Killing off the First Amendment?
Professor Bainbridge has the best take I've seen so far on this dangerous push to regulate political blogging:
Michelle Malkin has a great compendium of who's talking about this, and Powerline correctly asserts that this is a way the mainstream media can regain their information monopoly. I won't try to add anything, as all important points have already been said. However, allow me to repeat that every blogger who believes in the First Amendment must mention this. We need to bring this to the attention of everybody, because we certainly can't trust the Supreme Court to protect us.
People talk a lot about the First Amendment but don't really understand what it means. There's still no clause there that mandates "separation of church and state," as Robert Bork noted a couple of years ago. People don't understand that when government says "regulate," it really means suppress. For this reason, I have fully opposed the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" malarky, which did nothing to curb massive influence from George Soros and other limousine liberals.
McCain is conservative on abortion and has supported Free Trade Agreements (which is not the same as supporting free trade but better than protectionism). But he's willing to compromise on or even ignore the First and Second Amendments, and he supports the "One China" policy. Don't hold me to this, but I might just support a moderate Democrat before him. Actually, I like Joe Lieberman a lot, not that I would vote for him, but he might be the most sensible Democrat on the Hill. He's become a regular guest on Sean Hannity's radio show, and his appearances are extraordinary for his verbal grace and reasonable demeanor. Lieberman supports our wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, and he supports free trade. However, he's too environmentalist, I disagree with his liberal stance on abortion, and most importantly, he accepts Rubinomics: the belief that government budget deficits cause higher interest rates, championed by Robert Rubin, who was one of Clinton's Treasury Secretaries. I can't support someone who isn't at least somewhat of a supply-sider, like George W. Bush is, and a hawk on foreign policy.
That's why I found this discussion at VodkaPundit so intriguing. McCain, blech. Santorum isn't sufficiently well-known, but I'm sure he's already working to change that. Guiliani became a rising star after 9/11, but his position on abortion will give him trouble when garnering support from conservatives. George Pataki, my governor? HA! That bum will be tossed out of Albany in the next election, and deservedly so. He has such poor fiscal responsibility that I'd sooner vote for the abominable Eliot Spitzer. Then again, Donald Luskin blogged support for Spitzer's candidacy -- because he'd do less harm there than as state attorney general. Heaven knows it would be hard to do a worse job than Pataki.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one enamored of Condi. There's a great deal of buzz about "Condi versus Hillary" in 2008, which I find an interesting twist. The GOP, naturally, needs to worry about fielding someone to compete with Hillary's electability, particularly now that she's transforming herself into a religious moderate who prays and wants to reduce the number of abortions. But that changes with a Dr. Rice candidacy: it would shift the pressure to Democrats, forcing them to make Hillary more electable. The one problem is that certain hard-right people won't support Rice simply because she's, as she described herself, "mildly pro-choice."
Sigh. How hard is it to understand those simple words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...."? No law!It reminds me of one liberal who claimed Armstrong Williams "violated the First Amendment." Whether or not Williams' actions were improper, how was that a violation of the First Amendment? How did Williams or the Department of Education get Congress to pass a law that violated the freedom of speech?
Michelle Malkin has a great compendium of who's talking about this, and Powerline correctly asserts that this is a way the mainstream media can regain their information monopoly. I won't try to add anything, as all important points have already been said. However, allow me to repeat that every blogger who believes in the First Amendment must mention this. We need to bring this to the attention of everybody, because we certainly can't trust the Supreme Court to protect us.
People talk a lot about the First Amendment but don't really understand what it means. There's still no clause there that mandates "separation of church and state," as Robert Bork noted a couple of years ago. People don't understand that when government says "regulate," it really means suppress. For this reason, I have fully opposed the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" malarky, which did nothing to curb massive influence from George Soros and other limousine liberals.
McCain is conservative on abortion and has supported Free Trade Agreements (which is not the same as supporting free trade but better than protectionism). But he's willing to compromise on or even ignore the First and Second Amendments, and he supports the "One China" policy. Don't hold me to this, but I might just support a moderate Democrat before him. Actually, I like Joe Lieberman a lot, not that I would vote for him, but he might be the most sensible Democrat on the Hill. He's become a regular guest on Sean Hannity's radio show, and his appearances are extraordinary for his verbal grace and reasonable demeanor. Lieberman supports our wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, and he supports free trade. However, he's too environmentalist, I disagree with his liberal stance on abortion, and most importantly, he accepts Rubinomics: the belief that government budget deficits cause higher interest rates, championed by Robert Rubin, who was one of Clinton's Treasury Secretaries. I can't support someone who isn't at least somewhat of a supply-sider, like George W. Bush is, and a hawk on foreign policy.
That's why I found this discussion at VodkaPundit so intriguing. McCain, blech. Santorum isn't sufficiently well-known, but I'm sure he's already working to change that. Guiliani became a rising star after 9/11, but his position on abortion will give him trouble when garnering support from conservatives. George Pataki, my governor? HA! That bum will be tossed out of Albany in the next election, and deservedly so. He has such poor fiscal responsibility that I'd sooner vote for the abominable Eliot Spitzer. Then again, Donald Luskin blogged support for Spitzer's candidacy -- because he'd do less harm there than as state attorney general. Heaven knows it would be hard to do a worse job than Pataki.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one enamored of Condi. There's a great deal of buzz about "Condi versus Hillary" in 2008, which I find an interesting twist. The GOP, naturally, needs to worry about fielding someone to compete with Hillary's electability, particularly now that she's transforming herself into a religious moderate who prays and wants to reduce the number of abortions. But that changes with a Dr. Rice candidacy: it would shift the pressure to Democrats, forcing them to make Hillary more electable. The one problem is that certain hard-right people won't support Rice simply because she's, as she described herself, "mildly pro-choice."
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home