Voting

Despite having spent months registering students and alumni to vote and urging them to participate in the election for three open city council seats in an effort to gain majority control, even going so far as to hold a special convocation and cancel classes yesterday, it looks like Liberty University's efforts to use its voting power to take over the Lynchburg City Council failed badly: 

Liberty University junior Caroline Biggs posted herself in front of a fleet of poll-bound buses on campus, waving a homemade sign that read “Vote Republican: Cary, Hannon, Good.”

Behind her, hundreds of LU students boarded the buses bound for Heritage Elementary School, the polling pace for LU’s on-campus students.

The students had just emerged from LU’s special Election Day convocation where Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. joined forces with Del. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg, in urging the students to vote. To boost participation in the election, LU canceled classes until 2 p.m. and sent out e-mails and texts through its emergency alert system reminding students to vote.

Of more than two dozen students interviewed for this article, the majority voted the Republican ticket — Hunsdon “H.” Cary, Ted Hannon and Don Good — who were popularly coined the “pro-Liberty candidates.” Students cited property restrictions on LU, taxes and moral values as their top issues.

While the Republican slate dominated the Heritage precinct, Hannon and Good failed to garner enough votes citywide for one of three at-large council seats. Nor did LU student Brent Robertson, who netted 588 votes at the Heritage precinct and finished last in the eight-way race.

The election winners were Mayor Joan Foster, Interim Councilman Randy Nelson, and Cary. 

Cary finished third and his two pro-Liberty running mates finished fourth and fifth.

I've been noting recently how Liberty University seems to be transforming itself into something of a political organization as it is taking credit for delivering local elections, using its voting power to target the local city council, and even actively working to turn its student body into the "future leaders" of the Religious Right movement.

Along the same lines, Glenn Beck has been tapped to deliver the commencement address at LU's graduation in a few weeks and some right-wing activists are upset that a Mormon like Beck would be asked to speak at a Christian university ... and LU's defense of the decision seems rather telling: 

Liberty University spokesman Johnnie Moore responds by saying that Beck was chosen because he is right for the event.

"In this time period, where it seems like so many in the United States are embracing a larger government and socialist tendencies, Glenn Beck is one of the people out there who is sort of championing traditional American values and [the] perception of the United States of limited government and of freedom," Moore explains.

LU apparently thinks that what its graduates need to hear on graduation day are the rabid ravings of a McCarthyite propagandist convinced that Barack Obama and the Democrats are intent on turning America into a Nazified socialist state.

Over the last few weeks, we been tracking Liberty University's attempts to pressure the Lynchburg City Council to do its bidding by demanding that it move the polling place right onto campus for the benefit of LU students and by urging council members to quickly change LU's zoning status, which it asserts is stifling the school's growth, before the election early next month, going so far as to secretly record a conversation LU leaders had with city officials.

Through it all, LU has been engaged in a massive voter registration drive of students and been making it quite clear that they are expected to vote in the upcoming city council election (undoubtedly for candidates who will do LU 's bidding on the board):

Thanks to Liberty University’s aggressive get-out-the-vote efforts, this spring marks the first City Council election in Lynchburg history where college students could emerge as a major voting bloc ... The biggest concern among those students: how restrictions on LU’s growth will affect student tuition. LU officials argue that the city’s conditional use permit process, which applies to all Lynchburg-area colleges, will place an undue financial burden on Liberty as the school grows, and may result in higher tuition for students.

It’s a deciding factor of Andrew Neber, a sophomore from Wilmington, Del., who plans to vote for Mayor Joan Foster and LU student Brent Robertson in the City Council race for three at-large seats. (He is undecided about the third).

“We should be allowed to grow past 12,000 students rather than spend $8 million on improvements that are not really necessary,” Neber said.

“I love this school, and I love the city of Lynchburg … I think that it’d be pretty awesome if we (LU) could achieve that goal of reaching 25,000 students. It’s one that I think would benefit the entire city and can only bring good things.”

On campus, the City Council race has dominated the news pages of the student newspaper and has been a recurring topic at LU’s thrice-a-week morning convocation.

In late March, Liberty launched a two-day voter registration drive that resulted in several hundred new on-campus voters, pushing the total number of registered voters with a campus address to more than 4,250.

The city will have to wait for Election Day to see if Liberty University students will play a deciding factor in the outcome. Either way, candidates are treating them as a voting constituency that must be taken seriously.

