Can someone tell me how proving you are who you are disenfranchises someone? Especially when you DON'T make people prove who they are it can just as easily disenfranchise someone else? (By taking their vote) One of the only counters to this I've heard is that "voter fraud rare, and the number of people who would be disenfranchised is larger than any fraudulent votes." How the heck do we know this?

How do we count how many people "will be" disenfranchised by this? How do we count how many people voted illegally? Isn't it better to try and improve the voting system and thereby cut down on charges of voter fraud then to leave the system open and ready for manipulation. Hell, I'm just a volunteer at the local campaigns and I know how easy it would be to get the voter roll and vote as someone else.

Just for the record -
Could a few people, from different parts of the country, describe exactly what has to be done to get a photo-ID?
The best way to counter a fact-free argument is to have the facts.
And at this specific point in US history, it is VERY important to get the facts out there.

Before this election is won by fantasies.

Well for a DMV photo ID it requires this, at least in CA (as listed on the CA DMV site [http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#IDRENEW]):

To apply for an ID card you will need to do the following:

Visit a DMV office (make an appointment for faster service)
Complete application form DL 44 (An original DL 44 form must be submitted. Copies will not be accepted.)
Give a thumb print
Have your picture taken
Provide your social security number. It will be verified with the Social Security Administration while you are in the office.
Verify your birth date and legal presence (you may use your California driver license)
Pay the application fee. (No fee for a senior citizen ID card.)

They further list what you need to prove your SS and birthday:

Social Security Card (cannot be laminated)
Medicare card
U.S. Armed Forces Identification Cards:
Active-DD 2
Retired-DD 2
Reserved-DD 2
Dependent-DD 173
Military separation document-DD 214

US Birth Certificate
US Certificate or Report of Birth Abroad
Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
INS American Indian Card
Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
US Passport
US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
Common Access Card (only if designated as Active military or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
Northern Mariana Card
INS US Citizen ID Card
Permanent Resident Card
Temporary Resident Identification Card
Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
Certification from California Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority
Employment Authorization Card
Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
Refugee travel document
"Processed for I-551" stamped in a valid foreign passport
Valid I-94 stamped "Refugee," "Parole or Parolee," "Asylee," or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
Immigration judge's order granting asylum
Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Valid I-94 with attached photo stamped "Processed for I-551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence"
Notice of Action (I-797 Approved Petition)
Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I-94

That's a lot of paperwork to chose from. Next question?

Oh real quick, the fees for JUST an ID card.

Regular $21
Senior Citizen (age 62 or older): No fee
Reduced-fee ID card: $6

Reduced-fee ID card

You may pay a reduced application fee for an original or renewal identification card if you meet income requirements from a public assistance program. If you are eligible, the governmental or non-profit program will give you a completed Verification for Reduced Fee Identification Card form (DL 937) to take to DMV to apply for your reduced fee identification card.

See your local public assistance program agency for information about eligibility requirements and obtaining a DL 937 form.

Gozer:
Want to know what's even MORE pathetic that Democrats would oppose legislation that said the Federal Government would pay for all photo IDs where people could not afford them.

So... why do Democrats oppose people having to PROVE who they are when voting? I know... because they can't manufacture votes (or I mean count previously uncounted ballots) as in King County, Washington.

Or because dead people can't obtain photo IDs.

And finally... how in God's Green Earth does Mexico, India, Haiti, and many other countries who have a far less established representative government than ours require it.

I'm just surprised at how any reasonable person couldn't see past Democrats opposition to voter IDs. They get fake votes in the box and then once they know what they need to win; they "find" ballots (even if that means more ballots were counted than actually cast).

This entire Voter ID issue is just another ploy by the Democrats to work the emotional issue of disenfranchising voters.

Gozer listed the dozens of forms of identification available to satisfy the photo ID requirement. Just about everyone has one or more of these forms of ID.

Lets count the number of everyday things that require you to prove you are who you say you are:

Legally drive a car.

Cash a check.

Register to vote.

Apply for a job.

Purchase cigarettes or alcoholic beverages.

Pick up prescriptions.

Buy a house.

Register a car.

Fly on a commercial airplane.

Open a bank account.

Purchase a gun.

Register you dog (get a dog license).

Purchase an insurance policy.

Its hard to believe that there are millions of people who have been voting in the past that also aren't doing any of these routine, everyday activities.

