53 Comments

1. markus:

I’m for any policy that encourages the Republican base to believe that they speak for the majority of American voters, and that anyone who even partially disagrees with them is an idiot. Such contempt for swing voters, and for the ambiguities of the world that we live in, bodes well the sort of politicians that I like to see win.

Thus, in my opinion, no need for the Fairness Doctrine. Particularly when the free market allows people like me to tune in to the dignified and delightful Lynn Samuels on Sirius’ leftist talkradio channel.

The point underlying the doctrine, however, ought to be reaffirmed — the airwaves are public property, RENTED to companies for their use. And just as a landlord can attach conditions to the renting of his or her property, so the government can attach conditions to Sinclair Broadcasting or any other tenant of the airwaves. The condition that I would institute would mandate a significant amount of free airtime for Congressional and Presidential candidates in every election.

Jun 27, 2007 - 11:17 am 2. dclydew:

I am not for any sort of Fairness Doctrine. We should not be telling people what they have to air. However, I do see an area of concern with the FCC’s decision to allow corporations to buy up huge swaths of the market, since this can effectively limit the options for people to listen to (but, thats a different matter entirely).

However, I was under the impression that Sen Boxter and Sen. Clinton had both stated that their conversation did not happen and in fact, Inhofe has now retracted the “just the other day” and replaced it with “three years ago”.

If this had been reversed, I can’t help but think such a misstatement would have been posted as proof that the senator in question was a liar and not to be trusted. Further, if the Senators in question were seriously discussing such a thing three years ago… it seems we would have some evidence that they were trying to implement the idea.

I think it seem more likely that either A) Inhofe heard a casual conversation that never went beyond a hallway conversation, B) Sen. Boxter and Clinton have since realized that such a thing flies in the face of Free Speech (considering Sen. Clinton’s education, I can’t imagine that she would think otherwise) or C) Inhofe is full of poo.

Since Inhofe has changed his story, I would have to learn toward C, until evidence points to A, B or some other option (like a secret conspiracy planning to take over the radio waves once Clinton becomes President).

Jun 27, 2007 - 11:40 am 3. ic:

How about applying the Fairness Doctrine to talk radios, and to TV and newspapers news rooms and editorial boards? Afterall, more than 90% newspersons contributed to the Dems. You have to be born yesterday if you believe those newspersons are non-partisan.

Jun 27, 2007 - 1:11 pm 4. Lem:

As we all know, more speech is not necessarily good speech. The good thing about free speech is that it costs money.
Bad speech (racist and homophobes) drive away listeners; ultimately driving away money. No money = less speech, less speech = more power in Washington DC.

The ‘fairness doctrine’ is a way shutting people up w/o having to pass unconstitutional laws called ‘campaign finance reform’.

Jun 27, 2007 - 1:41 pm 5. Sandy P:

I agree, Markus, I’m looking forward to the changes in NPR.

I might even listen.

Let’s see, aren’t the TV airwaves also rented?

I’m also looking forward to the changes in Olbermann’s Maher’s, Matthews, ect. programs.

Jun 27, 2007 - 3:16 pm 6. valjean:

For the logical extension of this thinking — and one that strikes close to home for this blog — check out Cass Sunstein’s book “Republic.com”. He advocates “equal time” for “responsible opposing views” … on websites!

And Sunstein is usually a well-respected academic. Think of what the tin foil hat crowd is dreaming up …

Jun 27, 2007 - 3:30 pm 7. ricpic:

What exactly differentiates a liberal from a totalitarian thug?

Jun 27, 2007 - 3:51 pm 8. ShoreMark:

RicPic asks: “What exactly differentiates a liberal from a totalitarian thug?”

Only our constitution, so far anyway…

Jun 27, 2007 - 5:49 pm 9. Andy Freeman:

> What exactly differentiates a liberal from a totalitarian thug?

The liberal will apologise for, idolize, and justify many a totalitarian thug (see Castro and Chavez today, Mao a while back, Stalin and Lenin before) and look to said thugs for policy ideas. The thug tends to view the liberal as an idiot to tolerate as long as said he’s useful and then to purge.

Jun 27, 2007 - 6:03 pm 10. MikeD:

“What exactly differentiates a liberal from a totalitarian thug?”

Absolutely nothing!

Jun 27, 2007 - 7:03 pm 11. Andy Freeman:

The liberal idolizes the thug and envies him for being willing to do what the liberal only dreams of doing. The thug despises the liberal as a coward.

Jun 27, 2007 - 7:36 pm 12. Buddy Larsen:

As totalitarian as it is, as much an artifact from the days of three broadcast networks, a few AM radio giants, and no internet, all it will take for federal bureaucrats to gain the power to define “fairness” (which will be, of course, as “fair” as the MSM, Hollywood, and Academia are now) is a handful more Dem senators, and a Dem president to sign it into law.

After that, if you don’t like it, tough–ya wanna go to jail?

The lights are going off all over the country, my friends. Time to move to France, where Sarkozy might offer individuals some liberty.

Jun 28, 2007 - 1:10 am 13. NewcombCarlton:

I don’t know if the Democrats are clueless in not realizing they already have far more than fairness from the MSM, Hollywood, and academia, or are shameless in asking for more. I suspect it’s a little of both and it’s outrageous. They should be embarrassed at their flagrant fear of being challenged.

Jun 28, 2007 - 3:42 am 14. Lem:

We can’t even keep a semblance of control at the border. One of the few things the government is constituted to do! the integrity, security, the sovereignty of the country we can’t and won’t do.

What does the congress much rather try to control and thinker with?

Free speech…. and the weather.

Jun 28, 2007 - 6:55 am 15. Neo:

I’m so looking forward to having a greater diversity of views on NPR.

Jun 28, 2007 - 7:50 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

…at least the part that runs on public tax money. jeez…some “fairness”.

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:14 am 17. dclydew:

For a “remembered” conversation from a guy that can’t tell the difference between a few days and a few years, many of you seem to have swallowed something that should perhaps be examined first…

I mean, whatever happened to being skeptical? If any democrat makes a statement, people here seem to scramble to nail them to the floor. Yet, we have a Republican that gaffes years and days and you are all on board…

Are you all really that blind at this point? Are you all really that far removed from fairness and honest thinking? Are you now Republicans, instead of Americans?

This thread makes me concerned for the future of our nation, not just because you all seem willing to overlook Inhofe’s error and blame the Dems for something that we have no proof of… but because you seem as far gone as the crazies on the more liberal blogs.

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are Thugs. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to destroy America or any other bullshit lie. Bush is not Hitler, neither is Hillary.

If you all really and truly think that you are open minded and fair… if you are all truly Americans first, I think you should step back and take a look at what you’re saying here and the flimsy footing its based on. To continue in this partisan sucker punching bodes ill for the future of all of us.

Please use your brains, don’t let CNN or FOX or anyone else tell you what to think. Don’t let the lies and political plays of politicians define how you interpret reality. Our democracy only works if we all actually think for ourselves. Many liberals seem to be losing sight of this, do you want to follow in their footsteps?

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:34 am 18. Sandy P:

Today on my local talk radio the personag told a little story which I didn’t really listen to, but it happened in the 60s against Goldwater’s campaign.

Went to the Supremes and the Supremes ruled against someone being able to say something.

Who bot and paid for this lawsuit???

The DNC.

Look, dclydew – our electeds are acting like the Lords and the “progressive party” is acting true to form as they have for decades.

It goes back to the core.

And as a boomer, I’m not supposed to trust my government and w/the crap they’re doing now, I’m not being proved wrong.

I live in the People’s Republic of IL and Dickie Turban is my senator, isn’t he 5th, 6th lin line for the presidency?

If he, Kerry and DiFi want it, and don’t think Maverick won’t help, he’s going to be really pissed he won’t be anointed, and he originally gave us the Incumbant Act, it’s already happened, they’re just going to “tweak it.”

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:41 am 19. dclydew:

Sandy P,

Are you talking about Ginzburg vs. Goldwater from the 1970 case?

If so, I’d recommend you take a look at the details before connecting the dots.

If so, that was when Goldwater sued Ginzburg and Fact magazine because they published an article basically claiming that Goldwater (while running for President) was severely paranoid and mentally unfit for office. They did this through having
psychiatrists answer a survey based on various public and private things in Mr. Goldwater’s life.

Mr. Goldwater sued for libel and won. Ginzburg and Fact mag (the liberals in this story) were basically hit for about $75,000. They claimed that this infringed on their Free Speech rights and appealed.

The Court of Appeals determined that public figures are allowed to sue for damages in cases of libelous statements made by publications, if it was ‘with malice’ (ie. knowingly wrong). Ginzburg and Co. took it to the Supremes who decided not to hear it and let it stand.

Two justices dissented, Justice Black and Justice Douglas (both liberals). They both argued that there should be NO LAW against free speech, particularly in dealing with politics. However, the majority of SCOTUS determined that libel was not protected by free speech and let the judgement (in favor of the conservatives) stand.

Was that the Goldwater Supreme Court issue on Free Speech that you heard?

Jun 28, 2007 - 9:12 am 20. Buddy Larsen:

Right, dclydew, all those dark thoughts about an emerging Incumbocrat Party are silly. Why on earth would we have such silly thoughts?

Jun 28, 2007 - 9:22 am 21. dclydew:

Buddy,

I have plenty of Dark thoughts about Incumbocrats and Incumbicans. Most of my positions are far closer to conservative than liberal, but that doesn’t mean that we should shut off our brains and follow either group, yet this seems to be the mode of operations on both sides.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be suspicious of our government… I think we should be extremely skeptical anytime any of the blackguards say anything. My concern is that here, it seems that skepticism is layered on when the target is Dem and ignored when the target is a Republican.

If a Democrat had said he heard Bush and Cheney talking about invading Iran a couple days ago, then (after they state that he’s full of shit and no such conversation occurred) he says “well, it was actually three years ago, but I always tell the story the same way, since it gets such good response.” What would the folks on this board have done? Would they have believed the Dem, or would they have crucified him and any liberal that said “Well, shouldn’t we be suspicious of the Incumbents? The Republicans are just trying to build empires anyway…”?

That’s what I’m talking about. Any move to restrict free speech, to me, would be a Very bad Thing. However, to believe some Government fool, simply because he’s on your side of the aisle seems lees that honest.

Do you disagree?

Jun 28, 2007 - 9:33 am 22. Buddy Larsen:

But, dclydew, you’re minimizing–it’s not just the “three year old coversation” (tho what has changed for the better in those three years?).

It’s an honest-to-goodness trial balloon. Here’s two reports, just bumped into this morning. Since trial balloons either get popped or float on, we’re just trying to help it pop.

link

link

Jun 28, 2007 - 10:54 am 23. dclydew:

Buddy,

Your balloons are a supposed conversation and the following blurb from a Senator while on FoxNews chatting with Rush:

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was “looking at it.”

“I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.”

This single comment and an unverified, misstated/restated bit of hearsay is an “honest to goodness trial balloon”?

Further, and worse still… its enough for some here to call their fellow Americans “totalitarian thugs” or claim:

“The lights are going off all over the country, my friends. Time to move to France, where Sarkozy might offer individuals some liberty.”

Think Man! When Bush won the election and people claimed they were gonna move to Canada, I saw them as reactionary idiots. What difference is there here?

When people claim that Bush is Hitler and the the Republicans are trying to take away all of their freedoms, force everyone to be Christian and get rid of the gays… I consider them nutcases. How can I not apply the same standard here?

There exists a HUGE gulf between popping balloons and backhanding your fellow citizens because they’re more liberal than you.

Jun 28, 2007 - 11:14 am 24. Buddy Larsen:

Okay, D, the joke was, now it’s time for CONSERVATIVES to move to France–see, suddenly, it’s France promoting free markets, and America (in the ‘fairness doctrine’ persona) saying ‘let them eat cake’. But, right, I guess the comment could be read perfectly straight.

Anyway, so, how’s the weather over your way?

Jun 28, 2007 - 12:14 pm 25. Buddy Larsen:

…anyway, it’s the emerging pattern–kill the secret ballot in union elections, regulate AM radio, raise taxes, rect trasde barriers, demand fiat forex concessions, all that and much much more have been the headline proposals lately. So, it’s the whole thing–the fairness doctrine is just a part of a pattern. It’s the totality of the plans being hashed out back in the fever swamp that gets people–some people that is–riled.

