Junius, fils The American People 18 June, 2012 Ladies and Gentlemen: Lets start with a Republican source, a source which makes a valiant effort to present the GOP case without looking too much like a wandering snake-oil salesman. Before I go on, lets deal with another definition: Subjunctive. Adjective: (in English and certain other languages) noting or pertaining to a mood or mode of the verb that may be used for subjective, doubtful, hypothetical, or grammatically subordinate statements or questions, as the mood of BE in IF THIS BE TREASON. Compare Imperative, Indicative. Noun: The subjunctive mood or mode, a verb in the subjunctive mood or mode. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjunctive Here are a few examples of the subjunctive. I COULD have a date with Ms. Halley Berry this weekend. Its POSSIBLE that I could write a check for one million dollars and not have it bounce. At the age of 68, I MIGHT take up pole vaulting next week. None of these is going to happen, but they are POSSIBLE. But the fact that all things are possible is no excuse for talking foolishly. (Keynes, John Maynard. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Lexington, KY: Filiquarian Publishing, LLC, 2010. (P), Page 85) In his book Stealing Elections, How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. New York: Encounter Books, 2008. (P), John Fund is awash with the subjunctive. He is overloaded with the words might, could have, possibly, and perhaps, and is overstocked with snarky allegations and hints. When it comes to actual documented facts, however, they seem to be on back order. Also, he claims to be dealing with voter fraud, but includes any and every sort of actual, possible, or hallucinated voter AND ELECTORAL irregularity under that label. This helps him try to build his case. Without these distortions, unsupported allegations, and out-and-out BS, he HAS NO case. OK. Now, Ive made a claim. Lets back it up. This is difficult not because it is difficult to shoot holes in Funds claims but because it is hard to turn a single page of his book without encountering at least one lie or distortion. The problem is not a lack of examples but too many of them. One example may be found on page 15. Republicans tend to pay more attention to the rule of law and the standards and procedures that govern elections. In fact, the GOP has paid attention to the rule of law by consistently subverting those laws which have as their intent making sure that American citizens are allowed a fair chance to vote. Fund criticizes the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act because they MIGHT result in illegal or fraudulent voter registrations or casting of ballots. Theres that subjunctive again. Fund then provides an underwhelming (in fact, nonexistent) amount of proof to these claims. For the next few pages, Fund wanders away from the issue of voter fraud and points out that many voter registration rolls are not maintained in an up-to-date manner, an administrative issue having nothing to do with voter fraud. On page 31, Fund makes an issue of voting by felons and ex-felons and, in doing so, contradicts himself in a way which would be almost funny if the matter had not been used in such an unethical manner by Fund and by the GOP. First, he publically sobs that felons and ex-felons (all, he presumes, Democrats) would be allowed to vote. Then, he points out that the states are the ones who set standards concerning such matters. Specifically, he states the Fourteenth Amendment specifically permits states to disenfranchise citizens convicted of participation in rebellion, or other crime. But the barriers arent high in most states, and standards vary greatly. Maine and Vermont let jailbirds vote from their prison cells. A total of thirty-four states and the District of Columbia automatically allow felons who have served their time in prison to vote. Florida and thirteen other states require them to petition to have their voting rights restored. First, he moans that felons or ex-felons would be allowed to vote. Then, he points out that, under the Constitution, they MAY be allowed to vote. Then, he points out that many states allow them to do so under certain conditions. Finally, he backs this up by a reference to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which many Republicans now dont like because it contradicts their birther hallucinations. - - - Updated - - - All this has NOTHING to do with the issue of voter fraud. It is a matter of State laws. Let’s see if I understand this. States are the entities that set the rules for voting by persons convicted of a felony. Many states allow them to vote under certain, state-set conditions. This is legal. The GOP is the party which tends to “not a lack of examples but too many of them. One example may be found on page 15. “Republicans tend to pay more attention to the rule of law and the standards and procedures that govern elections.” Fund and friends object to this. Did I get that right? In his next chapter, Chapter Two, Fund takes on the subject of absentee and provisional ballots and makes an issue that counting them can, potentially, delay