Isn't That What Plagiarism Is?

Conservatives (such as Larry Kudlow) and others have been noting that Barack Obama is merely a run-down jalopy with a recent Earl Scheib job. All pretty and shiny on the outside, but under the paint job, is a junker that will not run well. Well, now it seems that some of the rust is bleeding through.

One of Hillary Clinton's aides, Howard Wolfson, pointed out that Obama was using language from a speech by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick without attributing the words to him. Of course, the Obama campaign is dismissing the accusation as no big deal, "In a conference call this morning with reporters, Obama campaign adviser David Plouffe attributed the issue about the similarities to Clinton's campaign "grasping at straws." He said Obama and Patrick are friends who "share thoughts on ideas and language." However, it seems to be the very definition of plagiarism. Let's see how this plays with the 'highly educated' Democrats that seem to favor Obama. Hillary's claim is that Obama's highly polished oratory skills are all there is, that he doesn't provide solutions for problems. Either Hillary is right and you need substance behind the talk, or the words do matter. If the words do matter, then the plagiarism should be a big deal. You can't have it both ways. Recall that Sen. Joseph Biden was forced out of the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations for plagiarism.

Here is the video... you decide.

Thank You District 5 Republicans

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Even though I ran unopposed in the Republican Primary, I am no less grateful for the votes and support of the people in my District. The unofficial tally for me was 15,591. That number will likely go up a bit when they add the provisional ballots, the absentee ballots, and grace period ballots. I fully appreciate your confidence in me and will continue to work to maintain our responsible fiscal position and to passionately improve our preserves.

Thank you again for your vote of confidence.

Looking Into My Crystal Ball

If one wants to see the future of America if ever the National Popular Vote initiative is passed in enough States to make it viable, one merely needs to see what happened with the 2006 Presidential Elections in Mexico. Nearly 65% of Mexico's voters voted for someone other than Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Democratic Revolutionary Party. Still, his vote count was only about 244,000 less than the eventual winner, Felipe Calderon. Obrador's response was that there were voting irregularities, and demanded a recount. In a July, 2006 Chicago Tribune editorial, a senior Obrador aide was quoted as saying about Calderon, "we are not going to let him govern." 'Obviously', if Obrador didn't win, the other side must have cheated. However, 'The country's independent electoral institutions--established in the 1990s, after the ruling party finally stole one too many elections--quickly came to be viewed as a model for other nations. International election monitors have pronounced the July 2 vote clean and transparent.' Even so, there were mass demonstrations that closed down Mexico City.

Right now in Kenya, there is even a more horrific situation, where a contested election has erupted in violence, with two Parliament members killed.

Fast forward to a future U.S. election that ignores the Constitution's intent (and here) of a republican solution to elect a president. Any election that is even a little close will result in a similar reaction as was in Mexico. Every vote in every precinct will be contested. After a recount (if we can even get one nation-wide), the result will still be disbelieved, because it would be 'obvious' that the other side had manipulated the vote. We already have this with Democrats complaints about the Diebold Voting Machines. But Republicans have just as much of a beef, when there are Democrats that are convicted for various voting crimes.

In The Federalist Papers : No. 68, titled 'The Mode of Electing the President', Alexander Hamilton noted The Electoral College "... was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief." And specifically against a national popular vote model "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."

The Electoral College buffers society from this sort of abuse. Though it may not be perfect, it is better than any other system, or as Hamilton put it "I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."