What else must one believe to believe stolen elections are acceptable?

[Fly by night]

For those of us who are "old school" here, we all remember the several long (and accurate) lists that TIA published here on the large number of coincidences that one would have to believe were true if one believed that the Smirking Chimp won the 2004 election. In that spirit, I would like to start a thread that delineates the large number of things that a Rethugligan (north or south of the Mexican border) would have to believe in order to believe that it is acceptable to subvert the democratic process and steal elections in the 21st century.

While I encourage any and all responses to this thread, I have a serious purpose in starting it. I firmly believe that most rank-and-file Republicans do not start -- in terms of their political identity -- at a point where stealing elections is acceptable. In fact, I think they still relish being able to throw the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race (and Chicago's "vote early and vote often" history) in our faces as a way to suggest their own moral superiority. So if they do not believe that stolen elections are acceptable to begin with, what precursor beliefs must they come to accept in order to get to that point? I want to throw out a few now, but again, I want to use this thread as an incubator for a longer, more serious piece that I hope to write soon.

To begin, I believe Rethugligans start by believing that the franchise is really not for everyone. I ran into that attitude a lot when I was registering voters in 2004, when Rethugs would ask me, "You're not just registering anyone to vote, are you?" My response: "My heavens, no. I am only registering Americans." But there, as plain as day, was a precursor belief that far too many people are allowed to vote than should have that right. I think this belief underlies much of the Rethugs' current efforts to make voting harder and to disenfranchise many groups of people. Tied to this belief is a basic belief that the democratic foundation -- government of the people, by the people and for the people -- is a bad way to run a country. In addition, there seems to be a basic belief that government -- per se -- is inherantly bad and must be constrained from operating in a fashion which benefits people other than themselves (government as zero sum game).

There are other beliefs that go along with the above. Clint Curtis (that reformed Republican who is running a heroic Congressional campaign for Congress in Florida as a Democrat) told us at the National Election Reform Conference in Nashville (April, 2005) that present-day Rethugligans do not allow ideology to get in the way of their political ambitions which, first and foremost, are simply to win. So if "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing", any means necessary are acceptable to justify that end.

Some of you may want to cut to the chase and discuss the other moral fellow-traveling belief systems (or character (not) traits) that likely co-exist within an ethical standard that abides election theft and you are more than welcome to comment from that perspective. To that end, I have come to believe that -- particularly among the Bushes -- there is no honor among thieves and that the she-wolves that birthed that branch of humanity did nothing but raise lazy yet self-important, underachieving but overly entitled cheats (and practicing substance abusers).

So there's the set-up. Please comment either on what precursor steps must people go through before they arrive at a belief system that accepts election theft. Or comment on the other personal characteristics that likely inhabit that same (im)moral plane. Or both. This mid-term essay might just help us pass the upcoming mid-terms by helping to articulate for our political standard-bearers just which side of the current moral cravasse most Americans want to position themselves on.

This may just be our last mid-term exam under the democratic tradition of this country if we cannot articulate the place where Rethugligan election thieves have come from and have brought our body politic to.

This is a pass-fail exam, and there are no make-up opportunities. You may begin.

[damntexdem]

1. Just a few things:

1) That they can steal elections;
2) That they can get away with it;
3) That others can't do the same to them; and
4) That what they can get in consequence is worth any risk; or alternately
5) That their resulting hold on government will be so total that they can ensure there will be no risk in what they do.

Now, those are the BELIEFS -- what you asked for. As to the type of person who will act on those beliefs, describing such scum was not what you asked for.

[GuvWurld]

2. Everything is legal...

as long as you don't get caught.

(and besides, all the cool kids are doing it)

[damntexdem]

3. Just a few things:

1) That they can steal elections;
2) That they can get away with it;
3) That others can't do the same to them; and
4) That what they can get in consequence is worth any risk; or alternately
5) That their resulting hold on government will be so total that they can ensure there will be no risk in what they do.

Now, those are the BELIEFS -- what you asked for. As to the type of person who will act on those beliefs, describing such scum was not what you asked for.

[Fly by night]

4. If the mass of current Republicans aren't anti-democratic....

....., then how do we show them that stealing elections is the logical end of a brain-washing process that some of their leaders have dragged them through that includes mistrusting the voters' ability to be self-governing, to stop believing that the ship of state is righted (lefted?) by the stabilizing (and basically conservative) anchor which the ballot box has always represented?

If we are going to de-program the mass of savable Republicans (and cleave them from their Rethugligan masters), what are those other beliefs that we must ask them to re-consider? Must our leaders be to the manor born (and borne), and must our elections be manipulated to ensure that end? If so, then many of my country neighbors (who have tended Republican recently) would run the other way. They have never had to cheat at anything they did to get ahead and they don't abide people who do. Their word (and their hand-shake) is their bond, and if they have to cheat and steal to win, they'd rather lose (or change sides).

I guess my question re: the underpinnings of election thievery relates to that old saw, "the moral majority is neither". How do we return to a verifiable and trustworthy election process by demonstrating the moral vacuum within which the current "faith(less)-based" voting system has been allowed to develop?

More questions. Look forward to your answers.

[BeFree]

6. Trick 'em?

Tell them that if they are so right it is obvious that any dem elected must have stolen their election, and because they have faith only, dems will be forever more elected. If they want all reps, then by gawd, they ought to make sure all elections are double-checked from here on out.

Which is not a bad idea. Measure twice and cut once.

[Melissa G]

5. the government should be run like a game of risk. It is better if the

republicans are the few guys in the the back room playing than the dems..they will run the world better.
They believe their values are inherently better.

I have had a repub acquaintance tell me this almost verbatim...

[Kurovski]

7. Don't forget the nutjobber Right-Wing faux xtians.

They have no fear of lying, cheating, stealing, and Jesus knows what all else, all in the name of winning at the "ballot box".

Mark Crispin Miller reveals their crimes at length in his book "Fooled Again."

[mod mom]

8. As a witness to the crime, no one could every convince me that the

election was not stolen. It amazes me that so many have "moved on" instead of confronting this head on, as if this time they are going to play fair.

:mad:

[Bill Bored]

9. Racial ethnic gender theological sexual_orientation economic superiority.

Of course there are some who only believe in a subset of the above. But any one of them could be enough to justify the means in their world view.

[EFerrari]

10. I don't know if this is OT or not. You would have to believe, above

all, in a paternalistic government (in the neutral sense of that word, if such a meaning exists) that adheres to the oath of office every single member is made to swear to.

You would have to believe in that.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Among other things...

religion... if it suits their religious goals.