Thursday, December 29, 2011
Can Romney Win the South? and Other Questions As the Republican Primary Race Prepares to Go Southern
In heaping scorn on Mitt Romney’s presidential prospects, George F. Will points to Romney’s poor record at winning votes. He points out that Romney has won 5 out of 22 elections in which he has run, making a batting average of .227.
Will could have gone further. He doesn’t mention that Romney has never won a primary in the South where the Republican party is at its strongest, and where the country as a whole is moving. Thanks to shifting demographics, the South recently picked up 7 new electoral delegates. That is good news for Republican candidates come the general election, but first they must survive the South’s primary contests.
As it appears that there will be no definitive winner in either Iowa or New Hampshire, it is in the South where the contest will be decided. Historically, South Carolina has been the tie-breaker. In 1980, South Carolina picked Reagan over George H.W. Bush. In 2008, it picked McCain over Huckabee.
Neither McCain nor Huckabee are running this time around, which gives Mitt Romney an opening. But Romney didn’t even bother campaigning there in 2008, preferring the Nevada caucuses instead, so it remains to be seen how successful he will be in the “first in the South” primary.
 |
| South Carolina's Gov. Nikki Haley supports Mitt Romney (Photo: wtlx.com) |
But now Romney is giving it a try. To be viable in South Carolina, Romney needs endorsements to knock Newt Gingrich down from the lead he enjoys in the polls. In comes Tea Party-backed Governor Nikki Haley to the rescue, who is stumping for Romney all over the Palmetto state. It remains to be seen how influential her endorsement really is. Haley’s support among South Carolinians has imploded since she was elected.
Only 35% of voters approve of the job she is doing, according to a recent poll, and Romney has received under thirty percent of Republican support in every poll taken in South Carolina.
Haley’s fellow South Carolina Republicans haven’t endorsed. Senator Jim DeMint, who endorsed Romney in 2008, has remained deliberately neutral in 2012. He quickly dispelled rumors that he was endorsing Romney when they surfaced. Other South Carolina pols–notably the Republican house delegation–have been silent on who they would endorse.
Of course South Carolina can’t break a tie if we don’t know who wins Iowa or New Hampshire, and that outcome remains very much in doubt.
If Michele Bachmann or, less likely, Rick Santorum (or both) drop out after the Iowa caucuses, look to Rick Perry–the only evangelical-friendly candidate with any money– to make a play for their supporters.
Evangelicals are his people and he’ll look to turn them out. Perry recently noted a “transformation” in his pro-life views. He now favors ending abortion in the cases of rape and incest. That might do him harm in a general election, but to pro-lifers it is music to their ears, albeit played perhaps at little too conveniently a time.
Look to the other Southern governors coming to Rick Perry’s aid. Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, a rising star of the party, endorsed Perry and has been doing robo-calls for him in South Carolina.
Of course South Carolina may not matter all the much this time around, thanks to the hefty prize of Florida. Florida’s delegate count has been halved after the RNC punished it for moving its primary up on the calendar. There are now only 50 delegates up for grabs. South Carolina, which was also punished for moving its date up, has only 25. Will Florida overshadow South Carolina and rob it of its traditional importance?
Perhaps, but only if you consider Florida a southern state. The way to think of Florida is that it is divided ideologically and sociologically, north and south. The south is the sixth borough of New York, which is why Rudy Giuliani effectively ran for its mayorship. The north is the more conservative, more evangelical part of the state.
That presents a problem for Mitt Romney. Evangelicals and conservatives have had a hard time warming to the former moderate Massachusetts Republican governor, but Romney is helped in one significant way: Florida’s winner-take-all primary. If the other candidates split the evangelical or the conservative vote, Romney could walk away with all 50 of the states delegates and his competitors would get nothing. Romney knows that all too well having been narrowly defeated by John McCain in Florida in 2008–and McCain took all the delegates despite failing to win a majority.
The effect of a winner-take-all system is to lock up the nomination quickly, as a piece in NPR points out yesterday.
