Comments on: What’d I sign?

By: Nicolas Bray

Nicolas Bray — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:59:22 +0000

Apparently he was against soft money before he was for it. My God, he did not just say that. And so it’s another example of — the senator’s latest comments are another example of him saying one thing and doing another. You really have to admire the logic of this: Kerry supported the BCRA which didn’t ban 527s and now he doesn’t want to ban 527s, so therefore he’s a flip-flopper. Bush, on the other hand, didn’t support the BCRA and now thinks it should be made even stronger. Presumably this shows steadfast leadership or something.

By: Chance the Gardener

Chance the Gardener — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:41:11 +0000

I don’t see MoveOn as extremist. Only John “Don’t lets rock the boat too much!” Kerry could make them look “extremist”. Kerry likely doesn’t either. He is merely utilizing a conveniently timed ad to put the onus back on the Bush administration to condemn the swift boat ads. It is a kind of ‘Look, I condemned my side, lets see you condemn yours.’ Childish, but childish obviously works in elections. It is a play, not a real protest.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:05:40 +0000

What’s complicated about it? Bush DID sign the BCRA. After expressing his opinion that it was unconstitutional. Just take him at his word: He’s NOT a civil libertarian. If he can see an advantage to himself in violating First amendment rights, he’ll do it.

By: Merkin

Merkin — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:53:27 +0000

But let’s take McClellan seriously for a second. Why?

By: Al Maviva

Al Maviva — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:05:29 +0000

It is axiomatic among civil libertarians that the only effective remedy for speech you don’t like is more free speech. Campaign finance reform as an attempt to somehow “purify” politics and remove the pernicious influence of money, is a fools errand, as the 527s of both parties prove.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:53:29 +0000

Further it typically seems that these other groups offer the most heated and extreme charges. I don’t see MoveOn as extremist. Only John “Don’t lets rock the boat too much!” Kerry could make them look “extremist”.

By: Stu

Stu — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 02:49:38 +0000

I think what McClellan and the Bush administration are saying in response to this is even more odious than what the Swift Boat Vets are saying. Kerry is essentially saying, “MoveOn.org is not part of my campaign, they do not speak to me, and I disagree with what they are saying.” Fair enough, I don’t disagree with them, and I like Kerry, we can all have our disagreements and be friends in the morning. But the White House is responding to these things not by condemning the content of their statement, but by saying they don’t have the RIGHT to buy ads so other people can hear what they want to say. I think the Bush administration would be just as happy if no one but them, and perhaps the official Kerry campaign, were allowed to say anything whatsoever about politics. As I said, odious.

By: clark

clark — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:44:52 +0000

Calling for an end to it is not the same as forcing an end to it. However I think the view is that if Kerry attacked groups like MoveOn.Com and Bush attacked groups like the SwiftBoatVetrans that then there would only be the main political parties having ads and major advocacy groups. In that way there would be more accountability to the political debate. The way things are now any small group can make charges and the opposition can blame the main candidate for the charges, whether deserved or not. Further it typically seems that these other groups offer the most heated and extreme charges. One certainly can accept all that and call for their silence while simultaneously believing that they have the right to speak and that the government shouldn’t keep them from speaking. More that those with similar philosophies should persuade them to be nicer or be quiet. The way things are going the whole campaign finance reform (which was an infringement on free speech – just infringements allowed by the Supreme Court) is a bit moot as there are too many loopholes. Further the loopholes may make for a worse situation than we had 4 years ago.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:27:28 +0000

Seriously? McClellan will say that both campaigns should try to stop 527s. Other types that just happen to favor Republicans would be fine.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:56:58 +0000

And we’re completely unregulated. No, the invisible hand regulates us all in its infinite invisible wisdom.