The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Vote Counting, Chicago-Style
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I moved to Chicago in the fall of 1982* and immediately became fascinated by the drama and comedy of the Illinois gubernatorial election vote counting. The Republican candidate James Thompson had been ahead by a lot in all the polls, but on election night the Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson III, came out of nowhere to make the election a tie.

The lead seesawed back and forth as local political bosses discovered new supplies of votes they hadn’t gotten around to counting before.

I had recently read the new autobiography of journalist Theodore White, so it seemed pretty clear to me what was going on.

In his memoir, White had given an inside story of the notorious 1960 Presidential election vote counting in Illinois that he had left out of his more romanticized The Making of the President 1960. White was hanging out with the Kennedy inner circle at Hyannisport the day after the 1960 election, with Illinois, and possibly the Presidency, still up for grabs. Missing were GOP precincts downstate and Mayor Daley’s Cook County. White wrote:

“Even in the most corrupt states of the Union, one cannot steal more than one or two percent of the vote… The AP was pressing its reporters for returns, and the reporters were trying to gouge out of the Republican and Democratic machines their vote-stealing, precinct by precinct totals. … It was downstate (Republican) versus Cook County (Democratic), and the bosses, holding back totals from key precincts, were playing out their concealed cards under pressure of publicity as in a giant game of blackjack.

“… the AP ticker chattered its keys once more and reported: ‘ With all downstate precincts now reported in, and only Cook County precincts unreported, Richard Nixon has surged into the lead by 3,000 votes.’

“I was dismayed, for if Nixon really carried Illinois, the game was all but over. And at this point I was jabbed from dismay by the outburst of jubilation from young Dick Donahue, who yelped, ‘He’s got them! Daley made them go first! He’s still holding back — watch him play his hand now.” I was baffled, they were elated. But they knew the counting game better than I, and as if in response to Donahue’s yelp, the ticker, having stuttered along for several minutes with other results, announced: ‘With the last precincts of Cook County now in, Senator Kennedy has won a lead of 8,000 votes to carry Illinois’s 27 electoral votes.’

Later that evening, Kennedy told his friend Ben Bradlee of an early call from Daley, when all seemed in doubt. “With a little bit of luck and the help of a few close friends,” Daley had assured Kennedy before the AP had pushed out the count, “you’re going to carry Illinois.”

The 1982 vote count was the mirror image. Finally, after several days, the GOP leaders of heavily Republican DuPage County in the Chicago suburbs discovered a whole bunch of uncounted votes that they had, in all the excitement of the previous few days, overlooked.

Thompson took a 5,000 vote lead.

Stevenson demanded a statewide recount, but the state Supreme Court refused on a 4-3 vote. The Democrat finally conceded three days before Thompson’s inauguration.

Black civil rights leader Mary Frances Berry wrote an informative article for Salon last winter about all the shenanigans on the Democratic side in 1982 that led the federal prosecutor to indict dozens of Democratic operatives in Cook County:

Election fraud Chicago style: Illinois’ decades-old notoriety for election corruption is legendary
These days, opportunities for corruption may have shrunk for civil servants, but not for business leaders

MARY FRANCES BERRY

SUNDAY, FEB 14, 2016 06:00 AM PST

I was also under the impression that five GOP workers in DuPage County had gotten in trouble over 1982, but maybe that was for something else. I found an interview with Stevenson that was summarized:

U.S. Attorney Dan Webb did investigate the vote fraud allegations, and found major problems in Cook County leading to 63 convictions, but no one was prosecuted from the Republican stronghold in DuPage County.

By the way, when Stevenson ran against Thompson in 1986, another bizarre thing happened:

Stevenson ran again for governor in 1986, with the polls in late 1985 giving him a good chance for victory. His plans were upset during the Democratic primary when two supporters of Lyndon LaRouche won as Democrats to represent the party in the Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State races. Stevenson eventually ran under the banner of the newly created Solidarity Party rather than run with a LaRouche candidate on the ticket.

* Unlike Barack Obama, who moved to Chicago about 32 months after me, I never felt the slightest urge to become a Chicago politician.

 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I read something years ago about the 1960 Presidential election in Chicago; after the spring thaw in 1961, dozens of US mail bags stuffed with absentee ballots started surfacing in the Chicago river. Or whatever they call the waterways thru downtown. Back then, absentee ballots were probably 80% republican votes; only rich people were so busy they didn’t have the time to stand in line to vote. I think it was something Mike Royko wrote…he was pretty tied into the underbelly of Chicago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. As I wrote in a review of American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley – His Battle for Chicago and the Nation many years ago, one time-honored way of shoring up the totals in a given precinct back in they day was to do the tally, then just send someone into a booth to pull the lever the requisite number of times for the Machine candidate in question. Worked great.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Well, yeah. The fact that Dems are so strongly opposed to voter I.D. shows that voter fraud is an important part of their election strategy. With no voter I.D. requirement, election workers can wink at voter fraud (e.g. on e person voting repeatedly, as different people, at several polling places, even returning to a polling place to vote yet again as someone else) with no fear of criminal prosecution. This even easier to do in a cities, where Dems dominate, because local prosecutors belong to the same party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miguel Madeira
    I suppose that voter I.D. will be useless to prevent most examples of fraud talked here (fraud committed by election workers themselves, not by voters)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Steve, clearly you don’t read the papers. There is absolutely no such thing as election fraud. It’s a myth, like electric eels or talking birds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's a myth, fairies, leprechauns, and Eskimos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Jean Cocteausten
    Steve, clearly you don't read the papers. There is absolutely no such thing as election fraud. It's a myth, like electric eels or talking birds.

    It’s a myth, fairies, leprechauns, and Eskimos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hodag
    and the Irish.
    , @TheJester
    As a college student in 1970, I canvassed for an up-and-coming Democratic candidate for Congress. I was given a Democratic voter registration list. As my wife and walked the streets looking for house numbers, we noticed that some of the registered addresses were empty lots and others, based on the odd-even practice for different sides of the street, were in alleys between houses. These addresses did not exist ... and this was Kansas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. If Illinois’ electoral votes had been given to Nixon, Kennedy would have won with a much narrower (but more realistic) 276 electoral votes.

    DuPage county was solidly Republican from 1856 right up until 2008, when it flipped, and stayed that way in 2012. It had Kasich’s best performance in Illinois’ presidential primary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right. To win, Nixon had to win both states that were still uncertain -- Illinois and Texas.

    Texas had implemented a new vote counting system which failed badly. It looked like it would take a long time to count Texas accurately.

    , @Ken
    I live in DuP and this place has changed in the past 20 years-makes me sad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Back in the 80′s I worked for a Democrat congressman. His wife loved telling stories about how they would fix the vote in the old days of paper ballots. By “fix” she meant balance out the results so they reflected the will of the precinct. If the precinct should go 60% Democrat, it went 62% Democrat. If it was a 50/50 precinct, then it went 54/46. Her argument was it made up for what the Republicans did in their precincts.

    All these years later, I see that the Republicans are just too stupid and timid to work such a scam. Their “principles” means playing by the rules to the bitter end. It’s how Philadelphia has 105% turnout and no one ever looks into it. They really are the good cops of the good cop/bad cop deal the political class works on the public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    " I see that the Republicans are just too stupid and timid to work such a scam." - you do not know of cases when Republicans stole elections? What about Ohio 2004? Or Florida 2000?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Why don’t you tear into the shenanigans regarding polling this cycle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Why I’m #NRx, Part 686,127

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @E. Harding
    If Illinois' electoral votes had been given to Nixon, Kennedy would have won with a much narrower (but more realistic) 276 electoral votes.

    DuPage county was solidly Republican from 1856 right up until 2008, when it flipped, and stayed that way in 2012. It had Kasich's best performance in Illinois' presidential primary.

    Right. To win, Nixon had to win both states that were still uncertain — Illinois and Texas.

