You may have heard Colorado is one of a handful of states crucial to winning the 2012 presidential election. And if you've been following events at the state Legislature, you know how Team Obama plans to win: They're going to cheat.
Exhibit "A" is the Democrat hijacking of a defunct bill to push forward their plan to mail more than 400,000 ballots to inactive voters. Their initiative is drawn directly from language in SB 109, which passed the Democrat-controlled Senate but died in a House committee. The vehicle is HB 1257, which was killed by its Republican sponsor but resurrected by Democrats for the express purpose of allowing people who neither voted in the 2010 election nor responded when sent two postcards by their respective county clerks to receive a 2012 ballot. Well, maybe not them, exactly. But somebody, who will be able to vote on it ...
Exhibit "B" is the Colorado Senate's Democrat majority killing a bill requiring a photo ID to vote. When I cash a check, my bank wants a photo ID. I need one to renew my post office box. But when it comes to electing the president, well ... Democrats apparently think a utility bill is proof enough.
Fifteen states have passed laws requiring voters produce some sort of photo ID. Eight states currently enforce these laws; others are in various stages of legal challenge by groups who loudly proclaim that asking someone for proof of identity is a form of "voter suppression," but offer few statistics in support. They also argue there is no evidence of voter fraud, but this is backwards: If one is not required to prove identity, fraud will always be a possibility but can remain a secret crime. And it's no mystery why some want it to stay that way.
Nationally, the plan is also obvious: Lie, and hope that the American people are stupid enough to buy it.
Exhibit "A" is the president's response to Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposals. Remember, this is a president whose last two draft budgets did not get a single vote when they arrived in Congress. Not one. So when he talks about "radical cuts" to government spending, perhaps he really doesn't understand that slowing the growth of spending is not a cut. The amount Republicans propose for, say, Medicare in 2016 is $593 billion, while the amount presently spent is $478 billion. Which figure is larger, and why is an additional $105 billion a "cut?" Which is worse, the inability to do simple sums, or the inability to tell the truth?
Remember when the president says "we wouldn't have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat," that he doesn't mention his own budget decreases the EPA's budget by $77 billion in 2013, and $101 billion in 2016. How should we view his vicious, inaccurate attack on someone who proposes to do exactly as he has?
Exhibit "B" is the president's recent assault on the Supreme Court. Historically, we haven't seen this sort of temper tantrum since FDR's attempt to "pack" the court in the 1930s in response to its findings that several of his pet projects were unconstitutional - thereby contradicting the president's assertion that a negative finding on Obamacare would be "unprecedented" or "extraordinary." Actually, the court has done this 165 times in the history of the Republic, all the way back to the 1803 "Marbury v. Madison" case. Perhaps the president slept through his Harvard Law classes on judicial review.
Or perhaps he simply chooses to ignore the facts. After all, he characterized Obamacare as being "... passed by a strong majority ..." when in fact it barely squeaked through the House, 219-215.
Sadly, it appears the man who promised in 2009 "not to be the president of Blue states, or of Red states, but of the United States ..." has decided instead to revert to his roots. He has dropped the masque of unity, choosing division, mischaracterization, envy and vitriolic rabble-rousing as his campaign tools.
His surrogates and minions nationwide and in Colorado are following his lead, sowing discord and animosity in service of the Community Organizer in Chief's reelection. Judging from the planning and mobilizing material I've been seeing from Washington, Chicago and from right here, they will resort to any tactic - however low, whatever the personal or social cost. This is going to be an ugly election, and the wounds it deals will be deep, painful and long-lasting.
I hope they're not fatal to the Republic.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org.