Text 1700, 103 rader
Skriven 2004-09-02 06:23:50 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 1691 av JOHN MASSEY (1:123/140)
Ärende: SWIFT BOATERS IGNORE BUSH
=================================
01 Sep 04 17:37, JOHN MASSEY wrote to JOHN HULL:

 JH>> JM> I agree with that.  

 JH>>I don't.  You'd be hard put to find a broader concensus - a wider
 JH>>tent - than John McCain, Ed Koch, Rudi Giuliani, Arnold
 JH>>Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, and the wives of the 9/11 pilots.  The
 JH>>covers virtually the entire political spectrum except for the far
 JH>>left.  Zell Miller is giving the keynote speech for god's sake!

 JM> Yes the Republicans have a wide tent as they say but that is not 
 JM> the same as having a broad consensus. This country is more evenly 
 JM> divided than at anytime I can remember. 

The GOP today has a much broader concensus than at any time in its history. 
Several of the sharper commentators have even remarked on that the last couple
of days.  It is broad enough in fact, that a lot of the party officials are
worried about losing the hard core right wing of the party.  

I think the country, however, has always been this divided.  Its only been in
the last few election cycles that it has come up to the surface and become
obvious, and I think its because of the internet.  People have gotten used to
the ease with which they can get information on any subject, especially the
news, and the ability to voice their own opinions on political matters.  All
those people who never got a chance to speak up and be heard before now have an
outlet, and it has changed the face of politics.  The problem is that one side
wants to keep all those people locked into the same old patterns, and people
don't want to be held down any more.

That's why we have people like Zell Miller, a life long Democrat, giving the
keynote at a Republican presidential convention.  Don't forget that back in the
early days of this country, before everybody started getting apathetic about
politics, elections were very hotly contested things, and the things that were
said about one's opponent in the press and in stump speeches were a lot nastier
than anything we see today.  My point being that the animosity, partisanship,
bitterness, and political rancor has always been there - now its just back out
in the open like it used to be.

-----------snip----------------


 JH>> JM> Bush doesn't get a pass eitner.  I was outraged that he called
 JH>> JM> for  a ban all 527's. That's not the actions of a pro first
 JH>> JM> amendment  president.

 JH>> JM> Isn't it strange that the one thing Kerry and Bush agree on is 
 JH>> JM> Americans should not have the freedom of speech.

 JH>>Hold on a second, John.  Bush is right, but not for the same reason
 JH>>as the Dems.  The Democrats want to stop them (they SAY they do, 
 JH>>but they really don't) only because Republicans have them too.  
 JH>>After all, nearly 90% of the money came from rich liberals and was 
 JH>>spent to trash Bush.

 JH>>Bush wants to stop them because they are a giant gaping hole in the
 JH>>fence that allows foreign influences to tinker with our election
 JH>>process.  Since that money is virtually unregulated, any outside
 JH>>source antithetical to the US could feed it to a group fronting for
 JH>>their interests.  The Red Chinese for example, tried to buy off
 JH>>Clinton several times, and got caught at it because of campaign
 JH>>finance reporting requirements.  With 527s, there is no such
 JH>>protection.

 JH>>I have no problem with the groups presenting their views, but the
 JH>>same sort of protections have to be in place as in regular campaign
 JH>>groups to prevent outside influences from interfering with our
 JH>>elections.

 JM> Then change the law to stop money from outside the country or from 
 JM> non citizens. To tell Americans that they can not join together and 
 JM> spend money they earned to express their political views is just flat 
 JM> out wrong, no matter what reason is given.

 JM> GWB took an oath to protect the Constitution. Calling for an end 
 JM> to the 527's is not protecting the Constitution

 JM> GWB is on the wrong side of this issue.

This whole 527 thing is the result of McCain-Feingold, some of the worst
legislation that has ever been enacted.  As any number of analysts have pointed
out during the commentary this cycle, 527s are an unintended consequence of
that bill.  The Democrats forced it through as I recall.  Congress blew it big
time on this one, and they will have to fix it, and I expect they will if Bush
is there to prod them to do it, but he's stuck with it for the moment.  The
problem is the lack of accountability for where the money comes from and who is
giving it, not the amounts.  I agree that it is a restriction of free speech to
try to prevent people from spending their money in a political manner, but it
is NOT a violation to require accountability or to restrict the sources of that
money to US citizens.  

That is what Bush is complaining about.  You don't seriously think he's upset
over the Swiftboat ads taking Kerry to task, do you?  Especially when the Dem
groups have been ripping him a new bunghole at every opportunity.  He's had to
make a gesture to appease certain factions until the election is over and the
problems with campaign money can be corrected.   

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)