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.
It is poor etiquette make personal attacks other FR posters on FR. It is grossly wrong to do that and LIE about them at the same time. You owe Howlin an apology.
John / Billybob
I wrote up McConnell v. FEC about six months ago, when the Supreme Court first took the case. In that write-up I praised the ACLU for its position in this particular case. I have been in constitutional litigation with the ACLU -- sometimes on the same side, sometimes on the opposite side. I give credit where credit's due. They are able allies, and fearsome opponents, depending on the case.
Congressman Billybob
I share his perspective on that particular issue, but I don't think a person who can so blatantly lie to the voters of his district is to be seriously trusted.
And I live in Colorado, where Bob Schaffer also said he would only serve three terms and then actually followed up on it. Tancredo's word is meaningless, therefore he doesn't rate my (or anyone else's) support.
I'm for the Patriot Act, I like Tom Ridge and Homeland Security, I particularly like the drug entitlement program. The plastic gun ban sounds logical. I don't think CFR stops free speech, and I don't think Bush has cozied up to Vicente...because the policy is the same as it has been for years now. The AWB is not an issue of interest to me so whatever he does, I have no stake in it. BUT I am concerned about terrorism and the agenda of the liberal left. So these issues tick off the liberals...and that's good enough for me.
ALL of these organizations have just had THEIR freedom of speech, and of their members, gut shot by the Supreme Court. These are organizations on the right, left and middle. If a substantial number of them sign on to DEMAND that Congress repeal this aspect of this law, they would dwarf the strength of AARP (38 million). Heck, the group might include AARP.
THAT would be enough to force Congress to pass this repeal, just as fast as it passed the reestablishment of the "no call" rule on telebmarketers. And, FreeRepublic could play an important role in getting this done.
Congressman Billybob
Entitlements, gun bans, and government officials seeing nothing wrong with us being flooded with criminals from another country.
Maybe you should switch back to voting "Democrat".
I read your post too quickly. A repeal of the entire CFR now is a political impossibility. Only a repeal of the ad ban and all associated regulations is a real possibility now. But that flame is worth the candle.
So I do not support your broad propsal. But narrowed to the weakest target, I support your idea whole-heartedly.
John / Billybob
I also noted that this thread was about an assault on our soldiers but you hi-jacked it to continue to harrangue about being a true 100% conservative. Why don't you guys just start your own posts and pats each other on the back about how right and smart you are while the rest of us are such cattle and the masses are again fooled. But only you and your buds are the TRUE believers.
I hope such a repeal would not face a Bush veto.
As for assualt weapons... the Founders knew what they were talking about. "...all the terrible implements of war".
Gosh, what a surprise.
Scratch a Bush-Can-Do-No-Wrong-Weenie, and you'll usually find a Diluted-Second-Amendment wishy-washy "Gosh wouldn't another entitlement be GRAND" neo-liberal hack.
Not only are you as I described you above, but you also cannot read.
This thread has nothing to do with an assault on our soldiers.
He hijacked nothing.
Of course they are, they never expected Bush to sign it, it was simply a political card they wanted to play each election. McCain wanted to use it to keep his tv face time and agenda alive.
Agreed. Howlin and I are a little annoyed at one another lately, but honorable is honorable.
I'm so confused now.
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.