I read the complaints of Luskin's Truth Squad at the NRO. He does make some points regarding Krugman's initial presentation of the facts. However, he then proceeds to totally discount the 3rd point, as stated by Krugman:
The third is what would have happened if the intentions of the voters hadn't been frustrated by butterfly ballots, felon purges and more; the answer is that Mr. Gore would have won by a much larger margin.
Most people seem to forget that this is a partisan time. The theory is that there are people who might willing interpret the rules and regulations of govt to their favorâ€¦aka Rove/Novak.
I know, it's a slap in the face to think that anybody from a Bush campaign would play hardball, ask John McCain. So the theory goes that someone associated with the Bush campaign/family might want to use the levers of power to tilt the machine in their favor. Everything legal mind you, but just a little off the path for a political campaign, unless your brother controls the levers of power in said state. Of course it's just a silly conspiracy theory, with no bases in fact. The state of
In November the
Me, being a regular guy would never think that something as important as the presidency of the
However, if I were to put myself in the position of a person, Rove, who shouldered the task of having to get a brain dead, dry drunk, Christian evangelist elected to the Presidency; I would do whatever it takes, even bending/breaking the rules. And me being a superb manipulator would leave not one fingerprint. It would be years later that anyone would associate such crude electioneering tactics to someone know as, "a senior administration official".
Godâ€¦I am good.
For further study on the science of election stealing read onâ€¦.
Was Nixon Robbed?
The legend of the stolen 1960 presidential election.
By David Greenberg
Posted Monday, Oct. 16, 2000, at 6:30 PM PT
"You gotta swallow this one," says a Republican hack in Oliver Stone's Nixon, referring to the 1960 election, in which John F. Kennedy prevailed. "They stole it fair and square."
That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You've probably heard the allegations: Kennedy's operatives fixed the tallies in
The story is rich in irony: The much-hated Nixon, later driven from the presidency for cheating in an election, puts country before personal gain. The beloved Kennedy, waltzing through life, pulls off the political crime of the century. Nixon's defenders like the story because it diminishes Watergate. His detractors like it since it allows them to appear less than knee-jerkâ€”magnanimously crediting Nixon with noble behavior while eluding charges of Kennedy worship.
Ironic, yes. But true?
The race was indeed closeâ€”the closest of the century. Kennedy received only 113,000 votes more than Nixon out of the 68 million ballots cast. His 303-219 electoral-vote margin obscured the fact that many states besides
Even before Election Day, rumors circulated about fraud, especially in
Nixon always insisted that others, including President Eisenhower, encouraged him to dispute the outcome but that he refused. A challenge, he told others, would cause a "constitutional crisis," hurt
Classic Nixon: "Others" urge him to follow a less admirable course, but he spurns their advice for the high road. (William Safire once noted that he always used to tell Nixon to take the easy path so that Nixon could say in his speeches, "Others will say we should take the easy course, but â€¦") Apart from the suspect neatness of this account, however, there are reasons to doubt its veracity.
First, Eisenhower quickly withdrew his support for a challenge, making it hard for Nixon to go forward. According to Nixon's friend Ralph De Toledano, a conservative journalist, Nixon knew Ike's position yet claimed anyway that he, not the president, was the one advocating restraint. "This was the first time I ever caught Nixon in a lie," Toledano recalled.
More to the point, while Nixon publicly pooh-poohed a challenge, his allies did dispute the resultsâ€”aggressively. The New York Herald Tribune's Earl Mazo, a friend and biographer of Nixon's, recounted a dozen-odd fishy incidents alleged by Republicans in
But it wasn't just Mazo who made a stink. The press went into a brief frenzy in the weeks after the election. Most important, the Republican Party made a veritable crusade of undoing the results. Even if they ultimately failed, party leaders figured, they could taint Kennedy's victory, claim he had no mandate for his agenda, galvanize the rank and file, and have a winning issue for upcoming elections.
Three days after the election, party Chairman Sen. Thruston Morton launched bids for recounts and investigations in 11 statesâ€”an action that Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson attacked as a "fishing expedition." Eight days later, close Nixon aides, including Bob Finch and Len Hall, sent agents to conduct "field checks" in eight of those states. Peter Flanigan, another aide, encouraged the creation of a Nixon Recount Committee in
The Republicans pressed their case doggedly. They succeeded in obtaining recounts, empanelling grand juries, and involving
The results of it all were meager.
National GOP officials plunged in. Thruston Morton flew to
Completed Dec. 9, the recount of 863 precincts showed that the original tally had undercounted Nixon's (and Adamowski's) votes, but only by 943, far from the 4,500 needed to alter the results. In fact, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, Nixon's vote was overcounted. Displeased, the Republicans took the case to federal court, only to have a judge dismiss the suits. Still undeterred, they turned to the State Board of Elections, which was composed of four Republicans, including the governor, and one Democrat. Yet the state board, too, unanimously rejected the petition, citing the GOP's failure to provide even a single affidavit on its behalf. The national party finally backed off after Dec. 19, when the nation's Electoral College certified Kennedy as the new presidentâ€”but even then local Republicans wouldn't accept the Illinois results.
A recount did wind up changing the winner in one state:
The GOP's failure to prove fraud doesn't mean, of course, that the election was clean. That question remains unsolved and unsolvable. But what's typically left out of the legend is that multiple election boards saw no reason to overturn the results. Neither did state or federal judges. Neither did an
On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in
Another man, too, believed Nixon was robbed: Nixon. At a 1960 Christmas party, he was heard greeting guests, "We won but they stole it from us." Nixon nursed the grudge for years, and when he was criticized for his Watergate crimes he would cite the Kennedys' misdeeds as precedent. He may have felt JFK's supposed theft entitled him to cheat in 1972. It's an interesting hypothetical: If no pall had been cast over the 1960 election, would Watergate have happened?