Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Notes from CPAC
I couldn't worm my way inside, but the assembled Romney supporters, I am told, gasped, booed, yelped and wept when he "suspended" his campaign today. It is odd, though, that none of them immediately understood where Mitt was going with his reference to Ronald Reagan's quixotic 1976 presidential campaign. Said the morose Mormon: "You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976." The fight continues! Wait did he say 1976? In other words, I'll see you guys in 2012, though such historical nuance was apparently lost on the room full of seals, conditioned to clap maniacally at any invocation of Reagan. (Credit where credit is due: The very perceptive Byron York predicted that Romney would quit a few hours before he dropped out, noting a precipitous drop in the number of campaign spam emails in the previous day.)
Out in the hotel lobby, it's clear that the news of Mitt's abdication is the source of some distress, especially amongst his young supporters and the party's nativist faction. (As one bemused journalist pointed out to me, the McCain-is-a-Quisling crowd, holding hastily constructed "No Amnesty" signs, were almost completely ignored by conference attendees—with the exception of the assembled television crews who immediately swarmed). One college-age Romnyite, who travelled from Colorado to offer moral support, told me that she found a quiet corner after the speech and wept. Another, barely holding back tears, swallowed hard and told me: "I feel like I was just hit by a bus. This is the worst day of my life." How on earth Romney can inspire this level of devotion, and induce such feelings of betrayal, remains a mystery. But others quickly swapped out their Romney regalia for McCain gear, slipping back into the packed hall to await instructions from their new leader.
Before McCain went on, an anxious crowd of doughy men and overly made-up women fidgeted through a rousing speech by Dick Armey, though the many oblique invocations of Friedman—"we must be free to choose"—were completely lost on the crowd, which responded with lukewarm, slightly impatient applause. After introductions from two rock-ribbed righties, Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator George Allen, the crowd gave McCain a decent reception, though this was likely helped by his legion of supporters, who stacked the deck in his favor by staking out seats in advance. Fair enough, I suppose.
Surprisingly, most of the professional conservatives in my section applauded the speech graciously (and sometimes lustily), including the pint-sized social conservative Gary Bauer. Most would later argue that McCain hit a number of right notes in his speech; a hat tip to social conservatives (just a week after telling the Washington Post that "It's not social issues I care about") and a reference to FISA, bellowing that the "shameful and dangerous" Senate Democrats "are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists." A huge applause line. But immigration is soon broached...and he is met with hearty boos.
In my line of sight, the two righties who were clearly displeased by the day's events were talk radio host Laura Ingraham and former House Majority Leader Tom Delay. Both stood to the side of the stage throughout McCain's speech scowling, never clapping. Delay managed a brief round of applause when McCain muttered something about his love of fetuses but even that seemed grudging. But McCain's best/most awkward moment was when he congratulated Romney, a man he deeply dislikes, on running an "energetic and dedicated campaign"—a compliment on par with Spinal Tap being celebrated as "Britain's loudest band."
Bingo|2.8.08 @ 2:38AM|#
In other words, Roboconservative needs to charge and re-align
the reaganometer before venturing out again in 2012.
DESTROY ALL HU-MANS.
|2.8.08 @ 3:04AM|#
I heard some dude named Ron Paul made a speech there saying some
things about McCain and some weird stuff about how Republicans used
to be for small government.
What's that all about?
Ever heard of this guy? I don't see anything about him. Some kids
tried to tell me he was running for Prez, but the news just told me
its only Huck and Mccain left.
|2.8.08 @ 3:38AM|#
Perhaps Senator McCain can shore up his conservative bona fides by naming a right wing hero as his running mate: Clarence Uncle Thomas.
|2.8.08 @ 3:48AM|#
"I feel like I was just hit by a bus. This is the worst day of
my life."
I'm astounded that anyone can get so attached to an empty-suit
clown like Romney. He's the shallowest candidate since Sonny Bono,
for crying out loud.
-jcr
Joseph|2.8.08 @ 4:45AM|#
I'm astounded that anyone can get so attached to an empty-suit clown like Romney.
It's easy for people to get attached to empty suits: They can fill'em with whatever they want. See Obama, Barack.
|2.8.08 @ 6:36AM|#
I don't think it's really fair to call Obama an empty suit.
Sure, he's been more about charisma and inspiration than concrete
policy wonkage so far (though I bet a professor of constitutional
law can get mega-wonky when he wants to), but there's definitely
something there.
Now, Romney on the other hand... count me with those who are
baffled by how people can get so worked up over a candidate who has
the legend 'Product of US Robots and Mechanical Men' etched into
the stainless steel of his chest-plate. (Fred may have been the
zombie candidate, but at least a zombie was a real live human at
some point. Even if that point was several decades in the
past.)
grodin|2.8.08 @ 6:42AM|#
Romney seems human to me. And articulate and intelligent. So he's a little stiff and too good-looking. I suppose there's a lot of envy and resentment in the vitriol he draws from reasonites.
|2.8.08 @ 7:07AM|#
So he's a little stiff and too good-looking.
