Sweet And Tender Hooligan

Nick from Lib Lib has had some extra time on his hands, or at least extra bile, and has taken me to task on several recent posts.

Not that I mind; appreciate the comments, I do, and while Nick plays for the other team (not that way you pervs) he has a sharp mind and makes good points. (As I understand, his debating skills are constantly honed by family discussions) I feel I probably have to retract my remarks about Green's genetics.

While it's a busy weekend -it's our anniversary, we throw a party, the neighbor is berating his roofers, and there was just a car accident out my front door- I thought it was important to bring forward his most recent comment:

Oh, and on Green. Turns out that what he did was and is perfectly legal. Something that many other politicians on both sides of the aisle have done in the past. Interestingly enough it only became "illegal" when a visibly partisan election board suddenly made up a new rule making it so.

So, perhaps that inability to believe the laws apply to them isn't genetic but rather a healthy reaction to a blatantly unfair and partisan effort to handicap the opposition? That'd be my take. But read up on it for yourself: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/off_the_green.html

And note that Andrew Sullivan and his guest bloggers are not exactly rightwing fanatics. Pretty centrist while leaning left or right depending on the particular topic under discussion.

I want to note that Nick's take is, essentially correct. The article I linked to yesterday did not have background information on the rule but as I read it, here's what happened:

• The Elections board decided that money from previous federal campaigns could not be used in a Gubernatorial campaign if the donors are not registerd in Wisconsin, or the amounts exceed State limits (This seems reasonable to me. States' rights, right? A governor is mostly Wisconsin's business. At least the donors can be registered. Shouldn't be a big deal)
• Mark Green deposited the money in question into his account, the day before the rule was to be effective. Sounds to me like some partisan on the board may have been passing the Green campaign some info. Admittedly, I have no idea whether the meetings are closed or not)
• The Republican dominated Lege immediately voted to suspend the rule.
• However, they did not take the appropriate action to permanently kill the rule before they took hiatus on July 12th.

So it does seem to be a bit of a clusterfuck. Nick wants us to believe it was a partisan witch hunt, and the votes do parse along party lines. However, the Elections Board is the party tasked with administering elections, and dominance by one party does not invalidate their decisions, or else nothing that has happened in Washington in the last six years would matter
.
As I see it, the rules are the rules. Green had the knowledge that the rule was pending, so deposited the money when he could; The Republican legislature gave him cover, but did not follow through, so the Elections Board acted within their authority. The timing of the order for Green to divest the money is due to the Legislatures suspension, not some 'gotcha!' from the EB just before the election.

There however, wiggle room in this situation which will likely tie it up until after the campaign. Green's party says they have spent the money, so the point may be moot.

Nick, partisans acting in partisan ways shouldn't be shocking. That's the way the system is set up, good or ill. The Republican Legislature makes partisan decisions all the time. Green's campaign is making partisan claims. I don't see where a claim of impropriety may be based. I also don't see anywhere in the article where it says other politicians have done it (not that I doubt it, though) or where what is allowed for politicians in other states may not be proscribed in Wisconsin, in our fine tradition of clean elections.

Partisan opinion? Maybe. I never claimed I was impartial. But I have been on the interpreting end of enough governmental codes and regulations to be able to see how this happened, and to be able to make a case that the Elections Board was acting within their authority.

But Nick, claiming that Sullivan is centrist really kind of weakens your claim. At least he posted a fair bit of the article without overly editing it; Of course, he left out the bits that tend to support the decisions by the Election Board. Otherwise, He has been a cheerleader for the Bush administration from the start until recently, when even he had to admit the war in Iraq was a clusterfuck. He claims to be a Libertarian, but like most Libertarians, he's a Republican who thinks reading Ayn Rand makes him cooler. Maybe he's conservative that hasn't followed the Bushies as far out into the right field weeds as they have gone, but that doesn't make him centrist, it makes him less radical. Besides, since he's gay, he really isn't allowed in the Republican party.

Thanks for the comments, though, and I hope I have the time to make some responses; you've given me some food for thought, or at least fodder for posts. And isn't that really, all we want as bloggers?

Besides, I mean, some of those frickin lurkers to SAY something once in a while.