Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
George Will :: Townhall.com Columnist
Political Speech Is Not Free Speech
by George Will
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules -- no agency that could issue regulations, write advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?

-- The Washington Post, editorially alarmed.

WASHINGTON -- The Post, dismayed by the prospect, in effect asks: What if we had deregulated politics -- including the sort of presidential campaigns that produced 33 presidents (including some pretty good ones -- Lincoln, TR, the sainted Coolidge, FDR, Truman, Ike) before the Federal Election Commission was created in 1975? Most of the rules, the possible nonenforcement of which has the Post in a swivet, are constitutionally dubious abridgements of freedom of speech and association, so sensible citizens should rejoice about the current disarray of the FEC.

The six-person FEC -- three members from each party -- enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.

The FEC's policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed. Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends -- unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: "All three or none." If this standoff persists until Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members -- a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so, because four votes are required for all official actions, the commission will be prohibited from such actions including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.

Democrats oppose von Spakovsky partly because when he served in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department he overruled staffers in the Voting Section who wanted to block a Georgia law requiring voters to present a government-issued ID before voting, as Americans do before boarding an airplane, entering many buildings, renting movies, etc. Von Spakovsky's critics say the law is a way of suppressing voting by poor, mostly minority, citizens. Eighty percent of Americans -- racists all? -- favor such laws. The Supreme Court probably will settle the issue in a case concerning Indiana's voter ID law.

Democrats oppose von Spakovsky also because, as the Post's editorial says, "he blocked career staffers who wanted to stop a Texas congressional redistricting plan; a divided Supreme Court later rejected part of the plan." "Part," indeed. The court affirmed the constitutionality of 31 of the 32 districts involved -- affirming von Spakovsky's legal judgment that those "career staffers" opposed.

The Post primly says: "Six former voting section employees asserted that Mr. von Spakovsky participated in politicizing the Civil Rights Division." Who are these "career staffers" who supposedly recoiled from politics?

Joseph Rich, while chief of Justice's Voting Section, contributed $455 to America Coming Together, an organization of Democratic activists. While he was a deputy chief of the Civil Rights Division's Housing Section, his section filed cases in which courts eventually compelled the government to pay $175,000 in attorneys' fees for the filing of unwarranted and even frivolous discrimination claims. Rich left Justice to join the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a left-wing advocacy group.

Jon Greenbaum and Robert Kengle also left Justice's Voting Section to join the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. David Becker left to work for People for the American Way. Steve Pershing, a Democratic donor, left to work for the Center for Constitutional Litigation, which opposes tort reform. Gerry Hebert was the Voting Section lawyer in the case in which a federal court ordered the Justice Department to pay $86,626.24 in attorneys' fees and expenses as punishment for "unconscionable" actions. Hebert now works for the Campaign Legal Center promoting campaign "reforms."

The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put "holds" on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is ... Barack Obama.

Such funds come, however, from the few taxpayers who choose to use the $3 checkoff on their income tax forms. These funds cannot go to candidates in primaries until funds are allocated for both national conventions and both general election campaigns. But because 90 percent of taxpayers choose not to provide such welfare for candidates, there probably will not be enough money in the account to disburse until after the crucial primaries. Government regulation of politics, as of most things, is perverse.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read George Will's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Too funny!
First of all, I hope they NEVER appoint or confirm a fourth member, in that case. Let the thing die a dismal death.

These restrictions, along with McCain-Feingold, are blatant intrusions on the First Amendment.


Unlimited
Unlimited contributions by American citizens with one rule: the contribution must be publicized within 24 hours. People can have all the free speech they want, and the public can see who is giving whom money; that information and robust media will provide plenty of information on which to judge the candidates without trampling individual rights.

And some wonder
why "limited government" could be such a good idea.

Abolish this farce
What Constitutional Amendment established this commission? Where is it he authority of congress to establish this commission? Where is the paragraph in the Constitution that says it will be made up of 3 Republicans and 3 Lamocrats? Are there not more people running for office than tweedledum and tweedledee?