    Texas had implemented a new vote counting system which failed badly. It looked like it would take a long time to count Texas accurately.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And of course, then Senator Majority leader (D-TX) Lyndon Baines Johnson's people would have "assisted" with the counting of the TX ballots.
    , @athEIst
    counting system which failed badly.

    That may be opinion....
    Hube the Cube somehow carried Texas in '68(I don't think it was Johnson's doing) but since then it has been The Red Star State(not a compliment).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @The Z Blog
    Back in the 80's I worked for a Democrat congressman. His wife loved telling stories about how they would fix the vote in the old days of paper ballots. By "fix" she meant balance out the results so they reflected the will of the precinct. If the precinct should go 60% Democrat, it went 62% Democrat. If it was a 50/50 precinct, then it went 54/46. Her argument was it made up for what the Republicans did in their precincts.

    All these years later, I see that the Republicans are just too stupid and timid to work such a scam. Their "principles" means playing by the rules to the bitter end. It's how Philadelphia has 105% turnout and no one ever looks into it. They really are the good cops of the good cop/bad cop deal the political class works on the public.

    ” I see that the Republicans are just too stupid and timid to work such a scam.” – you do not know of cases when Republicans stole elections? What about Ohio 2004? Or Florida 2000?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veracitor
    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by "recounting" (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. In 2004 the Democrats stole the gubernatorial election in Washington State by “finding” more votes languishing in closets or under King County election officials’ couch cushions every day for weeks until the Democrats finished ahead by a hundred votes or so long after all the deadlines had passed.

    The fraud was aided by a (pre-Obama!) argument that it was just too much trouble to enforce the election laws as written, with their various safeguards against fraud. “No,” said the Democrats, “all that stuff is irrelevant because we can presume the good faith of the officials involved.” King County Executive Ron Sims was rewarded with a post in DC and immunity from prosecution for all his other peculations and corrupt actions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @utu
    " I see that the Republicans are just too stupid and timid to work such a scam." - you do not know of cases when Republicans stole elections? What about Ohio 2004? Or Florida 2000?

    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by “recounting” (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.
    , @Stan Adams
    Given the total, unmitigated disaster that Bush turned out to be for the country, the world, and the party, one wonders whether the GOP mightn't have been better off letting the Democrats steal that election.

    How much worse off would we be now if Gore had won and ended up as a one-term mediocrity?

    Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?
    , @gruff
    If you read to the end of your source article, you'll see it's not quite so clearcut.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Get off your high horse and just admit you stole the fucking election fair and square.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Here in Miami, our elected officials have enjoyed a surprising amount of success in their efforts to persuade the dead to vote. Sometimes their turnout exceeds that of the living.

    (This being Florida, the percentage of brain-dead voters, breathing or otherwise, is extremely high.)

    “He who casts a vote decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything.” – Stalin

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I thought that the dead voting was Chicago's reputation!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Veracitor
    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by "recounting" (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.

    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veracitor
    Oh, sure, Bush (like his daddy before him, but noticeably worse) was a disaster. I really don't think Gore could have been worse, and I think Bush's personal flaws led to the horribly wrong invasion of Iraq. I'm just objecting to the continued repetition of DNC talking points (or as we say out West, outrageous lies) about the 2000 count in Florida. For all I know, Bush may have stolen Texas-- but he didn't steal Florida and the Supreme Court didn't steal the election. (Of course, Bush's man John Roberts did throw the Obamacare case, and several others.)
    , @Louis Renault
    He would have been President if he had run in '04 instead of selling out.
    , @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Contrary to his "woody" reputation, replacing Slick Willy with "Happy Ending" Al Gore could have guaranteed non-stop entertainment coming from the White House.
    , @Desiderius

    assume
     
    You can continue to make an ass out of yourself, but leave me out of this.
    , @Gringo
    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    After all, Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did. And Gore has much more courage than Bush: Gore will speak truth to power. I refer to Al Gore's Embittered Remarks. In 2006, Gore


    traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a speech denouncing the United States. The occasion was the annual Jeddah economic forum, which is sponsored in part by the family of Osama bin Laden (which claims to have distanced itself from the family black sheep).

    Mr. Gore has not disclosed how much he was paid for his words of wisdom. It probably is less than the $267,000 former president Bill Clinton was paid for speaking to the group in 2002, but odds are his fee was in six figures.

    Whatever Mr. Gore's speaking fee was, his hosts likely thought it a bargain, considering what the former vice president had to say. The U.S. committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11, Mr. Gore said. Arabs were "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

    According to the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee, about 1,200 Arabs were arrested after 9/11. Of these, 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism.

    The Census Bureau says there are about three million Arabs in the United States. The number "indiscriminately rounded up" after 9/11 is much less than one tenth of one percent of that number.

    Mr. Gore didn't say what he thought was "unforgivable" about the conditions in which the Arabs were held, but his source probably was a June, 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, or, rather, erroneous news accounts of the report.

    The Los Angeles Times said most detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, only 24 were held for more than a month before being charged, and 59 percent were charged within three days, the IG report said.

    Most Americans remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, but Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten. He deplored the cancellation of "Visa Express," the expedited program without background checks through which several of the hijackers entered the United States.

    In a footnote on page 492 of its report, the 9/11 Commission said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only three percent of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only one percent were refused.

    The Bush administration "is playing into al Qaida's hands" by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States," he said.

    Some Americans think it would be worse to let into the country terrorists bent on perpetrating another 9/11.

    The former vice president's speech attracted little attention from the news media, but drew condemnation from Web loggers who were appalled both by what he said and where he said it.

    "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough," sighed law professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), who had been a volunteer on Mr. Gore's 1988 presidential campaign.

    "It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy...It is another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally for the war for our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies," said "Tigerhawk."
     

    Speaking truth to power by bad-mouthing US alleged bad treatment of Arabs while in Saudi Arabia. And Gore would have defended US interests much more than Bush did. Yes, Gore would have made a MUCH better President than Bush.
    Do I correctly assume that as you think Gore would have made a much better President than Bush, that you support what Gore said in Saudi Arabia?
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.
     
    Its reasonable to suppose he probably would've been an improvement over what we got, but there's no way to know. Historical events have a life of their own, and for all we know, a Gore/Lieberman administration might have been an even bigger disaster than Bush/Cheney. I agree that it does seem unlikely, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Steve Sailer
    Right. To win, Nixon had to win both states that were still uncertain -- Illinois and Texas.

    Texas had implemented a new vote counting system which failed badly. It looked like it would take a long time to count Texas accurately.

    And of course, then Senator Majority leader (D-TX) Lyndon Baines Johnson’s people would have “assisted” with the counting of the TX ballots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    For whatever it may be worth, the official margin is Texas was not really that close. Kennedy won by exactly two percentage points - far more than his Illinois margin of 0.18%.

    You can savor the old-school blue-for-R and red-for-D results here:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=1960&fips=17

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=48&year=1960

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Veracitor
    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by "recounting" (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.

    Given the total, unmitigated disaster that Bush turned out to be for the country, the world, and the party, one wonders whether the GOP mightn’t have been better off letting the Democrats steal that election.

    How much worse off would we be now if Gore had won and ended up as a one-term mediocrity?

    Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    And there were no Supreme Court vacancies in Bush's first term either.
    , @E. Harding
    "Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?"

    -Yeah, probably. But those screwups would all have been in the Dems' column.

    I have to say, Bush II did an impressive job flipping those 11 states during a good economy.
    , @Hidden Cat
    2000.... I have comforted myself, as I did vote for Gore (I didn't want a Bush Bookend, so to speak and I and several of my friends were certain Bush wanted Iraq war).... but I comfort myself the wars were on track. No matter who got in. 9/11, however it came about, was to galvinise the hapless people... and the only difference I am sure of, Gore would have read the much discussed August Intelligence Directive.

    AND with Lieberman as his VP... always a chance the R would have moved to impeach Gore, had it been on his watch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Steve Sailer
    Right. To win, Nixon had to win both states that were still uncertain -- Illinois and Texas.

    Texas had implemented a new vote counting system which failed badly. It looked like it would take a long time to count Texas accurately.

    counting system which failed badly.

    That may be opinion….
    Hube the Cube somehow carried Texas in ’68(I don’t think it was Johnson’s doing) but since then it has been The Red Star State(not a compliment).

    Read More
    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    Texas has been a reliable republican state in presidential contests, but only became a solid red state concerning the makeup of state legislature and statewide offices in the mid 90s. George W. was only the second republican governor elected since Reconstruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. If Democrats had it all their way, voting would be done by Facebook posts, with “Likes” of posts counted as extra votes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And of course, then Senator Majority leader (D-TX) Lyndon Baines Johnson's people would have "assisted" with the counting of the TX ballots.

    For whatever it may be worth, the official margin is Texas was not really that close. Kennedy won by exactly two percentage points – far more than his Illinois margin of 0.18%.

    You can savor the old-school blue-for-R and red-for-D results here:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=1960&fips=17

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=48&year=1960

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's pretty for close for that time for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas.
    After all, LBJ, a Favorite Son, was a popular politician in Texas and had served the state in US government for over twenty years by that time. And, he was the Vice Presidential running mate that year. The fact that JFK didn't carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    Just as Robert Caro's amazing multi-volume biography on Lyndon Johnson amply demonstrates, (his '48 Senatorial election was most likely stolen in his favor) so too it is reasonable to assume that the 1960 ballots in Texas were "officially counted" by LBJ's men.

    Keep in mind, that the main reason JFK went to Dallas in Nov. '63 was because his internal polls were showing that he was running behind in some southern states. Otherwise, there really wasn't a major compelling reason for him to make an appearance in Dallas before an election yr unless it was to jumpstart his re-election campaign a few months early.
    , @Mark F.
    Right, even if the "fix" was in with IL, it is likely JFK really, truly won Texas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Worth noting that LaRouche is still alive and almost 94. The semi-clueless Millennial journo Olivia Nuzzi actually got him on the phone last fall, where he endorsed Martin O’Malley for some reason and confirmed he was done running for president.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/12/cult-leader-hearts-hillary-s-hottest-foe.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Stan Adams
    Given the total, unmitigated disaster that Bush turned out to be for the country, the world, and the party, one wonders whether the GOP mightn't have been better off letting the Democrats steal that election.

    How much worse off would we be now if Gore had won and ended up as a one-term mediocrity?

    Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

    And there were no Supreme Court vacancies in Bush’s first term either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Stan Adams
    Given the total, unmitigated disaster that Bush turned out to be for the country, the world, and the party, one wonders whether the GOP mightn't have been better off letting the Democrats steal that election.

    How much worse off would we be now if Gore had won and ended up as a one-term mediocrity?

    Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

    “Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?”

    -Yeah, probably. But those screwups would all have been in the Dems’ column.

    I have to say, Bush II did an impressive job flipping those 11 states during a good economy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    But those screwups would all have been in the Dems’ column.
     
    But then Jeb or Rubio would've become president! Trump had a chance because the incompetence of the cuckservatives and neocons has been exposed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Can’t you see Paul Ryan telling megYn “we reported our precincts first” come November.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. NYT pearl clutching about crass behavior from Trump fans.

    Awaiting their equivalent exposé of the BLM and anti-Trump movements…

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&referer=https://m.facebook.com/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    Oh, sure, Bush (like his daddy before him, but noticeably worse) was a disaster. I really don’t think Gore could have been worse, and I think Bush’s personal flaws led to the horribly wrong invasion of Iraq. I’m just objecting to the continued repetition of DNC talking points (or as we say out West, outrageous lies) about the 2000 count in Florida. For all I know, Bush may have stolen Texas– but he didn’t steal Florida and the Supreme Court didn’t steal the election. (Of course, Bush’s man John Roberts did throw the Obamacare case, and several others.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Veracitor
    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by "recounting" (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.

    If you read to the end of your source article, you’ll see it’s not quite so clearcut.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Steve Sailer
    It's a myth, fairies, leprechauns, and Eskimos.

    and the Irish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. No matter what version (I, II, or III), an Adlai Stevenson is always a loser.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    No matter what version (I, II, or III), an Adlai Stevenson is always a loser
     
    Not south of the Mason-Dixon. Pretty amazing for a Unitarian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anybody else heard of “walking-around” money used to “get out the vote?” It’s cash payments given to local grass roots community leaders and activists to motivate bodies to pull the right levers on election day.

    It’s a shadowy topic I’ve heard and read a little about now and again, but precious little in any serious recent coverage. You might remember a scandal about Ed Rollins in NJ back in the 90s. Nothing was ever proven. Everything was denied. But it left more questions than answers. The feeling I got was the journalists didn’t want to touch it or more likely just couldn’t find enough smoking guns to corroborate whatever stories they did dig up.

    But it does make me ask what is the REAL reason for the incredible loyalty that black church ladies have shown to Hillary and if there aren’t perhaps some other things motivating their people to be so solid and unwavering in their united support?

    Obviously it’s still just fiction, but what makes Tom Wolfe’s fiction so good is his reporter’s eye for details and truths people will never admit. His depiction of the use of the walking-around money to motivate Atlanta’s black ministers to deliver the votes was certainly convincing and more plausible than Sabrina Erdely Rubin’s fable about feral frat-boys.

    In Clinton’s case, the walking-around money could easily be disguised as some worthy cause, say for example contributions by the Clinton Foundation to minority and community “charities” in a not entirely explicit quid-pro-quo arrangement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    Walking Around money was a very regular part of Democratic Party operations in Philadelphia when I was a student there in the late 1970s. Needless to say, the practice was especially prevalent in black neighborhoods.

    I think your hypothesis about black church ladies is spot on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. I think people misunderestimate how bad Gore would have been.

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG, Forbes
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I think people misunderestimate how bad Gore would have been
     
    Not the Democrats. Gore was their #1 reason for keeping Clinton in office, and the real reason they buckled so soon in 2000.

    Quayle, however, was a brilliant pick. He was certainly capable of the job if necessary-- Bush wasn't rash, and had sat in the Senate with Quayle for eight years. But no one could believe it.
    , @flyingtiger
    I do not know where President Al Gore would have been on 9/11, but he would have surrendered the next day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. A few years ago, I read Richard Nixon’s book Six Crises, one chapter of which was about the 1960 election. Nixon was quite clear in his opinion that the election was not stolen from him by vote fraud.

    He explained that the Democrats had won big in the 1958 mid-term elections and still enjoyed a political momentum in the 1960 elections. During the Presidential campaign, the opinion polls indicated that Kennedy would win by a decisive margin.

    Nixon was disappointed that he lost, but he was gratified that he came so close in the popular votes — 49.55% to Kennedy’s 49.72%.

    He decided not to contest the election because he concluded that he actually did lose. At least, that’s what he wrote in his book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @antipater_1
    Mike Sylwester, did you enjoy reading Six Crises?
    If so, would it still be worth reading today?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    He would have been President if he had run in ’04 instead of selling out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @EriK
    I think people misunderestimate how bad Gore would have been.

    I think people misunderestimate how bad Gore would have been

    Not the Democrats. Gore was their #1 reason for keeping Clinton in office, and the real reason they buckled so soon in 2000.

    Quayle, however, was a brilliant pick. He was certainly capable of the job if necessary– Bush wasn’t rash, and had sat in the Senate with Quayle for eight years. But no one could believe it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Mr. Anon
    No matter what version (I, II, or III), an Adlai Stevenson is always a loser.

    No matter what version (I, II, or III), an Adlai Stevenson is always a loser

    Not south of the Mason-Dixon. Pretty amazing for a Unitarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not really. The South used to be a bloc vote for the Democrats. Unitarians are, or at least were, Mainline, and most Southerners are Mainline, although evangelicalism has grown significantly in recent decades.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    Contrary to his “woody” reputation, replacing Slick Willy with “Happy Ending” Al Gore could have guaranteed non-stop entertainment coming from the White House.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Stan Adams
    Given the total, unmitigated disaster that Bush turned out to be for the country, the world, and the party, one wonders whether the GOP mightn't have been better off letting the Democrats steal that election.

    How much worse off would we be now if Gore had won and ended up as a one-term mediocrity?

    Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

    2000…. I have comforted myself, as I did vote for Gore (I didn’t want a Bush Bookend, so to speak and I and several of my friends were certain Bush wanted Iraq war)…. but I comfort myself the wars were on track. No matter who got in. 9/11, however it came about, was to galvinise the hapless people… and the only difference I am sure of, Gore would have read the much discussed August Intelligence Directive.

    AND with Lieberman as his VP… always a chance the R would have moved to impeach Gore, had it been on his watch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    assume

    You can continue to make an ass out of yourself, but leave me out of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Teehee.

    Please explain why you think Gore could have been as bad or worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Desiderius

    assume
     
    You can continue to make an ass out of yourself, but leave me out of this.

    Teehee.

    Please explain why you think Gore could have been as bad or worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Huh. I moved from Chicago (River Forest) to LA in the Summer of 1981. Can’t believe we never ran into each other in SoCal during those 15 months in relatively close proximity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Huh. I moved from Chicago (River Forest) to LA in the Summer of 1981. Can’t believe we never ran into each other in SoCal during those 15 months in relatively close proximity."

    Yeah I can't believe you never ran into Steve Sailer in Los Angeles, the 2nd largest city population wise in the country.

    I travel to Los Angeles at least once a year and it is mind-boggling that I never run into Steve. There are only 4 million people in the city limits and over 10 milion people overall in the county. That's not a lot of people.

    And it's not like LA has a huge sprawl, which would make the chances of running into Steve even less likely. LA is so compact and tight.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Reg Cæsar

    No matter what version (I, II, or III), an Adlai Stevenson is always a loser
     
    Not south of the Mason-Dixon. Pretty amazing for a Unitarian.

    Not really. The South used to be a bloc vote for the Democrats. Unitarians are, or at least were, Mainline, and most Southerners are Mainline, although evangelicalism has grown significantly in recent decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Unitarians were never "mainline", even in downtown Boston.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Veracitor
    In Florida in 2000 the US Supreme Court stopped a blatant Democrat attempt to steal the national election by "recounting" (really, manufacturing Democrat ballots in) only Democrat-controlled Florida counties. Weeks later a recount of the actual ballots by a consortium of newspapers including the New York Times concluded that Bush really was the popular-vote winner in Florida. Nevertheless, Democrats have been pushing the big lie that the Republicans were the bad guys ever since, with the aid of countless media shills and gullible fools.

    Get off your high horse and just admit you stole the fucking election fair and square.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Get off your high horse and just admit you stole the fucking election fair and square
     
    That's like saying the local Boys Club champ defeated Muhammad Ali.

    Note that, by definition, any election Democrats lose is by definition "stolen". In 1974, they overturned the most decisive result of the century of two years earlier. In 1860, they left the country entirely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. My great grandpa worked as a democrat operative in Great Depression era Chicago. His job was to go door to door in a republican area to get an idea of what the turnout would be so they could know how many votes to manufacture to win plausibly but not outrageously. His salary got paid through some ridiculous public works program.

    That’s Chicago!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Anybody else heard of "walking-around" money used to "get out the vote?" It's cash payments given to local grass roots community leaders and activists to motivate bodies to pull the right levers on election day.

    It's a shadowy topic I've heard and read a little about now and again, but precious little in any serious recent coverage. You might remember a scandal about Ed Rollins in NJ back in the 90s. Nothing was ever proven. Everything was denied. But it left more questions than answers. The feeling I got was the journalists didn't want to touch it or more likely just couldn't find enough smoking guns to corroborate whatever stories they did dig up.

    But it does make me ask what is the REAL reason for the incredible loyalty that black church ladies have shown to Hillary and if there aren't perhaps some other things motivating their people to be so solid and unwavering in their united support?

    Obviously it's still just fiction, but what makes Tom Wolfe's fiction so good is his reporter's eye for details and truths people will never admit. His depiction of the use of the walking-around money to motivate Atlanta's black ministers to deliver the votes was certainly convincing and more plausible than Sabrina Erdely Rubin's fable about feral frat-boys.

    In Clinton's case, the walking-around money could easily be disguised as some worthy cause, say for example contributions by the Clinton Foundation to minority and community "charities" in a not entirely explicit quid-pro-quo arrangement.

    Walking Around money was a very regular part of Democratic Party operations in Philadelphia when I was a student there in the late 1970s. Needless to say, the practice was especially prevalent in black neighborhoods.

    I think your hypothesis about black church ladies is spot on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe that's the unwritten story of the 2008 Democratic primaries: the Clintons had been doling out money to black ministers for years, only to have Obama steal their rightful voters away due to race pride.

    No wonder they were sore ...

    , @Hidden Cat
    FWIW, Mary Frances Berry has a book out, I think published earlier this year, on "walking around money". Title is something like "5 Dollars and a Pork Sandwich". Of course she is referring to what gets handed to the ordinary voter... not what gets doled out to the reverends, organisers and whom ever else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @PV van der Byl
    Walking Around money was a very regular part of Democratic Party operations in Philadelphia when I was a student there in the late 1970s. Needless to say, the practice was especially prevalent in black neighborhoods.

    I think your hypothesis about black church ladies is spot on.

    Maybe that’s the unwritten story of the 2008 Democratic primaries: the Clintons had been doling out money to black ministers for years, only to have Obama steal their rightful voters away due to race pride.

    No wonder they were sore …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    What a story!

    If only Mr. Wolfe or some other talent would write the book on that!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe that's the unwritten story of the 2008 Democratic primaries: the Clintons had been doling out money to black ministers for years, only to have Obama steal their rightful voters away due to race pride.

    No wonder they were sore ...

    What a story!

    If only Mr. Wolfe or some other talent would write the book on that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. “Unlike Barack Obama, who moved to Chicago about 32 months after me, I never felt the slightest urge to become a Chicago politician.”

    That’s because there is zero demand for a Republican politician in the city of Chicago. Steve I assume if you were a politician you would be a Republican, not a Democrat.

    Not even a pro-open borders Republican like Marco Rubio could get elected mayor of Chicago, let alone a paleo-con alt-right Republican like Jeff Sessions.

    Chicago’s large Puerto Rican and Mexican population are not natural Republicans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @Johnny789
    Huh. I moved from Chicago (River Forest) to LA in the Summer of 1981. Can't believe we never ran into each other in SoCal during those 15 months in relatively close proximity.

    “Huh. I moved from Chicago (River Forest) to LA in the Summer of 1981. Can’t believe we never ran into each other in SoCal during those 15 months in relatively close proximity.”

    Yeah I can’t believe you never ran into Steve Sailer in Los Angeles, the 2nd largest city population wise in the country.

    I travel to Los Angeles at least once a year and it is mind-boggling that I never run into Steve. There are only 4 million people in the city limits and over 10 milion people overall in the county. That’s not a lot of people.

    And it’s not like LA has a huge sprawl, which would make the chances of running into Steve even less likely. LA is so compact and tight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny789
    Sauté a Geritol in a Cast Iron skillet, ingest, and get back to me. Thxbye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Stan Adams
    Here in Miami, our elected officials have enjoyed a surprising amount of success in their efforts to persuade the dead to vote. Sometimes their turnout exceeds that of the living.

    (This being Florida, the percentage of brain-dead voters, breathing or otherwise, is extremely high.)

    "He who casts a vote decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything." - Stalin

    I thought that the dead voting was Chicago’s reputation!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Chicago has the reputation, but it happens in Miami.