Jun 28, 2007 - 12:23 pm 26. Buddy Larsen:

“erect trade” not “rect trasde”. Jeez–sounds nasty

Jun 28, 2007 - 12:25 pm 27. Buddy Larsen:

ht instapundit, more on the non-trial balloon, featuring Majority Whip Sen. Dick Turban, I mean, Durbin.

Jun 28, 2007 - 1:28 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

My favorite line in the link is from David Obey: “If the media were really

Jun 28, 2007 - 1:36 pm 29. dclydew:

t’s time for CONSERVATIVES to move to France Heh, Ironic eh?

it’s the emerging pattern

Buddy, on this I can agree with you. Some democrats do seem to push ideas that I consider far outside the scope of the federal government and a serious concern for anyone interested in maintaining the freedoms granted in our governing documents. As I said before, my views on most things lean conservative rather than liberal.

However, I see similar patterns on the other side. The Republicans have been in power for 12 years and honestly, during that time, some Republicans pushed ideas that I consider far outside the scope of the federal government. I personally view freedom as more important than the morality of individuals or what individuals choose to stick in their bodies.

The difference I see between Liberals and Conservatives in this respect is only in the specific topics they choose to follow after in a totalitarian manner. However, just because some, most or even all the members of one party get behind a bad idea… doesn’t make them thugs.

If we ever hope to become less polarized WE (You, Me, Roger, all of us) have to look at how we react to information. If Inhofe had been a Dem instead of a Republican and the story had been about Republican senators instead of Dems, how would you have reacted? Would it have held the same concern for you? Would you have been more or less likely to doubt the word of the Senator in question, based on party affiliation? (maybe a good question for all of us?)

I don’t think any politicians in Washington have given us anything but reason to doubt them… the Republicans and Democrats alike have again and again taken from the American people without a decent return. Both parties, administrations from both parties and individuals in both parties have lied, broken laws, covered for each other and in general, acted less like a government of the people and more like a government to spite the people. Trust but Verify may have been a good ideal, but now I think “Trust only after a couple independent verifications” seems more likely to fit the times. It concerns me that people who CAN see the serious problems with the Democratic party, cannot see the serious problems with the Republican party and instead imitate the crazies on the other side with painting half their fellow countrymen as the enemy.

A house divided cannot stand. If we cannot get past our philosophical differences and realize that both parties have problems (and both parties do seem to have a few nominally good ideas)… then Us vs Them will remain in our borders while the Them that wants to actually destroy America will be watching in glee.

When I see normally sane people swallow a load of bullocks like this… it causes me to be far more concerned about the State of our Union, than 10 9/11’s.

Do as thou will… but think about the ramifications.

Personally, I think that there are very serious issues going on right now which bring into question the function of our entire government, yet, instead of asking why the VP thinks he’s not part of the Administration, or demanding that Dems open up earmarks like they promised… we are whining about supposed conversations and offhand comments.

IF any Dem actually brings forth a measure to reenact the fairness doctrine, I will be standing right beside you to pop their balloons, sign petitions, join in protests etc. You have my word on that, sir.

Jun 28, 2007 - 2:14 pm 30. Buddy Larsen:

Nice post, D, but still IMHO you miss a crucial point.

While I’m with you all the way on how we’re so often disappointed by both parties, there ARE differences in the mode of disappointment.

A Dem or a Pub either one can promise you that the political philosophy of a party–even though that philosophy may get tattered in practice by its own adherents–is vitally important.

IOW, if my choice is between sloppy and uneven free-marketeers on the one hand, and statists of any degree of competence on the other, give me the free-markteers.

At least they fall short of what the Founders had in mind, rather than falling short of something entirely else.

Jun 28, 2007 - 3:12 pm 31. Barrett:

The libs who want “fairness” in speech only want speech (in this case, talk shows) that agrees with their positions.

As pointed out, the market has room for conservative talk shows. The fact that liberal talk shows such as Air America are failing should be a wake-up call to re-think most everything.

