« Wizbang Baby | Main | Song One of Five »

The Gloves are Off

Breaking at Command Post: Bush Campaign Accuses Kerry Campaign Of "Criminal Conspiracy"


Paving the way for Hillary to step in and save the day.

Michele, did you even read the article? This will go nowhere. Good try, though. Lord knows your hero needs a huge advantage in ad $$$ to stay ahead of the game. You'd think all of the positives of his presidency would be enough. Gack.

fight! fight!


Grover Norquist, from Americans for Tax Reform, handed over a list of conservative activists to Bush campaign. This IS against the law, if its proved it was done.

The MoveOn.org stuff is new, and not pattently against the law. Not to mention I don't see how restricting 527s is a good idea. There are TONS of organizations that are 527s, and restricting them would take a voice away from a slew of completely apolitical organizations.

SO then what happens? Some apolitical 527 has their voice taken away, complain, and get a waiver? Then what? Only 527s certain people like get the waiver? It just seems like a slippery slope.

Either way, Americans for Tax Reform is pattently undemocratic. Back in the 90s they said they wanted to cut off liberal funding wherever possible, not just from elections but altogether. They want to craft a world where liberals have nowhere to band together and rally for a cause. They want to shut out the opposing view. I just see that as wrong. All views should be heard.

Ok by me - let's get rid of campaign finance reform and support free speech instead of supressing it.

"Ok by me - let's get rid of campaign finance reform and support free speech instead of supressing it."

Forbes 500 version of free speech?

I'm conflicted on the campaign finance reform issue. I believe everyone deserves free speech and we shouldn't impede on that. I also believe in one vote, one person. So I like limitations on how much each person can donate. It gives everyone their 'speech' but just makes sure everyone speaks at teh same volume... one voice, one person.

I also think lowering the caps would be a good idea. Again, I feel conflicted. I don't want to restrict people who've worked hard for their money, but one voice, one person si very important to me. If the cap was $250, for example, more people would get the idea that donating is within their reach and that they CAN make a difference, even with just $20. It'd also get more people involved, which is a good thing as America's voter turnout is pretty sad.

Dell -

"We'd all love to hear the plan..."

So what's your idea?

I hear you Rawb, and I'm not trying to be facetious. It just seems to me that we can't have it both ways. One voice is fine, but people affiliate...they join voices. That's basically what political parties are.

I understand what Dell is saying (I don't agree), but affiliation is what gives volume to your lone voice. Labor Unions, political action committees, Greens, Corporations...

So you can either restrict it in ways that no one will ever agree is fair, or you can let it be. Republicans and Democrats both want to shift to the balance that favors them (why wouldn't they? why would we expect them not to)?

Or you can leave it in the hands of the "people". Every argument I've heard of for campaign finance reform comes down to 2 points. 1) you can't trust affiliations, because they have agendas , and 2) the "people" are too stupid to evaluate the message.

I accept 1 and I reject 2. If George Soros wants to spend every dime he has trying to tar and feather Bush, I have no problem with it. Just because he's louder it won't change my mind.

Why is everyone calling the Republicans the hypocrites when it's the Democrats who first passed McCain-Feingold, and then proceed to break it whenever they feel like?

The campaign finance reform laws are hideously idiotic, agreed. But if the Democrats are dumb enough to pass them and require the Republicans to live under them, then they can suffer themselves.

For crying out loud, the Clintons took Chinese money and sold pardons in the 1990s. Only a few scapegoats were even threatened with prosecution.

This will be another instance where politicians say that new campaign finance laws are necessary--apparently because they're incapable of following the current laws--and then we'll see this erupt again in 2008.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Dave's point about ads is valid, but some people are influenced by them. And after all, votes for president are fungible--you vote for a candidate because you've studied the issues, I vote for him because I like his ads, but the votes count just the same.

I hope this doesn't distract people too much from the important issues.

I have a fear of ineffective attacks that backfire.

Belize, I know, some people are. Some people can be influenced by many things. But bear with me on this..

Those arguments were used in the states I grew up in (Alabama and Texas) as rationale for denying the vote to black Americans. "They can't read, they're not educated, they can't pay the poll tax".

It was absolutely wicked. The worst in us. And we rightly abolished it forever.

The poor man and the rich man, the wise man and the foolish, both get to pull the lever (or punch the chad). We don't ask you how smart you are, and we never should.

Leaders who depend on fooling people to maintain power will fail.

I hear ya dave. I don't think their is any solution that would work. Both sides try to change things to favor them (redistricting for one).

As far as Union's and such I don't feel they carry as much weight anymore and their voice not as loud as it used to be.

Sounds like lawyer Ginsburg is trying to earn his retainer by running around and yapping as a distraction. I would assume some sorta direct contact between the 527s and Kerry would have to be proved for this to amount to anything and I don't even see that alleged in the WaPo story.

From the WaPo: In an unusual bid to get fast action on the complaint, Ginsberg said the GOP plaintiffs want the FEC to immediately dismiss the charges. This would permit Bush and the Republican Party to appeal directly to the courts for quicker action.

A knowledgeable FEC staff member who did not want to be identified because he is not an official spokesman described the GOP request for immediate dismissal as "ridiculous."

The Republican chairman of the FEC, Bradley A. Smith, said, "we will consider the request" for immediate dismissal. But Smith cautioned that, even if the commission dismissed the complaint, "my gut instinct would be, 'Wouldn't the court just send it right back and say the statute requires you to investigate?' "
RNC wants the courts to take on an FEC function. Wouldn't that make the court "activist?"

Look out, Club for Growth!

To all CF reformers, and especially Dave and Dell, I disagree with you all, emphatically. Freedom of speech begins with one premise - Freedom. Let me say it again loud enough for the people in back - FREEDOM. And the very basis of freedom is being able to do whatever there is that's legal to do, without busybodies whining about whether or not it's fair to them. Who I associate with, (and Duh, of course affiliations have agendas) and how I legally spend my money is what FREEDOM is all about. So why did it suddenly become illegal for me to donate my money for a cause that my friends and I all think is worth legally pursuing. CF reform should have never been passed to begin with, and it's just spawned a ridiculous amount of litigation since. George Soros won't change my vote, no matter how much money he spends, but I still think he should have the right to legally spend it as he sees fit. In fact, I hope he spends it all - the sooner the better. But for now, I look on CF reform as repugnantly as I do having anyone tell me I can only donate $1000 for cancer research or any of my other favorite causes.

well heck Alan, not like I don't enjoy a good argument (ask around), but I think you're agreeing with me.

Hear, hear, Alan! (and yeah, you're agreeing with Dave in TX... as am I).

Dave, my apologies for not paying proper attention to ALL of your posts. I focused on the part about "you can't trust affiliations" and my point was "What's inherently distrustworthy about affiliations?" You and Meep are right, I DO agree with you.

no apology necessary - several posts makes it cumbersome.

I just need all the friends I can get!

I just need all the friends I can get!

(Gollum) "You don't have any friends. No one likes you!" (/Gollum)

(OK, not really, but I can't pass up a chance to quote Gollum.)

you know Gollum's name in "Bored of the Rings"?


If kicking leftist crap were a golf tournament, I would be following you with a bag of clubs on my shoulder, wearing a white jumpsuit, with "Evil Otto" on the back.