What if the residence listed on your picture ID doesn't match your current residence? Is that okay? That's not an issue with me anymore, but for the first 20 years of my adult life it was true more often than not.

Before any of you looney leftitist start to whine...its NOT necessary to produce ALL of Gozer's doc list to get an ID.

BTW: Next time you moonbats try to cash your government transfer payment check or board an airplane and they ask to see your PHOTO ID why don't you whine that its discriminatory for them to ask??!!???

I believe at the polling place you can sign a waver to fix it. Saying something like, "Yeah I'm me but the registration roll needs changed." Who here is the one that works at their local polling place? I think it was Spook or Freedom? They'll know for sure.

Change of address forms are also avialble at the DMV, I remember having a card "stuck" to my card to show I had changed address.

I notice an absence of the fraudsters speaking out on this thread. Especially old Canadian and his northern liberal lobby for ballot fraud. Note that change in residence to the I.D. has no bearing, that why it is called Voter Registration. You must REGISTER....those with same day registration must have tighter rules, otherwise all the Rio Grandes and felons would vote.

The 'undue financial burden' excuse, is bogus. When you compare the cost of an id card to all other expenses, the amount is not that significant.

Besides all the millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses to fight these ID laws, could pay for many poor peoples' cards.

True Hermie. Heck I didn't even know that Seniors got their ID's for free already! O.O!

Ricorun,

In most municipalities, getting an address change for your Photo ID is as easy as going to a Secretary of State's office and completing an address change card and its free. If you are using a Driver's License or State issued photo ID, in most states, you are required to do the address change if you move.

But that's assuming that people follow the law. And we're assuming people will follow the law and only vote once, and only vote if they are registered, and not vote if they are dead, or in prison, or underage. But people still try to commit voter fraud. Requiring an ID will eliminate those problems.

I work as an election official during elections. Many of the voters come up and voluntarily offer a photo ID. They are surprized when we tell them one is not required. Most tell us they should be.

Ah! I knew one of us worked at the polls. So I forgot it was you A-10!

Though you do reenforce my point, why the heck are we NOT requiring ID's? What sane reason is there?

I am all for proving ID when you vote. In Texas you need it. However if you have to produce some form of ID for voting then the ID (ID card only not a drivers license) should be provided free without reference to income otherwise it is a pole tax.

Texas requires you to have a Texas ID card or a drivers license - you pay for either of them. They are used for check cashing etc... Not currently required for voting.

Gozer,

Good question. 24 states require some type of ID. If the voter doesn't have one, they still can vote, but on a provisional or questioned ballot.

When you look at all the forms of ID the states allow, the disenfranchisement claim doesn't hold water.

The only reason I know of to oppose the ID requirement is to be able to commit voter fraud. The only group that is fighting voter ID are the liberals. Do the math.

The only group that is fighting voter ID are the liberals. Do the math.

Yeah, and notice how quiet they are on this thread. Not a peep.

The libs say the poor people are disenfranchised because they can't afford the IDs. These are the same poor people who have cell phones, automobiles, and cable television.

It's all b/s, so's the libs can commit voter fraud. Why else are all elections close?

I live in Oregon, and not only do you not need a voter id to vote, you don't even have to go to the polls. We have vote by mail. Basically everyone votes absentee. Some on in the Portland Oregonian, said it was the system that was least liable to be abused because there is a legitimate paper trail, but I think it's awfully easy to use other's ballots, and either have them sign them or forge a signature. We absolutely need to require voter id to be able to vote.

Mass voter fraud in the form of individual phony votes is not a credible way to steal a national election. Stuffing ballot boxes, which side steps the ID issue, is an entirely separate, and much more effective and harder to trace method of fraud.

Who here will stand for paper trails on all electronic voting machines? Why did GOP leadership in Congress refuse to put a bill requiring paper trails up for a vote?

Is anyone here aware of any state that doesn't require proof of identity? The point is to provide options. A driver's license is not the only form of identification. In fact, of course, you can acquire a driver's license with a myriad number of forms of ID. Why shouldn't those be valid at a polling station as well as the DMV?

Frankly, if these types of reforms were serious I might consider supporting them. How about fully subsidized IDs, available for registration at the precinct polling station, plus open source, paper verified electronic voting machines? If the proposed "reforms" did something substantial and eliminated all inequalities, you wouldn't find any opposition. But supporting "reforms" which end up as a modern-day poll tax, then yes, you'll rightly find opposition.

As long as ID are easy to get and for folks without them (for whatever reason) subsidized by the state it's fine and should be no problem being required. However, note that there is very little voter fraud conviction (52 convictions out of 192,139,871 votes since 2002 so how big a deal is this?).

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/21/State/Is_photo_ID_law_usele.shtml

Where I live address updating is a local city hall issue--census or a call or visit to city hall will allow such a change to be made.

The issue I think that should be focused on is voting machines (both electronic voting machines and vote processing machines). They break, there is little accountability for your vote, etc. Two elections ago the only vote processing machine (that you feed your paper ballot into for certification) broke. People were leaving completed ballots on top of the machine. Who knows what happened to them. I had my vote cancelled and returned later--fortunately the machine had been repaired. That one broken machine could have caused far more than 52 voided votes.

How 'bout people show their driver's licenses or other picture ID before they vote? Screw this subsidized ID crap--people can afford cell phones, cable television, two or more televisions, gas for their vehicles.

Get real, minnowhead...

Kammanl,

I would prefer a voter ID card similar to a debit card - it follows you around and is you permanent voter registration. It shouldn't be too hard to work up a system which has a tamper proof voting card, and a method of ensuring that each card is used only once per vote.

"Who here will stand for paper trails on all electronic voting machines? Why did GOP leadership in Congress refuse to put a bill requiring paper trails up for a vote?"

winnowhead at October 21, 2006 11:33 PM

Every time this is brought up I mention the fact that the Diebold machines in my district at least DO have paper reciepts at every machine. Why isn't this reported? I highly doubt that only my little town (there are only 25,000 of us after all) is the ONLY one in California that has them. So why does this constant harping on paper trail ever mentioned when the companies are adjusting to demand and creating machines with reciepts?

As for wondering if there are states that don't require ID to vote I think A-10 and I have both already mentioned that many states DO NOT. (Since he mentioned 24 that Do that means by simple math 26 do not) I know for a fact California does not require your ID to vote at the polls. Hell, it's not even hard to register to vote with out ID. All those little post cards ask for your SS number and that's it.

So yeah, it's not hard at all to fake it or to just walk in and vote as someone else. As I mentioned earlier it's so easy that there's no wonder there are few convictions. I could probably take a fraction of the lists I've seen, and vote at every single polling place in town. Heck if I was really good I could probably vote in the same place twice at least and not get caught. Depending on how many polling places in your area you can easily change one vote into 10, 20, or even 50 votes. Get 100 people doing that and you're getting some good numbers for local races. I'd hate to imagine what a city/state/or country wide effort could do.

Even if it is rare, why don't we do all we can to make fraud harder. That includes the paper trail electronic voting machines. (As I mentioned before they do exsist and are used) Why not add a photo ID?

1H8L1BS,

Well, I guess you didn't even bother to read past the first sentence, so I can only assume you're worthless.

Mark,

I would prefer a voter ID card similar to a debit card - it follows you around and is you permanent voter registration. It shouldn't be too hard to work up a system which has a tamper proof voting card, and a method of ensuring that each card is used only once per vote.

Sounds kind of like a big brother intrusion, eh? I'd like to see some concerted backing from your conservative brethren on this issue. In principle I guess I couldn't disagree with the concept too much... but the fact that it's totally different from the voter ID bill in Arizona and those wandering around in statehouses across the country makes it a bit of a mute point, huh?

Gozer,

Every time this is brought up I mention the fact that the Diebold machines in my district at least DO have paper reciepts at every machine. Why isn't this reported? I highly doubt that only my little town (there are only 25,000 of us after all) is the ONLY one in California that has them. So why does this constant harping on paper trail ever mentioned when the companies are adjusting to demand and creating machines with reciepts?

Good for California. You want to entend that nicetie to the rest of the country? Frankly, your party leadership choose to not even to allow a vote on the idea. I'd love to debate it, but unfortunately the cabal in power has other ideas.

minnow,

Well, I guess you didn't even bother to read past the first sentence, so I can only assume you're worthless.

Oh, but I did, and I was shocked--minnow was actually trying civil dialogue for once.

You and DAV have a spat, and you're teaching the lad a lesson?

winnowhead,

"Stuffing ballot boxes, which side steps the ID issue, is an entirely separate, and much more effective and harder to trace method of fraud."

The only way to effectively "stuff" ballot boxes is if the entire team of election working a precinct is in on the scam. This is impossible since the team is equally represented by Democrats and Republicans (at least under Michigan law).

The most effective way is to access the voting records, something a dishonest city or township clerk could allow, determine who hasn't voted in years, then have a team of individuals go around and pose as those voters. In our big cities, there are hundreds of thousands of voters who don't vote regularily and hundreds of precincts. A team of 100, each voting for 100 different people in different precincts, could generate 10,000 illegal votes. Thats enough to sway a congressional or mayoral election.

"Is anyone here aware of any state that doesn't require proof of identity?"

In Michigan, there is no requirement to show proof of identity to vote. You go to your precinct, fill out a voter application, sign it, the election worker compares the information (name, address and date of birth) to the Qualified Voter File printout, and if it matches, give you a ballot to vote.

"The point is to provide options. A driver's license is not the only form of identification."

If you followed the link I provided in my October 21, 2006 10:40 PM post, you would see that the states that require ID allow a wide variety of forms of ID, not just a driver's license.

Finally, in Michigan, the "electronic voting machine" only tabulates the votes. We still maintain the paper ballot that is marked. The only improvement necessary is proof of identity via a photo ID of some sort.

It isn't only the Presidnetial election that is at risk without election reform, it is more likely that a Congressional or Mayorial election is affected. In Detroit, the former City Clerk was under investigation by the FBI for election law violations. She had sent out "election workers" to nursing homes with absentee ballots and had the "election workers" "assist" the elderly with voting their ballot. She also sent out absentee ballots that were pre-marked for certain offices.

Nate,

"The issue I think that should be focused on is voting machines (both electronic voting machines and vote processing machines). They break, there is little accountability for your vote, etc. Two elections ago the only vote processing machine (that you feed your paper ballot into for certification) broke. People were leaving completed ballots on top of the machine. Who knows what happened to them. I had my vote cancelled and returned later--fortunately the machine had been repaired. That one broken machine could have caused far more than 52 voided votes."

You obviously have morons running your precincts. In Michigan, we use a electronic tabulator to count the votes at the precinct. If it were to break, we (the elections workers) would just collect the ballots.

It is hard to believe that there was no one there to rectify the problem (collect the ballots, rather than leave them on the machine). Here, we have to have at least two workers present at all times at the poll, and the two must be registered voters from two different parties (one Democrat and one Republican). Even our lunch breaks are scheduled to ensure that the two party rule is met.

Winnowhead,

In MA, you walk in, tell the volunteer your name, a check mark is put by your name, and you are handed the ballot. Done. No ID required.

Ricorun, if it doesn't match then you vote a provisional ballot. Once your address is verified, your vote would still count.

No harm, no foul. But your vote is put in the provisional pile until they can certify that you are who you are. Why is this wrong?

I'm all for paper trail on voting machines.

Next

Are any of these comments adverse to requiring voter ID? I did not see any and I am all for requiring voters to provide ID. My only point is if you have a specific voter ID card, it must be free. Otherwise it is a pole tax and pole taxes are illegal unless the law is changed. I don’t think the law should be changed – there should be no charge for voting. That should be one of our inalienable rights. And yes some people are so poor, even here in the US, that the charge for a voter ID card would be prohibitive. Further no one should be required to declare himself or herself destitute in order to get a free voter ID card - a specific voter ID card should be free to everyone.

Hey, does this attitude make me a liberal?

I think the issue with a voter ID is that is then becomes a national registration card. Bad idea if that is the case.

It would be nice to have a positive verification of voter ID, however then the powers that be, it doesn't mater who they are, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative; Progressive can target their check the vote drives.

It is a serious issue if a significant number of deceased people are registered to vote just as it is a significant issue if a whole apartment block is listed as a vacant lot and the hundreds of resisted voters in that apartment go to vote and find they can’t.

The fact is that these represent a very low percentile of votes. Just as those that have died from terrorist attacks are relatively insignificant to those that die every year in traffic accidents and that die due to cancer.

So the question is what is it that we really need to be concerned with?

RAL,

I'm surprized at you. A rather well thought out post. Good job.

Voter fraud is a concern because after every election, Democrats scream that the election was stolen. They did it in 2000. The did it in 2004.

In 2004, the margin of vicory in Ohio was nearly 120,000 or about 2.11%. The Democrats are still complaining about it. But did you know that Kerry only won Wisconsin by 1bout 11,000 votes, or .38%. If you remember, it was in Wisconsin in 2000 that Democrats were caught paying the homeless cigarette to vote Democrat. It was in Wisconsin in 2004 that four Democrat election workers were convicted of slashing the tires of Republican Party vehicles. And all four were relatives of notable Democrats.

How can we eliminate voter fraud? By checking the ID of each and every voter. We're not talking about a national ID card. We are talking about allowing a variety of acceptable ID's. That way we insure that only those registered are voting and the person voting is only voting once.

One request: Would you rewrite the following paragraph so I can understand what you are trying to say?

"It would be nice to have a positive verification of voter ID, however then the powers that be, it doesn't mater who they are, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative; Progressive can target their check the vote drives."

What do you mean by "target their check the vote drives"?

Gozer, you didn't comment on how many of the forms of identification which can be used to get a photo ID do not provide proof of citizenship. On the contray, many prove LACK of citizenship:

Permanent Resident Card
Temporary Resident Identification Card
Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
Employment Authorization Card
Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
Refugee travel document
"Processed for I-551" stamped in a valid foreign passport
Valid I-94 stamped "Refugee," "Parole or Parolee," "Asylee," or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
Immigration judge's order granting asylum
Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction.
Valid I-94 with attached photo stamped "Processed for I-551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence"
Notice of Action (I-797 Approved Petition)
Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I-94

So, could someone who provided any of the above proofs of ID then be allowed to use that ID to register and then vote?

Cleaning up election fraud will require a lot more than simply requiring photo ID.

First, we should establish that all Federal elections be hald to the same standard. Local and state elections can use black or white marbles, if they want to, but federal elections should be standardized.

Next, the federal government should budget to pay for every single precinct in the country to mail out NON-FORWARDABLE registration renewal forms. Those returned as undelivered are immediately purged from the voting rolls. Those recieved and not returned in the allotted time, ditto. Those people can come down to the precinct later and re-register if they were out of town or just forgot.

Returned renewals will have, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY made clear, affirmations that: The voter is registered in, and voting in, only that one precinct; is a U.S. citizen; is not a felon. Date and place of birth would be required, as well as date and number of naturalization if applicable.

Motor voter and any other automatic or semi-automatic registrations will be eliminated. If people can't be bothered to register, then they should bear the consequences for that laziness or indifference. We should not baby sit them, beg them to register, follow them around to supermarkets and gas stations to ease the burden of registering.

THEN we require photo ID to actually vote.

All ballots are clearly marked so there can be no doubt that the failure to correctly execute the ballot in a way that makes its intent absolutely clear with no need for interpretation will result in the ballot being discarded. A ballot is not a vote till it is clearly and correctly executed. Period.

EVERY vote is counted. All absentee votes, all military votes. It should not matter that those votes cannot change the electoral college commitment for that state. If people have taken the time and trouble to register and then to vote, they deserve to have those votes counted. And if any party is going to whine about the "popular vote" having meaning, we had better actually know what the popular vote really WAS.

As for the Diabolical Diebold fake controversy, why not have the machines spit out TWO paper records? One can be kept, and one deposited in an old-fashioned ballot box for hand counting and comparison if fraud is alleged.

It's not hard. But so far it's been more productive for some to block sincere efforts at reform and then cloud the perception of the legitimacy of the election by screaming fraud. Keeping the possibility/perception of election fraud has been a lot more productive than actually eliminating it would be. So why not take a hard look at who is refusing to allow it to happen?

Almiranta,

As a fellow (in the non-sexist way) rational thinker and conservative, let me run an idea past you.

Back in 2000, while enduring the Florida election debacle, I started thinking about all the pitfalls in the way we determine Electoral College votes. Too often, the Presidential election is called before the polls are closed in the west, sometimes even when the polls are not even closed in the western part of a state (as happened in Florida). Who knows how much this affected the results.

So I came up with a proposed Constitutional Amendment to change the way we determine the Electoral College votes. I'm sure that you realize that the Founding Fathers designed the Electoral College to ensure that urban areas do not have disproportionate weight over rural areas. That solved the problem between states, but not within states.

Currently, with the exception of a couple of states, the winner of the popular vote within the state takes all of the Electoral College votes. As a result, if your candidate loses by just one vote in your state, you get absolutely no representation in the Electoral College. If your state is predominately Republican in the rural areas, as is common throughout the country, the urban areas with a greater concentration of Democrats will outweigh the Republicans.

Under my proposal, rather than winner takes all, Electoral College votes are determined by the popular vote for President within each Congressional District. In theory, each Congressional District has about hte same population. The Districts are re-aligned after each census to maintain some sort of balance. So, if your Congressional district votes predominately Republican, the Republican nominee gets the Electoral College vote. If its Democrat, the Democrat gets the Electoral College vote.

The two additional Electoral College votes each state has would go to the overall winner of the popular vote in the state.

I did a comprehensive study of the results of the 2000 election, breaking down the election for President by Congressional District. The results were surprizing. President Bush still won, but by a wider margin. In almost every state, he picked up Electoral College votes. Of course, he lost some too, but he gained more that he lost.

For example, because California's Democrat population is concentrated around LA and San Francisco, the total population of those areas cancel out the rest of the state. As a result, Al Gore got all 54 Electoral College votes. However, if the Electoral College vote is determined by Congressional District, President Bush would have received 26 Electoral College votes for winning the popular vote in 26 Congressional Districts and Al Gore would have received 28 Electoral College votes for winning the popular vote in 26 Congressional Districts and 2 for winning the state's popular vote.

The advantages of this system are that all states come into play. No longer will Republicans write off the New England states and the West Coast because there are Congressional Districts where the vote will be close and each Electoral College vote is important. Likewise, Democrats will campaign in traditional "Red States" because they might pick up an additional Electoral vote or two.

The Media will not be able to prematurely call states for one candidate or the other. They will have to wait until the Congressional District results are all in. Even then, it will be a rarity if a state goes completely for one candidate or the other (with the exception of the smallest states).

This will also prevent voter suppression in the western states and in parts of states with two time zones where some of the polls close later. Those voters will be in different Congressional Districts, so their vote still means something.

This system will also ensure greater representation for all. Out in San Diego, which votes heavily Republican, the voters will know that their vote for President will help win an Electoral College vote.

Finally, this system will minimize the effects of voter fraud. No longer will a certain political party be able to swing elections by having felons and the dead vote (and you know what I mean). Stuffing the ballot box with 10,000 votes in Chicago will only result in one fraudulent Electoral College vote, instead of 22.

I've sent my proposal to my Congresscritters (in a more formal manner). I got the standard reply. "Thanks for your letter, blah, blah, blah, we'll look into it, blah, blah, blah, I hope I can count on your support in the upcoming election, blah, blah, blah."

I also sent it to a number of conservative web sites. A couple of them posted them for everyones benefit. But its been a few years, and I think its time to resurrect the idea.

I'm thinking about hosting a web site extolling the virtues of this Constitutional Amendment. It will take a grassroots effort, since my Congresscritters don't seem interested (I shouldn't be so harsh, as they probably didn't even read it).

What do you think? Does it make sense? Are you ready to spearhead the campaign in CO?

PS: Love your posts. The other day, "Retired Spook" said be was going to put one of my posts in his archives along with some of your's. I told him I was honored. :-)

A-10

An inspirational idea!

A-10

BTW, I think all of the Conservatives, Republicans and like minded people here on B4B greatly appreciate the research and articulation that both you and Almiranta provide. I keep a personal archive of some of my favorite posts. Both of your posts are peppered through out my archives –thanks!

DM,

Thanks, your welcome, and its my pleasure. I try to do my best.

At times it gets frustrating because it seems as if we're talking to a brick wall. The liberals who post here are so blinded with their hatred for the President, that they deny facts, jump to erroneous conclusions, and exhibit a defeatist attitude towards anything and everything.

The President could personally find a cure for Parkinson's disease (to keep the analogy current), perfect nuclear fusion as an endless and non-poluting energy source, and end all wars, hunger, and suffering, and the liberals would still find fault every step of the way.

I think the liberals posters here should be thankful that the B4B editors do not ban them as DU, Kos, or any other leading leftist blog would do if they were conservatives. Instead they get to lurk around here, spewing their venom. But I figure, if we maintain a relatively civil tone (which amplifies their vindictiveness), stick with facts, not feelings, and stay true to our beliefs, maybe, just maybe, one or two of them may see the error of their ways and come over from the dark side.