Anything for a Vote

342 Pages·2007·7.26 MB·English

by  Joseph Cummins

Copyright © 2007 by Joseph Cummins
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form without written permission from the publisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Number: 2007925761
eISBN: 978-1-59474-584-3
Designed by Doogie Horner
Illustrations by Mike Fink
e-book production management by Melissa Jacobson
Cover photos courtesy AP Images
Quirk Books
215 Church Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
quirkbooks.com
v3.1
F D C ,
OR EDE AND ARSON
.
WHO GET MY VOTE EVERY TIME

Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
INTRODUCTION
1789 G W . H
EORGE ASHINGTON VS IMSELF
1792 G W . H (A )
EORGE ASHINGTON VS IMSELF GAIN
1796 J A . T J
OHN DAMS VS HOMAS EFFERSON
1800 T J . J A
HOMAS EFFERSON VS OHN DAMS
1804 T J . C P
HOMAS EFFERSON VS HARLES INCKNEY
1808 J M . C P
AMES ADISON VS HARLES INCKNEY
1812 J M . D C
AMES ADISON VS EWITT LINTON
1816 J M . R K
AMES ONROE VS UFUS ING
1820 J M . H
AMES ONROE VS IMSELF
1824 J Q A . A J
OHN UINCY DAMS VS NDREW ACKSON
1828 A J . J Q A
NDREW ACKSON VS OHN UINCY DAMS
1832 A J . H C
NDREW ACKSON VS ENRY LAY
1836 M V B . W H H
ARTIN AN UREN VS ILLIAM ENRY ARRISON
1840 W H H . M V B
ILLIAM ENRY ARRISON VS ARTIN AN UREN
1844 J P . H C
AMES OLK VS ENRY LAY
1848 Z T . L C
ACHARY AYLOR VS EWIS ASS
1852 F P . W S
RANKLIN IERCE VS INFIELD COTT
1856 J B . J F
AMES UCHANAN VS OHN RÉMONT
1860 A L . S D
BRAHAM INCOLN VS TEPHEN OUGLAS
1864 A L . G M C
BRAHAM INCOLN VS EORGE C LELLAN
1868 U S. G . H S
LYSSES RANT VS ORATIO EYMOUR
1872 U S. G . H G
LYSSES RANT VS ORACE REELEY
1876 R H . S T
UTHERFORD AYES VS AMUEL ILDEN
1880 J G . W H
AMES ARFIELD VS INFIELD ANCOCK
1884 G C . J G. B
ROVER LEVELAND VS AMES LAINE
1888 B H . G C
ENJAMIN ARRISON VS ROVER LEVELAND
1892 G C . B H
ROVER LEVELAND VS ENJAMIN ARRISON
1896 W M . W J B
ILLIAM CKINLEY VS ILLIAM ENNINGS RYAN
1900 W M K . W J B
ILLIAM C INLEY VS ILLIAM ENNINGS RYAN
1904 T R . A P
HEODORE OOSEVELT VS LTON ARKER
1908 W T . W J B
ILLIAM AFT VS ILLIAM ENNINGS RYAN
1912 W W . T R . W H T
OODROW ILSON VS HEODORE OOSEVELT VS ILLIAM OWARD AFT
1916 W W . C H
OODROW ILSON VS HARLES UGHES
1920 W G. H . J C
ARREN ARDING VS AMES OX
1924 C C . J D
ALVIN OOLIDGE VS OHN AVIS
1928 H H . A S
ERBERT OOVER VS L MITH
1932 F D. R . H H
RANKLIN OOSEVELT VS ERBERT OOVER
1936 F D. R . A “A ” L
RANKLIN OOSEVELT VS LFRED LF ANDON
1940 F D. R . W W
RANKLIN OOSEVELT VS ENDELL ILLKIE
1944 F D. R . T D
RANKLIN OOSEVELT VS HOMAS EWEY
1948 H T . T D
ARRY RUMAN VS HOMAS EWEY
1952 D E . A S
WIGHT ISENHOWER VS DLAI TEVENSON
1956 D E . A S
WIGHT ISENHOWER VS DLAI TEVENSON
1960 J F. K . R N
OHN ENNEDY VS ICHARD IXON
1964 L J . B G
YNDON OHNSON VS ARRY OLDWATER
1968 R N . H H
ICHARD IXON VS UBERT UMPHREY
1972 R N . G M G
ICHARD IXON VS EORGE C OVERN
1976 J C . G F
IMMY ARTER VS ERALD ORD
1980 R R . J C
ONALD EAGAN VS IMMY ARTER
1984 R R . W M
ONALD EAGAN VS ALTER ONDALE
1988 G H. W. B . M D
EORGE USH VS ICHAEL UKAKIS
1992 W J C . G H.W. B
ILLIAM EFFERSON LINTON VS EORGE USH
1996 W J C . B D
ILLIAM EFFERSON LINTON VS OB OLE
2000 G W. B . A G
EORGE USH VS L ORE
2004 G W. B . J K
EORGE USH VS OHN ERRY
2008 B O . J M C
ARACK BAMA VS OHN C AIN
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
“What do men gain by elective governments, if fools and knaves have the same chance to
obtain the highest office, as honest men?”
—Noah Webster to Thomas Jefferson, 1801
T
he idea for this book was born shortly after the 2004 presidential election. In
that contentious contest, Democratic candidate and war hero John Kerry was
vilified as a coward by an organization called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,
while incumbent president George W. Bush was rumored to be such a dunce that
he had to be wired to a transmitter to participate in a public debate.
During election postmortems, I listened as pundits moaned about how sleazy
the campaign had become, how the candidates had stooped to new lows of dirty
tricks and vicious discourse. Yet, it seemed to me that I’d heard this same tune
played after every presidential contest I’d lived through. So I asked myself, are
things really getting worse? Have presidential campaigns truly turned more
