Conspiracy Theory 2008

[American Patriot]

I'm starting this thread to try to explain my "Conspiracy Theory".

Now you all know what a FOE I am to such things, and that I expect people to provide evidence for theories they propose (or support) and in turn I will examine their material and find many holes in it.

As a skeptic I expect nothing less than the same here.

First, I'm going to give you the hypothesis and eventually, will SHOW you some evidence that will support the hypothesis.

While many Conspiracy theorists outright BELIEVE their theory, most are unwilling or unable to back up their material over time.

I propose that I may not be able to give you a loophole tight explanation, but I will give you enough building blocks on this to allow you to see for yourselves that it's plausible (rather than an outright idiotic claim to fame that turns out to based on someone else's nonsense).

Hypothesis: This 2008 Election has been severely corrupted and changed by Liberals changing parties from "Democrat" to "Republican" to influence the polls, the Primaries in many states and the eventual outcome of who will be considered and chosen as the Republican Nominee for the 2008 Presidential General Election.

I'll get back to you with more

[American Patriot]

Some voters temporarily switch parties
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES -- Staff Writer
Candidates' appeal, closed primary cited as reasons
Some voters appear to be temporarily crossing traditional party lines to vote in the Feb. 5 primary election, and presidential candidates are taking notice.

Some campaigns are hoping these voters bolster their ranks. Campaign and election officials said Friday that there were signs voters are showing interest in reaching across party lines.
Though there were no precise figures immediately available, San Diego County Registrar of Voters Deborah Seiler said she had seen evidence of voters switching sides.
"We've had people come in to register as Republicans," Seiler said.

That's mostly because in order to vote for a Republican presidential candidate in the California primary, a voter must be registered as a Republican, Seiler said.

The state's Democratic Party, meanwhile, has opened its primary voting to those who are registered "decline to state."

Seiler also said that her office sent out about 60,000 postcards advising these decline to state, or independent, voters who vote by mail that they may choose the Democratic or American Independent Party ballot. She said her office got back 18,600 requests for Democratic ballots and about 1,600 requests for American Independent ballots.

The secretary of state does not keep statistics on people who switch parties. But as more and more people register as independent, both major parties are increasingly reaching out to this bloc, political analysts say.

Because the state's semiclosed primary system is relatively new, there is little research on voters switching sides, said Bruce Cain, a political science professor at UC Berkeley.

Until 1996, only registered members of a political party could vote in that party's California primary. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 198, which created an open primary allowing any voter to choose any candidate.

That lasted until a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. The court said the open primary system was unconstitutional because it violated the parties' First Amendment right of association.

What resulted was a modified primary system that allows people without party affiliation to vote in a party's ballot only if the party allows them to do so.

On Thursday, Republican president candidate Ron Paul's campaign sent out an e-mail reminding potential supporters that Tuesday is the last day to register under a different party in time to vote in the primary.

"A lot of independents are Ron Paul supporters," said Holly Clearman, state coordinator for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee, "and we'd hate to miss out on them because of a technicality."

The Texas Republican congressman's smaller government message is also popular among Libertarians and some former Republicans, some voters said. But they cannot vote for him in California on Feb. 5 unless they register as Republicans.

Kristi Stone, an artist-entrepreneur from Encinitas, said she recently changed her registration from Libertarian to Republican to vote for Paul.

"Ron Paul is the only Republican that reflects my views," Stone said.

Escondido's Dann McCreary changed his status as a nonaffiliated voter to Republican to support Paul.

"He's the only true conservative that's running in this election," McCreary said Friday.

The computer engineer said he was a registered Republican until about 10 years ago, but left the party because of dissatisfaction with its direction.

Lars Almquist, another former registered Republican who grew up in Rancho Penasquitos, was at the Obama campaign headquarters in San Diego on Friday.

Almquist said he surprised his family when he told them he was registering as a Democrat this year in order to vote for the Illinois senator.

"My dad thinks I don't have any ethical standards if I'm voting for a Democrat," he said.

His support for Obama is based on the senator's approach to issues such as disease and poverty, Almquist said.

"He really does speak to the common hopes and dreams of people for a better place," Almquist said in a telephone interview Friday. "I really feel we need someone who stands for real change, not just as a slogan, but someone who can really bring about transformation in this country."

Staff Writer Mark Walker contributed to this report. Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.

[American Patriot]

The Big Switch

Why Democrats should draft John McCain in 2004--and why he should let them. By Joshua Green

---

Democrats are more dispirited today than they have been in years. It's not just that President Bush's approval ratings continue to defy gravity, or that he's been largely successful in enacting a conservative agenda. Nor is it simply that Democrats seem to lack a fighting spirit and an effective message. It's not even the distinct possibility that Republicans could retake the Senate this fall, and with it, control of Washington. What's plaguing so many in the Democratic Party is that looking to the future, there doesn't appear to be a savior. Presidential aspirants are already lining up for 2004, but so far, no one's very excited.


It isn't uncommon for political reporters, at about this point in the election cycle, to size up the field and declare it lacking. But that isn't the problem. Under normal circumstances, this would have to be considered a tremendous selection: a decorated war veteran (Sen. John Kerry), the most recent vice-presidential nominee (Sen. Joe Lieberman), a popular majority leader (Sen. Tom Daschle), a charismatic Southern senator (Sen. John Edwards), and (let's face it) the winner of the last presidential election (Al Gore). Sure, each hopeful has liabilities--Edwards lacks experience; Kerry's a bit slick; etc. And yet these flaws don't explain why people view the field with despair. Deep down, what worries them is the growing sense that none of these candidates can beat Bush. Doing that will require someone with the perfect combination of qualities: the ability to match Bush's greatest strength (military leadership), exploit his greatest weakness (shameless ties to special interests), and offer a fresh, appealing agenda of his own. More and more, an honest survey of Democratic contenders suggests that unless the political winds change, the likeliest outcome is: four more years of George W. Bush.


