January 20-22, 2010
Jan 20 01:50 Get a Dictionary Jan 20 02:39 Sen. Bayh's Shrinking Credibility Jan 20 10:21 Here's What Happened In Massachusetts Jan 20 15:31 Ho-Hum Jan 21 04:14 Melendez's Broken Record Jan 21 06:21 A Pundit That Gets It Jan 21 16:07 Decoding Tarryl: I'm Jealous of Michele Jan 21 22:05 President Obama Blasts SCOTUS Upholding First Amendment Jan 22 04:52 Bob Casey Exposed
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Get a Dictionary
The Citypages' Hart van Denburg's post about Michele Bachmann is so over the top it's pathetic. It's titled "Michele Bachmann dances on Ted Kennedy's grave." What he's referring to is a simple statement Michele made about the Scott Brown-Martha Coakley special election :
"It is the ultimate political irony that the man who spent his lifetime trying to force socialized medicine on the American people would now see the seat that he occupied taken over by a free market Republican," Bachmann said. "It really is astounding."Van Denburg needs a little thicker skin if he thinks that's dancing on Kennedy's grave. It's nothing more than Michele stating her opinion, an opinion that I think many people without a political axe to grind would agree with.
I think most thinking people would agree that tonight's election results, in addition to being stunning, are ironic. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of ironic :
Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intendedBsed on that definition, I'd say that Michele's statement is pretty accurate. I'd hate to argue that the results of tonight's special election were expected a month ago. Heck, they weren't expected Tuesday morning with any certainty.
This is just another attempt by a liberal whiner to complain about Michele Bachmann. Mr. van Denburg recently wrote this about Michele:
Michele Bachmann, who has turned her opposition to health care reform into a cottage industry, and been busted for lying about it , told a Mississippi talk radio host.Here's Mr. van Denburg's proof of Michele's alleged lies:
"Where tyranny is enforced upon the people, as Barack Obama is doing, the people suffer and mourn."Again, I'll direct Mr. van Denburg to Dictionary.com's definition of tyranny :
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of powerI could make a respectable argument that President Obama's strongarming of GM secured bondholders was an "undrestrained exercise of power." I might add that President Obama's telling bank CEOs that he was the only thing standing between them and a roomful of pitchforks was an "undrestrained exercise of power."
Mr. van Denburg is a progressive apologist. He should check a dictionary before he starts making accusations. Disagreeing with someone doesn't give you the authority to make things up.
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Jan-10 06:25 AM
She's an idiot. But that is not one of her worse open-mouth gaffes.
Sen. Bayh's Shrinking Credibility
Less than a month after voting for the Senate's health care legislation, the most radical piece of domestic legislation since the New Deal, Sen. Bayh is whining about how the Far Left is ruining the Democratic Party :
Bayh, who is one of those gutless moderates who just keeps on winning because he listens and stays connected back home, says his party and president have simply abandoned moderation to push a far-left agenda that alienates moderates and, hello, independents, who happen to make up about half of the Massachusetts electorate.What a gutless wonder. The notion that there are Democratic moderates has been exposed. Had Sen. Bayh voted against cloture, he'd have a bit of credibility. Instead of being a profile in courage, though, Sen. Bayh caved to that mountain of Jello known as Harry Reid. Then he voted to pass the Senate's health care bill .
Says Bayh to ABC News : "It's why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren't buying our message. They just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That's something that has to be corrected."
Bayh, once discussed as a VP for the next-door smooth-talking guy from Illinois, predicts fellow Democrats will go into denial tomorrow if state Sen. Brown becomes U.S. Sen. Brown.
"The only we are able to govern successfully in this country," Bayh warns, "is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates. Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country, that's not going to work too well."
If Indiana voters noticed his spinelessness, then he's toast this November.
His credibility about fiscal responsibility disappeared with that vote. It disappeared because that legislation added half a trillion dollars to the deficits, increased taxes on everyone and didn't drop health care costs.
