JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 20, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Suspicious doings at the Harvard Republican Club:
Michael W. McLean ’12 won an uncontested race for the Harvard Republican Club presidency last night after Luis A. Martinez ’12 pulled out of the contest while denying accusations that he forged an e-mail from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company to Harvard students.
Martinez said that McLean confronted him in Winthrop Dining Hall on Monday night, alleging that he was responsible for sending the e-mail (see here for text). The message, which The Crimson obtained yesterday, invited recipients—including several members of the HRC—to a selective McKinsey recruiting event at MIT, which was to take place at the same time as the HRC elections last night.
If you read the whole story, it appears very, very likely that Martinez tried to steal the election.
Frank Foer wrote a memorable article in 2005 about the culture of the College Republicans, which basically is a training ground to teach future party operatives to cheat and smear each other:
Back in 1981, Abramoff and his campaign manager, Norquist, promised their leading competitor, Amy Moritz, the job of CRNC executive director if she dropped out of the race. Moritz took the bait, but it turned out that Abramoff had made the promise with his fingers crossed. Norquist took the executive director job and named Moritz his deputy. That demotion didn't last long, either. After discovering the talented Ralph Reed, Norquist handed the Christian Coalition godfather Moritz's responsibilities and her office space. They placed all of Moritz's belongings in a box labeled amy's desk. Even 25 years later, she hasn't shed her role as College Republican doormat. Abramoff used her think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to funnel nearly $1 million into a phony direct-mail firm with an address identical to his own.
While College Republicans have a vague understanding of Abramoff's ascent, they all can recite the ballad of Rove and Atwater--the ultimate object lesson in how the Establishment strikes back. In 1973, Rove was the Establishment candidate, and Atwater, the original Sun Tsu-quoting College Republican, was his prime campaign operative. They spent the spring of 1973 crisscrossing the country in a Ford Pinto, lining up the support of state chairs--basically the right-wing version of Thelma and Louise. But, in point of fact, Rove was hardly the right-winger in the race. His two opponents, Terry Dolan and Robert Edgeworth, were. And, when Dolan threw his support to Edgeworth, Rove had no other alternative. He had to cheat.
When the College Republicans gathered for their convention at the Lake of the Ozarks resort in Missouri, Rove and Atwater relentlessly challenged the legitimacy of Edgeworth's delegates, even if the evidence did not justify their attacks. Because of Rove's allegations, the convention ended in deadlock. In revenge, Dolan went to The Washington Post with recordings that captured training seminars where Rove boasted of his campaign techniques, including rooting through opponents' garbage cans and other forms of campaign espionage. The Post broke the story under the headline "gop probes official as teacher of tricks." The Republican National Committee chairman, one George H.W. Bush, however, didn't punish Rove for his less-than-high-minded behavior. Instead, he gave Rove the chairmanship and sent Edgeworth a scathing letter accusing him of disloyalty.
12 comments
Look on the positive side - they are doing this to one another, and Democrats can learn about their tactics from the sidelines. Can learn, of course, and still be shocked, shocked that there is gambling, whoring, murder, theft, graft, buggery and goat-fucking in this establishment.
- icarusr
November 20, 2010 at 10:40am
I can see their devious plan. First its to weaken government with revenue attrition, then the Republicans plan to convince the public by their getting elected that all officials who win elections are unethical dishonest unscrupulus cheats. We need a popular folk song to the tune of "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" about the Bush Crash.
- Nusholtz
November 20, 2010 at 10:55am
Well, we have another over-the-top post from icar. What would TNR be without his hysteria? The irony is that we readers are beneficiaries of the likes of the elegant Leon Wieseltier, the understated but tenacious and brilliant Jonathan Chait, the trenchant Franklin Foer, and many other fine writers, yet we have all too many fruitball commenters out here. I vividly recall reading Franklin's excellent piece. Thank you for linking to it, Jonathan. Revenge Alert: Andrew Sullivan has handed Leon Wiesletier another Poseur Alert for his latest Diarist piece at The Daily Dish. One gets the sense that Andrew is a bit jealous of the circles that Leon moves in, and perhaps of his eloquence, too. Andrew writes extremely well at his best and he can be incisive and eloquent, but Leon is elevated well above him. Consistently the worst posts at the Dish are the ones on philosophy and religion. Consider Leon's Epistle To The Hebrews (a Diarist meditation in 1996, if I correctly remember) - I have never read anything as good as that by Andrew. Leon has long ago arrived, he doesn't have to affect anything. I may have spotted a genuine poseur at the Dish yesterday, however: in a post flaying Hugh Hewitt, Andrew tossed off the Napoleonic bon mot "Tojours l'audace."
