US Republicans target ACORN: the great “voter fraud” fraud By Tom Eley 18 October 2008
A community activist group called ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has become a lightning rod for Republican attacks as the US presidential election approaches. In Wednesday night's presidential debate, John McCain warned that ACORN "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." He demanded to "know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship" to this purportedly criminal organization. In a recent fundraising email, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned that "far-left groups in this country will do anything to help the Obama-Biden Democrats win the White House and maintain their majorities in Congress. The left-wing activist group, ACORN, is now under investigation for voter registration fraud in a number of battleground states.... We can't allow leftist groups like ACORN to steal this election." ACORN is now at the center of a media controversy fueled by Republican accusations. The FBI has announced an investigation, as have a number of states, counties and municipalities. What is this group that is allegedly responsible for "destroying the fabric of democracy"? ACORN describes itself as an organization of "low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families" which focuses on such goals as raising the minimum wage and expanding access to affordable housing. It unreservedly supports the Democratic Party and has endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. In the lead-up to the 2008 election, ACORN has launched a major voter registration campaign to bring poor and minority people—who tend to vote Democratic—to the polls in the upcoming election. It claims to have registered over 1.3 million voters, largely in critical "battleground" states. There is no evidence that ACORN has committed fraud, a charge that implies intent. As is typical of registration and petition drives, ACORN has hired low-paid workers to carry out registrations. Some of these workers, in an effort to take home more pay, have invented the names of registrants. However, ACORN claims that it examines all registration material and flags forgeries in an attempt to assist state officials in prosecuting cases of fraud. In fact, ACORN claims that Republican officials have used the same registration cards ACORN has flagged for attention as a means of discrediting the group's operations. In any event, the Republicans have yet to explain the mechanics of how the supposedly false voting cards would actually result in thousands of false votes. The hue and cry over finding names like "Mickey Mouse" on a registration form begs the question: How could anyone cast a ballot under such a name? If the voters are fictional, as the Republicans claim, presumably they will not show up at the polls. The Republican charge of "voter fraud" is itself a fraud. Through sensational accusations the Republicans hope to resuscitate their faltering presidential and Congressional campaigns. These charges could also be used to cast doubt over the legitimacy of the electoral outcome. More fundamentally, however, the aim is to suppress the vote among sections of the working class and youth in an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election. This is the real "voter fraud"—and there is a history to it. The current charges against ACORN are only the latest chapter in this right-wing campaign to suppress voting rights. The campaign to restrict the franchise, found its most anti-democratic expression in the US Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 presidential election to hand victory to Bush by means of invalidating legally cast ballots, ruling that there was no inherent right among citizens to vote for the president. (Purchase online: The Crisis of American Democracy: The Presidential Elections of 2000 and 2004). Since 2000, the Republican Party has taken steps to impede the vote not seen since the days of the Jim Crow voting restrictions targeting blacks in the South. Republican strategists sense that as the most rapidly growing sections of the electorate—youth, minorities, naturalized immigrants, and workers—punish their candidates at the polls, survival will depend on limiting these groups' access to the ballot. On October 9, the New York Times ran an exposé revealing that tens of thousands of voters in the "swing states" that will ultimately decide the presidential election had been purged from the election rolls, perhaps illegally. In Ohio, the Republican Party sued the secretary of state in an effort to toss out the names of 200,000 legally registered voters for discrepancies—most likely clerical errors—in their registration data. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Republican Party did not have the right to bring the case. In other states, new restrictions on the right to vote are aimed at those whose homes have been foreclosed and those who lack photo identification, such as drivers' licenses. The mainstream media conveniently forgets that the US attorneys scandal that led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also arose from a Republican attempt to suppress the vote. A number of the attorneys were sacked because they did not comply with Republican pressure to expedite the prosecution of voter fraud cases, so that they would take place before the 2006 elections. For example, the US Department of Justice has found that US Attorney David Iglesias was dismissed for failing to investigate a local ACORN chapter in New Mexico. (See "Special prosecutor appointed to investigate US attorney firings") More craven than the Republican attacks on ACORN has been the cowardly response of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. In response to McCain's attack on ACORN, Obama disowned any relationship to the organization, which has worked feverishly on his behalf for months. Moments earlier he had disowned Bill Ayers, the former radical routinely condemned by Republicans as a terrorist. (See "In defense of Bill Ayers") Shortly afterward he listed those he considers his true associates. These include the world's richest man, Warren Buffett, and former Federal Reserve Board head Paul Volcker, whose high interest rate "shock therapy" in 1979 was responsible for devastating many of the communities where ACORN now seeks to register impoverished voters. The Democrats are not opposed to voter suppression in either principle or practice. They engage in it when it suits their purposes, regularly purging the nominating petitions of left-wing, and especially socialist, opponents. Barack Obama's benefactors in the Illinois state Democratic Party have twice attempted to invalidate thousands of signatures of registered voters from third party nominating petitions in order to remove Socialist Equality Party legislative candidates from the ballot—Tom Mackaman (in 2004) and Joe Parnarauskis (in 2006). Obama personally came to Danville, Illinois, to campaign against Parnarauskis. (See "Democrats conspire against voters in bid to remove SEP from ballot" and "Judge orders election board to certify Illinois SEP candidate"). The notion, peddled by the Republicans—that the great threat to American democracy is that ineligible voters might somehow cast ballots —is absurd. The US is a country where only half of the eligible population votes and where the great majority of the electorate is politically disenfranchised by the two-party duopoly of big business. In fact, the greatest threat "to the fabric of democracy" is the capitalist class, which cannot maintain democratic norms under conditions of growing social inequality in which the vast majority of the population is increasingly impoverished. On Aug 29, 7:48 am, LadybugsTX <[email protected]> wrote: > Why would he. He bought and paid for ACORN to do the same, just like > he's purchasasing loyalty today through Craig's List, much akin to > Ahmadi Nejad. > > On Aug 27, 11:37 pm, "\" Lone Wolf \ "" <phoeni...@ gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Washington's double standard: The elections in Iran and Afghanistan > > 28 August 2009 > > Despite the increasing evidence of systematic and massive vote fraud, > > The Obama administration and the American media are still seeking to > > Sustain the pretense that Afghanistan's presidential August 20 > > Election was basically a democratic affair. > > > The Electoral Complaints Commission, a United Nations-backed oversight > > Group, said that it had received more than 800 charges of > > Irregularities, with 50 of them so serious that they could potentially > > Alter the result of the vote. > > > A half boxes candidates who opposed incumbent President Hamid Karzai, > > Including his leading challenger, former Foreign Minister Abdullah > > Abdullah, have charged the government with falsifying the vote. > > Abdullah's campaign Tuesday released video footage showing Karzai > > Election officials and campaign supporters marking blank ballots for > > Karzai and threatening voters at the polls. Another candidate, Mirwais > > Yasini, produced bags full of ballots were cast for him he said in > > Kandahar but dumped by election officials and recovered by his > > Campaign. > > > In the two southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, the site of > > Some of the blood Tst fighting between the US-NATO occupation force > > And Afghan guerrillas, foreign election observers estimated turnout to > > Be only 5 to 10 percent. The Karzai regime claimed a 40 percent > > Turnout, giving ample margin for systematic ballot-stuffing. > > > While the American press reported the charges of fraud and the > > Indications of low turnout, the official U.S. position remains one of > > Endorsing the election as an expression of the popular will and a > > Victory, albeit limited, for "democracy" on "terrorism"-ie, the > > Taliban-linked insurgents. > > > President Obama hailed the election in a statement issued August 21, > > Declare, "This was an important step forward in the Afghan people's > > Effort to take control of their future ... " > > > Top U.S. officials on the spot, including Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, > > General Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander, and Richard > > Holbrooke, chief U.S. envoy to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, all > > Chimed in with endorsements of the basic legitimacy of the vote, > > Suggesting the widespread reports of irregularities were Merely the > > Growing Pains of Democracy. > > > No such forgiving approach was taken to the election in Iran two > > Months before. The American media denounced the presidential vote in > > Iran as fraudulent almost as soon as the polls closed June 12. Both > > The Obama administration and the European powers called into question > > The legitimacy of the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. > > > As opposed to Afghanistan, however, neither the Iranian nor opposition > > Its American backers could produce any significant evidence of vote > > Fraud. There were no videos of ballot-stuffing, no boxes or ballots > > Marked in advance for Ahmadinejad. This in a country where the > > Opposition had a significant presence in all parts of the country, and > > Where the technical resources to publicizing election irregularities, > > Using cell phone photos and videos, text-messaging, and so on-are far > > Greater than in Afghanistan. > > > There is a clear political explanation for the double standard. The > > Decision to vote fraud charge in Iran, and to downplay the obvious > > Ballot-rigging in Afghanistan, foreign policy is driven by the > > Interests of American imperialism, not the supposed devotion or > > Washington and the American media to democratic principles. > > > The batch of ballot fraud was employed to destabilize the Ahmadi Nejad > > Government, which Washington regards as an obstacle to its plans to > > Strengthen its control over the oil and gas resources of the Persian > > Gulf and Central Asia. > > > The calculated nature of the provocation was made clear when the > > Leading Iranian opposition candidate, Mirhossein Mousavi, declared > > Himself the winner of the vote even before the polls had closed in > > Order to discrediting the official results in advance. > > > The contrast with Afghanistan is instructive. When the Karzai and > > Abdullah camps each issued claims of victory shortly after the polls > > Closed, with both candidates with Holbrooke and gave them their > > Marching orders: No claims of victory should be made until after the > > Bulk of the votes have been officially certified in Kabul. > > > Holbrooke told reporters, "Ten percent of the vote is. Imagine an > > American election with 10 percent in. You do not call it with 10 > > Percent. "His audience obligingly did not ask him why the US-backed > > Candidate in Iran had called the election with zero percent of the > > Votes counted, or why the State Department had not objected. > > > The Obama administration's policy in relation to the Afghanistan vote > > Is complicated by its contentious relationship with President Karzai, > > Widely Regarded by his American patrons as weak, corrupt and > > Incompetent. Washington appears to favor pushing Karzai into more of a > > Ceremonial role while other U.S. Stooges, including Abdullah and former > > Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani, are brought into top government > > Positions. > > > This means limiting the ballot-rigging so that Karzai does not receive > > The 50 percent required to win the election outright, thus forcing him > > Into a runoff with Abdullah and dealing a significant blow to his > > Political standing. The maneuver is quite dangerous, however, since it > > Threatens to touch off ethnic tensions within the US-backed regime, > > Particularly between the Tajik minority, which backed Abdullah > > Overwhelmingly, and the larger Pushtun population, where Karzai's main > > Support lies. > > > There is yet another contrast between the U.S. approach to the Iranian > > Election and its response in Afghanistan. The American media cited the > > Timing of the Iranian government declaration that Ahmadinejad had won > > Reelection with a two-thirds majority, which came only a few hours > > After the polls had closed, albeit after hours Mousavi's claim or > > Victory. > > > But a top aide Karzai, Hazrat Omar Zakhilwal Finance Minister, made a > > Similar declaration in Afghanistan, which was given little attention > > By the American media. Zakhilwal spoke to the media on August 23, less > > Than three days after the polls had closed, and said that Karzai had > > Won 68 percent of the vote. He gave relatively precise totals, saying > > That Karzai had received more than 3 million votes, Abdullah 1.5 > > Million votes, and the other candidates much lesser amounts. Five > > Million votes had been cast, and only 450.000 still remained to be > > Counted. > > > There was no American media barrage citing the preposterous character > > Of the minister's claim, although a day later, the Independent > > Election Commission had tallied votes from only 500 of the more than > > 6.000 polling stations throughout the country. > > > In Iran, the declaration of victory by Ahmadinejad was treated as > > Evidence of a major vote-rigging effort. A similar declaration in > > Afghanistan is dismissed as insignificant. > > > The comparison of the two elections demonstrates the fraud of the U.S. > > Posture of defending democracy and popular sovereignty. One election > > Is praised and damned the other, without regard to evidence, in order > > To further the interests of the imperialist power which seeks to > > Dominate both countries. > > > Patrick Martin- Hide quoted text -- > > - Show quoted text -- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