Despite the risks of an Obama-Clinton-style political trench war, it may be better for to have the primary race last longer, in order to allow candidates to receive as much earned media attention as possible. However, ours is a federal republic in which the state parties set the rules of their nominating process. That is as it should be. You want an active and energetic local party setting its own rules.
NPR does point out that that feature of our system complicates the process. If the delegate count gets close at the convention in Tampa, the candidates will have an incentive to reevaluate Florida’s winner-take-all system, and change the rules once more. That will most definitely send the primary into the courts–but, of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that a Florida election was decided there.
Big Government
Democrats Waging War Against Laws that ‘Target’ Illegal Immigrants
by David Wohl Sobriety checkpoints have become big business for California law enforcement agencies over the last decade. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration paid for 2,553 checkpoints last year, resulting in hundreds of arrests for driving under the influence. Authorities say the checkpoints explain why deaths caused by drunken drivers have dropped to an all-time low in the golden state.
Since 1995 the checkpoints have also resulted in the seizures and impoundment of thousands of vehicles driven by sober motorists who just happened to have no drivers license. The 30 day impounds cost unlicensed drivers well over $1,000 on average. Large numbers of the non-DUI impounds have involved cars driven by illegal immigrants.
Enter California Democrat Assemblyman Gil Cedillo. The lawmaker, who is a member in good standing of the National Council on La Raza, has tried unsuccessfully nine different times since 1998 to get bills passed in the California State Legislature that would allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses. “One Bill Gil”, as he is referred to by some because of his repeated efforts legalize illegal drivers, has now managed to get through the back door what he could not get through the front door.
Starting January 1st a new law, authored by Cedillo, will prohibit cops from impounding the cars of drivers who have no license as long as another licensed driver can drive it away. Presumably the unlicensed driver will shortly thereafter resume driving their car, illegally.
This problem, in large part, was the basis for the current law. The new law does not mean that unlicensed driving is now permissible in California. It just means that the consequences of driving without a license, starting in 2012, are virtually non-existent. The law of course never targeted Hispanic drivers nor did it target illegal immigrant drivers. It targeted unlicensed drivers.
The new law has one unlikely and surprising supporter. LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told the LA Times “It’s a fairness issue. There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.” Is there really, Chief? The argument can certainly be made that someone who took the driver’s exam and was issued a license prior to their license being revoked, is a more competent driver than someone who’s never done so.
Two nationwide studies by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded that 13 to 14 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes did not have a valid license at the time. Another study from the 1990’s conducted by the California DMV noted that unlicensed drivers were five times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than licensed ones. The studies did not consider the reason for the drivers being unlicensed. Nor should Chief Beck.
Gil Cedillo is not alone is his crusade to defend the rights of illegal immigrants. On the national level, the Obama administration, via embattled Attorney General Eric Holder has brought suit against Utah, Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina. All four states have taken action to deal with what officials say is an uncontrolled flood of illegal aliens, many of them criminals, into their states.
Holder claims that allowing each state to create a distinct and independent set of immigration laws will lead to an unwieldy “patchwork” of immigration statutes. This despite the reality that the in substance the various state laws would be largely similar. The state officials, and those who support the law apparently feel that dealing with a patchwork of state immigration laws is preferable to dealing with federal immigration laws that are simply not being enforced—or at best are being enforced selectively.
It’s certainly understandable if state and local officials in Utah, Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina are skeptical. The federal government has insisted “trust us, we have your best interests at heart” all while those same federal officials are, at tremendous taxpayer expense, suing them in Federal Court.
It’s election season. The Hispanic vote is highly sought after by both Democrat and GOP candidates. Any thought that politics have not played a huge role in the way immigration laws are enforced and changed is naive. For too many Democrat lawmakers, the line between preserving civil liberties and defending their “meal ticket”, AKA the Hispanic vote, has become blurred.
There’s a strange irony when lawmakers and activists complain about laws that target lawbreakers. When a nation founded on the rule of law becomes a nation whose laws, especially immigration and criminal laws, are dictated by political agendas, we’re all in trouble.
