SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 3:03:41 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
lib demohacks eat dust 2006:CINCINNATI, Aug 2 - A former Republican state legislator narrowly won a special Congressional election in southern Ohio on Tuesday, ending an underdog bid by her Democratic opponent to become the first combat veteran from the Iraq war to serve in Congress.

With all of the precincts reporting, Jean Schmidt, the Republican, had nearly 52 percent of the vote, edging out her challenger, Paul L. Hackett, a major in the Marine Forces Reserve, by about 4,000 votes.

"Voters declared that they support our president and approve of his leadership," Ms. Schmidt, 53, told supporters gathered at a suburban Holiday Inn late Tuesday evening. "They want us to stay the course so the enemies of freedom cannot bring their terrorism to our shores again."

But Mr. Hackett's showing was unexpectedly strong in this district, a Republican bastion that snakes along the Ohio River from affluent Cincinnati suburbs to struggling Appalachian hamlets. President Bush won the district with 64 percent of the vote last year, and Republicans have held its Congressional seat for two decades.

"Tonight was a victory for democracy," Mr. Hackett, 43, told supporters at a downtown Cincinnati theater. "People had a real choice." Mr. Hackett has said he expects to sign up for another tour of duty in Iraq, possibly next summer.

The race was to fill the seat vacated by Representative Rob Portman, who resigned this year to become Mr. Bush's trade representative, and it gained national attention not only because of Mr. Hackett's combat service but also because he harshly criticized President Bush.

Mr. Hackett called Mr. Bush a "chicken hawk" for failing to serve in Vietnam and "a cheerleader for the enemy" for challenging Islamic militants to "bring it on" against American troops. He also sharply questioned his policies on tax cuts and Social Security.

But in a nod to Mr. Bush's popularity here, Mr. Hackett used a clip of the president praising military veterans in a television commercial, prompting the Republican National Committee to issue a letter of protest against his campaign.

Democrats had hoped that a victory by Mr. Hackett would not only be a sharp blow to Mr. Bush's national standing but also set a template for future campaigns by Democratic war veterans.

They had also hoped that the race would show the weakness of the Ohio Republican Party, which dominates state government but has been shaken in recent months by a widening scandal involving Gov. Bob Taft's administration and the state's workers compensation fund.

But Republicans viewed Mr. Hackett's attacks as a call to arms, and they poured money and resources into the district to ensure his defeat. Mr. Bush taped a telephone message to voters, and the National Republican Congressional Committee bought $325,000 in air time for a television spot this past weekend.

Perhaps most important, the Republican organization in Clermont County, Ms. Schmidt's base, turned out voters in greater numbers than expected, pushing her over the top. The returns showed that Ms. Schmidt won handily in most of the affluent Cincinnati suburbs, while Mr. Hackett won the district's more rural counties.

In the final days of the campaign, Ms. Schmidt accused the Hackett campaign of misleading voters by claiming that he would be the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress. In fact, the Schmidt campaign said, Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, has been serving in the Iraq war as a Navy Reserve officer.

But in an interview, Mr. Kirk said he had not gone to Iraq for the military, and instead worked one weekend a month in an intelligence unit at the Pentagon. Mr. Hackett spent seven months in Iraq leading a civil affairs unit in Ramadi and Fallujah before returning to Ohio in March.

Ex-Deputy Mayor Forces Runoff

DETROIT, Aug. 2 (AP) - A former deputy mayor and the embattled incumbent, Kwame M. Kilpatrick, emerged from a 12-candidate nonpartisan mayoral primary on Tuesday to advance to the general election in November.

With 72 percent of precincts reporting, the former deputy, Freman Hendrix, had 45 percent of the vote, and Mayor Kilpatrick 33 percent. Sharon McPhail, a city councilwoman, ran third with 12 percent. All three are Democrats.

nytimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 3:06:45 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
To: Mark Anderson who wrote (694941) 8/3/2005 2:33:44 AM
From: wstera_02 of 695092

Report: Democrat Operatives Far More Involved In Voter Intimidation, Suppression In 2004, Thousands of Americans Disenfranchised By Vote Fraud on Election Day

8/2/2005 11:42:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Jim Dyke for the American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund, 843-722-9670

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund ("ACVR Legislative Fund") today released the most comprehensive and authoritative review of the facts surrounding allegations of vote fraud, intimidation and suppression made during the 2004 presidential election.