What type of spineless wonder would go against the loudly expressed will of the people to pass a bill that's been exposed as a disaster? What type of spineless wonder would vote for a bill that could've been improved had he voted to continue the Republicans' principled filibuster?
Sen. Bayh should thank President Obama for this predicament. Thanks to President Obama's empty words, the American people are demanding that people walk the walk. Paying lip service won't cut it. No longer will the American people tolerate politicians with Tom Daschle Disease. Symptoms for TDD include talking like a moderate when out in their district, then voting like Bernie Sanders in Washington, DC.
There's only one song appropriate for holding politicians accountable. That song is The Who's " We Won't Get Fooled Again ." The choice is so obvious that I'll bet even Mitch Berg agrees with me .
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 20-Jan-10 06:24 AM
I cannot find much positive to say about the individual either.
Also, I cannot find much positive to say about Indiana and its record of who it has sent to DC.
Indeed, is there much anyone would have to say about Indiana?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-10 09:09 AM
Two words: Mike Pence.
Here's What Happened In Massachusetts
I'd planned on talking about what lessons can be learned from Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts' special election. When Eric requested a study on what happened, I let the results sink in before starting writing. Nonetheless, I'm happy to talk about what happened.
First, the biggest lesson I learned from yesterday's election is that President Obama's Midas touch has left him. If ever there was a state that seemingly should've been fitted perfectly for President Obama, Massachusetts is it. Even in Boston, his last minute trip didn't help jumpstart Martha Coakley's campaign.
At minimum, President Obama's appearance should've increased minority turnout. According to Howie Carr, who knows Massachusetts better than anyone, most of the Boston precincts that showed a jump in turnout were the more Republican-leaning precincts.
Second, the message independents sent this administration was that crises are good things to waste, especially if the response isn't fixing the people's problems. (I'm not suggesting that government is the answer. I'm just saying that 'fixing' health care isn't that popular when people are unemployed.) Since his inauguration, the American people have wanted President Obama to implement policies that created stable, private sector jobs.
Instead, this administration focused on passing a stimulus plan that paid off the Democrats' special interest allies rather than creating jobs. Spreading the wealth around is bad enough. Spreading it around to a politician's cronies just isn't acceptable. The American people understand that they're just paying for government-sponsored corruption.
BTW, this administration hasn't learned. They're now attempting to create a new boogeyman :
Some question whether the anti-business rhetoric will pay off. Republican strategist John Feehery said Mr. Obama would be better served by moving toward the center.Bashing Big Money is predictable. Democrats, especially President Obama, can't flourish without a boogeyman to whine about. In times past, that tactic worked. It won't this time because people have figured out that demonizing won't improve their lives.
"The president still has three years before he has to run again. The tax on banks, the Justice Department investigating [predatory] lending; all that stuff does is make it harder for the banks to lend money, which at the end of the day will slow the economic recovery," said Mr. Feehery of the Feehery Group. "The more populist the president is, the less effective his policies will be."
People want big institutions to be held accountable but people are re-asserting their libertarian instincts. They're telling this administration and this Congress that they just want government to get out of their way.
Martha Coakley opposed that type of libertarianism. She stood with the most anti-libertarian president of my lifetime. Then she asked people tired of government overreach to vote for more government overreach. That wasn't a brilliant career decision.
Martha Coakley and Scott Brown come from opposite backgrounds. Martha Coakley's campaign was marked by a sense of entitlement. She trusted the CW. She thought winning the primary meant she'd won the seat. She couldn't be bothered shaking hands outside Fenway Park, especially in the cold weather. Scott Brown embraced that idea. He bought this Carhartt jacket to keep warm while he campaigned outside Fenway Park and greeted people outside the Bruins' games.
