It's very common to see conservatives take potshots at "Hollywood liberals", i.e., how Hollywood is full of liberals.  Even if it is true — and it probably is — I never quite understood the reason why it generates such outrage.  So what?  Do you hear progressives whine and moan about how country music is full of conservatives?

Anyway, I've always dismissed the Hollywood criticism as envy of some sort.  I mean "envy" makes sense when the only Hollywood people who support your cause are Chuck "Has Been" Norris, Pat "Who?" Boone, Steve "The Baldwin Who Can't Act" Baldwin, and, most recently, Clint "I Get Cameos In My Brother's Movies" Howard.

Heavy hitters all.

But let's not forgot another one — Pat Sajak — who takes time from his busy wheel-spinning schedule to pen a brief article for the National Review.  

The subject?  

Disenfranchising certain law-abiding tax-paying Americans.

He's in favor of it.

Oh, he denies it by saying…

I’m not suggesting that public employees should be denied the right to vote…

… but that's the kind of phrase that is immediately followed by a "but", and indeed it is.

Pat's argument is this: people who are employed by the government have a conflict of interest when they get to vote for who is in government, or get to vote on ballot initiatives which concern them.  For example, should public school teachers be allowed to vote on a ballot initiative which caps the salaries of public school teachers?

No, says Pat.  They have a conflict of interest.  After all…

None of my family and friends is allowed to appear on Wheel of Fortune.  

Right.  Because voter participation in their democratic government is just like a game show.

Then Pat continues with his comparison:

Same goes for my kids’ teachers or the guys who rotate my tires. If there’s not a real conflict of interest, there is, at least, the appearance of one.

Well, what about the public school teacher example?  Can their kids, friends, or families vote on that ballot initiative? 

Make no mistake about it: this is batshit crazy.  Banning Americans from voting just because they might benefit from the outcome runs counter to the whole purpose of elections in the first place.  

I mean, what's next?  Suppose a candidate comes along with a plan to lower taxes on people making over $250,000 a year.  Should we not let those wealthy voters vote, simply because they might benefit from such a law?  Hmmmmm.  Wait a minute…..

No, seriously… DUMB idea.  And try getting that past the U.S. soldiers.  Yes, they are public employees, too.