Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” was a vivid analogy made by Justice Louis Brandeis about the benefits of candor and transparency. And that’s the spirit in which I wrote How to Rig An Election. The book is a completely candid account of my personal experience in Republican politics from the inception of the Republican Revolution to its demise in 2006. My objective in the book was to walk the reader through the process by which political campaigns are waged so that the next time they receive a piece of direct mail, see a television commercial, or hear a radio spot they will know why they got it and what the people who sent it to them are trying to make them believe. After reading this book the reader will no longer just react to the message as they are expected to, but rather pause and consider what reaction is anticipated and then perhaps instead act according to what they think – not feel.
Water is wet, the sky is blue, politics is rife with dirty tricks that orchestrate voter conduct and both parties do it. Witness the fact that an Iowa county chairman for Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign was fired for disseminating an email charging that Senator Obama was educated in a madrassa and is a “Manchurian Candidate” intent on sparking a Muslim revolution in the United States. Of course, that’s a whole lot of craziness coming from a campaign that at the time was faltering. But more interesting was the reaction by Senator Clinton’s campaign. They disavowed the county chairman, expelling him from the campaign. The campaign manager issued a statement condemning the email, saying it was not authorized, and that there would be personnel changes.
I’ve heard that one before.
That was the same reaction of the New Hampshire Republican Party when confronted with the phone jamming scheme in 2002. They went so far as to say it was a rogue operation of which the state GOP was unaware. It wasn’t true in New Hampshire in 2002, and I doubt it’s true in Iowa in the 2008 caucus campaign. It’s just another dirty trick – a standard part of the campaign operative’s playbook.
It is easy for some to try to beat me up for my role in the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal and try to define me in ways that smack of hysteria. The Democratic Party set that tone a long time ago when its chairman equated my crime to murder. It simply is not, and the charge was nonsense designed to evoke a strong emotional reaction from voters and party donors.
As far as contrition, that is between my family, my faith and me. My statement on the matter can be found in the public record and in the epilogue of How To Rig An Election. I wrote How To Rig An Election to vent my anger, but also as a public service, to shed a small ray of sunlight on a process that is in desperate need of disinfecting. The choice to set aside your prejudices and read my story and learn from it is yours.
Murder has one victim, or in the most extreme case 35.
Every resident of the USA is a victim of your efforts at subverting the Constitution through criminally effecting the outcome of an election.
I think you should still be in jail for a good long time, and would think so if you had acted for the democrats.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own personal questions of interest to throw at Allen: What is your take on what exactly is going on with all the racial off-the-record whisperings between Obama and Hillary?
More importantly: what sort of techniques did you use to get the media coverage you wanted? What sort of pressure is brought to bear, and how do you get a particular storyline into print?
January 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this guy still posting?
Trying to flog his book?
Can convicted felons profit from their crimes?
January 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... In the last post, I was willing to assume Allen was repentant, and someone said he fully admitted, Dems weren't even close to playing the game on the level of the GOP, but now I'm not so sure. Having said that... who cares? I have long since given up any hope of seeing a GOP dirty tricks artist rediscover their consciences after freeing themselves from them with the help of Ayne Rand and the Selfish Gene.
So, maybe he's repentant, or maybe after getting thrown under the bus his expose as just as cynical and selfishly motivated as anything else he's done. As he said, only him and God knows (I think you can keep your family clueless about quite a lot).
The title of his post is correct, however. He offers a window into the oft-hidden world of politics, and this is a very rare opportunity to see just how they play us for saps. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to learn, whatever his motivations, how we get played for fools.
So, let in the light.
January 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be the first to say in these comments that Allen Raymond is a liar. Both parties do not break the law to rig elections, at least not in modern times. Only one party is guilty of that and it's the party that employed our guest felon here.
And no, Allen your contrition is not an issue for you and your family. Every citizen was your victim.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please. To say that democrats do not criminally cheat in elections is to express ignorance of electoral history.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrat/Dixiecrat politicians of the deep south were notoriously corrupt and institutionalized that corruption deeply.
Elsewhere, Mayor Daley's Chicago Democratic machine was notorious for electoral corruption.
And there have always been allegations bandied about by right wing nutcases about John F. Kennedy's 1960 election being stolen. Of all these, I think this is the most obvious nonsense. Kennedy's opponent was Richard Nixon, a man who came up through McCarthy, made his name by destroying Alger Hiss, and who was legendary as the meanest and dirtiest player around. Nixon was not Al Gore. Nixon was not John Kerry. Anyone who thinks that someone could steal a Presidential election out from under a streetfighter like Richard Nixon and get away with it is so delusional they ought to be on medication.
On the other hand, the Daley machine is now long in history, the corrupt Dixiecrats defected to the Republican party. The Democrats are pretty clean.
