Voter Fraud May Have Given Us Obamacare
Here is how:
In the ’08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
……………………………..
The election was particularly important because Franken’s victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama’s national health care proposal — the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.
John Fund and Hans vonSpakovsky have written a book that chronicles voter fraud called, “Who’s Counting?” Here is part of a review:
Authors John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky have presented hard evidence that voter fraud (some of it well-organized), combined with incompetence, alleged “reforms,” and bureaucratic indifference have undermined the popular trust in America’s most precious right: picking our leaders.
The metaphoric but iconic “Lady Liberty” would have to be in tears as this documented study cites example after example of such fraud as 1.8 million dead people are still registered to vote; illegal aliens have been voting, including one assassin of a Mexican presidential candidate who voted in California twice
So, the next time someone argues with you about voter fraud, remind them of the Franken race. Next time someone argues that showing an ID is somehow repressive, tell them that when voter fraud occurs, even a small amount, it makes ALL of our votes not count. That is wrong. That is anti-American.
Share This
It seems that the felons names must have been on the state’s records as being eligible to vote. No one can just walk up to the polls and vote. The state has to verify them.
Showing an ID would not have corrected a state’s records.
And who knows whether these felons knew they could vote or not? If I went to a polling place and was told I could vote, I’d vote.
And who’s to say the felons voted for Franken? Being felons many of them probably like their guns… and voted Republican.
Why is it assumed that the felons voted Democratic and gave the race to Franken?
I don’t know any other details that what’s in this article. This is the first time I’ve read it.
And it seems like just another way to get conservatives riled up about Democratic voter fraud… when I don’t think there’s evidence that ANY of these voters voted for Franken. Though I’m sure some of them voted for Franken, and some for Coleman. Why claim the felons gave the edge to Franken when there is no proof of that? What is anti-American is pointing your finger at another group of people and using scare tactics and crazy arguments to get your way. Actually never mind. That is a very Republican tactic, whether it’s over voter fraud, same-sex marriages, Obamacare, welfare (people on welfare do not deserve it (that’s all I hear from all my Tea Party conservative contacts), etc. This ties the Democratic Party and liberals, felons, Obamacare all together in one package. When in fact there was no concerted effort on the party of the Democratic Party to commit voter fraud. This charge makes it appear that Democratic Party is against voter fraud, when Democrats are very much against voter fraud and want it cleaned up. Any and all American citizens who are eligible to vote should vote and should not be suppressed by the repeated Republican efforts to keep Democrats from voting. THAT’S un-American…. the suppression of eligible voters because you don’t like they way they vote.
If the Republicans want clean voting registers then maybe they should raise taxes and fund government jobs so the state’s records could be clean and accurate.
Conservatives claims of voter fraud have been over and over to be bs. An investigation during the Bush administration found accusations of voter fraud to be practically non existent. But conservatives keep pushing this non existent issue to press their voter I’d laws which disproportionately affect minority voters. It is a coordinated strategy to suppress the minority vote because minorities overwhelmingly vote democratic. Just stop already with the voter fraud. It’s a myth.
I have yet to see any documented cases of any national election where the outcome was changed by the kind of voter fraud that the voter ID laws are designed to prevent.
In the Franken – Coleman case, there would have had to be literally hundreds of ineligible people voting. How many does the author of the article document? Zero.
It is a given that voter ID laws will suppresss turnout. Keeping legitmate voters from the polls is wrong, and doing it should be a last resort in the attempt to right some more odious wrong.
StockBoy you have a keen mind.
Another issue is Obama ran to a large extent and was elected to reform health care…he came in with a strong mandate of the American people.
If one is going into ‘would of been’, ‘could of been’, ‘should of been’, then it would, could, and should of been determined by the mandate from the people…
Yet at the end of the day, what is, is and what is not, is not… we move into reality of this day where we have had three plus years of continuous entanglements from politican politicizers to see that American people are denied basic healthcare.
It’s a given? Then why hasn’t it been shown in recent elections in states with voter ID laws? Because it there is nothing in the numbers that show what you assert.
True, it is mainly BS, except when there is a really tight race. If a person wants to vote, there should be no unfair impediments or difficulty to do so.
It is our job to find a way for all eligible voters to have id’s at no our little cost or effort. Cleaning up the voting pool is also necessary.
I agree that who knows how many ineligible voted for Franken or Coleman; hopefully they cancelled each other out.
Of course the conservative group says that they have identified 1099 felons. Have they provided their proof to someone who can back up that it’s not just people with the same name who aren’t felons who voted? No. If this really happened it would be a big news story and in spite of the whacko conspiracy theories that say otherwise every news organization worth anything would be rushing to report on it. The fact that they aren’t says something about the quality of the research done, IMO.
To me the point of this article is that the only reason we have “Obamacare” is because the dems had enough votes to override a filibuster. Lol. Basically the GOP was unable to throw their usual tantrum and hold up critical legislation. THAT’s her complaint. If only republicans weren’t prevented from using the most irritating procedural gimmick ever to once again roadblock our nations most critical law making body, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Ah, it hurts. It really, really hurts.
Mandate or not, because it’s arguable what Obama ran on, public opinion has been negative on ACA from the start and is only a bit better know. Making the argument that it doesn’t matter if fraud help pass the ACA since Obama had a “mandate” seems out there. By the way it’s insurance that Obama seems concerned about, making sure everyone has insurance is not providing healthcare.
Wasn’t that mandate for a single payer plan?
just sayin
Mandate single payer.. that was more of the; ‘would of been, could of been, should of been…’ If one is going to use those cards, they can be played ten thousand different ways…
Because of course the Dems would never stoop so low…(snicker)
While I may not like all the procedural rules the legislature has I don’t see that operating within those rules to achieve their goals as something worthy of condemnation. Remember the majority of Americans were and are negative about the ACA. That anyone would think that possible voting fraud a good thing because it kept either party from using longstanding political procedures, well that I don’t agree with at all.
I commented on a previous post by Kathleen McKinley that had deliberating twisted the facts (by taking them out of context) that I was going to stop reading her posts because I felt she could not be trusted to engage in honest dialogue.
I guess I forgot about that, because I got sucked into this one anyway. In addition to engaging in dishonest dialogue, I can now add her poor analysis skills as further justification of my Kathleen McKinley boycott.
Uh, 200 votes out of 2.9 MILLION? Are you crazy? There’s simply NO way to prove this. In addition, the Bush Administration had done its own study a number of years ago. It looked at elections between 2002 and 2007. It found
86
suspected cases of voter fraud. Here in PA we’ve found precisely
zero.
So spare me the neo-poll tax right wing theology. This is just another variation on a George Wallace theme.
As I recall Obama DID run on healthcare reform… and very heavily ran on that issue.
The reason many Americans are against the healthcare law is due to the out right lies and distortions of the Republicans. Remember “death panels”? Funny how the Republicans were for the provisions in this healthcare law until it was a Dem who was able to pass it.
And I’ll also point out that Romney attacks the healthcare law and wants to replace it with…. the same provisions that are in this one. The public which doesn’t do their research believes that all those nice provisions in Romney’s talks are not in the current form of ACA.
The reasons more Americans are warming up to the healthcare law is that it is not hurting them as Republicans tried to instill. Tens of millions of Americans have already been helped by the healthcare law.
EE says: Then why hasn’t it been shown in recent elections in states with voter ID laws?
Ohio, with the Republicans in a majority put in place rules to restrict early voting, in predominantly Democratic districts.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169284/ohio-early-voting-cutbacks-disenfranchise-minority-voters#
d is right. It’s all about the underwear.
rudi..Both parties are attempting to restrict early voting in cities and precincts where they do not show they are in the majority.
In Winston Salem NC, the Obama administration gave the county leaders a list of voting sites they wanted for early voting. With a 2-1 democrat majority on the committee that was selecting sites since we have a democrat governor, one would have thought those sites would have been selected. However, they were all located within a short drive from each other located within the inner city or just out of the city where the highest numbers of democrats vote. There were no early voting sites in any of the other surrounding areas which were high republican majority voters. one democrat on the committee who is more centrist in views voted to provide early voting across the county and not just within the downtown area or close to downtown.
So when one party tries to restrict early voting in one state like Ohio that you referenced, the other is trying to restict voting in another, like the one I referenced.
Both of these should be viewed as morally wrong, if not illegal, but both parties are doing what they think they need to do to win this close election.
The ACA wasn’t passed by 60 votes to override a Republican filibuster. It was passed as a budget measure that they can offer only once a session that can’t be filibustered. Like most of this lady’s posts this one is completely and totally wrong from beginning to end. It is bad enough that these people feel that the only way they can win an election is by lying. The really scary thing is that apparently they start by lying to themselves.
Voter fraud may have given us George W. Bush.
The_Ohioan beat me to it. I was going to suggest: I wonder if voter fraud gave us the Iraq War? (complete with weapons of mass destruction.)
For once I have to give Ms. McKinley kudos for a well-sourced, unbiased, objective and –above all –irrefutable proof to her thesis that the election of Al Franken led to the passing of “Obamacare” bercause of rampant Democratic voter fraud.
Just consider some of her sources:
Non-partisan Byron York, a columnist for the nearly Liberal Washington Examiner — owned by Liberal Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz — and contributor to fair and balanced Fox News.
(By the way, it is just a nasty Liberal rumor that when Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating a conservative competitor to The Washington Post and, according to Politico, “When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz’s instructions were explicit — he ‘wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,’ said one former employee.”)
Ms. McKinley also provides the irrefutable and impeccable corroboration by the prestigious, non-partisan organization, called Minnesota Majority, so unjustly and shamefully accused of failing to register its lobbying activities and of using a” race-baiting banner illustration on its website” — eventually removed.
Finally, for the coup-de-grace — what clinches the deal — Ms. McKinley quotes a book review of John Fund’s and Hans von Spakovsky’s “Who’s Counting?” (two more unbiased and objective personae).
A very convincing piece. Well done, albeit, the piece might have been a little more convincing if one or two Conservative sources had also been used — just for balance and credibility.
The only meaningful point I can takeaway from this slaughter of facts is that there is a belief that felons have an ID that tells the world they are a felon. Last I looked MN driver’s license and state IDs looked the same as everyone elses. So how would having this photo ID prevent a convicted felon from voting if their name (incorrectly) shows up in the registered voters list? (FWIW changes to reduce the ability of a convicted felon to vote in MN were proposed by the Democratic Secretary of State of this election. The proposals were passed by the legislature but were veto’d by the Republican Govenor. The changes were eventually passed the following year, but none of this affected the Franken-Coleman election.)
The most annoying thing about raising election fraud in the Franken-Coleman race is that Coleman’s own army of lawyers acknowledged in court that they saw no evidence of widespread fraud in the election. And it was Franken’s army of lawyers that originally brought up the possibility of voter fraud.
DDW I agree 100% with your point but have to point out that I’m continually asked to take TakeProgress and MSNBC seriously here at TMV. I’m all for avoidance of biased sources and hopefully this will be a start.
@Stockboy
Slam dunk.
@RP
The WS situation seems less partisan than the Ohio situation. Found this link which goes into more detail.
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/aug/07/1/forsyth-early-voting-plan-faces-challenge-at-state-ar-2500727/
Worked in WS for a couple of weeks in 2002. Decent BBQ and loved the city…
DaGoat, who’s asking you to take MSNBC seriously? I think we’ve already pretty much pegged them as a poorly done lefty version of FOX with a much smaller audience.
Touché, DG, I think.
Also of interest the ones that advocate most adamantly on First Amendments Rights do not extend that right to felons because they think there are more Democrat crooks than Republicans… (?)
I am shocked, shocked that MSNBC is even mentioned in the same sphere as FOX. It is patently unfair as FOX has a much greater viewership, although that doesn’t say much.
Practically everyone is biased and that goes double for the media talking heads.
A thinking person’s only chance is to try and listen to both extremes and become a moderate, fair and balanced, non judgmental, ever civil and never being reduced to lemming opinions; that’s TMV alright.
“Voter fraud gave us Bush”. Now, come on guys,
how else could a neo-Nazi with horns and cloven feet (you never saw a picture of him in bare feet, did you, well that proves it).
Oh, how much better we would have been with the guy that invented the internet (on that you may correct), Pelosi and Reid could have played him like a fiddle.
But, we got that hand and it’s water over the bridge as Bush would have said. He does serve a function, because we can blame anything on him, like my little friends the Kigmys,from Al Capp.
This is complex issue. That is being given the usual simplistic partisan treatment.
For example, “I have yet to see any documented cases of any national election where the outcome was changed by the kind of voter fraud that the voter ID laws are designed to prevent.” Well, given the complaint that laws aren’t properly designed to detect fraud, that doesn’t mean much. On the other hand, just a regulations can discourage business, so to can it discourage voting.
This would be a good place for a measure and deep discussion. It is a shame the two party system is incapable of providing that.
Sorry dd
It was said in jest looking for a guffaw. I tried, I really tried, but it was too good a line to give up. P.S. You left out the words “may have”. “Water over the bridge”; very good! Plus I thought Clinton was the go-to blame guy, when did that change?
Agree, davidsummers. The way I see it is there are two competing good causes. One is to make sure everyone that has a right to vote is able to, and the other is to insure nobody that isn’t eligible to vote is able to. Both arguments have merit. As usual people cluster towards one extreme or the other based on party.
I know this site needs to have some conservative voices, but can we not find some that are more rationale than Michael Reagan and Mrs. McKinley here? I know they are out there.
What, DG said.
Some folks may work those kool-aid toxins out of their systems in time, but others just keep right on drinking it. Slam’s last comment goes to this point.
To summarize some good points:
1) The allegations come from biased sources
2) Voter ID would not have stopped this
3) Many of those instances were probably unintentional (OK, that was my own that I added)
4) We don’t know how the election would have turned out.
I agree with all of these, but the 4th misses the point. That *is* the point: that we don’t know.
But anyway, I’m not convinced voter fraud is a major problem. Firstly, the payoff is minuscule. Who is going to risk going to jail, even if the risk of getting caught is small, to add 1 to the vote tally? The only way it’s likely to matter is if it’s an organized effort, and if it’s organized, it’s more likely to be detected even without voter ID so the risk/reward still doesn’t compute.
Still, I wouldn’t be opposed to voter ID laws as long as there is an acceptable form of ID is free and easy to get. That also might imply that it’s not very reliable, though. Ultimately, the overriding factor is that no one should have to pay to vote, period. Yes, even if that means there exists some amount of voter fraud.
I’ve heard some places use signature verification. That has some issues to work through also, but it seems like a possible compromise.
Personally I don’t think it is either. When it is I figure it is much more likely to occur on absentee and early ballots than those cast on election day. That being said most of the arguments against voter ID laws are total BS. Sure the laws could go overboard but so far their hasn’t been any suppression of votes shown, shown not theorized, even when these laws have gone into effect. People want laws like these on the books and while it may make only the smallest difference in a vote count it would make a difference in how the process is viewed.
There has been fraud and historically it may have effected some races. We can’t know if false identity voting is an issue because no one ever checks and there is absolutely no way to know after the fact unless the true voter complains. If reasonable guidelines are put into place at least the easiest type of fraud to stop would hopefully prevented. So why not? I do not believe the voter suppression BS so what is the real motive? Sure some people believe the talking points they parrot but a simple look at the stats in places where voting ID has passed and at the laws themselves and the stances seem totally illogical.
EEllis,
You’ve brought to my mind that there is an elegant symmetry to this debate:
Proponents say that we need Voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, which they can reasonably argue could happen but don’t have much credible evidence that the scale of the problem is significant. Although, the problem may be unproveable.
Opponents say that Voter ID laws would suppress votes, and they can reasonable argue that it could happen, but they don’t have evidence to suggest it would happen on a significant scale, and it may be unproveable also.
So there we have it. Both sides demand evidence from the other while ignoring the fact that their evidence is equally flimsy as long as they can present a believable hypothetical story.
I don’t know whether voter fraud or voter suppression is a bigger problem. My feeling is that both problems are overblown. Maybe a reasonable compromise is to assume they both exist and work toward a solution that minimizes both.
Here’s a proposal: Voters must give their fingerprint and/or signature when registering. Free and easy. When they vote, they can give either, or an authorized photo ID. If something goes amiss or the voter refuses or is unable to provide any of these three, they still get the vote and it still counts, but a separate tally is also counted with that vote excluded. In the end, if both tallies give the same result, there is no problem. Otherwise (and this would only happen in rare cases) the voting officials are responsible for following up with those people to find any instance where they are not who they said. The vote is only excluded if it can be conclusively shown that the vote was illegitimate.
Anyone object to that?
“So there we have it. Both sides demand evidence from the other while ignoring the fact that their evidence is equally flimsy as long as they can present a believable hypothetical story.”
Well actually I think there have been at least 2 cases where GOP members have actually come out and said that it is the case. First was the state party guy in PA who while ticking off a list of accomplishments included the Voter ID law that he said will hand the state to Romney. The second was a former GOP party player in FL who said that it was why they are backing Voter ID laws. So we have both common sense to indicate that’s why the GOP is focusing on these laws, and several members who can’t seem to keep their mouths shut about it either. Personally, I didn’t need to hear them admit it, but it was thoughtful of them to do so.
RP: “In Winston Salem NC, the Obama administration gave the county leaders a list of voting sites they wanted for early voting…. There were no early voting sites in any of the other surrounding areas which were high republican majority voters…
So when one party tries to restrict early voting in one state like Ohio that you referenced, the other is trying to restict voting in another, like the one I referenced.”
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see that the Dems in Winston-Salem denied the Republicans’ request for early voting in Republican districts. I see the Dems requesting early voting in certain districts for their own self-interests. I can’t tell from your comment if the Republicans requested early voting in districts or not.
The example in Ohio is different. In Ohio the Dems requested expanded voting hours and the Republicans blocked their request, while giving the Republican districts expanded voting hours.
Did the Dems in Winston-Salem block a Republican request for early voting?
Want to read about some “Actual Election Fraud”?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/actual-election-fraud/260940/
See I don’t agree with that summery. While it’s true you cant prove false identity voting occurs in any significant numbers it is like saying a blind man hasn’t seen something. We have neither looked nor do we have any way of doing so. With voter ID laws we do have the ability to examine the voting and see if there is any suppression of votes and so far there hasn’t been.
I think you left out an important issue, voter confidence in the system. That is why I think ID laws are passed and the reason that while I wouldn’t advocate for them I do support their enactment.