Text 6378, 222 rader
Skriven 2008-02-21 11:56:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
Kommentar till en text av ROSS SAUER
Ärende: Coulter's credit
========================
On 02-20-08, ROSS SAUER said to TIM RICHARDSON:
> On 02-20-08, ROSS SAUER said to ALL:
>> Hahahahahahaha!!!
>> February 20, 2008 -- Ann Coulter suffered a serious embarrassment over the
>> weekend when her credit card was declined in Palm Beach.
>> According to our spy,
RS>By any chance, did you notice precisely *WHERE* this story is from? The NY
RS>Post.
Its from a dirty little `spy'......who follows lone women around late at
night hoping to catch them straightening their slip, or flashing too much
knee as they climb into or out of their car.
RS>Face it Tim, even the right-wingers can't stand Coulter anymore.
I know that `you' can't. Speaking of Ann Coulter......here's her column for
this week:
HOW TO KEEP REAGAN OUT OF OFFICE
February 20, 2008
Inasmuch as the current presidential election has come down to a choice among
hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth, now is the time
for patriotic Americans to review what went wrong and to start planning for
2012.
How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate
for president?
It isn't the early primaries, it isn't that we allow Democrats to vote in
many of our primaries, and it isn't that the voters are stupid. All of that
was true or partially true in 1980 -- and we still got Ronald Reagan.
We didn't get Ronald Reagan this year not just because there's never going to
be another Reagan. We will never again get another Reagan because Reagan
wouldn't run for office under the current campaign-finance regime.
Three months ago, I was sitting with a half-dozen smart, successful
conservatives whose names you know, all griping about this year's cast of
presidential candidates. I asked them, one by one: Why don't you run for
office?
Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.
Reagan, too, had a happy life and, having had no trouble getting girls in
high school, had no burning desire for power. So when the great California
businessman Holmes Tuttle and two other principled conservatives approached
Reagan about running for office, Reagan said no.
But Tuttle kept after Reagan, asking him not to reject the idea out of hand.
He formed "Friends of Reagan" to raise money in case Reagan changed his mind.
He asked Reagan to give his famous "Rendezvous With History" speech at a
$1,000-a-plate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles and then bought airtime
for the speech to be broadcast on TV days before the 1964 presidential
election.
The epochal broadcast didn't change the election results, but it changed
history. That single broadcast brought in nearly $1 million to the Republican
Party -- not to mention millions of votes for Goldwater.
After the astonishing response to Reagan's speech and Tuttle's continued
entreaties, Reagan finally relented and ran for governor. In 1966, with the
help, financial and otherwise, of a handful of self-made conservative
businessmen, Reagan walloped incumbent Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, winning 57
percent of the vote in a state with two Democrats for every Republican.
The rest is history -- among the brightest spots in all of world history.
None of that could happen today. (The following analysis uses federal
campaign-finance laws rather than California campaign-finance laws because
the laws are basically the same, and I am not going to hire a
campaign-finance lawyer in order to write this column.)
If Tuttle found Ronald Reagan today, he couldn't form "Friends of Reagan" to
raise money for a possible run -- at least not without hiring a battery of
campaign-finance lawyers and guaranteeing himself a lawsuit by government
bureaucrats. He'd also have to abandon his friendship with Reagan to avoid
the perception of "coordination."
Tuttle couldn't hold a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Reagan -- at least in
today's dollars. That would be a $6,496.94-a-plate dinner (using the consumer
price index) or a $19,883.51-a-plate dinner (using the relative share of
GDP).
The limit on individual contributions to a candidate is $2,300.
Reagan's "Rendezvous With History" speech would never have been broadcast on
TV -- unless Tuttle owned the TV station. Independent groups are prohibited
from broadcasting electioneering ads 60 days before an election.
A handful of conservative businessmen would not be allowed to make large
contributions to Reagan's campaign -- they would be restricted to donating
only $2,300 per person.
Under today's laws, Tuttle would have had to go to Reagan and say: "We would
like you to run for governor. You are limited to raising money $300 at a time
(roughly the current limits in 1965 dollars), so you will have to do nothing
but hold fundraisers every day of your life for the next five years in order
to run in the 1970 gubernatorial election, since there clearly isn't enough
time to raise money for the 1966 election."
Also, Tuttle would have to tell Reagan: "We are not allowed to coordinate
with you, so you're on your own. But wait -- it gets worse! After five years
of attending rubber chicken dinners every single day in order to raise money
in tiny increments, you will probably lose the election anyway because
campaign-finance laws make it virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent.
"Oh, and one more thing: Did you ever kiss a girl in high school? Not even
once?
If not, then this plan might appeal to you!"
Obviously, Reagan would have returned to his original answer: No thanks.
Reagan loved giving speeches and taking questions from voters. The one part
of campaigning Reagan loathed was raising money. Thanks to our
campaign-finance laws, fundraising is the single most important job of a
political candidate today.
This is why you will cast your eyes about the nation in vain for another
Reagan sitting in any governor's mansion or U.S. Senate seat. Pro-lifers like
to ask,
"How many Einsteins have we lost to abortion?" I ask: How many Reagans have
we lost to campaign-finance reform?
The campaign-finance laws basically restrict choice political jobs, like
senator and governor -- and thus president -- to:
(1) Men who were fatties in high school and consequently are willing to
submit to the hell of running for office to compensate for their unhappy
adolescences -- like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Newt
Gingrich. (Somewhere in this great land of ours, even as we speak, the next
Bill Clinton is waddling back to the cafeteria service line asking for
seconds.)
(2) Billionaires and near-billionaires -- like Jon Corzine, Steve Forbes,
Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney -- who can fund their own campaigns (these
aren't necessarily sociopaths, but it certainly limits the pool of
candidates).
(3) Celebrities and name-brand candidates -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger,
George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's
apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons -- they've got name recognition, a
valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech).
(4) Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein
Obama.
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian
campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners
happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can
I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly
magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from
speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't
have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a
"maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men
don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head
homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have
created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)
|