My objection to him has more to do with his depraved indifference
to the suffering of patients who need medical marijuana to
survive.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
Before I saw that, I didn't think about him much at all. Now I
consider him somewhere below Richard Nixon on the human decency
scale.
-jcr
|2.8.08 @ 7:34AM|#
Oh, please - leave the amateur psychology at home. Libertarian distaste for Romney is a product of his current appalling policy positions (subject to change without notice, void where prohibited.) Romney the governor might have been halfway palatable; Romney the focus-grouped establishment candidate is most definitely not. That he has all the charisma and warmth of a lump of granite is merely a delightful bonus.
|2.8.08 @ 8:42AM|#
OK, so Romney regroups and comes back in 2012 after 4 years of a
Democrat. It does sound familiar, and maybe he thinks it's best now
to backout before being actually defeated than to suffer a defeat
and hope no one remembers. Or maybe he was just tired of spending
all of his own money.
I, too, don't understand how anyone can say it is the worst day of
their life. I am an ardent Paul supporter, and kinda bummed because
he isn't winning, but it's not like my life is over. It just makes
me think less of my fellow Americans, that's all. (Not you guys,
the ones that suck.)
|2.8.08 @ 9:00AM|#
But McCain's best/most awkward moment was when he
congratulated Romney, a man he deeply dislikes, on running an
"energetic and dedicated campaign"-a compliment on par with Spinal
Tap being celebrated as "Britain's loudest band."
I love these kind of compliments. Like when a movie ad runs quotes
calling the film "...highly stylized..." and
"...explosive..."
Neither of those words is a actually a compliment, but they sound
like it.
Episiarch|2.8.08 @ 9:07AM|#
how people can get so worked up over a candidate who has the
legend 'Product of US Robots and Mechanical Men' etched into the
stainless steel of his chest-plate
Whew, I thought it said "Cyberdine Systems". This is a relief; I
can tell John Connor to relax a little now. However, it is
disturbing that in essence he said "I'll be back".
"Nice night for walk. Nothing clean, right."
Taft|2.8.08 @ 9:07AM|#
an anxious crowd of doughy men
Another H&R reference to the tubbiness of Romney's supporters.
What's this all about? Did they scarf up the pastries before you
guys arrived?
|2.8.08 @ 9:08AM|#
joe,
synonyms for what the reviewers actually said
"highly stylized" = "cinematographer was on an acid trip"
"explosive" = "this movie is sure to bomb at the box office"
LT Nixon|2.8.08 @ 9:08AM|#
Out in the hotel lobby, it's clear that the news of Mitt's
abdication is the source of some distress, especially amongst his
young supporters and the party's nativist faction.
Maybe if youngsters were more interested in national defense and
trimming the fat of our bloated self-destructive government, while
less interested in some crazy values crusade, we wouldn't be seeing
such overt douchiness. Thanks for the heads up!
BakedPenguin|2.8.08 @ 9:14AM|#
I love these kind of compliments. Like when a movie ad runs quotes calling the film "...highly stylized..." and "...explosive..."
Ha ha. When the only quotes the publicist can find come from the
ABC radio reviewer, you know you've got a suck movie on your
hands.
Sam|2.8.08 @ 9:17AM|#
I think I finally get why a lot of conservatives hate McCain; he
doesn't validate their minority opinions. Seems like most
conservatives are in a big circle jerk about issues that most
American's thing they are dead wrong on. The environment, Campaign
Finance, tax cuts. So McCain is more center than they are on those
issues, and it makes the conservatives feel like assholes. Its one
thing when a democrat says they are wrong, because they are suppose
to disagree with them. But when a Republican disagrees, they don't
know how to handle it because they can't immediately dismiss the
issue. Or they do and just label the messenger a RINO or "more
liberal then Hillary Clinton." Its pretty immature actually -- the
inability to logically reason with someone you disagree with on an
issue, rather than just having a visceral reaction to hate the
person.
Even on immigration, where their opinion is in the majority, I
think deep down most of them know that their position is wrong and
that they are acting like intolerant assholes. McCain calls them
out on it and they hate him for it.
T|2.8.08 @ 9:27AM|#
I think I finally get why a lot of conservatives hate
McCain; he doesn't validate their minority opinions.
Since I live with one, I can answer this a little better than you.
Conservatives hate McCain because he wraps himself in the mantle
while pissing all over them. He uses his "conservative" credentials
in the media, but when push comes to shove, he votes like Hillary.
Gang of 14 ring any bells?
|2.8.08 @ 9:32AM|#
In his bowing-out speech, Romney finally revealed what a prick he is. It was a flash of ugly authenticity.
Sam|2.8.08 @ 9:35AM|#
T proves my point. visceral reaction because he knows he is
taking the minority "asshole" position.