There is an alternative, but it isn't one that most people have considered. In fact, the best Democrat may be someone who's no Democrat at all: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). As a war hero who's hawkish on foreign policy, he more than matches Bush on the military front. As a reform-minded foe of corporate welfare, Big Tobacco, and the Republican right, he is peerless. McCain is Bush's most vociferous critic, voted against the president's tax cut, forced his hand on campaign finance reform, and federalized airport security in the face of White House opposition. He has co-sponsored numerous bills with Democrats--many of them in the presidential-aspirant class--requiring background checks at gun shows (Lieberman), a patients' bill of rights (Edwards), better fuel-efficiency standards in cars and SUVs (Kerry), and expanded national service programs (Bayh). He is even drafting a bill with Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gasses and mitigate global warming. As Ronald Brownstein remarked recently in the Los Angeles Times, "[McCain] has become the most hyphenated name in Washington."


Given the near hopelessness with which most Democrats view their 2004 prospects, it's pretty easy, if you're a Democrat, to make the case that McCain should switch parties outright to pursue the Democratic nomination. The difficult part is imagining McCain making the switch. He is, after all, a lifelong Republican. It's not clear that he wants to run for president again. And it's assumed that if he does, it will be as a Republican or, more likely, as an independent. McCain has said that he won't leave his party sufficiently often that one feels compelled to take him at his word. But his rationale--that he's a Teddy Roosevelt Republican--has remained fixed, even while he's gravitated toward moderate Democratic beliefs. His protestations are beginning to ring hollow. He is keenly aware that the GOP is no longer the party of Roosevelt. That an unfailingly pro-business president embodies the party's moderate wing only underscores the GOP's drift to the right; there is no room in its ranks for a maverick like McCain. At the same time, McCain has made a dramatic shift leftward. As his vote against the Bush tax cut showed, he is no longer in any meaningful sense a contemporary Republican. It's time he recognized this and that Democrats exploited it. Because if McCain truly desires to be president, his best chance of winning may be to run as a Democrat.


Animosity to Curiosity

John McCain's alienation from the Republican Party and disdain--happily reciprocated--for President Bush has been well documented. Observers caught a rare public glimpse of this recently when Bush grudgingly signed the campaign finance reform bill without a ceremony or even a courtesy phone call to McCain. (The White House mailed him a pen from the bill signing.) As practically the Democrats' only legislative collaborator, McCain has less and less in common with his Republican colleagues. He counts few friends among the caucus. He hasn't attended the party's policy retreat in years. And he's generally loathed by conservatives. If he sees fit to run as a Democrat, and really wants to stick it to Bush, there's little to make him stay put.


Like Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.), who became an independent, McCain considered leaving the Republican Party last May. Though it received little attention at the time, the political director for his 2000 presidential campaign, John Weaver, switched parties earlier this year. Right now, McCain's aides seem more eager than the senator does at the prospect of another presidential run, and that's likely true of a run for the Democratic nomination as well. But if McCain can't yet envision such a scenario for himself, says a top adviser, "that's why he has people like us around."


Besides his evolving politics and the satisfaction that would come with delivering the ultimate rebuke to Bush, there are plenty of tactical reasons for McCain to consider a switch. The backing of a party organization helps any candidate hoping to knock off a popular incumbent. Independent candidacies are notoriously difficult: Roosevelt left the Republican Party to run as an independent--and lost. In fact, no independent candidate has won a national election in at least 180 years. Those who choose to run anyway often do so merely to raise their stature or highlight their agenda. McCain has already accomplished both. "He raised his profile during the 2000 race, and as campaign finance reform showed, he continues to influence the president's agenda," says Weaver. In other words, if he runs, he'll run to win. Running as a Democrat would likely winnow the field from three candidates to two. Several pollsters told me informally--none had yet polled the issue--that a three-way race between Bush, Gore, and McCain would probably put McCain in second place after Bush. But narrow the field to just Bush and McCain and that changes. "McCain on the ballot as a Democrat could be a very, very intriguing proposition because of what he brings to the party," says John Zogby, the independent pollster. "His popularity among the growing number of independents is higher than anybody else's out there. Add to that the fact that his numbers among Democrats are very good--better, in fact, than Daschle and Lieberman do among Democrats."


To be fair, current polls are mainly a name-recognition game, which partly explains McCain's prominence against Democratic candidates. But were he indeed to run against Bush as a Democrat, McCain would solidify and expand his Democratic support, and possibly add to his support among independents. If, as expected, the president's approval rating returns to earth, Bush would find himself in a tenuous position: In a general election, McCain could expect to win most of the Democratic vote and most independent and swing voters as well, leaving Bush with only his conservative base.
While the likelihood of such a run is slim, even advisers who dismiss the scenario do so with an important proviso. "If you ask me, there's a 99-percent chance it won't happen," says Marshall Wittman, a McCain adviser and director of the Project for Conservative Reform. "But that said, I'd support John McCain if he ran on the Socialist-Marxist ticket." Such loyalty, even among many committed Republicans like Wittman, is characteristic of McCain's allure.


