SO MUCH FOR NON-ACTIVISTS: The Supreme Court Shows Its True Colors on the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When I was in school, many, many years ago, before cell phones, or computers, or fancy remote controls, it was widely established as a rule of punctuation that commas, colons, semicolons, dashes and hyphens used in mid-sentence were meant to infer a continuation of the same chain of thought. In point of fact it had the same effect as implying an "and" statement, not an "or" statement. It would be over a decade before I was to find a practical application of such a rule.
"We admitted we were powerless - that our lives had become unmanageable."
Anyone who has ever attended a 12-step recovery group – be it Alcoholics Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, Al-Anon, etc, knows full well that the words powerless and unmanageable are not mutually exclusive; they are meant to infer the same thing. Any addict not in denial will tell you it is impossible to accept the first part of that sentence without accepting the second part. They go hand in hand. To be powerless is the same as to be unmanageable.
Well, apparently Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go to the same school I did, because when he read the 2nd Amendment, he evidently saw two distinct and separate points; one having to do with a well regulated Militia, which he ignored; the other having to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which he cited. What is particularly striking is that in writing his decision for the majority, if we are to believe that he saw the last fourteen words as being sufficient to survive on their own merits, he evidently never saw that in so doing he rendered the first thirteen hopelessly out in left field. For only someone either ignorant of the use of proper grammar; i.e. a fragment sentence [A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…], or ideologically predisposed to a fixated opinion, could miss the obvious: that the framers of the Constitution never meant to address the "right" of its citizens to bear arms apart from the militia. Had they intended to address those rights, they most assuredly would’ve written specifically about it and kept it separate and apart from any mention of "a well regulated Militia". The fact that the words militia, people and arms are mentioned in one sentence can and must mean only one logical thing: that they are all lumped together to form one coherent thought.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent. They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries."
And therein lies what’s really behind the decision of the majority. The five justices who overturned the Washington D.C. gun ban are not ignorant of common English grammar. As legal scholars, all of them know full well how to read a complete sentence, and also know full well what a comma stands for. The reason for this unprecedented ruling is obvious. The majority was looking to "interpret" to their own philosophical inclination what the founding fathers meant rather than what was actually written. In essence they were actively "interpreting" the law rather than enforcing it.
Ironically the "non-activists" justices have been, by far, the most activist in their rulings. As I have stated before, conservatives’ calls for the nomination of so-called non-activist judges to the bench are bogus, primarily because it is not non-activism that they seek; rather it is conservative activism that they are truly after. Today it was the NRA that won a huge decision. In the future other landmark decisions will be rendered by this court that will belie the supposed purpose of the so-called non-activist ideal. If this decision is to be any indicator, the Republic and years of jurisprudence are in deep trouble.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Broadcaster Freedom Act: The truth about what’s really behind the resistance to the Fairness Doctrine.
In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."
For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.
But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.
"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."
When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.
In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.
Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.
And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"
The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.
Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.
This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.
In 2007, Indiana congressman Mike Pence introduced a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives titled, "The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007," which said in pertinent part that the FCC "shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’."
For those of you not up to speed on this important issue, conservatives have long been opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, because, in their words, it would limit their right to free speech. The most vocal contingent out there has been the Christian Right, which has the most to lose over the doctrine’s reinstatement since it would require Christian-based broadcasts to allow for opposing viewpoints, something they are decidedly against. Another contingent, almost as vocal, are the typical conservative neo-cons, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the equally obtuse, but always entertaining, Ann Coulter. Basically, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, every one of these gas bags would have to do one of two things: either stop spewing their hate-filled, erroneous diatribes, or give equal time to those who actually can offer up sobering and ACCURATE rebuttals.
But, of course, the Conservative Right isn’t interested in doing either of those two things, so instead what they have set out to do is re-write what the original doctrine actually said. The following is a synopsis of what the FCC was trying to do.
"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues."
When misrepresentation didn’t work, The Conservative Right opted instead to miss-interpret the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, which said the following:
"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."
The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA, sued arguing that the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks. The decision, contrary to what most Republicans keep telling their constituents, had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. In fact, the decision had no bearing whatsoever on the programming format of WGCB, or any other station, radio or television; it merely said that such stations that present heavily opinionated, and yes sometimes controversial, content must allow for or present a fair and balanced counter argument. It also pointed out, correctly I might add, that the airwaves are not the personal property of the broadcasters; instead the FCC leases those airwaves to the broadcasters with the explicit understanding that the public interest will be served in a fair and honorable way. Conversely, these licenses can be revoked if the FCC finds that broadcasters have violated that understanding.
In another landmark decision, nine years later, the Supreme Court upheld an FCC ruling that fined WBAI for its airing of a George Carlin comedy routine "Filthy Words" during the afternoon hours, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726. WBAI contended that its First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Court’s decision said that the FCC had the right to fine the station. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts. Again the "rights" argument failed, because the Court agreed that the airwaves were not the property of the broadcaster, in this case WBAI, but rather belonged to the people, and that the FCC had the authority to determine what could or could not be said on the station. Had WBAI published a book highlighting the entire Carlin routine, it would’ve been well within its constitutional rights.
Not until the Reagan Administration did the Fairness Doctrine finally get rescinded, and since then attempts to reinstated it have been blocked. Over the last twenty years, conservative talk shows on both radio and TV (Did you think I would forget about you, Fox?) have taken off. Not bound by any fact checking or responsible contrary opinion, these ideologues have waged war on reason and hid behind their perceived constitutional rights, using the Constitution as both a shield and toilet paper to justify their hate-filled agendas.
And, worst of all, the Religious Right has joined in. People like Pat Robertson and James Dobson have taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances to basically run riot with their own opinions, which contrary to what their followers might say, are neither historically or politically accurate, nor biblically in keeping with their alleged ministries. Dobson, in particular, hides behind his Doctorate in Psychology to get away with his myopic stances and his intimidation of political candidates who don’t subscribe to his theology. Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would not, again contrary to what Dobson and his favorite conservative pet these days, Laura Ingraham, would say, prevent anybody’s opinion from being stated; all it would do is allow for the opportunity for a dissenting opinion to be aired. As so many conservatives are fond of saying whenever the ACLU gets involved in legal battles or tries to protect the rights of a unpopular group, "If you’ve got nothing to hide then why do you need your rights protected?"
The problem is they do have something to hide, and they know it. Aside from the minions of mindless and rudderless souls who tune in to these gutter-filled, intellectually devoid programs, the vast majority of Americans would not be caught dead either listening to or watching such rubbish. Imagine if the next time James Dobson went on his broadcast and ripped a political candidate for being pro-choice, he had to respond to someone who asked him why he has never questioned the Iraq war, or why he has never taken a "political" stand on world hunger. I would actually listen to that show; hell I might even buy it on i-Tunes. In deed I found it interesting that on one of his podcasts, he praised Tim Russert as someone who was tough, but fair-minded, and presented all opinions. He was quoted as saying, "I’ve been interviewed by many people over the past three decades, and few have demonstrated the mix of tenacity and warmth that was Tim’s calling card. He asked tough questions – but he asked them of everyone, on both sides of the political and ideological aisle – and he did so with a respectful demeanor." No doubt the irony was lost on Dobson.
Equally puzzling is this constant insistence among the Right that they need protection from the Fairness Doctrine, because they are the only "legitimate" outlets for conservative thought – now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was one! According to Dr. Jim and the gang, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other networks, besides Fox of course, are all liberal-based and decidedly anti-conservative. In other words, they’re all against them. Now while I realize that even a paranoid person has some enemies, this has to be the most convoluted claim anyone has ever made to justify what can only be described as a self-fulfilling, self-aggrandizing, hypocritically arrogant stance. The very idea that the reason you can’t be fair is because you perceive everybody else as being unfair is the very essence of self-delusion, and only the truly gullible would buy into it.
This November, the nation will get a chance to chart the course for the next four, possibly, eight years. The Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the accumulation of wealth among the rich, soaring oil prices, global warming, and control of our airwaves. The choice is pretty self-evident. We need a leader who doesn’t back down to scandalous lies and intimidation from right-wing preachers and other conservative bullies. The Dobsons, the Robertsons, the Hannitys, and the Limbaughs of the world will say it comes down to freedom; theirs of course. Bull. It comes down to responsibility and accountability; two words rarely associated with such types.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The following info was sent to SignTheStatement@JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com:
Name: Peter Fegan
mailfrom: feego1@optonline.net
Religion: Charismatic
House of Worship: The Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Testimonial:
"It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, that James Dobson, and others like him, have uesed their position from the pulpit to advance a very narrow interpretation of scripture to fit their own political gains. It worked in 2000 and 2004, but by 2006, it began to wear off as more and more of the electorate, many of whom were Christians, grew wary of their motives. It is quite comforting to see many within the evangelical community wake up and realize that there is more to being a good Christian than just being against abortion and gay rights. Part of being a good steward means to care for one another as well as to care about the planet we inhabit. The Pharasees knew how to judge and divide, but Jesus exposed their hearts and, in so doing, called us all to love one another.
"Today the venom and hatred of the Pharisees is alive and well and living in the Christian Right. Only by, as Jesus did, exposing their hardened hearts can we begin the process of letting in the light of God and advancing His Kingdom on Earth."
I wrote the above due to the recent comments made by James Dobson in response to statements made by Barack Obama on his faith. I invite all of you to read them for yourselves and not take the word of somebody else.
If you agree with this point of view or would like to advance your own please visit this site and make your voice known.
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
Name: Peter Fegan
mailfrom: feego1@optonline.net
Religion: Charismatic
House of Worship: The Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Testimonial:
"It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, that James Dobson, and others like him, have uesed their position from the pulpit to advance a very narrow interpretation of scripture to fit their own political gains. It worked in 2000 and 2004, but by 2006, it began to wear off as more and more of the electorate, many of whom were Christians, grew wary of their motives. It is quite comforting to see many within the evangelical community wake up and realize that there is more to being a good Christian than just being against abortion and gay rights. Part of being a good steward means to care for one another as well as to care about the planet we inhabit. The Pharasees knew how to judge and divide, but Jesus exposed their hearts and, in so doing, called us all to love one another.
"Today the venom and hatred of the Pharisees is alive and well and living in the Christian Right. Only by, as Jesus did, exposing their hardened hearts can we begin the process of letting in the light of God and advancing His Kingdom on Earth."
I wrote the above due to the recent comments made by James Dobson in response to statements made by Barack Obama on his faith. I invite all of you to read them for yourselves and not take the word of somebody else.
If you agree with this point of view or would like to advance your own please visit this site and make your voice known.
http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Outmaneuvering the Swift Boats: Obama learns from history.
OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?
While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:
1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of pu
blic money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.
2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.
3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."
Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.
Amen!
OK, so you are probably thinking how can I vote for Barack Obama – the change candidate – when he has "flipped" on his pledge and opted out of public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. After all, don’t principles count, and, as Christians, aren’t we supposed to hold those we elect to a higher standard?
While it may seem that Obama has back-peddled on his "pledge" to stick with the public system, let’s review ALL of the facts, shall we. In pertinent order, they are as follows:
1. Yes, Obama did agree to accept public funding for the general election, but, missing from the criticisms of his decision to opt out is his carefully worded statement, addressed to the Federal Elections Commission, indicating that any agreement regarding accepting of pu
blic money be tied to an agreement between both presumptive nominees curtailing the spending of independent action groups or 527’s. At present, there is no limit on how much money such groups can raise or spend during the election. In a USA Today article published February 20, 2008, Obama said, "I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." No such agreement was ever entered into by both candidates; in deed, McCain actively campaigned throughout the last two months of the Democratic primaries, taking full advantaged of the blood-letting between Obama and Hillary Clinton. With the memory of John Kerry being attacked by the swift boat ads in 2004 still fresh in everyone’s minds, Obama knows what’s coming. Only a fool would sit back and watch history repeat itself.2. John McCain can hardly claim the moral high ground here. Throughout the primaries, McCain worked the public financing system like a magician working his magic wand. First, opting in, then, when he got big donors to contribute to his campaign, opting out. He waited until the last minute to accept the financing for the general election, no doubt an acknowledgement that he could not hope to raise sufficient funds on his own to compete in the general election. His refusal to reign in RNC attack dogs, and his tendencies toward running negative ads himself – this despite his "appeal" to Obama to host town-hall debates that concentrated on the "real" issues of the campaign - mean that once more we can expect more of the same mud-slinging throughout the summer and fall months.
3. Almost two thirds of Obama’s contributions come from small donors who contribute $200 or less, ostensibly making his campaign the first of its kind. This grass-roots movement is, as Obama succinctly put it, a form of public financing, as it were. As the New York Times correctly pointed out on June 20, "Ever since Watergate, the ideal of campaign finance reform has been to replace a system fueled by special interests and big money with either full public financing or a system of civic-minded small donors. The former is abhorred by much of the public while the latter looks remarkably like barackobama.com. In effect, the Obama campaign has come closer to achieving the ideals of campaign finance reform than 30-plus years of regulation. To condemn the campaign’s departure from the system is to elevate rules over the principle that gave birth to the rules in the first place."
Finally, a Democrat who doesn’t lie down in the middle of the street like road kill. Finally, a Democrat who has the resources to effectively combat and, hopefully, defeat the Republican attack machine. Finally, a Democrat who can actually win a general election.
Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)