Obama's Secret Plan To Repeal the First Amendment

A number of conservative bloggers are warning that if Obama is elected one of the first things he will do is to take away our right to free speech. Of course, I am a big supporter of free speech, except when it comes to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater (or even in not-so-crowded theaters showing An American Carol), indecency (Playboy, books by James Joyce and Vladimir Nabokov, anything gay), and anything that undermines the war effort (The Dixie Chicks, news organizations). But an Obama presidency will take us back to 1984; the book, that is, not the year (which wouldn't be so bad).

“Conservative-friendly media better get ready,” warns Brian C. Anderson. “Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.”

He cites some shocking proof of Obama’s intention to curtail the free speech rights of conservatives. When the NRA tried to run ads targeting Obama, his lawyers sent “bullying” letters to stations that ran them, according to Anderson. If Obama is elected, lawyers will be free to send bullying letters to anyone they want. You will have to be careful of what you say or write lest a lawyer get wind of it and fire off a bullying letter.

But there’s more. When a 527 group, the American Issues Project, tried to get stations to run ads linking Obama to terrorists, says Anderson, Obama’s campaign “complained” about the ads to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws and “spooked” some stations from running them. Republicans value the free speech rights of 527 groups and would never do such a thing. If 527 groups can be stopped from smearing political opponents, our democracy is certainly in peril.

But that’s not all. When two conservative writers appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio attacking Obama, Obama supporters flooded the station with, Anderson reports, “rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.” Have you ever heard anything so frightening? Imagine if conservatives bombarded someone with rage-filled phone calls and emails, not that we would, of course. Liberals would be horrified. According to Anderson, the show had “invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.” If the Nazis had been able to send rage-filled emails and make harassing phone calls to Jewish shopowners instead of beating them up, smashing everything in their shops and sending them to concentration camps, we might all be speaking German today.

“These crude efforts are only a start,” says Anderson. As soon as Obama gets in office he will restore the Fairness Doctrine, which could force radio and TV stations to let liberals on the air! Sure, Obama says he is opposed to reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, but Obama is a liar, which means that the opposite is true of whatever he says. So we can be fairly certain that he actually does support reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, unlike John McCain who also says he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine but is not a liar.

If the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated, warns Glenn Reynolds, “I think I'll start an organization to flood the FCC with complaints whenever there's media bias from any of the big networks.” This will give the FCC less time to investigate all the complaints it now gets from people concerned about dirty words and wardrobe malfunctions. Bono will have free reign to curse whenever he wants and Janet Jackson will be able to go on television, even on Sesame Street, wearing only pasties. I'm sure Reynolds would hate for that to happen, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

When Obama reinstates the Fairness Doctrine, there’s an “even chance,” according to Stephen Green, that it will apply to blogs! “If (when?) it happens, I’ll break that law,” says Green, trying to put on a brave face. “I will break it with all due malice and in full knowledge of the possible consequences. I’ll shout ‘Fire Obama!’ in a crowded theater. And then, for the first time ever, I’ll ask for reader donations. Because I’ll going to need them, lots of them, to pay for the lawyers.” I think I'll start asking for donations now.

Although Green admits he was drunk when he wrote this, it can’t be dismissed as the paranoid ramblings of an aging, drug-addled Libertarian. “Republicans, given the kind of power the Democrats are about to accrue, would maybe take away your right to get a completely totally naked chick to grind on your lap in a publicly licensed bar,” says Green. “The Democrats will do their damnedest to take away your right to speak.” I’m sure we can all agree that putting the Pussycat Dolls in jail would be preferable to shutting up Rush Limbaugh.

But even if you take Obama at his word (and who would be naïve and stupid enough to do that?), and he doesn’t impose the Fairness Doctrine on blogs, if he is elected this modest blog and all other conservative blogs will have to shut down. That’s because Obama supports something called "network neutrality," which would prevent telecom companies from charging exorbitant rates for use of the Internet that only conservatives can afford. By letting just anyone use the Internet at low prices, corporations would be forced to let liberals stay on the web (unlike, say, on talk radio) and the Internet will slow to a crawl, which will cause people to start reading newspapers, which are all controlled by liberals. The conservative voice will be virtually silenced, except for the homeless guy ranting on the corner.

I am taking a great risk in writing this. By publishing this on my blog, I have probably earned a spot on Obama’s enemies list. If he is elected, he will probably shut down my blog, have the IRS initiate a tax audit against me, eavesdrop on my phone calls and break into my office looking for embarrassing information. Imagine electing a President who would do harass its enemies like that.