In terms of Raymond's 'they all do it', this is pretty much typical of the criminal mind. They justify their misconduct through equivalence. If everyone does it, its no big deal. If your enemy does it, then it justifies you doing it too. It's the whole moral abysss. Once you can pin it on your enemy, your own conduct becomes justifiable, even necessary.
It's amazing the lengths that criminals will go to. Thus, you have child molesters rambling on about how they were seduced by precocious nine year olds, rapists complaining how they were provoked and entrapped by their victims, muggers blithely announcing that it was the little old ladies fault they fractured their skull.
But frankly, I think everyone knows what I think of Raymond, and certainly as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing shocking as far as his rationalisations go.
So my advice is don't get upset by his equivalency, or his random statements that the Democrats do it to. Or any of his other rationalizations and equivalencies. It's just part of his pathology. Recognize it for what it is, and don't worry further. Don't have any illusions. Look past it, see if he's got anything useful or relevant to say.
January 15, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess I read no farther than the 1960 election legend.
Republicans love to tell that yarn but they never want anyone to hear the whole story.
There was noise about Chicago right away but the Illinois election commission, controlled by Republicans, certified the election results as soon as possible.
Let the Chicago legend live with an assist by Republicans of course. But for God sakes get that election certified.
Certifying the election moves prying eyes away.
Can't let anyone discover the wide spread Republican ballot box stuffing operations in SEVERAL counties in downstate Illinois.
Also left out is that Kennedy actually didn't need illinois to win the elction. He had enough electoral votes to win without Illinois.
But Chicago lives on in Republican legend and lore.
January 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron explained it for me and far better than I could have.
I said "modern politics" for a reason. That's post the new southern allignment where the worst elements of the Democratic party turned Republican and certainly post the Chicago Daley machine.
Democrats really have been far cleaner than Republicans for a long time. Maybe you'd counter than I only say that because I'm a partisan Democrat but one of the reasons I am a Democrat in the first place is that I believe the party is free of this type of corruption.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 16, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh, sounds like he read the comments from the last post.
******
Well, let me ask you this--what would you like to talk about with the readers this week? What questions would you like us to ask so that something constructive could come out of the conversation?
Clearly you don't like the idea that readers had a strong response to the notion that your work activities had nothing to do with morality and that the judge in your case was wrong to bring it up. I would like to ask you if your response would have been the same if the judge had asked about your "ethical compass." (In the sense of the concept of free and fair elections, and indeed the American secular experiment, being driven by ethics. For more detail, see my final comment on the previous post.)
I'm trying hard not to be snarky, I'm truly wondering if a brief discussion of the ethics/morality question might help us dig out of what is turning out to be a conversational hole.
But hey, we can't make you talk about morality if you don't want to, although I think you should want to. What's left?
Two things I'm curious about: how did the Republicans get Mavanee Bear to vouch for GWB's military service? And, whether/how they orchestrated the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy trial beyond what we already know.
Hey, Don Siegelman was also convicted for doing something he thought was just a typical political activity! You guys have that in common, except he's due to be in prison for six more years. I'm sorry, that WAS snarky--but I'm doing the best I can here.
January 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't proved your point: "everyone does it". A smear by a Dem who is then rapidly fired for his actions is not even close to being of the same magnitude as an illegal operation funded out of the GOP coffers.
Apparently your theme this week is going to be to try to paint both parties with the same brush. Sorry, it won't wash.
Those who want to bring in the machine politics of the first half of the 20th Century to show that the Dems were also guilty of various frauds are grasping at straws. Let's stick to the past 40 years, starting with Nixon and the plumbers. Now show us the illegal acts committed by Dems during the same time period.
Should campaigns be free of derogatory remarks about one's opponents, perhaps, but this is a far cry from illegality and voter caging.
For conservatives (which has meant the GOP over this period) the ends always justify the means. This works during elections and when legislation is proposed. Gutting the regulatory agencies is also a nice touch. The ends are that those who have the most need more, anything to make this happen is acceptable.
I guess once a GOP operative, always a GOP operative.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
I'm grateful to TPM Cafe for hosting this tool. Now I know better than to spend my money on his tripe.
January 16, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should be noted that the Obama madrassa email had been circulating for some time.
I received it in either late summer or early fall.
Origin:
Probably some right-wing outfit or the Republican party. The person who sent me the email (a former co-worker - he's now retired and lives out of state) frequently sends me email of that type. Naked right-wing propaganda.
It fits, he's originally from Indiana and is a strident Republican. A few years ago he sent me a typical right-wing propaganda email. I found a Republican party county office in his native Indiana on the route list.
Funny how I never receive any Democratic party propaganda email with the breathless pass it on message at the end.
January 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disagree with so many posters.
