How Republicans Gamed the Pennsy Primary
For six weeks, as Democrats' hope of unity rode on Barack Obama's hope that Pennsylvanians would make his national lead more than a wish, press critics ignored some breathtakingly cynical Republican news-media efforts to keep Dems bitterly divided.
Few pundits wondered, for example, why 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched registrations -- most in order to vote for Clinton, if demographics are any guide. That strategy -- promoted by right-wing Clinton scourge and sudden "supporter" Richard Mellon-Scaife and his Pittsburgh Post-Tribune -- is to keep the Dems divided and just maybe to give them the nominee whom Scaife has more reason than most to believe Republicans can demolish this fall.
Few commentators questioned why Clinton didn't reject Mellon-Scaife's endorsement, as she'd challenged Obama to reject Louis Farrakhan's. Few asked why she instead actually courted the Machiavellian funder of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that had implicated her in Vincent Foster's murder and more.
Clinton's desperation was one thing, but her abdication of all dignity was another. Yet journalists who'd scrutinized Obama's handling of Farrakhan indulged her collapse into Mellon-Scaife's arms. No prissy New York Times op eds parsed whether she, like Obama, ought to have "denounced" or "renounced" or "rejected" the come-on.
TPM has reported Big Bill Clinton's even-more amazing appearances on Rush Limbaugh's show to urge Ditto-heads to vote for Hillary, even though Clinton knew they'd do so only for Mellon-Scaife's set-up reasons. Now, there's desperation for you, and, in Bill's case, we needn't even mention lost dignity. I wouldn't say that the Clintons are Stalin and that Mellon-Scaife is Hitler, but show me how this mesalliance is any less cynical than the Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939, and I'll show you a bridge to the future I have to sell.
Not all Republican-leaning media agree that Clinton's the one they're most likely to beat. Republicans do have "new" dirt on the Clintons, but Americans are gagging on these tactics, effective though such ugliness remains. Obama will be easier to take down, reason the post-Rove Republicans, because, often, they can stand back and, with a wink and a nudge, let racism do its work in the privacy of the voting booth.
That's certainly the strategy of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, which actually endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination and showed that when it endorses someone, it delivers! The paper has turned every tabloid trick to slant its coverage toward Obama, no doubt endearing itself to blacks I've watched perusing the paper on the subway. Today's primary-day headlne: "Hill's 'Osama' Scare Tactics." The Post even ballyhooed the fact that the voter who loudly protested Obama's observations about "bitter" small-town Pennsylvanians is a life-long resident of New Jersey!
The paper's intended message to politicos of all persuasions: Always kiss the ring of Rupert, and forget his imported editors and their mini-con minions have turned the once-liberal Post into a daily reminder that Australia was founded as a penal colony. They are now busy turning the Wall Street Journal into the Voldemort of big dailies.
When Obama is nominated, the Post's editors will announce soberly that upon agonised reflection they've decided that McCain is the man America most desperately needs. After a suitable pause, they'll begin tearing into Obama on non-racial grounds (his latte liberal backers, his weakness on defense, etc.) while promoting McCain relentlessly and relying on racism to do the rest as they keep their hands clean with New York's multiracial populace.
Come to think of it, that's what New York Times columnist David Brooks has already done,as I predicted he would long ago: "Brooks has pretended to admire Obama so much... that you expect him to swim over to the Democrats. Don't count on it...." He was merely accumulating credibility with liberal readers for giving Obama a serious chance before reeling in as many as he can for McCain. Brooks turned that corner pre-emptively last week, ahead of the Post , either to "help" Clinton or to look smart himself by being the first to show how to champion John McCain, hero of Selma and the Edmund Pettus Bridge, against Obama, that deracinated Hyde Park liberal.
I'll say more about these conservative journalistic ploys soon, but for now it's worth emphasizing that few commentators have noted how corrosive the cynicism and duplicity of Mellon-Scaife, Murdoch, and Brooks have become of the very civic-republicanism, virtue, and freedom they claim to defend.
The philosopher George Santayana noted that Americans are "inexperienced in poisons," owing to their forthright civic-republican candor and courage in controversies, no matter how bitter and partisan. No more. Unless, that is, as I dearly hope, Pennsylvanians carry Obama strongly enough tonight to discredit the poisoned Clintons and their new Republican pushers.
