OR: Both Sides Play Dirty, We the Voter Loses
Published on October 18, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
BUSH CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL RESIGNS President Bush's New England campaign chairman stepped down Friday after the Democrats accused him of taking part in the jamming of their telephone lines in New Hampshire on Election Day 2002. "The Democrats' allegations against me are without merit," the official, James Tobin, said in a statement. "But to avoid any harm to the campaign from their underhanded tactics, I elected earlier this week to step down from my voluntary position with the campaign." Last summer, Chuck McGee, former executive director of the state Republican Party, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and admitted paying $15,600 to a Virginia company that hired another business to make computer-generated calls that jammed Democrats' phone lines for about 90 minutes. Mr. McGee acknowledged speaking to an unidentified official with a national political organization about the jamming. Democrats have said they believe that Mr. Tobin was the official. (AP)

The last few days have refocused the election now that the debates are over on the actual voting. The election seems to have more abuse going into it than one in Afghanistan. The sophistication of the participants and the millions of dollars that will be spent signal an ever increasing desire on both parties parts to win at all costs.

This is not new, of course, as voter outrages in many states occured in 2000. However, now that the focus has shifted to "how" the election will be conducted it is obvious that both sides need to take a close look not at what could be done, because in a high tech age the election could be invalidated by many different means but rather the result of the tampering.

When I was in high school (back in the middle ages) the girls in my class always served as class officers. But I knew that I could win some spending cash by getting a guy elected. My friends all took the bet and pooh poohed any chance I had of doing it. Just to make it more lucrative, I had them pick the guy we would elect, who was, of course, the class clown (not me, btw, I finished second in that voting). What I did was go to the nominating committee meeting and talk about virtue and honor and, knowing that the class president of our sophomore and junior classes had groups of different friends nominated both of them (well, the junior class president was nominated by someone else, but you get the idea). Anyway, the day of the election came (which was done by getting everyone together in the auditorium (all 91 of us) and electing by a show of hands. The guy my friends picked was sitting in the back trying to think of a way to escape.

I stood up, talked about the rancor in the campaign (both candidates were bitter) and said we needed someone to bring the class together and so I nominated the class clown. He was stunned, of course, but in a brief moment of lucidity stood up, said he would do the best he could and sat down.

The vote went straight according to sex, all boys for the class clown and the girls split down the middle. The class clown was elected, I was a little richer and the rightful officers were usurped. As class president, the class clown went on to anger both teachers and students, cancelled the senior dance (he hated dancing) and divided up the class treasury at the end of the year and then had a "graduation beer bash blowout" following the ceremony.

Here's another issue. The report above was about a Republican campaign chairman for the Northeast (Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Run a search on the man's name (James Tobin) at CNN. You won't get a thing back. This story broke on Saturday the 16th. People at JU are extremely aware of most stories occuring. Had you seen this one?

The point is that elections can be manipulated, but at what cost? Would you want either of these men to be elected because their side played a little dirtier? How much dirtier is acceptable to you before even you could not vote for the man you believed so strongly about?

Can we afford to not have the right to elect?

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 18, 2004
I'm with you CrispE, but the Democrats have been playing their own set of tricks, too. I'm really worried that the Dems will start filing lawsuits if Kerry doesn't win -- and there have been intimidation tactics on both sides, sign stealing, vandalism, and voter registration fraud. It's like a couple of boxers that both keep hitting below the belt. This isn't just a Republican problem.
on Oct 18, 2004
"The point is that elections can be manipulated, but at what cost? Would you want either of these men to be elected because their side played a little dirtier?"

No. Which side is playing dirtier politics does not affect my vote one way or the other...because unfortunately it happens on both sides although one could argue it happens on one side more than the other. However, I think anyone who is caught doing this, whether it's local party leaders or people at the national party headquarters, should go right into the slammer. The best way to put an end to this non-sense...is to start breaking out the orange jump suits and start parading some of the 'higher-ups" wearing them for pulling this kind of crap.
on Oct 18, 2004

Reply #2 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/18/2004 10:33:01 AM
No. Which side is playing dirtier politics does not affect my vote one way or the other...because unfortunately it happens on both sides although one could argue it happens on one side more than the other.


One could argue that. But then one could be proven wrong also.
on Oct 18, 2004
I'll spare you all the litany of articles (a couple of examples for balance). I don't remember this kind of intimidation and violence in the years I've followed politics (about 30 yrs.) and it is definitely occuring on both sides (it does appear there is more violence from one side however, either that, or one side is doing a better job of making it public). There was only one time I can remember where violence exceeded this and it wasn't for a major party candidate (if I remember right he was a Dem, he ran as third party) George Wallace.

Democrat charged with slugging area GOP chief (Gainsville, FLA)

September 19. 2004 6:01AM

David Philip McCally, 55, of Gainesville faces misdemeanor battery and criminal mischief charges after he was accused of hitting both committee chairman Travis Horn, 32, and a life-sized, cardboard cutout of President George Bush.

The incident occurred at the Republican headquarters in downtown Gainesville at about 7:30 p.m.

McCally went into the office at 1212 N. Main St. and hit the face of the Bush cutout, a police report states. Afterward he argued outside with Horn, police reported, then punched him in the face. Police said there was a fight and Horn struck McCally several times "but was not the primary aggressor and fought only in an attempt to escape from further conflict."

Shots fired at Knoxville Bush-Cheney office; no one hurt

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Gunshots shattered the plate-glass front doors of a local Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters Tuesday morning before volunteers reported to work.

"For someone to use that level of violence to try to make a political point, it is just a shock," said Chad Tindell, Knox County Republican chairman.

Police believe someone pulled up to the Kingston Pike Shopping Center storefront of Bush-Cheney Victory 2004, the state GOP's grass-roots support organization, between 6:45 and 7:15 a.m. ET and began firing.