The prospect of a McCain switch seems a surprisingly popular topic of discussion among Democrats. In my conversations with party leaders and activists, from the most moderate to the most liberal, an interesting pattern emerged. After citing their personal admiration for McCain and offering boilerplate ideologically concerns, nearly everyone asked to speak off the record, and confessed to fantasizing about a switch, as if yielding to some forbidden indulgence. McCain's appeal to Democratic politicians as a legislative collaborator is not quite so secret. But the mounting concern among party insiders that Al Gore will try again has prompted some discreet political infidelity. "You don't know how many Democrats come up to me and say, 'I wish we could get [McCain] to run,'" says a top adviser to McCain. "Some of them are pretty prominent [figures]."


McCain Democrats

If McCain runs as a Democrat he'll face a series of primary hurdles. While Democratic primaries have traditionally required candidates to run a gauntlet of liberal interest groups, recent history and political circumstances have lessened the degree to which this is true.


Without question, a McCain run would test the limits of acceptable dissent from the Democratic interest groups--labor, African-Americans, trial lawyers, women--which traditionally hold sway over the primary system. McCain's biggest handicap is that he is, at least nominally, pro-life. It is not a subject on which he's outspoken or particularly passionate. ("Do people still think that?" quips a McCain adviser.) But to become a viable nominee, McCain might decide to change his position or at least modify his stance, as many Catholic politicians have done, by stating in no uncertain terms that, while he personally opposes abortion, he does not consider it to be a political issue. Changing one's position on choice isn't necessarily prohibitive; both Richard Gephardt and Al Gore were once more conservative on abortion.


McCain has a mixed-but-improving record with labor. Though he voted against Bush's tax cut, his general economic conservatism all but disqualifies him from earning official union support. But as important to a Democratic candidate as the AFL-CIO's endorsement is, not all union members follow their leaders. "We were scared by McCain in 2000, frankly, when we heard that union members in some states were rushing to change their registration to vote [for McCain] in the Republican primary," says a senior union official. These workers "were moved by the image being projected of the freewheeling, tell-it-like-it-is, Straight Talk Express John McCain, and didn't know a thing about where he stood on critical issues." Coming from Arizona, McCain's pro-immigration views mesh with those of union leaders, who consider immigrants potential new members. Likewise, so do his endorsements of whistleblower protection and a patients' bill of rights, as well as his staunch resistance to a provision limiting unions' ability to donate to political campaigns (so-called "paycheck protection") in the campaign finance reform bill. "As a Republican, he's much better than you'd expect; as a Democrat, he has some work to do," says Skip Roberts, chief lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.


That's a fair assessment of McCain's rating among many of these groups. Though he doesn't support affirmative action, McCain had a belated conversion during the 2000 primaries to opposing official displays of the Confederate flag. Furthermore, Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" hedge on affirmative action has made it safer for other Democrats to stop short of full endorsement. While Gore would likely be the most attractive candidate to African Americans, McCain's military background would resonate with many black voters, who serve in disproportionately high numbers. And if, as seems likely, Al Sharpton pursues a long-shot candidacy, many of the African-American voters who support him will be siphoned from the other candidates, the net effect of which might help McCain. Realistically, how he might fare with black voters is an open question, since Arizona has a relatively small black community.


McCain couldn't fairly be described as an environmentalist, but he has fought to keep corporate polluters in check and endorsed higher CAFE standards for cars and SUVs--putting him to the left of Gore, who as vice president, endorsed Clinton's reneging on a campaign promise to raise CAFE standards. His position on abortion doesn't endear him to women's groups, but his progressive approach to tobacco, gun control, and a patients' bill of rights appeals to women generally. Perhaps more promising is that McCain's presidential run required him to delve into policy areas he'd previously ignored, such as healthcare, education, and the environment. More often than not, this consideration led him to adopt positions on the political center or center-left. "On the campaign trail and in the Senate, McCain was one of the few Republicans to make a forceful, centrist case for saving social security and cutting taxes to help the middle class, not just the wealthy," says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.


Since the campaign, McCain has adopted a similarly moderate-left stance on the patients' bill of rights. He is also as good as any mainstream Democrat on issues like gun control and fighting tobacco, and better than most at battling corporate excess, which would even appeal to liberals and Naderites.


McCain's strength on national security could also be an advantage in Democratic primaries. Since September 11, even liberals have become more hawkish and desire a leader with command of the issue.


Even so, McCain's relative conservatism would surely conflict with the core beliefs and ideology of some liberals. But it's doubtful that they could stop his candidacy. "It's a big myth that the Democratic primary system is rigged for a liberal," says Democratic consultant Paul Begala, citing Clinton's win as a New Democrat. In fact, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll revealed the startling fact that 53 percent of Democrats held a "favorable" view of McCain; only three percent were "unfavorable." What's more, 55 percent of liberals hold a favorable view of McCain's ideology, versus just five percent who dislike it. Besides, in a contentious primary, McCain holds a trump card. More than anyone else, he's excelled at the one issue that unites everyone in the Democratic base: opposing Bush. 'The Democratic base is begging for a leader to emerge, someone who is willing to consistently stand up and fight,' says Ralph Neas, the president of the liberal organization People for the American Way. After four years of Bush, and faced with the prospect of four more, this "angry Democrat" contingent could be the deciding factor--the "soccer moms" of the 2004 Democratic primaries.


Gary Hart's Ghost

The other noteworthy obstacle presumably facing McCain is the revamped 2004 calendar. After the 2000 campaign, the Democratic National Committee decided to keep pace with the Republican schedule by doing away with the five-week primary blackout that traditionally followed the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, thus allowing states to vote as early as one week later. Several states have long desired such latitude in order to ensure that the nomination won't already be sewn up before their residents vote. Already, at least six have moved up or appear likely to do so: South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Delaware, and Washington.