Most people realize that the Gang of 14 was necessary to get most
of the conservatives judges around the democrat's filibuster. I am
sure that now that they are in the minority, the Republicans are
pretty happy that they didn't destory that minority protection for
permanent. Heven forbid the guy compromises when Republicans are
dead wrong. Again, you hate that he showed you were acting like an
inflexable asshat.
Episiarch|2.8.08 @ 9:37AM|#
Sam, do you have trouble with reading comprehension? T said his girlfriend/wife is a conservative, not him. It seems like your hate for the GOP is making you look like a reading-challenged asshat. Ironic, no?
Sam|2.8.08 @ 9:42AM|#
From T's writing, it fairly safe to assume that he is using his living partner as a cover. Both of them may be asshats, but T is most certainly one himself. You clearly don't read between the lines very well do you Episiarch?
Bearded Beavis|2.8.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Last I heard, Motorhead was Britain's loudest band. And their accents are real.
Jon|2.8.08 @ 9:53AM|#
That McCain has been on the state's payroll almost his entire life is enough to piss me off. His Tourette-like use of "my friends" is pretty annoying too.
|2.8.08 @ 10:00AM|#
The fact that McCain pisses of people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Tom Delay leads me to suspect he's not all bad. I don't like the incumbent protection/ election funding crap, but the apparently rational approach to immigration helps make up for it.
Sam|2.8.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Jon, we should try to get the taxpayer's money back for those years he was in the Vietnamese prision. What was he doing for us then? Nothing, that's what.
|2.8.08 @ 10:02AM|#
a rousing speech by Dick Armey, though the many oblique
invocations of Friedman-"we must be free to choose"-were completely
lost on the crowd, which responded with lukewarm, slightly
impatient applause.
The retirement of Dick Armey from the House was really, really
painful for anyone with libertarian inclinations-- and indeed the
country.
|2.8.08 @ 10:03AM|#
I might have been truly impressed if McCain had blown off CPAC altogether, saying, "I'm not gonna waste my time sucking uo to that mob of hillbillies."
LarryA|2.8.08 @ 10:07AM|#
I, too, don't understand how anyone can say it is the worst
day of their life. I am an ardent Paul supporter, and kinda bummed
because he isn't winning, but it's not like my life is over. It
just makes me think less of my fellow Americans, that's
all.
If you're young, particularly if you're used to the idealism of a
college campus, and it's your first campaign, it's easy to get
caught up. You get hooked on TheGreatMan, not policies. When your
TheNextPresidentOfTheseUnitedStates dumps in his drawers right
after you've put in a ninety-hour week stumping for him it's quite
a shock.
Many of these young people will not return to active politics for a
long time.
I think I finally get why a lot of conservatives hate McCain;
he doesn't validate their minority opinions.
I don't like McCain because he stands tall and declares, "By God I
believe in the Second Amendment," then votes for gun control.
So McCain is more center than they are on those
issues,
I suppose if you think conservative ideas are wrong even if
supported by the majority, then from your place on the Right/Left
line McCain looks like a "centrist." Since most of us aren't on
that line (it excludes libertarians) we might have a better
perspective on both ends, and where McCain sits. It ain't in the
center.
The laws the man proposes eviscerate the Bill of Rights, and
regardless of what conservatives think, libertarians disagree with
that.
Jon|2.8.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Sam, don't you think people invoke his time in Vietnam a little bit too readily, when others criticize McCain?
|2.8.08 @ 10:14AM|#
I run in pretty conservative circles. Some of them will be
holding their noses and voting for McCain, some of them wont.
McCains biggest sins for me are that usless violation of the 1st Am
that is 'McCain/Feingold'
and his opposition to tax cuts.
Sam,
I don't think that it makes me look like an asshole to oppose him
for those two things. I think that anybody who supports either of
those two things is either ignorant or fundamentally opposed to
everything that I hold to be American
Heimlich Bimmler|2.8.08 @ 10:16AM|#
From T's writing, it fairly safe to assume that he is using
his living partner as a cover. Both of them may be asshats, but T
is most certainly one himself. You clearly don't read between the
lines very well do you Episiarch?
I didn't realize that T, being someone who is anonymously posting
on the intertubez, needed to use a proxy in describing his
political views.
Good thing your superior intelligence is there to read between the
lines for me! Tell me about the aliens too, Sam, because I am
interested in what you have to say and would like to subscribe to
your newsletter.
|2.8.08 @ 10:17AM|#
"Romney finally revealed what a prick he is."
I beg to differ. I'd say he revealed that a long time ago.
-jcr
|2.8.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Also, so the conservative circles that I run in that are either
holding their noses, or not voting for him.
They dislike him for his stance on immigration, for
McCain/Feingold, for his opposition to tax cuts, for his membership
in the 14.
