Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The Republicans should stop restricting free speech and other stupid short term strategies for winning today. Bush must now talk to a private attorney about torturegate and outing Valerie Plame because of what Kenneth Starr did to Clinton. What goes around comes around. But for the Republican majority, we could impeach Bush for lying about the Iraqi war now. This issue is within the scope of ethical governance, unlike $60 million blowjobs.

So, based on this “legal brief” I presume Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will cease all advertising, too?

It sounds like the brief could also be used to ban advertising of books and newspapers. Pretty preposterous. Man, that FCC is getting worse and worse every day. It’s like they are taking lessons from Vladimir Putin or something.

Instead of censoring selected opposition media, it looks like they will simply attempt to silence all political media. I guess the net result is that such an action would help Republicans.

-Cf

Matthew, I disagree with your position on this issue, but, I truly respect your integrity for being consistent in support of Moore’s 1st Amendment rights over the American public’s right to eliminate the destructive oligarchy from our system.

David-

Makes you wonder how campaign finance reform got passed in the first place, and how it survied the Supreme Court.

I don’t agree with Rush, Michael Moore, or Stern, but I do agree with their right to say what they want. And it certainly gives us something to blog about.

Speaking of opinions, you should see the “European Pulse” on the BBC. It is the only English channel I can see here in France, and you would be surprised by the opinions they expressed. More conservative than I would have ever thought……

That’s a WMS to be sure: a Weapon of Mass Stupidity. Get out of the way or your IQ will be dropped by twenty points.

If they start putting an injunction on advertising of Farenheit 9/11, it will be like tossing water on a grease fire. You will have taken one of the most high profile opponents of the Bush administration and essentially censored his publicity. People will see the film, if only to see what it is about, and Moore will undoubtedly get more free press time to protest the gestapo tactic. My advice: leave it alone before it blows up in your face.

Matthew,

As a previously employed member of the Entertainment Industry, I can tell you that this proposed (and highly suspect) move by the FEC, will have very little effect on the movie’s ad campaign, mostly due to timing.

You see, nearly 90% of a film’s advertising and publicity budget are spent, prior to the film’s opening. Subsequent advertising is ran after the film opens, yet tapers off considerably after 4 weeks ( usually earlier, due to its success).

In light of the expansion of the film’s release from 500 to 800+ screens, the film may still be in some theatres on July 30th. However, at that juncture, print advertising will be the sole medium.

But it’s not supposed to muzzle liberal free speech!

By the definition of McCain-Feingold, you’ve got to take another look at what the FEC is saying here. Sure it’s bad law, but there you have it. Let it go to the supreme court so it can get struck down.

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.

Certainly if you read the statements of everyone talking about this film in positive terms it is a campaign vehicle.

WASHINGTON June 23, 2004 — Cheered by supporters, Michael Moore previewed his Bush-bashing documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” before a mostly Democratic audience in the nation’s capital Wednesday night.

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he thought the film would play an important role in this election year. -abcnews.com

It’s certainly sounding like a political commercial.

Moore, a fervent Bush critic, said he hopes the movie will get people to the ballot box in November.

“If this movie can inspire a few of that 50 percent that did not vote in this country to get back involved, to re-engage, then the movie will have accomplished something important,” he said.

From a Democratic party website no less is this, “Get out the Vote,” exhortation to go see the movie and defeat Bush.

Given how devastating the movie is to President Bush’s carefully crafted facade, it’s hardly surprising that right-wing groups who call Moore a “domestic enemy” are using censorship and intimidation tactics to try to get it pulled from theaters. That’s why we’ve got to do everything we can to make the opening a huge success.

Today, we’re asking MoveOn members to pledge to see the film on the opening night — Friday, June 25th. (If you can’t make it on Friday, pledging to go on Saturday or Sunday is fine, too). It’ll be fun, of course — you’ll be watching the movie with lots of other MoveOn members. It’ll also send an unmistakable message to the media and theater owners that the public is behind this movie. -dplc.org

This is where the current logic of campaign finance reform takes us - censorship and ridiculous bans on free speech. Now imagine if we continue in this trend and go on to the next round of reforms until we get what the advocates really want… banning contributions altogether and full government funding of campaigns. Then no one who is not approved by the government can even run for office or run any ads. The worst of both worlds; government will essentially pick the candidates.

If that’s your idea of campaign finance reform - good luck!

The base of the problem is McCain-Feingold, which is a massive and unprecendented attack on the right to free speech.

