Bugs Bunny lives down this street. I saw his name on a registered voter list.

She was just padding her stats, really. Just scrambling to meet a quota. You know how it is: when push comes to shove, fudging a few things doesn't seem so bad.

Except that when I say “fudging,” I mean “making up.” A paid registration worker for a liberal "progressive" grassroots organization has been caught filling out voter registration forms with fictional names and addresses. Names and addresses she just made up.

Milwaukee’s Election Fraud Task Force has filed charges:

A Milwaukee resident was charged Monday with election fraud, the first charge in an investigation into voter registration workers who submitted fake names to the city in what a complaint says amounted to a quota system.

According to the complaint, Endalyn Adams, 21, is accused of submitting dozens of fake names and addresses as a registration worker paid by the Community Voters Project, one of two primary groups under scrutiny.

Here’s the Community Voters Project website. They are “a national nonprofit organization working to increase the visibility, membership and political power of the nation’s leading environmental and progressive groups.” The Sierra Club, for example.

By the way, they’re looking for good help in Wisconsin. Salaries start in the low-to-mid $20,000 range, plus you can enroll in their group health plan.

Y’know, if you’re interested. Willingness to bend the law a plus.

Allegedly, that is.

In Adams’ case, the complaint states, Voters Project officials flagged 28 problematic names for city election officials.

The complaint says investigators found another 45 names Adams had submitted earlier that were added to the list, with about 60% of those deemed false. The false names have been removed.

How do opponents of election reform respond to this? These are fraudulent registrations. Registrations filled out by nonexistent people. If they were allowed to remain in the system, someone could use them to cast a fraudulent vote.

But how would a wannabe-fraudulent voter know there were fake names in the system in the first place? And what those names were? Well, we’re assuming that Ms. Adams was only scrambling to fill a quota. We’re assuming that nobody was compiling a list of “voters” who don’t exist, and who therefore were not going to show up at the polls.

Fine, let’s assume that. But we can assume something else, too: where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

If Ms. Adams was doing this, what are the odds that she was the only one? Slim.

And what are the odds that somebody – or somebodies – have noticed: hey, this is really easy? Pretty damn good.

And what are the odds that somebody’s filing fraudulent voter registrations on purpose, thinking: we could use those to cast fake votes?

I won’t try to answer that except to say: it’s possible. It’s very possible. Unless somebody is paying close attention – you know, checking things out somehow – this could disenfranchise real live legal voters. Anyone who can't see that is either blind, or blissfully chained to a partisan political position, no thought required.

Temptation. The lure of victory. It makes people do stupid things, sometimes, and hey: nobody's got to know that we cut a few corners to get there.

There isn’t a lot of money in politics – not for most of us – but there is a lot of passion. People get passionate about politics. People get passionate – zealous, even – about getting their candidates elected.

One need not be Stretch Armstrong to see that a passionate grassroots organizer might consider – at least consider – breaking the law in the name of getting his – or in this case, her – candidate elected.

But one does need to see what's laying out in plain sight.

At the risk of sounding like a defeatist...

...today's FoxPolitics.net colunm is titled "It's Obama's Race to Lose."

An excerpt:

"The smart liberals are worried. The dumb ones think they've won." - popular quote in the right-leaning blogosphere, source unknown.

Two years ago, we thought Republicans would be fine. We thought Mark Green would win the Governor’s office. We thought Republicans would hang onto the Senate. We thought the overwhelmingly Republican Assembly would stay, at least, comfortably so.

We were really, really wrong.

That, for me, was the last straw. I knew I had to find some way to be more objective about politics – to not be led by the nose by my own personal bubble.

Have I done it? Heck if I know, but I’ll tell you this: with just over a month to go before the election, this looks like Obama’s race to lose.

Not throwing in the towel, but not ignoring the facts, either. And hopefully I'm not giving some facts too much weight while giving others too little, but if I am, then I'd rather err on the side of caution than on the side of irrational exuberance.

Go read the whole thing.

Why I won't mind if Obama wins

Election season’s in full swing. I can tell, because I’ve got that good ol' partisan feeling going on. The feeling that my side is right, and their side is wrong. That their criticisms are simply twisted by partisan bitterness, while ours are dead on.