I disagree with them only on the immigration thing. I heard him
speak on Hannity's radio show about immigration, and he sounded
very reasonable on that issue.
(I won't be voting for him, and I usually vote R in the
presidential race. Even if Hillary is his opponent, I don't think I
could bring myself to vote for him.)
Sam|2.8.08 @ 10:30AM|#
kwies,
You are actually the ignorant one when it comes to McCain-Feingold
if you think it has any violation of the 1st Amendment. Allowing
elected officials to directly and indirectly accept unlimited sums
of money to keep themselves in power, and then pass the laws that
will affect the income of the largest donors is not "American." And
you do look like an asshat.
LarryA -
I don't think most of these issue come down to fundemental right or
wrong for goverance. To me, on the fundemental issue, Government
accountability and transparency, McCain is rock solid. It guides
his decisions on earmarks, and his decision on CFR. Coming after
two very secretive administrations, I appriciate it and consider
that inherently correct. The rest of the stuff is something of a
judgment call for the population. In that way, he is somewhere in
between the far right and the left. Hence, more centrist.
|2.8.08 @ 10:32AM|#
in another thread Nick said something about if Paul starts doing
callouts that ruin McCain's candidacy then every penny of his
donations will have been worth it.
I second that.
|2.8.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Sam,
A bill dubbed the "Incumbency Protection Bill" because it limits
political speech in a way that hurts people challenging incumbents,
but does nothing to keep money out of politics, or to limit
earmarks or any of the other untoward activities that congress
partakes in to pay people to vote for them with money wrested from
citizens.
|2.8.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Yeah, I don't really think I look like an asshat for opposing
that or any violation of the Bill of Rights. I think it makes me
look like a patriot.
I guess it is a manner of perspective.
So, I guess the conservatives, like me don't oppose McCain because
they feel like he makes them look like an asshat, they oppose him
because they feel the things he pushes as a legislator are un
American.
|2.8.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Serious question: does McCain have any sort of coherent or
defined position on taxes in general? Like simplification/
rationalization? Does he have anybody who knows anything working
with him as an economic advisor?
I was pleasantly surprised to hear him come out against the Florida
insurance subsidy scheme.
Sam|2.8.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Its dubbed the "Incumbency Protection Bill" by ignorant asshats that have absolutely no idea what the law actually says or does or the effect that it has on the general election and enactment of legislation. Its a code word that your circle jerk uses to make you think that you are on the side of the morally correct -- when you are not -- and on the side of the popular -- which you are not. Maybe you hate him because you are ignorant, but does not knowing you are an asshat make you any less of one? I don't know, but you seem like a pretty big asshat to me.
I am Sam\'s complete lack of s|2.8.08 @ 10:49AM|#
BLAH BLAH asshat BLAH BLAH McCain rulez BLAH asshat I heart McCain asshat.
Jon|2.8.08 @ 10:52AM|#
" Does he have anybody who knows anything working with him as an
economic advisor?"
Yes, Donald Luskin, as of yesterday.
Although some mystery surrounds this. On January 23, Luskin signed
on as an advisor to Ron Paul, on Feb 5 he was on the Neil Cavuto
show saying he would write in Paul in Nov if necessary. Then
yesterday he jumps ship to McCain, with no explanation.
|2.8.08 @ 10:54AM|#
You are actually the ignorant one when it comes to
McCain-Feingold if you think it has any violation of the 1st
Amendment.
Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If I publish 1 million flyers and hire people to distribute them,
what is that but freedom of the press ans peaceably assembling? Oh,
it's a violation of the McCain/Feingold Incumbent Protection Act,
if I do it X number of days prior to an election. Your reading
comprehension skills apparently need some work.
Back to middle school for you, Sam.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 10:54AM|#
kwais, I can give you two prime examples of how CFR is not incumbency protection: Rudy Giuliani vs. Ron Paul and Hillary vs. Barrack. Under old system, larger corporate money would have funneled to the Giuliani and Clinton campaigns b/c they were the early frontrunners and likely to win. Those looking to buy influence (what a majority of big donors are trying to do) would have gone with the safe bet and loaded up those two candidates in hard and soft money. In fact, they did. Because they were limited in how much they could give, insurgent candidates with a broader base of devoted support was able to raise equal or more money. Ultimately it led to mixed results in the election. (e.g. Paul outlasted Rudy but is unlikely to win; Obama is in the hunt and outraising Clinton). I think that one of the main reasons we are having such a good election on both sides is that CFR has prevented any frontrunning candidate from getting too far out ahead moneywise, so that all the candidates (and media and public) feel like its an open race for their guy to compete. hardly seems like incumbency or frontrunner protection to me.
