Aww. Howard Dean is upset. He’s complaining that John McCain is “attempt to wriggle out of the very campaign finance constraints he championed.” And while he may indeed have a legitimate point, the fact that rules — and laws –……

Two democrats and two republicans and you say because the democrats don’t want the republican that it’s the republican’s fault?

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.

Did you read the Wall Street Journal’s editorial?

No. I get all the conservative whackiness I need here.

Did you read the Wall Street Journal’s editorial?

By the way, weren’t 2 of the 4 nominations Democrats?

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 said:

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.

By the way, weren’t 2 of the 4 nominations Democrats?

I don’t know which is funnier, that John McCain is trapped in a campaign finance law of his own d…
Popularity: unranked [?]……

lgm 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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) today filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) against John McCain’s campaign. The are asking the FEC to investigate whether the McCain campaign violated or is about to violate the law …

lgm said:

In general, Bush seems comfortable with disfunctional [sic] 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.

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.

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.

FEC nominees have traditionally been nominated as a complete slate. Democrats are trying to change the procedures to benefit themselves, as usual.

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.