|
December 24, 2007
FEC Shutdown?
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has been shut down. And how did I find this out? I was over at DKOS looking for a Bussard Fusion Post by Roger Fox and came across this one on the FEC. It links to a Washington Post story. The federal agency in charge of policing the torrent of political spending during the upcoming presidential primaries will, for all practical purposes, shut its doors on New Year's Eve.So who exactly is behind these shenainans? (Actually I approve of shutting down the FEC. What I object to is changing the rules in the middle of the campaign.) Let's have a look. he FEC is composed of three appointees from each party, all nominated by the president. There is already one vacancy, and three recess appointments will expire on Dec. 31.Ah. Mr Clean Barrack Hussein Obama is at the center of this. Now why would he do something like that? I may have an answer. When it comes to federal matching funds, Democrat John Edwards has the most to lose. The FEC certified the payment of the first installment of funds this week, including $8.8 million for Edwards. But matching payments for money he has raised this month, or will receive in subsequent months, may have to wait until the FEC has four members.So, Obama is working to block his rival in the name of "honest government". Right. Which made me think of Simon's Law: The politician who campaigns hardest on cleaning up corruption is the biggest crook. This will not sit well with Edwards supporters. Not well at all. Cross Posted at Power and Control Welcome Instapundit readers. posted by Simon on 12.24.07 at 10:58 AM
Comments
It's not that they're crooked. It's that they're insane. Insane people don't care about what barriers there are to what they want, so they don't mind much if more barriers are erected. The current set of election laws meet that criterion. The candidates all want office, not because they're qualified or want to do the job, but because they're crazy. They're therefore perfectly willing to see requirements instituted for campaigning or holding office that only the insane would be willing to tackle, much less meet. We have long since passed the point where the gradual accretion of barriers has resulted in a system where only the insane are willing to tackle the course. They aren't crooks. They're loons. Admittedly the difference is difficult to see sometimes. Regards, Ric Locke · December 25, 2007 01:08 PM While I am a North Carolinian and John Edwards used to represent me (in a way, sort of) in the Senate, I don't really care if he gets money or not. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the fine hand of either Hillary or Obama behind this move. With regard to Simon's Law, I have always wondered what part that Obama played in getting the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV to go to court to open the divorce custody records of Jack Ryan and his former wife, the actress Jeri Ryan. Both sides of the custody dispute agreed to keep the records sealed in the interest of their son. When the records were opened and Jeri Ryan's claims of sex clubs were aired, Ryan's campaign was sunk and Obama had virtually NO opposition. He had been facing a candidate who could have self-funded his campaign, who looked like a saint for giving up a partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach in an inner-city Chicago school, and who was an Illinois native unlike Obama. In addition, he was awarded additional custody rights at the end of the hearing. I doubt the MSM wants to go there for fear that they wouldn't be seen as "impartial". Hah. John Richardson · December 25, 2007 01:52 PM Thank you Ric, I will definetely have to consider your point of view. I've been looking for the explaination to modern politics and you seem to have discovered it. Not quite ready to wholeheartdly adopt it, but am willing to devote the rest of the year to checking it against reality. One of those great leaps forward in explainning the world. one of many · December 25, 2007 04:00 PM Opposing a nominee for supporting a measure to combat election fraud, calling it 'infringement of voting rights'. Does tend to support the rumors of a certain party engaging in election fraud. Peter · December 30, 2007 06:16 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Is Huckabee simply the anti-Romney?
Callipyginous Ephebiphobia on the campaign trail? Policy Of Blockade HAPPY NEW YEAR! slanted or planted? Stifling diversity in the name of diversity? Insensitivity in the name of sensitivity? Fred's Message To Iowans A Marine Needs Help Recreating a past we only imagine
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The more I see of Obama's Bananarama, the less I like it.