"Stealing Elections" by John Fund

[atommom]

I picked this up at the library yesterday out of curiosity (though I was suspicious given the fact that he writes for the WSJ). It looks like an interesting read, but he's putting quite a partisan spin on things. Here are a few howlers:

Republicans tend to pay more attention to the rule of law and the standards and procedures that govern elections.

Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people - who need money - to participate in shady vote-buying schemes.

Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily convinced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." (quoting from "Dirty Little Secrets," by Sabato and Simpson)

But he does admit...
While they have not had the control of local and administrative offices necessary to tilt the rules improperly in their favor, Republicans have at times been guilty of intimidation tactics designed to discourage voting. :eyes:

I've barely started the book, but he's losing credibility with me fast...

[papau]

1. Who counts the votes - not who votes - can steal the election.

Stalin said it early - and the GOP follow in his footsteps.

[drm604]

2. Well, that explains

why the Democrats control everything while the poor beleaguered Republicans can hardly get a single vote. :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

3. When was the book written?

I'm from Chicago and certainly Democrats have stolen elections there in the past.

It appears republicans have now perfected the crime on a national level.

I still can't help but think that the main of our Democratic leadership remain fairly silent on what has occurred with our national elections in part due to their own involvement in cajiggered elections.

Just a hunch. One thing I do know, I want it all out in the open.

[atommom]

5. It came out in 2004, before the elections.

I don't think the Dems are innocent either, but I think he's defending the Reps a little too much. It's very disheartening to see how much corruption there really is in the voting process. And both sides still claim the moral high ground.

[Kurovski]

6. If it came out in 2004

It's merely a whitewash job.

The idea of middle-class Republicans being shy of fraud is particularly amusing.

In my experience, a degree of fraud and deceit is an accepted part of the business world.

Of course, so is pretending you're an upstanding citizen.

[atommom]

8. He even argues that Reps are less inclined to commit fraud because

they have business connections and can just return to private industry ... while the shiftless Dems would have a lot more to lose!

[Kurovski]

9. What an arrogant, deluded twit he is.

Business connections are the very reason our system is as corrupt as it is.

Geez, does someone have a spare barf-bag handy?

[Yupster]

17. I grew up in New York City

and the way the old Democratic machine Tammany Hall fixed elections was ind of a source of historical pride.

I remember my teacher telling us about Boss Plunkett and his quote about good graft and bad graft.

I think it was Boss Tweed who said he wanted to be remembered with the slogan, "I seen my chances and I took em".

Landslide Lyndon's stealing of the Democratic senate primary was no highpoint in democracy either.

But the Republicans were just as good even stealing the presidency in 1876.

And how about the South Carolina presidential election in 1868. We're supposed to believe that in a fair election three years after the Civil War, South Carolina really did vote for General Grant for president?

So I think both sides can be as ashamed as the other.

[drm604]

4. It's published by "Encounter Books".

A quick read over the front page of their website says it all. When I have some time I may try to dig a little deeper into the connections of that publisher. My guess would be that Regnery may be involved somehow.

[atommom]

7. Holy crap! They have a distinguished line of books there.

Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese

Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony's Long Romance with the Left

The People v. Harvard Law:
How America's Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech

Taking Sex Differences Seriously
(the blurb for this one reads: Most discussions of sexuality today assume that differences between men and women are insubstantial, and that the boundary between the masculine and the feminine is highly porous. To reflect the idea that male and female roles have been “socially constructed,” they speak of gender instead of sex, and ridicule the double standard of “studs” and “sluts.” Because men and women are virtually interchangeable, it is argued, men should do an equal share of domestic work so that women can compete equally with men outside the home.
Rhoads explores male/female disparities in aggression and dominance, in sexuality and nurturing. He shows how denial of these differences has affected phenomena such as the sexual revolution and fatherless families, and policies such as Title IX and the call for universal day care. But he also says that society is improved by discouraging some natural tendencies, like men’s temptation toward predatory sex, and encouraging others, like women’s greater interest and talent in caring for babies.

I'll save my rant on that last book for a more appropriate forum ... ;)

[Kurovski]

10. It looks as though they're admitting to a Republican

father's disinterest and mediocrity in caring for babies. It seems to me that if the "red" daddies have a lesser talent for raising children, they should be encouraged to do a better job.

That would explain a lot about Republicans. With Cold, distant and non-nurturing daddies, No wonder they seek out papa figures in their presidents.

No one should give any president the same trust they grant to a family member.

[CrispyQ]

12. Have you read

"Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Latkoff? He addresses the 'strict father family' vs the 'nurturing parent family' difference between the repubs & dems.

Here's a DU discussion of it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=209&topic_id=806

[Kurovski]

13. I haven't, but I would like to.

Maybe I'll get it from the library. It's just gone onto my list, and thanks for the link!

[atommom]

16. Typical Strict Father thinking ... they admit to the weakness,

but at the same time they laud it as a sign of strength. Caring for others ... that's wimmin's work! :sarcasm:

[Mist]

11. Yep, they list The American Heritage Institute and Focus on the Family

among their "recommended links." RW spinmeisters.

[drm604]

14. Here's a good critique of that book.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411010001

In his recent book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Democracy (Encounter Books, September 2004), Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist and author John Fund uses distortions and half-truths to impugn Democrats who, he states in his introduction, "figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book."

Notice that quote from the book - "figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book." He doesn't say that Democrats figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud, he says that they figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book. In other words, they figure prominently in the examples I've carefully chosen to make my point. :eyes:.
It's these kinds of word games that tell me that people like this don't even believe what they're trying to imply. If he really believed that Democrats were to blame for the vast majority of election fraud, then why doesn't he just say it outright? Instead he says it in a way that is literally true but designed to mislead careless readers. That way he achieves his goal but has plausible deniability against claims of dishonesty. THERE IS NO REASON HE WOULD WORD THINGS THIS WAY IF HE REALLY MEANS WHAT HE IMPLIES. :grr:

[atommom]

15. He even insists that he doesn't think Dems are any more dishonest,

(my goodness, he even says he "often votes Libertarian"! :P ) but every argument in the book seems to revolve around that premise. I had a couple of fun hours seeking out ridiculous examples and laughing at them, but I don't think I'll be reading this book cover-to-cover. It's still interesting as a source of pre-election disinformation, intended to get the public to lean the Republican way.