What Ohio stands for

I was in the Ohio Statehouse yesterday, when I encountered the following quotation, which to me represents the high political ideals that Ohioans have represented through the ages. We would all do well to remember them as we work to rebuild our state and our society:

Let Ohio speak for human rights, for universal manhood suffrage, for fair and honest elections, for economy and purity in public affairs, for honest money and stable government.

-- George Washington Williams (1849-1891)

Mr. Williams was the first African-American to serve in the Ohio House of Representatives, representing Cincinnati 1880-1881. In his brief life (he died at 41), he was a veteran of the War between the States (having enlisted at 14!), and was a minister, historian, and diplomat. He wrote the first history of African-Americans, and at the end of his life, launched an investigation of the mistreatment of the people of the Congo at the hands of agents of King Leopold II of Belgium. He contracted tuberculosis and pleurisy, and died in England returning from Africa. He is buried in England.

He spoke for human rights, which are enshrined in our Ohio Constitution, adopted in 1851. The Bill of Rights has expanded since then, most recently last year with the adoption of Issue 3, nullifying mandatory health care.

He spoke for universal manhood suffrage, which Ohio, unfortunately, was slow to embrace -- but finally did so with our ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. However, Ohio redeemed itself in 1919 by becoming the sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment, extending suffrage to women.

He spoke for fair and honest elections. For most of Ohio's history, particularly during the service of Secretary of State Ted W. Brown (in office 1950-1978) and his successor Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr (1979-1983), Ohio has had an exemplary elections process. More recently, it has been tainted by scandals involving a Secretary of State (Ken Blackwell) who actively participated in the 2004 Presidential campaign while in office, and with problems involving voting machines made by Diebold.  However, his successors Jennifer Brunner and Jon Husted have gradually restored credibility to the office.

He spoke for economy and purity in public affairs. For most of Ohio's history, the state was run economically. As recently as 1991, Ohio ranked very near the bottom of the 50 states in state tax burden. While the continuing recession has resulted in much higher taxes (to maintain steady revenues), efforts of Gov. Kasich and the Ohio General Assembly are managing the budget without further tax increases. When their efforts bear fruit, Ohio will again be working toward economy in public office. Purity in public affairs, however, is one of those ideals that can never be attained, but must always be striven for.

He spoke for honest money. In our history, Ohio has been a leader for a currency that represents value. In 1819, State Auditor Ralph Osborn attempted to enforce a tax on the Bank of the United States, in part because that bank issued currency without backing. "Sound money" is the issue that propelled Ohio's William McKinley to the Presidency. Today, many in the Ohio freedom movement are pressing for a way to protect Ohioans from a future hyperinflation by facilitating the use of gold and silver in payment of taxes and as a currency.

Finally, he spoke for stable government. To me, stable government should be boring. It consistently, day after day, enforces a small number of easily-understood laws to protect the lives, liberties, and property of Ohioans. All things considered, and particularly in comparison to other industrialized states, Ohio has done this reasonably well; but like purity in public affairs, it is a continuing struggle to maintain.

George Washington Williams's ideals are a statement of the fundamental principles of political life in Ohio, principles which we have generally applied well; but of which we must continually remind ourselves as we move forward.

Memo to the General Assembly: Get it right this time

For the third time in five years, the Libertarian Party of Ohio has won a lawsuit to gain ballot access.

Judge Algernon Marbley granted the Libertarian Party of Ohio’s request for a preliminary injunction in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted that protects ballot access for the party through 2012, including for Libertarian candidates already on the November 2011 ballot in Akron and Troy. (The previous cases are Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell [2006] and Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Brunner [2008, case merged with Moore v. Brunner]).

The opinion states that Ohio's ballot access laws (Ohio Revised Code sections 3501.01 and 3517.01) cannot be justified on constitutional grounds, but rather operate to protect the Democrats and Republicans from competing ideas and candidates. In particular, Judge Marbley states that requiring a minor party filing deadline 90 days before the primary, coupled with a signature requirement of 1% of the voters in the last gubernatorial or presidential election forces minor parties to recruit candidates and circulate petitions at a time when people are not interested in politics. The opinion is 12 pages long and very easy to read. It gives an interesting history of ballot access in Ohio, with a few references to the same struggle in other states. In Judge Marbley's view, Ohio has a long history of suppressing minor party ballot access, and among the larger states, has the least diversity in political party options.

The injunction was specifically addressed to the Libertarian Party of Ohio. It is not clear how much it will help the Constitution, Green, and Socialist Parties. (Click on the Alternative Parties tab under the masthead for additional information on all four parties).

To her credit, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner got the message, and granted ballot access to six parties in 2010; but the Republicans in the General Assembly tried earlier this year to trim it back with HB 194. (Applicable text is incorporated in the Ohio Revised Code references above).

The Libertarian Party is 40 years old and appears on the ballot in 31 states. While it currently has only 7,000 voters in Ohio, that number is growing. There are several local officials elected as Libertarians, and voters will elect more this year. We are not going away. Get over it, and get it right.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Yarbrough

Mood swings

The following appeared in my e-mailed Rotunda Report from Hannah News Service*:

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll shows voters preferring President Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown over unnamed Republican challengers in 2012, but split on whether they approve of the job performances of the president and Ohio's senior senator. 

Oh, wonderful. We just swing back and forth until the branch breaks, right?

When will we learn that both major parties are the cause of our problems, not their solution? Or will we learn at all?

* It is a newsletter with three brief articles about Statehouse issues. Available free from Hannah.

It's time to end the party -- we have work to do

Most of my friends in the Tea Party and liberty movements were ebullient as the Republicans regained control of the U.S. and Ohio Houses, the Ohio U.S. Senate seat, and Governorship. I remained quiet yesterday out of compassion, thinking that they should be allowed one day to bask in their assumed victory.

Assumed being the key word. All evidence to date points to the GOP as trying to swallow up the liberty movement so the party can destroy it. I hope and pray that I am wrong. If liberty-loving Ohioans are very watchful of their state and federal representatives, and put intense pressure upon them to reduce the size and cost of government, well and good. But if we don't, we will find ourselves two years from now being as unhappy with the Republicans as we were two years ago, and as we just were this year with the Democrats.

On a related note, I was extremely disappointed with the number of votes captured by Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates. While I did not expect any to win, I thought they would poll closer to 10%, setting them up for some victories in 2012. That clearly did not happen. They need some media (with many times more readership than The Ohio Republic) that will publicize their campaigns, and explain to the public why their views should prevail. They clearly won't get it from the existing newspapers and broadcasters -- and until such media do appear, nothing will improve for them. Sorry, it's just hard reality.

Meanwhile, we have to spring a few traps, like this one, described by Buttonwood at The Economist:

The Fed's Wednesday announcement on QE [quantitative easing -- the purchase of U.S. government debt, which is equivalent to printing money] is probably more market significant. There seems little doubt that some QE will be announced but there is room for uncertainty about how much. You can take your pick from today's data—weak numbers on personal incomes and a strong purchasing managers' index—and argue for a little QE or a lot.

I have argued before that QE might not work, given that bond yields are already low and banks are flush with cash. So it seems likely that the markets will be disappointed, however big the QE programme.

But there is also a nice irony at work. The tea party is opposed to massive government spending and bailouts. But QE is a way for the central bank to finance that government spending and to pump money into the banking sector. So on the day that the tea partiers may be celebrating, an unelected central bank will be carrying out a programme, probably totalling several hundred billion dollars, that will cut against everything the partiers stand for.

Last words before the election

For those of you who are voting tomorrow, remember:

1. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
2. A vote for a Republican or Democrat in most races is rewarding the negative campaigning you have been complaining about for weeks.
3. Expecting a radical change from the Republicans will do less good than whistling into the wind.
4. No real change will come from either party in Washington -- our best hope for freedom is by electing radical Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists in Columbus.

I have said all I can say. The rest is up to you.

Additional candidates to consider

I have already written pieces on:

• Ken Matesz (L) for Governor
• Charlie Earl (L) for Secretary of State
• Matthew Cantrell (L) for Treasurer of State and
• Robert Owens (C) for Attorney General

Here are some other candidates I like:

• Bill Yarbrough (L) for State Senate, 3rd District (Eastern Franklin County). He is working hard to get the position, has reasonable positions on issues affecting Ohioans, and actually has a shot at winning.
• Lawrence Binsky (L) for State Representative, 20th District (Eastern Franklin County). He is a small businessman who will, like all Libertarians and Constitutionalists, for lower taxes and more efficient government. He is also a positive, refreshing, alternative to the slugfest taking place between his opponents.
• Eric Deaton (C) for U.S. Senator.
• Travis Irvine (L) for Congress. Don't confuse him for a Republican. He skewered the Pledge to America with this and some other very creative YouTube advertising.
• Rep. Jarrod Martin (R-Beavercreek) for re-election and Sen. Timothy Grendell (R-Chesterland) as State Representative. They were staunch supporters of the state sovereignty resolutions, and for getting the Feds off Ohio's back.
• Rep. Kris Jordan (R-Delaware) for State Senator, who also supported the state sovereignty resolutions.

There are many other good candidates out there -- I just listed the ones I know. Please vote intelligently and remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

How do we break the vicious cycle?

A commenter to yesterday's post cited an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer observing that the League of Women Voters requires a 15% showing in public opinion polls before including a third-party or independent candidate in a debate. This is a standard that is used by most debate organizers. On its face, this seems to be a reasonable requirement; but in reality it perpetuates a vicious cycle against third-party and independent candidates, because such candidates must mount several times the amount of effort to get noticed by the voter that Democrats and Republicans do.

If we are to effect change through our existing political system, how do we break this cycle?

... and here's why it's needed

Before It's News, a summary of news items in the blogosphere, has published a list of eight of the dirtiest campaign ads of the season. The ones I've seen in Ohio are nothing to be proud of, but these point out the urgency of electing candidates who know what they want to do, and are publicizing their program, rather than dirt (often flat-out lies) about their opponents.

Charlie Earl for Secretary of State

I am beginning a series on third-party candidates that I like. They are not formal endorsements, but are recommendations for your consideration.

As I suggested last week, Libertarian Charlie Earl is a man who says exactly what he thinks. Think of him as the antidote to the evasive, fork-in-the-tongue politician. Think of it as a quality we really need in a Secretary of State.

The elections for statewide offices are particularly critical this year, because they will determine the makeup of the State Apportionment Board, which draws the districts that will be used in elections for the Ohio General Assembly during the next decade. Membership consists of the Governor, the State Auditor, the Secretary of State, and one member from each major party in each house of the General Assembly. Ohioans have been frustrated for years with the gerrymandering of districts to favor incumbents of one party or the other. There was an excellent proposal on the ballot in 1983 for "Fair and Impartial Redistricting," but it was complex and difficult for most people to understand, which led to its defeat.

The best chance we have this year for fair and impartial redistricting -- and to ensure that election laws are administered fairly -- is to elect a Secretary of State who is neither Democratic nor Republican. In the last twelve years, we have suffered from two very partisan Secretaries of State, a Republican who saw no conflict between his office and actively promoting his party's Presidential campaign and a Democrat whose impartiality has been called into question in her votes to break deadlocks in county Boards of Elections.

While no stranger to the Statehouse -- he was a State Representative from Bowling Green in the early 1980s -- he is not a professional politician either. He has also been an energetic campaigner, as his Facebook page will attest.

His platform consists of five planks:

1. He strongly believes that no action should be taken that violates either the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution.

2. On elections, I'll let Mr. Earl speak for himself (from his website): "Dedicated to enforcing free, fair and efficient elections, Charlie will strive to insure that every legal state citizen who is registered to vote can rest assured that her/his vote will be counted fairly and efficiently...and once for each election. Those who chose to willfully skirt, break or violate Ohio's registration, voting and tallying laws will be vigorously prosecuted. The right to vote is a privilege that must be cherished, honest and forcefully protected."

3. He believes that petitions for ballot access should always receive the "benefit of the doubt" in favor of the petitioner, rather than assuming that all petitions are corrupt, inadequate or incomplete.

4. As I suggested earlier, Mr. Earl, as a Libertarian, would be the swing vote on the State Apportionment Board that ensures that no backroom deals or districts protecting incumbents will prevail.

5. The Secretary of State is also responsible for the filing, registering, and licensing most businesses. Mr. Earl wants to streamline the process for small startups, and when necessary "drop the hammer" (his phrase) on enterprises who violate their contractual obligations and do harm to their customers and to the business environment in the state.

Charlie Earl is definitely an alternative worth considering.

Effect of third-party candidates unpredictable

There has been a great deal of talk about how votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates will influence Ohio's elections, particularly for House of Representatives. The conventional wisdom seems to be that both the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists appeal principally to conservative voters; therefore, votes for those two parties will help the Democrats.

However, as Gongwer pointed out last Friday, the Libertarians do not fit so simply into the conservative mold, since the party also favors same-sex marriage* and legalization of drugs -- both positions that are traditionally associated with Democrats. The Libertarians are fielding 23 House candidates this year. According to Gongwer, about half are in districts closely contested between the major party candidates.

The mainstream media, as usual, are not taking third-party candidates seriously; but in an election year where voters are clearly disenchanted with both major parties, maybe they should. Keep in mind that in multi-party elections, something with which the United States has very little experience, the dynamics change. A strong Libertarian candidate in a closely contested race could win with 35-40% of the vote! A few Libertarian State Representatives could have enormous influence in a chamber in which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats had a majority. (Of course, the same is true of the Ohio Senate, but it seems unlikely that the Republican Party will lose its majority there).

Virtual buckeye to the Ohio Libertarian Party, via Facebook.

* I disagree with the Libertarian Party on this point.

You get what you vote for

Ken Matesz, Libertarian candidate for Ohio governor, echoes on his Facebook page something that I wrote for the current issue of the Liberty Voice:

As a “third-party candidate,” I get to hear this one phrase so many times I practically hear it in my sleep: “A vote for a third party is a vote for the
__________(insert party name).”

Funny thing about this is that my third party had no hand in the current economic mess. Libertarian policies did not produce the Federal Reserve Bank that slashed interest rates making the housing bubble possible. Libertarian philosophy or policies did not encourage banks to lend to those who can’t really pay back their mortgages. Libertarian philosophy would NEVER have bailed out Wall Street or car companies the way Republicans and Democrats did. Libertarian philosophy and policies do not allow spending to exceed revenues. Libertarian policies are always 100% anti-tax to the highest degree possible. Libertarian policies did not drive the deficit to nearly $2 Trillion and the national debt to nearly $14 trillion. Libertarian policies would not allow a congress to regularly increase the debt ceiling as both Republicans and Democrats have done for decades.

So while both parties have made a royal mess of our economy for decade upon decade, it’s the third party candidates, like me, who get blamed for getting poor officials into office. This is like saying a death-row inmate was killed by an electric shock because he desperately wanted to live! Think about it. Such an inmate might have three choices: to die by lethal injection, to die by the electric chair, or to find a way to be free and stay alive. His chances of freeing himself may be slim, but who would blame him for trying? Would you say that it was because he chose freedom that he was killed in the electric chair? Or would you say he was killed by lethal injection because he wanted to escape to freedom? People who vote for alternative candidates want to be free. They understand that it’s the two hard-to-distinguish-from-each-other parties that have slowly killed the economy with their lethal injections or electric shocks. One party shocks the economy with excess taxes; the other injects it with spending that exceeds revenues. I want to be free and live without that pain and unconstitutional meddling. I would ALWAYS choose to find a way to free myself from that merry-go-round.

Don’t you want to be free? Don’t you want to be able to look in your children’s eyes and say, “I’m sorry things are such a mess, I did everything I could to make us free.” Or will you turn to your young one and say, “Well, it didn’t look like we would have much chance of survival, so I chose to feed us all poison.”

Those who “won’t vote for a third party because it means the Democrats will win” are saying, “I don’t want to kill the economy with taxes, I want to destroy it with excess spending.” Same difference. Either way, you get a mess. Most people, of either party, will agree that the political environment is a mess. Yet they insist that the only way to fix it is to keep voting for the same two parties that have been messing things up for 75 years or more. Strange how it all works, isn’t it. You vote for the lesser of two evils and, amazingly, you end up with evil. What an insight: You get what you elect.

Makes sense to me. I wonder why it makes sense to so few others? Maybe they've been brainwashed into thinking that no one except the Demopublicans can win an election?

What it takes to win

Facing Reality - Part 3 of 2

I had not planned on writing a Part 3 to my recent series on facing reality, but a comment by Mike Smitley in Facebook reminded me of an additional point that needs to be made.

Mr. Smitley wrote:

If the legislators won't change, then Americans must elect different candidates. The problem we currently face is ballots rarely include bona fide small government candidates who actually have what it takes to run a competitive race. Sure, there are Libertarians and independents listed in many of these races, but those choices will never be legitimate until they stop trying to win votes with issues and begin trying to win them with viable campaigns (competitive fundraising, big-budget-style marketing techniques and an adequate network of grassroots volunteers to get out the vote.)

Some questions: Assuming existing legislators will NOT change election law in a manner that makes their parties vulnerable...

1) Can viable candidates successfully leverage existing party networks to win primary elections against big government encumbents?

2) Is the Libertarian Party's history of insignificance preventing it from running successful races regardless of the candidate's viability?

3) Can independent candidates competitively raise funds without the assistance of existing partisan networks?"

The comments that Mr. Smitley made about the Libertarian Party applies with equal force to all parties and candidates other than the major parties; and he is right. Campaigns cannot be won on issues alone. If the voter is not forcefully made aware of a candidate (as through mass media, mailings, and door-knocking), they do not know about the candidate; or if they do know of the candidate, are quick to assume that the candidate isn't viable. This is perhaps the harshest reality of all, but it is still a reality that must be dealt with, if our candidates are to start winning elections.

Political integrity

Facing reality – Part 2 of 2

In Part 1, I observed that politics is a process. In a democracy, that process is based on the fact that every citizen has an equal right to influence the political process; and consequently will lead to legislation that can (and usually will) contain content that for one reason or another will be objectionable to most legislators – but for which they must vote because the overall purpose of the bill is a good one. From this, I concluded that "litmus tests" tend to be an unfair measure of a legislator's integrity.

So does that mean that they're all bums? No. What it means is, that we must understand what integrity is in a political context. In my experience, most officeholders do have integrity, in that they genuinely want to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. They genuinely want to do the right thing in office.

The easiest way to arrive at that proper understanding is to consider the difference between strategy and tactics, where strategy is the overall record of a political official, and a tactic is a particular vote or decision. In the military, tactics are designed to fit a particular strategy. The tactics may change because of the battlefield situation at a given time, but the changes are still intended to carry out the strategy.

So it is in politics. An honest candidate will communicate to the electorate his strategy – that is, the principles and major policy positions he will adhere to during his term in office. He then holds himself accountable to the voters for keeping his votes and decisions (tactics) aligned with his principles and positions (strategy). Sometimes, after getting into office, an official might discover that a particular position was unrealistic or undesirable; in which case, he must explain to the voters why he changed that position and how his new position still aligns with his principles. However, we should expect that such changes will be uncommon. Those who repeatedly vote against their declared principles or who repeatedly change positions; for example, after being influenced by polls, are rightly understood to lack integrity.

The candidates that we want to support will hold fidelity to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio as their highest principle, and will hold themselves accountable for votes and decisions that generally work toward more Constitutional government. Sometimes they will have to vote for a bill or make a decision that at first blush appears contrary to those goals (for example, in the budget bill to ensure that the state continues to operate); but their overall voting record should make it clear that they are working toward greater freedom.

Lenin (who for obvious reasons is rarely quoted here) said that sometimes "we have to take two steps forward and one step back." That is the nature of politics. The path to any political goal is not a straight line; but if we persevere, understanding the realities of politics, we can ensure that the path will ultimately lead us where we want to go.

It is therefore of the highest importance for the liberty movement to keep this reality in mind when endorsing candidates and legislation – that our best friends will sometimes have to craft or support ugly legislation, because it proved to be the best way to proceed toward that most beautiful of goals.

Update Feb. 25: I have added a third part on the perceived viability of minor party candidates.

The facts of political life

Facing reality – Part 1 of 2

The Ohio Freedom Alliance (OFA) is a diverse array of Tea Parties, 9-12 Projects, Campaigns for Liberty, minor parties (Constitution and Libertarian), single-issue groups, and a few cantankerous individuals such as yours truly. The mainstream media and the blogosphere has been active in recent months analyzing, dissecting, and trying to understand the purpose and direction of the liberty movement, which in Ohio is spearheaded by the OFA.

There seems to be a general agreement within the movement that, while rallies are a good thing; we need to move to the next level, which is defined as candidate recruitment and support. The movement has attracted many people who have had little or no previous involvement in the political process. The newcomers are attracted by freedom-loving ideals, but are unfamiliar with the means by which those ideals might be achieved.

The Republican Party now would like to take advantage of this inexperience, and steer the movement toward its candidates and policies. In so doing, the Republicans are doing nothing wrong – they are simply doing what the Republicans and Democrats have been doing to upstarts like us for a century and a half.

In the last two weeks, The Ohio Republic has issued several warnings – to the Tea Parties in particular – to beware of celebrities and establishment politicans. We must keep our wits about us. This means that we must communicate our goals clearly, often, and with passion. We must also be realistic about how the political process works, and what we need to do in 2010 to bring about a favorable result.

Many people who have entered politics with high ideals work at it for a while, then decide that politics is corrupt beyond repair. They get frustrated and give up. I suggest that this is because they do not have a realistic understanding of the political process.

Politics is the collective process of reaching a decision. In centuries past, when a king ruled with absolute authority, the purpose of the political process was to influence the king in one's favor. "Court intrigue" is nothing more than a synonym for politics in that context. In free societies, politics is the process of electing officials favorable to one's cause, and of influencing those officials to adopt favorable legislation or policies.

Since politics is a process, it is neither good nor evil. Rather, we should say that politics is used for good or not-so-good ends. As members of the liberty movement, we want to use the process to support greater personal freedom and a reduction of the role of government (at all levels) in our lives.

However, being a democracy in fact*, we acknowledge that every citizen has an equal right to participate in the process. Some citizens will see everything our way, some will see some things our way, and some will see nothing our way. That's life.

A legislator or executive who is accountable to the voters has to consider that the electorate as a whole has diverse opinions on every issue. The good ones will make their decisions on the basis of principles they have communicated to the people in their campaigns, and which have received popular support at the ballot box. Of course, the not-so-good ones will base theirs on which citizens make the most noise, or have given them the most money.

All right, you're saying, "Harold, this is just common sense!" And it is. Bear with me for just another minute, and you'll see where this is headed.

Legislation is a complex process of obtaining compromises, so the bill can attract the support of enough legislators to pass and become law. Take our state sovereignty resolution, for example. SCR 13 was introduced by the most libertarian members of the Senate – those who want to pass it in its original form. A majority of the Senate agreed to it without amendment – and that is because a majority of the people who voted for a majority of the Senators are likely to be sympathetic to state sovereignty resolutions. At the moment, SCR 13 is sitting in a House committee, where a majority of the people who voted for a majority of the Representatives are likely to be hostile to state sovereignty, at least in the form passed by the Senate. This leaves us supporters of SCR 13 with only two options: Accept the fact that it cannot pass in its original form and let it die in committee, or amend the bill in a way that it will attract the votes of a majority in the House. To its sponsors and the liberty movement, this will be considered "watering down" the resolution. So we must decide which is more important, to let the bill die in its "pure" state, or to get the bill passed with amendments.

When dealing with critical legislation like a budget, nearly everyone acknowledges that the bill must be passed somehow. No one really wants the entire apparatus of state government to shut down until the next election – so the only option there is to pass it with amendments. Lots of amendments. Amendments from representatives and senators who come from very different districts, all trying to respond to different, and often contradictory, sets of needs. All with an equal right to be represented. This is why we like to quote Mark Twain when he said, "Those that respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made." It's ugly, but assuming there is no obvious corruption, it the only fair way it can be done.

I mention this because many newcomers to politics believe that any legislator who votes for a bill that contains any objectionable content lacks integrity; for example, a Congressman who would vote for a defense bill in which some other Congressman or committee sneaked in an amendment allowing torture of suspected enemy combatants. Now, what should the Congressman do? Vote for the defense bill because it was generally well-written and provides, say, better protective gear for our military forces, or vote it down because of the torture provision? If every legislator had to worry about litmus tests for every bill, nothing would ever get done. Then they would be derided for being a "do-nothing Congress."

So, if we have to expect that bills will contain some content that is objectionable, does that mean that voting for them displays a lack of integrity? No. I'll explain why in Part 2 on Wednesday.

* I agree that the Constitution intended to create a representative republic and not a democracy; but clearly the system that exists today is not the one the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Quotation of the day

"Thoroughly vet those who preach conservatism this election year. Are they walking the walk? Does their record match their rhetoric? Are they merely trying to ride the coattails of a popular mass opposition to socialism? If so call them out, no matter who they are."

-- Michael Wolfe, Jefferson Democrat for Congress in the 15th District Ohio

Virtual buckeye to Terri Cain Owens.

A challenge to Gov. Strickland and Mr. Kasich

Support this. This is part of the platform of Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Ray McBerry, called "Georgia First." Mr. McBerry is promising, if elected to aggressively nullify unconstitutional federal statutes.

He also advocates abolition of all income and property taxes, right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, a clampdown on illegal immigration, rein in governmental intrusions on privacy and liberty, restrict eminent domain, ensure secure elections through auditable paper trails, and support for the idea of citizen initiatives.

Conservative Times reports that he is winning straw polls among Georgia Republicans.

Dissident Republicans? Libertarians? Constitutionalists? Here's your opportunity!

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Best government money can buy

Repeating my post from October 6, 2008, here is a list of major contributors to President Obama's campaign as of that date:

Goldman Sachs $739,521
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879

Notice any interesting patterns? Should we be surprised that he has been bought by the New York bankers?

Why it's dangerous to have the best government money can buy

I have been reading Frederick Grimke*, Considerations upon the Nature and Tendency of Free Institutions, when I came across this interesting passage:

"It is a great objection to a high property qualification [or in our day, the necessity for raising large amounts of campaign money] that it confines the competition for office to the rich exclusively. The rich only can afford to practice bribery, and hence the English elections [this was written in 1856] have been corrupt to a degree utterly unknown in the United States... In those countries where the eligibility to office as well as the electoral franchise have been most restricted, the greatest corruption and licentiousness have prevailed; and where both have been thrown open to nearly the whole population the elections are the most orderly and the most free of sinister influence."

* Frederick Grimke (1791-1863), a resident of Chillicothe, was a judge in the Ohio Supreme Court before retiring to write political philosophy. Considerations upon the Nature and Tendency of Free Institutions was his most important work. The 1968 and 2006 editions of his work are available online. The 1968 edition includes editorial notes that help the modern reader to understand references that would otherwise seem obscure.

An inconvenient truth

Ohio's voter registration scandal cuts both ways. I agreed with the Democrats about the conduct of the 2004 election; but now Democrats who are jubilant about the U.S. Supreme Court decision on voter registration need to remember that the U.S. Appeals Court decision that was overturned still found their Secretary of State in violation of Federal law.

Then we have this: “Well, I tell you what, it helps in Ohio that we’ve got Democrats in charge of the machines.”- Barack Obama (Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 4).

I hope Bob Fitrakis* is taking notes.

* Outspoken critic of the 2004 general election in Ohio.

Lesser of the two evils?

Like many other Americans, I have through most of my adult life subscribed to the notion that it is our responsibility to cast a vote for a candidate, even if we find both (or all) of the choices distasteful. In other words, we needed to decide who was the lesser of the two evils.

I have been giving this more thought, however. Doesn't a vote for the lesser of the evils still count as a vote for the system that keeps the evils coming? Shouldn't we be working for candidates who will back our principles, even if they are from a third party whose chances aren't rated as very good by the corporate ("mainstream") media?

This thought came as many Libertarians and Constitution Party supporters are thinking about the advantages of having Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (their Presidential candidates) run on the same ticket. Unfortunately, because of doctrinaire elements in both parties, this is unlikely to happen; but we need to keep in mind that they are choices in the States (including Ohio) that will put them on the ballot.

Look at the two Senators. If you do not genuinely feel that either of them will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," or that either of them will pursue policies that are beneficial for the nation, you have two choices: You can leave the President box blank, or you can cast a protest vote for a third-party candidate. And if, in discussing this, anyone questions you, just ask the question PerryJ did in the Ohio Freedom Alliance forum:

"America, how is the lesser of two evils working out for you now?"