It appears to me that the Lamocrats appoint blatent partisan hacks while the Republicans do their normal thing trying to appear as the "good guys" by appointing people who do nothing but bend over and then the Lamocrats do their normal thing when you bend over. It has been shown time and time again when you try to appease Lamocrats it is the same as trying to appease Hitler, it just stirs them up.

Abolish this commission and abolish all campaign finance laws except those for fraud.

presidential election


Who do we think we are kidding? I have voted in every election since 1970. Every year the candidates get worse. It has always been the lesser of two evils. Now it is the lesser of 10 evils. There is not a dimes worth of difference between any of them. They are all actors. If an honest man came up to bat, the media would not give him the time of day of cover him at all. No wonder the rest of the world has no respect for us. When My dad came home from w. w.II America was well respected. What happened? We don not even get a candidate to vote for.

me, too
I can't believe people actually check that little box. I have had five calls since the weekend for money and I just keep teeling them I am not donating to the RNC, I am giving directly to the candidate. Die a natural death, indeed. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
BTW...isn't it typical of the left? Don't get your way? stomp it, block it,make a new law... no common sense. That IS perverse!

Hey, bill,
from your comments, maybe we can infer that the candidate getting the least coverage should be the one to get our vote.

Let's see, for the Dems, I'd guess that would be Kucinich. HA! What a joke!

How about the Repubs? Ron Paul maybe? I'm down with that!

John Galt,
Preach it brother! With the wide spread availablity of mass communications, there isn't any reason why we can't do what you propose. Except, it then takes the wheedling little politicians out from another place where they are trying exert more control. Sounds good to me!

If We Could Only --------
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress were put in such a position -- too few to make a quorum -- permanently.

Let it die
The death of any government commission can only be a good thing.

John Galt
Years ago George Will came up with a solution to campaign finance reform:

Unlimited Contributions
Full Disclosure
No Cash

Of course this would be too effective and too easy to manage. Instead we need McCain-Feingold, the FEC, RNC lawyers, DNC lawyers and federal disbursement of campaign donations.

Federal The Government Says:
Who may speak about candidates, who may give and how much, when citizens may not speak about candidates, only two parties matter, citizens may not challenge government dictats, speaking nastily to bureaucrats is illegal, and on, and on, and on.....

Mr. Franklin was right about whether or not we could keep our Republic. It is long gone, along with the Constitution. So sad.

Real Reform:
Americans need to add one line to every ballot for every elceted office: "None of the above".

If that choice wins the majority, both parties must put up another canditate (preferrably the next largest vote getter in the primaries) for a face off.

If someone is running unopposed, and none of the aove wins the majority, then that person is out of office. How about that for "term limits"!

ON another forum, there was talk about running negative campaigns. Personally, when two candidates are slinging mud, I happen to believe both are right, not that only one is.

Free speech

The politicians of both parties hate free speech, but the real Stalinists are the Liberal media.

They do their best to rule print and electronic media and with even more vile true believers in Hollywood and Academia intend to control ALL speech.

They want to rid the airwaves of conservative talk, blacklist conservative actors and rewrite history with the help of academics who keep drinking the Kool aid. Stalinists invented political correctness and the liberal media are turning in to the law of the land.

RE: John Galt
"Unlimited contributions by American citizens with one rule: the contribution must be publicized within 24 hours."

And such publication prior to the American Revolution would have meant those anonymous revolutionaries would have been hanged for treason, and we'd still be a colony of Great Britian.

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what we want!

Flash
I've been saying the same thing for years. The Russians under the Soviet Union supposedly had this choice, although what happened if you exercised it was always a question.

Nevertheless, we do have one problem with such a system. What happens if, as would almost certainly be the case come next November, "None of the Above" wins the presidential vote? Bush's term ends on January 20, 2009 by law. It is very doubtful that we could choose new candidates and hold another election in 2.5 months, or that we would want a president chosen with that little vetting.

So what happens then? We'd have to amend the Constitution to allow a president's term to be extended until a successor is elected. I doubt we'd ever get an agreement to allow the current VP to fill the role (and certainly not while Cheney is the current VP). The Speaker of the House is next in line, but would anyone on the planet really want to see Pelosi sitting in the Oval Office, even for 15 seconds?

It's a good idea and one I think we as citizens of this country deserve, because the current system is a prima facie example of the danger of factions Madison warned of. Problem is, we haven't faced that problem, we've institutionalized it.

Agree with Vic - Abolish this farce.
The FEC is another example of Congress, the Executive ignoring the Constitution. Congress effectively amended the Constitution without following Article V. The President ignored the Constitution when he signed the FEC into law. They will continue to ignore their oath of office until enough citizens take the effort to get positively involved and demand they follow the Constitution.

Campaign Finance
My main question regarding contributions is (and this is way off topic from the article - sorry)...if a candidate can raise millions at a luncheon for themselves from rich donors to fund "commercials and campaign trips"...why can't they do the same thing to fund pet programs instead of stealing my hard earned money?


What a bunch of dreamers!
Everyone acts like it would be a GOOD thing if the FEC were disbanded, or if the Congress were gridlocked and no legislation were passed. Let's take a moment and follow the John Lennon line and "imagine".

Let's imagine a place where there were no FEC; a place where Congress passes no new laws. Just imagine... it almost seems like paradise, doesn't it?

Wow! Our modern PC climate has even dumbed down paradise!;)

John Gault is out of synch.

John, the British empire is really long gone. What do you fear? Your friends and neighbors might think you are a nut case if you donate to some far left Stalinist/Democrat. So what, I bet they have known your mental state for years.

What is wrong with all that bright sunshine of complete disclosure?

Stalinism
Throwing around terms like Stalinist to describe the liberal media shows a serious misunderstanding about just how autocratic Stalin was, not to mention a basic misunderstanding of how a Stalinist system functions. As far as I know, the media has yet to establish a personality cult around the media as an absolute dictator. I am also unaware of any media secret police to control and monitor the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, no matter how much some liberal politicians might like to see such a thing. And while it may be true that the media tends to play down political dissent during liberal administrations, it can hardly be credibly described as doing so for the last 7 years.

Just as when the Left describes conservatives as Nazis (a usage of the term deeply at odds with the political ideas of Adolf Hitler), using terms like Stalinist to describe a free press with which you merely disagree, but which has no power to coerce you into agreement, diminishes the crimes of the real Stalinists.

The media is, primarily, a bunch of liberal political hacks who support other liberal political hacks, as they are free to do in our system. That the political hacks they support want to deny to others the same freedoms they themselves claim to champion to those who do not share their liberalism is only to be expected in a country where the average politician has no desire to serve anyone but themself and chooses to do so at the public trough.


justpaul:
"What happens if, "None of the Above" wins the presidential vote? Bush's term ends on January 20, 2009 by law. It is very doubtful that we could choose new candidates and hold another election in 2.5 months, or that we would want a president chosen with that little vetting."

With current technologies, we are predicting the winners of elections even before the polling closes in Hawaii. (Talk about a bummer knowning that your vote is meaningless even before you get to the polls). However, you forget that the President, unlike all other elected officials is not elected by the popular vote, but by the electoral college. They would have to choose from among the pool of primary runners up from their respective politcal parties. Since the primaries also had "none of the above" choices, the vetting would have occurred long before the general electtion.

Incidentally, since mud-slinging between candidates would only make "none of the above" more attractive, maybe they would concentrate more on why they should get are vote rather than why the other candidate or none of the above gets the vote. We have been clamoring for a third party alternative to the lesser of two evils. None of the above makes that uncecessary.



Parrothead, you missed the point:
"My main question regarding contributions is (and this is way off topic from the article - sorry)...if a candidate can raise millions at a luncheon for themselves from rich donors to fund "commercials and campaign trips"...why can't they do the same thing to fund pet programs instead of stealing my hard earned money?"

Why would any candidate spend millions of dollars on a campaign for a job that pays a few hundred thousand and is only guaranteed for 2-6 years?