Even if we have to do some twisting of our own.

I’m motivated by ideology: I want lower taxes, less bureaucracy, a real energy policy and a strong foreign policy. I’m motivated by partisanship: when you’ve been on a side for a while, you feel invested in that side. I’m motivated by fear: President Obama holding the reins to our economy and foreign policies? Yipe.

Not to mention, the thought of snide liberal partisans lording it up after an Obama victory tends to rankle. I’d much rather show what a good and dignified winner I am.

All that aside, though: if you're going to play, then sometimes you're going to lose. We don’t like it, and we don’t understand it, but Democrats will – every now and then – pull out a win. That’s just how it is.

And: when we lose, it’s not the end of the world. I'm trying to say this without sounding defeatist – the election is 50-50, and going down the wire – but I can think of a few reasons I’d like to see Obama win.

Let’s get the race thing out of the way first: it’s possible – expected, even, in some circles – that a significant number of voters will vote against Obama because Obama has a black father.

We don’t know that this is true. Not for sure. We can’t know the extent of it. We’ll never quantify it exactly. We’ll only be able to guess.

And, of course, large and loud elements of the liberal and Democrat side will guess that, if Obama loses, it will be proof. America is racist.

I hate it that people will use that excuse, but even more: I hate the thought that there actually are people who will make their choice that way. That race – more than ideology; issues; partisan labels; life story; qualifications; character – will be the deciding factor for some voters.

It bugs me. People: if you’re voting against Obama because he’s black – if you’d vote against Rice or Powell or Steele or Watts because they’re black – grow up.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, then we’ll legitimately be able to say that racism has been overcome. Not extinguished, but overcome. Sure, the other side will still use racism as an excuse, but it’ll be so much easier to roll our eyes derisively.

That’d be nice.

Other reasons: we – conservatives and Republicans – have been on defense for an awfully long time. A President Obama would offer plenty of opportunity for offense.

A President Obama, with his vast amounts of inexperience, might be susceptible to really bad (read: really liberal) ideas. Really unpopular ideas, like HillaryCare and Don't Ask Don't Tell. Particularly given the current state of Congressional leadership.

How’d that work out for Bill Clinton? Right: the Republican Revolution of 1994. Not that I expect anything that dramatic in 2010, but a shift in power will become far more likely.

Yes, I know, Democrats still might shove through some really awful legislation. And there’s the Supreme Court to think about.

Still. Political observers may have noticed: neither party does all that well when holding all the cards, and that’s more true for Democrats than it is for Republicans. If Republican infighting is like a bunch of old guys arguing over a card game, Democrat infighting is like starving cats fighting over a chicken bone. Even with an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate in charge, Democrats will face a steep hill.

Yeah, I know, we can’t count on that. The only way to be sure the U.S. won’t become the next Communist domino is to elect John McCain this November.

And, yes, I intend to do what I can to tip that balance in McCain’s favor, because there is no substitute for victory, if only to keep the election night party going a little longer.

But if it’s gotta be, it’s gotta be, and it won’t be the end of the world.

Is he crazy? Or is he just a genius?

Perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader - the Progressive progressives love to hate - likes to say that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

You want to see some difference? Read this op-ed by Assembly candidate Nathan Russell.

The subject: health care. The nutshell: don’t believe the guys who say they’ll give you everything.

I’m gonna start with the big finish, because it's just that good:

Ultimately, no matter what system we create, the people who will pay for our health care is us.

Sure would be nice if more people understood that like Russell does.

On to the rest. First, the Democrats’ so-called “Healthy Wisconsin” plan:

Anyone who watched the last budget come to a halt for months on end knows that health care reform will be a huge component of the debate. My opponent's record tells you what his choice would be.

According to the Doyle administration…

That’d be Jim Doyle, a Democrat. Even he knows this is a bad idea.

…the government-run health care plan Rep. Hilgenberg sponsored would increase the tax burden for Wisconsin residents by $17 billion. Putting that into perspective, the total amount the state took in from its residents in taxes in 2005 was $12 billion. To be clear, Rep. Hilgenberg's plan to make health care more "affordable" is to increase your state taxes by nearly 140 percent. That's not what I'd call affordable, and worse yet, it's only start.

