Howard Dean screams at the FEC; no one there to listen
Howard Dean and the Democrats are leaping at the chance to help John McCain’s campaign finance petard hoist him. Dean has written a letter pressing the FEC, which doesn’t need much goading, to investigate McCain’s attempt to wriggle out of the very campaign finance constraints he championed.
Problem is, there’s no one there to listen. The FEC has four vacancies and won’t meet a quorum:
The national Democratic party wants campaign finance regulators to investigate whether Sen. John McCain would violate money-in-politics laws by withdrawing from the primary election’s public finance system.
McCain, who had been entitled to $5.8 million in federal funds for the primary, has decided to bypass the system so he can avoid spending limits between now and the GOP’s national convention in September.
Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason notified McCain last week that he can only withdraw from public financing if he answers questions about a campaign loan and obtains approval from four members of the six-member commission. Such approval is doubtful in the short term because the commission has four vacancies and cannot convene a quorum.
“John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday.
Who’s to blame? Obstructionist Democrats who have played dirty politics FEC appointments. John Fund reported last June on their campaign:
Appointments to the Federal Election Commission rarely draw attention. But at a confirmation hearing today, there’s likely to be some fireworks over Hans von Spakovsky.
Mr. von Spakovsky has already amassed an 18-month long, largely uncontroversial record at the FEC as a recess appointment. But that’s not likely to stop Senate Democrats from grilling him about his time at the Justice Department during President Bush’s first term. The aim will be to portray him as a partisan who mishandled voting rights cases. Exhibit A will be his support for state voter ID laws.
For months, since the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys sparked a mini scandal, Democrats have insisted that the president has improperly politicized the Justice Department. Specifically, the accusation is that, under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, DOJ has pursued a political agenda by enforcing laws to curb voter fraud.
Last week, Judiciary Committee Democrats held a hearing aimed in part at discrediting a 2005 Justice lawsuit seeking to force Missouri to cull ineligible voters from its rolls. But while the Missouri case was thrown out by a district judge, similar Justice lawsuits in Indiana and New Jersey led to voter rolls being cleaned up.
There is no limit to the hyperbole directed at Mr. von Spakovsky. He has come under such vitriolic fire from Gerald Hebert, now with the liberal Campaign Legal Center, that even Bob Bauer, the counsel to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees, has called his criticism of the nominee’s FEC record “an argument boiling over with personal contempt and so short on reasoned argument.”
Other critics claim that Mr. von Spakovsky ignored concerns that a Georgia law requiring photo ID at the polls would disenfranchise poor and minority voters who have a hard time obtaining documentation. They note that a federal judge twice blocked the law from going into effect.
But yelling “voter suppression” in a crowded congressional theater should be done with caution. In the Georgia case, the federal judge didn’t find evidence that the law was racially discriminatory. He struck it down on other grounds. Also, the Georgia Supreme Court on Monday unanimously threw out a separate challenge to the state’s photo ID law.
Indeed, courts have tended to uphold voter ID laws. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that had blocked an Arizona ID law. In doing so, the Court noted that anyone without an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot that could be verified later. The court also noted that fraud “drives honest citizens out of the democratic process.”
Voter ID laws are hardly the second coming of Jim Crow. In 2005, 18 out of 21 members of a federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of voter ID laws. Andrew Young, Mr. Carter’s U.N. ambassador, has said that in an era when people have to show ID to travel or cash a check “requiring ID can help poor people.” A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year found that voters favor a photo ID requirement by 80%-7%. The idea had overwhelming support among all races.
Just Google Hans von Spakovsky and you’ll see the nutroots/far Left smear machine in full tilt.