Reason: Any money they don't spend is theirs, tax-free until they withdraw it from the campaign fund. They are not required to return it to the donors. As they say" Follow the money".

Granted it is in their best interest NOT to have large single donors, because if Guido doesn't get his money back if his candidate wasn't elected plus his "commission", there would be something other than a horses head in the Mr's bed, if you know what I mean.


Why not voter IDs
Quote
Democrats oppose von Spakovsky partly because when he served in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department he overruled staffers in the Voting Section who wanted to block a Georgia law requiring voters to present a government-issued ID before voting
End Quote

During the recent elections in Venezuela I saw Voters showing picture ID, placing a thumb print next to their names as they signed in, and getting their fingers dipped in indelible ink.

If Venezuelans can prove who they are before voting, why can't Americans?

Why do the Dems constantly fight against voter IDs?

Do they think their primary voting blocks are too stupid to get IDs?

Do they think the dead might be prevented from voting if IDs are required?

Do they think people might be prevented from voting multiple times?

Do they think it will prevent their new voting block Illegal Immigrants, from voting.

Or is it all of the above?


Joke and prank Christmas gifts
http://www.givemetheinfo.com/Christmas-prank-gifts/

cbgaloot:
We required the same scruitiny in the Iraq elections as far as dipping the finger in ink to prevent multiple voting.

In Chicago, where I grew up, the saying "vote early and often" was most likely carried out in precinct addresses that turned out to be cemeteries! The democratic machine would die instantly with such a requirement. While Daley, like his dad run essentially unopposed, the "none of the above" choice (see my prior posting) would see an end to that dynasty too.

Flash
So you would not be opposed to the Electoral College choosing as President someone who couldn't even win the nomination they were running for? Okay. I can't say I agree, and I doubt very much that you would like the outcome of such a selection, but it could in theory work.

But would it work in practice? Isn't it far more likely that the EC would simply choose one of the two major party candidates, since, as you have pointed out, the president is not chosen by the popular vote, and, therefore, a popular vote for "None of the Above" would not be binding upon the Electors. Or might it not turn out that the Electors all start choosing different people, and no one gets the required majority of electoral votes?

Regarding the primaries: I think the real problem shows up there. Given the current crop of candidates, I don't have much trouble envisioning a situation where state after state, "None of the Above" wins the vote. Come November, you have no candidates at all chosen through a primary system. What happens then?

The reason I bring this up is that currently, if we reach such an impasse, it falls to the House to choose a new president, and that would probably be worse than what we have now, especially if the field was wide open.

Why is it so bad?
Some History:

The FEC was created in 1975. The breakdown was as follows:

President: Jimmy Carter - Enough said
Senate: 61 Lamocrats 39 Republicans
House: 291 Lamocrats 144 Republicans

Is it any wonder that this is such a corrupt and useless organization.

Excuse me Vic
Jimmy Carter took office in Jan 1977. I know, I was there.

thumper
You're right, for some reason I was thinking 1974 for Carter. Ford was in office then, a Republican "moderate". Although not as bad as Carter he was no conservative.

justpaul:
When we elect delgates to the electoral college under the current system, they are under no obligation to vote for the political candidate of their party, save the reason of tradition (and the fact that they were selected as candidates with that unwritten understanding). Since neither party wishes for a tie to send to Congress, the odds that a compromise candidate could be elected.

But as I said before, the primaries would be under the same system and I think a more qualified candidate from each party and cleaner election campaigns (to reduce the selection of none-of-the-above) would be enough. Would it require amending the Constitution? Perhaps not, since some states are considering abandonment of the "winner takes all" electoral votes and proportioning them based upon the proportion of popular votes. In those states, I guess that the none-of-the-above delegates would be free to vote for anyone other than the two party winners in that state.

It has to be better than what we have now. I live in Illinois and in several of the past primaries, the best candidate from the cadre of pretenders (at least according to my personal view) always managed to bow out because they did so poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire and could not raise enough money to continue. I felt disenfranchised because their name was dropped from my ballot, and because they were no longer a registered candidate, my write-in vote would be disqualified.

One other campaign finance reform:
It is a shame that most of the attention of the media is not one who is the most popular, but rather on how much money their respective campaigns have raised last month. They keep referring to war chests as if it is not your politcal views, but how much money you can spend (buying votes) that wins elections.

I would rather have each candidate be given, or only allowed, to spend a fixed dollar amount per campaign based on the number of constituents in that district/state/nation.

Each one starts out with the same amount of money to spend (if they raise more, they can keep it, or they can only spend extra to the extent that other candidates spend the same amount). We can then judge how well each can manage a budget, and how efficiently they can get their word out about their candidate and the candidate's views. Candidates would demand prime-time free television stations to aire their debates, not cable channels and weird times to keep their costs low/exposure high. There would be more press-the-flesh, less appearances on Oprah.

Off topic, but if the fairness doctrine were re-enacted, wouldn't Oprah be obligated to allow every other presidential candidate equal time on her show?




re: beowulfe, Ray
re: beowulfe
Last time I checked, this is 2007, not 1776. Presidential campaigns, and the State of our Union, and technology, have changed at least a wee bit since then.


re: Ray
From your comment, I think you misunderstood my position. I am FOR full & immediate disclosure and unlimited individual contributions. It was beowulfe, not I, who raised the specter of the British Empire.

More information in the hands of the citizenry is a GOOD thing, as is less government control over our speech.

Winner take all
The winner-take-all scheme actually amplifies the voting power of each individual voter. A few years ago there was an article in Scientific American about the statistics behind why this is the case. So changing the winner-take-all scheme is actually NOT a good idea.

Brain Damage - No ID, no vote
Our election process is awful. We are all stuck with a President and congressional leaders we didn't want or choose. However, in our 2 party system the choice is either the Democrat or the Republican nominee. Independant and 3rd party candidates have virtually no prayer.
In local and statewide elections we vote on issues which are presented in such a complicated manner they are difficult to understand. And, even if we do understand them most other voters don't (provided they actually even vote at all).
We are supposed to vote for or against a bunch of judges, and we have no clue whether they are competent or not!
As far as the RULES for national elections are concerned............it's almost a toss up whether one should care or not.
There is however one RULE I personally believe should always be required: Photo ID for every voter. People should not be allowed to vote in national or local elections without proper ID.

NOT: None of the Above
It should not be "None of the Above" it should be "No Vote".

This would not have any effect on the Electoral Collage, nor the election. It would mean that the voter was not lazy, the voter was not being apathetic, the voter actually got his/her fat duff off the couch and to the polling place where the voter specifically and purposely exerted energy to not vote.

The message is non-intrusive to the process but very powerful.

Imagine an election where there are 100 eligible voters, and 3 candidates A, B, and C are running for some office.

In the existing system if there are 25 votes for "A", 15 for "B", and 10 for "C". Then "A" wins feeling reasonably good about him/her-self. And the assumption is that 50 people were just too apathetic to care.

But with a "No Vote" on the ballot, if there are 25 votes for "A", 15 for "B", 10 for "C", and 30 for "No Vote". Then "A" still wins. But now, needs to feel very scared. Because only 20 people were too apathetic to care. There were 30 voters who wanted to vote... but for someone ELSE, anybody ELSE, if only that person were running.

The effect this would have on "A" while in office, and on the next election, would be profound.

In Re Oprah
"Off topic, but if the fairness doctrine were re-enacted, wouldn't Oprah be obligated to allow every other presidential candidate equal time on her show?"

Forget the Fairness Doctrine, under McCain-Feingold, doesn't Oprah's campaigning for Obama amount to an in-kind contribution? Just how much is Oprah's time and status worth?

And given her status as a publisher, doesn't she fall under the ban for contributions to political candidates?

Campaigns and Politics
Let's establish a 120 campaign/election season (or heck, just 90 days)... No registration, conventions, or primaries more than 120 days from the established election date.

Then, let the critters and their parties figure out how to divide the 120 days into primary and general periods... or let's just have a 45 day "general election campaign" window.

What a pipe dream huh?

Fair Elections
cbgaloot... because nobody believes in "fair elections"... in particular socialists, marxists and anarchists... oh, yeah, Demoncats.

I'd be proud to show a photo id and stick my finger in a can of paint... IF the ID was a US identification, and those who vote are US Citizens...

EdWestT & Skipping39again
Of course the two parties ignore the Constitution! The reason they get away with this is that they have engineered the election process to assure themselves power. They have done so by cleverly promoting the big lie over and over until it is accepted as true. The lie is that only "they" have the wisdom, knowledge, and experience to govern.

We, the sheep, have been duped and yet we continue to vote the lesser of two evils every election, doing the same thing and expecting a different result (Einstein's definition of insanity).

It is time that the rightful owners of this great nation stood up and reasserted their authority. We simply cannot afford another elite from either party to gain the Presidency. If we had the courage and the faith to actually do something totally different and denied them the Presidency, we could begin that journey to restoring the Constitution and limited govt.

Unfortunately, too many of us have accepted the propaganda spewed forth by the DEM/GOP/MSM machines that has us electing these same people again. It is time to stop! If you care about how the elites have gained so much power and what we can really do to reverse this course, I urge you to visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. Check it out, why not? The elites of both parties have already stolen our birthright, but there is no reason for us to allow that to continue. Thanks, Joe

This is actually simple
The only reason any person would object to voters having to positively identify themselves is if that person knows they benefit from voters NOT identifying themselves -- e.g., they're already scamming the system by multiple votes, illegals, re-using dead peoples' ids, etc.

Democrats have been stuffing ballot boxes for more than a century, and have it down. They would not win so many big city elections if they were not so good at it. That's the reason Democrats oppose photo ids.

"Poor people" can't get ID? Don't make me laugh. DEMOCRATS insist on government-issued ID cards in most states. In PA, people who have no driver's license have to get a "state ID," basically a driver's license with no driving privileges, to obtain welfare benefits; aren't those the same poor people the Democrats say would be discriminated against? Democrats insisted that every citizen be required to have a social security number.

Short version: Democrats not only KNOW the poor can get IDs, they INSIST they do so on every other topic. Only here, where Democrats know they would lose 5% of their votes in the national election simply because of fraud prevention, do they claim the poor can't get an ID.

Democrats are hypocrites to the bone.

(Unrelated to this thread, please read my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Practice...
...makes perfect. This election is in the bag for the Left. More dead people will have their votes counted than ever before. More polling places will be under the complete control of the Left than ever before. More hanging chad scenarios, more cast aside U.S. Military votes, more pre-emptive cries of 'Disenfranchisement', more attempts to get judges to step in, more destruction of property, more stifling of speech via shouting down and shutting down speakers, more voting machines made by companies owned by Hugo Chavez, more and more and more than ever before. They've been practicing these and oh, so many more, deceptions, tactics, tricks, and other-than-legal methods for too many elections now to fail this time. Sad, but true. There will be no oversight that is not geared toward "watching" the Right and the RNC while ignoring the Left and the DNC. As happened in Ohio either in '04 or '00 (cannot remember which, the insanities blend together when they are so frequent and so thick), memos and directives will go out, have most likely already gone out, to voters, instructing them, "Even if you don't see any evidence of disenfranchisement or malfeasance or illegal vote-getting activity, MAKE SOMETHING UP." Because, in this MSM/DNC age, the quantity of Allegations trumps the actuality of prosecutions. Allege to have seen what you have been engaging in, prior and often, is the rule. Anything goes with the Left in this election, and you will see my words borne out, only more than I can even convey. This experiment in Democracy is about over, I think.

I like optimism, but the blind optimism on the part of the Right in these and other forums regarding the makeup of the electorate and their supposed Smartness ("The majority of the American People are smarter than that, you'll see!") is just that...blind optimism. It will not, does not, matter what the majority think or believe or will do.-Taq

PlumbBob
Well put!

The "Problem" with IDs
One of the more coherent, if still ridiculously lame, "problems" the Democrats list for why requiring a photo ID for voting is discriminatory to the poor is that it will require the elderly poor who may not drive or may not have a car to travel to an office to obtain the ID.

