You can tell a lot about a politician by whom he or she hopes will show up to vote. What conservative can forget the 2000 Presidential contest in Florida, when everything hinged upon a few thousand ballots from America's overseas military personnel? It spoke volumes about the identity and values of President Bush's base that both political parties knew that if enough of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines guarding our country in foreign lands voted (and those votes were counted), then the election would belong to Bush.
Democrats were therefore left in the awkward and - to be honest - immoral position of having to whine about Americans' sacred right to vote via the psychic energy left on a dimpled chad, while simultaneously working to disqualify the clear votes of the men and women that actually defend America's sacred rights.
Republicans hope for high turnout among the military, the middle class, suburbanites, businessmen, married mothers, and the religious. So, who do the Democrats hope will show up at the polls? Rapists, Murderers, Child Molesters, Check Kiters, Illegal Aliens, Thieves, Crack Heads, Illiterates, the Confused, the Unprepared, and those who for "some" reason are afraid to show photo ID. I'll let you decide what that says about the identity and values of the Democrat's base. What evidence do I make this shocking and impolite assertion upon, you ask? Why, the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005," a bill proudly introduced into the Senate last week by Senators Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), John Kerry (Mass.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Barbara Mikulski (Md.) - all Democrats.
In short, the Bill seeks to make a number of changes to Federal election law, foremost among which is overruling the right of the States - the jurisdictions that are supposed to author election law - to prohibit convicted felons from voting. Such laws are on the books in many states and have been for some time. The obvious logic behind these laws is that anyone who has been convicted by a jury of his peers of having willfully and knowingly violated one or more of society's most important laws - such as those prohibiting murder, rape, torture, terrorism, kidnapping, drug dealing, embezzlement, etc. - has shown himself to not have society's best interests at heart and to lack good judgment. Such a person should not, therefore, be allowed to help choose the ruler of the free world or help decide the laws under which all citizens must live.
It sounds reasonable and wise, but Democrat leaders apparently believe that people who do "not have society's best interests at heart and who lack good judgment" sounds a lot like their voters. Otherwise, why would they want such laws repealed? So, under the Orwellian subtitle of the "Civic Participation Act of 2005," the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005" proposes to require that States allow every form of predator, thief, and con-man free access to the polls. I mean, why should they just be allowed to run for office? It all makes perfect sense if you think about it - a murderer probably has a lot to say about the death penalty and a rapist is sure to be concerned with a woman's right to choose.
The act's authors claim that it requires that only those felons who have completed their sentences (and thus "paid their debt to society") must be allowed to vote for Hillary, but there lurks a little lawyerly detail in the bill (Section VII, subsection (f), paragraph (1)), which states "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State from enacting any State law that affords the right to vote in any election for Federal office on terms less restrictive than those terms established by this section." Seeing as the section requires that all felons be allowed to vote upon completion of their sentences, the only conceivable "less restrictive" law would be one that allowed felons to actually vote from prison, or while on parole or probation. It seems the frontier of "civil rights" marches ever leftward. But even if Charles Manson will one day be allowed to vote for Barbara Boxer, at least the foreign terrorists at Guantanamo will never be allowed to vote for their choice for Commander in Chief of the United States, right?
Wrong. The Bill also states that "failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age" shall not be considered a "material omission" that would bar anyone from voting. All one needs do is sign an affidavit with whatever name one chooses to vote under and that's good enough for Frank Lautenberg. As I say, you needn't use your real name since the bill also states that "The failure to provide a social security number or driver's license number" is not a material omission either. That's right! Vote all you want, Osama "Jones". Accepting a disposable affidavit instead of real ID is such a good idea, let's try it with financial transactions as well - especially since cashing a check is nowhere near as significant as choosing a President.
"Osama Jones" need not plan his fraudulent voting ahead of time either, since the "Count Every Vote [even the fake ones] Act" also requires that every state permit a voter to register at the same time as he or she votes. That should make matching the signatures easier. Evidently, Democrat voters aren't the kind of people who plan well. Sure, it will make checking the voter rolls before the election impossible, but that's a small price to pay for counting every vote. As Senator Clinton said upon the bill's introduction, "Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process." And nothing ensures integrity like the impromptu appearance of anonymous felons.
But what if a criminal alien cannot read the words "Barbara Mikulski" in English, you ask? That's a good civil rights kind of question, fair reader. The bill covers that. All poll workers will thus be required to receive "training on accommodating individuals with disabilities, individuals who are of limited English proficiency, and individuals who are illiterate." Problem solved! Please note, however, that I did not place the disabled in the same category as illiterate foreigners; John Kerry did that.
Even with these changes, however, shouldn't we worry that voting might still be too burdensome and confusing for many Democrats to pull off? Yes. That's why the bill also requires "No-excuse absentee voting" in all states. Voting may be a "precious right," but one shouldn't have to leave the fetid couch in one's crack house to do it. Besides, signing that disposable affidavit in front of poll workers only works once in each precinct. Well, maybe only 15 times, since the bill also requires 15 days of early voting before Election Day in every state. Which really would seem to leave "No-excuse" for all but the bed-ridden and overseas to need an absentee ballot, wouldn't it? Oops! I forgot it was all a civil rights issue - no questions allowed.
Unless you're French or Iranian that is, because the bill also requires states to allow foreign observers into polling places to make sure America is fair. They should probably go ahead and vote while they're there, too - as long as they register at the same time, I mean.
Except, of course, if some state decides that registration in any form is voter intimidation, because the bill allows one exception to the same-day registration obligation: should a state decide to eliminate all registration requirements for Federal elections, then obviously same-day registration is no longer required. States rights, you know. In that case, then I imagine that simply driving by a polling station and shouting "VOTE!" out the window of your car will be a valid means of voting a straight Democrat party ticket. We must count every "VOTE!"
All in all, the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005" is a colonoscope into the bowels of the Democratic mind, and a great chance to see how highly the Democratic leadership regards its own voters - ignorant, irresponsible, criminals though they may be. Apparently, Hillary thinks she has found an answer to the "values voters" of 2004 - felons.