vicious?
After a year and a half spent researching and writing Anything for a Vote:
Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises In U.S. Presidential
Campaigns, I can happily answer that question with a resounding No.
Presidential elections haven’t gotten worse—they’re just as dirty now as they’ve
always been. Democracy has never been for the faint of heart. Every dirty
election in current times can easily be matched by one further back in history.
What party stole a close presidential election from the Democrats in Florida?
The Republicans in 1876, during the Hayes-Tilden face-off. Which presidential
candidate kept company with a “smoking bimbo” and was rumored to have sired
a love child? That would be Warren Harding in 1920. What president bugged his
opponent’s headquarters? Why Richard Nixon, of course—but also Lyndon
Johnson, whose 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater is one of the dirtiest on
record.
Probably the only clean election in American history was the first one, in
1789, in which George Washington ran unopposed. By the next ballot, in 1792,
the nation’s first political parties had begun to form. Four years later, the two
rivals were going at it full force … and they haven’t stopped since.
During the past 220 years of Americans voting for their presidents, much has
changed. In the beginning, the framers of the Constitution dictated that there
would be no direct popular vote; instead, the president was chosen by electors
appointed by state legislatures. Each elector could cast two votes for president:
the top vote-getter became president, the runner-up vice president. This made it
possible for a president to have a vice president from a different party, as
happened in 1796 when Thomas Jefferson became John Adams’s White House
partner. (For a contemporary reference, imagine George W. Bush with John
Kerry as his veep, and you’ll have some idea of the trouble caused.)
In 1824, however, Americans began electing their president by popular vote,
and over the next century, presidential electioneering became the country’s
favorite spectator sport. Nineteenth-century customs dictated that candidates
maintain a dignified public silence during the campaign, but that didn’t keep
members of both parties from fighting like pigs over truffles. Huge rallies were
held in candidates’ honor, and newspapers—usually aligned with a political
party, a practice that ended only in the mid-twentieth century—hurled lavish
insults at the presidential hopefuls. (You haven’t lived until you’ve been trashed
by a nineteenth-century tabloid.) Voter turnout was extraordinary—consistently
in the high seventieth percentile. Note that today, depending on which statistics
you believe, it ranges from 49 to 55 percent.
As I wrote this book, many people (hidden agendas gleaming in their eyes)
asked me which party had resorted to the dirtiest tricks. Depends on the
situation, I would usually reply. Frankly, they’ve both acted pretty badly at
different times throughout our nation’s history.
In general, my research revealed two things:
1) Incumbent parties are more likely to wage dirty presidential campaigns,
probably because they have more money and influence.
2) Parties with the strongest ideologies—be they Democratic or Republican—
tend to wage the nastiest battles. If you sincerely believe that you have a better
candidate and a superior life philosophy, you’re more willing to pull out all the
stops to ensure your party wins.
And dirty tricks do influence the outcome of presidential elections. In some of
the ugliest elections of all time—from the Jefferson-Adams bloodbath of 1800
through the Hoover-Smith smearfest of 1928 to the Bush-Gore millennial
madness—the party responsible for the dirtiest tricks usually won.
If all this sounds pretty grim, cheer up. Without smears, innuendo, and
thievery tainting our electoral system, what would we have to connect us to our
quickly vanishing past? Believe me: You could take any Whig or Federalist of
yore, plunk him down in a modern presidential campaign, and (once accustomed
to television and the Internet) he’d be up and shrieking with the best of us.
We’re Americans, after all. A nice, dirty election runs in our blood.