Jim
Since I appear to be the first to comment on your post, let me first thank you for your previous compliments on my other comments (as well as my "handle"). But this time, I hope you're wrong. Not that I don't think people like Scaife and Murdoch are capable of such Macchiavelian efforts, but it's hard to imagine so many "ordinary citizens" taking the time and trouble to change registration and vote in a primary just to make trouble for the other party. I just don't think there are many people as fanatic as that. Even in Texas, where I would expect that tactic to be more effective, from the stories I've read there seemed to be only a few who did that. Maybe "a few" adds up to a significant number of votes. You may be right, but I sure hope most of those who changed or registered for the first time as Dems did so to support Obama. I guess we'll know in a few hours.
April 22, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, hope that you're right and that I'm wrong -- as I more-or-less suggested at the end of the post.
April 22, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true.
Bill Clinton never went on Rush Limbaugh's show. He went on Mark Davis's local talk show on WBAP in Dallas, then Mark Davis covered Rush's show an hour later.
It takes about 10 minutes to ascertain that fact.
http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=606119&spid=6051
http://www.wbap.com/programschedule.asp
Silly errors like this happen when you rely on the DailyKos for news.
April 22, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, perhaps, to rely on Daily Kos -- and I'll correct the link -- but Bill Clinton did appear on Rush Limbaugh's show several times, urging them to vote for Hillary -- as did Rush himself.
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:HldzO603thMJ:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/wtf-bill-clinton-on-rush-limba.php+%22bill+clinton%22+and+%22rush+limbaugh%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
and
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:GGy5TehDaQwJ:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/wtf-rush-limbaugh-taking-opera.php+%22bill+clinton%22+and+%22rush+limbaugh%22+and+pennsylvania&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
April 22, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are both referring to the same show, the morning of the Texas Primary.
Bill Clinton has never been on Rush Limbaugh.
Here's a little hint. EIB archives are "pay to play."The mirror site that Andrew Sullivan provided was not the original source that I provided (WBAP. )The link Rush Limbaugh's EIB website links to is, and I listened to both. It's the same interview, and "Republicans" don't come up at all. Note that the link on RLs site is bulleted, as is similar extra material. Audio links to the actual show are marked differently, and are not playable without a subscription. The fact that Andrew chose to use a mirror leads me to believe this was a bit of slick mudslinging by the right, but it was not aimed at Obama.
It was aimed at Clinton.
I do tend to agree with you that there is a lot of GOP mischief going on.
It's good to question EVERYTHING.
April 22, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true.
Bill Clinton never went on Rush Limbaugh's show. He went on Mark Davis's local talk show on WBAP in Dallas, then Mark Davis covered Rush's show an hour later.
It takes about 10 minutes to ascertain that fact.
http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=606119&spid=6051
http://www.wbap.com/programschedule.asp
Silly errors like this happen when you rely on the DailyKos for news.
April 22, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republican Party discipline is difficult to understand for more free wheeling Democrats. I was truly amazed at how they turned out in force for Lieberman against Lamont, even though it cost them the senate. The individual Republican voters do take orders from their leaders. Did they succeed in Pennsylvania? Will know in a few hours.
April 22, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they actually shipped republicans into the state, and had them put their "Joe" shirts on under other shirts, then tear them off and yell at Lamont at a few of his campaign stops. It got pretty ugly. Local reporters caught on and started asking them where they were from.
I just read in the Advocate (local CT left weekly) that the FBI and our state AAG knew that the only reason Joe's website crashed was because he had gone with a cheapo IP that couldn't stand up to the rigors of a Senate Campaign, yet they said nothing and let people in Connecticut think Lamont supporters were responsible.
I guess Joe found it more effective to spend his money on rent-a-thugs.
April 22, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't we lucky that there are now two right-wing conspiracies working at cross purposes. No matter, either Dem will crush the repugnantcans in Nov. As to "the Democrats' favorite Republican," the smiling jackass on the NYT op-ed page probably hasn't accumulated any credibility with liberals. We see him as just another non-alpha male looking to avenge high school.