Political consultants generally agree that the practical effect of this new arrangement favors the Democratic frontrunner. In order to prevail in the early flurry of primaries, this reasoning goes, a candidate must be able to run in seven or eight simultaneously, which requires the kind of money, organization, and name recognition that few challengers can muster. Part of the rationale for these changes was to settle the Democratic nomination early on and begin the general election campaign as soon as possible. Should Gore decide to run again, it's likely that the new calendar would indeed benefit him, if only because the shortened season will force interest groups to endorse candidates early, which tends to favor a known commodity like Gore.


But the front-loaded primary system also carries new risks that McCain's Democratic supporters would be wise to point out to him. With the race likely to be determined in the opening weeks, there no longer exists a margin for error. If the establishment choice falters, as Walter Mondale did against Gary Hart in 1984, nowadays he won't have time to recover; he'll either win fast or lose fast. This creates the real possibility that a maverick could steal the nomination, much as McCain almost did from Bush in 2000. "[The new calendar] makes the possibility of a candidacy like Gary Hart's much more plausible," says Tad Devine, one of Gore's political strategists in 2000. "It makes someone running against the establishment and the status quo, someone who has an independent-minded message, much more viable in the Democratic primary process." Paul Begala goes a step further: "If Hart had the calendar that these guys are proposing now, he would have beaten Mondale."


The second trend in Democratic primaries--one that clearly benefits McCain--is the move over the last decade or so toward opening state primaries to independents, as New Hampshire does. Especially in the South and in parts of the West, state parties that once limited participation to registered Democrats have begun admitting independent and unaffiliated voters. The idea is to bring the fast-growing bloc of independents into the tent, getting them emotionally invested in the party's primary in the hope that this will carry over to the fall election. States like Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Maine have already done so; others like South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Montana don't require voter registration, which imparts the same dynamic.


The effect of this on a candidate like McCain who already draws powerful independent support could be considerable, particularly given the probable political scenario in 2004. Because Bush is so strong, he is unlikely to face a serious challenger from within his own party. In open-primary states, independents will naturally gravitate to the Democratic primary. Consider the effect that will have: About 100,000 independents voted in New Hampshire's Democratic and Republican primaries in 2000, roughly one-third in the Gore-Bradley race, two-thirds in McCain-Bush. Without a Republican contest, most of those 100,000 independents would likely turn out to vote in the Democratic race, all but cinching it for McCain.


In a hypothetical run through the 2004 primaries, going by just these criteria, McCain fares extremely well. He'd probably lose Iowa, but the rest of the short calendar is a pure plus for him. He'd win the open primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina a week later and, with the new cluster of front-loaded primaries, face a quick succession of open-primary states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona. A series of early wins could easily set off a domino effect, giving McCain tremendous--possibly unstoppable--momentum through the decisive early challenges.


Political Fantasy Football

All of this hinges on McCain's ability to switch parties with his credibility intact. Short of that, the rest amounts to political fantasy football. Candidates in the past have successfully switched parties at the congressional level (Phil Gramm, Richard Shelby, Billy Tauzin) and at the local level (Michael Bloomberg), but never before at the presidential level. But if anyone could be expected to survive such a move it's McCain. "He inspires a loyalty that transcends party identity," says Zogby. Moreover, the factors that make him so popular--force of personality, "straight talk," a message of reform--also transcend party and political ideology, which is why he's been able to evolve and change his positions while gaining popularity. John McCain's principal appeal is that he's John McCain.


To be sure, from the moment he switched he would be mercilessly attacked by Republicans, who would howl, at levels normally reserved for Clinton, that such political apostasy was driven by opportunism. No doubt some would listen. But McCain long ago alienated himself from the right and no longer requires its forbearance. Given the appropriate words and circumstances--given "straight talk" about his rationale--McCain would discover a surprisingly receptive constituency. Most Democrats would welcome him as a conquering hero; swing voters and independents wouldn't much care about party; and the excitement and attention that McCain brings, absent the party today, would foster a Democratic renewal.


The other crowd that might be expected to hammer away at McCain for callous ambition is political reporters and pundits. But if you believe the statistics, they're centrist Democrats. They certainly swooned over McCain in 2000! In truth, the press would love nothing better. What little ideology burdens them would be dwarfed by journalists' professional interest in seeing McCain get the Democratic nod: A McCain-Bush race in 2004 would be the ultimate political horserace.


For McCain, it would also be the ultimate gamble, an all-or-nothing roll of the dice to determine the last chapter of his political career. He has already faced a recall petition in Arizona, which leans Republican. If he tries and fails, his life in politics will likely be over. But there's an excellent chance he'd win. Even the formidable task of announcing his switch plays to his strength. Properly deployed, McCain's principal attraction--authenticity--could convince millions to follow him, just as it did in 2000. All it would take is one good speech, the ultimate straight talk with America. You can almost hear him:




"For nearly all of my adult life, I have proudly served my country--in uniform and in Congress. It is a great privilege, and I have tried to honor it by asking myself, at every stage: Am I doing the most I can, in the best way that I can, to advance the interests of my country? For 20 years, as a member of the Republican Party, I believed that the answer was yes.

From Abraham Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican Party has stood for American greatness at home and abroad--for freedom, honest government, and patriotism above self-interest. I have stood with my party, even when I disagreed with its leadership, because of my belief in these ideals.

But to my profound regret, this Republican White House and the Republican leadership in Congress have abandoned these ideals. They have succumbed to corporate lobbyists and agents of intolerance. They have used the powers of office to protect the special interests, instead of the national interest; to provide pork for defense contractors, instead of weapons for our fighting men and women; to extend privileges to a few, instead of opportunity to all.