Big Government
Left-Leaning Girl Scouts Promotes Soros, SEIU Funded Media Matters For America *UPDATED
Posted by Dana Loesch Dec 28th 2011 at 4:10 pm in Featured Story, MMfA Propaganda Watch, Media Matters Think twice before buying Girl Scout cookies next year. Fox and Friends discussed how the Girl Scouts of America is now promoting Media Matters, in addition to its affiliation with Planned Parenthood (more).
Get ‘em while they’re young, I guess? The Girl Scouts believe that an organization which took money from SEIU right about the time it began attacking black conservatives in the wake of the Gladney beating, a website which refuses to correct its errors and has been called a “core institution” of the Democrat party due to its hostile stance against Israel-supporters, this site “gets the word out about media misinformation?” A website which runs interference to blatantly protect Democrats? A website which makes false claims (and then plays “ignore” when proof of such claims is requested) against journalists? A website that attacked critics of a government program that used public funds to arm Mexican drug cartels so they could shoot Mexicans and Americans? The same Media Matters which worked with the DOJ to cover up the voter intimidation scandal?
By promoting Media Matters for America as a credible website, the Girl Scouts are endorsing the site’s unethical practices and stances.
The ongoing moral decline of the Girl Scouts has caused an exodus within its ranks and a decline in its formerly popular cookie sales. The absence of such a group has sparked the creation of others to take its place, most notable among them: the American Heritage Girls and the Frontier Girls.
Next year, when the green sashes come by your home and ask you to buy cookies to help support their organization, know why your answer will be “no, thanks.”
*UPDATE: Girl Scouts says it will stop linking to Media Matters:
In a statement to The Daily Caller, Girl Scouts of the USA confirmed on Wednesday that its literature will no longer refer scouts to Media Matters For America as a source of information to balance bias in news reporting.
“Girl Scouts constantly reviews our materials based on feedback and suggestions we receive from our members and we update our materials on a regular basis,” said the statement. “As a result of this process, upcoming reprints of journeys materials will not include links to Media Matters.”That’s great, except the mindset that caused the organization to affiliate itself with such a left-leaning group to begin with still, unfortunately, remains.
Big Journalism
Washington Post Misunderstands Chart, Plays Class Warfare
Posted by Warner Todd Huston Dec 29th 2011 at 4:58 am in Democrats/progressives, Editorialism, Featured Story, Mainstream Media, News, Obama, Old media, Politics, Print Journalism, Washington Post, conservatives, elections, elections 2012, media bias, newspapers On Wednesday morning the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake posted an infographic that was a perfect example of how one can use a graphic chart to influence the public in subtle ways, ways that we of the center right better start employing in our own efforts if we want to win over the public.
Blake’s post, “Why People Hate Congress,” fits in well with President Obama’s class warfare rhetoric as employed by his campaign to set different economic classes against each other in a desperate and cynically populist bid to get reelected next year. There is little of substance to Blake’s post other than to fan the flames of the sort of hatred that he wants to see grow in order to aid Obama in 2012.
The Post’s Blake also ended up having to pull the graphic off his The Fix blog post because it simply did not illustrate what he claimed it did in his story — but that is another issue that we’ll deal with at the end of this report.
Blake begins his piece asking, “Want to know why Americans hate Congress?” He then goes on to claim it is in part because our elected representatives in Washington D.C. are members of the eeeevil rich.
The fact that members of Congress are getting richer (and 57 members come from the top 1 percent, according to USA Today) confirms what Americans suspect about the people who are running this country: that they don’t empathize with normal people.Of course, with a dispassionate application of logic, having a few dollars more than the next guy does not ipso facto make the richer guy so out of touch that he cannot empathize with anyone in a lower salary range. Only those filled with hate make this assumption. Empathy has nothing to do with class, money, or politics. It has to do with one’s character.
Further there are plenty of members of Congress with the character to understand and have empathy with others. Then there are some that don’t. People are people, rich or poor.
It is also telling that even Blake admits that Congress has always been filled with “the rich.” The founders were not groveling in poverty, after all. It often takes a person that has achieved a certain place in society to become elected. I mean, should they be elected, how can anyone expect “the poor” or even the lower middle class to afford to fund homes both in D.C. and back in their district? Who can afford to leave their family and business if half the year off more to fly off the D.C. to attend to government business? And with the costs of elections and the Byzantine election laws these days causing many candidates to self fund, it will only be natural that “the rich” end up being our representatives in Congress.
But special attention has to be paid to the graphic Blake used to illustrate his story. And what a masterwork of subtlety it is. Blake claimed that the illustration made by a well-known hate-the-rich researcher from California showed in graphic form the distribution of wealth among both chambers of Congress. The graphic depicts the “top 1%” and the “next 9%” in the color red. Then it uses blue to show the “following 10%” and the “bottom 80%.” Notice what is going on? That’s right, this graphic uses the color red to depict the eeevil rich. And what is the color red in politics these days? None other than the color the Old Media has assigned to the Republican Party.
This graphic is a great illustration of the way the left influences the emotions of the viewer toward their positions. George Scoville puts it perfectly in his post about this graphic.
If you don’t make your living thinking strategically about political communications, this might not have jumped out at you. But this is a very clever and very deceptive messaging tactic. If Democrats… are going to use this type of tactic, then Republicans and pro-liberty advocacy organizations need to take a page from this playbook quickly. We certainly can’t rely on the media to apply the kind of scrutiny that pulls back the curtain for casual political observers.Exactly right. We on the right don’t think of this type of messaging often enough.
Then there is the rest of this story. In truth, the graphic that Blake claimed illustrated the riches of Congress directly, in fact did not. It actually meant to illustrate the wealth distribution of all Americans as a percentage of Congress.
A little later on Wednesday morning, Aaron Blake removed the graphic and issued this mea culpa:
This post initially used a chart that included data that we and others misunderstood. It did not reflect the wealth of Congress, but instead the wealth of the country, described according to numbers of seats in Congress. The Fix regrets the error.Ooops. I guess the facts were “too good to check for the good folks at the Washington Post.”
But wait. Don’t get upset at Mr. Blake too quickly. After all, this graphic stirred the liberal heart. A quick glance makes viewers imagine that it is showing the number of eeevil Republicans compared to the nice, poor Democrats in Congress. In fact, that is precisely the emotion that the graphic is intended to evoke. So, we can fault Mr. Blake for not looking close enough at the graphic to discern its statistical facts, but we cannot fault him for having instantly grasped the subliminal message it was intended to relay. The fact is, the graphic works beautifully.
These are the sort of tactics the left employs, folks. We’d best become hip to them fast.
Big Journalism
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Economist Laffer Endorses Gingrich
Wednesday, 28 Dec 2011
Arthur Laffer, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan, announced today that he is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.
"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field,” said Laffer, the renowned economist who is the father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics.
“Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation. and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade,” Laffer declared. “Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”
Laffer, who will join Gingrich in Storm Lake, Iowa, Thursday for a formal news conference announcing the endorsement, said, "Rebuilding the America we love requires returning to job creation and economic growth. We need big changes to fix the economy, and I am ready to stand up to Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to make the case that letting the American people keep more of what they earn is the best way to create jobs.”
Laffer is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research firm in Nashville, Tenn., focusing on interconnecting macroeconomics, political, and demographic changes affecting global financial markets.
Newsmax
Arthur Laffer, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan, announced today that he is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president.
"Newt has the best plan for jobs and economic growth of any candidate in the field,” said Laffer, the renowned economist who is the father of The Laffer Curve and supply-side economics.
“Like Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and pro-growth policies, Newt’s low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation. and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs over the next decade,” Laffer declared. “Plus, Newt’s record of helping Ronald Reagan pass the Kemp Roth tax cuts and enacting the largest capital gains tax cut in history as speaker of the House shows he can get this plan passed and put it into action.”
Laffer, who will join Gingrich in Storm Lake, Iowa, Thursday for a formal news conference announcing the endorsement, said, "Rebuilding the America we love requires returning to job creation and economic growth. We need big changes to fix the economy, and I am ready to stand up to Barack Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to make the case that letting the American people keep more of what they earn is the best way to create jobs.”
Laffer is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research firm in Nashville, Tenn., focusing on interconnecting macroeconomics, political, and demographic changes affecting global financial markets.
Newsmax
South Carolina and Voter ID: When Politics Drives Law Enforcement
December 27, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Attorney General Eric Holder put a lump of coal in South Carolina’s Christmas stocking on Dec. 23 when he objected to the state’s new voter ID law. By ignoring inconvenient facts and clear legal precedent, Holder showed once again that politics and ideology—not the rule of law—drive his law enforcement decisions.
Given the power of the Justice Department and its potential for abuse, this should worry all Americans, particularly when that abuse has the potential to affect the outcome of next year’s election.
South Carolina passed a voter ID law that is almost identical to those implemented by Georgia and Indiana six years ago. It requires a voter to present a South Carolina driver’s license or other photo ID—a passport, military ID, or a voter registration card with a photo issued by South Carolina election officials. Even if a voter shows up at a polling place without an acceptable ID, he can still vote a provisional ballot that will be counted if he brings an ID to election officials before the results are certified. South Carolina’s law is more lenient than either Georgia’s or Indiana’s. If a voter has a religious objection or a “reasonable impediment” that prevents him from getting a free photo ID, then the voter can simply fill out an affidavit in which he outlines his objection or impediment and swears that he is who he says he is. His provisional ballot will then be automatically counted unless local election officials have evidence that “the affidavit is false.”
This new ID requirement is a common-sense reform that can easily be met by voters regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status. However, South Carolina is one of the few states still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that requires the state to get “preclearance” of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia. Section 5 was originally passed in 1965 as a five-year emergency provision to remedy widespread, systematic discrimination in the South. Yet it has been frequently renewed—most recently in 2006—even though the official discrimination it was intended to stop has long since disappeared except for isolated incidents.
South Carolina made the grievous error of submitting the state’s new voter ID law to the Justice Department for review, rather than going straight to federal court where it would get an impartial hearing. The history of this Justice Department over the past three years, from the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case to the refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, has been one in which raw politics and ideology are driving law enforcement decisions.
Holder’s flawed outlook on voter ID laws, as he outlined it recently in a speech at the LBJ Library in Texas, matches the racial paranoia of the Democratic National Committee and the NAACP, each of which claims erroneously that voter ID laws are an attempt to suppress minority votes comparable to Jim Crow. This is a historically preposterous idea. But there was no way that South Carolina was going to get a fair, objective, and nonpartisan review of its voter ID law from this Justice Department, particularly given the parallel views of the radicals hired into career civil service positions within the Civil Rights Division.
In its objection letter to South Carolina, the Justice Department wrongly claims that voter ID would have a discriminatory impact on “non-white” voters. To get to that conclusion, however, DOJ manipulated the statistics to claim that “minority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by” the law’s requirements. This is not a legitimate claim, given the actual data and the provisions of the law.
South Carolina compared its voter registration list to its DMV records. That data showed that out of 2.7 million registered voters, only 240,000 (active and inactive voters) did not have a DMV-issued photo ID (there was no telling how many of those hold military IDs or passports). When broken down by race, DOJ claimed that of the registered voters, 8.4 percent of whites do not have a photo ID compared to 10 percent of blacks. DOJ’s entire claim of discrimination is based on the statistically insignificant difference between these two numbers, i.e., because there is supposedly a 1.6 percentage point difference, then blacks are being discriminated against. Of course, this also ignores the fact that since blacks are only 28 percent of South Carolina’s population, even if these percentages are correct, then a much larger total number of white voters are without a photo ID.
However, these numbers are flawed. Before DOJ issued its objection letter, the Associated Press reported that according to the South Carolina DMV, at least 207,000 of the 240,000 registered voters without an ID “live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn’t match voter records, or were dead.”
In fact, at least 60,000 of the registered voters on whom DOJ is basing its invalid objection are deceased (!) and shouldn’t be on the voter list at all.
This revised report eliminates 86 percent of the 240,000 registered voters who supposedly don’t have an ID. So only 1.2 percent of registered voters in South Carolina don’t have a DMV-issued photo ID—and that minimal number is supposed to be grounds for DOJ to object to the voter ID law?!
DOJ also placed a burden on South Carolina that doesn’t exist under the applicable Section 5 legal standard. The objection letter claims that the state did not submit “any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud.” However, Section 5 does not require a covered state to justify or outline the public policy reasons for the law. It only requires that a state show that the effect or intent of the law is not discriminatory. Despite Holder’s inflammatory and untrue claims in his speech in Texas about voter ID laws, DOJ made no claim of discriminatory intent against South Carolina, and the facts show no discriminatory effect. DOJ is not entitled to question the public policy rationale of the state legislature; it does not have a veto over the state’s decisions.
South Carolina should challenge the relevance of DOJ’s demands. This unlawful hurdle is a naked effort by Holder to undermine election integrity.
The letter also very carefully does not mention DOJ’S Section 5 approval of Georgia’s voter ID law in 2005 (as well as Arizona’s ID law). DOJ found the Georgia law to be nondiscriminatory, and court decisions and actual election results in Georgia bear that out. The lawsuit filed against Georgia’s voter ID law was eventually dismissed because the court also found that law to be nondiscriminatory. The court specifically noted that after claiming that hundreds of thousands of African-Americans would be unable to vote because of the Georgia law, the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP could not produce a single individual who would be unable to vote. Turnout of black voters in elections in Georgia and Indiana has increased significantly since their laws went into effect—the exact opposite of critics’ predictions.
But DOJ mentions none of this, because its objection in South Carolina violates both its own precedent as well as the findings of federal courts that voter ID requirements are nondiscriminatory and not a burden on voters. The objection letter’s claim that the voter ID law would “effectively” disenfranchise black voters because a tiny percentage of them supposedly don’t already have an ID patently ignores the fact that the same law will provide a free ID to anyone without one. In addition, there has been no evidence produced by DOJ that blacks have less opportunity to obtain an ID or that the state has or will discriminate in issuing free IDs. DOJ’s objection letter also entirely discounts the effects of the exemptions for religious objectors or those few who cannot obtain an ID due to a “reasonable impediment.”
DOJ’s objection is no surprise. Because they have consistently lost in court, radical organizations have been counting on the Civil Rights Division to abuse its authority to stop these voter ID laws. Since almost all of Obama’s political appointees in the division have come from these organizations, there was no question that they would ignore the facts and the law to come out with this unlawful result. As is detailed in a series at Pajamas Media, DOJ has also illegally applied a political litmus test in its hiring of lawyers for civil service positions within the division. Two of the deputy chiefs hired in the Voting Section, which reviewed South Carolina’s law, came from the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and were heavily involved in unsuccessfully fighting voter ID requirements in court. Other career hires came from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU. One co-drafted the NAACP’s losing amicus brief in Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s voter ID law. Holder even tolerates perjury and leaks of confidential legal documents by liberal staffers in the unit that reviews Section 5 submissions.
South Carolina now needs to do what it should have done months ago: It should file suit immediately in federal court to overturn the Justice Department’s unjustified objection. The state of Texas, which made the same mistake of submitting its voter ID law to the biased and professionally challenged Civil Rights Division, also needs to withdraw its submission immediately and go to federal court.
DOJ apparently wants to prevent common-sense election reforms—which are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and would help guarantee the security and integrity of the election process—from being in place for next year’s election. This objection reveals both the character of this Attorney General and the lengths to which he is willing to go to abuse the power and authority of the federal government in order to meet the political demands of the Left.
Posted in Featured, Rule of Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
