I've griped at considerable length lately about the absurdly engorged and distended Republican presidential "hopeful" field and the logistical nightmare it's creating for the upcoming GOP primary season debates. How do you pack over four hundred candidates onto a single auditorium stage and into a single ninety-minute bloc of TV time (which includes commercials) the rhetoric from which will wind up sounding like a radio station "secret sound" contest? Heck, it would be a major headache with just a couple of dozen of 'em.
And they're all demanding to be on the same stage, too. None want to be relegated to the "kiddie table" debates, even though most of them don't belong on any debate stage, or in the race, at all. It's yet another manifestation of the "I WANT!" entitlement mentality. If you haven't earned something and demand it anyway and somebody tells you "no," the problem isn't your puerile, self-centered selfishness but that that "somebody" is the devil incarnate.
Well, back we go to the "third party" version of it, every bit as militantly "gimmie-gimmie-gimmie," which will be abrasively awaiting us a little over a year from now if their ambulance-chasers are successful:
A nonprofit group and the Green and Libertarian parties filed suit Monday seeking to force open the general election presidential debates to candidates from outside the two major political parties.
The lawsuit filed against the Federal Election Commission seeks to force it to crack down on the Commission on Presidential Debates, which it argues is violating FEC rules that dictate that debates must be staged in a nonpartisan manner and candidates selected for participation based on objective criteria.
Alternatively, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks permission to sue the debate commission directly.
The plaintiffs, led by the advocacy group Level the Playing Field, also want to force the FEC to revise its current rules governing presidential debates.
"The objective of the lawsuit is to get a legal ruling that will force the CPD to change its rules of access, so a person who is neither a Democrat or a Republican has a realistic chance of participating in the fall general election debates," said Alexandra Shapiro, the lead attorney in the case.
Even though they aren't serious candidates, have zero chance of winning, and would only be a carnival-barking circus sideshow getting in the way of the actual contenders making their case to the American electorate.
No. No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times, no. HELL, no.
And you know who will be all for this? Hillary Clinton. Why? Because the less she's talking, the better her chances become. Because the Greenstremists and Libertards could and would do all her hatcheting of the Republican nominee for her, leaving her to appear normal, even stateswoman-like, free to bloviate gaseous emissions of fuzzily vague, focus-grouped whateverness, and free to direct enough concentration upon her grotesque overabundance of loose skin to pull it taught against her skull.
And there's also the example of her husband's two successful presidential runs, where Ross Perot's anti-GOP grandstanding was an anchor on Bush41 and Bob Dole. One thing Hillary Clinton is not is either unobservant or stupid (no matter how oppositely she makes her self sound at times). Just as from her post on the staff of the House impeachment inquiry against President Nixon, she was watching how Mr. Bill used Perot as a wedge to depress the Republican vote and win back to back elections without carrying popular vote majorities either time. She would make very good use of the Greenies and Paulnuts. Very good use, indeed.
Expect the Rodham campaign to file a supporting brief with the D.C. Circuit in the very near future.
It may be the Empress's only chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment