Prologue: "But the Democrats Cheat Too, Don't They?"

In "investigating" Republican Party cheating in elections, one of the first obstacles one encounters is public apathy, always accompanied by statements or questions like the above. How can the Democrats fuss about the GOP cheating, when they cheat, too.

On the surface, it does appear that the Democratic Party candidates have at time engaged in cheating in elections. All the tricks and "shenanigans" blamed on the GOP (vote-buying, funding "phony" parties to drain votes off the GOP as ''third" parties, the "graveyard vote") seem to have been done by the Democratic Party, as well.

But on closer examination, these charges prove to carry 1ittle weight against the Democratic Party. In fact, the Democratic candidates most frequently blamed for such cheating--southern Democrats--can even point to the fact that the individuals, structures, and organizations were, in fact, not even a part of the Democratic Party, and may even have engaged in such activities "in their behaIf" as a way of "exposing" and discreditng the Democratic Party structure itself. That is, posing as "friends", such groups seek to "rejoin" a party they never really belonged to in the first place, in order to engage in blatant cheating which they almost immediately "expose" and then blame on the Democratic party. A strong case could be made for the idea that the GOP has always cheated in presidential elections. And that the Democratic Party has not.

This, of course, does not necessarily mean the GOP would not have won some of these elections anyway; but the Democratic Party has no underlying philosophy which considers cheating in elections to be "ok" because such cheating would result in a victory for someone who would have the "best interests" of the common, stupld people. at heart.

Additionally, this research indicates that, if the Democratic Party does cheat at all, it is evidently not in presidential elections. It also indicates that even that most notorious Democratic Party "ring", Tammany Hall, was in fact not a "heartless machine" at all, but rather an elaborate organization built, not to enrich crooked politicians, but rather to get around goverment restrictions which prevented the delivery of certain kinds of services to the poor of New York. This "machine," like the Daley machine in Chicago, seems to have had a much more human side than the GOP machines of the same and later eras; indecd, it would appear that the machine was in fact created to counter the effects on the poor of the GOP-controlled machines: that of enriching crooked politicians.

One further thing needs to be said. To the extent, on the national level, that the Democratic Party has engaged in questionable (though not illegal) behaviors, this has largely been when dominated by the Southern, conservative wing--the wing that has the closest ties with the GOP. Thus, in a round-about way, discovery of unethical behavior by Southern Democrats and Democrats who are dominated by Southern Democrats, reflects largely on the GOP. To the extent that the GOP has had input into the Democratic Party, it has moved it in the direction of cheating in elections.

. In fact, in a way, that is perhaps the most telling piece of evidence of all.*

*I could perhaps add an "update" to this old material, in this footnote: We are currently (2002) seeing the possible appearance of this kind of collusion, as certain Southern Democrats--namely, supporters of Hillary Clinton--seek to downplay the likelihood of "prior knowledge" of 9/11. Why? Because the discovery of such scandal would be "too early" for Clinton supporters' tastes. Therefore, since Hillary won't run until 2008, the 2004 Presidential election is too soon to be attacking Bush and his record in this murky affair. Current media reports assert that the "Congress" has determined that there is no evidence of "prior knowledge" of the 9/11 matter at higher levels in the Bush Administration. But part of the "teeth" of such a claim is that it seems "backed by persons of both parties." Right: the "persons in both parties" include backers of Hillary Clinton, who are determined not to spoil her chances of running in 2008, and are, therefore, determined to have a GOP candidate for her to run against that year. That means downplaying 9/11 and "prior knowledge" for another four years. To hell with those thousands who died, just as long as Hillary has her run.

Go to Part I of How Lincoln to Hoover Got Elected

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website