republicans of a scheme to use mortgage foreclosure lists to challenge the voting eligibility of lower-income people who’re likely to back Democrats in November.

The allegations are reminiscent of the “vote caging” schemes that Republicans have been accused of in the past.  But in this case, the evidence is barely circumstantial, and given Obama’s history of gaming elections, highly dubious. 

The federal suit, which Democratic lawyers acknowledged was based solely on unconfirmed news and Internet reports, also alleges that Ohio Republicans and the Republican National Committee have contemplated a similar “lose your home, lose your vote” tactic in that battleground state. (emphasis mine)

I do believe that Republicans have attempted to suppress voter turnout in the past.  But I also believe that Obamans used the same tactic.  I believe as well that he will try to bring Chicago voting rules to the general election if we do not have constant vigilance over the election process. (you know, vote early and often, votes for the “living impaired”, etc).  Maybe some of us should actually sign up to be poll watchers this November just to be sure.  Although I wouldn’t let the Democrats know you are a PUMA.  In any case, it is our duty to make sure that the outcome in November is a result of the will of the American voters, not Obama for America.