Obama and the White House Chicago Boys

A good article about them ‘Chickens Coming Home to Roost’ for the Chicago Gang.
Some highlights:

[quote]Obama and the White House Chicago Boys
By Ed Lasky, January 08, 2010

Barack Obama has a problem. His polls numbers are dropping and his policies are fueling an angry backlash across America. The Democratic party is held in disrepute, and congressional Democrats are dropping like flies. This imperils Obama’s radical agenda and his own 2012 prospects. What to do? Game the system and rig the future elections. That is how things are done in the streets of Chicago.

Signs are emerging that the Chicago Boys – the triumvirate of Obama, Emanuel, and Axlerod – are up to their old tricks, as I touched upon in a previous American Thinker column. My recent interest was piqued by two news items that floated across my screen in the last week.

One was the release of the White House visitor logs that showed visits by Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and named by Fortune Magazine as "the most powerful woman in the labor movement. " We know Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, routinely visits the White House and has boasted of the tens of millions of dollars and man-hours the union spent in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. We can expect a repeat performance come 2012.

But Anna Burger is far more than an SEIU honcho; she also is the vice-chairman of a shadowy group called the " Democracy Alliance," composed of billionaire funders and savvy political operatives who set out a few years ago to change politics as we know it in America. Among their projects was something called the Secretary of States Project that set about electing secretaries of state in key battleground states.

These are the very officials who are charged with maintaining the integrity of the voting process. Recall the controversies in Ohio and Minnesota – including ACORN problems – regarding the accuracy of the votes in those states last year? The secretaries of state who gave a stamp of approval to these elections (where Democrats won) were Democrats supported by the Democracy Alliance. Various state chapters of the Democracy Alliance have formed to use a range of controversial methods to ensure Democratic victories. (See “The Colorado Model” by Fred Barnes for a display of the type of tactics that can be used to manipulate elections. These include creating faux controversies, spreading them through supposedly non-partisan groups created by Democrat activists, and relying on an echo chamber effect until the mainstream media picks up the “story” and broadcasts it far and wide. Other groups are formed to harass journalists and editorial writers who don’t push the liberal line.)

Was Burger in the White House to plot future strategies with, say, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod? These are putatively the Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser, respectively, to President Obama. But before that, Emanuel was the maestro of political fundraising and spending, and Axelrod was a veteran political strategist who has run numerous political campaigns over the years (including Obama’s). The Democracy Alliance has helped form front groups to get Democrats elected. Axelrod is a master at this type of tactic.

The Alliance’s handiwork played a role in the victory of Al Franken over Norm Coleman, which helped secure a sixty-seat majority in the Senate. There was a group – Alliance for a Better Minnesota – that posed as a group of concerned citizens. The Alliance was funded by outsiders, namely the wealthy, hyper-partisan Democrats behind the Democracy Alliance. This was a so-called astrotruf group: it falsely appeared to be a true grassroots effort.

Tellingly, the Obama team has killed off disclosure rules mandating that unions reveal how they spend the billions of their members’ union dues. These, in turn, are often poured into “front groups” and other “funds” each year. Anyone care to wager whether these funds will flow to help Democrats? Thanks to Obama, we will never know. So much for transparency. But we do have change.

The second item that sparked my interest was Obama’s move to ditch the superdelegates’ role in nominating Democratic candidates for the presidency.

(more in the article, here are some tidbits covered)

How else will the Chicago Boys game the system and gin up victories?

And those illegal aliens will also boost electoral votes of those blue states. We can also expect a campaign to allow felons to regain their right to vote. Anything to boost those numbers and rack up some wins.
The push to “Rahm” through universal voter registration is a ploy ripe for voter fraud, as noted so well by my American Thinker colleague James Simpson in his recent column. This is a proposal to impose a federal mandate regarding voter registration. State laws will be overridden by federal law drafted and passed by Democrats.

Are there any more ways for Obama and the boys to stack the deck?
“The Federal Election Committee monitors how campaigns raise and spend money. Obama has appointed John Sullivan, SEIU’s in-house lawyer, to serve on its six-member panel. Obama’s campaign was marked by fundraising and spending scandals. (Among them were foreign donations being received and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the SEIU, and to Obama-linked ACORN for “get out the vote efforts.” Hmm…“get out the vote”…is that anything like “street money”?) Community groups are being used, by the way, to collect census numbers. Given the record of “community groups” and vote fraud, is that a bright idea? The answer depends on which side of the aisle you sit.”

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder, a close ally of Barack Obama , has shown a very lax attitude towards prosecuting Obama supporters for voter intimidation (à la the New Black Panthers Party travesty).

How about billions and billions in stimulus money that is disproportionately being showered upon Democratic districts, and that often does not correlate as well with unemployment numbers as it does with partisan makeup?

Will the Chicago Boys sic the recently expanded Internal Revenue Service on Obama’s ever-expanding scroll of enemies? He joked that he would do so when Arizona State University had the temerity to question his bona fides when it came to awarding him an honorary degree.
(Anybody seen that Columbia University transcript yet?)

What happens when talk radio ticks off the Obama team? Threaten to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Then apply a dose of Media Matters criticism. Lather it up with some insults, and then rinse and repeat.

If that doesn’t do the job, release the dogs of war (bloggers, Air America, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow) to spread some misinformation and insults (“teabagging”).

And of course, there is always, always the race card. Obama’s ace in the hole.[/quote]
During the run-up and the 2008 Presidential campaign my standard remark about BHO was that he/they were running a masterful plan. It worked. He was elected.
And the results show what a disastrous mistake this has been for America, and in many instances the World.
I do think that 2010 will be the turn-around year. America will return to its senses. I also sadly predict that its not going to be a pretty scene back in the Ol USA when this begins.

Hmmm… the article mentions both SEIU and ACORN. :roflmao:

In other words, it’s right-wing conspiracy garbage.

That’s laugh-yourself-silly stupid. Thanks, TainanCowboy, I don’t often get amusement like that.

Ambitious power-hungry weasals hiring IQ 200 sociolinguistic weasals to attract hairy ass Christian redneck voters = modern GOP

Lasky is already known to be the biggest partisan psycho wank-job in the planet. TC, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting that. Just as Lasky “fears” that Democrats might free up the vote for convicted felons, I also fear that Republicans will appeal to a key part of their Ted Klaudt- and Mark Foley-esque demographics to ensure that such voting rights will only be extended to convicted sexual predators who have targeted minors. Fair’s fair, right?