finding out just who won an election. The fact that such ballots are legal under the law of the states using them (see that pesky Fourteenth Amendment above) does not seem to concern him. What this has to do with voter fraud escapes me. Could the laws governing the handling of absentee ballots be improved upon? Probably. I cannot think of any human endeavor about which you couldn’t make that claim. Do we need to run around with our hair on fire and make it more difficult to cast an absentee or provisional ballot to amend the situation? I rather doubt it. Adequate laws already exist and need only be enforced. The GOP public position is that voting should be made more difficult for EVERYONE because of what some people MIGHT do. Their ACTUAL position, about which more later, seems to be that it is a grand idea to make it hard for your OPONENTS to vote. In Chapter Three, Fund takes on a subject which I have already covered in part, the use of “outsourced” organizations in voter registration drives. I cheerfully admit that this can be a problem. Here, I need only quote myself from my previous letter. “The obvious solution, adopted by both parties, is outsourcing. The party in question, if it lacks an existing and available staff of volunteers or paid workers, hires firms to manage their voter registration drives. The persons actually doing the registration have no involvement in the political process. They are paid to register voters. Not all of these people are honest, especially if they are paid by the number of registrations they secure. I cheerfully admit that there have been instances where these paid voter registration workers have padded their numbers. For this reason, the GOP has indulged itself in well-orchestrated and publicized pageants and presentations about how thousands of illegal voters have been registered and have voted as Democrats. The fact of the matter is that, taken NATION-WIDE, the number of REGISTRATIONS (actual or attempted) may have reached the thousands but the number of actual VOTERS, again, taken nation-wide, is a lot less than the population of Wasilla, Alaska on a Saturday night. GOP claims of such fraudulent voter registrations notwithstanding, the threat is somewhat less than they claim. By the way, one thing the Republican Party always and conveniently forgets to mention is that fully adequate laws already exist on the books to examine and handle such matters. Oh, no. The GOP insists on more. The GOP “MORE” and its implications will be dealt with later. Are the existing laws adequate? Yes. Does the Republican Party care? No.” Just in passing, and to reference another book (by a Republican), the GOP is not totally innocent of such shenanigans. I refer to the book Raymond, Allen. The Confessions of a Republican Operative, How To Rig An Election. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2008. (P), specifically Chapter Ten, which deals with the run-up to the 2000 presidential election and the Republican Primary in New York. The author was, at the time, working for the campaign of Steve Forbes. In order to run in the primary, petitions had to be submitted with a total of 35,000 names. “One line item in my budget was to hire some professional signature gatherers. It’s a big business in New York.” (Page 137) Of course, each candidate challenges his/her opponent’s signatures. In addition to Forbes, George W. Bush was running, and Raymond’s team examined the Bush petitions. “Sure enough, Dubya’s team had heaped their petitions with phony signatures. One guy had filled his pages with the names of cartoon characters such as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and gave all of them addresses around New York. The Party apparatus, made up of patronage hires, was getting lazy in the modern age and they were just sitting at their kitchen tables making (*)(*)(*)(*) [rhymes with quit] up.” (pages 138-139). Just thought I’d mention it. Anyway, back to Mr. Fund. In the cases reported of improper/illegal voter registration, in each case I have researched, the organization employing the offending persons promptly fired them upon learning of their misdeeds. In some cases, the organization, itself, reported the improprieties. All this means nothing to the Republican Party. Since the majority of new voters registered is presumed to be Democratic, the GOP has gone after not the persons making and/or submitting the illegal registrations but the ORGANIZATION who fired them after they found out. This is the equivalent of a nation-wide chain of shoe stores closing down and prosecuting a local shoe store because a few of the local chain’s clerks short-changed customers. It makes you look good and honest while, more importantly, eliminating the competition. In making all these claims, Fund is careful to make sure that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is prominently and frequently named. Of course, ACORN has had a lot to do with the registration of voters, the majority of whom are those EEEEVIL Democrats, who are, obviously, all frauds and felons. To be continued. I am, Ladies and Gentlemen, your most humble and obedient & etc Junius, fils
