Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

March 29, 2005

Mort Kondrake

Filed under: Media,Politics — Bunker @ 10:25 am

I am a fan of his, and pay close attention to his analysis of political issues. His article today, which touches on his personal life, speaks volumes:

What’s dismaying is the knee-jerk tendency among liberals and conservatives to rush so passionately to one side or the other in this case. It has more to do with winning the culture war than helping Terri Schiavo, whose fate should rest on medical fact, not political posturing.

Mort lived through this with his own wife. And I would beg each of you to read what he has to say about Terri and ask yourself the tough questions he does.

March 25, 2005

McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 7:07 pm

The purported reason for BCRA (McCain-Feingold) was to get big-donor money out of election campaigns. Worked beautifully, didn’t it?

Let’s go back and ask why that law was necessary. Was it because Dubya won the election in 2000 riding a wave of huge donations? After all, the Republicans get all those rich folk to donate to them. People like George Soros? In 2000, Bush received money from donors that averaged $300. Gore’s donors gave an average of $800.

No, I guess that wasn’t the reason.

Perhaps the reason for BCRA was to prevent anyone other than politicians and their campaigns from buying air time. Well, of course all television, radio, and news media were exempt. That was the first red flag I saw. If only networks and local stations could provide campaign information, money had to be passed under the table or people like McCain had already figured they would get good press. And, of course, incumbents can always get air time.

My view of McCain-Feingold at the time was that the two major political parties and the incumbents had already figured out how to work their way around the law or none of them would have supported it. I didn’t then know about John McCain’s “non-partisan, non-profit foundation (which also happens to berate the President for not pushing ratification of the Kyoto Treaty). How many other career politicians have such a foundation?

Most politicians are honest, sincere people. But they’re politicians. They like their perks, and that means getting reelected. And they like control over that.

That is what BCRA was really all about. Control of the “election dialog.” Most of us understood that at the time. And recent events have done nothing but add emphasis to that view.

At first, McCain and others made noise about wanting to do something to do away with the freedom people have to form 527 organizations. Of course, the only one of those that had any real impact on the last election was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And they certainly weren’t “big money” folks. They barely scraped together enough money to put together their first television ad. So, that reason is a non-starter.

But wait. The Swifties got up a head of steam because of the blogosphere. And, by the way, bloggers were behind the downfall of Dan Rather’s fake memos.

Loss of control.

So, the FEC are convinced they must do something to rein in blogs. I wonder who convinced them.

There is a lot of information floating around on the topic. Ryan Sager has made it his mission. I hope to provide some information and analysis myself. And there is a copy of the first draft of the rules to be considered by the FEC over at Redstate.org. You might want to compare it to the one they released after the blogswarm. And Hugh Hewitt, a lawyer who has dealt with such things before, has some powerful advice for all who read and write blogs.

Right now, all I can do is point you in the right direction for keeping tabs on this issue. And if you think this is a partisan endeavor, think again. We are all in this together. People like John McCain are more concerned with their own staus and power than they are with our rights. And you can rest assured, the FEC commissioners are not making their judgements in a vacuum. They have plenty of help from Capitol Hill.

They need to hear from all of us. I will post any comments I submit to them. Feel free to post any you submit in the comments. As soon as the minutes from Thursday’s meeting and the resulting rules proposals are posted on their site, I’ll let you know. There is some concern on their part right now. The Ex parte communication from U.S. Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold and U.S. Representatives Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan linked on the site has never been available any time I’ve tried to access it.

So much for open government. As Glenn Reynolds said, “In fact, I told somebody that we should sleep soundly, because we have the word of two senators that nothing will come of this. And if you can’t rely on the word of two senators…you’re in Washington!”

March 22, 2005

McCain Again

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 7:58 am

Ryan Sager is the go-to guy on hypocricy on the Campaign Finance Reform front. Once again, this time at Tech Central Station, he his trying to follow the money in the push for “reform” by people like John McCain. I have to say, again, that I once admired John McCain. No more.

When blogs are being looked at by the FEC, and assurances that we aren’t being targeted don’t appear to be very heartfelt, you must be concerned about what the final outcome will be. And what is the final result the “reformers” want.

