Tea Party Nation chief: It makes sense in theory to limit voting to property owners; Update: Tea Party Nation chief responds

posted at 6:25 pm on December 1, 2010 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, which soberly observes that Judson Phillips’s opinion proves nothing about tea party opinion generally. I’m not so sure that this clip proves anything conclusive about Phillips’s opinion either: It’s conspicuously brief, seemingly cutting out before he leaves the subject, and it comes from Think Progress, which hasn’t always done a sterling job of editing conservatives for context. But judging from the number of comments piling up in the Headlines thread about this, you guys want to have (or continue) a food fight about it, so here you go. Let the tomato- and pie-throwing begin!

Apart from the fact that a rule like this would exclude a whole lot of poor people from voting and would therefore surely be unconstitutional as a variant of a poll tax, it makes less sense the less local the election is. The fear is that renters won’t carefully consider what’s best for their community since they can always bug out if the neighborhood starts to deteriorate; rarely will that be true if the “community” in question is the United States and the election involved is a federal one (notwithstanding the temptation to move to Canada if The One is elected to a second term), which I think is what Phillips has in mind here. Beyond that, though, it’s simply not universally true that renters are less wedded to their community than property owners. Take it from me: If you’re willing to pay the sort of rent it takes to live in New York City (rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch), it’s because you really want to live in New York City. I’ve paid a pretty penny over the years for the right to be resoundingly crushed by Democrats in every state and local election. Don’t take my right away!

Update: Apparently Phillips sent out a blast e-mail about all the leftist attention to this clip a few hours ago. I’m not on the mailing list but Ed is. Here’s what Phillips says:

Do they really want this fight?

A couple of weeks ago, on the Tea Party Nation radio show, I was talking with David DeGerolamo of NC Freedom about the Founding Fathers and the original Constitution. During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea.

Apparently, two weeks after the show, some liberal stumbled across it and today, that comment has turned into liberal headlines such as, “Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners” and “Tea Party Leaders Attack Constitution.” Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

To put it mildly, the left went nuts.

Watching the left go into hysteria over this has been nothing short of amusing. Of course, when the left goes spastic over something like this, they either get it wrong, or nine times out of ten, they lie about what was said. One of the more amusing stories started out, “Listen to Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips discuss ending voting rights for those who do not own property!”

Of course, it begs the question; do they really want this fight?

Let’s talk about the left and voting. Perhaps we should start with ACORN. In 2007, eight members of Acorn were arrested and all later pled guilty to voter fraud. ACORN is of course, a self admitted leftist organization. This would be noteworthy in and of itself, but of course, this isn’t the first time. In 1986, twelve ACORN members pleaded guilty to voter fraud. In February 2005, an ACORN worker was convicted of voter fraud in the St. Louis area.

In Houston this year, out of 25,000 voter registrations submitted by a liberal group called Houston Votes, less than 2,000 were actually valid.

In Illinois this year, at least 35 counties failed to send ballots to U.S Service members overseas in time for them to vote. However, in Chicago, election officials made certain that ballots were delivered to criminals incarcerated in the Cook County Jail.

This year, in Arizona, the liberal groups Mi Familia, Border Action and Faith, Hope &Vote bombarded the Yuma, AZ Recorders office with a massive number of registrations right before the deadline. Of those registrations, over 8000 were found to be forged. Over 300 were by convicted felons or illegal aliens.

Of course, this does not even begin to discuss the storied history of liberal Democrat election fraud. “Landside” Lyndon Johnson was the master in Texas of getting dead people to vote for him. In Chicago, the Dailey machine was legendary in stuffing ballot boxes. In more recent times, Democrats in Washington stole the Governor’s race from Dino Rossi in 2004 and the Minnesota Senate seat from Norm Coleman in 2008.

Liberals do not believe in fair elections. This goes back to the general problem liberals have with any form of competition. They do not like the competition of ideas because their ideas suck and Americans by a wide margin do not like their ideas. That is why they have to steal elections.