Well, fine. What’s your plan, then?

I offer you a different, realistic and attainable vision for health care and our fragile economy. Early on in this campaign, I launched YourCARE...

The plan saves individuals and families money by making all medical expenses tax deductible and allows businesses to pool together to create the purchasing power of larger companies. The plan increases choices of state residents by requiring full disclosure of health care costs, including deductibles and co-insurance.

Nothing new there, really - those ideas have been proposed, and encouraged, and submitted, and debated. Why aren't they law yet? There's no good answer, really, except that some people won't be satisfied until the government has taken full control of medicine in Wisconsin. Or, I suppose, in the U.S.

Anyway. Those aren't new ideas, but these are:

It also unlocks Wisconsin's entrepreneurial spirit by providing CareGrants, which provide assistance to new and expanding businesses to obtain private health care coverage for their employees as they begin a new business venture.

The centerpiece of YourCARE is its focus on preventative care and workplace wellness. Citizens who enroll and actively follow a preventative care program will receive a $150 tax credit on their state income taxes. An increased focus on preventative care will reap cost savings benefits and will set our state up for further savings and healthy citizens for generations to come.

Use market forces and personal incentives to reduce demand, lower the bar for entering the market, and give us all the chance to make rational decisions. Best of all, stay away from government-run, single-payer, socialist health care.

Is he crazy? Or is he just a genius?

I admit, I'm going to want to know more about those CareGrants - I love the idea of providing incentives for new and expanding businesses, but not at the expense of placing existing businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Still, it's a good idea: having to purchase health insurance increases the cost of doing business. Increased costs are a disincentive to do business - or to do more business - in the first place. Those CareGrants will reduce that disincentive, which will mean more business, which means more jobs, more income, more tax revenue, etc.

Everybody wins!

Of course, if Russell doesn't win, those ideas will go bye-bye. So: Russell for Assembly!

Abortion rates down, Planned Parenthood cites lack of funds

TUESDAY, Sept. 23 (HealthDay News) -- Abortions in the United States fell 33 percent between 1974 and 2004, but sizeable differences among racial and economic groups continue to exist as to who gets an abortion, a new report says.

While the number of abortions among teens has also dropped dramatically, down 50 percent, abortion rates are still high among older women with children and poor women, according to the report from the Guttmacher Institute.

The article never exactly says why the abortion rate is down among teenagers – why, in that particular demographic group?

For example, how does the abortion rate compare to the pregnancy rate? If fewer teenagers are getting pregnant, then the rate of abortions would fall, compared to the overall female population. These numbers are kind of useless without better context.

(Note: according to this story, the teenage pregnancy rate did fall between 1990 and 2004.)

As it is, we’re kind of left with the idea that it’s all about contraception – some folks can get it, other folks can’t, thus the abortion rate is higher among the latter group.

But then, that doesn’t explain why “abortion rates are still high among older women with children.” Older women are more likely to have money and insurance than younger women, aren’t they?

More numbers:

The rate of abortions in the United States has dropped 33 percent from 1974 to 2004. In 1980 there were 29 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44; by 2004, that number had dropped to 20 per 1,000 women, according to the report.

While the abortion rate has dropped among all racial groups, it remains three times higher among Hispanic women and five times higher among black women, compared to white women, the report found.

But that doesn’t mean the rate is higher among those groups:

From 1994 to 2004, the rate of abortions among Hispanic women fell by 20 percent, from 35 per 1,000 women to 28 per 1,000 women. The drop in the abortion rate over the same period for white women was 30 percent; for black women, it was 15 percent.

So even in groups with higher overall rates, the rate has fallen.

Back to why. Planned Parenthood says it’s because they don’t have enough money:

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of public policy at Planned Parenthood, said the report underscores the disparities in women's health care in the United States.

"This study highlights what we at Planned Parenthood see every day -- affordable access to birth control is the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies," Rubiner said.

Actually, that’s arguably the second-best way. The best way is to keep your pants on, but don’t expect Planned Parenthood to say that. Also, don’t expect them to explain why, if “affordable access to birth control” is the problem, teenage abortions are down, while abortions among older women are up.

For an equally speculative but more logical explanation, I turn to these couple paragraphs in the LA Times version of the article, which HotAir’s Ed Morrissey noted:

But Day Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-Life Union in Washington, disagreed. She blamed the high rates on the number of inner-city clinics that performed abortions.

"It doesn't have as much to do with poverty as that the abortion facilities are there, ingrained in the neighborhoods," she said. "We as a community don't talk about this. . . . This is a silent killer among us."

So: if true, then it’s really all about knowing where the abortion clinic is. If Planned Parenthood wants to increase access to contraceptives, I think we know where they should put them.

Oh, and there’s one more number the story didn’t mention (but this one did): there were still 1.2 million abortions in 2004. Lower rate or no, that’s a lot.

An Average Guy, Wrestling with Complicated Things

My new column is up over at FoxPolitics. In it, I wonder how a guy of average intelligence and education is supposed to know why our current financial unpleasantness is happening:

When it comes to finance, I'm an average guy. I understand average things. These average things do not include the vast intricacies of the global financial market, or the slightly less vast intricacies of the recent financial near-meltdown.

The ins and outs, arguments and counter-arguments, reasons and excuses and explanations are beyond me. I wouldn't know a Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act if one bit me right in the butt, and I certainly couldn't tell one apart from a Glass-Steagall Act.

Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley are words I hear at the end of commercials I wasn't paying attention to. And Lehman…isn't that a furniture store?

As you can see, my understanding hovers somewhere south of actual understanding, and I doubt I'm alone. Yet, in the grand tradition of punditocracy, I endeavor to simplify and explain. If not to you, then, at least, to myself.

Naturally, since the topic is big-time finanace, I include a football metaphor. Read the whole thing.

Bonus: Jo changed one word from the column I sent her. See if you can guess which one!

Democrats are Funny

I’m easily entertained. Life, in general and in detail, amuses me. Especially when Democrats start complaining about election law.

The latest: federal and state law both require that mailed-in voter registration forms be checked. That they be verified, somehow. That the person on the form be an actual, legal voter.

Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (GAB) has been performing those checks since early August – about two years late. That’s not entirely their fault. Still, the law’s the law, and a government agency should follow it by default. It shouldn’t take a lawsuit.

And yet, it does. Wisconsin’s attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen, has filed suit to force the GAB to follow the law.

And Democrats are freaking out:

The (Democratic) party's attorney, Robert Friebert, argues such checks could leave a significant number of Democratic voters ineligible and prevent the party from achieving its goals.

And:

State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke said the request (to oppose the lawsuit) was filed on behalf of more than one million Wisconsin voters, many of whom traditionally vote for the Democratic candidate for president -- voters Wineke said the Republican attorney general is trying to disenfranchise.

Democratic voters are, it would seem, easily discouraged.

Let’s be honest: the Democrats do have a point. Who will find it easier to make a trip to the county clerk’s office to clear up a voter registration problem: a housewife from the ‘burbs with a minivan in the garage, or an inner-city single mom who’s working two jobs?

The first, obviously, and the first is also more likely to vote Republican.

Of course, our example could as easily be a small business owner who works 80 hours a week, vs. a guy living on welfare who hangs out on the corner all day. But never mind.

Democrats believe that any requirement placed on the voters will mean less voting. Indeed, there’s a supply and demand argument to be made: the more voting costs in time and trouble, the fewer people will do so.

Well, y’know, voters can register right at the polls, too. Just go to the polling place, the day of the election, and register right then and there.

Isn’t that easier? Wouldn’t you prefer to just head down to the polling place – one-stop shopping – rather than the multi-step process of getting the form, filling it out, mailing it in, then still having to respond to potential problems and still going to the polls?

You’re going to the polls anyway! Just register there!

Why the big drive to pre-register folks, when the at-the-polls option is so easy? So available?

Don’t Democrats understand how supply and demand work?

Oh, right. Of course not. Never mind.

Still. Why be so gung-ho to get people registered through the mail? If they’re going to vote anyway, just register them then. Take a step out. Make the whole thing easier. Cheaper.

Unless…Democrats figure these people aren’t likely to go to the polls in the first place. Can’t register at the polls if you don’t go, now can you?

But if they’re not going to go, why bother registering them at all?

Well, because there's a bunch of people walking neighborhoods in predominantly Democrat areas, collecting registrations from people who might not have bothered, otherwise. People like ACORN, for example, with their…let's just call them questionable tactics.

You can see where I’m going with this: if you’ve got a bunch of people registered who probably won’t go to the polls, dishonest people can then cast votes in their names. It’s a breeding ground for fraud, which is why Van Hollen wants the registrations checked, no matter how inconvenient it may be for the agency at hand.

I’m not accusing the Democratic Party of anything, mind you. I’m not suggesting that they’re deliberately sowing the seeds of voter fraud.

But I find it amusing to watch them squirm under the oppressive boot of their own weird position. To have to argue that it’s so hard to meet such low expectations, and that a million voters – most of them Democrats – just can’t do it, while ignoring that there's an even easier way…

Even if you’re not easily amused, that’s got to make you smile.

What the World Demands!

New column up over at FoxPolitics: the world demands Barack Obama!

I have good news. No, not for Republicans. Not for conservatives, either. Those ugly cousins oughta be kept in the back bedroom and allowed to come out only after the decent company has left.

No. My good news is for a much more enlightened group: The Rest of the World!

See, the world wants the U.S. to elect Barack Obama. If they could vote (that is, if they could all find their way into Milwaukee on Election Day) they’d elect Obama quickly, surely, and overwhelmingly.

I know this, because Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland said so:

Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

“If the free world could choose its leader.” Remember that phrase. Problem is: the nation that’s actually spent blood and treasure to keep the free world free might just choose somebody else. The McCain campaign is looking good, picking up numbers among women and independents. The formerly dispirited Republican base is perking up, and Obama’s former inevitability is looking…well, evitable.

That all may end up being meaningless, of course. There’s a long way to go.

Still, things have tightened up, and Republicans have the momentum. This worries Freedland. It worries The Rest of the World, too, which brings me back to my good news: the American Presidency needn’t be The World’s last chance.

It’s fairly well known that, to become the U.S. President, one must be a “natural born” citizen. Naturalized citizens can rise quite high in American politics, but they can’t aspire to the Big Chair.

This isn’t the case in Britain. Mere citizenship – naturalized citizenship included – is required to be elected to Parliament, and Parliament elects the Prime Minister from within its own ranks.

Barack Obama could, if he became a British citizen, also become the British Prime Minister.

The same appears to hold true in France and Germany and, I’ll bet, others. You can be born in Indonesia, schooled at Harvard, live in Chicago, become a naturalized European and rise to the top!

And, of course, once near the top of a European nation’s politics, it’s a short hop to the top of the European Union. With such vast support for Obama overseas, that can’t be so far-fetched.

I know what you’re thinking: they wouldn’t actually elect Obama. Not an American. Not in Britain.

To that, I say: Jonathan Freedland says otherwise. And he knows. He speaks for The Rest of the World.

Again, I know what you’re thinking: Obama would never go.

Well, maybe he would, if Freedland and his European friends can just market the idea right: show Obama how important he is to the world; how much he’s needed. Make the sacrifice, Barack, for the world. Come to Europe, where you’re loved!

If we Americans fail to live up to Europe’s standards again this year – if we revert, as we so often do, to our baser desires for lower taxes and cheap gas and the freedom to kill our own meat – it doesn’t mean The World can’t still have its way. It can: if Freedland’s ready to go the extra mile.

Convince Obama to become an Englishman, Freedland, and your greatest desire can yet come true. And, yeah, by the way: you can have him.

When the Private Sector Fails, it means we Need More Government. When the Government Fails, it means...Nothing.

You’re hungry.

Why are you hungry? Heck, I don’t know. Maybe you forgot your lunch. Maybe somebody stole it. Maybe your buddy skipped out on his turn to buy. Maybe the government soup line ran out of bread.

Your fault; somebody else’s fault; nobody’s fault. I dunno.

Does it matter? To your stomach, I mean? Are you any less hungry in one case than in another?

Some of us would say: yes. In one of those cases – the government soup line – your hunger isn’t nearly as bad. Because, you see, the government is providing the food. Therefore, eating is universal. Everybody gets food without having to rely on the trickeries and vagaries and greed of “the market.”

Well, yeah, you went hungry today. Still, it’s better. Trust us.

Does that make sense? It does – it must – to those who support “universal,” government, single-payer, socialized medicine.

Such people are quick to jump on any unmet or under-met need. Any example of someone going without – or going without the best – because it’s too expensive, or their insurance wasn’t good enough, or the insurance company refused to pay.

They love that last one.

And they have a point: the free market isn’t perfect. Capitalism – for-profit health care – won’t supply everyone with everything they want, or even, sometimes, everything they need.

As long as we live in a predominantly capitalist, free-market society (arguable, I know), we will continue to see stories about people struggling to make ends meet. Struggling to afford basic needs.

Many of those doing the struggling will see those stories on their own TVs in air-conditioned apartments, but that’s beside the point.

People struggle in a free market sometimes. So, the compassionate among us say: end the for-profit system. The government shall provide!

And how’s that working out? Well, in Britain, doctors aren’t telling their patients about new cancer treatments (hat tip Right Wing News):

Myeloma UK, which conducted the research, said a quarter of myeloma (bone marrow cancer) specialists…admitted hiding the facts about treatments that may be difficult to obtain on the NHS.

The main reason given was to avoid distressing or confusing patients.

…doctors candidly revealed how they struggled with NHS bureaucracy and cost-cutting to obtain the best treatments for their patients.

If that were a private insurance company scaring doctors into submission with the bureaucratic equivalent of camouflaged pits and barbed wire, the outcry would drown out a Sarah Palin rally.

But it’s not: it’s the government. So that’s okay, then.

It was okay last month, too, when it was the Oregon Health Plan refusing the latest treatment to a woman with terminal cancer, but offering to pay for euthanasia, instead.

Before that, it was surreptitious attempts to ration care. Patients dying while on waiting lists. Doctors debating whether to offer care to smokers, the elderly, the obese. Canada sending women with complicated pregnancies into the U.S. for care. It’s the state of Massachusetts facing ungodly and unsustainable cost increases, and Congress debating cuts in Medicaid reimbursements to doctors.

But…feh. So what? People going without? Unable to access the best or newest care? Unable to access any care?

If it were the free market doing that, then we’d have a problem. Then it would be wrong. Unbearable. Intolerable. A crime.

But it’s the government, so…

Somehow, that’s supposed to make going without…better.

Responsible Governance through Irresponsibility

My newest column is up over at FoxPolitics: in it, I explain why choosing a relatively inexperienced governor to run for vice president is, in fact, the responsible thing to do.

An excerpt:

Choosing Sarah Palin for Veep never thrilled me. I know: conservatives wanted her, and demographic politics recommended her. Still, McCain's most powerful argument against Obama was his experience – or, rather, his lack thereof – and picking Palin weakens that argument.

Yes, I know, she's second on the ticket, while Obama's is first. That's an important difference. Still, I expect conservatives and Republicans to be the responsible ones – liberals and Democrats certainly won't be – and placing Palin a heartbeat away seems irresponsible.

Want the whole explanation? You'll have to read the whole thing.

Blogging the Republican National Convention

I'm in St. Paul, and I'll be blogging the Republican National Convention all day, every day, Monday through Thursday over at Badger Blog Alliance.

Also, new column up over at FoxPolitics.net: my report on the anti-war protest I watched here yesterday. A bite:

See, there were the anti-war protesters, and then there were those for whom such levels of organization totally smacked of the Man, man. They were there to Take Back the Streets. To sow Anarchy. And maybe to get on the news, too!

Such was the tiny group I first encountered.

There were fewer of them than there were cameras surrounding them. There were so many cops around – riot-equipped cops, mounted cops, National Guard military police – that the scene appeared – in fact, was – ridiculous.

No more ridiculous, though, than the protesters themselves.

Video of the event is posted here, and more convention blogging all day long at BBA.