Buying Elections

Mitt Romney has garnered more money out of Michigan than President Barack Obama. The Michigan native and son of former Governor George Romney has raised around $2 million, whereas the President has picked up $1.6 million himself. Nationally, however, it is a different story. The President has raised in the area of a whopping $157 million dollars. It makes Romney's total of $74 million appear almost meager. And it leaves a fascinating question.

Where are all the liberals who want presidential campaigns, indeed most any campaign for any political office, publicly funded?

They are strangely silent over an issue which so often in the past drawn their ire. We don't want anybody to buy an election, do we?

But as we have so often said here, liberals want what they want because it suits them. We cannot have evil rich Republican corporate types buying an election. But Hollywood hot shots and limousine liberals can buy whatever office they want.

That's pretty much what happened in 2008. Republican John McCain, who accepted federal election money, was outspent 4 to 1 by Barack Obama between September and November 2008. Still, he only won the popular vote by 53 to 47 percent in a year of rout by other Democratic candidates. If that doesn't qualify as a bought election, it certainly creases the envelope. And the President is trying to do the same thing in 2012.

We can demographics, if you like, and point out than Romney's contributors in Michigan tend to be wealthier while Obama has more total donors. Or even than contributions from Ann Arbor, the President's biggest local supporting city, came from an awful lot of University of Michigan employees. Academics tend to be among the richer liberals. But the demographics don't matter, if buying and selling elections is the moral evil the left until recently wanted us to believe.

It's simply more liberal hypocrisy. Keep that in mind when you consider your vote this November.