Preemptive strike on voter fraud
By Bruce Walker
web
posted October 28, 2002
Federal law enforcement is investigating and exposing voter fraud in South Dakota, Arkansas, Wisconsin and Minnesota before the November elections. Federal poll monitors will be in Florida before the Democrats have another opportunity to orchestrate an election "snafu." Democrats are about to learn the hard way that President George W. Bush - whose own election was almost stolen in Florida - is smart, strong and brave.
Early in President Bush's administration, he tried to be friendly and cooperative with Democrats. The response? The rapidly evaporating leftist media still has political webpages rehashing the Florida 2000 vote, and Democrats ominously tried to raise the issue of election fraud in the Democrat primary for governor. Janet Reno, the oddest Attorney General America has ever had, expresses amazement that the Department of Justice will have monitors at the polling booths in Florida. Why the surprise, if Democrats really care about clean elections?
Democrats want clean elections about as much as Dracula wants a sack of garlic. They have depended upon voter fraud, gerrymandering and similar unethical deeds for a long time. Boss Delay stole the 1960 election, and we now know that Daley did not just work with ward heelers, but also with organized crime.
Massive voter fraud in the 1994 California senate race and in the 1996 Louisiana senate race made Diane Feinstein and Mary Landrieu United States senators and made Tom Daschle Majority Leader. Democrat voter fraud in the 2000 election probably cost President Bush the electoral votes of Wisconsin and New Mexico. Had he won those two states, then he, not Al Gore, would have had a plurality of the electoral votes before the Florida presidential electors were chosen.
This time around, Democrat plans to register dead people, illegal immigrants and convicted felons will hurt them in November. The Department of Justice is preemptively investigating voter fraud and it is exposing fraud when it finds fraud. One effect of this is that Republicans in close senate races in South Dakota, Arkansas, Missouri and Minnesota will get a bump in support as Democrat sleaze is laid before the voters before the election. This could easily cost Democrats the Senate.
Democrats, who have bellyached since December 2000 about rigged elections, can hardly complain about the federal government trying to prevent voter fraud. So Democrats are left with very little to say about these investigations. They can either applaud them or stay quiet, but they cannot protest enforcement of the law.
Democrats will also get body slammed after November when the Bush Administration actually prosecutes voter fraud. Democrats who engage in voter fraud before or during the November elections may wind upon indicted and tried in federal court, and there is nothing that congressional Democrats can do to prevent these prosecutions. George W. Bush will be President until at least January 2005 (and probably January 2009), which is plenty of time to convict Democrats who conspire to steal votes. A closely divided Congress, even a Congress controlled by Democrats, cannot prevent these prosecutions.
Making this policy of tough prosecution of voter fraud before the election puts many Democrats in the same position as Iraqi generals: being loyal to the bad guys will cost much more than any possible benefit of voter fraud. Those convicted Democrats will be beyond the help of their party leaders, who cannot pardon them or decline to prosecute them.
This chilling effect on fraud, along with the publicly exposing fraud as it is found, may well be enough to tip to the Republicans many elections, including state government elections (the same dead people, convicted felons and illegal aliens that Democrats would have voting for federal legislators would be voting for governors and state legislators).
The long-term danger to Democrats is even greater. Those Democrat operatives who are doing the footwork in registering illegal voters are almost certainly committing these crimes with the knowledge and tacit support of much bigger fish within the Democrat Party. There is no reason to believe that corruption in the Party of Clinton does not begin at the top.
The little fish that are convicted will face prison terms and as a result, some of these will squeal. This will expose important Democrat leaders to charges of conspiracy. How many known Democrat leaders might be indicted as a result of this evidence? How many convicted? Who knows? If it reaches sitting senators or congressmen, if it reaches leaders in the Democrat National Committee, then the Democrats could face a "Watergate Disaster" in the 2004 elections, with Republicans winning the presidential election by a landslide and making major gains in other federal and state elections.
Can Democrats complain that these trials are political? Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican senator who faced criminal charges (later dismissed with prejudice) by Democrat prosecutors before her reelection campaign, may respond for the Republican Party to such charges. The real destruction of this Democrat argument, however, will be the actual conviction of Democrat big fish.
President Bush seems to have a sixth sense about when to preemptively
strike his enemies. Real, broad and conspicuous investigation of voter
fraud is an excellent example of President Bush outfoxing Democrats. Too
bad for them. When President Bush took office, he offered an olive branch
and Democrats working with him could have done much real good to help
America, just as many Texas Democrats worked with Governor Bush to do
good. Instead Daschle and his pals thought that they could intimidate
or trick him. Not a chance. Now Democrats are going to learn the price
of loving power more than principle. 
Bruce
Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also
a contributor to Citizens View, The Common Conservative, Conservative
Truth and Port of Call.
 Printer friendly version |
|