Share This Post

The Russert Rule

Universally acknowledged by Washington's elite to be one of the most important people who ever lived on Earth, if not the most important person, Meet the Press moderator Tim Russert was given a state funeral yesterday that rivaled the send-offs for such beloved and powerful men as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. The impact of Russert's death on humanity is only just beginning to be felt, but one of its most immediate and profound effects may be on the U.S. election.

Russert's friends and colleagues were understandably shocked by Russert's premature passing. If an overweight workaholic with diabetes and a history of coronary artery disease can suddenly die without warning, is any one of us safe? Many of the pundits and politicians who spoke at Russert's funeral and during the hours and hours and hours of cable news coverage must have been wondering, for the first time in their lives, Am I, too, mortal? Tom Brokaw has never looked so human.

Russert brought something to television journalism that had never been tried before. Instead of asking questions off the top of his head, he had his staff do research on his interviewees and actually used some of that research in his interviews. Many politicians had never been confronted with their own words before and his unique interview style caught many of them off guard, but it also gave them a chance to look good by showing that they could withstand tough questioning by giving vague, noncommittal answers. Unfortunately, Russert's shoes will be very hard to fill because while many television journalists do have staffs that have access to LEXIS/NEXIS, few of them know what follow-up questions to ask after an interviewee gives his boilerplate answer and will simply go on to another topic. Russert's ability to ask the same question over and over again using different words is one that has sadly died with him. He will be missed.

Doing research and asking follow-up questions were not Russert's only journalistic innovations. Russert invented a new rule of journalism, which should be called the Russert Rule as a tribute to him. As Russert explained when he testified in the Scooter Libby trial, "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified." For years journalists considered all conversations with public figures to be on the record unless it was made clear before the conversation took place that it was off the record. This made many politicians understandably distrustful and wary of journalists. But Russert, in a flash of brilliance, realized that it would be much easier to cozy up to politicians if he simply reversed this rule making all conversations off the record unless everyone agreed they were on the record beforehand. This reversal of journalistic precedent changed the way journalism is done. Politicians could feel safe confiding in Russert and didn't have to worry that their secrets would get out too soon, or at least that they could be traced back to their source. Scooter Libby felt that he could depend so much on Russert's omerta that he told Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first heard that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA from Russert, and it was only because Fitzgerald forced Russert to testify that Russert reluctantly contradicted Libby's alibi. Quoting Greg Mitchell quoting the Associated Press quoting Russert, he testified, "I did not know she worked at the CIA. I did not know any of that until the following Monday when I saw all in (newspaper columnist) Robert Novak's column.... We simply did not know it. I wish we had." (Please don't sue me AP!) If Fitzgerald hadn't forced Russert's hand, you can be sure that Russert would have kept Libby's secret. We will never know how many other secrets died with Russert.

The fact that politicians could trust that Russert would safeguard their secrets instead of releasing them to the public prematurely where they might get distorted made him the go-to guy for administration officials who wanted to get their side of the story out without having to worry about being contradicted or embarrassed while still looking like they were being vetted by Russert's very tough-looking questions. When Dick Cheney wanted to sell the War in Iraq to the American people, his staff immediately called up Russert to book Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press (which Cheney's communications director called "our best format") to say that Saddam Hussein was trying to build a nuclear bomb, citing as evidence a story that appeared in the New York Times that morning, which his assistant Scooter Libby had conveniently leaked to reporter Judith Miller. He knew that citing a Times story he himself planted would be all the evidence he would need and he wouldn't have to worry about Russert asking the kinds of skeptical questions that might throw him off message.

In one of the many moving tributes Russert received, Chris Matthews pointed out that one of the secrets of Russert's success was that he was not smarter or more sophisticated than his audience. "It may be tricky to say this," Matthews said, "and I'll say it, when we went to war with Iraq, he and I had a little discussion about that, and this is where Tim is Everyman, he is Us as a country. I said: 'How can you believe this war is justified?' And he said: 'The nuclear thing. If they have a bomb that they can use, we gotta deal with it. We can't walk away from that.' And that, to me, was the essence of what was wrong with the whole case for the war. They knew that argument would sell with Mr. America, with The Regular Guy, with the True American Patriot. They knew the argument that would sell, that would get us into that war. Tim was right on the nail. He was Us, the American People. . . . That was the thing that sold America, and the guys who wanted the War used that one thing that would sell the Patriot in Tim Russert." What could be more patriotic than a journalist who believes what the government is telling him instead of questioning it like some reporters used to do back in the 1970s before they got columns and wrote best-selling books? And if there is anything members of the Washington elite hate it is someone who seems too elite by looking like they are intelligent and thoughtful and not the salt of the earth. Perhaps there is no greater tribute to Russert than the fact that the Washington elite accepted this humble man from Buffalo as a member of their club and went on television and showed up at his funeral to proclaim in unison, "One of us! One of us!"

Even though Russert was a Democrat and a liberal, he was not one of those radical, un-American liberals. His mentor was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, every conservative's favorite Democrat until Joe Lieberman came along. Moynihan worked in the Nixon administration where he helped develop Nixon's Civil Rights policy of "benign neglect" toward African-Americans where nothing was actually accomplished even though it appeared on the surface that progress was being made. That was the kind of liberalism Russert subscribed to. And unlike many members of the liberal media, Russert bent over backwards to appear to be "fair" by asking liberals harder questions and taking it easy on conservatives, something conservative journalists don't need to do because our views are so rarely aired. Russert inspired a whole generation of liberal journalists who compensated for their partisan views by bashing liberals and praising conservatives whenever they could to demonstrate their objectivity, a legacy that is much appreciated by this conservative. Unfortunately, a new generation of liberal journalists, people like Keith Olberman, David Gregory and Chris Matthews (whom Russert hated), don't believe they have to hide their partisan leanings in order to appear objective and fair. With Russert's passing Fox News may be the last bastion of fair and balanced journalism.

We don't know yet what the impact of Russert's death will be on the upcoming election. Can another journalist take his place and conduct a gotcha interview of Barack Obama or make John McCain seem articulate? That remains to be seen. It was clear that McCain was deeply saddened by the death of his friend and Obama, despite his hypocritical tribute, was greatly relieved. But Russert's death will have far-reaching impact on our planet that will extend beyond this election. For example, Rep. Darrell Issa pointed out yesterday that if Russert were still alive he would have revealed "the truth" about the offshore oil drilling ban if he were still alive and no doubt convinced the American people that ruining the environment is a small price to pay for making sure gas prices are low. This is just one of the ways in which the loss of Russert will be deeply felt. What will future administrations do when they have a war to sell or a political enemy to trash? Will Meet the Press still have the ability to shape the political discourse in a way that is favorable to those in power without Tim Russert at the helm? What will happen to his son, Luke Russert now that he doesn't have his father to plug his work? Will the Buffalo Bills ever have a winning season again now that their fan has died? Only future historians will be able to answer these and other burning questions.

It's hard to imagine what life on Earth will be like without Tim Russert. I'm sure Russert is in Heaven now asking God some tough questions: "In Leviticus You said…." No doubt their conversation is off the record.

Share This Post



Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Tim Russert, Journalism, Meet the Press, Scooter Libby, NBC, Dick Cheney, Chris Matthews, Politics

New York Times Report on John McCain Is Pre-9/11 Journalism

There is no love lost between John McCain and conservatives. But as much as we hate McCain, we hate the New York Times even more and the newspaper's hit job on McCain, accusing him of having a "close" relationship with an attractive young telecommunications lobbyist and doing favors for her, is causing conservatives to circle the wagons and rally around McCain. Even Rush Limbaugh, who hates John McCain, has blasted the New York Times. We are outraged that a purportedly respectable newspaper would print such sleaze after delaying the story for several months, until John McCain secured the nomination and the New Republic, which we also hate, threatened to scoop the paper. We are tired of this kind of dirty politics. When revelations about Gary Hart's affair with Donna Rice torpedoed his campaign and Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, it was a different time. And if these allegations about McCain had come out eight years ago when they took place, they might have derailed his campaign, too. But that was before September 11; 9/11 changed everything.

Before 9/11 McCain would have been the first to admit that it is wrong for a President or a Presidential candidate to commit adultery. After all, he voted to impeach President Clinton. McCain has denied having a romantic relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, but even if the allegations are true, it isn't any of our business. We have more important things to worry about now than politicians' sex lives. I'm sure some liberals will think it's hypocritical to say that a sex scandal is no big deal now that it is a Republican who is being accused, but that is just another example of pre-9/11 thinking. Back in the 1990s impeaching Clinton was the right thing to do but now the rules have changed. 9/11 changed everything.

Before 9/11 it was the duty of the news media to pry into the sex lives of Presidential candidates. News organizations had to check into every allegation of sexual misconduct because that was their job. The public had a right to know every detail of what went on between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky no matter how tawdry. It was important back then to know about Bill Clinton's private life and worth spending millions of dollars to prosecute him. And the news media had no choice but to report on it. But now that we are at war in Iraq and engaged in a global war on terror, the news media should not be digging around in the dirt like a tabloid newspaper, wasting precious resources reporting on some trivial sex scandal. It just makes them look sleazy. 9/11 changed everything.

Before 9/11 McCain felt really bad about doing favors for campaign contributors. When it was pointed out back in 2000 that he had sent a letter to the FCC on behalf of a campaign contributor Paxson Communications, whose lobbyist was Vicki Iseman, he expressed sadness that our campaign finance system gave people the impression that politicians were bought and sold and that campaign contributions were a legalized form of bribery. "We're all tainted," McCain said. "We're all under suspicion as long as Washington is awash in special interest money." In 2002 he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Act to help dispel this false impression. What McCain didn't realize at the time was that this law put a wedge between politicians and companies' whose help might be needed not just to pay for expensive campaigns but also to aid in the War on Terror. For example, the government needed the help of telecommunications companies to spy on potential terrorists. In return McCain and other members of Congress are trying to get them immunity from being sued by angry customers who selfishly don't want to give up their privacy to fight terrorism and telecommunications companies are giving these politicians even more campaign donations. It's a system where everyone is happy as McCain eventually realized. McCain didn't understand how important it is to keep these lines of communication between big business and politicians open while we are fighting the War on Terror. He didn't understand that 9/11 changed everything.

One of the things that has worried conservatives about John McCain is that on many issues he seems to have had a pre-9/11 mindset, not just on campaign finance reform. But in the course of the campaign he has modified some his stances so that they are more in accord with the post-9/11 world. That doesn't mean that we are ready to trust him yet, but at least he seems to be moving in the right direction. He has opposed waterboarding and torture because he hasn't been able to get over being tortured himself in Vietnam. But since he has been running for President, he seems to have softened his stance a little, supporting a compromise that allowed the Bush Administration to torture a few people when it is really, really necessary to fight the War on Terror. Many conservatives will never forgive him for sponsoring legislation to reform immigration, which would grant amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants and leave our borders undefended. But now he is beginning to realize that we need to secure our borders to stop terrorists disguised as Mexican workers from streaming over and he doesn't seem so eager to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants who are already here, who could potentially be members of terrorist sleeper cells. He seems to realize that once someone has broken our immigration laws, they may feel that they can break other laws, too, like laws against terrorism. McCain also angered conservatives when he joined the Group of 14, which stopped the appointment of conservative judges who would not allow terrorists to be released because of technicalities like habeas corpus and rules against secret evidence and forced confessions. As a Presidential candidate he has promised to appoint these kinds of conservative judges who realize that the War on Terror cannot be hampered by abstract constitutional principles. Though he still has a long way to go, little by little, McCain seems to be more flexible with his principles, coming to terms with the fact that 9/11 changed everything.

Conservatives don't want to return to the days when politics were dominated by the dirty tricks of the Clintons, which is why we are relieved that Hillary appears to be going down to defeat and that Democrats are going to give Barack Obama the nomination. We want to discuss issues not engage in tit-for-tat scandal mongering. Many conservatives, with the exception of a few of the less reputable blogs, resisted spreading the allegation made by Larry Sinclair in a YouTube video and reported in the World Net Daily that Barack Obama did drugs and had gay sex with him even though Sinclair does not look crazy at all. Although some people might think that if Obama was going to have gay sex with someone, he would do it with someone a little more attractive and less emotionally unstable, Sinclair's allegations do contain some credible details, for example, the fact that Sinclair, who is white, says that he snorted powder cocaine, while Obama, who is, of course, black, smoked crack before they had sex. Everyone knows that statistics show black people are more likely to smoke crack so that would make sense. While most conservatives did not want to have to report on these allegations, the New York Times story has forced our hand. John Hawkins of the Right Wing News did link to the story "because not only does the Left side of the blogosphere have zero qualms about promoting this kind of story when it involves Republicans, the mainstream media has absolutely no qualms about it either," he says. The fact that the New York Times is willing to print innuendo about McCain but not take this story about Obama seriously, he says, just proves that there is a double standard.

But we conservatives don't want to wallow in sleaze. We really want to get back to discussing the issues, like the fact that Obama is a Communist "to the left of Mao" because everyone knows that in the 1960s only Communists married outside their race as Obama's parents did. "For a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics," wrote Dan Quayle's former speechwriter Lisa Schiffren in The Corner this week. (Of course, some white men, like Strom Thurmond had children with black women out of wedlock, but they certainly weren't Communists and they didn't marry the women.) Why isn't the New York Times writing about this? If the New York Times didn't have a political axe to grind, it would investigate whether the marriage of Obama's parents was part of a Communist plot to encourage miscegenation and undermine the security of this country, instead of dirtying this campaign with sleazy innuendo about John McCain's private life. Haven't we moved beyond this kind of politics? Didn't 9/11 change everything?

Share This Post



Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Vicki Iseman, John McCain, 2008 Election, Republicans, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, New York Times, New Republic, Politics