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.
Read this well-written piece by Messr. Limbaugh.
Good L-rd. You really ARE here all the time. :o)
Why would a conservative want to give money to a party that has openly declared its contempt for our Constitution?
I won't go that far. I agree with other posters who said the "Compassionate Republicans" gambled, and lost.
But you don't shoot craps on the Constitution. You live up to your oath.
PHEW! (Wiping brow)... I was all set to tell Bob to check for a pod in the basement. :o)
Glad to see you're still firmly on our side. But then again, I'm not entirely surprised -- you are an unusually perceptive and intelligent person.
Did you expect anything less from our resident RNC pom-pom girl? Cmon Laz...you know better than that.
Growing the budget and creating new entitlements and increasing the existing ones is not conservatism. It may be Republicanism, but that's not the same thing any more. In fact, it's liberalism. President Bush and the Republicans are buying votes, plain and simple. I still support Bush because the alternatives are so horrible, but I won't pretend that this is some new kind of conservatism. Conservatism is what it is, and you don't redefine it to fit your agenda, at least not if you're honest.
What I cannot understand, is why anyone who does not buy into this new "liberalism" here on FR is tarred and feathered as an anti-Bush/just-as-good-as-a-Democrat/carpetbagger. Counter arguments speak of things such as: "this is all part of a strategery" or "we have to give a little now so we can get the whole barn later" or even better "its not Bush's fault, its the fault of (X)". I thought conservatism was about reducing the size of the government largesse...not increasing it; and certainly not increasing it in order to get votes from a special interest group, or even worse...in order to get votes from the left; all at the expense of the Constitution. Is this what conservatism has been reduced to? A battle pandering for votes with socialism instead of receiving votes because of conservative ideaology! Have we given up the battle for the minds of America? I wonder.
Unfortunately, I have no other choice but to vote (R) when election time comes around...I will never vote (D); but this is reaching the point of futility IMHO. Within the next 20 years, I'll be raising my children, maybe put them through college, plan to retire, hope to have grandchildren, etc., etc. It angers me when I think of the type of America my children and grandchildren will have to live in if the present course continues. It angers me even more to know that I'm paying for all this increased socialism and my kids will prolly have it worse. My criticism and anger towards president Bush (as I'm sure most other anti-Bots) stems from those sentiments, not from some evil hatred for the man. I do thank God that he is a man of faith, is faithful to his very lovely wife, and has brought more character and integrity back into WH than X42, however...while that may be good enough for the Republican party right now...it may not be good enough for America now, and in the future. /rant off
Correct. Compassion with one's enemies is incompatible with victory--a lesson America is learning the hard way.
We are the only slaves who have voted our masters into office.
Eff the PUBIS, "No politician who would put me in jail for criticizing them will ever get my vote. Ever."
Your analysis is right on. It is in a long line of similar decisions. This seems perpetual to me. The Court is not going to change. The Democrats fight to keep it liberal and the Republicans roll over for Ginsburg and Breyer. I believe Roe v Wade was given to us by a GOP appointed justices. Bush's biggest nightmare is if he has to make a SC appointment before his term is up.
Conservatism is done gone with the wind[makers].
Actually, I suspect that the DemocRats are becoming so unpopular that soon the elections will not be decided between the Rs and Ds, but between the Rs and some other party.
When did God decree freedom of speech existed only if one owns a newspaper or a television station or if they are a commentator? What about people who work for a living and who want to be heard? How can we write a law that treats the New York Stock Exchange differently from the New York Times? What this bill provides is unequal speech, privileged speech. So I am opposed to this bill because it is patently unconstitutional.
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.