WhackyNation

Here’s the story according to David Seago.

1. His wife who wasn’t proud of America until Barack ran for president.
2. His Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
3. His friend, Weather Underground member and bomber Bill Ayers.
4. Most Democrat Senators, Representatives and Governors.
5. Most Democrats.

Do you see a pattern here?  Why is the Democrat Party the party of anger, hate and the surrender flag?  What has happened to it since the days of Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson?  Can’t today’s Democrats get beyond the sixties?

We’re heading into another McGovernesque landslide this fall as Senators Obama and Clinton reveal their true selves and what the Democrat party stands for.

In all my years of covering elections, I have never seen more reckless charges, more unsubstantiated accusations, and more hatred and bitterness than I’ve heard, seen, and read in the current campaign. Even the rules of common decency have been disregarded in the present mania for getting elected.

More than ever, I believe a proposal I made many years ago and repeated several times since should be considered before the campaigns explode into fist fights and worse and many innocent people are severely injured. My proposal consists of at least two main parts, both of which would be necessary to restore good will and decent debate in all elections, whether at the local or national levels.

The first part would be to limit all public offices to a maximum of six years’ duration, no matter how important those offices may be. At the same time, no person serving a six-year term would be permitted to run for re-election to that office. America is blessed with a large supply of competent persons; no one should be deemed indispensable in any office.

In addition, the electorate should be able, upon presentation of a sufficient number of legitimate names on petitions, to remove any public office holder from any office at any time without having to prove cause for misbehavior or wrongdoing.  In other words, the people who elected a person to an office should also have the right and privilege to “dis-elect” him or her without cause.

Serving in an elective office should be a privilege for a single term and no one should be permitted to make a career of public office. My experience as a journalist and in serving both in federal and state positions proved to me that most misbehaviors and even criminal actions have been committed by persons serving for extra-long periods in public office. Six-year term limits would help prevent those indiscretions.

The other part of my proposal is to amend federal, state, and local laws to extend libel and slander laws to all election campaigns. Any candidate committing a lie or a false charge against another candidate — which would be provable in a court of law — would have to resign from a position he or she might win or face a sizable fine if he or she lost.

Without question, such drastic but much needed changes in our election system at every level would help clean up all campaigns and, most important of all, guarantee that the best and most honest candidates would advance to public office for a single, six-year term only! You bet!

Whenever I have made this proposal in print, on radio, and on television, the reaction consisted of equal portions of high praise and loud invective. The two reactions were to be expected. What I have suggested would be quite difficult to translate into workable law, but it would certainly be worth the effort.

One of the reasons it would be difficult is that men and women already in power in Congress, in our legislatures, and in our city and county councils would certainly be roadblocks. Too many of them have made careers of elective office and they could be expected to fight tooth and nail to prevent term limits and the application of slander and libel laws to campaigns.

It’s all the more reason the American people should demand a constitutional provision for a national initiative so their collective voice can be heard.

Since a vote in Washington State’s Democrat Presidential primary means absolutely nothing in the selection of delegates, a liberal blogger is urging erstwhile Democrats to make a false oath and vote in the Republican primary in order to subvert it.

In fact, there is nothing in the RCW or the WAC that prevents you from participating in a Democratic caucus and a Republican primary. It’s true that you would be lying to both Parties in doing so, but lying to both the Democrats and Republicans seems like the perfect rite of passage for becoming a Republican.

What’s the plan?  They want to vote for Mike Huckabee.

It goes to show you that the liberals do not respect a fair and honest election system and will do anything to subvert or steal an election in this state.

Keep the faith, and let’s re-elect Dino Rossi in the fall.

You’ve heard the lament before. And you will hear it again. Many political observers keep saying that primary elections across the land are not very exciting and don’t charm voters into showing up at the polls. Maybe the failure of those very same observers to provide responsible election data is partly to blame.