    We even have an L - el Metrorail:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Z2SwYvKcE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Mike Sylwester
    A few years ago, I read Richard Nixon's book Six Crises, one chapter of which was about the 1960 election. Nixon was quite clear in his opinion that the election was not stolen from him by vote fraud.

    He explained that the Democrats had won big in the 1958 mid-term elections and still enjoyed a political momentum in the 1960 elections. During the Presidential campaign, the opinion polls indicated that Kennedy would win by a decisive margin.

    Nixon was disappointed that he lost, but he was gratified that he came so close in the popular votes -- 49.55% to Kennedy's 49.72%.

    He decided not to contest the election because he concluded that he actually did lose. At least, that's what he wrote in his book.

    Mike Sylwester, did you enjoy reading Six Crises?
    If so, would it still be worth reading today?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The Ds are scared that they might lose, so I expect more vote fraud then usual. If the Donald were smart, he would call for his supporters to monitor as many polling places as possible and take lots of video.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Steve Sailer
    It's a myth, fairies, leprechauns, and Eskimos.

    As a college student in 1970, I canvassed for an up-and-coming Democratic candidate for Congress. I was given a Democratic voter registration list. As my wife and walked the streets looking for house numbers, we noticed that some of the registered addresses were empty lots and others, based on the odd-even practice for different sides of the street, were in alleys between houses. These addresses did not exist … and this was Kansas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Kennedy carried Illinois in 1960 by about 9000 votes (out of about 4.75 million cast). It is reasonable that the widespread fraud in Cook County took the state away from Nixon. However, even carrying Illinois wouldn’t have put Nixon over the top – with Illinois, he would have gotten 246 electoral votes, compared to Kennedy’s 276. Texas had 24 electoral votes, and, had Nixon carried it as well as Illinois, he would have won with 270. However, Kennedy carried Texas by 46,000 votes (out of about 2.3 million cast), so the 46,000 margin is probably too great to be explained by vote fraud, which probably did occur, but not enough to change the outcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @EriK
    I think people misunderestimate how bad Gore would have been.

    I do not know where President Al Gore would have been on 9/11, but he would have surrendered the next day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Which is more honest, Vegas slots or voting?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. “Even in the most corrupt states of the Union, one cannot steal more than one or two percent of the vote…”

    Hey, this is Chicago, we do things big here. After all, is not Chicago’s motto “I Will”?

    FYI: in regard to the 1960 election. Most of the mysterious votes came from the west side neighborhood of (((Lawndale))). Today (and since the mid 1960′s), Lawndale is a hell hole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @PV van der Byl
    Walking Around money was a very regular part of Democratic Party operations in Philadelphia when I was a student there in the late 1970s. Needless to say, the practice was especially prevalent in black neighborhoods.

    I think your hypothesis about black church ladies is spot on.

    FWIW, Mary Frances Berry has a book out, I think published earlier this year, on “walking around money”. Title is something like “5 Dollars and a Pork Sandwich”. Of course she is referring to what gets handed to the ordinary voter… not what gets doled out to the reverends, organisers and whom ever else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Here in Chicago, we are reviewing why we did not get the Olympics. Here it was hyped up as a done deal. We lost badly in the first round. There were many reasons for this failure. The most important was that Daley forgets that outside of Chicago, he is nobody. On the flight home in a private jet, Daley threw an epic temper tantrum. He threw things around, and even had a crying fit. It was said that this was the beginning of the end for him. The issue was not that he lost, but lost so badly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @athEIst
    counting system which failed badly.

    That may be opinion....
    Hube the Cube somehow carried Texas in '68(I don't think it was Johnson's doing) but since then it has been The Red Star State(not a compliment).

    Texas has been a reliable republican state in presidential contests, but only became a solid red state concerning the makeup of state legislature and statewide offices in the mid 90s. George W. was only the second republican governor elected since Reconstruction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    After all, Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did. And Gore has much more courage than Bush: Gore will speak truth to power. I refer to Al Gore’s Embittered Remarks. In 2006, Gore

    traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a speech denouncing the United States. The occasion was the annual Jeddah economic forum, which is sponsored in part by the family of Osama bin Laden (which claims to have distanced itself from the family black sheep).

    Mr. Gore has not disclosed how much he was paid for his words of wisdom. It probably is less than the $267,000 former president Bill Clinton was paid for speaking to the group in 2002, but odds are his fee was in six figures.

    Whatever Mr. Gore’s speaking fee was, his hosts likely thought it a bargain, considering what the former vice president had to say. The U.S. committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after 9/11, Mr. Gore said. Arabs were “indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable.”

    According to the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee, about 1,200 Arabs were arrested after 9/11. Of these, 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism.

    The Census Bureau says there are about three million Arabs in the United States. The number “indiscriminately rounded up” after 9/11 is much less than one tenth of one percent of that number.

    Mr. Gore didn’t say what he thought was “unforgivable” about the conditions in which the Arabs were held, but his source probably was a June, 2003 report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, or, rather, erroneous news accounts of the report.

    The Los Angeles Times said most detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, only 24 were held for more than a month before being charged, and 59 percent were charged within three days, the IG report said.

    Most Americans remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, but Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten. He deplored the cancellation of “Visa Express,” the expedited program without background checks through which several of the hijackers entered the United States.

    In a footnote on page 492 of its report, the 9/11 Commission said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only three percent of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only one percent were refused.

    The Bush administration “is playing into al Qaida’s hands” by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States,” he said.

    Some Americans think it would be worse to let into the country terrorists bent on perpetrating another 9/11.

    The former vice president’s speech attracted little attention from the news media, but drew condemnation from Web loggers who were appalled both by what he said and where he said it.

    “Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough,” sighed law professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), who had been a volunteer on Mr. Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign.

    “It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy…It is another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally for the war for our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies,” said “Tigerhawk.”

    Speaking truth to power by bad-mouthing US alleged bad treatment of Arabs while in Saudi Arabia. And Gore would have defended US interests much more than Bush did. Yes, Gore would have made a MUCH better President than Bush.
    Do I correctly assume that as you think Gore would have made a much better President than Bush, that you support what Gore said in Saudi Arabia?

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    OStrawman much? Because Gore made a speech kissing Saudi ass in no way implies he would have been as bad as Bush. Gore could have ended visa requirements for Saudis altogether and still have been a thousand times better of a president than W.
    , @reiner Tor

    Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did
     
    Did Bush fight for "US interests in the Middle East"? In what way? Was destroying Iraq a US interest, or what else did Dubya do there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Further discussion of Al Gore in Saudi Arabia. The Gorebot: attacking America from the fountainhead of jihad

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @James Kabala
    For whatever it may be worth, the official margin is Texas was not really that close. Kennedy won by exactly two percentage points - far more than his Illinois margin of 0.18%.

    You can savor the old-school blue-for-R and red-for-D results here:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=1960&fips=17

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=48&year=1960

    That’s pretty for close for that time for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas.
    After all, LBJ, a Favorite Son, was a popular politician in Texas and had served the state in US government for over twenty years by that time. And, he was the Vice Presidential running mate that year. The fact that JFK didn’t carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    Just as Robert Caro’s amazing multi-volume biography on Lyndon Johnson amply demonstrates, (his ’48 Senatorial election was most likely stolen in his favor) so too it is reasonable to assume that the 1960 ballots in Texas were “officially counted” by LBJ’s men.

    Keep in mind, that the main reason JFK went to Dallas in Nov. ’63 was because his internal polls were showing that he was running behind in some southern states. Otherwise, there really wasn’t a major compelling reason for him to make an appearance in Dallas before an election yr unless it was to jumpstart his re-election campaign a few months early.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gringo
    That’s pretty for close for that time [2% margin] for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas....The fact that JFK didn’t carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    By 1960, Texas was no longer a "reliably Southern Democratic state" at the Presidential level compared to what it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Eisenhower took Texas in 1952 and 1956, by healthy margins both times: 6.4% margin in 1952 [53.13% versus 46.69%] and an 11.3% margin in 1956 [55.26% versus 43.98%]. By comparison, Republican Thomas Dewey got 16.6% of the Texas vote in the 1944 Presidential election- a losing margin of 54.8%.