I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer best serve my country as a member of the Republican Party. Despite my differences with some Democrats over the years, the Democratic Party is now the standard-bearer of reform. The party that claims that standard may have changed, but not my duty to carry it. Today, America needs a leader who is a force for reform, not a leader who chooses reform only when forced. That is why I stand before you to declare my intention to pursue the Democratic Party's nomination for president..."



Joshua Green is an editor of The Washington Monthly.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...205.green.html

[American Patriot]

Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
By Bob Cusack

Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.

“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”

“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”

He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”

Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.

“Within seconds” of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle.

“I did take the call from Tom [Downey],” Daschle said in an interview. “It was Weaver’s comment” to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added.

Daschle noted that McCain at that time was frustrated with the Bush administration as a result of his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primary.

Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain “had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority … [A lot of issues] were on the table.”

Absolutely not so, according to McCain. In a statement released by his campaign, McCain said, “As I said in 2001, I never considered leaving the Republican Party, period.”

Some of the meetings Daschle referred to are detailed in the former senator’s 2003 book.

Other senators who played major roles in the intense recruiting effort, according to Democrats, were then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as well as Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“John [Edwards] at that time was working with McCain on a couple things and there was a sense that because of his relationship that he might be a good person to talk to him,” Daschle said. “He was clearly one of those that we thought could be helpful.”

A source close to Edwards said Daschle’s comments are accurate.

Daschle also said, “Both Sen. Reid and I talked to [McCain] both individually and together.”
Several former McCain aides who worked for the senator in 2001 and are now in the private sector did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a longtime friend of McCain’s, said yesterday, “I have never heard one word from John’s mouth to suggest he was going to leave the Republican Party. These are political-intrigue stories that have no basis in fact.”
Speculation about McCain’s flirtations with becoming an Independent surfaced in the press throughout 2001.

In one article, Marshall Wittman, a McCain loyalist and strategist six years ago, put the odds of McCain leaving the Republican Party at “50-50.” Wittman, who now works for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), declined to comment for this article. A source said that Wittman’s comment at that time was “completely based on speculation.”

McCain consistently shot down the rumors, though Weaver acknowledged this week that the senator did talk to Democrats about leaving the GOP.

He said McCain was invited to a meeting in Kennedy’s office with several other Democratic senators but “didn’t know what the meeting was for” and left soon thereafter. Weaver added that Edwards approached McCain on the Senate floor to discuss the matter.
Daschle, however, said the talks went much further, claiming that there were times that he and Democratic leaders thought McCain “might be our best opportunity.” Daschle stressed that McCain never considered becoming a Democrat, but was close to becoming an Independent.
Downey said, “I actually thought during the initial stages of this that [McCain leaving the Republican Party] was almost a certain deal.”
Weaver, who changed his party affiliation to “Democrat” several years ago, said he respects Daschle and Downey, but added, “They’re partisan Democrats and we’re in the political season.”

Told of Weaver’s version of what happened, Daschle said, “Obviously, our recollection of what transpired is somewhat different.”

Daschle first made some of these assertions in little-noticed parts of his book, titled Like No Other Time: The 107th Congress and the Two Years That Changed America Forever.

The book states that in 2001, Daschle and other Democrats were attempting to persuade three Republicans to leave their party: Jeffords, Chafee, and McCain.

Asked which one was the closest to committing, Daschle answered, “Depended on the day.”

On page 62, Daschle wrote that McCain and Chafee “seemed like real possibilities” to bolt their party. He pointed out that few, if any, of McCain’s people were hired by the Bush administration.

“John didn’t think that was right,” Daschle wrote, “that his staff should be penalized like that.”

Chafee confirmed to The Hill this week that he had meetings with Democrats about changing parties in 2001 because he was “alarmed” at the differences between President Bush’s campaign promises and the policies coming out of his administration.

Weaver said he hasn’t read Daschle’s book, which does not mention the Downey-Weaver lunch.

Mark Salter, who in 2001 was McCain’s chief of staff and now works for the senator’s campaign, said McCain has not at any moment thought about leaving the Republican Party: “Never at any time. Never.”

Salter said there were no staff discussions about this issue, noting he would have been in on them.

Soon after Bush was inaugurated as the nation’s 43rd president, McCain was working with Democrats on many issues, ranging from gun control to healthcare to campaign-finance reform.

McCain’s links to Democrats were so clear that Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) — now a close ally of McCain — publicly criticized him in the early part of 2001 for keeping “unusual company.”

Jeffords pulled the trigger on May 24, 2001, throwing control of the Senate to Democrats. Chafee and McCain then broke off their discussions with Democratic leaders, according to Democrats.

Downey said he talked to Weaver at least once a week during McCain’s discussions with Democrats, asking him questions like, “What is the state of play?” and “Where are we?”

“Weaver was very active in this,” Downey said, “None of this happens without Weaver.”

The Democrats’ claims about McCain come as the senator is courting the Republican base for his 2008 White House bid. Other frontrunners for the GOP nomination have raised some eyebrows in conservative circles. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) voted for Democratic Sen. Paul Tsongas (Mass.) in 1992, while ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) endorsed then-New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) a couple years later.

Asked why this news hasn’t come out before, Downey said, “It’s a mystery to me. And in fact, the last time Weaver and I had dinner together [on April 26, 2006], we laughed about this … It’s never been written about, never got in the paper.”

He denied any political motivation, saying he is still friends with Weaver and “deeply respects” McCain. “I would have been happy to come forward last year or the year before if someone had asked … There were meetings in offices. You can’t deny [these meetings took place]. They occurred.”