The libs talk about free speech, but don’t mean it. They are the one who are dangerous and threaten freedom.

Here’s a novel idea – Go read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Jun 28, 2007 - 7:14 pm 32. Luther McLeod:

dclydew

You’re’ smart and write well. But, for me, your writings are always just a little off. In the sense that you seem to subscribe to some sort of intellectual and moral perfection from…well…who? The common man? Good Luck. We are all swayed by beliefs, substantiated by innuendo, rumor and the occasional fact. As always, it is deed that impresses. As a consequence, I’m about ready too give up on the whole damn thing. I see no one on the national stage with the stones, and more importantly, the verbal strength, to communicate/articulate the dangers we face in our third century of survival. “They” have already won, we are not a nation anymore, just a shred of construct, with, at this point, very few redeeming values.

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:03 pm 33. Barrett:

Luther,

First, never give up. It is always darkest before the dawn.

Regarding the who in your comments. Maybe Fred. Maybe Rudy. Maybe Newt.

Newt is the most articulate and idea filled person of the lot. He is not without baggage, but who is? Certainly not me……

Lastly, never give up. Our children, friends, colleagues and acquaintances all watch what we do and say. You will be surprised at how influential you can be. Never give up.

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:25 pm 34. Captain Hate:

“The Republicans have been in power for 12 years and honestly, during that time, some Republicans pushed ideas that I consider far outside the scope of the federal government.”

Specific credible examples please.

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:31 pm 35. Luther McLeod:

Thanks Barrett. I’m not giving up ever, but, other than our noble folks in Iraq, it is bleak.

Jun 28, 2007 - 8:47 pm 36. RWBlack:

France may have a conservative president but it is not the land of the free. Lived there for four years. FYI

Jun 29, 2007 - 4:13 am 37. Buddy Larsen:

But, RWB, it’s the trend that makes us feel optimistic or not. Sometimes, like Luther(“We are all swayed by beliefs, substantiated by innuendo, rumor and the occasional fact”) I feel like Hell has a better trend than we do.

But maybe yesterday’s twin assertions of common sense, in congress and in the supreme court, signal better times ahead. (?)

Jun 29, 2007 - 7:05 am 38. Buddy Larsen:

I agree with Barrett–Newt is brilliant on policy. Being an Historian helps, I think.

Jun 29, 2007 - 7:24 am 39. dclydew:

n the sense that you seem to subscribe to some sort of intellectual and moral perfection from…well…who? The common man? Good Luck. We are all swayed by beliefs, substantiated by innuendo, rumor and the occasional fact.

I suppose you may be right. Maybe I do expect too much out of people.

Jun 29, 2007 - 9:10 am 40. Cap'n Billy:

I personally heard Dianne Feinstein state on TV that she was “looking into” the “fairness doctrine.” That is enough evidence for me to conclude that it is something that the Democrats may want to pursue, and I have little doubt that they will do so and pass it if there is a Democrat in the White House after the next election. Despite all their denials, they are already heavily predominant in print media and television, but have been unable to succeed in the small enclave of talk radio. They hope to solve this “problem” by legislation, thereby gaining themselves a monopoly in the information market. Interesting times!

Jun 29, 2007 - 9:40 am 41. Buddy Larsen:

s’okay, D, that’s better than erring the other direction.

Jun 29, 2007 - 9:45 am 42. dclydew:

Capt. Hate,

Specific credible examples please.

In the October 2006 Defense Budget Bill, the Republican controlled congress passed a provision that allows the Federal Government, specifically the President to order National Guard and Military troops as local law enforcement, overriding the state law enforcement. This seems neither conservative nor Constitutional.

In 2005 the Republican controlled Congress believed that they had the power to overrule State law and the wishes of Terri Schiavo’s husband, regarding her medical care. A move that was neither conservative nor Constitutional.

The PATRIOT ACT is full of positions which greatly increase the Federal government’s power. The additional expansions brought up by a Republican congress in 2005 drew huge amounts of criticism from many conservatives because of the non-conservative nature of many provisions. Administrative subpoenas, for example, allows the Federal government (FBI) to gather personal information about US citizens without a judge’s approval. (I understand the need for some aspects of the PATRIOT act, particularly around communication between law enforcement groups etc.)