However, as a lifelong news-media worker and a close observer of politics and elections myself, I want to know why the so-called experts who write or talk about politics insist that candidates and the ballot issues must be “exciting” to get out the vote — and, more important, to get the best results in the voting tallies.

Where does it say in our federal and state constitutions that elections are another form of show biz or a ball game that goes to the last inning? Elections in this land of freedom and liberty are serious business. They are not entertainment or another Arnold Schwarzenegger space adventure.

Failing to vote because the “elections aren’t exciting” is nothing more than a shameful copout that causes us all kinds of trouble in the long run. It should always be remembered by every citizen with a right to vote that, as George Jean Nathan put it, “bad politicians are elected by good citizens who don’t vote” — or, I hasten to add, by good citizens who don’t bother to find out who the best candidates are or determine the facts about critical issues on the ballot.

Voting is a very small price to pay to guarantee liberty and protect all other freedoms in our democratic republic. You want real excitement on Election Day? Then how about the excitement that would accrue for each of us if we were to be denied the right to vote in the first place?

That’s what revolutions are made of, and, of course, they could be described as being “exciting” — deadly exciting. But we don’t need a new revolution, not yet anyway. We already have the right to vote for whomever we choose, a right that was won for our side through a revolution more than 240 years ago.

So, all you couch potatoes who don’t plan to vote the next time a primary comes around, turn off the TV set or the radio for a half hour or so and exercise the greatest privilege you and other free people have in this world — the right to vote. Oh, and by the way, would you mind doing a little homework the next time out and study the backgrounds of all the candidates and the issues on the ballot?

While I’m at it, I want to repeat a suggestion I have made many times in print, on TV and radio broadcasts, and in speeches I have delivered on the lecture circuit. As an added inducement to voters to show up on primary and final election days, I have proposed a “reward,” if you will, for being a good citizen.

The reward might consist of, say, a tax deduction that could be awarded in several ways. For instance, if you’re a home owner, a small deduction in your property tax could be allowed each time you take the time and effort to show up at the voting booth and exercise your rights as a citizen.

Or, if you aren’t a home owner or property owner, that small reward could be granted through a government-approved coupon given to the voter — a coupon that could be redeemed anywhere. That may not be exciting, but it would be “rewarding.”

The conservatives in the Republican Party are pulling their hair out over the prospects of John McCain winning their nomination for president.

There’s one person who could possibly keep the nomination from going to McCain: Mike Huckabee.  But he has only one day to act.

If he dropped out of the race tomorrow morning and through his support to Mitt Romney, the conservatives could unite behind Romney and defeat McCain.

Huckabee has to know this.  He also has to know (as John Edwards and Rudy Guliani recently realized) that he has no hope of winning the nomination.  Huckabee is still in the race because a) he has a calling from God, or b) his ego is enjoying the ride.

The question tonight is whether the Christian Conservatives, who talk the Reagan Gospel, can admit defeat and unite behind a Mormon candidate.

If they can’t, then they’re going to have to swallow hard and vote for McCain in November else they get stuck with Billary or ‘Bama.

Coming to Jesus is Monday.

Huckabee could make a big name for himself by bowing out.

Editors of Costco’s monthly magazine, Costco Connection, asked me and others to write a comment for its February issue on whether our system of nominating a President should be left as is or should be done in a single national primary in which all citizens could vote. Here’s the comment I wrote and which appears in this month’s magazine:

“In a little more than two centuries, our system of electing a President has progressed from the sublime to the ridiculous. With all the states scrambling for national attention with their own brand of caucuses, conventions, or other methods of nominating candidates, they have muddied up a process that was once honorable and simple.

“If we could somehow cast aside the politicos and let the general public take charge, we could return to the Age of the Sublime. And we could do it with a relatively simple process, which is this: Suspend all present primary methods and schedule a single, NATIONAL presidential primary on the same date in all 50 states!

“Is the public ready for a national primary? Most certainly. Poll after poll, including those conducted by CBS and the New York Times in recent years, have indicated that at least 70 to 72 percent of the people are not only ready for it but are actually demanding it!