|2.8.08 @ 10:55AM|#
McCain-Feingold is a First Amendment violation because it prevents people from airing ads against a particular candidate or their issues close to an election. If we can't do that, we are being prevented from political speech which is the purpose of our freedom of speech from whence it was written.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 10:58AM|#
J sub D,
What you are proposing your be a violation of nothing. If you are
doing it solo, no one upon no one would say that is a violation. If
you are doing it as a group, the recent SEC draft opinion which a
lot of pro-CFR people have disagreed with not withstanding, there
would be no violation under the law if you aren't coordinating with
the campaign or aren't taking general corporate funds. those are
fairly mild restrictions and hardly a limitation on speech any more
than requiring a permit for a rally at a park. Learn the law if you
are going to hate on it.
|2.8.08 @ 10:59AM|#
On January 23, Luskin signed on as an advisor to Ron Paul,
on Feb 5 he was on the Neil Cavuto show saying he would write in
Paul in Nov if necessary. Then yesterday he jumps ship to McCain,
with no explanation.
One explanation is that McCain needs the help; Dr. Paul not so
much. Plus, the promise of a paycheck through November and possibly
an administration position.
|2.8.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Bryan, that doesn't make any sense. Campaigns can rip on each other in their ads all the way up to election day. It is other groups of citizens that are restricted. How is that not a violation of their rights to free speech? Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW!!!
|2.8.08 @ 11:02AM|#
The First doesn't have any qualifiers. Congress shall make
no law ...
You can't change the definition of "no law" that no matter how hard
you try.
Ignorant asshats agree, Sam and Bryan have an amazing inability to
comprehend the written word.
|2.8.08 @ 11:03AM|#
If Luskin is a smart economist, it's a good thing for everyone IF he can even influence McCain who has a history ocreating legislation and would likely support or veto same based entirely on emotion of what he thinks is "right" nevermind whether or not it's smart.
|2.8.08 @ 11:07AM|#
What you are proposing your be a violation of nothing. If you
are doing it solo
Right to peacably assemble? Goddamn, it's only English we are
discussing, not the deciphering of the Rosetta stone. You have a
future in the Kwame Kirkpatrick administration here in Motown. But
hurry.
|2.8.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Congress shall make no law............
Unless that law is popular.
If the law is popular and you oppose it, you are an asshat.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 11:09AM|#
F'n A Nick,
I don't have time to take you through CFR 101. Your question alone
displays the ignorance that I think a lot of people on this board
have. Campaigns can do whatever they want in their ads. They are
limited as to how much money they can take from any one person. If
the person wants to get around the donation limits, he can do it
himself solo (unregulated) or he can donate to a third part
organization. If the organization is taking money from corporate
donors or is coordinating with the campaign, it has to abide by the
donation limits too. If it is not taking money from corporate
donors or coordinating, it doesn't and is also unregulated. Again,
there is a draft FEC opinion that disputs that last sentance, but
most who agree with CFR know that the opinion is bullshit and won't
stand.
J sub D -- are park permits violations of the first Amendment?
Sam|2.8.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Hey asshats,
Assume Bryan is correct on the law. How does that violate first
speech? Or have your talk radio gods and Weigle not told you how to
analyze it that far?
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 11:15AM|#
J sub D -- I mean to say "What you are proposing would be a violation of nothing."
T|2.8.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Sam,
Eat shit and chase rabbits, mmkay? My wife is the GOP precinct
chair and is a conservative Republican. One might reasonably
conclude by my continuing presence here that I'm not. I explained
to you why conservatives don't like him. I don't care if you think
I'm full of shit, because I sincerely doubt you've talked to enough
conservatives to know what they think. I have. They're freaking out
right now because they have no candidate left, and McCain is as bad
as Clinton or Obama on most domestic policy issues as far as
they're concerned.
I loathe McCain because he can't understand the document he's spent
his entire adult life under oath to defend.
You are actually the ignorant one when it comes to
McCain-Feingold if you think it has any violation of the 1st
Amendment.
Explain to me, in short simple words since I'm apparently ignorant,
how a law that forbids me and my friends from running an ad that
mentions a politician by name 60 days before an election does not
run afoul of the part of the Constitution that reads "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press". It sure as hell sounds like they abridged
the freedom of speech and the press, but I'm guess I'm too ignorant
to figure it out.
|2.8.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Because, Bryan, you said "if they aren't coordinating with the
campaign." If they are coordinating with the campaign why is it a
violation of CFR since campaigns are permitted to rip on each
other? If they aren't coordinating with the campaign, why are they
prevented from joining together as groups and airing whatever the
hell they want up to election day, including but not limited to
calling McCain an asshat?
And don't get me started on the Ron Paul blimp. No law should
prevent any group that wants to from spending any amount they want
to when it comes to getting a message out, even if it is regarding
someone running for president. The blimp had to circumvent the law
by going as a for-profit (and they are still being questioned by
the FEC) just to avoid spending and coordination limits completely
separate from the campaign. Bt, no one's political speech was being
prevented or altered in any way. Yeah, OK.
|2.8.08 @ 11:24AM|#
J sub D -- are park permits violations of the first
Amendment?