The ACVR Legislative Fund report, "Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election," finds that while Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Examples include paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee and an Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

The report further finds that thousands of Americans were disenfranchised by illegal votes cast and a coordinated effort by members of certain "nonpartisan" organizations to rig the election system through voter registration fraud in more than a dozen states. Examples include a law enforcement task force finding "clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee," including hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

ACVR Legislative Fund presents eight key recommendations focused on punishing those who engage in acts of vote fraud and voter intimidation and strengthening legal safeguards against such activity in future elections. The report's central recommendation calls for both national parties to formally adopt a zero-tolerance fraud and intimidation policy that commits them to repudiate any effort to intimidate voters or volunteers or commit vote fraud.

"Until political parties and candidates are willing to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards election fraud, the American public will have little confidence in other reforms," said Brian Lunde, ACVR Legislative Fund board member. "There is no room for politics when it comes to the right to vote."

"It should be easy to vote but tough to cheat," said Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, ACVR Legislative Fund Counsel.

In addition to common-sense recommendations such as required government issued photo ID at the polls, accurate statewide voter registration databases and a zero-tolerance policy against vote fraud and intimidation, ACVR Legislative Fund identifies five cities as election fraud "hot spots" which require additional immediate attention prior to the 2006 elections. These cities were identified based on the findings of the report and the cities' documented history of fraud and intimidation.

1. Philadelphia, Pa.

2. Milwaukee, Wis.

3. Seattle, Wash.

4. St. Louis/East St. Louis, Mo./Ill.

5. Cleveland, Ohio

A letter delivered today to DNC and RNC chairmen Howard Dean and Ken Mehlman urged party leaders to formally adopt the zero-tolerance policy against fraud and intimidation. ACVR Legislative Fund further asked party leaders to identify issues of concern in each of the election fraud "hot spots" by Oct. 1, 2005.

ACVR Legislative Fund was founded on the belief that public confidence in our electoral system is the cornerstone of our democracy. The organization was established primarily to further the common good and general welfare of citizens of the United States of America by educating the public about vote fraud, intimidation and discrimination which impacts the constitutional right of all citizens to participate in the electoral process. ACVR Legislative Fund is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that neither supports nor endorses any political party or candidate.

Please visit ac4vr.com to view the report in its entirety.

usnewswire.com

releases.usnewswire.com

ac4vr.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 3:07:14 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
ac4vr.com to view the report in its entirety.

usnewswire.com

releases.usnewswire.com

ac4vr.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 10:04:49 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Writing Agenda A Major Test of Clinton's Skill At Navigation

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; A07

For nearly five years, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has been a diligent lawmaker, introducing a blizzard of bills and amendments, forging relationships across party lines, establishing credentials on national security, and boosting her approval ratings at home by paying close attention to all regions of her state.

What she has lacked, according to some of her advisers and other Democrats, is a broader, more imaginative frame, a forward-looking national message that Democrats say they badly need in the wake of two demoralizing defeats at the hands of President Bush.

Now she is embarking on a project that could provide a new blueprint for the Democrats, and the foundation for her own possible presidential candidacy in 2008, as the leader of an initiative by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to create an agenda for the party. How she uses her new platform will demonstrate just how much she would take Democrats back to the 1990s or is prepared to lead them forward in a new direction.

Clinton's challenge will be to avoid offering the politics of restoration, whose appeal is built on an implicit return to the policies that guided her husband's administration. That would appeal to many Democrats who yearn for the successes of the 1990s, but the Clinton years carry considerable baggage for many independent and swing voters.

Some Democrats wonder whether Clinton can grapple with what ails the party today and come out of the experience as a candidate with an appeal and an identity distinct from her husband's administration -- one that fits far different times than existed when he was president.

"There's a feel of nostalgia creeping into her message that she has to be particularly sensitive to," said one veteran of presidential campaigns, who declined to be identified as publicly critical of the senator. The strategist added: "I think there's a sense of let's go back and revisit the Clinton model and that's the way to get elected. . . . I think it's going to be very hard for her to get out of the comfort zone of the Clinton administration."

Defenders say she can easily navigate from past to future. "I would quote her husband who often said -- and it's absolutely a truism -- that people vote the future, not the past," said Harold Ickes, who was White House deputy chief of staff in the Clinton administration. "Rhetorically she will invoke the halcyon days of the 1990s. The fact is she knows that people are concerned very much on the future and that she very much has to address that."

The Clinton brand is a powerful asset and a divisive force. As Bush showed when he ran for president in 2000, an attractive brand and past association with a presidency is not sufficient to win the White House. Bush's first presidential campaign may have been motivated by a desire to avenge the defeat of his father at the hands of Bill Clinton, but he did not run as the political twin of his father's administration or as the instrument to resurrect his father's agenda. He traded on the Bush name but did not allow it to restrict his vision.

How Sen. Clinton plans to deal with this, if she becomes a candidate in 2008, is far less clear. Bill Clinton presented himself as a New Democrat, Bush as a compassionate conservative. The senator has been a workaday legislator without a defining imprint of her own. In her DLC speech last week, she offered a description of an ideal America in 2020, which many in the audience regarded as an appealing vision, but it was not intended as the kind of hard-choices agenda that DLC leaders may envisage.

Clinton is the biggest celebrity in her party, but not the freshest face. If she hopes to be a bridge to the past and a gateway to the future, she may have benefited from listening to several potential 2008 rivals -- Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who also spoke to the DLC conference. Each addressed more directly than Clinton questions Democrats will have to answer to win back independent voters and appeal more successfully to those in towns and exurban neighborhoods.

Warner noted, for instance, that Democrats have been talking about education, health care, the economy, fiscal responsibility and national security, but he said accelerating change in the world renders old ideas obsolete. "In a post-9/11, flat world, sometimes even the solutions that we offered in the 1990s aren't enough," he said. "Sometimes defending the same programs, thinking they're going to give us new results, makes no sense. We need leaders who can see farther down the road."

Clinton's work on the Armed Services Committee and her support for the invasion of Iraq when many rank-and-file Democrats opposed it show her determination to overcome the party's historic weakness on national security that plagued Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) when he ran against Bush last year. Her work on economic development issues crucial to Upstate New York has given her an understanding of how a Democrat can make inroads in red-state environments. Her admission of mistakes in trying to restructure the health care system in 1993 and 1994 shows she knows when to cut her losses.

The political benefits of Clinton's high-profile role with the DLC may seem obvious to the New York senator and the centrist organization. Clinton gains a platform from which to reinforce the moderate side of her political profile, and the DLC, struggling to maintain its influence inside the party, can trade on her star power to raise its profile and power.

But for the aspiring presidential candidate and the organization that helped launch her husband toward the White House more than a decade ago, the relationship may prove more difficult than first appearances suggest.

Her advisers say Clinton begins without an agenda of her own and with a goal of bringing all wings of the party together, which on issues from trade and Iraq to the role of religion in politics could prove extraordinarily difficult to achieve. "She begins with a clean slate," said Lorrie McHugh, Clinton's communications director.

The DLC risks being used by Clinton to blur differences between left and center within the Democratic Party. Clinton risks being caught in a political time warp that could make it more difficult for her to establish that she is not merely an extension of her husband's administration. And in taking on the assignment, Clinton has made it more difficult for her advisers to say she is focused only on winning reelection in 2006.

Gina Glantz, who managed Bill Bradley's campaign in 2000, said Clinton has an "extraordinary opportunity to set an agenda, a bold agenda, not amendments to legislation, but to really put forward a strong policy framework for the country."

If the new initiative results in a sharper, fresher, more future-oriented profile for a politician who already has been on the national stage for a decade and a half, the political benefits for the Democrats may be genuinely significant. If it produces lowest common denominator policies, vague statements of principle or intraparty warfare, then the DLC exercise may accomplish neither the DLC's nor Clinton's political aspirations.



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 10:25:38 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 173976
 
nationalreview.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 10:26:13 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Bolton to the U.N.
Washington gets the ambassador it needs--and so does Turtle Bay.

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Can anyone beyond the Beltway recall what the Bolton drama was about beyond yelling at a few bureaucrats? Deciding yesterday that it was past time to get on with the serious work of confronting the U.N.'s manifest problems, President Bush used his recess-appointment power to send John Bolton to Turtle Bay. That should be good news for anyone with a good-faith interest in reforming the U.N., now at perhaps the most critical moment in its 60-year history.
The post had been vacant for six months. Senate Democrats, under the "leadership" of Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, have prolonged and thwarted every attempt to hold a vote on Mr. Bolton, who of course would have been confirmed had his name reached the Senate floor. No wild accusation was ever proved, other than that he sought the removal of two intelligence analysts for incompetence and insubordination. Notably, both the 9/11 Commission and Robb-Silberman Commission said policy makers have a responsibility to question and challenge intelligence analysts.

Senators Biden and Dodd ostentatiously demanded that the Administration let them see confidential intelligence intercepts relating to Mr. Bolton's testimony on Syrian weapons of mass destruction. These same Senators agreed that Mr. Bolton's testimony was accurate. And they knew that intercepts had been reviewed by the Intelligence Committee's two ranking Senators, who said they showed nothing of import. But this reality check didn't stop them from pressing a filibuster.