It’s funny that we hear so much about the Patriot Act and what it could—possibly, maybe—lead to, but so little about this law actually passed by Congress which basically repeals the First Amendment. The reason so little fuss was raised is that the media correctly realized that the act would leave them more powerful than the political parties. Cripple the ability of the populace to speak and make their views heard, and the studio heads will soon be stronger than the elected heads of government.

Eric Simonson & Martin,

Your comments made the point far better than I did, thanks!

Matthew Hogan

Leave it to the Republicans to reduce even free speech to a dollar amount. Unless I missed my guess, McCain-Feingold still allows a person to make a contribution to a political party, to a candidate, and to a third party political group that is not advocating for a candidate. So long as one is able to contribute to the candidate or cause of one’s choice, free speech still stands. I mean, think about it logically: the act of giving money to a candidate is supposed to be the act of expression. Once you get past that, the dollar amount is a different kind of message: It’s a bribe. I’ve done this, so work this in my interest.

And that is not covered by free speech. McCain-Feingold limits this kind of bribery so people don’t get as much individual attention as donors as they otherwise would. If they want to be politically involved, nothing is there to stop them. They just won’t offering the candidate any more of that special kind of message their wealth allows them to give.

One other note, Martin: The people making this complaint belong to a 527 committee themselves, same as MoveOn. Sounds to me like your people are willing to tolerate the free speech of other groups, just as long as they freely take your line. As I said before: These Gestapo tactics will backfire on your people.

Eric-
The law isn’t bad, it just needs to be properly contextualized and interpreted.

The Movie itself is not at issue, only it’s TV spots. But in my opinion, it’s B.S. While the commercial may have ancillary political effect, its main intent is to sell the movie.

As for the whole MoveOn thing, I’d like to remind you that they are not represenatives of of the Democratic Party. They have no connection. The site I ran into, following it up seems to be from another part of the MoveOn Organization, this part being a hard money PAC that is organized in such a way to where it can advocate candidates

This is where the current logic of campaign finance reform takes us - censorship and ridiculous bans on free speech.

Just who is trying to get this done? Citizens United. Take a look and see just what kind of organization we’re talking about:

Citizens United

Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United’s goal is to restore the founding father’s vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

American Sovereignty Project

American Sovereignty Project (“ASP”) is the grass-roots lobbying arm of Citizens United that works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP’s major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government.

Citizens United for the Bush Agenda

Citizens United for the Bush Agenda is the project through which Citizens United members work to enact key elements of President Bush’s conservative legislative and policy agenda, including across the board tax cuts, complete elimination of the death tax, a strong national defense, deployment of a missile defense system, educational choice, and a reduction in government regulation and red tape.

Apparently, these guys are going to vote for Kerry.

Seriously, though, this just seems like more of the same bull-hockey that the RNC did with questioning the legality of MoveOn’s activities.

The Irony is, I think the people making this charge against Moore, are themselves guilty of the same things that the RNC accused MoveOn of being guilty of, and more!

Here’s a link to their site. Go through their commercials, and it’s obvious they’re pushing against the Democrats. What’s even more obvious is that they are doing something they should not be able to do under Campaign finance laws: directly advocate for a a candidate. Under 527 laws, they are prohibited from doing that.

Care to address this, anyone?

Stephen,

Citizens United is a conservative group, there is no doubt about that as there is no doubt that Moore is an ultra-left reactionary liberal. Citizens United and more importantly the FEC is merely using the law as it was written. In fact I heard one of their [citizens united] spokesman saying that they are not doing this to censor Moore so much as to make a point about McCain-Feingold.

Some of your positions I understand and can even agree with. I think that you do have some logical positions that aren’t knee-jerk liberalism. But I’m curious about the position that money is somehow evil here. How can you separate money from speech? How do you communicate to others without a cost?

McCain-Feingold is meant to muzzle non-candidate speech during an election. Which would seem to me to be contra-first amendment.

Specifically, I don’t understand the logic of this statement:

Once you get past that, the dollar amount is a different kind of message: It’s a bribe. I’ve done this, so work this in my interest.

And that is not covered by free speech. McCain-Feingold limits this kind of bribery so people don’t get as much individual attention as donors as they otherwise would. If they want to be politically involved, nothing is there to stop them. They just won’t offering the candidate any more of that special kind of message their wealth allows them to give.

What precisely is not covered by free speech here?

Liberals on this issue are on the wrong side of freedom. This is an instance where the heritage of marxism and anti-capitalism in the liberal meme rears it’s ugly head.

