The Constitution is "confusing"

So says Ezra Klein at the Washington Post in an MS-NBC interview with Norah O'Donnell, as reported by NewsBusters.

The liberal establishment just can't understand this obsession with the Constitution. After all, according to Mr. Klein:

The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

This statement was to support Ms. O'Donnell's assertion that the emphasis on the Constitution is nothing more than a political gimmick. "I wouldn't make too much of this," Mr. Klein replied.

Now, the Constitution is really a simple document, only 7,000 words long. A high school graduate should not have any problem with understanding it. It specifically lists the powers granted to the federal government, the powers prohibited to it, and the powers prohibited to the states (Article I, Sections 8-10). And to make it crystal clear, the Bill of Rights added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.*

Still, I can understand why liberals find it confusing. They have bought into their own rhetoric about a "living Constitution,"  which means whatever the Supreme Court wants it to mean at the time. Understanding what the Constitution means isn't that difficult. If the literal meaning is unclear, check the record of the debates at the Constitutional Convention. If that isn't clear, check the Federalist Papers. If that isn't clear, clean your glasses.

The liberals want us to be impressed with their learning. But learning is useless without common sense, something these two commentators clearly lack.

One more thing. If the Republicans don't "make too much of this," they will join the Democrats  behind the woodshed in 2012, as the frustrated American voters administer to both parties a whipping they will never forget.

* Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed [by the courts] to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively; or to the people.

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.

How the media can help improve the political process

My October 8 post cited a letter from Charlie Earl to the Toledo Blade as the centerpiece of a discussion as to why third-party candidates cannot gain traction for their campaigns.

On Sunday, Columbus Dispatch columnist Joe Hallett was continuing his campaign against the negative advertising and lack of focus on issues being carried on by the major-party candidates. These prompted me to write an e-mail to Mr. Hallett suggesting how the problem might be resolved. To date, I have not received an answer, but will publish it here if I receive one. I have removed from this post one paragraph that introduced myself to Mr. Hallett -- you can get the same information on my About page. (The following is not indented, but is a direct quotation from my e-mail.)

Mr. Hallett:

I have been reading your columns with great interest in recent weeks, commenting on the candidates’ and major parties’ negativity and failure to effectively communicate the positions they would take on the critical issues of this election – particularly the gubernatorial candidates’ failure to openly address the $8 billion hole in the SFY 2012 budget. I trust your writing because I know you are an experienced observer of Ohio politics, and like your realistic style.

Your column today not only builds upon your campaign against negative campaigning reflected in your earlier columns this fall; but supports the thrust of today’s Letters to the Editor, particularly that of Norma Nero against the tactics used by Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern.

While I commend The Columbus Dispatch for not covering much of the silliness that Mr. Redfern (and for that matter, his Republican counterpart) are promoting; I suggest that the Dispatch and other media are in part responsible for this state of affairs by their insistence on ignoring the campaigns of independent and third-party candidates.

I know the objections – the largest third party in Ohio has only 6,000 registered voters; most independents and third-party candidates are underfunded, and often very naïve; the media are not responsible for promoting anything, let alone small parties; and in any event, journalistic resources are limited. And, anyway, the Dispatch at least mentions third party candidates, though usually in a way that says that oh, by the way, Larry Libertarian or Connie Constitutionalist is also running – without saying anything about what their positions are.

The problem with this policy is, there are third-party candidates who have enough funding to travel around the state, print brochures, and post yard signs; and enough knowledge to articulate their positions in the debates in which they are permitted to participate. While I am more familiar with the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates than I am with the Greens and the Socialists, I have no reason to believe that my points would not also apply to them. Third party candidates not energetic enough? Look at the Facebook pages of Libertarian Secretary of State candidate Charlie Earl and the Constitution Party’s Attorney General candidate Robert Owens, who, by the way, is running for the second time for that office. Naïve? Look at the same candidates’ websites (Charlie Earl’s and Robert Owens’s). Not to mention Libertarians Travis Irvine for the U.S. Congress and Bill Yarbrough for Ohio Senate in the Third District. Both candidates have run effective YouTube videos: Mr. Yarbrough appeals to the intelligence of voters in his “sound bite,” and Mr. Irvine skewers the Republican “Pledge to America.”

The point is this: if the Dispatch and other media are truly serious about improving the quality of political communication – and I believe this is part of the mission of journalism – then they must have the diligence to at least fairly cover the third-party candidates who make the effort to knock on their door. That means not excluding those candidates from the editorial board interviews, not giving them short shrift in the resulting articles, and not ignoring them entirely. Not every candidate deserves to be covered; but many of them do, as I hope I demonstrated here. To ignore them is essentially to say, “what is, is right,” and turns into hypocrites those who work for those media who say they want cleaner, issues-based politics, but will not support the effort to find work with* candidates who practice them.

* My original post used the word find, but on reflection, work with better expresses my intent.

Why third-party candidates can't get traction

The media are not interested in fair coverage. Following is a letter the editor of The (Toledo) Blade by Charlie Earl, Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State, whom I shall feature next week. The letter appears in Mr. Earl's Facebook page. One thing about it -- if you're looking for a Secretary of State who says exactly what he thinks, Charlie Earl is your man.

It was revealing for me to read your endorsement of Jon Husted for Ohio Secretary of State. I have no problem with your endorsement, per se, because you are a private enterprise. I do question your reasoning, your diligence and your understanding of the office of the Secretary of State. Your reasoning is flawed, in my view, because of two critical elements. You cited Jon’s “experience” without acknowledging that many citizens are frustrated with career politicians. You also failed to mention that Husted has skated near the precipice of ethical behavior. It seems that someone who has demonstrated an inability to observe reasonable ethical practices should NOT be the chief elections officer in Ohio.

Your diligence seems to be lacking because I reside a mere 14 miles from your “tower of power,” and NO ONE from The Blade has made any attempt to contact me since I announced my candidacy in January. So, apparently you arrived at your endorsement while sporting an information deficit. In addition, I was involved in the reapportionment process in the Eighties when Husted was still in grammar school.

Your lack of knowledge about the Secretary of State functions is probably your most egregious error. When a Constitutional officer is responsible for the registering process, voting procedures, tallying methods, petitioning oversight and apportionment, does not it seem preferable and logical that the Administrator be unencumbered by partisan pressure and concerns? You have endorsed another “experienced” partisan hack who probably wants to run for governor rather than be entirely focused on the Secretary of State office.

Given your history you probably don’t have the courage to print this. If you do not, I will not be surprised.

Charlie Earl
Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State
Bowling Green

I noticed that the Columbus Dispatch also endorsed Mr. Husted. I guess Mr. Earl would be too difficult for the handlers to handle. Which is a good reason to vote for him.

9-11

Last year and the year before, I wrote about the questions that surround the events of 9-11 -- whether they were really the work of Al-Qaeda, or were an "inside job." There is little point to rehashing these issues; because they may never be resolved.

This year, however, we seem to be experiencing an attempt to whip up hatred of Muslims, beginning with the media-induced campaign against opening the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, and continuing with the threatened burning of the Koran in Florida. My concern is not with either issue (which I have addressed in earlier posts); but with the way they are being hyped.

Let me be blunt. All efforts to incite hatred are evil. Political and social leaders who preach hatred of others are pursuing agendas that should be questioned closely and shouted down.

Martin Luther King, Jr., had the right idea when he preached non-violence. But the only way to guarantee non-violence is to practice it in thought as well as action.

Those of us who want revolutionary change do so because we love liberty, and want to free our fellow Americans to achieve everything they are capable of. Hatred only strengthens the oppressor.

"Secession" is "not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore"

Thus says none other than heretofore neoconservative Rush Limbaugh, in response to a caller on his show August 5.



Let's see, secession has now been treated seriously by some mainstream media (Fox News, The Arizona Republic) and by talk radio commentators (Glenn Beck, in addition to Mr. Limbaugh).

Reasonable people are now concluding that getting out from under a régime that fails to work for the people who elected it is not such a crazy idea anymore!

Seen in Facebook

Virtual buckeye to Robert Carlson.