During the discussion thread on a piece I published about three weeks ago called “The_Return_of_the_Welfare_Queen”, about the Republican effort to create a straw man/scapegoat story about a purported Democratic/ACORN conspiracy to commit voter fraud on a national scale, I got into a discussion with an anonymous poster who was quite obviously a Republican operative peddling a discredited fairy tale about how, two years ago, a black Democrats won a Westchester State Senate election by bussing in loads of ineligible voters from the Bronx.
Miffed by this idiocy I wrote: “Of course, you didn't have the evidence to prove it in court, but when has that ever stopped the Republicans from spreading libelous lies about people of color?
So, in this election, that would mean what? ACORN bringing in busloads of Canadians? Or maybe it's Mexican's, right?”
Of course, I should apologize, since the vote fraud myth, though partially about efforts to paint the Democrats as the “Black Party,” is about much more than that.
I mean, is there really any need to remind voters that Barack Obama is black?
But for Republicans, such stories are the Holy Grail, and as Rock Hackshaw has pointed out, folks don’t respond well to questioning their Holy Grail, even when, as I’ve pointed out, that Holy Grail is untrue in some crucial aspects.
My first encounter with such hogwash came when I was at the wrong end of the Dinkins/Giuliani transition, a process which began with my presence in the Mayor’s office and entailed four months on the whorehouse patrol (I kid you not) before the combined efforts of Dov Hikind and the Garson Crime Family resulted in my banishment even from that purgatory.
During the initial transition, a Giuliani operative told me that Rudy had had the previous election stolen from him and that he’d won this won not by 50,000 votes, but by 100,000; he was serious as a heart-attack.
These arguments, like all Republican arguments about election fraud, are in their nature, religious, in that they are about faith rather than reason. They are thus impervious to being refuted by the facts.
On October 20, as part of their continuing series of ACORN horror stories, the NY Post published “ACORN INSTILLED FEAR: WORKERS,” which, though intended to add fuel to the fire, did exactly the opposite for anyone discerning (admittedly a remote possibility given that it was being read by readers of the Post).
According to the story, “Pushed to meet daily quotas and bullied by bosses if they didn't, Ohio ACORN workers faked voter registrations, signed up people more than once, and even paid off registrants to keep from being fired, its canvassers told The Post.”
According to the story, “team leaders, who are paid $9 an hour, are required to get 26 registrations a day. Canvassers, who make $8 an hour, need 22 sign-ups.” The employees who served as the story’s prime source noted that it’s hard not to get multiple registrations.
‘When you're asking 1,000 people a day if they registered, you don't remember every face.’”
So according to the local paper of record for the vast right wing conspiracy, there were crimes committed in the Ohio ACORN voter registration drive, and the victim of those crimes was ACORN.
But the vast conspiracy has yet to produce evidence of even one ACORN derived fraudulently cast vote in the entire nation in any election.
This year, the closest we’ve seen to fraud is proof that out-of-state workers for both Obama and McCain have filed voters registrations from allegedly temporary addresses in Ohio; and even those “voters” have arguments which they say legally justify their actions.
Otherwise, what we have is the same recycled stuff, used every year against every Democrat, whether as dark as Dinkins or as pale as such contestants for “whitest man on earth” as John Kerry and Eliot Spitzer. In every instance I‘ve seen, it is nonsense from whole cloth not susceptible to being melted no matter how hot the applications of facts and reason.
Take this 2006 example from the Politicker, which discusses the 1998 race for NYS Attorney General:
abc: There is real dirt on Spitzer. You don't have to make anything up with Eliot. You don't have to wait for an awkward photo op. Remember– this is a guy who had the court deliver his first victory to him, even though the there were serious allegations of voter fraud. The fraud was not proven given the high "clear and convincing" standard. I wonder what would have happened with a lower burden of proof?
Gatemouth: Serious allegations of voter fraud? You must be kidding? And, even if there were more than just allegations, even if there were some proof, how in a statewide race in a gubernatorial and US Senatorial year (not to mention hundreds of local races) do you manage to attribute them to only one candidate? The best you could say is that Spitzer was an incidental beneficiary of fraud (if that even were true, which seems unlikely).This might require a new election, but it would be no reflection on the candidate himself.
I assume any instances of fraud would have been committed in different localities under different circumstances, with little or no connection between them. On the other hand, if you actually have some facts about a statewide conspiracy that was specifically coordinated by Spitzer's campaign for his benefit, please own up; the adjudicatory process is over, but there is no statute of limitations on public outrage.
Put up or shut up.
abc: This is the best slogan so far on this post– Eliot Spitzer: Incidental Beneficiary of Fraud. Can't one be prosecuted for that under the Martin Act? Oh that's right, that was an election, not a securities transaction.
Does this mean that Spitzer is in possession of stolen property?
Gatemouth: You pretty much accused Spitzer of criminality, and then were asked to put up or shut up. Instead, you postured because you have nothing. Why not admit it?
The reason Spitzer won his first victory in court is because the Republicans brought a lawsuit, otherwise his victory would have been certified by the Board of Elections like any other. As to the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, you find so objectionable, it is not a high standard, it is a low standard. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard used for criminal cases. It is a much higher standard. "Clear and convincing" is what's used in personal injury cases. Something that is not clear and convincing evidence is either "unclear", "unconvincing", or both. I'm sure your evidence (if you have any, which I doubt) meets the "unclear and/or unconvincing" standard, which is why Spitzer is AG.
My point about incidental beneficiary would have better been phrased as "innocent beneficiary", but, probably shouldn't have been made at all. The point was that if some fraud existed, somewhere in the state, in a statewide race when the Governor, US Senator and the entire legislature, amongst others, were up for election, it would be nearly impossible (and should the evidence have been sufficient, absolutely unnecessary) to pin it on one particular statewide candidate. In fact, while the Republicans made all sorts of allegations in the wake of the Spitzer recount (standard procedure for anyone trailing who is about to enter such a process), none of the allegations specified any fraud by Spitzer or his campaign. As it was, even the allegations which were made were never substantiated.
So, if you have anything at all in the way of proof concerning fraud by Spitzer or his campaign, or even of anyone from any party involved in any race anywhere in the state in the 1998 general election, please come forward, or else crawl back under your rock.
On the other hand, if you want to talk about possible violations of the campaign finance laws by Spitzer's 11994 or 1998 campaigns, you might have a valid point.
abc: Gatemouth– Let's get a couple of things straight: I am not a personal injury lawyer, which is probably why I do not defend Spitzer on this blog. Second, I did not accuse Spitzer of fraud, I said that there were serious allegations of fraud in the election.
You raise a good point. If spitzer acted fraudulently, he would deserve a higher standard of proof. But I do not remember that being the allegation. If I remember correctly, it was that there were a number of fraudulent votes. I would argue that there should be a lower burden of proof– proof by a preponderance of the evidence. But I am not a lawyer. I assume that you are, so I will defer to your expertise.
Whether it was incidental or innocent, you admit that he was the beneficiary of fraud. This is what I am talking about.
It is ironic that the mr. squeaky clean Bush hater was vaulted into office by a court (like Bush) after there were serious allegations of fraudulent voting. Whether the bad votes would have made the difference in the election, I don't know. But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if a court reviewed the matter using a lower burden of proof. Maybe Spitzer would still be working for his father and Dennis Vacco would still be our AG. We will never know.
As for 1998, I would reassess your defense of Spitzer. It is evidence of a serious character flaw on the part of our attorney general.
Gatemouth: No, I'm not a lawyer (and might actually have gotten the personal injury standard wrong), and no, I don't admit that Spitzer was the beneficiary of any kind of fraud.
While it is a doubtful in a statewide race that no fraudulent ballot was cast anywhere, certainly there was no proof of fraud essayed in court, let alone proof of fraud sufficient to affect the outcome, or even what the Republicans were trying to prove, which was errors not necessarily rising to the level of fraud (e.g., errors by election inspectors; a given in any election) at a level significant enough to affect the outcome.
And BTW, to the extent that such errors and/or fraud existed, there is not only no indication that Spitzer caused them, but no indication, that he, rather than Vacco was their beneficiary.
So, what you've basically accused Spitzer of was winning a close election, which like all NY elections, was imperfectly administered, although probably not to the point where the result was subject to question. I'm sure he'd plead guilty to such a charge, and I'm sure Dennis Vacco would be glad to take his place as the accused.
Such stuff is important on several levels, firing up and reassuring the base and volunteers that, regardless of the truth, they still have their fingers on the pulse of the hearts and minds of the public. It also serves to instill fear in the hearts of the fearful, facilitating efforts to keep Democrats branded as the party of the very scary “OTHER”.
Finally, it serves as political KY jelly; serving as lubrication to facilitate Republican efforts to suppress Democratic turnout by any means necessary.
This can take many forms, whether it be the flyers in Philadelphia warning that the Police with be art the polls arresting anyone with unpaid parking tickets or the use of dubious computer matches by Partisan officials to purge voting lists of anyone whose name somewhat resembles that of a felon (Florida 2000), or does not exactly match other, error-ridden public records (2008 in seemingly everywhere with a Republican secretary of State).
Such methods have several salutary impacts for Republicans. They can prevent some voters from casting ballots at all. Or they can force them to cast provisional ballots; such ballots set a series of booby traps even for those voters who are absolutely bona fide–for instance, in New York, a ballot can be disqualified if a voter fails to sign the affidavit on the envelope holding the ballot or otherwise makes some inadvertent error, like failing to seal the envelope. But even if successfully cast and counted, forcing voters to prove who they are, or to have an argument about their ability to vote, or even to just explain to them the process, slows voting, and slowing voting always increases the chances that someone may just give up and go home.
Vote suppression is the gift that keeps on giving.
In any contested recount, the efforts resume at the election boards, as Republican workers challenge and force judicial determination for every frivolous reason under the son. A voter enters his address on his voter registration as being on East 45th Street. The incompetent election board files in on West 45th. The voter goes to the proper polling place, IN HIS BUILDING, and the card is not found. A Democratic volunteer finds the original form, with the proper address, and the signature matches that on the envelope.
So, of course a scurrilous scumbag lawyer employed by the State Senate Republicans starts whining, and without any good reason, demands that the poor innocent voter’s ballot be examined by a judge before that voter can be allowed to exercise her rights as an American.
Talk about tantamount to treason.
And see, Jeff Binder, I do remember you.