Only when disapproved. Duh.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 11:31AM|#
T,
Don't take corporate money and don't coordinate with the campaign
and you and your friends can run whatever ads you want, whenever
you want. (Again, not defending the draft FEC opinion to the
contrary.)
Those limitations are not violations of the 1st Amend. b/c:
1) Corporations have no right to speech. They are artifical people
and do not have all the same rights as real people.
2) Your free speech is exercised by giving any amount of money to a
campaign. You are saying to the public "I support this candidate."
You are not necessarily sending a message that you support them to
any greater degree when you give more money. therefore, your free
speech is not curtailed.
Simple enough for you? My guess is that you will still have trouble
understading.
I loathe McCain because he can't understand the document he's
spent his entire adult life under oath to defend.
I don't know why Sam would think you are a conservative. He was
clearly wrong.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 11:32AM|#
If they aren't coordinating with the campaign, why are they
prevented from joining together as groups and airing whatever the
hell they want up to election day, including but not limited to
calling McCain an asshat?
They aren't Nick. Provided that they are not taking corporate money
-- see #1 in my post above.
Egosumabbas|2.8.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Okay, I'll bite Sam. You wrote the following:
Its dubbed the "Incumbency Protection Bill" by ignorant asshats
that have absolutely no idea what the law actually says or does or
the effect that it has on the general election and enactment of
legislation. Its a code word that your circle jerk uses to make you
think that you are on the side of the morally correct -- when you
are not -- and on the side of the popular -- which you are not.
Maybe you hate him because you are ignorant, but does not knowing
you are an asshat make you any less of one? I don't know, but you
seem like a pretty big asshat to me.
Some fellow Ron Paul supporters in Southern Illinois tried to run a
pro Ron Paul article in a local newspaper. Because Southern
Illinois is impoverished, these supporters asked for donations form
Chicago supporters to help them run this ad, by putting donations
into a ChipIn account. Thanks to-McCain Feingold, MULTIPLE PEOPLE
COULD NOT DONATE to run this ad, since it wasn't a "political
action committee". Again, since these were very poor people trying
to run the ad, they did not have the funds to start a political
action committee or hire a lawyer to make sure what they were doing
was legal. Only a single person would be allowed to donate, so the
chip-in had to be refunded and the ad never ran due to fears of
legal repercussions (which again matter more to poor people who
can't afford a lawyer to fend off lawsuits). So, in essence McCain
Feingold in this situation PUNISHED poor people trying to speak out
for a candidate. On the other hand, a rich punk like Romney can
dole out millions of his own dollars to push himself onto the
electoral stage, whereas people donating to other candidates were
limited in receiving only only 2300 dollar donations. Now tell me,
does campaign finance reform help the poor or the rich?
Also, keep in mind that the FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS protects the freedom of political speech:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."
|2.8.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Corporations have no right to speech. They are artifical
people and do not have all the same rights as real
people.
Bryan,
As artificial people, they have artificial speech and spend
artificial money, right. Corporations are associations of, hold on
to your hat, real people. So are unions, the moonies, the Ft Wayne
Mad Ants, NAMBLA, AFSCME, and the PS 11 alumni association.
The people of these organizations have the right to free speech.
They have the right to pool their resources to more effectively get
their message out. You don't like that some of these groups are
effective at swaying public opinion. I don't like that some of
these groups are effective at swaying public opinion.
What I like far less is the assunption that people are too stupid
to make their own decisions in the information age. Guess why
modern times are referred to as the information age (a hint for
publicly schooled, the bronze age was so called because of the
prevalence of bronze).
The way to allow people to make informed decisions is to provide
them with information, not restrict it.
You're too smart to be unduly influenced by the evil corporation
arguments but your fellow citizens are too easily duped and need
the FECs wise and benevolent protection, right? The government will
provide stewardship over communication so that it will all be
"fair", correct?. That is an elitest position, arrogant and
flawed.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Egosumabbas,
I can't speak for Sam, but I don't approve of that interpretation
McCain/Feingold. I don't think it is what the law intended or is
constitutional -- provided that the Chicago donors (or Southern
Ill. donors) were not corporations or coordinating with the
campaign. Assuming that to be the case, its a perverse reading of
the law and should be overturned.
Unfortunately a lot of people read very benign text and
misinterpret the meaning. (e.g. the Koran, Bible, etc.) It does not
mean that the text, as written and intended is wrong or bad. If the
draft FEC opinion gets upheld, I will come over to the I hate the
CFR camp. I give that a less than 5% chance of happening though,
and assuming it does not, there is nothing that is unconstitutional
about the minor limitations it puts on campaign funding.
Bryan|2.8.08 @ 12:01PM|#
J sub D,
Now we are getting somewhere. I have to do some work and don't have
time to provide a detailed answer to your questions right now. I do
have some though. Can I e-mail you later or will you be checking
back. Those questions, to me, are what the debate should be about.