Who really cares about voter fraud and election integrity? Not the demagogues Democrats now berating a bunch of empty chairs that they helped create.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Political Irony Knows No Party
- Reformed Hippie
- Liberty Pundit
- The Colossus of Rhodey
- Campaign Spot & Townhall.com on McCain Conference Call « Blogs for McCain
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Howard Dean, John McCain, Voter fraud
Stop The ACLU
» Obama’s Approval Ratings Tank, But Media Still Love HimNewsBusters.org
» Top Press Secretly Parties With Obama on Fourth of JulyRiehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPo
I’m not sure which scenario is more ironic to me, at this juncture - McCain being caught up in bureaucracy he helped create, Howard Dean lambasting McCain for something similar to his own past behavior in 2004 or the Democrats with their conundrum from vacants seats they have helped create on the FEC. Geez!
I always take my passport with me to vote, but seriously, other than spending one long day in the lines at the DMV for something like New York’s non-driving state ID, it is not hard to get personal ID if you’ve never bothered to apply for a passport. Personally it amazes me that anyone can walk in to a voting station and claim to be someone else and be allowed to vote without any ID whatsoever, and as to ‘verifying it later’ ..puh-lease.
I find it quite amusing that McCain’s been caught out by his own bureaucracy, however it certainly seems unfair that he cannot even appeal it because there’s nobody there to convene a FEC quorum.
Still, part of me can’t help wanting to point at McCain and yell ‘HA HA’ like Nelson on the Simpsons.
Howard Dean flash back: Arrrrggggh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the evil backwards version - complete with subliminal messages?? (Very Scary)
Howard Dean sounds just as unintelligible played backwards as forwards, RR.
It is good to see the co-author of McCain-Feingold hoisted on his our petard. One of several reasons I still can’t bring myself to vote for the man unless I see some action that he is the “born again” conservative he claims to be.
I still don’t understand why a voter ID law would disenfranchise anyone. The only thing it will do is harm those that are illegal, cheat, or arise from the dead ever election cycle normally in districts won by Democrats. If they can’t cheat they can’t win.
Heaven forbid that we actually verify that people are eligible to vote before they vote. Memphis is getting like other places–dead people and vactioners voting, plus people whose address turns out to be a vacant lot.
I find it ironic that the dems complain to a commission that they wouldn’t approve appointments to. So that their complaints don’t fall on deaf ears–cause there ain’t no ears for ‘em to fall on. Irony works both ways.
This is shaping up to be the ugliest presidential campaign in a century. May God help us all.
Let’s set the record straight. There are four vacancies on the Federal Election Commission and Bush has nominated replacements. Three out of these are acceptable to Democrats. Democrats have offered an up or down vote on the fourth, von Spakovsky, but Republicans refused. They want to vote on all together or none at all. By refusing to compromise on von Spakovsky, either by nominating someone else or allowing the other three to be approved, Republicans created the situation where the FEC cannot act.
Democrats oppose von Spakovsky because they consider him a champion of voter suppression. A moment of googling would reveal why. Try it. Or, if you prefer, just close your eyes and huff and puff.
Voter fraud? Such an ugly term. From now on, please use the term “Undocumented Voters”.
Michelle, that is just a perfect description of McCain’s behavior. More “Thee not me” behavior so typical of McCain.
On a side note, I believe it’s disengenuous in the extreme to claim that poor people can’t come up with a photo ID in this day and age. You need a photo ID to cash a welfare or S.S. Check. You need it to drive. You’re suppose to need one to use a credit card. You need one basically to cash any kind of check at any kind of location. In some places in this country, you need one to get into school to pick up your child for a doctors appointment. If I remember correctly, you even need it to use a W.I.C. coupon at the grocery store.
To claim that requiring photo ID’s to vote would in some way prevent the poor from voting should be clarified: it should say ‘to prevent the ILLEGAL poor from voting’. Which of course, in reality, is why the liberals don’t want to require it.
Too funny! All the perpetrators caught up in a situation of their own making and no way out because of their own actions. Another example….Hillary, champion of affirmative action, being out-minoritied by Obama, who is given a pass by the media because he is half-black. The webs we weave!
lgm #9
Read todays editorial “Obama’s Finance Ploy” from the Wall Street Journal’s’ opinion journal.com to get the real truth and not lgm’s preverted comments.
Ahhhhhh. “Compromise” - Someone giving in to the Democrats, because they don’t like something. It had to be the Republicans’ fault, didn’t it?
Have they changed the definition of “compromise” in the dictionary yet to better reflect the Democrats’ new use of it?
HA HA!
Ragin’ Dean acts like he’s rabid.
Either that or he’s has borderline personality.
Bullseye! Best comment evah!
In the area of vote fraud, nothing compares to the Democrats’ support for amnesty for illegals, the jackpot baby program, and massive chamberpot immigration to breed and import Democratic voters.
Somewhere in there is a bit of redundancy!
Here Vince I’ll put the link up for you.
Obama’s Finance Ploy, Wall Street Journal’s’ opinion journal.com
lgm again dabbles in obfuscation. FEC nominees have traditionally been nominated as a complete slate. Democrats are trying to change the procedures to benefit themselves, as usual.
Thanks fellow Missourian! Someday, I will have to learn how to do that.
Thanks fellow Missourian! Someday, I will have to learn how to do that.
Geez! What a putz I am!
MTNEER said (#21):
Whatever. There is a nomination and confirmation process, which implies negotiation. Democrats accepted 3 out of 4 nominees, so they’ve met Bush more than half way. Now it’s Bush’ turn to give a little.
Democrats said: “We have to approve your slate and we will not approve a slate that includes von Spakovsky.” If Bush wants an FEC, he needs to nominate someone else.
In general, Bush seems comfortable with disfunctional government, until the government needs to do something to benefit a Republican.
This is argumentative and doesn’t really further your point. The same could be said for Nancy Pelosi.
Also, what you said didn’t really negate MTNEER’s point, in my opinion.
MTNEER pointed out that this is not the correct procedure, yet you make it sound as if Republicans are being combative for not breaking the protocol.
Did the Democrats have any issues on the other 3 nominations? My guess is no, but I admit that I do not typically research FEC nominations. If that is the case, what exactly is the compromise of which you speak? It sounds more like the current majority party needs to be in 100% approval or they won’t go for it and will either A) hold up proceedings indefinitely, or B) look to change the rules of the game and complain when the other side doesn’t agree.
Blame Bush all you want, but getting back on topic for this thread, it appears that Howard Dean is the one facing the pain on this, not the administration.
Salt (above) said:
McCain is the one suffering. If the FEC can’t act on his request, he will be in violation soon. Dean is simply making everyone aware of this. (If you don’t know how McCain will suffer, google it.)
My understanding is that Democrats would defeat the 4 if they had to vote for them all at once. That’s why they proposed voting for the 3. Bush has refused to nominate someone else and Congress has refused to confirm von Spakovsky, so here we are.
Agreed. McCain’s suffering is self inflicted and I doubt you’ll find many here defending him on this.
My point about Howard’s suffering was that there would be a lack of action to investigate as he requested; however, as you point out, that likely wasn’t really his intention. So my (perhaps rhetorical) question is, does Howard Dean really support the finance constraints, or is it just convenient in this moment? Certainly Howard knew that he was speaking to an audience of 2.
By the way, weren’t 2 of the 4 nominations Democrats?
Salt asked (#29):
I think so. There are supposed to be 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Bush nominated 2 Dems and 2 Reps. Congress is willing to confirm both Dems and (in principle) 2 Reps, though not von Spakovsky.
lgm,
One of the guys is Harry Reid’s good buddy. Two democrats and two republicans and you say because the democrats don’t want the republican that it’s the republican’s fault??????
Did you read the Wall Street Journal’s editorial?
Yes I do. Democrats are willing to vote for the other Republican and are willing to vote for two Republicans, as long as one of them is not von Spakovsky.
No. I get all the conservative whackiness I need here.