If there's anything that we'll be reminded of in the next 18 months, it's that New Englanders love retail politicking. Martha Coakley's campaign had an imperial feel to it. Scott Brown's campaign had an everyman's feel to it. In short, campaigns matter. People got to measure Scott Brown. Martha Coakley distanced herself from the people she wanted to represent.
The contrast couldn't have been more stark. And that's why Scott Brown, the former nobody, is heading to Washington, DC, instead of 'entitled' Martha Coakley.
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:26 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-10 07:54 PM
I'll add one more thing. Obama is blind to what is wrong with the country. On Sunday he was talking about how we had to stop Scott Brown because he was driving us into reverse to save the country?
Excuse, but it should be obvious by now the person who as been driving this country into reverse is Obama and he hasn't seen it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 21-Jan-10 10:34 AM
Coakley did run a campaign where she brought in people as if there was some trasfer function at play, your aura is mine. It did not work.
Jon Voight for the GOP, Alec Baldwin for the Dems - so what?
I believe you are right that Brown out campaigned Coakley. My guess too, the zealots voted, those not liking extra trips in the cold did not. Given it will be an off year election that might be a trend. You could be right about that. In presidential years, things happen, as with the Ventura effect in a non-presidential year.
You do recall, in the parable the Midas touch was a curse, because it was unending and too unidirectional.
The GOP got what it desired.
41 seats.
So what?
Now what?
What will it translate to in terms of how things besides healthcare play out in DC? And then what about how healthcare and things getting done or not, and the finger pointing that will attach, where do you see it ending, election night and in between?
I remember one comment J.Ewing made about wanting a Brown victory, and my caution about sometimes be careful about what you want.
Walter, I think that entire "reverse gear" thing is something a younger speechwriter thought up. One without too promising a future.
And Gary, Walter, J.Ewing - what about Rahm? His entire calling card was elections genius. What's his next act to be? Survival? Reinvention?
Ho-Hum
Earlier this week, Bob Beckel argued that Republicans hadn't gained in popularity while the Democrats floundered. If I were to argue with Beckel, I'd offer Scott Rasmussen's generic ballot polling as my first argument in refuting Beckel's statement:
Republican candidates still hold an eight-point lead over Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. The latest national telephone survey shows that 45% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.If I have to listen to another liberal tell me that Republicans are: in trouble/involved in a civil war/being rejected for their radicalism, I'm gonna slap them. Rasmussen's generic ballot polling has shown Republicans with an outside-the-margin-of-error lead. I'd think that it's foolish to argue that the party whose candidate just pulled off the upset of the last half-century and that's leading the generic ballot polling by 5-9 points since 11/8/09.
For the previous two weeks, Republicans have been ahead by nine points, their largest lead in several years, while support for Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in years. Republicans have held the lead for several months now.
Democrats can argue against the mounting evidence if they'd like. They'll just have to deal with reality this November.
Posted Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:35 PM
No comments.
Melendez's Broken Record
As the DFL's chairman, Brian Melendez is expected to be critical of Republicans. I would've been surprised if he didn't comment in this Politico article . That he commented isn't surprising. How he replied isn't surprising either. It's just that his reply is incredibly lame:
State DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez agreed that Coleman's absence would push the eventual nominee to the right. "The people left in the field are staunch conservatives. We're going to get a hard-core right winger, and I'd put Seifert and Emmer in that category," Melendez said.Hey Brian, ask how that GOP name ID deficit thing helped Martha Coakley. It's time that political leaders, whether it's the DFL chairman or whether it's the NRSC chairman, figured out that the three most important things are message, message and message.
For DFL-ers, there would have been both positives and pitfalls to running another statewide race against Coleman. Their playbook on Coleman is up to date and well-defined, but he is also one of the few Republicans who can boast statewide name recognition. "I think it makes life a little easier for us," said Melendez. "He leaves the Republicans with a really weak bench."
I'm sure Mr. Melendez doesn't want to talk about the anti-Democrat mood nationwide. I wouldn't want to talk about the resounding defeats of Martha Coakley, Jon Corzine or Creigh Deeds over the last 3 months. Their defeats are sending a clear message that America is rejecting the Democrats' radical agenda. Independents are especially disenchanted with the Democrats' agenda.
I don't think that Mr. Melendez's statement that Reps. Emmer and Seifert are "staunch conservatives" isn't meant as a compliment. In Mr. Melendez's world, conservatism is a four-letter word, as disgusting to the DFL as the term 'setting priorities' is a four-letter word. I'm betting that Mr. Melendez wouldn't like people to notice that Bob McDonnell ran as a conservative in Virginia and won by 18 points. I'm betting that Mr. Melendez wouldn't like people to notice that Scott Brown ran as a fiscal conservative and national security conservative. All Sen-Elect Brown did was pull off the biggest upset in over a century.
The DFL is in a difficult position after not putting a serious budget together last spring. Because they didn't put a serious budget together, they'll be highlighted as having to revisit the problems they didn't fix last May. Revisiting the budget in a policy and bonding session tells voters that the DFL didn't get the job done.
Even if the DFL leadership blames Gov. Pawlenty for not getting the problem fixed, he's got the comeback that Speaker Kelliher couldn't even hold her team together to pass the smallest tax increases, much less override Gov. Pawlenty's veto. This is a potential disaster for Speaker Kelliher. If she caves, the DFL base writes her off. If she pushes for a big tax increase, small businesses and independents will abandon her. Plus, Speaker Kelliher looks inept in leading.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:14 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Jan-10 10:56 AM
Gary, you are not disputing the truth of the statement:
he people left in the field are staunch conservatives. We're going to get a hard-core right winger, and I'd put Seifert and Emmer in that category.
You characterize them that way, regarding it as a positive aspect.
You don't dispute that Coleman, quite conservative himself, has had the RINO label attached from time to time from within the GOP?
Gary, if calling Siefert and Emmer is a "broken record" is it yours?
My only hope is the DFL would not be so prone to trot out moderates who are hoped to gain "independent" votes.
There are independents on both ends of the spectrum too; because neither party pays attention.
It's a fact. Emmer, what you see is what you get. We agree on that.
You like it. I don't. John Marty and Mark Dayton, what you see is what you get. I like it. You don't.
Bottom line, agree or disagree Gary, Emmer is to the right of Pawlenty, yes, no?
Comment 2 by eric z. at 21-Jan-10 11:01 AM
On the budget last session, and unallotment, the Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to fast track the question of how Pawlenty behaved.
I am willing to collectively call them able jurists, whichever way they position the issue.
Are you, Gary?
Or is it only worthwhile if they agree with you and King B.?
A Pundit That Gets It
The first reaction I had after reading Amy Walters' article was that she's a pundit that gets it in terms of how much trouble the Democrats are in. Here's the part that really struck home with me:
In the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests, for example, the Democratic candidates didn't wait until the last minute to launch attacks on their opponents, and they came up short too.the moral of this story is that voters don't care about driving records, graduate theses, etc. They're worried about the economy and whether they'll still have jobs 3 months from now. They want to know what can be done to lower their health care costs or their health insurance premiums or both.
In the end, attacks only work if they are believable. This is especially true when voters are angry about "real things" like the economy, the deficit and health care. As such, for Democrats to go after Chris Christie's spotty driving record in New Jersey, or Bob McDonnell's graduate thesis in Virginia, or Brown's record on emergency contraception for rape victims not only seemed out of context, but also woefully out of touch with the issues that were really driving the vote.
The Democrats' strategy is predicated on boogeymen whereas the Republicans' strategy is based on solutions to today's problems. Tuesday night, I had an instant message chat with another blogger. I told my blogger friend that the Republicans' slogan for this campaign should either be "It's the solutions, Stupid" or "Solutions, solutions, solutions."
That's the centerpiece of Bob McDonnell's campaign. That's the centerpiece of Scott Brown's campaign, too. They kept things simple. They talked about specific plans for reviving the economy and fixing health care without raising taxes. Independents latched onto their messages because their plans sounded plausible without spending billions of dollars.
The Democrats can't change course anytime soon. Their nutroots base would abandon them if they changed course. Their campaign contributions would dry up instantly. Worse, Democrats that chose to stick it out would likely get primary challengers.
The worst news for Democrats is that their agenda of massive government intrusion, higher taxes and excessive spending isn't appealing. They know that they can't run on things like tax cuts and modest spending because progressives would stay home this November. That's what Democrats did Tuesday.
Democrats are facing a difficult election cycle. According to Frank Luntz's focus groups, what isn't working is blaming President Bush for all the world's ails. for the most part, the American people know who did what. They've moved. Now they're only interested in solutions, preferably with as little government intervention as possible.
If Democrats don't learn these lessons, then they're facing a far worse night than last Tuesday.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:24 AM
Comment 1 by Duke Powell at 21-Jan-10 07:45 AM
Exactly right.
Democratic office holders have a real problem. On one hand they have to keep their varied interest groups support and, on the other, they have to worry about reality.
The reality is that if the Dems continue to live to appease their historical base, then they are going down. They know it and fear the consequences.
Unfortunately for them, they also know that if they don't give these groups what they want the money and grunt work goes away and they start facing primary challenges.
Michael Barone was correct when he
said that most partisans never have worked a precinct or district and never had their name on a ballot - politicians have.
Comment 2 by Eric Heins at 21-Jan-10 09:07 AM
I'd like to think its not so much about 'solutions' as it is about liberty/freedom, pure and simple. I can solve most of my problems myself if the F'ing feds would get the hell outa the way.
Freedom IS the solution most of the time, anyway.
However, don't underweight the influence the MSM and guys like Soros have. Most of them are a lot smarter and effective than Keith Olberman.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 21-Jan-10 10:33 AM
I think you are correct in your last point, here. People seem to understand that the Stimulus was the Democrats, and Obama's, BIG FIX for the economy, and it got worse. Spending time on the unpopular and wildly misnamed "health care reform" just made the situation worse, painting them as people who didn't CARE about the tribulations affecting all of us. Republicans can win big with solutions, yes, but first people have to know we care, and right now there's a big vacuum of that out there on the political landscape.
Decoding Tarryl: I'm Jealous of Michele
After it was announced that Sarah Palin would be campaigning with Michele Bachmann, it was only a matter of time before Tarryl would issue a bizarre interpretation of what this proves:
"Like Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Bachmann has made being a national conservative celebrity a higher priority than delivering results for working families," Zach Rodvold wrote. "Bachmann's commitment to advancing her personal agenda and building her celebrity comes at the expense of her doing the job she was elected to do." Bachmann's district has the highest unemployment rates and foreclosure rates in Minnesota, Rodvold wrote.TARRYL TRANSLATION: I'm jealous. I wish I could call in a high profile, highly popular Democrat but they're in short supply these days. Speaker Pelosi isn't popular. President Obama isn't popular either.
"It's clear that the national networks of right-wing donors that support Sarah Palin are gearing up to support Michele Bachmann as well," he said. "These special interests don't care about Minnesota jobs, don't care about Minnesota's priorities, and don't care about Minnesota families."
Don't take Tarryl's whiney statements about Michele being committed to "advancing her personal agenda and building her celebrity" seriously. Tarryl's been endorsed by a ton of unions and other special interest groups. I've written before that Tarryl's priorities will be set by special interest groups. Just like DC Democrats, Tarryl doesn't listen to her constituents if they don't support her.
I know because I tried talking with her after a townhall meeting in July, 2008. Tarryl and I exchanged words about why the DFL leadership didn't hold the oversight hearings to identify wasteful spending. It was a brief exchange because Tarryl left quickly.
I'm certain that Michele is beaming knowing that Sarah Palin is campaigning with her. Sarah Palin's visit will help Michele raise tons of money.
On another front, Arlen Specter tried pushing Michele around. Saying it didn't work out as he'd hoped is understatement. Here's how Politico's Glenn Thrush described the incident :
The exchange, broadcast on 1210 AM's Dom Giordano Show [but not archived on the station's site], began when Specter challenged Bachmann to articulate what, exactly, she stands for, according to a readout on the clash published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's lively Early Returns blog.I listened to Michele's reply. As usual, it was detailed and concise. Perhaps that's what bothered Sen. Specter. He's known for being 'flexible' in what he says. Sen. Specter and Rep. Bachmann are political opposites. Michele believes in answering questions on point. Sen. Specter...believes in giving himself plenty of wiggle room.
Bachmann first laid out her agenda, cutting taxes and killing President Obama's health reform bill, at considerable length.
When Specter tried to counter, Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party movement, kept on talking, which didn't sit well with the one-time Philadelphia DA, who is a stickler for politeness and protocol.
That's because Sen. Specter isn't a principled politician.
Tarryl will have difficulty with Michele because Tarryl's answers will sound nice at first blush but won't withstand serious scrutiny.
UPDATE: I'm listening to Sean Hannity interviewing Michele. Michele just invited Sean to 'cover' the Michele-Sarah event. It sounds like that'll happen.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Jan-10 04:54 PM
Wow, having the number one AND number two most hated women in America on the same stage? It will be well worth the price of admission just to watch liberals like Tarryl descend into slobbering fits.
Comment 2 by eric z at 21-Jan-10 05:57 PM
Get serious.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 22-Jan-10 08:56 AM
Hmmm. Sarah Palin has higher approval numbers than B.O., so who are those fringe crazies? Are 54% of the people "fringe"?
President Obama Blasts SCOTUS Upholding First Amendment
Here's President Obama's statement on SCOTUS's ruling on McCain-Feingold:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington, while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.The first indisputable fact is that McCain-Feingold restricted free speech. McCain-Feingold told people, NPOs and special interest groups that they couldn't advertise against candidates before a primary or a general election. George Will, predictably, has a different take on SCOTUS's ruling:
The Supreme Court on Thursday restored First Amendment protection to the core speech that it was designed to protect, political speech. There will be no more McCain-Feingold blackout periods before primary and general elections, periods during which political advocacy was restricted, just as public attention was most intense.EXACTLY RIGHT, Mr. Will. As a literalist, I've always demanded that the First Amendment be interpreted literally. Here's what the First Amendment says:
The court's decision will be predictably lamented by people alarmed by the prospect of more political money funding more political speech. The Supreme Court has now said to such people approximately this: The First Amendment does not permit government to decide the "proper" quantity 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.It doesn't say that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except if it's speech by corporations and special interest groups, especially if it's right before a primary or general election."
Marco Rubio issued a great statement praising the ruling:
The best way to ensure our political system is less reliant on money is not to pass laws which infringe on fundamental rights, but rather to elect leaders who value policy and principles over politics and special interests.It isn't surprising to hear Mr. Rubio standing on the right side of this ruling. It didn't take Mike Pence long to respond to SCOTUS's ruling with this statement :
Freedom won today in the Supreme Court. Today's ruling in the Citizens United case takes us one step closer to the Founding Fathers' vision of free speech, a vision that is cherished by all Americans and one Congress has a responsibility to protect. If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the Court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.Here's the part of Anthony Kennedy's opinion that I thought was the most compelling:
In 2003, the Supreme Court unwisely supported the oppressive restrictions on free speech that were part of the 2002 campaign finance law. At the time, I was honored to stand with Senator Mitch McConnell and various state and national organizations in challenging this historic error in court. Since that time, the Court has taken important steps toward restoring to the American people their First Amendment rights. This decision is a victory on behalf of those who cherish the fundamental freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
"If the First Amendment has any force," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."TRANSLATION: It doesn't matter if your intentions are good. If a law is passed that prohibits free speech, then it's unconstitutional. It's that simple.
Here's another part of the ruling that I appreciated:
When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought [Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority]. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."Justice Kennedy hasn't had the same reputation on rulings as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Still, he's a far cry from Sandra Day-O'Connor. The notion that government would throw its weight around in prosecuting people for exercising their First Amendment rights is appalling. That's why people shouldn't let President Obama off the hook for this statement:
We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.I don't doubt that President Obama will attempt to wiggle around this ruling. Anyone that nominates Mark Lloyd to a powerful position in the FCC is a person who'd love to silence his critics. If President Obama willfully disobeys this ruling, which I don't think he'll do openly, then I'd consider that an impeachable offense both on the grounds that he's violating the First Amendment and because he'd be thumbing his nose at a Supreme Court ruling.
At minimum, if he ignored the Supreme Court's ruling, he'd be exposed as a tyrant who didn't protect the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to do when he took his oath of office.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:15 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Jan-10 10:47 PM
The crazy part is that Obama was a constitutional law professor at one time. I feel sorry for his students since if he doesn't understand the words "Congress should make no law" he failed to teach them anything.
What's even crazyier is that there are four justices on the bench including the newest one who doesn't understand the first amendment. Hopefully the five smart justices survive until Obama is no longer President so we don't have to worry about their replacements.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z. at 22-Jan-10 06:00 AM
Getting the best government money can buy.
Comment 3 by eric z at 22-Jan-10 09:11 AM
Now I don't see the birthers having any case.
Couldn't Obama just form a US corporation, and put it in office in his place - his alter ego in a legal sense; and as in the opinion - a creature of statute with rights?
Explain the nuances to me Gary, please.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-10 09:48 AM
Jennifer, I didn't say President Obama didn't know the Constitution.
Now Chuckie Schumer has announced they'll conduct hearings on the ruling. Obama's Diversity Czar at the FCC, Mark Lloyd, once said this:
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
In other words, based on who he's picked as a regulator at the FCC, it's apparent that President Obama doesn't think that free speech is important.
Comment 5 by eric z at 22-Jan-10 09:49 AM
And wow, Gary, ACORN and MoveOn.org, they probably agree with you.
No more cause to bash ACORN.
And you never thought there'd be common ground.
It goes to show.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-10 10:52 AM
Eric, did you mean that I'd have nothing to complain about or did you mean that I wouldn't have anything to complain about except their criminal activities?
Comment 6 by eric z at 22-Jan-10 04:41 PM
Gary - Isn't helping people register to vote a form of speech? And ACORN being a corporation has protections.
Moreover, were it true as you allege that ACORN is responsible for crime, which is untrue and unfounded, what jail exactly do you put a corporation into?
Same as if money is spent to obviously defame, criminally so, what jail do you put the corporation into then.
Gary, as good as I know you, you'd always find something about the opposition about which you'd complain.
I said you'd have no basis to complain, not that you would not.
Comment 7 by R-Five at 22-Jan-10 05:53 PM
I heard an excerpt of the arguments, that if you publish a 500 page book or produce a two movie, and put one line at the end "Vote for xyz" - it can be prohibited under McCain Feingold. This was the absurdity that gave the Court the courage to undo prior precedent.
Bob Casey Exposed
In 2006, I wrote fairly frequently that Bob Casey was an embarrassment, though not at the level of an Al Franken embarrassment. (A matchup against Mark Dayton, though, would be competitive.) Last night, on Greta's show, Sen. Casey confirmed why I thought he deserved to be called an embarrassment. Here's a portion of the transcript of that interview:
GRETA: For those who say that it's a wake-up call, I'm thinking, well, this has been coming.That's insulting. He's essentially saying that it's just our perception that jobs aren't being created. He also said that it's just our perception that jobs aren't being created at a fast enough clip.
SEN. CASEY: I think part of it is, when you're focused on, like I know I was, on health care for an extended period of time, the way this place tends to work is it's hard to get important priorities into the conversation, and if you aren't talking about an issue, I think it leads to the impression, I think it's inaccurate often, that we're not moving fast enough on job creation.
So I think we need to focus on it substantively, and I would argue that we need to pass very strategic, short term policies that will have a positive impact on jobs, like a jobs creation tax credit.
EARTH TO SEN. CASEY: We've lost jobs by the millions since President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. This isn't a perception problem. It's a reality problem. Here's a healthy dose of reality: If President Obama and this Democratic Congress don't put in place policies that create jobs, they'll be in for a number of rough election cycles.
Sen. Casey is wrong, too, in saying that Congress needs to focus on short term, targeted policies. In another part of the interview, he talked about a 1 year tax cut. While Democrats think of that as a tax cut, people living out in the Heartland call that a tax rebate.
When President Reagan was faced with a faltering economy, he permanently cut taxes, then got out of the way. The rest is history.
Sen. Casey's policies highlights the inherent weakness of the Democrats' policies. They're control freaks by nature, which is proven by the attempted micromanagement of the U.S. economy. It also highlights their belief that government gets first dibs on your wages.
This portion of the interview proves that Sen. Casey isn't in touch with reality:
GRETA: Would you say that the stimulus bill of last February has had its effect on your state, its intended effect or are you disappointed in it?I'd love knowing what things Sen. Casey has seen that he considers positive. Is Sen. Casey saying that the pork-filled legislation has produced positive results? What proof do we have of that? Let's hope he isn't relying the jobs created or saved website for his proof.
SEN. CASEY: Well, disappointed in it because it's not moving fast enough so I think the strategy not only has to be to have new job creation policies on the table but to push the recovery bill faster. We've seen a lot of positive results but sometimes if the perception doesn't match the reality, it doesn't matter what the reality is. We have to convince Americans that we're serious about job creation strategies even as we're pushing the recovery faster.
Again, Sen. Casey has returned to his 'the public has the wrong perception of the economy' meme. Pennsylvanians will quickly tell him that hsi spin isn't acceptable.
Sen. Casey is up for re-election in 2012. If Sen. Santorum is interested, I think he'd have an easy time defeating this buffoon, especially now that he's been exposed as a lightweight.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Pennsylvania voters are experiencing buyer's remorse now that they can compare Santorum's gravitas against Casey.
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010 4:55 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 22-Jan-10 05:57 AM
Who is "Gretta?"
Is this one of those biased and unreliable Fox talking heads?
Use Google News, and move around more. Get a sampling. Regular sources, regular thoughts, Gary.
And what Reagan did, when a dollar was worth more, was he ran record deficits. On top of that he raised one-time cash by selling off government owned and well managed assets. BPA in the Pacific Northwest being one. Rewriting history on the Gip, or selectively forgetting, is a path to error.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 22-Jan-10 05:59 AM
So, how would YOU regulate banking, into the future? Waiting for a picture of reactions to emerge?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-10 09:31 AM
Greta is Greta van Susteren, who's hosting FNC's On the Record. She's also co-hosted a show on CNN with Roger Cossack.
She's also the best interviewer in the business.
BTW, it doesn't matter who conducted the interview. What matters is that Little Bobby Casey sounded like an idiot. He wasn't credible, especially after saying that the failed stimulus bill had had a positive effect in his state.
Comment 4 by eric z at 22-Jan-10 04:44 PM
I read the post, I found nothing to call idiotic, Gary.
And, who is Bob Casey? I get he's a Senator, and since you never complain about Republicans until they switch parties, I get that he's a Dem.
For us that don't watch Gretta, what state?