As noted above by PlumbBob, Democrats are on record as supporting citizen identification for the purposes of welfare, a program specifically targeted at the poor, which would imply that many of these elderly poor voters already have a government issued ID. In addition, the Democrats created the Social Security system, which requires us to have Social Security numbers, yet another required government issued ID. Given that Social Security provides payments to elderly people, we should be able to assume that those poor elderly voters the Democrats are concerned about already have at least one of these two IDs.

In the interest of securing both Social Security and Medicare from fraud, and additionally strengthening our election process against the voter fraud and election rigging that Democrats have routinely accused Republicans of since 2000, would anyone really oppose the creation of a program where vehicles similar to the ones used by the Libraries on Wheels programs tour the country and produce government issued photo IDs for anyone who cannot or will not travel to a photo id center. The equipment necessary to produce the IDs themselves would fit into the back of a small truck. Given all we spend not defending our national borders, how much would we be willing to spend on such a program to defend our basic democratic responsibility as citizens? I'd think $50 Million a year would be more than enough, and money well spent. And when was the last time the Democrats opposed spending more money on services to the poor?

So why can't we do this?

re: WestTexan
On whose authority would the federal government tell a state when it could hold a primary, or tell a political party when it could hold a convention? I see nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government that power.

Also, the shorter campaign would make it more likely for us to end up with a candidate with something off-kilter in his or her past. More time to vet the candidates might be annoying, but more information is generally better.

Confused about the fuss . . .
Just a limited response to a protion of the article:

I have lived and voted in Louisiana for over forty years--you know, New Orleans, that courrupt, laughable political system everyone derides--and as long as I can remember I must show a picture ID before I pull a lever! My population is predominantly black with a lot of the region in the lower middle class to below. And most of my precinct captains and workers have always been black and I have never witnessed anyone grumbling about having to show an ID: old people, young people, black, white, Asian, etc. I don't understand other regions who think this is some kind of denial of human rights! Do they prefer voting dead people, multiple voters, unregistered people, etc.? Must if they object to qualifying a voter lest he void out my legitimate vote. It's such a transparent argument. If you can't have your picture taken, can you be trusted to cast a vote for a candidate that will assume control of some part of our lives? It's inconvenient enough for me to have to put up with some of the fools we have in office today, so quit whining about the inconvenience you may feel having to identify yourself as a legitimate citizen of this country. What ARE you hiding?

Taqiyyotomist et al.
"As happened in Ohio either in '04 or '00 (cannot remember which, the insanities blend together when they are so frequent and so thick)"

And you guys think you can hold an intelligent debate???

I think they ought to have one test. "Are you now or have you ever watched more than 5 minutes of Fox news?" If the answer is yes, you're disqualified from voting.

... Because, exactly, the above, is the obvious result.


''An election is nothing more...''
--
"...than the advanced auction of stolen goods." (Ambrose Bierce)

Never more true than today, when the really significant "contributions" made to the various professional politicians are looked upon by businesses and other major faction fighters as investments, not civic duty.

They're buying "access," aren't they?

They intend to gain a benefit in some way from that "access," don't they?

Despite the possibility that said benefit is likely to be as intangible as, say, the quid gotten for the pro in a transaction between a "john" and the streetwalker he selects for the evening...

Well, let's not get carried away. The courtesan, after all, gets paid to screw the public retail.

The politician does it on a far grander scale.

The problem with our elections isn't how these smarming sons-of-many-fathers gain positions of public trust but rather what they do once they get in there.

We don't need supervision of the election processes, but chopping the hell out of the powers of government.

Limit the economic impact of government upon the society in which we live, and government officers won't be *WORTH* buying.

Want real election reform?

Vote Ron Paul in '08.

--

Truer words...
"Limit the economic impact of government upon the society in which we live, and government officers won't be *WORTH* buying."

SJ Doc, you just encapsulated the whole thing with that great statement. I hope you don't mind that I'm going to be plagiarizing that statement.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.