Citywide, Lynchburg has 48,522 registered voters, which means that nearly 10% of all registered voters in Lynchburg are Liberty U students ... and that is not even LU students with an off-campus address. 

As LU representatives have already made clear, the school is fully prepared to use their voting power to replace city council members who will not do their bidding: 

McRorie says resolving LU's rezoning before the election could relieve some of the pressure on a divisive issue.

When asked if the representatives on council don't vote in favor of this rezoning, the voters in the Liberty community will effectively vote them out of council, McRorie responded, "I think that's a distinct possibility, I think one could draw that conclusion."

A few weeks ago, we noted how Texas Supreme Court hopeful Rick Green was touting the support of local ultra-right-wing activist Steve Hotze, the man who was behind the anti-gay mailings targeting Houston mayoral candidate Annise Parker last year and believes, among other things, that "medical problems are frequently caused by personal sin."

Now, as the date of the run-off election approaches, Hotze has sent out an email touting his support of Green:

Now Steven Hotze, a Houston Christian arch-conservative, is sending out endorsements for Green. Hotze made news late last year for sponsoring mailers urging Houston voters to reject now-Mayor Anise Parker because she was endorsed by a gay and lesbian caucus.

As President of the Conservative Republicans of Texas, Hotze said he likes Green's clear-cut conservative stands. "Unlike most judicial candidates, we do not have to guess about Rick's philosophy or convictions," Hotze wrote.

The email that Hotze is sending calls Green "the true conservative choice" in the election and promises that he'll be a "vote against a liberal judiciary who will march lock step with Obama on the path to socialism":

Early Voting is already underway in the Republican Primary Runoff across Texas, and our outstanding conservative candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, Place 3, Rick Green needs your support and VOTE during this crucial week. Please make time to go out and vote as soon as possible, as the early voting will only last through this Friday, April 9th.

Rick Green emerged from the March primary as the top vote getter, because he represents the true conservative choice in this election. He has the right experience, at the right time for the Texas Supreme Court. Rick is a proven, conservative leader with a constitutional understanding of our founding principles. We need that type of leader in every branch of government, especially the judiciary, as we fight to put an end to the march of socialism across our country.

As a State Representative, Rick Green had a clear, consistent, conservative record. He earned pro-life and pro-family awards, Second Amendment and property rights awards, and the Fighter for Free Enterprise award. Unlike most judicial candidates, we do not have to guess about Rick's philosophy or convictions.

Like many other justices who started on the Supreme Court with no prior judicial experience (including our current Chief Justice), Rick Green brings a wide variety of experiences that will be valuable to the court and serve us well. Rick has been a businessman, attorney, mediator, arbitrator, state representative, speaker, teacher, and author. Recently-retired Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister says, "We need judges who will not wilt under pressure, or change their opinions to please the newspapers. Rick Green will be that kind of judge. His service in the Texas Legislature gives him a perspective on Texas law that no other member of the Supreme Court has. I urge Texas Republicans to support him in the April 13th runoff."

His strength of character, is among the many reasons why Rick is endorsed by most of the grassroots conservative leaders in Texas, including Richard Ford, David Barton, Tim Lambert, Kelly Shackelford, Carol Everett, Chuck Norris, Judge Paul Pressler, Peggy Venable, Michael Quinn Sullivan, and many more (see www.RickGreen2010.com for a full list).

And it is my pleasure to endorse him as well, as President of Conservative Republicans of Texas.

Early voting continues this week only, from today through Friday, April 9th. Runoff Election Day is Tuesday, April 13th. I urge you to stand with me in support of Rick Green , to ensure that our Texas Supreme Court will be served by a man with the RIGHT kind of experience that we need in our judiciary.

Every single vote counts, and every vote for Rick Green brings is a vote against a liberal judiciary who will march lock step with Obama on the path to socialism. Rick needs your vote and your support. Please visit his website at www.RickGreen2010.com and sign up to participate in his campaign and learn more information.

With much appreciation, I remain, as always,

Sincerely yours,

Steven F. Hotze, M.D.
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas
http://www.conservativerepublicansoftexas.com

David Barton of Wallbuilders likes to fancy himself an expert on the Founding Fathers, especially as it pertains to questions regarding their Christian faith and the fundamentally Christian nature of the nation they created.

But Barton also considers himself an expert on the Constitution, which occasionally leads him make absurd claims based on ridiculous analysis, such as his recent argument that any member of Congress who supports working on the Sabbath is violating the Constitution and needs to be tossed out of office.

But that is nothing compared to the argument he put forward yesterday on his radio program, discussing with Rick Green his objection to the use of "deem and pass" in getting health care reform legislation passed on the grounds that the Constitution requires that all votes in the House and Senate require a recorded Yea or Nay vote:

Constitutionally you can't do this. And it's real simple because the Constitution specifies how Congress is to vote. And if you look at Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2, which is repeated in Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 3 - and I don't mean to be throwing out numbers, but I do that just to say, hey, there are specific locations in the Constitution for this - those Constitutions [sic] say that the votes of both houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays.  In other words, you've got to go through and say "yes" or "no" individually ... The Constitution requires that those who have a voice have to sound their voice either as a Yea or a Nay ... and it also says that regardless of what House rules are, the Constitution says that if twenty percent of members of the House want a recorded vote, they get a recorded vote.

Now "deem and pass" is not a recorded vote ... that's not a vote on the bill, that's not Yeas and Nays, that is not a recorded vote on the issue ... You can't do it constitutionally.  The Constitution requires the yes and no votes on the particular issue. So we never should have even been at the place where we talked about "deem and pass," and what struck me was that nobody was citing the Constitution on it. 

Now, maybe the reason nobody was citing this "constitutional" argument is because Barton's analysis is laughably shoddy.

Let's take a look at Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2 (emphasis added): 

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Clearly, the section lays out the rules for a Presidential veto and Congressional options for overriding such a veto and the requirement for a recorded vote of yeas and nays is in reference to veto override votes only.  It does not say that every vote requires a recorded vote of yea and nays; it merely say that in situations where Congress is attempting to override a presidential veto, those votes require require yeas and nays and must be recorded.

Yet, in Barton's analysis, this means that every vote Congress requires yeas and nays and must be recorded.

Barton also claims that his analysis is supported by Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 3::

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Somehow, Barton gleans from this provision mandating the occasional publication of the House journal a requirement that every single vote requires a recorded yea or nay vote. 

Keep in mind that this is the sort of expertise that Barton brought to the Texas State Board of Education when he was named to serve on its panel of "experts" to redesign the state's social studies curriculum ... and that sort of constitutional expertise that Green wants to take onto the Texas Supreme Court.

Yesterday, People For the American Way released our latest Right Wing Watch In Focus entitled "(P)reviewing the Right-Wing Playbook on Immigration Reform" which lays out the attacks the Right used to fight efforts at immigration reform in the past and will undoubtedly deploy again the issue is taken up by Congress in the near future: 

The public debate over comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 and 2007 was marked by appalling anti-immigrant rhetoric and was accompanied by a rise in anti-Latino hate crimes tracked by the FBI. In a report last year, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights called "the legitimization and mainstreaming of virulently anti-immigrant rhetoric" one of the "most disturbing developments of the past few years." Among the pundits promoting "fear and loathing" on cable television was Glenn Beck, who said "our country is on fire, and the fuel is illegal immigration." Since then, the swine flu scare and the deep economic recession in the United States have given right-wing opponents of comprehensive immigration reform new fuel for inflaming anti-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiment. In September 2008, for instance, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin even blamed "illegal immigrants" for the mortgage crisis.

The 2006-2007 push for comprehensive immigration reform was supported by the Bush administration, much of America's business and labor establishments, and congressional leaders from both parties. But in spite of that broad support, the passage of reform was derailed by right-wing pundits who inflamed anti-immigrant sentiment, some members of Congress who gleefully participated in the fearmongering, and others who were simply afraid to resist it.

In October 2008, the Anti-Defamation League criticized anti-immigrant groups for utilizing the strategies of hate groups and "resorting to hateful and dehumanizing stereotypes and outright bigotry to demonize immigrants." To the categories identified by the ADL we can now add demagoguery over the swine flu virus and exploitation of the nation's economic woes.

Here is a review of the rhetorical strategies used to inflame anti-immigrant sentiment and build political opposition to comprehensive immigration reform.

The report lays out nine specifc attacks the Right has used in the past to kill immigration reform legislation:

1: Appeal to Racial Fear and The 'Brown' Threat to 'White' America - "What is happening to us? An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America's white majority is no longer even reproducing itself." - Pat Buchanan

2: Appeal to Racial Resentment by Portraying Immigrant Rights Advocates as Racists -- "[NCLR is] the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people" - Michael Savage

3: Portray Immigrants and Their Supporters as Invaders, Conquerors, Enemies of the U.S. - "The homegrown multiculti-mau-mau-ers know exactly what they believe, and they know exactly what they are doing. They aim to mainstream the 'Stolen Land' mantra and pervert history. They aim to obliterate America's borders by sheer demographic and political force." - Michelle Malkin

4: Portray Immigrants as Criminals and Terrorists - "Illegal immigration" is a "slow-motion Holocaust," and a "slow-motion terrorist attack on the United States." - Congressman Steve King

5: Portray Immigrants as Carriers of Disease and Weapons of Bio-Terrorism - "The next time you eat in a restaurant or sleep in a hotel or motel....just remember to bring your own food, dishes, untensils [sic], glasses, towels, and maybe your own water. The person who cooked your meal or made your bed may very well be the one who picked your fruit and vegetables, yesterday....and we've heard the stories about what they do in the fields....haven't we?" - Mothers Against Illegal Aliens

6: Stop Reform by Shouting 'Amnesty' - "'Comprehensive' is the code word for amnesty." - Pat Buchanan

7: Denigrate Reform Efforts as Vote-Buying -- "The Democrats know it's to their advantage to bring in Third World hordes who will one day become Democratic voters." - Rick Scarborough

8: Portray Anti-Immigrant Stance as 'Pro-Worker' (While Voting Against Worker Interests) -- "If they were not in the country, we wouldn't have to worry about emergency room or health insurance costs at all. And Americans would have these jobs." - Congressman Virgil Goode

9: Push Divisive Black-Brown Wedge - "[Illegal immigration is] the greatest threat to black people since slavery." - Ted Hayes

For those who are committed to passing much-needed immigration reform, it is vital to know the various strategies used by anti-immigrant, right-wing activists in the past ... and that is exactly what our latest report seeks to chronicle and analyze.

As I noted yesterday, Rick Green is poised for a run-off election next month for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court ... he is also a Chuck Norris approved, Tea Party Religious Right activist.

So what does it look like when someone like that decides to run for a seat on the state Supreme Court?  It looks a lot like this presentation where, unable to tout his judicial experience since he has none, Green instead assured the audience that his hard-core right-wing views would always drive his decision-making process on the bench and all they have to do is look at his long record of right-wing activism to know that there is no need to fear that he'll ever "become a David Souter": 

Something that makes me different from all the candidates in this race, and that is unlike most judicial candidates, you don't have to wonder about my philosophy. You don't have to guess what my convictions are or where I stand. You don't have to worry about voting for me and regretting it because I become a David Souter, the ultra-liberal on the United States Supreme Court, appointed by George Bush because everybody though he would be conservative.

It's not enough to say "I'm a conservative," you gotta look at the record. And with me, you can do that. You can look at my voting record when I was a state legislator; when I was a state rep I was considered the fourth most conservative in the legislature. I received the Eagle Forum's "Faith and Family Award." The Chamber of Commerce gave me the "Fighter for Free Enterprise Award." I was co-author of the Parental Notification Bill, I was always a 100% pro-lifer, I had property rights awards, Second Amendment awards.

... [Green talks about this endorsement he received from Charlton Heston] ...

I've also been with David Barton and WallBuilders for about ten years now, teaching on the Constitution, the original intent of the Founding Fathers, going back to the formula that made us successful and teaching that to folks, and author of books on the subject as well.

I'm also the founder of Patriot Academy, for ten years we've been training 16-25 year-olds in the Founding Father's philosophy so they have not only the right knowledge, but the skills to be effective at the process.

I want you to know that, as a former legislator, I respect the proper roles of the different branches. I will be the one sitting around the conference room table reminding my fellow Justices that it's the folks we elected to serve under that big pink dome, they're the ones supposed to make the law, our job is only to apply it

...

The bottom line is, you elect me to the Texas Supreme Court, you can count on me to fight for justice, to uphold the rule of law, but never to legislate from the bench.

I guess it should come as no surprise that the establishment conservatives are dismissing Ron Paul's victory in the CPAC straw poll as meaningless. 

While Paul sees his victory as "significant," others do not: 

Jason Mattera, spokesman for the Young America's Foundation (YAF), was a speaker at the event where more than half of the attendees who voted were between the ages of 18-25.

"Ron Paul, his supporters almost have a cult-like allegiance to him," Mattera comments. "They are a vocal minority. It was, I believe, less than 3,000 people who voted in the straw poll, even though there [were] 10,000 people at CPAC. It means nothing in terms of a favored candidate."

According to the YAF spokesman, the big draw at CPAC is not the politicians and their "canned speeches," but rather the "culture warriors" like Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck, who "really inspire the crowd to take action." Mattera says he wishes Ron Paul would retire because he "has some very wacky, wacky ideas."

Keep in mind that Mattera is the one who spent his speech at CPAC accusing President Obama of using cocaine and called him "scrawny street agitator" and "jack-ass."

But it's not just Mattera dismissing Paul's win ... Gary Bauer is as well, arguing that Paul's supporters are Truthers and that Paul's views encourage that sort of "dangerous and deranged mindset":

[T]hen came surprising news that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) won CPAC’s 2012 straw poll, which according to one report elicited “a cascade of boos” from the audience.

Let me add some perspective to this. First, not every attendee voted. The number of total votes cast was around 2,500, and Paul won 31% or roughly 775 votes out of the eight to ten thousand people there.

Second, it’s difficult to consider Ron Paul within the mainstream of American conservatism. While his views on limited government have some appeal, his voting record on values issues is abysmal. Paul opposed the marriage protection amendment, has voted against key pro-life legislation and critical national security issues, such as military tribunals for terrorists.

The producer of the Bauer and Rose radio show was at the CPAC convention all weekend, and he gave me this disturbing report: The Paul supporters were overwhelmingly young. That’s great. But Paul supporters of all ages were often “9/11 truthers.” That’s very bad. Many were openly spouting conspiracy theories that were favorites among leftists during the Bush years, accusing our own government of attacking us on 9/11.

Paul’s rhetoric and his many appearances on alternative radio shows often encourages this dangerous and deranged mindset. It is way beyond time for Ron Paul to publicly denounce the 9/11 truther movement and reject the support of those who adhere to such nonsense.

Paul was interviewed on CNBC this morning and said, “Why should we be looking for a war with the Iranians? What have they done to us? What are they capable of doing to us?” Let me remind Rep. Paul that Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. We know Iran is responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its leaders routinely refer to the United States as “the great Satan.”

When the CNBC hosts said that the regime was pursuing nuclear weapons, Paul denied it three times, adding “Nobody’s proven that.” Somehow convinced that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic views will lend themselves to rational dialogue, Paul repeatedly insisted that we should follow Obama’s policy of reaching out diplomatically to our enemies, including the Iranians. This degree of delusional thinking is on par with that of European leaders who thought they could negotiate in good faith with Adolf Hitler.

I cannot fathom how any Ronald Reagan conservative could share these views, but I’d be happy to hear from those who think Paul is right.

If it's "difficult to consider Ron Paul within the mainstream of American conservatism," then how did Paul just win CPAC's straw poll, which Bauer himself describes as the quintessential gathering of mainstream American conservatism? 

"It's a free country and a free conservative movement," Mr. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader and former White House domestic policy adviser, told The Washington Times. "The people at CPAC represent the three legs of the conservative coalition - traditional values, economic- libertarian and strong national defense."

It seems that even Gary Bauer doesn't seem to know what to make of the fact that the conservative movement appears as if it is being taken over by right-wing fringe activists. 

• Politico has an excellent piece on the right-wing groups who have been funding and training activists like James O'Keefe.
• The Washington Times reports that Janet Parshall is leaving Salem Radio Network to start up a new show with the Moody Broadcasting Network: "Some cited budget reasons on the part of Salem; others said it involved personality clashes and that Mrs. Parshall had gone through a string of producers during her 15 years with the network."
• The ACLJ has opened yet another foreign office, this one in Kenya.
• Focus on the Family is intent on wooing "millennials" at the upcoming CPAC conference.
• Now that Liberty University students seemingly dominate their voting district, it only stands to reason that university officials are trying to get the place their polling place right on campus.
• Finally, it must be nice to be a conservative activist who can rely on clueless talking points instead of having to worry about facts or having any idea what you are talking about.