That is why liberals have to register people multiple times to vote. That is why they have to get dead people to vote. That is why they have to get illegal aliens to vote.

The left is currently trying to raise hell and lie about something I did not say regarding voting. Do they really want to bring their record on voting to the forefront?

Emphasis mine. He should post the transcript of the full exchange; like I said up top, this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized by a lefty editor for maximum outrageous outrage effect.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Private Pyle, you have got to be sh**ting me!!

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2010 at 6:28 PM

People who rely on government for more than half of their income should forgo their right to vote. They’ll just keep voting for more entitlements.

John the Libertarian on December 1, 2010 at 6:29 PM

When the Government stops Taking 25% of my Income, + 15% more in failing Social Programs, + Gas, Sales, and 100′s of other small taxes I Will agree with this.

That would only work if Property Taxes were the only Revenue Stream, What this guy fails to think about, when the country was founding, when this idea was popular, there was no direct income taxes on the federal level, once we got direct taxation this changed the game

the_ancient on December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I could see limiting voting to income-tax paying people but not this.

NTWR on December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM

So, nobody can answer my question. If those who have more then one property.. can they vote more than once?

(rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch),

Why is it excluded? I don’t live there so I don’t really understand.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Stupid.

As long as your a qualified (not a dead person, etc.), 18 year old plus legal U.S. resident, you should be able to vote.

You should have to provide a valid photo state or federally issued I.D., however, in order to vote. You know, to prove those pesky qualifications.

RedNewEnglander on December 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

I read this earlier and came to the conclusion that is someone’s personal opinion and not a Tea Party issue.

Kini on December 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

hogwash

fourdeucer on December 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

This is an old, old talking point. Like, Founding Fathers stuff.

It won’t happen. But I’m not offended if people want to relive some of our founding arguments.

S. Weasel on December 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

You’re.

*face palm*

RedNewEnglander on December 1, 2010 at 6:31 PM

It theory it makes sense. Voting these day seems to me to people tapping someone else’s piggybank. One you have to work to make your first mortgage or rent payment, your feelings on entitlements somehow quickly changes.

Tommy_G on December 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM

Sure does, welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote.

tarpon on December 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM

hm.. How’s about change it up a bit and only allow those who pay taxes the ability to vote.? That would at least include almost half the US citizens, and how could it be called a “poll tax” when you’re already paying taxes!

I’m brilliant!

Zippy_Slug on December 1, 2010 at 6:33 PM

While I was somewhat persuaded by the “if you don’t pay taxes you don’t get to vote” idea, this one is completely screwy. However, practically speaking, any restriction on voting, even requiring IDs, makes the libs soil themselves with self-rightousness indignation.

Meric1837 on December 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM

like I said in the post, this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized for maximum outrageous outrage effect

um, every time a liberal purports to repeat what a conservative said, he’s lying. You got to say, audio or it didn’t happen.

joeindc44 on December 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Take it from me: If you’re willing to pay the sort of rent it takes to live in New York City (rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch), it’s because you really want to live in New York City. I’ve paid a pretty penny over the years for the right to be resoundingly crushed by Democrats in every state and local election. Don’t take my right away!

Ditto for me. Before I bought my apt I paid anywhere from $2650.00 by myself for a 1BR in the Village to $6750.00 with my husband to live in Soho for a year on Mercer Street, because we could afford it and wanted to try it out.

This is the problem with the Tea Party, it all seems ok and then someone comes out with this. It’s disgusting.

BTW, this is the loon that threw the convention that most Tea Party members condemned.

AprilOrit on December 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM

I can see the point. Really the problem is that we have allowed millions of people to benefit from the American system without paying into it. We can see where that has gotten us, a government that used to consume 4% of GDP is now consuming 10 times that. We are only funding vote buying schemes.

echosyst on December 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM

And btw for those who do not live in NYC, those figures were monthly.

With the rent we pay – we deserve to vote twice.

AprilOrit on December 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM

And btw for those who do not live in NYC, those figures were monthly.

With the rent we pay – we deserve to vote twice. need to get our heads examined.

AprilOrit on December 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM

portlandon on December 1, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Unworkable so d.o.a. The feds know who paid income taxes last year, but the property tax office of my local municipality doesn’t know if I own land halfway across the state, so there would have to be some way to prove it to the local elections office, with frequent confirmation I haven’t sold it.

But that brings up place: Why not have a say not just where my domicile is, but other places where I have an interest? Maybe not every hamlet where I own 1/8th of an acre (a standard by which Soros-funded leftists could create over 5000 new voters by buying a square mile of Montana). But how about where I work? Congressional districts are so convoluted that many of us sleep in one and work in another, but we only have a say on who represents us where we live.

Again, unwieldy, although not impossible. First let’s make sure we can guarantee those who are supposed to be able to vote are the only ones that are, and encourage them to be informed and responsible when deciding who will represent them.

raybury on December 1, 2010 at 6:40 PM

Thank god November is over. There’s nothing in his statement that contradicted what he said. Depriving people without property (but taxpayers, property owners, soldiers) the right to vote is dumb and not remotely conservative.

Apologetic California on December 1, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Actually, I like elements of this idea… and have, since getting a look at the U.S. Citizenship exam (a friend took it; it’s not easy) and realized that LEGAL immigrants — people who go through the process properly — know a lot more about America than most high school grads.

Get a 100% on your voting test? You vote counts 100%. Get a 25%? You vote is discounted accordingly. Nothing racially, religiously, politically or otherwise biased… just making sure that informed voters carry the day. And there is a multiplier for property ownership, paying taxes, and military service.

Personally, I am tired of my vote being negated by some ACORN-recruited illegal alien… or 18 year-old dropout living in his parents’ basement… or someone who’s been dead for 20 years.

VastRightWingConspirator on December 1, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Tea Party is full of Demon Right wingers media attack…..in 5…..4…….3….

PappyD61 on December 1, 2010 at 6:43 PM

If it weren’t for the blatant dhim scam to redistribute wealth on the backs of the productive, to bribe ever increasing numbers of addicted dependents, while at the same time expanding government and consequently their power, this would never have risen as an issue.

Right now I’d say it’s an over reaction, but if those same marxists succeed in ramming through a shamnesty bill that perpetuates their majority, then it will be too late.

Interesting conundrum (or as AP likes to say palate cleanser).

ontherocks on December 1, 2010 at 6:43 PM

How would it work?

I own a million dollars in securities and live in a rental apartment. Do I get to vote? If yes, how do you verify my statement about the amount of securities I own; what happens if the value drops?

patch on December 1, 2010 at 6:43 PM

this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized by a lefty editor for maximum outrageous outrage effect.

As I understand it, he says:

During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea.

Then he goes into a lengthy rant about how liberals constantly steal elections, etc. etc.

So he’s not claiming that he was taken out of context or that he doesn’t really believe that it’s a wise idea to restrict voting rights to property owners. He’s just saying, “You shouldn’t criticize me for my views, because ACORN, that’s why.”

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM

He should post the transcript of the full exchange; like I said up top, this wouldn’t be the first time a conservative’s words had been bowdlerized by a lefty editor for maximum outrageous outrage effect.

You know, this Judson Phillips guy should stop whining about the media. It is really annoying to see someone play the victim card, when they are in a position for the whole Tea Party movement to get tarred with his thin skinned knee jerk reactions to the slightest criticism.

It’s not very leader like, very unbecoming for someone who is supposed to be a respected figure. Man up, and let it go.
Stick to the issues, and stop the crybaby whining already.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:45 PM

I could get onboard with a movement of no vote in any Federal election if you have no Federal income tax liability and you get back money that you did pay into the system, i.e. Earned Income Credit, Child Care Credit and the like, with exceptions for serving military and others in some sort of volunteer Federal jobs, and the truly disabeled. If you are drawing Federal Welfare, you should have absolutely no say in getting a vote for people who promise to keep your free money stream going.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

So he’s not claiming that he was taken out of context or that he doesn’t really believe that it’s a wise idea to restrict voting rights to property owners. He’s just saying, “You shouldn’t criticize me for my views, because ACORN, that’s why.”

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Not really.

He said:

During the course of our discussion, I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea.

WAS. Past tense. As in, at the time, it was a wise idea.

See what happened there?

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

And then he says “the left” is trying to lie about something he did not say regarding voting.

The left is currently trying to raise hell and lie about something I did not say regarding voting.

What’s the lie?

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

I could get onboard with a movement of no vote in any Federal election if you have no Federal income tax liability and you get back money that you did pay into the system, i.e. Earned Income Credit, Child Care Credit and the like, with exceptions for serving military and others in some sort of volunteer Federal jobs, and the truly disabeled. If you are drawing Federal Welfare, you should have absolutely no say in getting a vote for people who promise to keep your free money stream going.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Even better, a state’s citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote if that state receives more in federal spending then they pay in taxes. Are you with me?

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

What’s the lie?

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

I just showed you.

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM

WAS. Past tense. As in, at the time, it was a wise idea.

See what happened there?

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Here’s the full quote. Doesn’t sound like he’s talking about it in the past-tense to me.

The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote. Some of their restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but they, property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners do.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Are we better off now then when the country was first founded? Taxes? Freedom? Education? Opportunity?

Slavery has ended yet the divide between races continues. Animosity between North and South continues.

The vote is not limited to property owners yet the divide between rich and poor continues.

Education is free, yet some refuse to learn, and the divide between learnED and illiterate continues, and animosity between the urBANE and rural continues.

Nothing changes because people don’t change.

Skandia Recluse on December 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Conservatives: Consistently attempting to limit the franchise since god knows when.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM

So Jesus wouldn’t get to vote?

HAH!
HAH!

(Crouches, wielding sturdy halibut club.)

Btw, Sarah rerun starts in just 3 minutes!

Seth Halpern on December 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Did he explicitly advocate amending the Constitution to restore a property owner voting requirement?

Or was he just talking abstractly, making a point?

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM

Mr. Phillips, by your own admission, you think limiting voting rights to property owners was “a wise idea” a couple of hundred years ago. Your email might carry a little more weight if you mentioned in it why you don’t think its “a wise idea” in 2010 to do so. (Assuming, of course, that’s your position.)

A little clarity goes a long way.

tgharris on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Even better, a state’s citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote if that state receives more in federal spending then they pay in taxes. Are you with me?

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Apparently I hit a nerve on the free Federal welfare. Apples and Oranges and strawmen.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Sure does, welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote.

tarpon on December 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM

+1

Drug test ‘em too. I mean, if those of us paying their way have to get tested (with which I disagree), then they should get tested too. Our new Florida Governor is for that, but good luck getting it though.

ornery_independent on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Conservatives: Consistently attempting to limit the franchise since God knows when.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM

So you are a believer.

portlandon on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Did he explicitly advocate amending the Constitution to restore a property owner voting requirement?

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 6:56 PM

No one is claiming that he explicitly said that. So again – where’s the lie?

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

If Caliphoneyia or NY need a bailout, there should be a moratorium on their federal votes for at least a generation (or debt is paid) whichever is first.

That would solve several corrupt electoral issues.

ontherocks on December 1, 2010 at 6:59 PM

So he’s not claiming that he was taken out of context or that he doesn’t really believe that it’s a wise idea to restrict voting rights to property owners. He’s just saying, “You shouldn’t criticize me for my views, because ACORN, that’s why.”

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Well, I think it would be a wise idea for you to throw your computer through a plate glass window and stop dropping excrement all over the internet, but I wouldn’t mandate it through the legislature.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 1, 2010 at 6:59 PM

Conservatives: Consistently attempting to limit the franchise since god knows when.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Translation: The TPN Chief, like all Tea Party members, hates brown people. It’s racist to limit voting to citizens because it favors rich white people.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM

It sounds like he is confusing democratically run home-owner associations with democratic republican government.

DaveS on December 1, 2010 at 7:01 PM

No one is claiming that he explicitly said that. So again – where’s the lie?

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Apparently, two weeks after the show, some liberal stumbled across it and today, that comment has turned into liberal headlines such as, “Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners” and “Tea Party Leaders Attack Constitution.” Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

To put it mildly, the left went nuts.

There it is.

Out of context, on purpose.

What else is new.

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Back to Vested Interest – can’t come soon enough!

OldEnglish on December 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM

ornery_independent on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

As I said earlier:

Conservatives: Attempting to limit the franchise since god knows when, or at least since uppity renters, blacks, and women decided they wanted a say in government.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I think he goes too far. I think anyone that is on welfare shouldn’t be allowed to vote (caveat longterm welfare)they don’t pay income tax so they shouldn’t be able to vote themselves money. Voting age should be changed to 21 unless you serve in the military.

xler8bmw on December 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM

“Tea Party Nation President says It Makes A Lot of Sense to Restrict Voting to Property Owners

Some of their restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community.

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Even better, a state’s citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote if that state receives more in federal spending then they pay in taxes. Are you with me?

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Apples and Oranges and strawmen.

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Exactly the non-response I was looking for!

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Conservatives: The only freedom lovers that will TELL YOU when you’re “interested enough” in society.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM

This is the problem with the Tea Party, it all seems ok and then someone comes out with this. It’s disgusting.

AprilOrit on December 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM

…I see that we’ve fallen into the trap: simplifying something that’s already simple.

First, you have a phenomenon like the Tea Party movement. Then, lacking anything for the sound-bite-raised mind to get a handle on, one has to invent leaders…you know, gurus and media whores who “speak for” their “constituents”.

Then, you wait for one of these ersatz gauleiters to say something obviously stupid, and you can then brand their “constituents” stupid (or, more popularly today, “racist”).

Consider something: do all Americans think alike? Do they all agree? Judging from the last two presidential beauty pagents, I’d have to say “nyuh-unh”.

Consider something else: do all black/African- Americans think alike? Do all Hispanics/Latinos/Chicanos/-a’s think alike? Do all Texans or New Yorkers, the most stubbornly independent Americans, all think alike? Do all Californians think alike?

…OK…I’ll give you California…anyway….

…then how, on God’s blue marble, would anyone expect that all Tea Partiers think alike?

Mind you, during the last run-up to an presidential election, there was a certain lock-step’y sort of brown-shirt-ism being peddled, but that was just an aberrant sort of triumph of the spinmeisters and astroturf gardeners…haunted as the US is by the ghost of who FDR was supposed to be….

Let this guy talk about restricting the franchise. I can’t imagine, given the First Amendment and the fact that we’re not in a crowded theater (I presume), any idea that’s so radioactive that we can’t at least talk about it.

States had themselves restricted the franchise, some for at least a generation, after the Constitution was ratified. The whole “poll tax” voter restriction thing was axed within living memory. Convicted felons can’t vote by and large. So property qualifications and franchise restrictions have pedigree.

Can hucksters, charlatans, race pimps, poverty pimps, demagogues and slick totalitarians “fool all of the people some of the time”? Sure. The stars can align just right, and SHAZZAM!, we have Vietnam/Watergate/Jimmy Carter. Heck, we had two wars/an advocacy media/a fiscan downturn/Barack Obama, didn’t we? That’s two bozos with Secret Service details in just thirty or so years!

What we might want to talk about is the wider subject of citizenship:

* What is a citizen?

* What makes a citizen? (birthright citizenship?)

* What duties accompany citizenship? (voting, jury duty)

How many of these benighted “poor” who’re continually hung ’round the necks of each and every societal problem which has arisen since Jack Kennedy was diddling Marilyn think of their duties to their neighbors, rather than those from their neighbors to them? For how many of them is the word “community” synonymous with “ATM machine”?

Why are successful and affluent people less citizens than the rest of us, making them more liable financially to play in all of our reindeer games? The poor can’t pay/the rich can pay, so soak the rich? Marxian, maybe?

…so, what the heck! Throw open the barn doors and let folks do that democracy thing….

…and not assume that some buy with a bullhorn (or a teleprompter) speaks for anyone but himself.

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Proud Rino on December 1, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Suddenly, this has morphed from a discussion between two tea partiers into articles claiming that I want to change the Constitution to restrict voting to property owners.

To put it mildly, the left went nuts.

Brian1972 on December 1, 2010 at 7:08 PM

Obligatory:

SP: Stand by our North Korea ally

Stu: South
Sp: We are bound by treaty yeah, we are bound by treaty bound by prudence to stand by our South Korean alley and … to remind North Korea that we will not reward bad behavior

second part never happened so nothing to see here as the left never reported on it so it never happened. It is just another Conservative that was removed from context and not even put in the right context to make all Conservative look bad. Par for the course and right out of Alinsky. We should not fall for that every time they do it.

tjexcite on December 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Off topic, but I’m just so curious I have to ask…

Are you the type that lives under a bridge, that turns to stone in sunlight, or that regenerates unless the wound is treated with fire or acid?

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Conservatives: The only freedom lovers that will TELL YOU when you’re “interested enough” in society.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Liberals: The only freedom lovers that utterly detest freedom.

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Update: Apparently Phillips sent out a blast e-mail about all the leftist attention to this clip a few hours ago

Nowhere in the blast 10+ paragraph email does he deny saying it, though. That suggests to me that he probably did.

Jimbo3 on December 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Wow, real weasel words from the guy in his “response.” He never comes out and states his position on the issue. Just says “Look over there — ACORN!!”

In his long, rambling statment, how hard would it have been to put in one sentence stating his position? Unless he realizes his position is a very deeply unpopular one and all he wants to do is change the subject.

AngusMc on December 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:12 PM

Somehow neo-royalist pining for limiting the franchise doesn’t sound very freedom loving. I’ve never once taken a position detesting freedom; many conservatives here, however, have displayed a serious contempt for it in this thread.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Even better, a state’s citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote if that state receives more in federal spending then they pay in taxes. Are you with me?

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Depends. What, precisely, is the nature of this “federal spending”?

Plus, why restrict it to states? Let’s go down to county (or congressional district) level.

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM

This only increases his appeal to us tax payers.

JimP on December 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Even better, a state’s citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote if that state receives more in federal spending then they pay in taxes. Are you with me?

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 6:50 PM

That argument makes no sense . Of course you know it.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM

Exactly the non-response I was looking for!

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM

You know he was right. You’re lame . Grow up.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:21 PM

That argument makes no sense . Of course you know it.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM

We’ve heard the “voting themselves money” argument here numerous times; why not apply it to states? If your state gets more than it gives, we liquidate your congressional delegation.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:22 PM

sure makes Hillary’s shrill, “Count every vote,” all the more ominous for the taxpayers, of all ethnicities and the reason for the Tea Parties. Reid’s win is ominous as well.

mdetlh on December 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Beyond that, though, it’s simply not universally true that renters are less wedded to their community than property owners. Take it from me: If you’re willing to pay the sort of rent it takes to live in New York City (rent-controlled apartments excluded, natch), it’s because you really want to live in New York City. I’ve paid a pretty penny over the years for the right to be resoundingly crushed by Democrats in every state and local election. Don’t take my right away!

OK, then…

MeatHeadinCA on December 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Good Lord!!!!
what a dumb ass.
STUPID STUPID STUPID.

ColdWarrior57 on December 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM

I think he goes too far. I think anyone that is on welfare shouldn’t be allowed to vote (caveat longterm welfare)they don’t pay income tax so they shouldn’t be able to vote themselves money. Voting age should be changed to 21 unless you serve in the military.

xler8bmw on December 1, 2010 at 7:04 PM

…devil’s advocate, then: what about those 50% or so who don’t, in any real terms, actually pay any taxes. Sure, we all pay sales taxes, and some of those license fees and other hidden taxes (on utility, phone, water, and other bills), and the like.

But, as has been brought out recently in the whole “tax cuts for the rich” bait-and-switch, it’s come out that these rich folks we’ve all had paraded before us, the better to envy, are paying the lion’s share of the freight.

…so, do we quantify it? Weighted voting, perhaps?

“Mr. Moneybags…you’re kicking capitalism’s backside, employ over a hundred people (not including your household staff, mistress and the guy who skims off your investments)…you get 3.5 votes. Mr. Butt-out-of-britches…you’re somehow drawing unemployment payments, getting food stamps, are delinquent on a federally guarenteed student loan, and skipped out on jury duty because you had a boo-boo on your botty. You get one eighteenth of a vote.”

What I’m talking about is active citizenship: you’re more or less a citizen based on what you do, not that you are. Heinlein, in “Starship Troopers”, imagined a society in which you weren’t a citizen unless you served in the military…and you couldn’t be a civil servant or run for office unless you’d either retired from the military or were retired as a result of wounds.

The rub in any “weighted citizenship” or “qualified citizenship” program is that it requires some pencil-neck to first come up with the matrix of what equates to what, quantifying the achievements; and then it takes a whole stratum of pencil-necks, at least as dim and nit-picky as the first, to begin to assign people their proper “props”.

Felons not voting, a no-brainer. Assault the society, it bites you back. Have to show an ID and/or proof of citizenship to vote? Also a no-brainer. Fraud is rife.

…but, to trust this or any other Congress to decide who is and isn’t a citizen, aside from a court’s judgment? I wouldn’t trust this or any Congress on the horizon to…well…legislate, quite frankly. Letting them determine the qualifications for voting…when their gig as a “faux-aristocrat” is based on voting…foxes…henhouses…see the point?

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM

Typical liberal.

You have no problem painting all conservatives with a wide brush, based on comments from a few, but you get all defensive when they same standard is applied to you?

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM

So,umm,I’m sure the Lefty’ will parrott in,that
property owners,will morph into some kind of 1600,
1700,*wink-wink*(the prople that weren’t free),back
when TIMELINE,

and voila,the Liberals will get their Racism so
called,calling the Tea Party!!

Awaiting the first Loony Toon Liberal to float
that MORONIC IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on December 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM

land owner’s only voting rights, amongst others was very interesting history at the Jamestown tourist site.

mdetlh on December 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Oh crap,thats (the people that weren’t free)

and not(prople that weren’t free)Ugh!

canopfor on December 1, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Typical liberal.

You have no problem painting all conservatives with a wide brush, based on comments from a few, but you get all defensive when they same standard is applied to you?

malclave on December 1, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Are you saying you don’t agree with my conclusion? Has the conservative bloc NOT been on the “limiting franchise” side of this argument every time? Can you point out an area where it was in fact liberals that attempted to limit the franchise? Do YOU agree with limiting the franchise? Is that a pro, or anti freedom position?

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:22 PM

I suspect most people who post here pay more than their share so you can quit with the strawman yourself.

Also- funny that you don’t criticize Crr for her strawman argument.

But if we are going to play this tired game maybe we should start with D.C. Ok? You want to play that way?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Do YOU agree with limiting the franchise? Is that a pro, or anti freedom position?

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Yeh libs never try to stifle free speech. /

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2010 at 7:23 PM

You do have a very good point.

xler8bmw on December 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Umm..his statement doesn’t clarify anything. He just tries to change the subject away from his ridiculous comments.

It’s amazing to see the divide among the tea party. Half support him, half don’t. Honestly, when it comes down to it, do you folks agree on anything besides the broad basics?

The tea party can’t stick around forever the way it’s structured. Either you folks form a party or dissolve. You’re splitting hairs, and splitting up.

NoStoppingUs on December 1, 2010 at 7:30 PM

…many conservatives here, however, have displayed a serious contempt for it in this thread.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:18 PM

…while you, apparently, don’t have a contempt for “freedom” (as you define it)…rather, you have contempt for “conservatives”…which is to cast your moldy bread on a rather wide water….

What’s the problem with discussing an idea, no matter how repugnant…you know the drill: idea proposed, viewpoint interjected, viewpoint interjected, viewpoint interjected, viewpoints diverge/crash/flop, rinse and repeat.

…it’s certainly more clever than just reflexively dumping on the messenger…but, then, if you don’t understand the message, it’s all that’s left to you….

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2010 at 7:30 PM

You do have a very good point.

xler8bmw on December 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM

…which is why I normally wear a hat…and baggy pants….

Puritan1648 on December 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Yeh libs never try to stifle free speech. /

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I’ve certainly never taken a position that would limit free speech. It’s terribly regrettable that anyone, liberal or conservative, would take such a position. However, speech /= franchise.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM

You see how the libs want to base an argument on states and how much money they bring in when it comes to federal taxes but they would not dare apply their thinking to the individuals who actually generate those funds. There they know they would lose.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM

I have no problem with people taking a simple Civics test in order to vote. Something like…

1. Who is the curren Speaker of the House?
2. Name the 3 branches of government
3. Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
4. What is your state capital?
5. Who is our governor?
6. In what year was your state admitted to the Union?

And, of course, I’ll need to see 2 valid picture ID’s.

SouthernGent on December 1, 2010 at 7:35 PM

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM

So when the left tries to push things like the fairness doctrine they don’t disenfranchise? Really?

You mean when the left goes overboard with the notion of “separation of Church and State” they don’t disenfranchise?

When the left finds no place for Pro-Lifers they don’t disenfranchise?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:36 PM

You see how the libs want to base an argument on states and how much money they bring in when it comes to federal taxes but they would not dare apply their thinking to the individuals who actually generate those funds.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM

I think both of those arguments are stupid.

HTH.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:36 PM

So when the left tries to push things like the fairness doctrine they don’t disenfranchise? Really?

You mean when the left goes overboard with the notion of “separation of Church and State” they don’t disenfranchise?

When the left finds no place for Pro-Lifers they don’t disenfranchise?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I don’t think you know what “disenfranchise” means.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Those libs really open their franchise. Just look at how they treat the TP types. /sarc

Seriously Ernie this is silly.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Actually I thought locally this is an excellent idea.

The town I live is stuffing a new safety complex up the taxpayers rearend. How many of the towns property tax payers will have to foot the bill for this complex?

How many people who DON’T pay property taxes thought this was a great idea and voted for it? They won’t be punished for it, they have nothing to loose and the bill is hung around my neck along with the other property owners in town.

Now isn’t the time to be making lavish expenditures.

gdonovan on December 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

I don’t think you know what “disenfranchise” means.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM

Ok tell me.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

It means removing someone’s right to vote.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Ok tell me.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

It means depriving someone of the right to vote.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM

So crr to deprive someone of free speech does not disenfranchise? Are you serious? College girl you really are not near as smart as you think.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM

CRR – oh and when you take away rights to pray on public grounds you don’t disenfranchise? Really?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Crr actually it means much more .

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:41 PM

gdonovan on December 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Are you from a small town in CT that starts with an “M” by chance?

Johnnyreb on December 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM

You’re talking around her.

ernesto on December 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM

So crr to deprive someone of free speech does not disenfranchise?

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Yep.

Are you serious?

Yep.

College girl you really are not near as smart as you think.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2010 at 7:40 PM

That’s probably true, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t know what disenfranchise means, and you’d be better off just admitting it at this point.

crr6 on December 1, 2010 at 7:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3