Downey added, “It’s my hope that John McCain is the Republican nominee because from my perspective, although I think Democrats are going to win, if they don’t, McCain is the sort of man I would feel comfortable [with] as the president of the United States. I’m not trying to hurt him.”

Daschle said he doesn’t believe the new revelations will hurt McCain. “Everyone has known John McCain to be independent, to take his own course. That was a time in his life when he at least weighed the possibility of becoming an independent, but he rejected it, so I can’t imagine that can ever be used as a political liability.”

On June 2, 2001, The Washington Post ran a front-page story with the headline “McCain is Considering Leaving GOP; Arizona Senator Might Launch a Third-Party Challenge to Bush in 2004.”

The article, written in the wake of the Jeffords’s announcement, noted that Daschle and his wife were visiting the McCains at the senator’s home in Arizona for what was billed by McCain’s office as a social event. But by that time, McCain had decided to stay a Republican, according to Daschle.

In his book, Daschle wrote that plans for the June weekend getaway were made months earlier when McCain was mulling changing his party affiliation.

As the media camped outside the senator’s vacation house in Sedona, Ariz., Daschle and McCain discussed “what an incredible piece of history Jim Jeffords had just written,” Daschle wrote. “Nothing was said about John doing the same thing. I think we both knew that wasn’t going to happen, not now.”

McCain and Bush settled their differences before the president’s reelection campaign in 2004, when McCain strongly backed his former nemesis after reportedly rejecting an offer from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to become his vice presidential nominee. Last year, McCain aggressively stumped for dozens of GOP candidates.

[American Patriot]

Big Caucus Turnout a Boon for Democrats, So Far
By Becky Ogann
http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/13901587.html

Story Created: Jan 18, 2008

Story Updated: Jan 18, 2008
DES MOINES (AP) - Record turnout for the Iowa caucuses is a boon for the state's voter registration rolls, especially for Democrats.

Secretary of State Michael Mauro says county auditors have processed about 52,500 registrations where voters switched parties.

So far, 43,000 switched to the Democratic Party, with 9,500 going Republican.

To participate in precinct caucuses, voters must be registered as either a Democrat or Republican, but they can switch registration on the spot.

The last official numbers released by Mauro's office showed that as of January 3rd, there were about 606,000 registered Democrats and 576,000 Republicans.

Both are outnumbered by the 742,000 Iowans who registered without declaring a party.

[American Patriot]

(This one basically claims REPUBLICANS are switching parties in this particular area, and it's advantageous to the Dems......)


Republicans switch, fatten Dems’ numbers
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008...-dems-numbers/
By Alexandra Berzon, David McGrath Schwartz

Sun, Jan 20, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Perhaps the biggest winner in Saturday’s caucus will be the state Democratic Party. Judging from observations by Sun reporters at precincts across the state, many voters who had been registered as independents or Republicans declared themselves Democrats.

Caucuses are intended to enrich political parties in advance of general elections. Despite the intramural elbow-throwing among the competing Democratic campaigns, Saturday’s caucus may embolden the state party as it heads into the national election in November.

In Republican-rich Elko, 13 people of 76 in one downtown precinct changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat before the caucus, as party rules allow. Other caucusgoers said they’d switched parties before Saturday.

In a precinct in an older Las Vegas neighborhood, 16 of 51 people registered as Democrats on Saturday in order to caucus. Many of them had been Republicans.

And at a school near Tropicana Avenue and Pecos Road, 23 Republicans switched their affiliation to caucus as Democrats, which officials said caused them to run out of ballots and registration forms.

To be sure, this is all anecdotal. The number of people who registered as Democrats on Saturday probably won’t be known for weeks, party officials said. New registrants had to fill out paper forms, which will be sent to county registrars.

But many Republican leaders took notice of what the Democratic Party had created.

“Whichever Republican nominee survives will have to take a hard look at what Democrats accomplished in the last 12 months, and will have to put a lot of resources on the ground here,” said Robert Uithoven, a veteran Republican consultant.

Whether newly registered Democrats reflect a one-day spike or will remain loyal to the party is the next question. Some Republicans think that if Clinton is the nominee, lost party members might return to the fold.

“If we have a good Republican candidate, the pendulum swings,” said Pete Ernaut, chairman of the Nevada Republican caucus. “If Hillary is the nominee, the chances of keeping crossover registration is much less likely.”

The Republican caucus, organized much later than the Democrats’ and overshadowed by South Carolina’s GOP primary Saturday, also exceeded projections, he pointed out.

Still, all three major Democratic candidates made last-minute pushes in previously rock-solid Republican counties.

Barack Obama, in particular, targeted Elko, in a county where 24 percent of voters were registered Democrats. In August, 900 people turned out to hear him speak; last week he drew about 1,300 people, filling a high school gymnasium.

Among his supporters: former Republican Rita Todd, a 50-year-old caregiver who said she’d stick with the party and support Clinton should she win the party nomination in Denver.

Sun writer Mary Manning contributed to this report.

[American Patriot]

Political blogger switches party affiliation and restores the GOP to pre-Bloomberg defection levels.


http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2...hes-party.html

On Monday last, there were 69,548,864 voting age Americans affiliated with the Republican Party. On Tuesday, there were only 69,548,863 as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg ended his six year membership in the GOP saying "... good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology." The GOP can ill afford any defections. They have enough problems with this Republican President hell bent on alienating every single voter in the country and this Republican Vice-President working to sever all legal ties to the government and the constitution. Enough is enough. I mean, it is not even fun beating this dead elephant any more. This is just not healthy.

Today I announce that I am switching my party affiliation from Democratic to Republican.

With this announcement the Republican party is restored to the pre-Bloomberg defection level of 69,548,864.

I am completely serious. Although I have been a registered Democrat for 20 years, I will be registering as a Republican in time for the 2008 primary in California. Why? I am simply acting on the lessons learned from Michael Bloomberg. He changes his party affiliation about as often as I change my underwear, and probably for similar reasons (comfort, style, personal hygiene, dirty laundry needing an airing out, whatever). He was a Democrat until it was more convenient for him to run for New York mayor as a Republican in 2001. Now being a Republican is chafing against his political ambitions and personal convictions. Time for Mike to drop those drawers. Bloomberg is right. Party affiliation really should only be worn under the cover of practical political clothing and the stylish ideological overcoats we show to the world.

Party affiliation is always secondary to, and in the service of accomplishing political objectives. Bloomberg's objective in changing his underparty support may be an independent run for the office of the President of the United States. My objective in changing my underparty is to secure better government in Washington DC.

If, you believe as I do, that federal government should be limited, careful, fiscally responsible, with individual rights respected, oversight of our electedrepresentatives effective, and laws enacted only after being tempered by the fire of partisan debate, then you also may want to consider the merits of changing your underwear party affiliation frequently. These objectives can be accomplished at the ballot box. Not by voting exclusively Republican, Democratic or 3rd party, but by voting consistently for divided government. That these objectives can be accomplished by following this path is documented historical fact. The most recent example is playing out before our eyes as a result of the 2006 election. Wearing a Bloomberg independent 3rd party “hairshirt” presidential bid may or may not serve to accomplish these objectives. Working for these objectives in a worn pair of cotton “divided government” boxers is a much more comfortable way to go.

Here is the rub. The Democrats will not lose the House or Senate in 2008. There are 33 Senate seats contested in 2008. Of these, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Simple numbers lead to a simple conclusion - the Republicans have more at risk, and the Democrats have many more opportunities to take seats than Republicans. This is a crushing structural advantage for Democrats. The Senate is out of reach, but what about the House? The House of Representatives has never changed majorities in the 100 years since we have been directly electing Senators, unless the Senate also changed majorities. The conclusion is clear. In 2009 we'll again have a Democratic House and Senate. The benefits of divided government can only be maintained by electing a Republican or independent 3rd party President in 2008. I have nothing against third parties, but tilting at windmills is not my thing. But, hey - don't let that stop you. If that is your preferred path, knock yourself out. If you get something going that might win, I just may change affiliations again. In the meantime I'll be working to make sure that we continue our happily divided government, by supporting the best Republican candidates to win the nomination.

John Farmer at the New Jersey Star Ledger distills the problem and opportunity nicely in his op-ed "Americans are better off junking party loyalty":"

We're witnessing the dawning of the Age of Agnosticism in American politics. It's long overdue. Until recently, our major parties, Democrat and Republican, enjoyed a presumption that they represented not only the best in modern political thinking but also the interests of individual Americans and the nation. It's been hogwash for some time.... The Libertarian Party believes many Democrats and Republicans have, at last, spotted the scam. In a press release this week, the Libs gleefully reported a sharp decline in Republican and Democratic party membership, a rise in Libertarian enrollment and success at the polls. The Libs are on to something -- especially when New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's defection from the GOP and new standing as an "unaffiliated" voter are cranked into the mix. But probably not as much as they think. The rise of a credible third party, which presumably is where all this is heading, is just not in the cards. The hurdle is not the popular vote. It's the Electoral College, with votes in most states awarded on a winner-take-all basis. That favors established parties. Teddy Roosevelt, the most successful Third Party candidate, won better than one in four votes in 1912 but carried only six states. Teddy's principal impact was to drain votes from the GOP president, the favorite, and elect the underdog Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, which is undoubtedly the effect a third-party effort would have in 2008. So what are we left with? Agnosticism. It's not a bad alternative. For it says to both parties, "We'll no longer take you on faith. Prove yourself."

Well said, John, but I have one nit to pick. The parties may never be able to "prove themselves." On the other hand, the benefits of divided government are already proven. We can continue those benefits, if enough of us are politically agnostic.

Tactically this is it how it can play out: Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel are my top Republican presidential hopefuls. I'd have added Bloomberg to that list if he had stayed with the GOP. Hagel remains undeclared, but is clearly a stronger national candidate than either Paul or Bloomberg. Interestingly, while sitting on the sidelines, he may find the path for a Republican run cleared by the surprising support garnered by Ron Paul, and the foundation for an Independent run built by the Bloomberg announcement. Unity08 is building the infrastructure and raising funds for a "Unity ticket", but requires the ticket to be a mix of Republican, Democratic, and/or Independent candidates. Bloomberg's quick-change artistry opens the door for a Hagel/Bloomberg Unity08 ticket. By waiting to declare, Chuck may have some pretty good choices.

My first choice is to save the GOP. To do that, real conservatives and libertarians need to take back the Republican party from the Bushists. Michael Nystrom and Verbatim at the Daily Paul are promoting the right idea with this call to action "Change Party Affiliation to Republican to Participate in Primaries":

"As you may realize, there are many people from across the spectrum planning to support Ron Paul: Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Green Party members, disenfranchised Democrats, and of course the disenfranchised Republicans. Many of these people may not realize that they NEED to change party affiliations to Republican to vote in the GOP Primary in many States. I think this information is important to get out as is instructions on how to change ones' party affiliation and the DEADLINE for each State."

This is an effort I can get behind. It is worth noting, that should the Paul candidacy falter, the base of enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters are a natural constituency for a Chuck Hagel run. In support of their efforts, I'll be posting the Daily Paul "Call to Action" badge in the sidebar of this blog, and encourage any other bloggers interested in saving the GOP to do the same.

The only way to avoid single party Democratic control of the Federal government in 2009 is to fix the GOP. We cannot fix the GOP if we are not in the GOP. Now is the time for all good independents, moderates, and libertarians to reach out and come to the aid of the Republican party. They need our help and they need our membership - whether they want it or not.

[American Patriot]

The Great "RINO" Revolt of 2008 - An Open Letter To Fellow Republican Primary and Caucus Voters
Mike B.

The Great RINO Revolt of 2008 - An Open Letter To Republican Primary and Caucus Voters

This is an open letter to all Republicans who live in states that have not yet voted or engaged in open caucus. Do you feel disappointment over our current choice of candidates for the nomination of our party? Are you still looking for a candidate that speaks for you? If so, you may not be alone. It is clear that there are large numbers of Republicans who are not satisfied with the current field of party candidates. None of the current candidates seem to be speaking to disaffected conservative voters in any meaningful way. This election cycle we have Republican candidates mocking private enterprise, demonizing the idea of "profit", advocating nationalized health care plans, promoting presidential management of the economy, more federal funding for education and the list goes on... the resurgence of the RINO (Republicans In Name Only) Republicans has a lot of conservatives wondering, where did all of the Republicans go?

In addition, a lot of Americans are deeply troubled by the media rush to judgement about the Republican Party and their assessment that John McCain has somehow locked up the nomination. Many of you may feel the same way. A lot of you probably wish there was something you can do about it. There is, in fact, something you can still do actively do to promote conservatism within the party, so long as there are still 4 candidates in this race.

This is a call to fellow Republicans to consider the following:

Strategic Overview: Utlizing a strategic mindset, millions of Republicans in yet-to-vote states can still cast their ballots to effectively block the nomination of John McCain. Senator McCain requires 1191 delegates to win the nomination. So long as McCain is unable to attain 50% of the delegate count, rank and file republicans can still force a brokered convention and thus create an opportunity to nominate an alternate candidate.

Tactical Implementation: This is very simple. If you are a primary voter, take a look at the polling data as you approach election day in your state. Examine which candidate has the most support, outside of John McCain, and then vote for that person.(www.Realclearpolitics.com is a recommended resource for this activity.)

Should you happen to be in a caucus state (or in Washington State which has both a caucus and a Primary) then pick yourself up and head to your local caucus. The caucus is a high energy process and well worth your time in order to meet like minded neighbors, regardless of how you vote. Before you cast your Caucus ballot try to gauge which candidate (aside from John McCain) has the most support in your precinct and side with that candidate (Yes, even if it means voting for Ron Paul.) Remember, the entire idea of this strategy is to deny McCain the delegates he requires for a majority and thus force a 2nd (open) ballot on the national convention floor.

Outlook: Admittedly, this scenario does fall in the "long bomb" category, yet I believe it is healthy for our party bring this debate all the way to the convention. It is certain that our party would benefit from an intense convention debate and the chance that it could result in an alternate candidate to emerge from fray.

While millions of votes have been cast there are still millions of votes yet to be counted. Please consider utilizing your vote to split the delegate count and bring the debate about the future leader of our party to the floor of the Republican National Convention this September.

Best Regards,

Mike B. (Registered Voter)

(Please feel free to circulate this letter on other websites, blogs and personal homepages.)

[American Patriot]

'Kill the pollsters'
Sacramento Bee ^ | 2/6/8 | Shane Goldmacher

Polls are known as a snapshot in time. But some of the cameras taking the pictures before California's Super Tuesday presidential election certainly appeared to malfunction.

Chief among them were the polls from Zogby International.

On the Republican side, the final Zogby poll showed former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney with a growing lead and 40 percent of the vote, followed by Sen. John McCain at 33 percent.

But once the votes started being tabulated Romney was actually substantially behind McCain, who appears on his way to nearly sweeping the state's 170 election delegates.

Current balloting results show McCain with 42.1 percent of the vote and Romney with 33.9 percent.

That, along with other wildly inaccurate pre-election polls, caused GOP strategist Rob Stutzman to tell The Bee's Amy Chance on Tuesday night, "Kill the pollsters."

On the Democratic side, Zogby didn't fare much better,

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...

[American Patriot]

(MORE Evidence the McCain is pushed on us by Dems, because they are SURE they can beat him easily)

(Howard) Dean says McCain is the GOP nominee
The Hill ^

Posted on 02/06/2008 2:11:34 PM MST by bshomoic

Dean says McCain is the GOP nominee

Posted: 02/06/08 03:51 PM [ET]

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), said John McCain will be the Republican presidential nominee and he outlined, in a fundraising e-mail, how Democrats will approach beating the Arizona senator in the general election.

“Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are done,” Dean wrote. “John McCain will be the Republican nominee — he’s the only one with a reasonable path to the nomination.”

In the letter, Dean says McCain will offer a third term of President George W. Bush’s policies on healthcare and the Iraq war. The chairman, a former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential hopeful, also said it is not enough for Democrats just to win in November.

“I don’t just want to beat John McCain — I want it to be a landslide,” Dean wrote.

Calling McCain a “media darling,” Dean said McCain has a “carefully crafted image” and has “worked for years to brand himself.”

Dean noted that McCain has acknowledged weakness when it comes to economic issues, adding that the senator has said that the U.S. might stay in Iraq for 100 years and that he wants the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade.

“We can’t afford four more years with a president who drives the economy into the ground,” Dean said. “We can’t afford four more years with a president who fights an endless war in Iraq. We can’t afford four more years with a president who gives tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas; with a president who can’t get every American the healthcare they deserve; with a president we just can’t trust.”