Quite frankly, this is a question that has been on my mind for months. We know how much effort the republican party had put into gaming the electoral system from the inside. We know how much the republican party leaned on the US attorneys to bring “voter fraud” charges or charge Democrats with fairly bogus “crimes” close to election day. We know how major partisan republicans who were connected to legally questionable (at best) initiatives were appointed to the FEC as well as to US attorney positions (Tim Griffin and Brad Schlozman).
We also know that, before the time Jim Talent, Conrad Burns and George Allen conceded their Senate races to Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester and James Webb respectively, the House was firmly in the Democrats’ hands. If any of these Senate races were won by the republicans, then Senate control would remain in republican hands. Further, George Allen was still touted as the “next best thing” and a future contender for the White House – macaca moment notwithstanding.
So with all this, including Rove’s “we have THE math” comment, the missing emails, the emails from 2004 looking to challenge voter registrations in all states, and the fact that right before the 2006 elections Rove and Gonzales had “concerns” about potential voter fraud in Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin, something just doesn’t add up.
Karl Rove and the republican party doesn’t just give up. Especially when races are so close. Especially when the Senate hangs in the balance and when they have been so quick to assert fraud, or do whatever is in their power to, well, remain in power.
So, what gives?
McCaskill won by the largest margin: 50% – 47% and a total of 45,000 votes. This may have been the hardest to “challenge” (or manipulate) but the party did have US attorney Brad Schlozman in place – a man who came from the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division where he was partners in crime with Hans von Spakovsky. Certainly, the means, motive and opportunity were in place in Missouri.
In Montana, Tester beat Burns (a man who was as tied to republican felon Jack Abramoff as any member of Congress) by a mere 3,000 votes.
And even more amazingly was the Virginia race. Allen was touted as a front runner for the republicans in 2008. He was most certainly NOT the kind of person to just lay down to defeat. He vowed to keep fighting, and lost by only 7,000 votes. Yet, he (to me) inexplicably decided that by not conceding he would “cause more rancor by protracted litigation” and effectively end his political career so abruptly.
I’ll ask again – what gives?
What were the republicans hiding? What could they possibly gain by throwing in the towel so quickly in all three states? Not just conceding an electoral defeat that was unthinkable a few months earlier, but a demoralizing crushing defeat where the permanent majority that was envisioned a few years earlier was gone for good.
All of the parts were apparently in place. The lessons learned from 2000, 2002 and 2004 with respect to caging, disenfranchisement, voter eligibility challenges and other intimidation tactics. Voting machines that were (seemingly) rigged in at least a few instances. US attorneys that were bringing up baseless charges (in New Jersey, among other states) close to election day. The FEC, DoJ (US attorneys, Voting Rights Section), party officials all in place to ensure that the republicans “defied all odds” and remained in power. The comment by Rove that a few thousand votes would have swung the Senate or less than 80,000 votes would have swung the House to keep the republicans in power.
The fact that the will of the people overcame this tremendous disadvantage in order to deliver BOTH the House and the Senate to the Democrats is a testament to We the People. The fact that another 10-15 House seats (and maybe even Corker’s Senate seat) didn’t also flip to the Democrats certainly is at least as likely (if not more so) than the republicans maintaining control of either house of Congress.
It still doesn’t make sense to me. Even though it was apparently all aligned for a Democratic landslide, the factors above almost evened the playing field enough to keep the scales from tipping.
But they tipped.
Why were Virginia and Montana not challenged? Why, after all of the miles and miles of paper trails indicating a very concerted and deep running effort to use any means necessary to hold onto power – why did Burns and Allen throw in the towel? Why did we not get a word from Rove? Why didn’t they go down in the same dirty mud slinging fight that they have become famous for?
Maybe we will find this out soon enough. Maybe we already “know” but are just waiting for more hardcore proof that will ultimately come out in some way or another (at least to some degree).
My guess – there was something so rotten – so despicable that was being covered up, being hidden that to dig any bit past the surface would have uncovered way more than we are already finding out about the depths that the republican party will sink to in order to maintain power. Was it more money trails? Was it more caging or voter roll purges? Was it something related to the (already illegal) NSA spying program? Was it something directly implicating some very VERY high up figures in the party?
I know two things as of now – it was probably something huge since the republicans don’t fold like that. Not when it is that close and that much is at stake. And it is also something that we should continue to be mindful of and keep out in the open as 2008 is the most important election since, well, this past November.
I don’t trust the republicans to play fair. And I don’t trust them to throw in the towel. Something stinks here. And where there is stink, there is something truly rotten underneath.
also in orange
I think the exit poll studies show that the Republicans tried HARD to game the 2006 election, but a confluence of events so tipped the public in favor of the Dems that even with all that rigging, they had lost the battle. Why fight when there is so much dirt to be uncovered? I think they played it ‘smart’ by laying low and not contesting.
And winners never check to see if something more might have been at work.
That’s one of the key reasons I’m in favor of auditing our election results automatically, so that whether there is reasons for suspicion or not, an independent check is done. Audits would point out suspicious swings between the paper vote and the electronic ones, if we had such audits…
This is one of my favorite kinds of questions – why something didn’t happen.
I had been asking a different question for years: Knowing that your own party’s dominance in any branch is only temporary has always provided its own check on excessive power. Parties tend not to implement policies that would be disastrous to them if they lose the next election. So why wasn’t that working with Republicans? Why were they pursuing institutional changes like the nuclear option and signing statements that would be intolerable to them as soon as Democrats resumed power? What were they thinking?
I eventually got a satisfying answer – they were rigging elections nation-wide through the DOJ, GSA, and FEC to make Republican dominance permanent.
Here’s the “problem” with your question – it suggests that Republicans are using tactics to determine the outcome of elections that prevent them from demanding recounts when they lose close ones. Recounts are a big tactic to give up. It’s like sacrificing your rook for no visible gain. Either they’re going to amend their tactics to get recounts back, or they’re going to pursue their strategy and sacrifice recounts. So look for the concrete answers even when there’s no data. What would you have to gain to make giving up recounts worth it? What tactics would make recounts too dangerous?
your questions are excellent and what I am getting at as well. That is something that, if our suspicions are correct is even scarier to contemplate.
“cheaper” to throw this one away than lose the same advantageous methods next time around…
I agree – it was something big…
Probably,because the wire transfer from China didn’t make it into the right off shore account in time.
Virginia does not do proper recounts. Much of the state has Diebold machines and there is nothing to recount. Most of the state has machines that keep a paper tally, but not individual votes. Even in parts of the state that use optical scan the individual ballots are not the ballot of records, only the tallies. A recount consists of reviewing all the tallies to make sure they were correctly recorded.
Virginia went through a contentious recount of the 2005 Attorney General’s race where the Republicans lead was narrowed, but ultimately he prevailed.
Allen really had no choice, under Virginia’s no-count recount law he had no chance.
Good questions.
I personally wondered why Gore and Kerry were so quick to give up.
Election reform needs to become our major focus now. Please keep on asking questions.