Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
"Your last premise is unsupportable. It is not moving to the right. Conservative bastions such as North Carolina and Texas are being overrun by liberalism. California, which since 1956 was a reliable Republican state (excepting 1964), is now reliably Democrat. Many other examples abound that the country is moving left and both parties are moving towards Statism."
Florida, which has been controlled by Democrats since reconstruction is 100% in the hands of Republicans. In the past few years Republicans have dominated the governorships and statehouses like never before. These gains will lead to more and more national victories.
Ah. There's the flaw in your logic.
Republicanism is not Conservatism -- a point amply demonstrated by the actions of this President, lately.
Only this time we give control to socialists with the power to jail you over what you say about them. If Bush is defending America's Freedom thrn he never did drugs either.
So your answer is to give more power through CFR to the liberal media.........LMAO
So, I ask again, how do you get that from what I wrote. I did not express a desire to give more power to the media. I pointed out how the media has done their best to marginalize the loss of speech by those outside the media. A veto would have resulted in another spin by the media saying that the Administration was ONLY against meaningful campaign finance reform. Admitting that CFR stifles free speech and their gain in power will never escape the lips of most of the major media.
As for "my" revolution, I am absolutely certain. I don't expect very many citizens to join me due to the reasons you just outlined. However, remember that the first American Revolution was fought by about 15% of the population while the rest were at best indifferent, or outright hostile to the cause.
I don't expect the 2nd revolution to be much different.
Ha. And this from the person who sarcastically said MY responses were brilliant.
Your commentary elsewhere doesn't get much better than the above.
Maybe not THIS President. ;-)
No, seriously...what I was suggesting was one of the following possibilities: 1) a 5-10 minute monologue by the President to the nation, followed by questions and answers, or 2) a unsupervised/uncontrolled (gasp!) interview with Larry King or Chris Mathews.
In the first case, Bush gets 5-10 minutes to get his point across...that CFR is an egregious violation of Free Speech. (Of course, Bush doesn't really think this, since he signed CFR.) In the second case, both Larry King and Chris Mathews have demonstrated that they are amenable to "softball" interviews. (Chris Mathews' program name notwithstanding.) Basically, Larry King and Chris Mathews both allow the interviewee to make whatever point he or she wants to make.
All Bush's handlers have to do is say to King or Mathews--or Jennings, Brokaw, or Rather, for that matter--is, "Look, the President wants to make a point here. You must give him time to make his point. Then, if you disagree, feel free to do that...MILDLY...and let him try to respond to you. If you do this, there are more interviews with the President in your future. You PERSONALLY can be the channel by which the President of the United States communicates to The People. But if you rake him over the coals, or disrespect his point of view in any way, you'll NEVER get anything from him again."
NO serious journalist, even one as far Left as Rather, would either turn down that offer, or attempt to "cheat" around it in any way. Mainly, because they'd be fired immediately. But King and Mathews would honor that offer because that's their routine mode of operation. (Larry King interviewed both Kathleen Willey and Susan McDougal. Both were given complete freedom to tell their side of their stories. Larry King cares about ratings.)
As for the assertion that even Dan Rather would give a fair interview, I doubt it with all my heart, and I'm sure he wouldn't be fired. Especially after reading "Bias".
In any event, if Bush had vetoed the legislation and gotten an interview to explain why it is wrong in a Constitutional way, I don't think he would sway many kool-aid drinking liberals into understanding that fact. Remember, these are people who think that the loss of freedom for perceived safety is a good thing. I think the issue would still be on the table as a successful campaign point for this year's elections regardless of an explanation because the speech portion would be ignored while vetoing getting soft money out of politics would be played up. Those on the left would hammer again and again that Bush only vetoed it to ensure big money contributors got to influence politics for Republicans.
Plus, you can't get this anti-1A crap ruled unconstitutional until it becomes law. At least, that's the way I see it.
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.