THE DAILY BLADE: Voter Fraud Is In The Eye Of The Beholder
Earlier this month, someone leaked details of an unpublished "preliminary" report commissioned by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to USA Today that disputed the widespread belief that voter fraud is rampant in some areas of the country: There "is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters."
The key phrase is "not unanimous." Various people who reviewed the report differed on its accuracy, USA Today reports:
Jon Greenbaum of the liberal Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law says it was convincing. … Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "
Which is why the election commission hasn't yet released it. Right? Not according to the MSM. The spin is that the election commission has been sitting on the report for four months to "bury its finding that voter fraud had been exaggerated," according to columnist John Fund, an expert in voter fraud and author of the book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
Writing in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (e-mail subscription required), Fund reports that the document is not a "preliminary" report, but a "status report" on the progress of the study. And when the final report is issued – possibly before year’s end – initial news stories about its findings are not likely to hold up.
Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss
Should control of Congress change on Election Day, the cast of characters on K Street is likely to stay the same. "Washington's influence industry can count on one thing no matter who holds power: Lobbyists will remain coveted fundraisers and donors," according to The Associated Press. AP reports:
Labor unions and environmental groups that have had little influence during Republicans' control of Washington could suddenly find themselves helping set the legislative agenda if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress.
On the other side, GOP-leaning business groups that won huge policy changes such as lawsuit limits and tax breaks may have to play defense against Democratic proposals for the first time in years. …
A change of leadership in even one chamber would give Democratic-leaning groups improved standing to affect what issues Congress considers. For instance, unions would like to press matters such as stagnant wages and health insurance. …
Seasoned firms, trade associations and other special interests have lived through power shifts and know how they would cope with the next one. Many employ lobbyists from both parties.
When political control changes, the most effective lobbyists are those who - even if they lean toward one party - have reached out to lawmakers on both sides, including committee chairmen and top minority leaders, one longtime lobbyist said. …
Many lobbyists who raise money from their clients for candidates would probably extend new help to Democrats. In addition, special interests now solidly Republican in their giving probably would channel at least some additional money to top Democrats.
But unless a Democratic majority is overwhelming and lasts for years, a big decline in GOP giving is unlikely.
What a relief! Well, since the election results are not expected to disrupt already established lobbying and fund-raising efforts, we might as well maintain the status quo and vote Republican.
Update
What Democrats Would Do (Part II)
Last week, The Washington Post ran a scathing editorial, "What Democrats Would Do" that described the party’s agenda as "a hodgepodge of good ideas, bad ideas and no ideas" – with the emphasis on the latter. Now, The Washington Times weighs in, sounding the alarm that "Democrats wait in the wings with subpoenas":
Democrats vow to flex their subpoena and investigative muscles if elected to lead Congress next month and will take on President Bush's use of wiretaps.
"We have not had significant issues addressed from an oversight standpoint -- we've not issued one subpoena," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who as ranking member of the House Homeland Security Department is in line to lead the panel.
"Leadership, in agreement with the chairman, just decided that it [investigations] was not a priority," Mr. Thompson said. "That will not be a problem with the new Congress." …
Democrats say Republicans have been negligent in overseeing various departments and programs related to the nation's security. They say investigations would lead to subpoenas and oversight hearings of waste, fraud and abuse within emergency, immigration and transportation safety agencies.
According to The Washington Times, Harry Reid’s spokesperson, Jim Manley said his boss will "push for" oversight of the administration's programs. The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling, a former Senate staffer, warns:
"[T]he Bush administration should prepare for an onslaught of subpoenas from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
"It will be two years of investigations, just short of impeachment hearings," Mr. Darling said. "You will see two years of subpoenas to investigate Bush."
Comments