I find Raymond's insider story very interesting and indeed useful. While I am retired from the game, I have managed about 20 DFL campaigns over the years, and one thing a Campaign Manager needs to know how to do is detect "real" dirty tricks in a timely way, and fashion a response. To do that, you need to know where you may be vulnerable, and how to shield those points. If I were training future Democratic Campaign managers -- I would have them read Raymond's book, plus a good selection of the press reports regarding the investigation, trials and aftermath, and ask them to game out how a campaign could be protected from the kinds of tricks played.
There certainly is a moral element to politics, but in the end that is contained in how successful candidates use their office. If someone votes so as to shift the tax burden to the less affluent working class, stressing the more vulnerable in our society, and rewards the wealthy with much income and wealth -- as social policy -- I see that as immoral. It is why I could never support most Republican Candidates. But when it comes down to how you actually design and execute a campaign, moral decisions are hardly part of your considerations. You make hundreds of small decisions regarding how you present your candidate to potential voters, how you identify your supporters, and how in the end you turn every last one of them out on Election Day.
I sense that the people in New Hampshire are of a mind to punish the State Republican Party for the Dirty Tricks played in 2002, since they now know Party Leaders knew something of the phone jamming plan. That is the best place to make the moral case -- punish those who should have said no. I Suspect Sunnu will be punished this year for how he won in 2002, whether he knew or not, and again, that is how it should be.
January 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raymond,
How about insider stuff from the book? The kind of insider stuff your book is presumably choc-full of. Shit or get off the pot as they say.
Presumably you're here to promote it, and without more of a sample of its quality, I don't think you're doing that very effectively. If not, why are you here? Seriously.
We're really not here to read your personal confessions or denials. The people who have nothing better to do than denounce you, can't be your purpose, unless you're a masochist or starved for any attention.
January 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya. "The other side does it too" is the oldest and lamest excuse in the book. You seem determined to project your own, accomplished sleazebaggery onto Democrats. So enjoy your book royalties, because it's the last chance to cash out you're ever likely to get.
January 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is everyone in the chorus condemning Raymond as naive as they seem? Every day, you stand in line at the supermarket, or pump gas, or make small talk at the bookstore, with people whose moral offenses are much worse than Raymond's.
Case in point: there's a lawyer here in town, pillar of the community, coached my son in baseball, wants to open a nightclub, well liked, etc. My wife's friend from the neighboring town was in an physically abusive relationship, and finally left her boyfriend-- who was then brought up on charges, lost his job, and hired that lawyer to defend him. That pillar of the community dragged our friend's name through the mud, publicly, made her ashamed to go outside for months, all very unfairly, all in defense of his client.
All legal. All within the bright confines of the law. All "part of the game."
What the lawyer did was morally far more reprehensible than what Raymond did. And my point is, this stuff happens every day, with no consequences. People move on.
So when Raymond comes to this site, blogging about his experiences and trying to explain what happened, don't pile on him as if he were a child abuser or crack dealer, or as if he were an emblem of everything Bush has done to damage this country. That kind of rhetoric is ridiculous and only makes us look like people who deserve to lose elections because we're so bloody stupid.
And for those who don't think redemption is possible, why don't you trot over to Media Matters and ask David Brock for his opinion.
January 16, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So someone else's sins wash another's clean? Cool. So if Ted Bundy isn't Hitler, he wins?
January 16, 2008 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you the guy who thought that Jeanne Shaheen was a man on the previous thread? Maybe you should cool down your rhetoric, study the facts of the case, and post on this subject in a more measured way later on today.
January 16, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I made any particular reference to Jeanne Shaheen.
And for the record, I've pretty much said everything I needed to be said on this guy previously. I don't feel any compelling urge to keep posting.
I notice by the way, you didn't actually deal with my query. Is your argument really that one person's sins wash another's clean? Or are you afraid to walk through a door that you've opened?
January 16, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't make a reference to Jeanne Shaheen? I quote you:
"But the American people didn't consent to have their Democracy shit upon and subverted. The Democrat candidate didn't consent to have his phones jammed. The voters didn't consent to have their calls jammed. So don't give me this victimless crap."
Jeanne is the "he" with the phones.
If you don't know the elementary facts of the case you're bloviating about, my advice is to stop bloviating.
And obviously, my argument is not that two wrongs make a right, or that one person's sins erase another, or whatever simplistic formulation you want to use to mischaracterize my argument. My point is that this guy is not Hitler, or Ted Bundy, or Karl Rove, or even James Tobin (look it up). He's a low-level functionary who has written a very good book describing exactly what goes on at the sausage factory--by way of penance, who knows, I'm not a mind-reader--and your rhetoric is not contributing to the community's understanding of the issues here.
January 16, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like a minor point on which to base a snark. Valdron would have been more correct to say "The Democrat candidate didn't consent to have his or her calls jammed" if he wanted to convey a general, not specific sense. But it's hardly a dealkiller.
At the same time, I'd also prefer to move away from issues of character and into hearing what else Raymond has to say. (Again, caveat emptor on whether what he says is truthful, useful or moral.)