I think you are wrong, but its a fair debate to have. Much better
than just putting your (royal "you") fingers in your ears and
saying blah blah blah First Amendment.
|2.8.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Bryan, since you have refrained from insults, I'll listen. I'm not afraid of others arguments/speech. Sometimes I change my opinion, but only after receiving more information or intelligent arguments. I don't want to restrict that, who would?
|2.8.08 @ 12:06PM|#
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech"
It is not really freedom of speech if it is done by a
corporation.
Besides who but complete conservative wingnut brings up the
constitution anyways.
Besides it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, because the law
only restricts freedom to speak in certain circumstances, and if
you have been the by a government organization known as the FEC to
say what you are going to say and you go through the loops and you
are a millionaire, then NO one restricts your freedom of speech.
Why even bring up the 1st Amendment?
Egosumabbas|2.8.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Unfortunately a lot of people read very benign text and
misinterpret the meaning. (e.g. the Koran, Bible, etc.) It does not
mean that the text, as written and intended is wrong or
bad.
Just like your precious CFR law, the constitution IS NOT A
RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT. It is a legal document. The text is what it is,
and no intellectual ju-jitsu can dance around the fact that it says
that NO LAW CAN BE MADE TO PROHIBIT POLITICAL SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY. I hate to write in caps, but you don't seem to be getting
this point through your head.
Now, you can make the argument that freedom of speech should be
limited during an election season, corporate personhood does not
imply a right to free speech, a certain distance from a polling
place, or whatever, but you can ONLY DO THAT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT. Period.
Egosumabbas|2.8.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Besides who but complete conservative wingnut brings up the
constitution anyways.
So I guess Dennis Kucinich, who keeps the constitution in his
pocket, is a conservative wingnut?
T|2.8.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Bryan,
I'm impressed. You can sound like you know what you're talking
about, yet completely miss the point. The First Amendment is
amazingly specific. Congress passed a law, written by John McCain
and Russ Feingold, that abridged the freedom of speech and the
press. Don't believe me? Fine. Believe the Supreme Court. Portions
of that law, as recently as June, were struck down as being... wait
for it...
Unconstitutional.
Continue coming up with convoluted rationales as to why how my
friends and I decide to organize our efforts matter from a
Constitutional standpoint. Continue assuming that I don't
understand how the law works. Go right ahead. It isn't any truer
than Sam's assertions.
Since you brought up the money issue, if, as precedent holds, money
is speech, why is there a limit on how much money I can donate?
Your statement:
You are not necessarily sending a message that you support them
to any greater degree when you give more money.
is facially absurd. If I donate a dollar to John MCCain and a
million to Ron Paul, I think everybody and their dog, although
possibly not Sam, will get the message that I support Ron Paul to a
much greater extent than I support John McCain. You, and a whole
lot of other people, think that I shouldn't get to express that
message. More precisely, that that message is not necessarily being
conveyed, so I shouldn't get to try to make it. How is that not an
abridgment of free speech? Your message won't necessarily be
conveyed, so you don't even get to try? Uh, wait, what? People
might misunderstand what I write so I can't write it? That's what
you're saying.
While you're at it, explain why it matters if I talk to person A
before I decide to run an ad badmouthing person B. My speech is
being artificially restricted in that I am no longer free to
discuss the issue with some certain group of people, or if I do, I
am no longer free to run the ad. How is that not an abridgment of
my free speech rights?
Finally, from the brutal perspective of effectiveness, BCRA is bad
law because it didn't fix any of the issues it was purported to
address and created an entirely new set of avoidance behaviors that
are currently unaddressed. That's good policy, right there, oh
yeah.
|2.8.08 @ 12:14PM|#
That is supposed to read: "if you have been given the OK by the
FEC"
Anyways J sub D said it much better than I did.
Egosumabbas|2.8.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Besides it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, because
the law only restricts freedom to speak in certain circumstances,
and if you have been the by a government organization known as the
FEC to say what you are going to say and you go through the loops
and you are a millionaire, then NO one restricts your freedom of
speech. Why even bring up the 1st Amendment?
What part of "congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble" do you not understand?
And keep in mind that the "abridging" would be done by the
GOVERNMENT not a person, meaning, the FEC has no right to keep me
from expressing my political opinions, such as pooling money to run
a political advertisement, or writing a blog--Lew Rockwell got in
trouble for writing too much about Ron Paul on his website!
Seriously!
|2.8.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Egosumabbas | February 8, 2008, 12:11pm | #
Besides who but complete conservative wingnut brings up the
constitution anyways.
So I guess Dennis Kucinich, who keeps the constitution in his
pocket, is a conservative wingnut?
Egos,
That bit of sarcasm was in response to Bryan who earlier seemed to
equate defense of the 1st A to conservatism.
I might have misread him.
Still, that Kucinich and Robert Byrd keep copies of the
constitution, doesn't necessarily mean they read it, understand it
or agree with it. (Not that many conservatives do either).
I would argue support of the income tax or the IRS as they operate
today is clear evidence of not understanding or agreeing with the
constitution (4th and 5th Amendments specifically)
|2.8.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Egos, also, I was being sarcastic responding to Sam and Bryan, I
should have mentioned that.
I was hoping that it would be clear from the posts themselves and
more clear from the thread as a whole. I should have learnt fromt
similar mistakes others have made on this forum.
Anyways I have to bow out of this conversation now.
You and J Sub fight the good fight.
Egosumabbas|2.8.08 @ 12:28PM|#
lol, I apologize Kwais, it's really hard to pick up sarcasm,
especially when trolls make posts that are indistinguishable from
sarcasm.
Once thing you could do is use [sarcarm][/sarcasm] tags.
|2.8.08 @ 2:13PM|#
those are fairly mild restrictions and hardly a limitation
on speech any more than requiring a permit for a rally at a
park.
The two cases are not comparable. Saying I need permission to go on
property jointly owned by others (namely the publicly owned park)
isn't an abridgment of free speech, it's asserting a property
right. Telling me and my friends we can't print and distribute
campaign materials under certain circumstances, using our private
resources, is an abridgment of free speech.
Brandybuck|2.8.08 @ 2:56PM|#
I too am confused by the lack of any mention on Ron Paul. Did Weigel make his post in response to Moynihan's lapse? Or did Moynihan not cover Ron Paul because he knew Weigel would? Either way, it's odd that a summary on the CPAC speeches wouldn't bother to mention Ron Paul.
|2.8.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Hey...
Where is Dondero to tell us that McCain is the most libertarian
Republican left?
|2.9.08 @ 12:57AM|#
Laura Ingraham...stood to the side of the stage throughout
McCain's speech scowling, never clapping.
Ingraham, in addition to being an unlistenable talk host, is
obviously someone who believes her own bullshit...
Bryan|2.9.08 @ 9:48AM|#
J Sub,
I have a little more time now, but this is still going to have to
be quick. Your point about corporate speech rights is correct
debate to be having, but I disagree with your conclusion.
1) You are absolutely right that organizations, corporations,
union, etc. are made up of real people.
2) Those people still have right to donate unregulated sums of
money to an organization that is going to run ads.
The limitation is that an organization that is collecting money for
a general purpose (a teacher's union), can't take money out of its
general treasury give to another organization to run certain ads.
If it does, the other organization has to abide by the regulations.
All its members have to do though, is start their own organization
to run those ads and not take corporate money. Since, as you say,
the union is made up of individuals anyway, it should be no problem
for them to create a second unique off-shot for the purpose of
running the ads.
To the extent that you think that would be difficult though, its
most likely becuase you recognize that a lot of time
groups/unions/corporations speak with their own agenda, and not
necessarily with a message that every member would independantly
approve or want to fund. In that way, the artificial person (the
organization) is having a larger influence in the poltical debate
than accurately reflects its membership. It is able to hold more
influence and sway and spread its message wider, by purporting to
speak for people that would not choose to individually fund that
message if given an opportunity. I find nothing troubling about
limiting that influence, since its really the organization acting
as its own person, rather than on behalf of its members.
For-profit corporations are, to me, even more problematic because
their sole goal is to make money. Now I agree with everyone that
making money is a pretty nobel goal in the marketplace, but when
the goal is making money and you are trying to influence the policy
arena, it results in corporate welfare and government sponsored
monopolies. Corporations aren't interested in what is best for the
country -- nor should they be -- they are interested in their own
bottomline for their shareholders. While the corporation should
certainly have the right to petition congress and lobby and such, I
don't think their is a problem to recognize how much influence it
has the potential to weild b/c of the size of its budget (and the
stakes to the company). I don't have a problem limiting its role in
public debate either.
Sorry I had to write this so quick. Back to work for me. Maybe more
later.
Bryan|2.9.08 @ 10:00AM|#
Egosumabbas,
Maybe the Supreme Court should have written in all caps when they
held that limitations on money given to a campaign is not a
limitation on speech for the exact reason that I listed above. (See
11:31am, Point #2)
T, you may think the argument is facially absurd, but it is what
the Supreme Court has held. But I guess you already knew that since
I should not assume you don't "know the law."
1) You giving more may not mean you have more support. It may just
mean that you have more to give.
2) Your donation doesn't support your message, it supports the
candidate's. You message was made when you donated. The message
being "I support candidate A."
3) You can coordinate with whoever you want accept the campaign.
You can't coordinate with the campaign because that is just a way
to skirt around the rules. We don't want people skirting the rules
because the candidate is going to control where all of our tax
dollars go and we don't want him especially beholden to certain
individuals or corporations that pay a lot of money directly or
indirectly to make sure he gets elected.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245