ROSE NOLEN: Money seems to control the vote

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 9:05 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, June 19, 2012

I hope we don’t have to begin to refight all the old battles that we’ve fought and won. If we have to start at the beginning of the Constitution and begin to argue over the First Amendment, I’m afraid we will still be there at the end of time.  At some point, people are simply going to have to let go.

Roe v. Wade, for example, is a done deal. If the majority wishes, it can be repealed. But I imagine it will rise again. If people cannot let it go, it will have to be fought over and settled again. This process can also continue until time is no more. In the meantime, other problems will be around to intimidate us.

Voting rights have been to the highest court in the land. Who can and who cannot vote has been decided on. The voting rolls can only be purged by rules that are already in place. Must we argue this matter indefinitely?

Actually, of course, you can turn back the clock, but you can’t turn back the time. You will still be in 2012 not 1950. In order to have things the way you want them, you’ll have to fight the battle again under today’s conditions.

America was a different country a few hundred years ago. White men were the only Americans who had the right to vote. White men held all the power. Today, the country is peopled by individuals of all colors and races. Eligible voters come in all colors and races. Who wins and who loses any office will be determined by those voters.

Some of the people who have a lot of money have decided to try to buy the kind of government they want. Once that happens, America will no longer be ruled by the people. It will be ruled by those who have the most money. It will become a dictatorship or whatever form of government the rulers want it to be. Now that those who want to buy the country no longer have to identify themselves, perhaps our leaders will reign in secret.

Obviously, the people we have chosen to act on our behalf no longer wish to serve us. They wish merely to hold the office. What are we to do in case we encounter a crisis?  If our leaders will not act, are citizens to take matters into their own hands? I am sure the Constitution must have provided us with a course to pursue.

Undoubtedly, those who wish to do nothing consider this state of affairs a laughing matter. I doubt that the founders ever considered that the country would be in the hands of a bunch of juvenile delinquents. It is indeed unfortunate that Congressional leadership refuses to assume the position and call his constituents to order.

But truly, since these politicians have chosen to follow the money, we cannot expect our house ever to be in order again. This may be the last election we will ever have that will not be completely overtaken by money and the people who have it. And sadly enough, we cannot depend on the court to set matters right.

For the time being, it looks like we are in a sinking boat. Right now, we are a long way from the shore. Here’s hoping everyone can swim!

You can join the conversation with Rose M. Nolen by calling her at 882-5734 or emailing her at Questions? Contact news editor Laura Johnston.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Skip Yates June 19, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.

Never thought I'd read of Rose Nolan speaking ill of George Soros, Hollywood elite, and the unions......

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 19, 2012 | 12:22 p.m.

("WASHINGTON — Liberal financial heavyweights are becoming more involved in the presidential campaign.")
("GEORGE SOROS WILL CONTROL YOUR VOTES IN THE UP COMING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION -- Follow the bouncing ball on the criminal corruption ruse of your USA votes.

1.) The Obama Government has outsourced the counting of votes for the 2012 election. But since WHEN does the nation need to outsource a task as uncomplicated and straightforward as vote-counting?

2.) Obama outsorced the counting to a Tampa Florida company, named SOE, that had previously been used to administer the vote counting process for over 500 American jurisdictions.

3.) But recently, SOE software has now been sold to a company named SCYTL, owned by George Soros, headquartered in Spain.")

("Why Blacks & Hispanics Leave Democrat Party
Posted in the African-American Forum")

("Why I (a black woman) left the Democratic Party,")

(Report Comment)
John Schultz June 19, 2012 | 12:41 p.m.

I would question if Barack Obama is included in Rose's corncern about politicians following the money, except it might bring David Rosman down upon me once again.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 19, 2012 | 12:54 p.m.

Who's David Rosman?

(Report Comment)
Kevin Gamble June 19, 2012 | 1:16 p.m.

John, you seem to be suggesting that either: 1) Ms. Nolan is too stupid to be intentionally making a point about all of politics, not a single party, or, 2) That she has an agenda which you are able to divine without evidence.

Would it be fair to imply that you're basing your suspicions on her race? If not, what then is fair about your implication?

(Report Comment)
Kevin Gamble June 19, 2012 | 1:20 p.m.

Interesting, Ray - you comment on a piece that is targeted toward politics as a whole, not any single party, by singling out one particular party. Are you attempting to remedy some kind of imbalance, and if so, what kind? We can only assume that your championing of the truth extends to all moneyed influence on politics, and you have just as many citations related to, say, the Koch brothers and changes to the voting process instituted by the previous President as you do for Soros. Because if it were otherwise, you'd simply be trolling in a partisan way, which would undermine your implied concern about undue influence on the political process.

Or is it only a problem when the "wrong people" have too much influence?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 19, 2012 | 1:56 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Michael Williams June 19, 2012 | 2:06 p.m.

No, it's not a joke.

It's an incredibly complex group of words that each and every person who sucked in their breath at my "obvious" audacity should consider within themselves.

It will tell you much about your own racism, biases, and expectations.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 19, 2012 | 2:29 p.m.

Kevin G. - Ms. Nolen never makes "a point about all of politics." "Some of the people who have a lot of money have decided to try to buy the kind of government they want."

The following posters accurately named problem ultra-wealthy whom are indeed trying o buy our elections. Nolen could not do this without destroying the essence of her fictitious lament. Neither could you, thus, unbelievably, Another liberal reference to race when no other verbal tool is available. Give us a break?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 19, 2012 | 2:39 p.m.

Which party do you think Rose is avoiding to mention here?...
("This year, Congress is attempting to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. One of our political parties is unwilling to compromise on any bill. Women in this party will undoubtedly go along with the men to prove their hatred for the president.")
So, why wouldn't I think that she's not "baiting" for the information I linked readers to for insight on her opinion?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 19, 2012 | 3:14 p.m.

From Rose: "Some of the people who have a lot of money have decided to try to buy the kind of government they want."

And then this from today's Missourian:

Of course, just as there is "good" rich and "bad" rich, there's "good" political money and there's "bad" political money. Rose can tell you which is which. Just ask her.

Or read her stuff.

The inconsistency, or naivety, or living-in-a-bygone-era (I don't know which), is striking.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz June 19, 2012 | 4:52 p.m.

Kevin, my point is that Rose's columns seem to be wishy-washy bits of whimsy. I know that some people love what she writes, but it just doesn't do much for me. And no, it has nothing to do with her race, but the broad, sweeping generalizations in her latest piece. Does this quote somehow exempt the President?

"Obviously, the people we have chosen to act on our behalf no longer wish to serve us. They wish merely to hold the office."

Later on she addresses money, but seems to think it only affects Congressional leadership (aka Republicans). As someone who is not beholden to either major political party, I find such beliefs misguided at best.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.