January 16, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a minor snark when you demonstrate pretty conclusively that the person leading the tar and feather brigade is not even familiar with the story. Sorry, but we are the reality-based community, yes? Generalizations and lofty sentiments and blanket condemnations of a person's character have to proceed out of knowledge and argument, you can't start with them.
January 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine.
Let's start with the facts that this addle-pated jerk is a convictd felon, then we can branch out into the fact that he has admitted to attempt to subvert our nearly sacred right to vote.
Sorry, but you are trying to float a sinking turd.
Hardly admirable.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be a minor point if Valdron were a random poster saying one or two negative things about Raymond. However, I am guessing 1/4 of the posts on this topic come from this lovechild of Nancy Grace and Inspector Javert.
I find it disturbing that this monomaniacal obsessive claims to be a DA. We read all the time about DA's misusing the law in their excessive zeal for conviction. The obsessive hatred he displays makes me fear for the rights of defendants facing him.
Liberals are distinguished from Conservatives by their belief in redemption and the ability of mankind to improve and progress. I hear no liberality in this person. I hear a law-and-order, hang-em-high and fry-em conservative and wonder if Valdron is actually an RNC troll venting anger at Allen for testifying against Tobin and betraying the inner workings of the RNC. Of course, I have no evidence of this other than the text of Valdron's posts wherein he betrays the conservative mentality that made Texas the execution capitol of the world.
January 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that I'm a Texan? Well, that's just plain hurtful.
For the record, I was never a D.A. I'm Canadian, the Canadian term for it is 'Crown Prosecutor.' Early in my legal career I served two years with the Manitoba Department of Justice engaged in various prosecutions. From there, I crossed the bar doing defense work and focusing on poverty law, and have built a practice in Aboriginal law. I've also spent a few years representing Child and Family Service Agencies.
As a Crown Prosecutor or Crown Attorney, I served the cause of justice. That meant not simply being an advocate, but being an officer of the court. I played fair, I never mislead or hid information, never played games, and I didn't make examples. Whether a person was represented or not, I treated each of them courteously and with respect for their rights. If a case was unsupportable, I dropped it, rather than trying to game it. My job was to put the Crown's case before the Court, to put the law as I see it before the Court, and to allow the judge to decide guilt or innocence.
I make this point because I'm quite offended that you've gone out of your way to malign my professional integrity.
Apart from that, as a result of a varied legal career which has allowed me to meet and deal with criminals and similar sorts of people in a variety of situations, and as a result of a wider expanse of careers which included journalism and day labour, and growing up in a poverty stricken high crime area, which has also exposed me to a wide variety of people, I have a sense of when someone is bullshitting and needs to be called on it. Raymond triggers that sense. I called it.
Liberals are distinguished from Conservatives in not being particularly stupid. To quote someone wittier than I:
"Not all conservative people are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."
As such, I don't think we've got any special obligation to swallow nonsense when it is offered up. Gullibility may be another matter, but I firmly believe that is a personal choice.
If Raymond wants to discuss his book, fair enough. He hasn't started yet. What he has done is engaged in a series of tedious games intended to evade responsibility. Cater to this if you must, but I don't feel the obligation.
As to whether I'm a Republican Troll, you'd better pray to the deity, deities or abstract concept of your choice that I'm not.
January 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> Jeanne is the "he" with the phones.
.
Violations of criminal statutes are prosecuted as State vs. Suspect, not Victim vs. Suspect, because in theory the harm done to society is as great or greater than the harm done to the individual. And criminal violations of elections law hurt every citizen not just the wronged candidate.
.
sPh
January 16, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, agreed, my point was not on that aspect of law or even of consequences, my point was that a poster did not know the story and yet was up on a soapbox.
The judge rendered judgment on that crime and meted out an appropriate punishment, which has been served.
January 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, you have been eating your wheaties this morning, haven't you. All pumped up and ready to fight.
Frankly, I'll disagree with you that the identity of the particular candidate is all that significant to my argument. Feel free to go wild over gender pronouns all you want, I hear that's big in France. The material facts were:
- Raymond conducted a phone jamming operation.
- Phones were jammed. This was patently illegal and a criminal act.
- Raymond was charged, convicted and went to jail.
Case closed.
My comments on this thread have been blunt but accurate. Raymond acknowledges guilt in one narrow sense, and has found a way to make a few bucks off it and take some revenge for getting thrown under the bus. But in pretty much every way, Raymond displays the classical traits of evasion and deceptiveness that characterize most criminals.
The fact that he's a low level functionary is debateable. He was high level enough to run a phone jamming scheme, he was part and parcel of a fairly toxic culture. This isn't a guy stuffing flyers in a mailbox.
Indeed, a low level functionary arguably wouldn't have any interesting knowledge or insights into the corruption that is the Republican machine.
There are two principal issues at the bar here. One is this guy's book, the contents, relevance and worth of it. That's not on the table. Raymond hasn't put it on the table. Raymond isn't talking about anything in the book, he's not quoting, running excerpts, discussing the thesis, none of that.
Go look at the posts that revolved around Rajiv Chandrekasaran's 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. He talked about he book, people talked about the book. The discussion revolved around the book, critiques of the book, who was slamming the book, what they said and where they were coming from.
Now go look at Raymond's threads. Talking about the book? No. What are we talking about? Raymond. Why? Because its the subject that Raymond has chosen.
He could be out there shlepping his book for all he's worth, but there's things more important to him. Things like explaining how he was just doing his job, how he's not responsible, how morals doesn't enter into it, how it's just about winning, how the Democrats do it too.
These threads are about Raymond because Raymond has chosen to make them about himself. It's not about the book because Raymond doesn't feel like talking about that. What he feels like talking about is the standard rationalisation games that criminals of every sort use, before, during and after crimes, and before and after convictions.
In other words, he's bullshitting. I'm calling him on his bullshit. And you... I don't know what the hell you're going on about.
I acknowledge you're not a mindreader. That's pretty obvious. However, I too am unable to read minds, so if you actually have a worthwhile argument, a silk purse instead of the sow's ear that you've advanced, set it forth.
January 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let my previous posts stand in contrast to this screed.
January 16, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I can see you have not answered a single one of Valdron's questions or criticisms. To the extent that one can judge a blogposting nym Valdron is to the left of the US progressive position on 87% of the topics discussed here, so suggesting he was a Radical Right troll from Texas was not a credential-affirming move.
sPh
January 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Oregon Activists who accused me of being from Texas. My feelings are still hurt.
January 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not me, Sparky. I can disagree and criticize someone without going so far as to say they're from Texas. And by the way, confusing me with someone else doesn't polish your credentials to a high degree either.
January 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are worse things than being from Texas, of course. No disrespect to the great state of Texas which has produced many fine.... er.... things.... and ... stuff.
Take Leprosy for instance. I think we can all acknowledge that on the whole, Leprosy is worse than being from Texas.
If I was forced to choose between coming down with a really really, bad, disfiguring, contagious, extreme case of Leprosy and moving to Texas... well, I'd be very tempted to move to Texas.
So you see. The point is that Texas is OK.
It's just kind of mean to accuse someone of being from there.
January 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
“The point is that Texas is OK.”
Wrong, Oklahoma is OK. Baja Oklahoma is home and just like that guy from Tobacco Road, and people like Molly Ivens, I miss it.
January 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hunter Thompson had the best line on the subject. "Anybody who wanders around the world saying, 'Hell yes, I'm from Texas,' deserves whatever happens to him." (from "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved", 1970)
We all miss Molly.
January 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think we're as naive as we perhaps seem. We're just really particular about offenses against Democracy. Which seems pretty reasonable to me.
But we've established that there are differences of opinion about Mr. Raymond's character and its impact on the discussion. Now we need to each decide whether and how to continue the conversation. (Caveat emptor--you'll be hearing from a person who is either an ordinary human who unintentionally crossed a line, or an infinitely manipulative sociopath whose responses will be lies, or both, or something in between.)
That said, I'm still curious about how the Republicans get people to say what they want them to say (eg Mavanee Bear vouching for GWB's military service) and about how the political maneuvering in Alabama led to and influenced the Siegelman Scrushy trial. Others have expressed interest in knowing the specifics of the dirty tricks. And of course, there's all that wiretapping and surveillance. And how they are so good at keeping the facts out of what passes for political analysis in the MSM.
Without focusing on something other than Raymond's character, it will be a long week.
January 16, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Oh give me a fricking break!
I'll be damned if I'd waste the time it takes me to type this to search the public record to find this fellas worthless statement on the matter. And I'm glad I'm way past the days of political science courses to have it ordered that I must purchase this dudes book as mandatory reading.
And directly to Mr. Raymond: Run along now and get a job. Something positive that actually helps grow the economy. Something besides the lecture circuit. Maybe, like managing a manufacturing business, maybe a local McDonalds. Your kids will love it.
~OGD~
January 16, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Hmmm...
Did this sleazy lawyer in your community write a book about all lawyers do it and then spend a week hawking the book here on TPM?
Like Mick Jagger: I seem to have missed the connection here.
~OGD~
January 18, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allen,
I'd like to know something about an issue I've always found curious and I'm quite serious and sincere. This isn't meant to be snarky or facetious.
When you compare the Clinton county chair in Iowa sending out an e-mail full of lies that was halted almost instantly and the NH phone jamming scandal you seem to be saying that somehow the two instances were/are essentially the same sort of "dirty trick" and somehow comparable. One was a nasty, childish thing to do. The other, a serious felony that was well financed, well planned, and intended to directly and illegally impact the outcome of an election.