    While LBJ won reelection to his Senate seat in 1954 with 84.6% of the vote , in 1960 LBJ won by only a 58%-41% margin. So yes, JFK DID win in Texas on LBJ's favorite son coattails, but those coattails counted for a lot less by 1960. LBJ's 70% margin in 1954 was down to 17% by 1960.

    Republican John Tower narrowly won the 1961 election for LBJ's old Senate seat . Tower was the first Republican Senator from Texas since Reconstruction.

    At the Presidential level, by 1952 the number of "reliably Southern Democratic states" [a.k.a. Yellow Dog Democrats] had been considerably whittled down. While Republican Presidential candidates in the 1940s took around 25% of the vote in the 11 states of the former Confederacy, Eisenhower took 48% of the Southern vote in 1952 and won the electoral votes of four Southern states- Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower took a higher percentage of the Southern vote than Goldwater did in 1964. So much for the meme that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill turned the South Republican.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1960
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @AndrewR
    In fairness, it's very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    Its reasonable to suppose he probably would’ve been an improvement over what we got, but there’s no way to know. Historical events have a life of their own, and for all we know, a Gore/Lieberman administration might have been an even bigger disaster than Bush/Cheney. I agree that it does seem unlikely, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @James Kabala
    For whatever it may be worth, the official margin is Texas was not really that close. Kennedy won by exactly two percentage points - far more than his Illinois margin of 0.18%.

    You can savor the old-school blue-for-R and red-for-D results here:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=1960&fips=17

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=48&year=1960

    Right, even if the “fix” was in with IL, it is likely JFK really, truly won Texas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Notwithstanding his character flaws, Nixon did two things in his career that one would have to admit were “the right thing to do” at the time. In inverse chronological order :

    In 1974 he chose to resign the presidency rather than put the country through the mayhem (not to mention the ignominy) of an impeachment.

    And in 1960 he refused to demand a recount in Illinois, even though the experienced hands on his staff knew even back then that Daley was cooking the books.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Incidentally and if memory serves, JFK also stole the West Virginia primary. Old Man Kennedy was raining $20 bills like it was going out of style. Twenty buckeroos to an unemployed miner went a long way in those days. “Walking around money” was what it was called (and still is).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Gringo
    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    After all, Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did. And Gore has much more courage than Bush: Gore will speak truth to power. I refer to Al Gore's Embittered Remarks. In 2006, Gore


    traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a speech denouncing the United States. The occasion was the annual Jeddah economic forum, which is sponsored in part by the family of Osama bin Laden (which claims to have distanced itself from the family black sheep).

    Mr. Gore has not disclosed how much he was paid for his words of wisdom. It probably is less than the $267,000 former president Bill Clinton was paid for speaking to the group in 2002, but odds are his fee was in six figures.

    Whatever Mr. Gore's speaking fee was, his hosts likely thought it a bargain, considering what the former vice president had to say. The U.S. committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11, Mr. Gore said. Arabs were "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

    According to the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee, about 1,200 Arabs were arrested after 9/11. Of these, 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism.

    The Census Bureau says there are about three million Arabs in the United States. The number "indiscriminately rounded up" after 9/11 is much less than one tenth of one percent of that number.

    Mr. Gore didn't say what he thought was "unforgivable" about the conditions in which the Arabs were held, but his source probably was a June, 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, or, rather, erroneous news accounts of the report.

    The Los Angeles Times said most detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, only 24 were held for more than a month before being charged, and 59 percent were charged within three days, the IG report said.

    Most Americans remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, but Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten. He deplored the cancellation of "Visa Express," the expedited program without background checks through which several of the hijackers entered the United States.

    In a footnote on page 492 of its report, the 9/11 Commission said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only three percent of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only one percent were refused.

    The Bush administration "is playing into al Qaida's hands" by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States," he said.

    Some Americans think it would be worse to let into the country terrorists bent on perpetrating another 9/11.

    The former vice president's speech attracted little attention from the news media, but drew condemnation from Web loggers who were appalled both by what he said and where he said it.

    "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough," sighed law professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), who had been a volunteer on Mr. Gore's 1988 presidential campaign.

    "It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy...It is another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally for the war for our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies," said "Tigerhawk."
     

    Speaking truth to power by bad-mouthing US alleged bad treatment of Arabs while in Saudi Arabia. And Gore would have defended US interests much more than Bush did. Yes, Gore would have made a MUCH better President than Bush.
    Do I correctly assume that as you think Gore would have made a much better President than Bush, that you support what Gore said in Saudi Arabia?

    OStrawman much? Because Gore made a speech kissing Saudi ass in no way implies he would have been as bad as Bush. Gore could have ended visa requirements for Saudis altogether and still have been a thousand times better of a president than W.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gringo
    Put it this way. In what way does what Gore said in Saudi Arabia support your claim?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    That's pretty for close for that time for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas.
    After all, LBJ, a Favorite Son, was a popular politician in Texas and had served the state in US government for over twenty years by that time. And, he was the Vice Presidential running mate that year. The fact that JFK didn't carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    Just as Robert Caro's amazing multi-volume biography on Lyndon Johnson amply demonstrates, (his '48 Senatorial election was most likely stolen in his favor) so too it is reasonable to assume that the 1960 ballots in Texas were "officially counted" by LBJ's men.

    Keep in mind, that the main reason JFK went to Dallas in Nov. '63 was because his internal polls were showing that he was running behind in some southern states. Otherwise, there really wasn't a major compelling reason for him to make an appearance in Dallas before an election yr unless it was to jumpstart his re-election campaign a few months early.

    That’s pretty for close for that time [2% margin] for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas….The fact that JFK didn’t carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    By 1960, Texas was no longer a “reliably Southern Democratic state” at the Presidential level compared to what it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Eisenhower took Texas in 1952 and 1956, by healthy margins both times: 6.4% margin in 1952 [53.13% versus 46.69%] and an 11.3% margin in 1956 [55.26% versus 43.98%]. By comparison, Republican Thomas Dewey got 16.6% of the Texas vote in the 1944 Presidential election- a losing margin of 54.8%.

    While LBJ won reelection to his Senate seat in 1954 with 84.6% of the vote , in 1960 LBJ won by only a 58%-41% margin. So yes, JFK DID win in Texas on LBJ’s favorite son coattails, but those coattails counted for a lot less by 1960. LBJ’s 70% margin in 1954 was down to 17% by 1960.

    Republican John Tower narrowly won the 1961 election for LBJ’s old Senate seat . Tower was the first Republican Senator from Texas since Reconstruction.

    At the Presidential level, by 1952 the number of “reliably Southern Democratic states” [a.k.a. Yellow Dog Democrats] had been considerably whittled down. While Republican Presidential candidates in the 1940s took around 25% of the vote in the 11 states of the former Confederacy, Eisenhower took 48% of the Southern vote in 1952 and won the electoral votes of four Southern states- Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower took a higher percentage of the Southern vote than Goldwater did in 1964. So much for the meme that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill turned the South Republican.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1960

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    In 1956, Eisenhower took a higher percentage of the Southern vote than Goldwater did in 1964. So much for the meme that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill turned the South Republican. Also, Goldwater wasn't a Southerner while LBJ was (culturally at any rate).

    Agreed, that the '64 Civil Rights Act didn't directly affect the '64 election. It was in the '68 election where things began to change. Candidates like George Wallace, a fairly popular Alabama governor and Southern candidate helped pave the way for Nixon and his Southern Strategy. Both Wallace and Nixon received more southern votes than the established Democratic candidate VP Hubert Humphrey.

    After 1968, the South as a bloc became fairly reliably Republican (with the exception of 1976 when Carter carried some southern states).