- liberal reformer
November 20, 2010 at 1:12pm
Ah, those Young Republicans. Nice enough, I guess, if you get past the sneer and the callow opinions. But the problem is they then become middle-aged Republicans.
- ironyroad
November 20, 2010 at 1:55pm
Stupidity Alert: LibRef speaks. Superfluidity Alert: LibRef posts a non sequitur. Firefighter Alert: LibRef launches another flame war. Obsequiousness Alert: LibRef talks about Weaseltear. LibRef: Just out of curiosity - and I know I am going to pay for this - exactly what part of my post would be characterised as "hysteria"? And, please try respond without referring to Aristotle's theory of humour, Umberto Eco's take on Artistotle's theory of humour, Ecco Shoes' take on Umberto Eco, and Palin's shoes' resemblance to Ecco.
- icarusr
November 20, 2010 at 11:28pm
All dirty tricks can be laid at the feet of Republicans. All those gems about how the Kennedys treated Hubert Humphrey are just a rumor.
- lsernoff
November 21, 2010 at 11:25am
These are the same little sociopaths will grow up to be "saved by Jesus," which of course allows them to do whatever they want - being the annoited by God and all. In ten years, these will be the same lovely chaps who go to Uganda (your tax dollars at work, natch) to lobby for anti-homosexual laws, demand government health care for their families while feverishly dismantling it for others, vote against health care for kids, against funds for 9/11 service providers, all while shoveling corporate pork by the trillions. Hey, they may sleep with their best friends wives, but they have Jesus on their side so all is well. Being Republican means never having to say you're sorry.
- WandreyCer
November 21, 2010 at 1:00pm
lsernoff - it is amusing that the best you could come up to tarnish the Democrats with was a reference to what happened forty five years ago. And of course it is a neat tactic of all idiots, hypocrites and dictators to respond to criticism of their own nefarious dealings by referring to what OTHERS have done or are doing. But let's grant you the Kennedys - and even Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson, the second Cleveland presidency and big Government-adulterer Hamilton. Meanwhile, since the Kennedys and on the Republican dime, you have the putrid swamp of Nixon, the outright treason of Iran-Contra, the ethical campaigns of Lee Atwater, Kenneth Starr and Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove and Dickhead Cheney and Abramoff and "Hechuva Job Brownie" and Gonzales and ... not to mention one religious gay scandal after another ... This is not a debate you can win; it is not one you can even get into without appearing magnificently ill-informed, at best, or downright silly.
- icarusr
November 21, 2010 at 2:25pm
icarusr: Mes compliments; "magnificently ill-informed" has a nice ring to it.
- lsernoff
November 21, 2010 at 2:38pm
Where is the hysteria? Well, let's see ... hmmm, maybe it's the murder part. I don't believe that Jack Abramoff, the College Republicans, or any prominent Republican (or even lesser-known ones) have committed murder in recent times. You are like a pathological liar, abusr; you are so over-the-top so much of the time that you have lost a sense of proportion and veracity. And a stupidity alert coming from you is just priceless - a classic case of projection.
- liberal reformer
November 22, 2010 at 10:13am
Where is the hysteria? Well, let's see ... hmmm, maybe it's the murder part. I don't believe that Jack Abramoff, the College Republicans, or any prominent Republican (or even lesser-known ones) have committed murder in recent times. You are like a pathological liar, abusr; you are so over-the-top so much of the time that you have lost a sense of proportion and veracity. And a stupidity alert coming from you is just priceless - a classic case of projection.
- liberal reformer
November 22, 2010 at 10:13am
Oh dear ... it's called "exaggeration for effect". Which is also why I put in "goat-fucking" - to clearly identify it as exaggeration, even in the face of pedants like you ... and it is also why I put in language direct from "Casablanca" - that part of it was ironic. - or did you not get that? That's the movie with Humphrey Bogart. Dear God - you really are a moron.
- icarusr
November 22, 2010 at 1:03pm