No one was inside and no one was injured.

"We know there were at least two shots and possibly more," Knoxville police spokesman Darrell DeBusk said. Police were searching for bullet fragments and suspects.
on Oct 18, 2004
i'm not generally much of a comment fanatic on joeuser, but i must say that this is certainly one of the more thoughtful articles i have seen about the increasingly undignified squabbling. thank you, crispe.
on Oct 18, 2004
T B:

I tried to make sure it was obvious that I was including both sides in the dirty tricks department. I choose the story I did because it was the most recent I could find. There was another Republican story about a campaigner in South Dakota who was disgraced by his actions and then rehired in Cleveland a day later but I figured that was overkill.

The bottom line question are 1)when do such actions as we are seeing actually causes a person to not vote for their own candidate and 2) When do these actions actually invalidate the election as a whole?
on Oct 18, 2004

we had some Democratic voter registrations thrown away on purpose here in Las Vegas,
but it may have simply been a small group of Republicans

evidently voter fraud in varying degrees is not that unusual, on both sides, including dems

pete
on Oct 18, 2004
drmiler:

You know, I am not sure if we should "tally" incidents as a measure of their severity. The real issue is whether both campaigns have done it (yes) and how we should react.

I would hate to see the reaction be: Since both do it, then it's ok. That's like "you shoot someone, I shoot someone, so we are both exonerated by the equality of the criminal act."
on Oct 18, 2004
Peter the great:

I don't think anyone knows how common or uncommon it is. We don't hear about it enough to judge. As I said in the article, finding this story was not easy.
on Oct 18, 2004
This is an issue where we really should be non-partisan. We should not paint all the incidents with the same broad brush, because there are always 3 sides to any story, but I join CrispE in condemning this kind of crap, from either side.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 18, 2004
Daiwa:

Well put! This is non-partisan and in-fact, is really the most non-political of political issues. The debate should be: "how can we clean up this crap?" but instead it seems to be: "Is the crap being done equal on both sides?"

That's not to say that those in this thread are saying that. I applaud all of you who are as outraged as myself.
on Oct 18, 2004

Reply #11 By: CrispE - 10/18/2004 4:32:32 PM
Daiwa:

Well put! This is non-partisan and in-fact, is really the most non-political of political issues. The debate should be: "how can we clean up this crap?" but instead it seems to be: "Is the crap being done equal on both sides?"

That's not to say that those in this thread are saying that. I applaud all of you who are as outraged as myself.


You know I don't particularly like Democrats however, if the Republicans are also doing this then I don't like them either. It just needs to stop.
on Oct 18, 2004
We could get into a debate about who is mirroring whose tactics. Or we could play the citation game, weighing the stories about each side's foolishness, as if one side is justified by the similar excesses of the other. But really, I much prefer CrispE's tone here, calling it ridiculous for all sides to engage in these sorts of shenanigans.

Problem is, I don't know how to answer your question:

How much dirtier is acceptable to you before even you could not vote for the man you believed so strongly about?


At the core of this question is a central conundrum concerning what do we hold "the man" responsible for. Arguably, the reported incidents are perpetrated not by the candidates themselves nor with their approval. On the other hand, they are ultimately responsible for the actions of all involved in their campaign. We want a leader who doesn't pass the buck, right? We want a leader who takes responsibility not only for his own actions but also for those under his command.

Another conundrum: say the tricks get uglier and dirtier. My options are what, exactly. Not vote? Then who wins? The guy who pulled the most (effective) dirty tricks but didn't alienate his base in the process? Or worked his base into such a rabid frenzy that dirty the tricks seem justified? That's really the right choice for the leader of this country?

So I agree with the sentiment of this discussion. And I grant that it is easier to see the other side's "tricks" as "dirty" while your own are at best "justifiable" or at least "only reactive." The truth, though, is that in a tight race, both sides are looking for any advantage. The tighter the race, the more a few votes gained through gross manipulation of the system seems justifiable. Which means basically I am keeping the moist towellettes handy until Nov. 2 (and probably, unfortunately, well after).
on Oct 18, 2004
Bungy32:

You know, I wish I had a good answer to your question. I don't think "who was more outrageous?" is a good qualification because that's a matter of taste. (Lord knows, we don't want a "taste test"!) I think the thing is that we watch the abuse closely and each of us decide what is outrageous and then tell whichever party we support about our disgust and after the election petition our representatives and congressmen on both the state and federal level for increases in penalties and tighter enforcement.

There is no singular crime more viscious than depriving a citizen his right to vote.
on Oct 18, 2004
The bottom line question are 1)when do such actions as we are seeing actually causes a person to not vote for their own candidate and 2) When do these actions actually invalidate the election as a whole?


I have a program called Web Ferret (you can download it for free and use it with no expiration, at least the last version I got, it uses an occasional nag screen) which I use to search, I was able to come up with dozens of reports in just one search (my plug for Web Ferret).

I would not vote for a candidate, if there was substantiated evidence that the direction of this sort of behavior was either coming from the Chairman of the party (nationally, not just a renegade locality) or with the knowledge of the candidate and the senior campaign advisors. If that test was passed for BOTH major parties, I would vote for a 3rd party candidate (as I have done before, but not in response to this sort of despicable behavior).

I have a background in statistics (among other things) and I would assert that actions of this sort invalidate the election when it becomes statistically significant. It shouldn't be too hard to model and since states elect the President, it would only be needed for a few states (Ex: there would be no need for one for California where Kerry probably has a double digit lead, or Georgia where Bush has a double digit lead because the tactics would not likely be able to impact the election enough to change the outcome of the sate electoral college)
2 Pages1 2