I find it funny that those on the left can’t see the irony in that it is McCain/Feingold that might prevent the current advertising campaign for F-9/11 continuing after this month.

As it was written? Then the intent of the authors of the bill is of importance. Did they intend for it to be used against commercial filmmakers advertising to enhance the financial fortunes of a motion picture? Or did they intend to use that against campaign ads like we see there.

If you were too say the wording on this is to vague, it’s scope to broad, I’d say we need to replace it with a more specific, narrowly defined amendment.

I believe that money is not so much the issue as it is patronage. As Molly Ivin’s memorably phrased it, you got to dance with them what brung you. When its the special interests that bring you, when soft money can support your campaign directly, you will be grateful for this help, and you will help these people, or next time you may find yourself without financial support in a day and age where political campaigns are ludicrously expensive.

If you follow the link that you posted for the advertisements of Farenheit 9/11 long enough, you’ll find that MoveOn.Org was fully capable of organizing it’s own hard-money PAC, and contributing to the candidates in that fashion. They have an endorsement of Kerry on that page, something they could not do on their Soft Money operation.

Your argument of free speech abridgment falls apart on the merits.

And yes, bribery is not covered by free speech. Political influence must be limited as much as possible to means available to all: Our free speech to persuade others, and our votes to elect the candidates we believe will serve us best.

Liberals on this issue are on the wrong side of freedom. This is an instance where the heritage of marxism and anti-capitalism in the liberal meme rears it’s ugly head.

No, I just believe that my candidates should be willing to renounce special interests for the public good. The way your people have it right now caving into those interests, regardless of the consequences, is the American way. Your answer to every regulatory and ethical concern is to say all interests are served by being beholden to the bottom lines of these companies.

The market, Eric, was made to serve us, not the other way around. When it fails to good for us, to prevent harmful behavior, then government should step in, especially when it’s the market itself at stake. Government should not dictate commerce to be sure, but it should ensure that there are standards of ethics, transparency and quality to be met by those who participate in the grand game of wealth. And if some people cannot perform in business underneath such restrictions, well then, that’s what markets do. A business that can be prosperous without a tax break is better than one that requires a tax break to be successful. Your people mollycoddle business, to the point that sloppy and deceptive business practices have become the norm. You allow them to get away with so much that they just assume they are entitle to the wealth they gain, regardless of their actions.

I believe in Capitalism. I believe that people should earn their wealth rather than simply recieve it. You call taxes a drain on business. I call them an encouragement to make more money. You call it the death taxes, I call it a tax on unearned income. You call environmental regulations a restraint on trade, i call them a restraint on activities the market is ill suited to correcting for. What I don’t believe is that the market is the all powerful, all know thing you like to assume it is. It is an imperfect human enterprise with imperfect conveyance of information, and imperfect judgment and where people don’t always take responsibilities for their mistakes. I believe in a system of competition and personal property, I just don’t believe utopian futures are ahead for us, if we take off all possible restraints for it.

It’s nothing personal. I’m skeptical of all utopian visions, have read through quite a few, encountered them time and again, and found them inconsistent with the character and behavior of reality. In reality, no system can guarantee happiness and success for everyone, and utopian systems have been the source of much suffering and degradation in the past century.

From nationalist bigots to religious fanatics, the promise of a perfect future has been an idol to many dissatisfied with the here and the now, and an excuse to irresponsible and other unjustifiable action. 9/11 and the Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia can be counted among the offerings sacrificed to the graven image of the perfection of mankind.

In the end, although a lesser form of his idolatry, market libertarianism still counts on a perfection of human behavior that doesn’t exist, and works towards a perfect system that will never really exist. And in the mean time, many things are going wrong that don’t have to.

The market, Eric, was made to serve us, not the other way around. When it fails to good for us, to prevent harmful behavior, then government should step in, especially when it’s the market itself at stake.

Stephen, the market does serve us. It serves those who participate in it.

Government should not dictate commerce to be sure, but it should ensure that there are standards of ethics, transparency and quality to be met by those who participate in the grand game of wealth. And if some people cannot perform in business underneath such restrictions, well then, that’s what markets do. A business that can be prosperous without a tax break is better than one that requires a tax break to be successful.

Your people mollycoddle business, to the point that sloppy and deceptive business practices have become the norm. You allow them to get away with so much that they just assume they are entitle to the wealth they gain, regardless of their actions.

