Right-wing media ran with Fund's made-up claim that Rep. Frank was planning universal voter registration
After Wall Street Journal writer John Fund told a crowd at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) were planning on introducing legislation that would lead to universal voter registration, the claim was repeated by numerous right-wing media outlets despite the fact that Fund provided no evidence for his claim. After Frank wrote a letter to Fund denying that he was introducing such legislation, Fund retracted his statement that Frank was pushing any such legislation.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fund falsely claims, "In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration"
Fund: "Stealth" universal voter registration will be introduced by Frank in January. In November 2009, Fund, speaking at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum, declared that Schumer and Frank were planning to introduce universal voter registration legislation:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: John, I know you're very much involved in vote stealing, and I'd love to hear what you and the two congressmen have to say about all the votes that were stolen in the previous election, and why we haven't heard more screaming and yelling about it.
FUND: Look, you can cry over spilled milk or stolen votes in the past; I'm worried about the ones in the future. Democrats were very rattled by the November 3 election results. What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules.
In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate.The feds will tell the states, take everyone on every list of welfare recipients you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of drivers license holders, and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be.
OFF-CAMERA: And then they'll vote them, believe me.
FUND: And then, oh, by the way, there will be felon re-enfranchisement, too. At that point, you have destroyed the integrity of the registration process. Now they will sell this very cleverly; they will say, well, OK, ACORN did have some problems with voter registration; we shouldn't have these third-party rogue groups out there. So let's put ACORN out of business, let's register everybody.
Now the problem of course is there are a lot of duplicates. And there are a lot of people on those roles who are illegal aliens. There are a lot of people on those rolls that are not -- it's not a clean list. They don't care. So this is the issue you haven't heard about. There's a reason you haven't heard about it. They don't want you to hear about it. The path between the day this bill is introduced and the day it hits the House floor will probably be less than two weeks. Get ready for it. You can stop it, don't get me wrong, but this is their stealth bill that is even more sneaky than the health care bill.
Right-wing media run with the story, even though Fund provided no evidence to support his claim
Examiner.com: "What the Dems know that we don't: Universal Voter Registration." In a January 4 Examiner.com article, James Simpson posted video of Fund's comments and wrote: "Many are puzzled that Democrats persist in ramming unpopular and destructive legislation down our collective throats while seemingly unconcerned by their plummeting poll numbers. ... What do they know that we don't?" According to Simpson, the answer is legislation that will be "a nationwide Democrat voter registration drive facilitated by taxpayers."
Washington Times claimed, "Democrats are scheming to find ways to manipulate the electoral process." In a January 7 editorial entitled, "Letting crooks & illegals vote," The Washington Times reported, "Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, have plans to ram through legislation that will produce universal voter registration. No matter what they claim, the rule changes will make it possible for illegal aliens to register to vote and for others to register multiple times." Citing no evidence to support the claim, the Times declared, "It speaks volumes about Democratic unpopularity that they have to look to criminals and illegal aliens to try to shore up their voting base."
Limbaugh: Fund's claim "may well be true, it could well be that they're going to try this." On January 6, Rush Limbaugh quoted Fund's presentation and predicted that "it could well be true, it could well be that they're going to try this." Limbaugh repeated Fund's claim that "sometime this month it will be proposed by Chuck-U Schumer and Barney Frank" but expressed some skepticism, because "I think if they were really confident that this is going to happen and work then they wouldn't be having any of these people quit," referencing the announced retirements of Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan.
Beck: "John Fund reports that Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer now are about to introduce universal voter registration." On the January 5 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck repeated Fund's claim that "Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer now are about to introduce -- hold yourself -- universal voter registration. What this is is if you're on any federal roll at all, you're automatically a voter. You are receiving welfare, food stamps, oh, if you're a homeowner, unemployed, you are automatically -- automatically -- a voter."
After Frank calls Fund's accusation "entirely wrong," Fund partially retracts claim
Frank letter to Fund: "You simply made this up with regard to me," and "you are entirely wrong." On January 13, Frank wrote a letter to Fund accusing him of making "your assertion with no factual basis and without any effort to verify it. To me, that qualifies as a lie." According to Frank, "I have had no involvement with this whatsoever, with Senator Schumer or anybody else." Frank told Fund: "I now write not simply to tell you that you are entirely wrong in your assertion about me but, in the absence of your being able to show any basis on which you made such a statement, to ask that you acknowledge that fact."
Fund retracts claim that Frank is working on "universal voter registration" bill. In a January 18 WorldNetDaily article, columnist Chelsea Schilling reprinted sections of Frank's letter and reported that "Fund corrected himself when he spoke with WND." Fund reportedly said: "I made an error. I should have referred to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It's not Congressman Frank. It's Congressman Conyers," although Fund continued to cite no evidence for this claim.
Seriously: EVERYONE'S registered, all votes treated equally...
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THAT?!
-------------------------------------------------------------
I see a LOT of this sort of nonsense.
If [what you said] isn't the case, then WAHT IS? They can't tell you, because they want to keep being able to play the victim, and deny that they're being racist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'd LOVE for ANY conservative to tell me why we're wrong here!
God, that would be a horrible horrible thing.
And why can't convicted and released felons vote anyway? I thought the whole point of going to jail was to serve your time, and pay your penance to society for the laws that you broke and were convicted of. How come released felons can't vote? That makes no sense. You don't lose your rights when you're convicted of something. Why is it when someone is released, they can't vote? That law makes no sense.
Bad idea.
One possibilty that addresses ALL of your concerns is to have a single database for all that info, and maintain it. Yes, this would be expensive, but less so than fixing each one in turn, and long term, its cheaper than even doping nothing since it would reduce the amount of mainatainence, buropcracy, etc... that's needed.
What's more, You're letting your convictions get in the way of principles. There's no principled reason, in a democracy, that EVERYONE who is ELIGIBLE to vote, not obly be registered, but in fact SHOULD vote. Again: That's an inherent good regarldess of which way the winds are blowing. Now, we can't MAKE anyone vote, but there's no reason, ESPECIALLY with all the databases that already exsist that at least ONE of them can't be updated, properly maintained, and used to insure universal registration.
What's more, fixing these databases can only serve to PREVENT voter fraud. Which, again, regardless of who's doing it, is an inherent good.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'll use the worst word I can think of to describe your position: CONSERVATIVE. IOW - deny there's a problem and do nothing.
Besides, part of this is about getting the votes of illegal aliens, which the Democrats want badly. To cloak it in some other lofty goal is cute, but transparent.
And, as awlays, no proof is provided about Democrats wanting the votes of illegal aliens.
You remain the most intellectually dishonest contributor to this site.
You are the dishonest one, and a sniveling baby as well.
The "lofty goal" here is universal voter registration and (ideally) participation.
You're the liar here. I'm loathe to go that far, but you did say, exactly what he accused you of.
-------------------------------------------------
Intellectual Honesty FAIL
You can buy your Democrats hook line and sinker, but I don't.
--------------------------------------------
Always the strawman. If you only had a....
..poooooint.
Nah, they are just products of hysterical loons who can't make decent points, no need to address, sorry.
There would be ways of doing a national voter database/registration that would ensure that illegal aliens would not get to vote.
And don't bother me by responding to THIS particular post with any more bird-walking OT BS.
----------------------------------------
Cripes
You are the one who looks ridiculous.
And you aren't a victim here, so stop complaining about people 'lashing out at you'. You're the perpetrator of the offensive comment which falsely suggested that some want to allow universal registration for underhanded reasons.
You are a tool. You want proof? How about the fact that the Democrats want those dependent on government and its services and along with that, their votes. It keeps them in power. Do you expect them to admit it? Of course not. But that doesn't excuse you from being so gullible and stupid to ignore it either.
That's not proof. That's an opinion. I'm sure you know the difference between the two, but you still continually cite your opinions as proof. That's why you are intellectually dishonest.
Cheer up though, political parties just love dimwitted tools such as yourself.
Don't choke on the hook, line or sinker.
You remain a child.
The RNC panders to the religious right and pro lifers in their party. They pay them lip service to keep them happy and voting for them. They know abortion will never become illegal but they keep patting the pro lifers in their party on the head so they won't bolt. Their base.
The DNC panders to their many special interest groups as well to keep them happy and voting for them. They pay them lip service, one of those groups is to pander to those on public assistance and dependent on government. They constantly tell them they need the Dems in office to look out for them. The pat them on their head so they won't bolt. Their base.
Neither party has any moral standing when it comes to patronizing and pandering to those in their party. If you the Dems are above it any more than the Reps, then you are naive.
Republicans, who claim to be helping abortion foes but really aren't? They are panderers.
Why don't you try responding to my post below reagrding the % that illegals might actually represent?
I'm curious how you'll maintain you point as relevant.
-----------------------------------------
IMHO
Your opinion is NOT proof. Documented evidence of the behavior you suggest we exhibit would be proof, but of course you didn't provide that!
Nonsense. The states can maintain the portions of the database they use. One central location is still the better model. No one need "usurp" anything. Many states may welcome the help. (Not everyone's a Beck/McVeigh/Kaczinsky type, you know.)
More federal government control advocacy by the left and another federal agency/bureaucracy. Enough already.
My proposal clealry can only lead to LESS bureaucracy than we have now, maintainiong several inefficent databases. Reasoning FAIL. Enough already indeed. And where's the "advocacy"? More nonsensical baggaeg that you're putting onto an otherwise reasonable proposal without any evidence that it's warranted, because you have not principled reason to object to it.
Besides, part of this is about getting the votes of illegal aliens, which the Democrats want badly. To cloak it in some other lofty goal is cute, but transparent.
B*llsh!t. No one's winning any elections on the illegal vote. Besides, your point is a reason for (in your jaded opinion) the Left to oppose it. It serves no points for you. (And you've failed to show why it would be a bad idea, beyond giving nonsense RW talking points that are not even applicable here.) The only thing that's "transparent" here is your "lofty goal" of making i more difficult for anyone who might not vote correctly to vote.
--------------------------------------------------
You have convictions. I have principles.
Bingo! And you've just identified the very real and distinct possibilities of voter duplication and fraud. Which is the exact reason I gave in my first post about duplicate databases. You really haven't thought this through, have you?
First you say that all those duplicate databases means that there's a chance for voter fraud if they're used.
So I say, combine them into ONE and let everyone use that.
And then you say that ONE database would lead to duplication and fraud.
I'm not sure you're even capable of thinking. If you're trying to confuse me with chaos, you're making a good effort of it, but I have two kids so you'll have to do a lot better than that.
--------------------------------------------------
Or you could try arguing with REASON, but that does not appear to be your strong suit.
Another myth. Then no ones winning elections on any vote, so why bother? Fact is many toss up states have many illegals living there. Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado. So if the Democrats can turn these states permanently blue, they will probably lock the WH for sometime, and their congressional majoritys. This is what Democratic insiders, all insiders from both partys, look at for future electoral strategy. Nothing new.
Being naive to the shenanigans of party political machinery is not very attractive.
So... if every single on of them was registed and actually voted, they would represent 5-10% of the vote.
Pretty big.
BUT... do you really expect to believe that ALL of them vote? Part of the reason for the disparity of the estimate is that we don't have documentation of ANY kind for MOST of them.
Let's say... HALF of them are registered. (And I think that's an absurdly large percentage, but whatever.) If they had the same voter turnout as the average american (again: not likely, but fine. About 50%?) then they're now representing between 1.25-2.5% of the vote. (At best.) Not enough to swing an elecction unless: (1) It comes down to only one or two states (neither Clinton's nor Obama's election DID, BTW, only Bush's and Rutherford B. Hayes' did) and (2) MOST of them LIVED in those states. Otherwise, that small a % would be insignificant. Most of the election that were won by that small a margin were won by REPUBLICANS.
You really shouldn't chennle Karl Rove so much in your election strategy. And if anything, I'm being wildy generous up there with my estimates. Like I said: NO ONE WILL ON THE ILLEGAL AIEN VOTE.
-----------------------------------------------
Try again.
Research is ALWAYS required, yet rarely gets done nowadays it seems.
James Simpson
Huh? How about telling us how you missed that relevant point, and instead went with an off-topic rant about your false assumptions?
What has MMFA done WRT this story? They pointed out that John Fund pushed a false allegation. They never said he lied. They pointed out that what he alleged wasn't true! MMFA doesn't allege bias, or call people liars. Then, when Fund admitted that he had made an error, they published that story too. Then, they covered that the rightwing media was pushing a false allegation.
What exactly is wrong with what they did? And don't come back with any invented sins! The only thing that MMFA asserted was that the person who planned to unveil a plan for universal voter registration wasn't who Fund said it was. MMFA never said that the whole story was bogus, or anything like that.
You are the loser who couldn't stay on topic, who falsely accused us of not being aware of things, and who is documented to be grasping at straws in your comment above!
The first mention of this by MMFA was Rep Frank's knockout punch to Fund in the letter Frank wrote. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001140051
Then MMFA covered Fund issuing a correction. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001190059
Then they posted this story. You ran with the false meme that Fund pushed without doing the research YOU should have done. And you're so proud of your inadequate completion of the basic research any intern should have done that you come here and brag about it? Really?