Mr. Bush now faces crocodile shouts of outrage for having bypassed the Senate, but the appointment is an entirely appropriate use of his constitutional authority to staff the government. Nor has he shown himself willing to abuse the appointment power, unlike the most recent Democratic President.

The most bitterly fought case of the Clinton years was the nomination of Bill Lann Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Mr. Lee was given a hearing. But when it became clear that he would be defeated on the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate, it was Democrats who blocked a vote.

In response, Mr. Clinton decided against a recess appointment that would expire at the end of that Congress. Instead, he named Mr. Lee as "acting" Assistant Attorney General, which allowed him to serve until the end of Mr. Clinton's term. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd protested, and even Mr. Clinton admitted this wasn't "entirely constitutional."

With the circus behind him, Mr. Bolton has a lot to keep him occupied between now and January 2007, when his appointment expires. We like the bipartisan blueprint for U.N. reform put forward in June by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. They call for a permanent independent oversight board to prevent future corruption scandals like Oil for Food, the creation of a democracy caucus within the U.N., and more effective security mechanisms to deter future Rwanda-style genocides.
Meanwhile, legislation conditioning America's $500 million a year in dues on U.N. reform is barreling through Congress and could result in another U.S. withholding of funds along the lines of Jesse Helms's famous boycott. This is probably one reason Mark Malloch Brown, the U.N. Secretariat's chief of staff, told us earlier this year that he was enthusiastic about Mr. Bolton's pending ambassadorship. The Bush emissary, he said, would be an effective ambassador from the U.N. to Washington.

Also rapidly reaching a crisis state are the investigations into the Oil for Food program. More breakthroughs are expected soon, and it may not be long before the new U.S. Ambassador is called upon to negotiate a successor to Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Mr. Bolton's recent State Department experience in exposing the A.Q. Khan arms network in Pakistan and in persuading Libya to give up its arms program should prove especially helpful in shaping the U.N.'s role in battling the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Proliferation Security Initiative he helped engineer and run has proved more effective than any other multilateral organization in stopping the flow of WMD.

Ambassador Bolton said yesterday that he is committed to making the U.N. "a stronger, more effective organization." After his past half-year's experience with the U.S. Senate, we trust that he at least has some sense of the institutional challenge ahead.



To: American Spirit who wrote (54218)8/3/2005 10:27:03 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
America Coming Together Comes Apart
The Democrats’ great hope goes away.

A few days after the 2004 election, America Coming Together, the giant pro-Democratic voter turnout group that had raised about $200 million from George Soros, Peter Lewis, and a variety of Hollywood moguls, released a list of its accomplishments. Obviously, ACT, as big as it was, had not put John Kerry over the top, but the group had "held conversations at 4.6 million doorsteps about the truth about the Iraq war, about the state of our healthcare system, about the economy." It had registered half-a-million new voters. In the last days of the campaign it had made 23 million phone calls, sent out 16 million pieces of mail, and delivered 11 million fliers. And on top of it all, it had "launched the largest get-out-the-vote effort the Democratic Party has ever seen," turning out "unprecedented levels of voters in the battleground states."


It all sounded very, very impressive. And then ACT listed its accomplishments at the polls, and the results seemed far less impressive. ACT had "helped ensure George W. Bush’s defeat in several of the key states and made the race close in others." It had "enabled Democrats to take back the Oregon state legislature for the first time in 10 years." It had helped Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan win election as Missouri secretary of state. And finally, "In New Hampshire, we saw wins for the presidential race and the governor’s race, as well as a gain of four state senate seats."

And that was it. Soros and all his colleagues had spent $200 million to elect a Democratic secretary of state in Missouri.

The question that hung in the air at the time was whether, after such a defeat, the big donors would continue to support ACT — to get ready for the next big campaign — and help it grow into an even larger turnout machine. And now we have the answer: No.

On Tuesday ACT, which had already downsized dramatically in the months since the election, pink-slipped most of its remaining staff and shut down all its state offices. The money had dried up, the donors were on to other things, and the "largest get-out-the-vote effort the Democratic Party has ever seen" was over.

Throughout its life — it started when Ellen Malcolm of EMILY's List, Steve Rosenthal of the AFL-CIO, former Clinton operative Harold Ickes, and others held a downcast post-election dinner in November 2002 at a restaurant in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood — America Coming Together operated on the assumption that big, big money would bring victory to the Democratic party. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law had just taken effect after the 2002 elections, and it revealed in stark terms that Democrats, despite their image as the party of the little guy, had for years been far more dependent on seven-figure contributions than Republicans were. With unlimited contributions to the parties banned by McCain-Feingold, Malcolm, Rosenthal, Ickes, and their colleagues — the group included representatives of the Service Employees International Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Sierra Club, and several other groups on the left — had to find a way to keep the big Democratic donors engaged. America Coming Together — a so-called "527" group that could still legally accept big contributions — was the answer.

In July 2003, they traveled to Southampton, to the estate of George Soros, where Soros's political consultants made a pitch for spending large amounts of money on Democratic-voter turnout. Soros, his friend and giving partner Peter Lewis, and several others present agreed that it was a good idea, and the money began to flow. "We came out of that with a big commitment from George and Peter Lewis and some of the other participants," Ellen Malcolm told me when I interviewed her for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "So all of a sudden this little idea..." Malcolm paused for a moment before saying, "We could do more."

A lot more. Soros, who would eventually give ACT $20 million of his own money, virtually dictated the size and scope of the new organization; he was personally responsible for its massive effort in all the swing states. "He’s very good at pushing out the limit," Malcolm told me before the election. "At one point, we thought we could only do seven or nine states. And George would come in and say, 'No, you can do this.' He helped us put together some other ways to raise money and pushed us into doing all the states. And he was right."

When rich Democrats across the country saw that Soros and Lewis had joined up with America Coming Together, they decided to hop on board, too. There was Hollywood producer Stephen Bing, who gave $12 million. There was Hyatt hotel heiress Linda Pritzker, whose family gave $5 million. And the Service Employees International Union, which gave $3 million. And Massachusetts technology entrepreneur Terry Ragon, who gave $3 million. And Texas technology executives Jonathan McHale and Christine Mattson, who together gave $3 million And the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which gave $2.1 million. And New York philanthropist Lewis Cullman, who gave $2 million. And Rockefeller heir Alida Messinger, who gave $1.5 million. And Agnes Varis, head of AgVar Chemicals, who gave $1.5 million. And Illinois broadcasting magnate Fred Eychaner, who gave $1.5 million. And Seattle tech entrepreneur Robert Glaser, who gave $1.2 million. And the Teamsters Union, which gave $1 million. And Colorado entrepreneur Tim Gill, who gave $1 million. And television producer Marcy Carsey, who gave $1 million. And Pennsylvania financier Theodore Aronson, who gave $1 million. And Oregon publisher Win McCormack, who gave $1 million. And heiress Anne Getty Earhart, who gave $1 million. And Texas technology entrepreneur James H. Clark, who gave $1 million. And the American Federation of Teachers, which gave $1 million. And Florida millionaire Dan Lewis, who gave $1 million. And Ohio philanthropist Richard Rosenthal, who gave $1 million. And clothing entrepreneur Susie Tompkins Buell, who gave $1 million.

And those were just the ones who contributed $1 million or more. In all, America Coming Together, along with its sister organization, the Media Fund, raised and spent about $200 million. And as Election Day approached, the organization gave off an air of confidence born of the belief that it was simply too big to fail.

In a way, it didn't fail. In 2004, America Coming Together helped create a record Democratic turnout — a performance that would have been a fabulous success had not the other guys turned out even more. In the end, though, the problem for ACT was not that it failed to turn out voters. The problem was, despite its claims to be reaching more people than ever before, it really did not reach a lot of new people. America Coming Together was not, in fact, America coming together; it might more accurately have been named Traditional Democratic Party Constituencies Coordinating Like Never Before. You could go to any office of ACT and find lots of people from NARAL, or the Service Employees union, or Planned Parenthood. They were the same old groups doing the same old thing, only more so.

Despite all the hype and all the press releases, the effort really wasn’t about converting new voters to the Democratic party. Rather, it was about squeezing just a little more juice out of a lemon that had been nearly squeezed dry in the past. Steve Rosenthal’s well-regarded successes in previous elections had not involved attracting large numbers of new people to the cause. They involved getting union voters to turn out in ever-greater percentages, even as the percentage of union households in the electorate shrank. The problem was, you could do that for only so long. At some point, every union member or union household member of voting age could turn out and it still wouldn’t be enough to elect a Democratic candidate. For that, you had to expand your appeal, and that was something ACT failed to do. Malcolm, Rosenthal, and Ickes discovered that you could call it America Coming Together, but saying so didn't make it true.

— Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time. This piece is adapted from the book.