You have someone else’s people in mind here. I am for eliminating all tax breaks. The tax breaks are not a method of giving to business, they are a method of controlling business. The tax code wasn’t invented by special interests, it’s a massive system of manipulation on the part of government to get businesses to do one thing or another. Credits for renewable fuels, credits for hiring in empowerment zones, credits for saving three legged goats during the summer solstice. (That’s how arcane and ludicrous it has become.)

As for being entitled to the wealth they gain… what does this mean? Businesses serve people, if they don’t they make no money. You’re way off here.

It is your side which views government and business as a partnership. Government is the not-so-silent partner in every business.

I believe in Capitalism. I believe that people should earn their wealth rather than simply recieve it.

Who are you talking about here? Ted Kennedy? What has Ted Kennedy ever done for the wealth he has? I just don’t understand this left over from marxism that business (the bourgeoisie) is evil, controlling, greedy, and oppressive. People are those things apart from business.

If unearned money is so evil why don’t we tax wealth instead of income? Why is Ted’s principle offlimits, but as I’m trying to accumulate mine I keep feeling the hand of Ted Kennedy pushing me down. The more I make the more they push down. The progressive income tax is merely a way to stifle competition and keep newcomers from accumulating capital.

You may be sceptical of utopian dreams but some of your rhetoric is enshrined in it.

…market libertarianism still counts on a perfection of human behavior that doesn’t exist, and works towards a perfect system that will never really exist. And in the mean time, many things are going wrong that don’t have to.

And precisely what are you advocating if not the same kind of idolotry? Do you think Social Justice theory is based entirely on pragmatic and scientific fact? It’s the worst kind of utopianism. At best it’s a sop to the base emotional outbursts of envy and greed.

Stephen, the market does serve us. It serves those who participate in it.

I don’t know whether that’s really your position. Everytime some issue comes up, and business is involved, it seems like your strategy is do whatever it is that increases profits in the market regardless of whether it’s healthy for people’s communities or bodies, or the economy itself in the long-run. It seem to me like much of what you do as Republicans is in thrall to short term market values.

How does that translate into money being evil when it is donated to a candidate?

Quid Pro Quo. The expectation that for the financial help to the campaign, the candidates must work in the interest of the companies in question. The harm comes in government officials and representatives being unable to act as the independent third party when the public needs it to. Sometimes, if you’ll excuse my french, this government needs to be willing to piss people off. If those people are well known to the candidate as donors, the candidates are stuck in a conflict of interest that prevents them from doing what they have to do.

As for being entitled to the wealth they gain… what does this mean? Businesses serve people, if they don’t they make no money. You’re way off here.

Apparently you haven’t had much contact with the way business operate nowadays, in regards to customers, employees and investors. All you need to do to make your money is hit a target wall street sets. You can screw nearly everything else up, but if your short term is arranged right, you’ll clean up, and be able to skedaddle away into retirement or another executive position by a gold parachute when that happens.

The problem is that you assume that the executives really share interests with their companies. Many don’t. Many have also broken interest with their customers, pushing shoddy merchandise that lasts just long enough to outlast the warranty.

Now, I don’t see business and government as a partnerships. Now there can be partnerships on a case by case basis, but really, ideally speaking, they should have different interests, interests that don’t always overlap to businesses advantage.

I just don’t understand this left over from marxism that business (the bourgeoisie) is evil, controlling, greedy, and oppressive. People are those things apart from business.

I don’t think business is inherently evil. I just don’t expect business people to naturally be the flagbearers for public virtue. I expect the capitalists of this country to sometimes go overboard, and to sometimes need a nudge or a sharp kick in the seat of their pants to do what’s right by people. In short, I expect power to be a corrupting influence in business as well as government.

I don’t count on people to be perfect. I think laws are necessary because we are always capable of choosing wrongly, and there need to be limits to such behavior, thresholds past which such behavior is not tolerated. I don’t trust laws to be 100% effective in doing this, but I want at least the implicit threat of punishment to be there to give wrongdoers pause, and perhaps reserve in what they do.

Now, I also believe that we should encourage a sense of duty and public responsibility amongst those sorts of people as well. Unfortunately what they are being taught instead is that such obligations hold them back and that they are entitle to make money as they please regardless of what it does to other people.

I think your people don’t have to abandon your anti-regulation sensibilities, but you should be willing to vote regulations into existence, if only to be able to scare executives straight by threatening to intervene with government regulation. Otherwise, they can just count on you to keep them from having to pay the piper, and that’s no way to encourage responsible behavior.

rxllabo miofguite.