That’s because campaign-finance reform is not a “movement” as its proponents have claimed, it is a lobby — funded and orchestrated by eight very liberal foundations which fooled Congress and the American people into believing that the front groups they set up were grassroots organizations.

I don’t care whether the groups are liberal, conservative, or Martian. The First Amendment gives a guarantee of freedom of speech to individuals, not groups, or foundations, or 527s. Yet those are the groups which want to limit an individual’s rights.

I’ve still not heard back from my “representatives.” Time for another message, and one to the White House for good measure.

March 17, 2005

Originalists

Filed under: Government,Politics — Bunker @ 8:32 am

Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, spoke to a group at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Jeffrey King transcribed the speech from tape, a diligence I certainly appreciate. And I have added his blog to my list.

Scalia calls himself an “originalist” rather than a “strict constructionist”, and I think that term fits much better. And he explains why he defines the two differently.

More important, he talks about what the Constitution is really about, and how we ended up where we are today with the Senate.

I think the very terminology suggests where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.

And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years.

He summed up the issue quite well, thank you.

It is precisely the point to be made. If you don’t like something, get the laws changed. Don’t go to court. The courts are supposed to be there to protect your rights, not to impose your desires on others. And if the majority impose their beliefs on you through law that infringes on your rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, the courts are supposed to strike down those laws.

It’s really a pretty simple concept.

The crux of all issues in the Senate at this time is abortion. The Democratic Party holds this issue as their most important rallying point. They will accept no nominee to the Supreme Court who is unwilling to state they will protect Roe v. Wade without question. And right now, they are unwilling to allow Dubya to put anyone onto the Court unless they are “moderate.” Read Scalia’s speech and see how he destroys the entire concept of “moderate judges.”

March 16, 2005

Gubernatorial Election

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 8:06 am

Let’s talk politics. Texas politics. Texas Gubernatorial Politics.

I know. Most of you don’t care. You aren’t Texan. But it might interest you, regardless.

The run for Governor culminates next year, and Rick Perry may have some competition just to get the Republican nomination. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is considering leaving the Senate to stay in Texas full time.

But another candidate has already made his availability known. And he won’t be entered in the primary. Richard “Kinky” Friedman wants to be Governor.

I want to see him do it. I’d be pleased just to see him actually make it on the ballot. For that to happen, we need 50,000 signatures from registered voters who do not vote in either the Democratic or Republican primaries. And only a short time to make it happen.

I’ve signed up as a volunteer for the Kinky Campaign. I especially don’t like the way the two major parties have come together in one simple thing–making it difficult for anyone else to place a candidate on the ballot. This is the primary issue that drives me on Kinky’s candidacy. That arrogance.

But there are other reasons as well.

Our icons are being demeaned. Cowboys are no longer heroes for our children, but subject to derision. We are being laughed at instead of respected in the rest of the country. What has happened to our glorious heritage? This is the great state of Texas! We are not wusses, we are Texans. We will beat back the wussification of Texas if we have to do it one wuss at a time.

He also stands for better control of education spending. That doesn’t mean he wants less spending, but he wants to see education dollars used effectively. He says teachers are heroes, and that the teaching profession has been demeaned; Teaching is looked upon as just another job. He wants to lift expectations–spiritually. I don’t agree with all he has to say on the topic, but I think he is the kind of man who would listen to different ideas without regard to who might not like seeing him listen to others. And spirituality is key, as he told Bill O’Reilly.

O’REILLY: So you want to run on — are you conservative? Are you liberal? What are you?

FRIEDMAN: No, I wouldn’t say I was either one of those. I think that’s the problem. The Democrats got a good idea, the Republicans shoot it down. The Republicans have an idea, the Democrats kill it. I mean, I’m not for the parties. I’m for Texas.

O’REILLY: You’re for Texas.

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

O’REILLY: But I don’t know what that means. See, now you’re sloganeering, and you don’t like that.

FRIEDMAN: Well, it means the campaign is not a political one, it’s a spiritual one.

O’REILLY: Spiritual.

FRIEDMAN: Yes.

O’REILLY: Wow! The ACLU are not going to support that.

FRIEDMAN: No, they’re probably not.

I have invited bloggers from around the state to come visit us here in Corpus Christi in May. I have also invited Kinky. No word yet on whether he will make it, but I hope to have him here to discuss being a Texan, and what that really means. Sometimes we forget.

This isn’t about political parties, although groups have always appalled me. It is about opening up the political system for regular folks. Most people are uninterested, and that’s why we end up with career politicians who serve themselves and their friends first, and their true constituents only as an afterthought. Sloganeering is the currency of most campaigns, and election is the end, not the means. That must change. I think Kinky can do it.

Money can buy you a fine dog, but only love can make him wag his tail.

March 14, 2005

Homespun Symposium XVI

Filed under: Politics — Bunker @ 10:07 am

The McCain-Feingold Act was written to give traditional media more power in the coverage of national campaigns. It was obvious to all who paid attention to deliberations at the time. The restrictions placed on placing campaign ads on television and radio did nothing except limit anyone but “news” organizations from commenting. The proclaimed goal was to eliminate “soft money” from influencing elections, yet really did nothing except pass this regulatory power to the FEC–a non-elected entity. The soft money simply went elsewhere. And it came out in even greater force in 2004. McCain is now pushing to restrict that. More restrictions, never a real solution.

Incumbents love the media. They can get face time on television just about any time they want, and voters seldom remember anything about their film clip except the name. And that is good–for them. But there may be another reason why there is a media exemption in the law:

No wonder McCain-Feingold contained a “media exemption.” The media — on top of having their voices amplified when private citizens, labor unions and corporations are barred from speaking — are relatively easy to write some checks to. (Millions of bloggers, on the other hand, might be a little harder to corral — hence the calls for a crackdown.)

I can tell you from personal experience that bloggers are definitely difficult to corral. I have an email address as “wormherder” at a group blog for a reason.

When McCain-Feingold was enacted, there was little doubt that the major parties and incumbents had already figured out a way around it. So it is with one of its authors, Senator John “Maverick” McCain. As Ryan Sager points out, McCain is the Chair of the Advisory Committee for the Reform Institute:

The Institute, according to its Web site, is technically a not-for-profit 501( c )(3) organization, “representing a thoughtful, moderate voice for reform in the campaign finance and election administration debates.”

In reality, however, the organization might better be dubbed McCain 2008 headquarters. The head of the Institute’s advisory committee is none other than McCain, and his name appears in every other press release. What’s more, the manager of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, Rick Davis, is president of the institute and draws a $110,000 a year “consulting fee” — at least until the official campaign gets underway.

Major donors who wish to flatter the senator’s vanity and give a boost to his presidential ambitions can write checks to the Institute in amounts that would be illegal many times over (under McCain-Feingold) if the checks went to the actual McCain campaign.

The foundation lists donors from 2001 to 2004. It was founded about the time the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was being written. Coincidence? No. The foundation was formed to promote the McCain-Feingold legislation.

This biggest problem I can see with Campaign Finance Reform as it stands, and as people perceive it, is that the focus is on monetary donations. Attempting to restrict the way people “voice” their preferences by using their checkbook is absolutely the wrong approach. But there are some changes in financing that might make it a little more effective.

At the end of a campaign, a candidate must empty his campaign coffers into a common fund. This money will be divided equally among the various candidates across the country for the same level of office next election. That is, all the money which comes from senatorial campaigns will be divided among the candidates running for the Senate in the next election. Use it or lose it. No building up your treasury chest over the years for a big final push at some later date or for some higher office. No saving of that money for your retirement by putting it into a non-profit organization which you will eventually chair, and no passing it along to some other candidate. Done.

No candidate for the House or Senate may accept money from someone outside his constituency boundaries. A candidate for the Senate can accept contributions from only within the state. A candidate for the House can only accept donations from people within that District.

Political parties cannot accept donations from anyone except candidates and individuals.

Finally, and most important, only individual American citizens may donate to a political campaign. No organization can contribute.