I have noticed ever since the Nixon days that Republicans often use this sort of comparison to demonstrate that "everybody does it", that both parties typically operate like this and so on. There seems to be a gigantic ethical blind spot in this thinking that allows Republicans to miss the vast difference in scale and severity between someone who acts like a jerk and another who commits a serious crime. It's as though, if we were discussing more common illegal or unethical behavior one would equate getting a parking ticket to committing a armed robbery of a bank or shooting someone to demonstrate that "see, the guy with the parking ticket crossed the legal line too."
These may not be the best examples, but hopefully I'm getting my point across.
I first noticed this when I was a teenager with the Nixon people who never seemed to be able to distingquish between Nixon's well organized, intentional criminal enterprises designed to enhance Nixon's political strength and win his campaigns for President and the Democrats' efforts to use whatever political means available to them to end the war or embarass "Tricky Dick". As time went on, the relentless efforts of Republicans to smear Jimmy Carter were seen as "payback" for getting Nixon out of office. Then, in the Reagan years, Republicans and their allies in the press continued to cast a blind eye toward the deliberate, serious, criminal violations of the law that occured in the Iran-contra affair and claimed, like the Nixon people that "they just got caught" and that their violations of the law were what goes on all the time in government/politics. Then we had the Clinton years where endless sums were spent trying to topple the President and no stunt or scheme was too outrageous in the effort to smear and destroy him including the unethical political use of the Special Prosecutor's office by Ken Starr and his underlings. There was not so much as the slightest twinge of conscience on the part of those who supported Ken Starr's abuse of power and unethical serial leaking of false or misleading information and the like. During the Bush years, beginning with the illegal activities in Florida to keep black voters off the roles and to manipulate the counting of votes (let alone the extra constitutional claim by the Supreme Court to jurisdiction in an election matter that clearly and unequivocally is the domain of the states) the lawlessness has taken on breathtaking scope regarding everything from the open flouting of all kinds of laws from statutes to the constitution to good old-fashioned quid-pro-quo bribes a la Jack Abramoff in return for favorable legislation, regulatory action, or appointments and the like. No level of government has been immune to the law-breaking and contempt for the law under the Bush regime and still Republicans claim that "everyone" does it and that somehow there's an equivalency between Republicans and Democrats on this sort of thing. As just the most egregious instance Reublicans insist the actions of the Pres., V. Pres. and Libby contriving to expose Valerie Plame's identity and Joe Wilson's publicly exposing that the administration knew it was lieing about yellow cake in Niger is just the way the game is played. And the thing is here, I think they really believe what they're saying. That's what I find so deeply troubling, frightening even about the Republican mindset.
How do you explain this? It appears to me an almost sociopathetic rationalization of ongoing disprespect for the law and not just playing near the edge. It disturbs me because in generations prior to the modern era most Republicans respected the law and observed ethical and moral conventions with regard to political "combat" if you will. Since the days of Nixon there seems to be a growing, almost malignant and certainly malevolent breed dominating the Republican Party the prime directive of which seems to be "do anything to win, do anything to get what you want, just don't get caught."
Your example indicates to me that you may still not see the distinction between the two "violations" you write about and how one is a very serious crime and the other a petty political act that is more embarassing than anything else. I'd love to hear what you've got to say about this.
January 16, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting. I had a conversation with a friend of mine about this yesterday - me full of outrage and frustration, he full of devil's advocacy and pragmatism (he's a liberal as well btw).
What he essentially said was listen, breaking the law is obvious enough. The law is law. But taunting the law, pushing right up against it, winning by nearly any means, that's the game. That's how it's played and getting angry or grasping at romantic notions of "fair play" are personal expressions but have little to do with the real outcome of elections or how the game is ultimately played.
On giving this some thought I have to admit I can see his point. The history of elections in this country (or anywhere), from small offices in humble little burgs to the presidency of this nation, no one can claim that they've always been run "fair". After all what is "fair"? It's a bit of an idealistic fantasy not unlike the "perfect America". Politics are a game played by people with access to power or a desire for that access. The laws which govern both the nation and the processes within it (such as elections) are made by these very same people. It's ugly yes, but that's the reality of it.
There's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I think that the ideologies of the parties pretty clearly indicate which side each lines up on. One is authoritarian in it's interpretation of what law literally says (or doesn't) and the other is more idyllic in what the law (or those who make them) intends. So in order to force the two to somewhat common ground the quickest solution I can see is to have copious law to cover virtually all situations. If we don't have enough laws on the books, or don't have laws which are specific enough to cover the various kinds of shenanigans then it's the fault of those people we've elected and we should demand more of them.
And herein I see a bit of a clash - most people don't want 243 volumes of election laws that spell out ever little thing. It's cumbersome. An enormous burden really, but in the end isn't that what we need if what we want is "fair play"? Don't we really need to legislate "fair play" if we want it? Maybe we need super specific laws which dictate every aspect of an election. Without it maybe all we're seeing is one side using the rules literally and the other side crying about losing and saying "no fair!". And then we see the winner making or changing the laws once they've won. But maybe we're making a mistake in assuming that there's some sort of universal "fairness" in politics or in elections. Maybe it's wishful thinking and not based on anything resembling reality - past or present.
I'm torn personally after thinking about this. Where is there time for legislation on things I feel are also incredibly important like healthcare or the economy or the environment when our politicians are up to their elbows and Adam's apples in election laws? Especially with there being so many elections occurring all the time. On top of that, who's actually going to enforce these laws? It certainly seems apparent that they're not even capable of reliably enforcing the seemingly few laws that are currently on the books. It is indeed a mind-numbing situation.
I'm not sure at this point. I am sure that this man here broke a law and is thus guilty of the crime. I have no interest in hearing his justifications for it nor his spreading the blame like so much butter on a piece of toast. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes there are people bending and at times breaking the rules. And yes we all should take off our rose colored glasses in regards to how we see elections and our nation. But given that there are so few laws right now and that they are so terribly enforced what I'm left with at the end of the day is - man this guy is one terrible criminal...
January 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Perhaps we should just reject these rejects.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 17, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The comments here remind me of Dick Tuck and Richard Nixon. Dick was a political prankster that lampooned a many Republican. I have met two people who knew him well and their description of him was a very imaginative and funny political operator. I never heard of any illegal activities. But he was effective in a number of elections. Richard Nixon in 1972 used him as a model for how the republicans should employ 'dirty tricks' to win elections. Their attempts to be funny were nothing but illegal. We know the end of that story. Hearing Allen say that both sides do it reminds of Nixon's pathetic defenses.
January 16, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really are an arrogant jerk That analysis might work for the idiot 2% that constitutes the GOPs base, but the average American wasn't fooled by your BS. You've earned every drip of disgust you've received here.
Who in the Hell are YOU to subvert our right to vote and our Constitution?
Now you presume to lecture US? Not likely, you addle-pated poor excuse for an American. You ought to be tarred and feathered.
Find a rock, climb under it, and stay there. You have nothing to teach or tell except to other under-rock dwellers.
The nerve of some lowlifes....
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
January 17, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allen
I'm glad you wrote the book and I do not doubt that at least part of your motive was to educate the people.
You are right that rulers and would be rulers are always trying to stir up the masses against their opponents or to curry favor with them with flowery talk about how they will unite us and bring us to the promised land.
I for myself have known all this stuff as far back as I can remember.
Can't say that JFK's, MLK's, and yes Obama's oratory did not inspire me, it did.
Being inspired by oratory is not a cognitive process which means people have little control over it. That's why campaigns focus on the emotional side of things and usually stay away from wonky details. (Another reason to stay away from wonky details is that if you get into power you don't want to be held accountable for much since you have not really promised anything in particular. That's why Bush Sr. erred in his "read my lips no nee taxes" pitch. It helped at the time, but it came back to bite him)
I think however that most of us here at the cafe are quite aware of the realities of being pitched at not just from politicians but form anyone who wants to sell us on buying some useless product or believing in some imaginary garnpa in the sky.
Sadly, too many people are all too eager to buy into these pitches
January 18, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to step up to the plate on Valdron's behalf here, because I think that he's been unfairly maligned (Republican troll?!??) and because I think the argument between Valdron and Michael57 has veered off course. I don't want to put words in Valdron's mouth, but if I do, I'm sure he'll tell me to quit in his usual kindly manner.
The problem is not the price of the book, the gender of the phone-scamming victim or even the virtues of Texas. Valdron is trying to warn people about the essential nature of Allen Raymond and any information he provides, and I happen to think the reason he's being so insistent about it is that he's right.
Valdron is a Canadian crown prosecutor who worked in some very obscure places on behalf of some extremely vulnerable people and some extremely bad people. Sometimes these would be the same person, odd as that sounds.
There isn't a lot of sophisticated law enforcement, evidence gathering, a surfeit of defense lawyers or a massive judge pool in Northern Manitoba. It's not as easy to press a case well up there as it is in more urban areas, so he's got to have a very keen sense of how to figure people out on limited information, often on their behavior or statements alone. To give a blunt example, he's got to be able to get a pretty good idea whether the wife wandered outside naked in -40 celsius of her own volition, or whether the husband locked her out so he could bugger the family goat. And as luck would have it, the coroner died last week so there's no chance of checking for blood alcohol levels or signs of violence. It's the frontier, you know? Also, he's got a lot of responsibility because he may be the only person for hundreds of miles who is supposed to understand the law at a high level. It's a tough job, and someone who does it well (which I suspect Valdron has although I do not know) is a real asset to the safety and well-being of a community that can stretch for thousands of square miles.
Valdron would be familiar with informants, and Allen Raymond is basically an informant, a person who comes forward with facts about a case for a variety of reasons. Usually and sadly, they are pretty low reasons: they want money, they have an ax to grind with the person they are informing on, or they know that the jig is up and they'd better switch sides in a hurry. A genuine desire to tell the truth is almost never the real reason, although it's the top one offered by almost every informant, along with a request for remuneration or leniency of some sort.
An informant will sell you facts for money or some other form of recompense, but they will almost never "tell the truth" in the way that more genuine types of people will tell the truth. They're just not wired for it. Another saying about information provided by informants is "if you get it, vett it." So if his presence at TPM cafe is a gift, don't forget to check for hidden razor blades. Raymond may well have useful things to say (and in fact I have asked him to say them) but you have to understand the context and his motivations for talking.
In Raymond's case, his stance that morality doesn't apply to him because he wasn't hired to be a moral guy is classic informant, "just in the whorehouse to listen to the piano player" stuff. Valdron believes that Raymond is scamming us all, selling the smallest, most twisted amount of fact for the largest amount of cash or respectability that we can provide him, with maximum justification of himself as a relatively innocent player in the game, a small guy with a big heart. I usually try not to make snap judgments about people, but I felt it was pretty clear based on his first post alone, and none of Raymond's subsequent work or his appearance on Jon Stewart last night changed my mind about him.
So cut Valdron some slack, ok? He's just trying to tell you that Raymond is a very dangerous guy as far as the truth is concerned. (To pull out an old Shakespeare chestnut, "a man may smile and smile, and be a villain." We can never know the human heart, and maybe pentinence and rehabilitation are in the cards for Mr. Raymond at some point--but Valdron is saying that Mr. Raymond is not there yet. I think he's right.
I never seem to figure out how to say what I think about things until about 200 comments into a thread, so I don't know how many people will read this. But I do think that despite all, this has been one of the more thought-provoking threads.
January 18, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was ever on trial I wouldn’t want you wrapping up the case for the prosecution, but I think you have it about right.
January 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Erica, sorry I just caught up with your post. I regretted that the dispute with Valdron became personal. I think we were arguing at cross-purposes, he as a prosecutor, and I as a bookseller (I own a bookstore). I read the book and was defending it--it really is a marvelous and revelatory book. I have found Raymond's posts here to be quite unremarkable, and I agree that if that is the only way you come to know Raymond, then you won't have a very high opinion of him. His book was co-written by a pro, and that may be part of the problem here--his blog posts were not.
Valdron's brief as a prosecutor is to get a conviction--facts, apparently, be damned. That's what I found so distasteful in what Valdron was doing, that he did not have his facts straight. Even if I agree with a prosecutor's values and goals, as I would probably agree with Valdron's progressive stances, I can deplore his tactics and his lack of knowledge of a case. Valdron was basing his criticism of Raymond solely on what little info could be gleaned from Raymond's posts and from his general sense of outrage after 7 years of Bush and Company. He did no further research into the case, and thus committed some real howlers.
January 28, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you could send him a copy of the book? That might be helpful?
January 29, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how I would do that--or, frankly, how the offer would be received.
January 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing in Raymond's posts that would encourage me to read the book. And your own snivelling wankery didn't help the case.
There are plenty of other books, when I care to make a thousand kilometer round trip.
January 30, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you regret that it became personal? You really are a dishonest reptard, aren't you. Passive aggressive much?
Hello! Moron! That's all that's on the table. Raymond had every opportunity to talk about his book, to raise the issues in it, to discuss Republican politics, political scheming, dirty tricks, or whatever. I wasn't holding him back.
No one has an obligation to go out and read Raymond's book. No one has a duty to read any book. There are hundreds of thousands of books out there, and the decision to pick one over another is a choice and art.
Raymond chose to ignore his own book in a forum designed to allow him to promote it. That's hardly a recommendation. You say its a worthwhile book. Well gee whiz, so what? Seriously, why should we trust your judgement?
You yourself acknowledge that his posts were 'unremarkable' and that the book was co-written (ghostwritten?) by a 'pro.' Well, maybe that guy should have been on here. But certainly, Raymond offers nothing.
January 30, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry you're stuck in the middle of nowhere, Valdron, but perhaps the rest of us are better off this way.
January 30, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee Michael, the sincerity of your sympathy is moving.
Let's just assume that it's on the record what I think you you, and what you think of me, and we'll leave it at that.
January 30, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Raymond,
What's your take on Voter Vault and Demzilla?
January 19, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
I believe. No no, I hope.
Raymond, Allen Penal# 271-84826 has left the building.
You'll have to watch The Daily Show reruns.
Or catch him a future C-SPAN booknotes.
~OGD~
January 19, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink