The Obama campaign’s defenders are out on television claiming that just because ACORN has committed voter registration fraud does not mean that that anyone would actually cast a fraudulent ballot, and that such claims are mere paranoia caused by desperation. It is clear that they take the American public for fools. There is no reason to register false names other than to be able to cast false ballots.

Yes, they are totally separate crimes. So are brandishing a weapon and armed robbery. However, it is reasonable that a man arrested outside a 7-11 for brandishing a weapon may also have intended to commit armed robbery inside the 7-11, and that he was merely caught before completing that crime. Most prosecutors would have little difficulty in convincing a jury that the man was guilty of attempted armed robbery. Nobody but the man’s defense attorney would call this unreasonable; being outside the 7-11 with a weapon to brandish is a “substantial step” toward the completion of the crime of armed robbery. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition, taken with the aim of furthering the crime. All U.S. jurisdictions use language similar to this to define the crime of attempt.

Fraudulent voter registration, though its own crime, is likewise a substantial step toward the completion of the crime of fraudulently voting. Therefore, establishing attempt, or even a conspiracy to commit voter fraud, should not be out of reach for the Justice Department. RICO arrests should be made now, before the crime is completed.

Once upon a time in Europe, a priest named Martin Luther became disgusted with a Church practice (there was only One Church at the time) called indulgence. Even today, we say that someone “indulges” in a hot fudge sundae or some other treat because of this practice. An indulgence allowed a person, for good works rendered, to do something that otherwise might be a sin. It was seen as a ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card and was often traded for money.

Although Luther was excommunicated and formed the group today known as Protestants, the Catholic church later admitted he had a point about the abuse of indulgences and greatly restrained their use (indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia greatly disagrees with the definition given above.) How does this relate to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign?

Senator Obama offers “Change” and is to be considered a “transformational figure” as he stares off nobly into the future. Many on the Right have been ringing alarm bells about Socialism and Obama’s radical ties, but nobody on the left and few in the middle pay attention – because the Right seems to cry “wolf” in every election against the small and incremental increases in Big Government. To understand how this relates to indulgences and whether to vote for Obama, voters need to know what “change” and “transformation” mean. With his thin résumé, he offers nothing else. (Think of the audacity of claiming that McCain “doesn’t get it” on foreign policy, when McCain has spent longer in a POW camp than Obama has in the Senate.) Obama is supposed to be reassuring about foreign and domestic policy, implying a certain steadiness. He will get our troops home, but will fight nebulous and unnamed foreign threats to our security. He will support business, except Joe the Plumber, and give all deserving voters a tax “cut.” Does anyone truly believe that Obama’s campaign offers any change other than the candidate’s skin color? If Socialism is not the big transformation, then “Change” means merely a president with a skin tone darker “than those on the currency.” Obama offers racist voters an indulgence.

Think about it. Any voter can at any time after this election counter charges of racism with, “I voted for Obama.” It is a ‘Get Out of White Guilt Free’ card, traded for a vote. This is made on the assumption that most if not all voters focus on race, and reflects the Obama campaign’s focus on race as the only important issue. (Remember, Obama’s promises are no different than those of other Democratic candidates, and his only warnings are against “more of the same” and “those who would try to scare you” because he “looks different.”) This is a racist appeal to racist white voters, and excuses racist black voters who also vote for Obama merely because he is black. This is a racist campaign.

It is not racist for the McCain camp to point out Obama’s racism, although the news media would certainly present it that way, confirmed by learned professors. Black Studies, Women’s Studies, Chicano Studies, and Gay Studies departments all tell their students that discrimination is “structural,” that is, personal attitudes mean nothing. Having a black friend or a gay friend is not enough to exonerate the guilty white liberal; majorities collectively oppress minorities, meaning that no black can be racist, nor a woman sexist. This is why Governor Palin has seriously been accused of not being a woman; she is not ‘empowering’ her collective group. Therefore, Senator Obama cannot be accused or racism, nor McCain exonerated from the charge, by this redefinition of the term ‘racist.’ No explanation of the false and racist appeal of the Obama campaign can possibly lead to anything but greater and ever more triumphant ‘confirmation’ by the Obama campaign and its media friends that, in fact, McCain is the one using racism to try to win the election.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, his indulgence works whether or not he wins; this may not redound to his electoral advantage.  Racists might still vote against him and lie about their vote. That strategy will certainly be offered as an explanation if Obama loses in the face of seemingly inevitable advantage in the polls.  It has a twofold advantage, excusing both Obama’s shortcomings, and the liberal bias of the news media’s polling practices. Would they admit, or even mention, the racism of a campaign that depended on offering racists such an opportunity in the first place? Asking such a question amounts to a mere indulgence.

It pains me to have to say it, but if grassroots Republicans fail to turn out to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, then that will only prove that many Republican voters really are stupid. However rhetorically squishy-center and functionally liberal a McCain administration might be, the Obama Nation will be much worse. Yes, this is the most liberal Republican to head a ticket, arguments about Nixon and “W” aside, but this is also about the most leftist Democratic ticket ever, without doubt. It seems odd to talk about leftists in the twenty-first century, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but Bill Ayres from the Weather Underground supports Obama.

Don’t remember the Weather Underground? Both Mr. Ayres and the national news media prefer it that way. The transfer of power from the liberals to the radicals in the Democratic Party began in 1968, with riots and assassination (leading eventually to the anti-anti-communist McGovern of 1972). The pro-communist Weathermen aided the cause with several bombings, the last of which was accidental. Mr. Ayres conveniently forgets the extent of his involvement, because there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Populist ‘fairness’ is not leftist ‘revolution,’ but class-warfare rhetoric satisfied both groups, and provided Red-blooded operatives an old-fashioned respectability.  Republicans know that the Democrats collectively lost control of their party and possibly their minds in 1968, and their candidates have been sliding toward the edge of sanity ever since. Traditional Democratic voters see the trend, and worry that the Republicans may be right. The problem is that anti-anti-communism seemed plausible because good old class-warfare stem-winding has been around since before the publication of the Wizard of Oz. Unionizing hadn’t destroyed America, and warnings that the leftists were plotting against us just seemed paranoid. Today’s media and Democratic talking heads minimize the threat of the Weathermen by talking about their incompetence and ignoring their successful bombings. Voters in 1968 did not, and gave the presidency to anti-communist Richard Nixon.

It is often said by politicians that, “This is the most important election in a generation.”  This year, that is actually true: this is the most profound choice of direction since Ford (R) vs. Carter (D). Remember, people knew what a Carter administration was like when they chose not to re-elect Carter in 1980; they didn’t have a clue back in 1976, but they did know the moderate Ford. Squishy-center vs. leftist; sound familiar? Remember that nobody in this new generation remembers JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, or even George Bush. Bill Clinton and “W” are the only presidents these voters know; viscerally, they represent the Democratic and Republican parties. Voters with longer memories have a duty to use their longer historical perspective, and communicate these lessons as best they can.

Republicans should not draw the wrong historical lessons: Populism (à la Maverick McCain) will not convey popularity, nor will disastrous Democratic leadership necessarily lead to miraculous rescue, as in Reagan’s victorious 1980. The best lesson may be from 1972.  Watergate did not win Nixon re-election; the fact that the voters knew that George McGovern was a leftist did. McCain should realize that he will be accused of dirty tricks no matter how clean his campaign is, and give the public ‘straight talk’ about Obama.

Democrats draw the wrong lesson from 1972, and seem to believe that dirty tricks are the way to win elections, not avoiding the slide to the left. Voter fraud has always been a concern in elective government, with Chicago long an American cliché of such. Now, a Chicago politician runs for president, and ACORN fills the news. Republican voters should understand how fiercely Democrats believe that the 2000 election was stolen, and how fiercely they intend to show that, “turnabout is fair play.” The only cure is a high turnout, overwhelming corruption by sheer numbers. This may sound Pollyannaish, but local voter registration authorities are catching much blatant voter fraud; the subtle fraud left must be small, necessarily.