April 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clearly time to resurrect my "Republicans for Voldemort" bumpersticker. Yes, I really have one.
April 22, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Texan, I have to correct your perception of what happened in Texas. Based on the demographics of the exit polls and my knowledge of Texas Democratic politics (I've been active here for over 20 years), I estimate that Rush Limbaugh and crew pumped up Clinton's statewide total by 50-75K votes (her margin was less than 100K).
In my precinct convention there were at least 10 Clinton-hating Republicans who showed up to caucus for Hillary. I know this because these people are my neighbors and I have been in their living room listening to the rants. Now, in a typical year, we usually get 10-15 Democrats to show up. This year the total attendance was just over 100.
April 22, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you. The same thing happened at my Texas precinct. Before the Clinton and Obama voters separated to choose delegates, the one woman I stopped to chat with turned out to be a Republican who was voting Clinton just to screw with the election.
April 24, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's really interesting to read TPM in general and this post in specific, as you Obamatrons try to explain why your guy lost--yeah, he lost, by 10 big old points.
republican dirty tricks! Hillary dirty tricks! voter fraud!
here's another idea for you: how about the people of Pennsylvania preferred Hillary?
look: our party is split right down the middle. Obama's got the lead in pledged delegates, but if we did it the way the GOP did--giving a whole state to the winner, rather than splitting delegates by percentage of the win--Clinton would be on top.
both candidates have fervent supporters. Obama's got the black vote and the youth vote. Hillary has--well, everyone else. so clearly, we need to come together and put them on one ticket.
Obama can't win against McCain. Clinton can't win against McCain. Obama and Clinton together...they can kick his ass.
April 22, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sour Grapes!
April 22, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I think sour grapes too Abdul
Scaife might think he is some brilliant Machiavelli but Hillary out Machiavelli’s him every time.
Sure she eggs the old fart along, but it is for her own benefit.
If Scaife thinks that Hillary is easier to beat than Obama, it is only because he is back on the sauce.
April 23, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, one has to wait to see how the votes in Pennsylvania congressional districts play out in assigning pledged delegates to any particular candidate. This has proven true in more than forty state primaries and caucuses now. Learning does happen slowly in America -- and especially in You-Know-Her's careening campaign -- but at some point one has to wonder when it will even start. A 10% popular vote spread does not necessarily translate into 10% more delegates. So, in a few days, we will know how the splitting of Pennsylvania's 158 delegates actually works out.
As Slate.com's "Delegate Calculator" puts it:
This does not look like it will happen. Not in this lifetime. Even under every conceivable optimistic scenario that the tooth fairy might imagine. As for the still undecided "superdelegates," Senator Obama has steadily accumulated more of them over the past two months and trailed by only a net 24 prior to the Pennsylvania primary. Slate also notes that Sentaor Obama will probably
Other than trying to scare the pants off of old women and the more poorly educated segments of Ohio and Pennsylania's downtrodden demographics, You-Know-Her continues campaigning for Prime Minister of Tel Aviv with her ranting threats to annihilate 70,000,000 Iranians who have never attacked America or anyone else in their neighborhood for probably two-and-a-half centuries. In the few remaining contests to come, You-Know-Her's fanatical Bush-league flogging of Fear Itself and her absurd Americans-will-gladly-die-for-Israeli-settlement-expansion promises will not likely wash or wear as well as in the rust-belt Midwest.
Given the upcoming primary landscape, Senator Obama can easily high-road it clear to the end of this thing if he just puts on some shin-guards and keeps a bottle of smelling salts handy to clear his nostrils from the sewer stench wafting up from You-Know-Her's gutter-snipe "candidacy." He began this improbable success story on a note of hope and inclusion with a good strategy and first-rate organizational skills. He can complete his and the Democratic Party's joint journey the same way. In basketball terminology: he has the clock, the ball, the score, and the better shooting percentage in his favor. You-Know-Her has ....
As predicted beforehand, Pennsylvania did go into You-Know-Her's win column, but not with enough pledged delegates to even make a dent in Sentaor Obama's lead. The big question now really involves how long tapped-out major contributors will continue writing checks with little hope of getting much by way of "success" in return. Senator Obama did what he needed to do in Pennsylvania and that will most likely prove dispositive of this long primary season in a little over a month from now.
April 23, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh geez.
Come on Jim. TPM never reported Bill was on Rush Limbaugh, that was a reader blog.
Worser and worser.
April 23, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
The first clause of your first sentence is incoherent:
Let's see if I get this right: The Dems' hope rode on Obama's hope that his national lead would be more than a wish.
Inscrutable.
The rest of the sentence is hyperbolic fantasy:
Not just cynical efforts, but breathtakingly cynical efforts. My guess is "cynical" must not be the right word.
Not just divided Democrats, but bitterly divided Democrats. Better sense, but too bad you're projecting.
That's just your introduction. Next time, just slash the whole first paragraph.
You go on to say:
Few pundits wondered, few commentators questioned, few asked why, few commentators have noted.
Sigh. Do you ever read what you've written before you post? I think David Brooks at least does that much.
April 23, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was it ever reasonable to expect the same voters who elected Bush twice to make a rational decision this time?
April 23, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen this "160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched registrations" meme attributed to NPR floating around our internets.
But --
Does anyone have a link to a credible source? preferably, the original report?
April 23, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim doesn't need any stinking "original" anything.
He's making a point, dang it!
April 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this article will be picked up by RealClearPolitics et al.
Had I not read the 2006 article -- on voter registration and polling fraud -- written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in Rolling Stone, I would have dismissed the notion that there could be a significant number of Republicans who would go to the trouble of switching registration during the primary season for the sole purpose of subverting the Democrat's nominee selection process. However, having read RFK,Jr.'s article (with all its footnotes), I am a reluctant believer that such tactics are being employed by the Rove-inspired camp.
This is a serious issue. Democratic voters in remaining primary states are being influenced, every day, by the statisticians and pundits who are certain that various demographic groups are either defecting from Obama, or are increasingly supportive of Clinton. All of these media discussions increase the rifts among voting blocks, thereby increasing divisiveness/undermining unity.
What if these speculations are actually false readings of what is actually happening? What if, instead, Obama might have won Texas and/or PA, if the combination of thwarted registrations and cross-over registrations had not occurred?
I recommend this article by Jim Sleeper, as I recommend that everyone read Kennedy's article in the archives of Rolling Stone. Although it is an exercise in frustration, please send them to your Democratic senators and congressmen; send them to everyone in the media who is accessible.
We cannot afford another stolen election.
April 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Operation chaos is real. As a Texan, we saw a lot of co-workers and neighbors vote for Hillary. Hillary hasn't won an election without the Republicans' help since Super Tuesday, and she knows it. And the media knows it, but they won't admit it. I just hope the superdelegates know it. It's sad to see what really happens in politics, it's all controlled by corporate media and right-wing nuts. I'm about to the point of saying just give it to her and everybody stay home in November. Then we will finally be rid of the Clintons for good, and people like Rove, Limbaugh, McCain and Bush/Cheney and the Clintons will be old farts that nobody listens to, as the youth vote takes over as the strongest voting base. I think Obama is one election too early,too many old people still in power. But that will change in a few years.
April 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how the very same people who bemoan how mean Obama supporters are to Hillary supporters are on here being astonishingly rude themselves.
April 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad writing deserves bad reviews.
April 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like inform you that Scarlett Johansson (actress)actually is a clone from original person,who has nothing with acting career.Clone was created illegally by using stolen biomaterial. Original person is very nice(not d**n sexy),most important-CHRISTIAN young lady!I'll tell you more,those clones(it's not only one)made in GERMANY-world leader manufacturer of humans clones,it is in Ludwigshafen am Rhein,N. Bavaria, Mr. Helmut Kohl home town.You can't even imaging the scale of the cloning activity.But warning! H. Kohl clone staff 100% controlling their clones spreading around the world,they are very accurate with that, some of them are still NAZI type disciplined and mind controlled clones,be careful get close with clones you will be controlled too.Original family did not authorize any activity with stolen biological materials,no matter what form it was created,it all needs back to original family control to Cedars-Sinai MedicalCenter in LA.Original Scarlett is not engage,by the way!
August 26, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink