WASHINGTON — After years of watering down voting laws to the point where it is considered a civil rights violation in several states for a poll worker to ask to see a license or proof of residency, some Democrats have suddenly reversed course. They want to bring in United Nations observers to ensure a “free and fair” election in the United States.
The letter to Kofi Annan, authored by Texas Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and co-signed by seven other Dems in the House, complains that as the next election approaches, “there is more cause for alarm rather than less” and that the right to vote will be compromised. It charges the U.S. with systematically suppressing minority votes. Without any statistical data or other proof, the congresspersons contend that “over half of the votes that went uncounted nationwide during the last election were cast by nonwhite voters” and that black voters in America were “ten times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected.”
Sigh. Despite several recounts certifying Bush the slim winner of the last presidential election, many liberals prefer to see a conspiracy by the Man to keep the good voters down. They refuse to believe that Bush could get into office through means short of fraud.
In the letter to Annan, Johnson says as much, calling the Supreme Court decision that ended the 2000 election “one of the most politicized and improper decisions in U.S. jurisprudence.” Maybe so but look at some of the shenanigans that led up to it: attempts to recount only Democrat-controlled counties, to shake more Gore chads out of those machines; nutty rulings by the partisan Florida Supreme Court, who were routinely spanked by the Supremes; refusing to count the Bush-leaning military vote.
LET’S CALL THE SPADES HERE: Democrats do not want a “free and fair” election in 2004. They want to win, and they are willing to preen and dissemble to do so. Right now, they’re for stronger oversight by an international body but after November 2, they’ll go back to giving illegal immigrants, 14-year-olds, and cute puppies the right to vote.
It’s almost a chore to say this but the United States doesn’t need international observers. We had a close election, which happen from time to time. But power still passed peacefully. There were no pitched battles between Al Gore and George W. militias. We are not living in Nicaragua or Argentina. There was no coup. Some may not like the Supreme Court decision, but then about half of us were bound not to.
That said, even if the United States did need observers, there is no way we could pretend that the U.N. is qualified for the job. After all, the Secretary General spends half of his U.S. taxpayer-funded time in front of television cameras flogging the current administration. Are we really to believe that the organization, as averse to the idea of a second Bush term as it is, would not tip the scales in favor of John Kerry?
When Johnson and Co. write that “As a member of the international community, we firmly believe in the importance of international human rights law and its applicability and relevance to the U.S.,” they are really appealing to the international community of Bush haters to meddle in an American election.
It would be nice to believe that, no matter what one feels about George W. Bush, Americans can agree that it is we who should decide our own elections.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?