“We must ask why so simple a solution is not even being considered by party officials in any of the states. The answer, also simple, is that the major parties in the states want their own presidential primaries because they treat them as some sort of “world series of politics,” a selfish game that gives them imagined political power and attention.

“The present scrambled system of 50 disparate caucuses or primary elections to select candidates for the highest office in the land makes the election of a single leader an almost laughable way to make that choice. Furthermore, the scramble to be first in the presidential derby extends the campaign’s length beyond reason.

“Since the final election is held on a single day in November every four years, why in the world can’t the presidential primary also be scheduled on a single day close to the final election, say in August? Think of the saving that would be in campaign expenses and the amassing of huge political treasure chests. And, perhaps most important of all, consider that it would bring an end to the public’s weariness over months and years of political ads, speeches, and political blarney.”

I’m anxious to know how many readers of the Costco magazine agree with me or with those who believe the system should stay as is, with each state deciding when it should schedule a primary.

Americans in general and Republicans in particular had better gird themselves to fight off a Democratic Party assault on one of the most important principles our forefathers built into the United States Constitution — that is, the concept that the final election of Presidents should be determined by the Electoral College.

Maryland Democrats have already approved a compact that would eliminate the power of the Electoral College and deliver its 15 votes to the presidential candidate winning the popular-vote count in Maryland. Now New Jersey is also considering the same action, prompted again by the state’s Democrats.

The Associated Press has reported that the Republican governors of California and Hawaii have vetoed similar legislation. Legislatures in a few other states, also motivated by the Democratic Party, are also considering the compact. The A.P. said “the compact could take effect only if enough states — those with a majority of votes in the Electoral College — agreed to it. A candidate needs 270 of 538 electoral votes to win.”

The campaign to abandon the Electoral College concept is led by the National Popular Vote movement, which is the brainchild of the Democratic Party. It has gained momentum directly as a result of the 2000 national election, in which Al Gore drew a majority of the popular vote nationally but lost in the Electoral College, a decision that was bolstered by the Supreme Court of the United States.

In order for the people and Republicans to recognize the need for action to oppose and discard the aim of the Democrats, they should review the reason the forefathers created the idea of an Electoral College for presidential elections. They realized that a few states with a large share of the population could control presidential elections by their numbers, thus shutting out the influence of the smaller states.

It’s quite clear that the intention of the Democrats is to control all presidential elections, since most of the large cities of America are predominantly Democratic, while the much larger number of cities are Republican or independent. The Electoral College has leveled the playing field politically and given the smaller states an equal voice in elections.

It’s also clear that the Democrats will soon be trying to control gubernatorial and other elections within the states. Along with other observers, I have tried to promote the idea that each state should borrow the national Electoral College plan and invest the state with a similar electoral system.

Washington State provided a perfect example of the reason it should adopt a state Electoral College. In 2004, Senator Dino Rossi won the governorship, won again in a recount, but lost when Democrats in the state’s largest county, King, manipulated a hand recount that declared the Democrat, Christine Gregoire, had won by 129 votes.

If Washington had had an electoral system, Rossi would have won by a large vote, because most of the rest of the state voted Republican. We must not permit the Democrats to solidify their political control forever by permitting them to banish the Electoral College.

Former KIRO-TV Anchorwoman Susan Hutchison’s name has surfaced more than once in backroom conversations about recruiting candidates to statewide office.

Currently her name is being discussed as a possible candidate for Lt. Governor and/or Insurance Commissioner.  To this observer, she’d make a dynamite candidate for Lt. Governor with Dino Rossi running for Governor.

For years the former journalist has shown an interest in running for political office.  Unfortunately for the Laurelhurst resident, she lives in the seventh Congressional District (otherwise known as the Socialist State of Seattle) so the House is out.  Hutchison was wooed to run for US Senate a few years back, but bowed to Mike McGavick.  Currently Hutchison is the Executive Director of the Charles Simonyi Fund and is President of the Board of the Seattle Symphony.

Now her name is being mention for one of the statewide offices.  Perhaps the statewide office could be a stepping stone to the US Senate.

Personally, I have known Susan for 25 years.  I have a lot of respect for her.  She is a person of character.  She could handle any statewide office.  She could also do a better job than either Patti Murray or Maria Cantwell.  Keep an eye on Susan.

Sometimes events that are described as progress are anything but that. Take, for instance, the national scramble now going on to find a fraudulent-free system of public voting. Several states have already discovered that highly touted electronic or computer-driven voting systems have failed exhaustive tests, despite heavy expenses to find a modern system that works.

As a result, many of those states have already decided to return to the old-fashioned but once very effective paper-ballot system — a system I still favor. The Associated Press recently reported that election officials in at least two states have found, after detailed tests, that a new electronic voting system was “unfit for elections.”

Other states have reported a similar finding. Among the problems found are the use of magnetic or similar handheld devices that can easily corrupt the voting process and jam an entire voting report from a precinct to the headquarters counting apparatus, presumably in a downtown office.

The A.P. reported that in Colorado, “two kinds of Sequoia Voting Systems electronic voting machines used in Denver and three other counties were decertified because of security weaknesses, including a lack of password protection. Equipment made by Election Systems and Software had programming errors. And optional scanning machines, made by Hart InterCivic, had an error rate of one out of every 100 votes during tests by the state.”

With an extremely critical election coming up in November of 2008, the situation promises to become one of the most sharply contested voting battles in history. All 50 states are going to have to examine their present voting systems to make certain that costly recounts and charges of fraud will not mar the November results.

Frankly, I believe all states should seriously consider forgetting about the electronic/computer age and return to the paper-ballot election days of the past — days which saw little or no evidence of the corruption and fraud that has attended recent national and state elections.

With both major parties looking on at all voting booths and at election headquarters in all the cities and towns, the chance for an honestly conducted and counted election is far better than it would be with the menagerie of electronic and computer devices that have been introduced in recent years.

Some critics might say that the old-fashioned paper-ballot system was more costly because of the need for more help at each voting booth. Really? I think they’re dead wrong. The expenses of the newly developed electronic and computer devices are far greater than those of the old system.

And now that it has been proved that the old system is virtually fraud-free, I think the right decision will be to return to paper voting — and people-watching, instead of electronic and computer devices that can easily be manipulated.

A current article by Wright Talley in Human Events Online is so important on the issue of honest elections in America that it should be read by everyone in the U.S. — and it should jump-start a national campaign in every state of the Union to take action to make all elections honest and free of fraud.

With painstaking research and a mountain of statistics and evidence, Talley’s report indicates very clearly that fraudulent elections have taken place in virtually every one of the 50 states and that — this is the most distressing element — the Democrats are the culprits in all but one or two of the cases in which fraud has been proved.

Talley included one special case we already know about too well in Washington State — the 2004 election, in which Senator Dino Rossi won the final count, as well as a recount, only to have the election totals reversed by a third recount, done by hand, in heavily Democratic King County, the most populous county in the state.

When the Rossi forces took the case to court because it rightfully charged something was amiss in King County, a judge refused to approve the request for a new total recount or a new election. Rossi’s opponent, Christine Gregoire, Democrat, won the hand recount by a mere 129 votes.

If only the judge had had the wisdom to wait a few weeks, he would have had to consider the result of an investigation of the vote count in King County which revealed that close to 2,000 votes — and probably many more — had been cast illegally, many of them by felons who did not have the right to vote.

Talley detailed similar skullduggery in many other states, most notably in New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, and California. The indications are, from Talley’s investigation, that no states have escaped the stigma of voter fraud.

A few states have already taken action to halt the fraud with laws that require a photo identification by every voter before permitting him or her to vote. It’s a common-sense idea that has won Talley’s endorsement — and mine, as well. But — hold it! — the Democrats are at it again!

The frauds can be t r aced back to 1993, when the Democratic Congress passed the ill-advised National Voter Registration Act, which created numerous loopholes, as Talley put it, “that have permitted thousands of dead voters and former residents who have long ago moved to remain on the voter roles.”

Early next year, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to pass judgment concerning a case that will approve photo-ID laws or ban them. To clean up the election mess, it is imperative that the American people rally behind the need for such laws — or be hounded by fraudulent elections everywhere thereafter.

And, you guessed it, the Democrats in Congress want no part of the photo-ID idea and want the court to declare them to be invalid.

California Republicans are attempting to adopt an idea that is somewhat similar to one I have been proposing for some time — but it is not quite as far-reaching and politically compelling as my proposal. However, it does indicate the tenor of the times and the growing resistance by the states to the power and Big Brother dangers of Big Government at the national level.

For the time being, the California G.O.P.’s effort to promote a change in its Electoral College votes has been delayed because it didn’t have time to get quite enough signatures on petitions for a vote in June, 2008, so it will have to advance its target for next November and the elections of 2008.

At present, the Californians are striving to offset the Democrats’ political strength in the two or three extra-large counties dominated by the Demos. The counties in which the Republicans are strongest or in which the political sentiments are equally divided are overwhelmed by the few big ones in the presidential race.

The struggle is extremely important because California, the most heavily populated state in the nation, has the largest number of electoral votes in presidential elections. The Associated Press reports the Republicans want to change the process so that “two votes would be given to the statewide winner, with the rest allocated to the winner of each congressional district.”

It’s estimated that the Republicans’ proposal would “carve out at least 20 electoral votes for the G.O.P. nominee in Republican-leaning districts.” However, no one can predict whether the measure, if it passes next November, would apply to the presidential election to be held the same day.

I wish the California Republicans had gone quite a bit further with their planning and followed my proposal. Mine would have every state in the Union approving an electoral plan of its own. My idea is to have the electoral system apply to all statewide elections for governor and all other state races, not just the presidency.

It’s no surprise that opposition to the Electoral College system is provided primarily by the Democrats. They want to junk the Electoral College and base presidential elections solely on the popular vote. In doing so, they have directly opposed the wisdom of our forefathers, who wanted to prevent the few heavily populated states from controlling elections and the nation.

The same problem exists in states like California. A few heavily populated counties, controlled by Democratic Liberals, overwhelm the rest of the counties at the polls. We saw it happen once again in Washington State in the 2004 elections, in which Republican Dino Rossi won in most counties but lost because of the heavy Democratic vote in the largest county, King.

If it can be acknowledged that the wise men who crafted our U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were smart enough to create the Electoral College system, then their wisdom should certainly be carried over to all the states.

For better or for worse, Washington State taxpayers certainly displayed their anger against the free spenders in Tuesday’s election. And they did it in all but one or two measures on the ballot. It makes me wonder if the state’s elected politicos, including free-spending Governor Christine Gregoire, will ever get the message.

Despite the need for improved conditions in the state and particularly in the heavily populated Western region, the voters soundly rejected the road-and-transit measure that would have cost them $18 billion dollars (at least) in tax money. From the beginning, the measure was called far too costly, but its backers refused to chop it to a reasonable amount.

However, the most surprising result came with the voters’ rejection by a wide margin of the measure that would have permitted passage of school bonds by a bare majority, instead of the 60 percent required for bond measures in the state constitution. Before the election, it was the measure given the best chance of winning by a large percentage of the vote.

One could say the voters exercised their spleen in supporting Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960, which will now require a two-thirds vote in Legislature to pass measures that increase taxes. Chalk up another important victory for Eyman in his crusade against continuing tax increases. Why doesn’t the man run for governor?

One measure that apparently slipped through the angry gaze of taxpayers was another measure championed by Governor Gregoire. It was the measure establishing a “rainy day fund,” which will permit the Legislature to set aside 1 percent of tax income for what backers called “emergency uses.”

Emergency uses boloney! It will be a free money reservoir for all the pork legislators will finance for personal or political gain. Legislators already have the right to fund needed operations and measures in the state. Giving them a “rainy day fund” is a needless measure and one that will invite them to think up a variety of pork under the guise of “emergencies.”

Concerning the failure of the roads-and-transit defeat, one cannot forget the opportunities the state muffed to improve both the roadways and the transit system at a cost that would have been far less back then than the newly defeated $18 billion plan that was trounced on Tuesday.

Foremost among those earlier losses was the best of them all, Jim Ellis’ Forward Thrust plan of the late 1950s. Most segments of the plan passed, but the transit bonds that were the most important phase of Ellis’ proposal were defeated by the slimmest of margins. They received a 58 percent vote, but needed at least 60 percent to pass.

Maybe Tuesday’s message from the taxpayers will succeed in coaxing politicos to cut out the pork, reduce taxes, stop excessive spending, and put together a roads-and-transit program the citizens of Washington State — and particularly those in King and Pierce Counties — will approve.

Is that hoping for too much? I’ve always been an incorrigible dreamer.

What a great morning!  Have you read the election results?  Every liberal measure except the insurance initiative got trounced!

The voters are saying, “We have had enough!  Get out of our wallets!   Screw you liberals who want to wantonly spend our money that we need for our families!”

And in Olympia, Christine Gregoire has to being having a panic attack.  She can’t undo increasing the state budget by nearly a third.  Frank Chopp has be concerned, too.  The only thing saving him is the fact that the Republicans have the most inept minority leader in a generation and the Republican caucus doesn’t have the balls to do anything about it.

And I have to chuckle to myself that every liberal blogger in the state is knocked down a peg or two.  Their crystal balls aren’t so clear.

Oh, what a great morning!

An Associated Press study recently of the votes on six major issues in the U.S. House of Representatives yielded the information that members of the House were often influenced in their voting by the cash contributions made to them by those who had a special interest in the legislation involved. To which I must respond, “No kiddin’?!”

I think the AP could have saved its time and energy. But, then, maybe the study was needed to open the eyes of those who earnestly believe that most members of Congress cannot be bought. They are, to be sure, terribly naïve. The issues the AP surveyed dealt with laws covering medical malpractice, class-action lawsuits, the overhauling of bankruptcy laws, energy legislation, gun manufacturer lawsuits, and overtime pay.

In all but one or two cases, the AP found that members of Congress voted for the legislation favored by their contributors. Most revealing was the fact that, where contributions came from both sides of the issue, the side donating the largest amount was the side the legislators voted for. Now, that should tell a story in itself.

It’s no secret that money talks in politics and can influence crucial votes in Congress — or in any other state and local government body. Why we go on nurturing this “payoff” political system is something I’ve never understood. For many years, as a print columnist and editor, a TV and radio commentator, and a speaker on the national circuit, I have stated unequivocally that America must some day eliminate all contributions to political candidates and rely on a fair, untainted method of permitting candidates to make their appeals to the public in campaigns.

I believe a constitutional amendment is needed to ban donations of any size to persons who run for public office.

Then, you ask, how are candidates supposed to reach the voters with their proposed programs? My answer is, and has always been, to utilize the existing means in our federal and state constitutions. For example, the First Amendment of the federal Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, among other freedoms. Since the print and broadcast press is guaranteed its freedom in the most important law of the land, why shouldn’t it also make its columns and its broadcast time available equally to all candidates?

The key word there is equally, of course.

As a longtime veteran of both print and broadcast media, I know that providing equal space and time to various candidates would be a relatively simple thing — despite the squawks that are likely to be heard from newspaper and TV-radio executives.

With that provision made good for all candidates, the office-seekers would have no need of contributions from special-interest individuals and groups. I think the idea is certainly worth a trial.  What can we lose — except “payoff” votes?

This site might help.