The fact that wiretapping outside of the FISA court happened on the Republican’s watch… and nothing was done, indicates that the Republicans in power were more concerned about maintaing the party, than the Rule of Law. For the good of the country, or not, the executive branch cannot disregard the Law, that act in and of itself provides quite a bit of power to the federal government. Again, neither conservative nor constitutional. In this case, I don’t think anything as strong as impeachment was necessary, but certianly censure or some response that showed that our conservative congress wouldn’t sit idly by while the federal government continued to gain size and power.

Our foreign policy has been anything but conservative. Response to an attack is one thing, but attempting to impose democracy on a nation is not a conservative value. Conservatives, from the 1700’s through today, realize that democracy must be earned by the people of the nation in question. It cannot be exported and implemented upon a nation of people. (See Jefferson’s letter to the Marquis de Lafayette re: the French Revolution)

Our federal government is larger than it was when the Republicans took control. It’s further in debt. The powers of the Federal government have seriously expanded. And this is before we start looking at the current foreign-aid program…

Even now, why aren’t Republicans (supposed conservatives) responding to Cheney’s outlandish claim that his office is outside of the executive branch? Had a Democrat tried that, they would properly have been drawn and quartered on the lawn of No. 1 Observatory Circle.

I abhor the concept of a Nanny government, a powerful Federal state or federal involvement in personal issues. I see these issues as part of the basic foundation of our nation and most conservatives I speak with agree, yet the Republicans (for the most part) have endorsed, supported or stayed silent on these issues. Other than a slight lean toward the Christian right, I thought that the republicans during Clinton’s time were our best hope. When Bush got elected, I expected to see responsible government return.

What we have now is not responsible, not conservative and in some cases not constitutional.

Jun 29, 2007 - 10:01 am 43. Buddy Larsen:

D, Cheney is under a spurious political attack by Pat Leahy, and is referring to such facts as that he can’t be fired by the president. link

If I may oversimplify for comment brevity: Your other examples (save the Schiavo anomaly) are indeed bothersome, and are part of the sacrifice–hopefully temporary–that many feel are needed to prevent any more 911 type attacks, and even, a jihadi takeover of various things the world cannot afford to lose.

Had there been a second 911, or a jihadi takeover of control of OPEC, I don’t think you’d be complaining–or at least not without supplying some context. One item of context, crying to be included as framing for your list, is that throughout history, war has accrued power to a national leadership. Now, that’s a fact. The left uses that fact to claim OIF is a contrived war by a power-mad Bush, the right uses that fact to point out that 911s in series, or losing the planet to the ancient jihad’s latest offensive, would not be good for western civilization or other living things.

Apples & Oranges I’m afraid.

Jun 29, 2007 - 11:06 am 44. Luther McLeod:

I wasn’t meaning too be critical D., just saying is all… I’m guilty of same myself, even after sixty years of experience. And Buddy’s right, it’s better than the “other direction.”

As too your points above, I share your concern on a few of them. But as Judge Posner points out, we face incredible danger. I over dramatize I suppose, but given a choice between a slight tarnishing of the “ideal” of the law and dying from a sudden bright blinding flash, I will choose the former.

Jun 29, 2007 - 11:33 am 45. Barrett:

dclydew and Buddy,

You are both right.

I must admit that GWB is not what I would call a conservative nor does he have consistently conservative values (e.g. smaller government, less regulation, pro-small business, more personal responsibility, etc.). This is borne out of his actions, including the immigration debacle, prescription drug plan, failure to make permanent tax cuts, failure to reduce the size of government – look at the employment numbers – and allowing spending at rate that borders on immoral.

He has responded to 9/11 against an supra-national enemy, and, so far whether by luck or good work, we have not had another incident. In dclydew’s favor, is my view that GWB could have accomplished some of the same objectives in different ways.

God forbid where we would have been if Gore was President.

What we need in 2008 is for someone like Newt in the White House and hope that the Senate and Congress largely turnover. A chance to start over if you will.

Jun 29, 2007 - 11:37 am 46. Buddy Larsen:

ASgree, Barrett–fresh start will let us loose from from all these thought tangles.

Would like to remind that, in light of the fact that USA has grown a China-sized economy over the last four years, those spending numbers are far less horrifying when properly viewed as percentages of the various bases, such as GDP.

Using absolute numbers alone is if you think about it, political, in that it seeks to persuade that there is no other number in the equation. There is of course; spending a hundred dollars is not the same thing to a person with a hundred dollars as it is to a person with a thousand dollars. Though both spent a hundred dollars.

Jun 29, 2007 - 12:43 pm 47. Captain Hate:

dclydew,

First of all thanks for responding to my question. I pretty much agree with Buddy in his responses but I’d like to add a comment regarding your first example: I strongly suspect that was a reaction to the media’s hysterical and erroneous interpretation of the Constitution regarding the power of the President to go over the heads of local officials in Katrina. Bush was lambasted by every two-bit hustler for following the law and the MSM just joined in. So yes, the Congress was probably pretty stoopid in reacting that way (and it probably wouldn’t have withstood a Constitutional challenge) rather than telling them to STFU and here’s what the law specifies, but I doubt that coverage of that would’ve been fair and balanced. You have sand in your thong over FISA and the wiretaps: Too bad, I like it.

I share your feelings on the demise of anything-but-huge government but we’re just pissing in the wind these days.

Jun 29, 2007 - 4:29 pm 48. Captain Hate:

And that’s not a very long list for 12 years.

Jun 29, 2007 - 4:31 pm 49. dclydew:

Capt. Hate,

Well, I think we’ll just have to disagree, I ‘m probably more ideological than the average I guess. However…

You have sand in your thong over FISA and the wiretaps: Too bad, I like it.

Bill Clinton probably liked Monica too… but lying under oath is breaking the law. Wiretaps without FISA signatures… thats breaking the law too. I personally would argue that the federal government circumventing specific controls that were designed to keep it in check… may be a bit more serious than lying about one’s choice of interns.

Like does not equate Law.

Jun 29, 2007 - 5:02 pm 50. Buddy Larsen:

D, am I wrong to surmise that the “wiretapping president” is pretty much a bumper sticker charge, one of many made (and being made) mostly as part of a Dem long-range strategy to ensure that regardless of the actual actions/inactions of either, there would be as much ink and breath expended on Bad Bush as there had been on Bad Clinton?

Monica doesn’t bother me. She’s a fig leaf, anyway, that Dems use to cover everything else.

She covers scandal after scandal, the worst of which, IMHO, national security-wise, and among those which a truly politicized Reno Justice Dept whitewashed, the administration’s secret dealings with the Chinese military, by which the PRC jumped a ten year generation in MIRV warhead accuracy. No, it wasn’t “just” Monica.

Like does not equate law, and manufactured scandals do not equate real scandals.

Jun 29, 2007 - 5:57 pm 51. Luther McLeod:

Did you read the Posner link dclydew? I read him for years in TNR. He usually makes a lot of sense, whether I agreed with him or not. Does he not make sense now? Are a few (or maybe many) wiretaps without the proper signatures, equal too seeing that bright flash? Honest question. Is that really the beam upon which we balance? Ideals occasionally meet ‘fist in the gut’ reality. The outcome is predetermined in that case.

Jun 29, 2007 - 6:13 pm 52. Captain Hate:

Weren’t these wiretaps only on calls where one party was out of the country? And weren’t they eventually reviewed with a judge who could blow the whistle if abuses were done? I get calls from outside the country all the time, some from the Middle East. You don’t honestly think that any group of rational, non-suicidal people would think that my “right” to converse electronically and free from possible surveillance with people who might consider us “the Great Satan” would supercede the rights of everybody else to not come into close proximity with bottled sunshine, do you?

Jun 29, 2007 - 7:19 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

The whole brouhaha was deliberately engineered in order to “make a record” which, although it might be “controversial” (with the VRWC as usual objecting), would still do yeoman work as a fascist emblem to rally against.

The actual facts only matter insofar as something was needed to create a premise.

It’s called “propaganda”.

Jun 29, 2007 - 7:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: