FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, the Left in general and Democrats in particular have variously joked about and preened puffed-up chest feathers for its use of vote fraud — machine politics, “get out the vote” (i.e. “stuff the ballot box”) initiatives, actual ballot stuffing, double-voting, use of fraudulent registrations to allow illegitimate votes to be cast, and all the rest of a corrupt and despicable bag of tricks.
If a republic is founded on a moral citizenry, then this is treason. And let no worthy man or woman say it nay.
One of the first memories I have of political contretemps is the famous case of John Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon, in part founded on a large and illegitimate Democrat vote in Cook County, Illinois (Chicago). It was manifestly clear that Joseph Kennedy, Sr., bought the election for his son by making donations of cash and in-kind favors to the Daly machine in Chicago. And, as they say, the graveyards voted in droves. And Nixon was too much the gentleman and patriot — or so it was said — to tear the country apart by contesting the validity of the election.
It should be noted that, forty years later, Albert Gore, Jr., was not so reticent when he tried to steal the 2000 election with fraudulent claims during the vote count. Again, it was manifestly obvious at the very moment the Democrats began their carping that they knew they’d lost and were attempting to overturn the legitimate results by inducing chaos in the counting houses.
In between, one can easily point to myriad other cases. Lyndon Johnson, in a photograph published in Life magazine, posing at the front bumper of a 1940-vintage Cadillac, on the hood of which sat a ballot box. The caption explained that Johnson and his cronies were proud of having stolen the box, thus throwing the election to which it mattered into question, to the advantage of Democrats.
And… what other motive than mischief can there be for such abominations as Motor Voter? (Register anyone, anywhere, by any person willing to do so; how does this differ in principle from the propaganda in favor of the civil service or the Federalization and subsequent unionization of formerly-private security contractors in the wake of 9/11?)
How can mischief — bad faith intent — NOT be a part of the motivation behind resistance to voter ID laws? The arguments back and forth have been over-rehearsed. No rational human being can see anything other than an appeal to unreason and the desire to muddy the waters in the Left’s adamant position in opposition to the simple requirement that, to exercise the ultimate franchise, one must demonstrate that one is worthy, qualified, and — indeed — the person one claims to be. It must be accepted as prima facie evidence of bad faith intent to adduce a rights-based argument when no rights are infringed or in danger of such.
It must be noted, and repeated, and pounded home ad nauseam that all of the mischief evident in American electoral politics redounds to the benefit of Democrats. No “everybody does it” argument can be allowed to gain traction, first because it’s manifestly not true, and second because it’s irrelevant: two wrongs not making a right.
In the current electoral cycle, we have clear indicators that the Obama campaign is accepting unlawful donations from overseas. From announced and revealed Democrat tactical maneuvers, it seems clear that they intend to continue their attempt to steal elections by mau-mauing the count. It should be noted that it was no one in the Right who said, “It doesn’t matter who votes so much as it does who COUNTS the votes.”
And, here in Ohio, widely acknowledged as a key swing state, we see evidence of voter fraud not committed by Republicans, nor benefiting them.
Sarah Hoyt, at Instapundit, asks how big Romney’s margin will have to be in order for such fraud not to count. I ask rather, how big does fraud have to be before We the People take action to end it?
When will we force a cheater to forfeit an election? When will a candidate be sent to prison without his supper? When will a criminal President be impeached, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for treason? (That is a high crime, isn’t it? If war is defined as politics by other means, is not political betrayal of national constitutional principles defineable as war on the People and Constitution of the nation? Is not, therefore, a violation of one’s oath of office as regards fealty to the Constitution a treasonable offense?)