    Think about that one: Most if not all of the South voted vs the Southern ticket Bill Clinton-Al Gore in both '92 and '96. TX; FL; AR did not vote for Bill Clinton in either Presidential race.

    The South has to hold the line in '16. FL has to return to the fold for the Donald to have a legitimate chance.

    Hold the line, boys. Hold the line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @E. Harding
    If Illinois' electoral votes had been given to Nixon, Kennedy would have won with a much narrower (but more realistic) 276 electoral votes.

    DuPage county was solidly Republican from 1856 right up until 2008, when it flipped, and stayed that way in 2012. It had Kasich's best performance in Illinois' presidential primary.

    I live in DuP and this place has changed in the past 20 years-makes me sad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Gringo
    That’s pretty for close for that time [2% margin] for a reliably Southern Democratic state like Texas....The fact that JFK didn’t carry Texas by like, 15-20+points is interesting.

    By 1960, Texas was no longer a "reliably Southern Democratic state" at the Presidential level compared to what it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Eisenhower took Texas in 1952 and 1956, by healthy margins both times: 6.4% margin in 1952 [53.13% versus 46.69%] and an 11.3% margin in 1956 [55.26% versus 43.98%]. By comparison, Republican Thomas Dewey got 16.6% of the Texas vote in the 1944 Presidential election- a losing margin of 54.8%.

    While LBJ won reelection to his Senate seat in 1954 with 84.6% of the vote , in 1960 LBJ won by only a 58%-41% margin. So yes, JFK DID win in Texas on LBJ's favorite son coattails, but those coattails counted for a lot less by 1960. LBJ's 70% margin in 1954 was down to 17% by 1960.

    Republican John Tower narrowly won the 1961 election for LBJ's old Senate seat . Tower was the first Republican Senator from Texas since Reconstruction.

    At the Presidential level, by 1952 the number of "reliably Southern Democratic states" [a.k.a. Yellow Dog Democrats] had been considerably whittled down. While Republican Presidential candidates in the 1940s took around 25% of the vote in the 11 states of the former Confederacy, Eisenhower took 48% of the Southern vote in 1952 and won the electoral votes of four Southern states- Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower took a higher percentage of the Southern vote than Goldwater did in 1964. So much for the meme that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill turned the South Republican.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1956
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1960

    In 1956, Eisenhower took a higher percentage of the Southern vote than Goldwater did in 1964. So much for the meme that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill turned the South Republican. Also, Goldwater wasn’t a Southerner while LBJ was (culturally at any rate).

    Agreed, that the ’64 Civil Rights Act didn’t directly affect the ’64 election. It was in the ’68 election where things began to change. Candidates like George Wallace, a fairly popular Alabama governor and Southern candidate helped pave the way for Nixon and his Southern Strategy. Both Wallace and Nixon received more southern votes than the established Democratic candidate VP Hubert Humphrey.

    After 1968, the South as a bloc became fairly reliably Republican (with the exception of 1976 when Carter carried some southern states).

    Think about that one: Most if not all of the South voted vs the Southern ticket Bill Clinton-Al Gore in both ’92 and ’96. TX; FL; AR did not vote for Bill Clinton in either Presidential race.

    The South has to hold the line in ’16. FL has to return to the fold for the Donald to have a legitimate chance.

    Hold the line, boys. Hold the line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @AndrewR
    OStrawman much? Because Gore made a speech kissing Saudi ass in no way implies he would have been as bad as Bush. Gore could have ended visa requirements for Saudis altogether and still have been a thousand times better of a president than W.

    Put it this way. In what way does what Gore said in Saudi Arabia support your claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Virtually all politicians kiss up to favored groups. But I will repeat myself: even instituting a zero-visa policy for Saudis would obviously be much less harmful than what Bush did.
    , @reiner Tor
    I cannot speak for AndrewR, but obviously he didn't base his opinion on Gore's Saudi Arabian speech, so the answer to your question is probably: in no way does it support that.

    Having said that, I think Gore would've probably been even worse than Dubya, unless we assume he wouldn't have started Iraq, which is impossible to know, but the more I think about it, the less likely I find it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Jefferson
    "Huh. I moved from Chicago (River Forest) to LA in the Summer of 1981. Can’t believe we never ran into each other in SoCal during those 15 months in relatively close proximity."

    Yeah I can't believe you never ran into Steve Sailer in Los Angeles, the 2nd largest city population wise in the country.

    I travel to Los Angeles at least once a year and it is mind-boggling that I never run into Steve. There are only 4 million people in the city limits and over 10 milion people overall in the county. That's not a lot of people.

    And it's not like LA has a huge sprawl, which would make the chances of running into Steve even less likely. LA is so compact and tight.

    Sauté a Geritol in a Cast Iron skillet, ingest, and get back to me. Thxbye.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Gringo
    Put it this way. In what way does what Gore said in Saudi Arabia support your claim?

    Virtually all politicians kiss up to favored groups. But I will repeat myself: even instituting a zero-visa policy for Saudis would obviously be much less harmful than what Bush did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gringo
    You avoid my question. Ciao.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @AndrewR
    Virtually all politicians kiss up to favored groups. But I will repeat myself: even instituting a zero-visa policy for Saudis would obviously be much less harmful than what Bush did.

    You avoid my question. Ciao.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Gringo #60 to AndrewR

    .Speaking truth to power by bad-mouthing US alleged bad treatment of Arabs while in Saudi Arabia. And Gore would have defended US interests much more than Bush did. Yes, Gore would have made a MUCH better President than Bush.
    Do I correctly assume that as you think Gore would have made a much better President than Bush, that you support what Gore said in Saudi Arabia?

    AndrewR #73 in reply

    Virtually all politicians kiss up to favored groups.

    IOW, you have no problem with what Gore said in Saudi Arabia.

    End of conversation. My only wish is that since you have no problem with what Gore said in Saudi Arabia to a “favored group,” that you put your money where your mouth is and move to Saudi Arabia. :)

    Ciao. Se acabó la vaina.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Gringo
    Put it this way. In what way does what Gore said in Saudi Arabia support your claim?

    I cannot speak for AndrewR, but obviously he didn’t base his opinion on Gore’s Saudi Arabian speech, so the answer to your question is probably: in no way does it support that.

    Having said that, I think Gore would’ve probably been even worse than Dubya, unless we assume he wouldn’t have started Iraq, which is impossible to know, but the more I think about it, the less likely I find it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Gringo
    In fairness, it’s very safe to assume that Gore would have been a much better president than W.

    After all, Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did. And Gore has much more courage than Bush: Gore will speak truth to power. I refer to Al Gore's Embittered Remarks. In 2006, Gore


    traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a speech denouncing the United States. The occasion was the annual Jeddah economic forum, which is sponsored in part by the family of Osama bin Laden (which claims to have distanced itself from the family black sheep).

    Mr. Gore has not disclosed how much he was paid for his words of wisdom. It probably is less than the $267,000 former president Bill Clinton was paid for speaking to the group in 2002, but odds are his fee was in six figures.

    Whatever Mr. Gore's speaking fee was, his hosts likely thought it a bargain, considering what the former vice president had to say. The U.S. committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11, Mr. Gore said. Arabs were "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

    According to the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee, about 1,200 Arabs were arrested after 9/11. Of these, 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism.

    The Census Bureau says there are about three million Arabs in the United States. The number "indiscriminately rounded up" after 9/11 is much less than one tenth of one percent of that number.

    Mr. Gore didn't say what he thought was "unforgivable" about the conditions in which the Arabs were held, but his source probably was a June, 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, or, rather, erroneous news accounts of the report.

    The Los Angeles Times said most detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, only 24 were held for more than a month before being charged, and 59 percent were charged within three days, the IG report said.

    Most Americans remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, but Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten. He deplored the cancellation of "Visa Express," the expedited program without background checks through which several of the hijackers entered the United States.

    In a footnote on page 492 of its report, the 9/11 Commission said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only three percent of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only one percent were refused.

    The Bush administration "is playing into al Qaida's hands" by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States," he said.

    Some Americans think it would be worse to let into the country terrorists bent on perpetrating another 9/11.

    The former vice president's speech attracted little attention from the news media, but drew condemnation from Web loggers who were appalled both by what he said and where he said it.

    "Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough," sighed law professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), who had been a volunteer on Mr. Gore's 1988 presidential campaign.

    "It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy...It is another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally for the war for our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies," said "Tigerhawk."
     

    Speaking truth to power by bad-mouthing US alleged bad treatment of Arabs while in Saudi Arabia. And Gore would have defended US interests much more than Bush did. Yes, Gore would have made a MUCH better President than Bush.
    Do I correctly assume that as you think Gore would have made a much better President than Bush, that you support what Gore said in Saudi Arabia?

    Gore would have fought for US interests in the Middle East much better than Bush did

    Did Bush fight for “US interests in the Middle East”? In what way? Was destroying Iraq a US interest, or what else did Dubya do there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @E. Harding
    "Would 9/11 have happened if Gore had been sitting in a classroom, narrating the adventures of a ravenous goat, on that fateful morning? Even if it had happened, would we have ended up invading Afghanistan and Iraq?"

    -Yeah, probably. But those screwups would all have been in the Dems' column.

    I have to say, Bush II did an impressive job flipping those 11 states during a good economy.

    But those screwups would all have been in the Dems’ column.

    But then Jeb or Rubio would’ve become president! Trump had a chance because the incompetence of the cuckservatives and neocons has been exposed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Anonymous
    Not really. The South used to be a bloc vote for the Democrats. Unitarians are, or at least were, Mainline, and most Southerners are Mainline, although evangelicalism has grown significantly in recent decades.

    Unitarians were never “mainline”, even in downtown Boston.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Unitarians were considered mainline. Even the Unitarian-Universalists today consider themselves to be mainline.
    , @Gringo
    Unitarians were never “mainline”, even in downtown Boston.

    I suggest you take a look at this list of Unitarian/Universalists . John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams- can't get any more mainline in Boston. In many Massachusetts towns, the big white wooden church with the steeple on the town common is Unitarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists

    massachusetts unitarian church

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @ScarletNumber
    Get off your high horse and just admit you stole the fucking election fair and square.

    Get off your high horse and just admit you stole the fucking election fair and square

    That’s like saying the local Boys Club champ defeated Muhammad Ali.

    Note that, by definition, any election Democrats lose is by definition “stolen”. In 1974, they overturned the most decisive result of the century of two years earlier. In 1860, they left the country entirely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Reg Cæsar
    Unitarians were never "mainline", even in downtown Boston.

    The Unitarians were considered mainline. Even the Unitarian-Universalists today consider themselves to be mainline.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anon
    I thought that the dead voting was Chicago's reputation!

    Chicago has the reputation, but it happens in Miami.

    We even have an L – el Metrorail:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Reg Cæsar
    Unitarians were never "mainline", even in downtown Boston.

    Unitarians were never “mainline”, even in downtown Boston.

    I suggest you take a look at this list of Unitarian/Universalists . John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams- can’t get any more mainline in Boston. In many Massachusetts towns, the big white wooden church with the steeple on the town common is Unitarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists

    massachusetts unitarian church

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Right, and Harvard University went Unitarian around the year 1800.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Glenmary Research reports that the only county where Unitarians reach one percent of the population is in Missouri, where they operate a college.

    How the hell can Unitarians be “mainline” when they don’t even qualify as Christians, let alone Protestant? So they produce leaders like the Adamses and Stevensons. Lots of other small cults punch above their weight class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Because Trinitarianism wasn't what determined whether or not a church was "mainline Protestant". That's why various Trinitarian evangelical and fundamentalist churches weren't and aren't considered mainline.

    Mainline Protestant referred to certain churches and congregations that had had a long history and influence in the US. The Unitarian Church evolved out of some of the oldest and prominent Calvinist Puritan congregations in the US and continued to be affiliated with prominent people like the Adamses, with institutions like Harvard, and with prominent New England congregations. Hence it was mainline.

    The Unitarians don't really exist anymore as an independent church. They merged with the Universalists in the 60s and the Unitarian-Universalist Church is a bit different from the Unitarian Church of the 19th century. The Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves to be mainline.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Gringo
    Unitarians were never “mainline”, even in downtown Boston.

    I suggest you take a look at this list of Unitarian/Universalists . John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams- can't get any more mainline in Boston. In many Massachusetts towns, the big white wooden church with the steeple on the town common is Unitarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists

    massachusetts unitarian church

    Right, and Harvard University went Unitarian around the year 1800.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Glenmary Research reports that the only county where Unitarians reach one percent of the population is in Missouri, where they operate a college.

    How the hell can Unitarians be "mainline" when they don't even qualify as Christians, let alone Protestant? So they produce leaders like the Adamses and Stevensons. Lots of other small cults punch above their weight class.

    Because Trinitarianism wasn’t what determined whether or not a church was “mainline Protestant”. That’s why various Trinitarian evangelical and fundamentalist churches weren’t and aren’t considered mainline.

    Mainline Protestant referred to certain churches and congregations that had had a long history and influence in the US. The Unitarian Church evolved out of some of the oldest and prominent Calvinist Puritan congregations in the US and continued to be affiliated with prominent people like the Adamses, with institutions like Harvard, and with prominent New England congregations. Hence it was mainline.

    The Unitarians don’t really exist anymore as an independent church. They merged with the Universalists in the 60s and the Unitarian-Universalist Church is a bit different from the Unitarian Church of the 19th century. The Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves to be mainline.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Because Trinitarianism wasn’t what determined whether or not a church was “mainline Protestant”.
     
    The Nicene Creed defines not only the "main line", but the entire railway network: Rome and Constantinople as well as Canterbury, Augsburg, Dordt, Geneva, etc.

    When you include bizarre extra-Christian sects (no matter how bourgeois on the surface) in the term "Protestantism", you are divorcing the latter from its assumed connection to Christianity. As a parochial Papist, I won't argue with that!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @2Mintzin1
    Well, yeah. The fact that Dems are so strongly opposed to voter I.D. shows that voter fraud is an important part of their election strategy. With no voter I.D. requirement, election workers can wink at voter fraud (e.g. on e person voting repeatedly, as different people, at several polling places, even returning to a polling place to vote yet again as someone else) with no fear of criminal prosecution. This even easier to do in a cities, where Dems dominate, because local prosecutors belong to the same party.

    I suppose that voter I.D. will be useless to prevent most examples of fraud talked here (fraud committed by election workers themselves, not by voters)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Anonymous
    Because Trinitarianism wasn't what determined whether or not a church was "mainline Protestant". That's why various Trinitarian evangelical and fundamentalist churches weren't and aren't considered mainline.

    Mainline Protestant referred to certain churches and congregations that had had a long history and influence in the US. The Unitarian Church evolved out of some of the oldest and prominent Calvinist Puritan congregations in the US and continued to be affiliated with prominent people like the Adamses, with institutions like Harvard, and with prominent New England congregations. Hence it was mainline.

    The Unitarians don't really exist anymore as an independent church. They merged with the Universalists in the 60s and the Unitarian-Universalist Church is a bit different from the Unitarian Church of the 19th century. The Unitarian-Universalists consider themselves to be mainline.

    Because Trinitarianism wasn’t what determined whether or not a church was “mainline Protestant”.

    The Nicene Creed defines not only the “main line”, but the entire railway network: Rome and Constantinople as well as Canterbury, Augsburg, Dordt, Geneva, etc.

    When you include bizarre extra-Christian sects (no matter how bourgeois on the surface) in the term “Protestantism”, you are divorcing the latter from its assumed connection to Christianity. As a parochial Papist, I won’t argue with that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored