There can be only one....
Posted on 12/10/2003 8:57:47 PM PST by Lazamataz
The mainstream media is protected from the campaign finance law. Yes, Congress has limited the right to free speech of "We the People," but left the media's power intact. In fact, it's actually enhanced the media's power by letting them dominate the airwaves 30 to 60 days before an election.
But let me ask you a simple question: "If the Supreme Court can limit free speech today - under, I cannot believe, a GOP president, House and Senate - why can't it limit freedom of the press tomorrow? Once you amend the Constitution this way, anything goes!
Those who don't respect liberty - and by that I mean the left, these phony political reformers, most editorial pages and five Supreme Court justices - can't have it both ways. If the Constitution can be amended on the fly like this rather than through the 3/4ths majority in both houses of Congress and the states, then no aspect of the Constitution is safe from this kind of manipulation. All it's going to take is somebody in Congress to write a law saying, "We're going to put some regulations and restrictions on the broadcast and print media," and bingo...
Will that ever happen? No. The Congress is afraid of the media, but they are not afraid of you. Thus they felt free to pass a law taking away your most basic freedom: political speech. Why? What did you do wrong? Why, you corrupted the process! Yes, the way this ruling came down and the way the law was written, your rotten, dirty money is corrupting out courageous and brave elected officials. Why, as soon as they take a dime, they turn from angels into corrupt monsters! You're ruining their morals! So if you try to buy an ad, well, now there's a law to stop you rotten jerks!
I took some calls on this story, which you can hear below. These came from the same sort of people who were so sure Bush would veto the bill, or that the Supreme Court would overturn it, "So why fight it?" Frank in Auburn, Maine asked, "How long do you think it's going to be before we have a midnight session to overturn this in the Congress?" I gently told Frank that the very Congress that passed this abomination, and that is now insulated as incumbents from the annoying voices of you idiot voters, is not going to now right what it did. Hello?
They're overjoyed about this! So is the media - which debunks another caller's claim that the press would miss the ad revenue they'll lose from political ads. They'll still get the cash from all these other groups who've weaseled out of this law. This is worthy of more than a "whine," folks. After all, members of the House and Senate can easily get face time on TV. That's why I called this the "Incumbent Protection Act." This is a day of darkness, folks. We may as well be Hobbits, with dark cloaked figures looking for our rings.
Michael Barone, a brilliant guy, wrote the other day that this president is redefining conservatism from limited government to a government of choice and accountability. I disagreed with Mr. Barone for the first time in my life about something. Not only are we not advancing limited government, we are now limiting choice and accountability by restricting freedom of speech. We're not expanding anything that's conservative, here. We're not expanding liberty or expanding freedom - which is choice. That is the antithesis of what happened in the Supreme Court.
When all is said and done, when it comes to domestic issues, it looks to me like the legacy of the Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time in 50 years is going to be the largest entitlement in modern times, the greatest increase in domestic spending in modern times and one of the greatest set-backs for liberty in modern times. That's the legacy of Republican control of government. This may be "compassionate" conservatism, but it's not "conservatism" at all.
I'll pit my credentials against yours.
Should have read: BUSH is afraid of the media, but not of you" That's why Bush signed the thing - - he was afraid of the negative media if he didn't. Wimp.
LOL!
You mean "poor intellect", like someone who cannot even figure out what a thread is about? That kind of "poor intellect"? The kind of "poor intellect" wherein which a person thinks that a column featuring Rush Limbaugh's editorial position is actually about American soldiers being abused? You mean that kind of "poor intellect"?
Accurately, I might add. Your position on 2A is wishy-washy and diluted ("But no one neeeeeeds an assssaaauulllltt weapon.....") -- proof you have almost zero clue about firearms right there -- and your snap-to defense of every indefensible proposal and idea coming from the Administration.
Besides, you haven't merited anything resembling solid intellectual debate yet. I don't bother working harder with what you appear to be.
It wasn't even me you were talking to when you posted that confused post.
(Sheesh. I got a real brainiac here....)
Bush veto my a-- he did not want to sign it in the first place. All our gains have flowed from him signing this Bill. He effectively neutered the political climate at that time. You can jump on me all you want, but I remember.!!
There can be only one....
Me neither. Now, how is a law abiding citizen owning any kind of firearms a "problem"? How about giving more than $2000 to the campaign of the candidate of my choice?
It's compromise that wins rather than being so stubborn that you won't give an inch. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Bullshiat. Compromising on our Rights is how we got where we are today. Nibbled to death and on the brink of making every single mistake civilisations have made before us. If you get beaten to death with feathers, you are STILL DEAD.
I think Bush made the best choice possible from an impossible situation. But instead, the TRUE 100% CONSERVATIVES would rather run to a deserted island and sulk because no one would listen to them. They cop out if they can't get everything they want...sort of like Arafat when negotiating peace with Israel.
Anything? I listed the key issues I had with Bush and was fair on the praise. Gutting the Constitution without even so much as an attempt at a Veto is NOT COMPROMISE.
I'd vote for even a moderate Conservative. Bush is such a RINO on domestic issues to the point where we almost would have been better off with Gore being obstructed by a Republican majority. The Algore's handling of the 9-11 crisis would have been an UTTER dissaster though.
I don't really ask much of my public officials. Our Constitution is a contract for how they will run government. Their Oath to protect it and abide by it means everything. If they gut the Constitution, then our deal is off. Same as it would be with any other contract.
Follow the Constitution or get the F*CK out of office. Same goes for the USSC. If they can't follow their Constitutional mandate, they will be removed. Period.
I left a very successful job in a fortune-50 as a Senior Systems Analyst to co-found a company.
So what do you do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.