The Missouri Primary is a week from today. The weaker candidates have begun, or in the case of a couple, continue their mud-slinging, negative ads. It is interesting to note the most of recipients of that mud have not responded in kind.
I don’t like mudslinging, especially by those who initiate it or take advantage of 3rd party attacks on their opponent. For me, it makes my choice of candidates easy. Easier still when I vet the claims personally (it’s easy with Google and internet search engines) and find them false.
I wonder why, in this internet age, more voters don’t do the same. I also wonder why my establishment ‘Pub friends don’t vet their candidates better when all the facts are readily available with only a few minutes search. Apparently one county office candidate not only does not live in the county, he doesn’t even live in the state! How did he get approval by the party to run? Good, unanswered question.
It reminds me of an old science fiction novel. A planet is colonized by three groups. One group consists mostly of fundamental Christians (this novel was written in a time when Christian-bashing was not in vogue,) another group was anarchists (what we’d call dyed-in-the-wool libertarians today,) and the the last group was Amish.
When the planet is visited centuries later, the society on that planet is viable and growing. There is no government as such (some local committees are implied,) no money nor coinage, and…no poverty, no illiteracy, no crime.
When I said there was no money, I didn’t mean to say there was no medium of exchange. In a nutshell that medium was…”You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Obs or obligations was that medium. If someone needed a pair of shoes, he went to a cobbler and got a pair. In exchange, he agreed to perform an obligation to the cobbler. That obligation could be tilling a field or helping with a harvest or teaching someone a trade. Obs could be major or minor…and could be traded.
Obs are much like politics. In exchange for support, obligations are given, or traded. That ob can be called immediately, such as campaign support, or at some future date. In today-speak we some times call this compromising. A distasteful word that—compromise. A weakening of a personal, philosophical or moral stand to gain some advantage.
I have to question the values of a person who would violate their personal values for gain in some form. That gain usually is ambition. The old you support me, I’ll support you. Yes, I may be naive, but I find it difficult to compromise my values at any time.
That’s why I’ll never run for office.
I’ll close this segment with a question. When you vote next week, what obligation have you given…or received for your vote. Will your vote be given because you truly think your candidate is the best of all those running? Or, will your vote be given to one who owes you an obligation, who has purchased your vote. For me, it will be the former.
Remember the New Black Panther voter intimidation charge from 2008? The New Black Panthers were found guilty of intimidation. The penalty phase was in progress when Eric Holder’s Department of Justice dropped the charges allowing the New Black Panthers to go free. There was a lawsuit filed over the interference of the DoJ during that process and a Judge has ruled. Last week in fact.
Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution
July 30, 2012
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
The Fat Lady has yet to sing on this case.
I have never been a Romney fan. I thought, and still think there are better, stronger candidates in the field. But Romney is the chosen one by the ‘Pub establishment and he has the committed votes to insure his nomination. That said, the following news item brought a grin to my face.
Mitt Romney Spokesman Tells Reporters ‘Kiss My …’ at Polish Holy Site
WARSAW, Poland – A Mitt Romney spokesman reprimanded reporters traveling with the candidate on his six-day foreign trip, telling them to “kiss my a**” after they shouted questions from behind a rope line.
As Romney left the site of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw and walked toward his motorcade parked in Pilsudski Square, reporters began shouting questions from the line where campaign staffers had told them to stay behind, prompting traveling press secretary Rick Gorka to tell a group of reporters to “kiss my a**” and “shove it.”
It seems the “reporters” where shouting questions such as, “Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?” and “Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip.”
The questions were not about Romney’s visit to the Polish War Memorial but were designed to cause embarrassment. Romney’s PR guy responded appropriately, in my opinion. In fact, he deserves a bonus.
And the MSM complains about losing business and the approaching bankruptcy. Newsweek is dropping their print magazine in favor of a website. By subscription, I presume. That won’t help. It’s not the medium that is causing their problems, it’s biased content. People recognize bias treatment of the news and out-right lies when they see it. The MSM is doomed. In a decade there will be only a handful left.
And few of us will care. It’s another example of Evolution in Action.