Better still, in my view, would be laws dictating how that money is spent. Having lots of money means nothing if you aren’t allowed to spend it freely. If you restrict spending of campaign finances, having exorbitant amounts means nothing.

Candidates for President are allowed only two visits to each state. They are allowed an additional visit during the primary in that state. If they use all three during the primary, they are not allowed to campaign there during the general election campaign.

Candidates for the Senate and House must travel via car or bus for campaigning during the year of the election. They are allowed to fly from Washington to their home. From there, all travel is on the highways. An exception is granted for visits to towns more than 300 miles from their home. Senate candidates are required to visit at least 50% of the cities in their state with population greater than 100,000 and 25% of towns smaller than that. House candidates must visit every town in their district at least once during election year. A visit is defined as a speech before the general public in an open forum, with at least one hour of open question and answer. Incumbents may not miss more than 10% of votes on bills during their campaign. Resolutions and other such nonsense are excluded.

Perhaps those numbers need work. I’m sure our Congress can put together a Blue-Ribbon Bipartisan Panel to hash them out. That would take a couple of election cycles, I’m sure.

What can bloggers do to improve the campaign finance laws? Write. What can all Americans do? Write–to your Congressman and Senators. If they aren’t flooded with letters, nothing good will hapen. And the Incumbent Protection Act will simply get stronger in favor of those in power.

Dagney’s Rant
Major Dad 1984
Ogre’s Politics and Views
XBIP

March 10, 2005

Accountability

Filed under: Media,Politics — Bunker @ 7:38 am

Politicians, newspapers, celebrities, and major television networks all claim that blogs are not accountable in the same way they are. That is true. It is also disingenuous. Blogs are certainly accountable, and in ways far more direct and dynamically than are those other entities.

If you were to ask a newspaper’s leadership how they are more accountable than are blogs, you would probably hear a list of accountability something like this:

“A reporter is accountable to his editor. The editor is accountable to the publisher. The publisher is accountable to the owner. The owner is accountable to the advertisers”

Who is missing from that list? Readers. Same for television news. Without readers/viewers, advertisers don’t pay.

Governor Rick Perry’s spokesman made it clear the other day that politicians in Austin, like politicians everywhere, don’t like being questioned without having some control over the questioning.

“The general public has to realize on blogs . . . there are no controls on accuracy or honesty. And there’s no accountability.

“People need to be very careful with what they read in the blogs. Most blogs seem to be run with a pretty severe liberal bent.”

Obviously, they don’t read blogs. If you want a severe liberal bent, you can find it. You can also find a severe conservative bent. And everything in between.

What controls on accuracy and honesty do you want? Mine are based on personal integrity. I won’t write anything I know to be false. Nor will I write on something I have doubts about, or something I know little about without stating I have doubts or too little information. Failing to do that, I can expect rapid response from readers with more knowledge than I have. And the ultimate accountability in the blogosphere is someone linking to an error on their own site and telling the entire world how stupid you are! The other seven million bloggers pretty much follow that same standard, regardless of political leanings. The percentage of bloggers who don’t is far smaller than that percentage in traditional media.

That’s nothing new, of course. Since the beginnings of this Nation, politicians have been taken to task by the people. As newspapers became the prevalent mode of distributing information, journalists took charge of the political discourse as their own turf. They did it in much the same way as blogs are now doing. Editors became, in their minds, Don Quixote armed with a press. In revolutionary France, journalists were the “Fourth Estate,” taking their place alongside the aristocrats, clergy, and citizens. MSM believe themselves to still hold that place, separate from the rest of us.

They have forgotten their roots, as have the politicians. Bloggers are Thomas Paines with keyboards and electrons and phosphors. Paine was accountable to his readers, and nobody else. So are we.

Politicians and MSM are having difficulty coming to grips with this new paradigm (I hate that word, but it fits). Their relationship, built over the years, is being called into question. So is their collective reputation. No longer can a politician with good press relationships (Kerry, McCain, Byrd) see his own missteps covered up. Nor can a politician with bad press relationships (Dubya) be taken to task without accusations being questioned (Rather). Bloggers quickly find chinks in their armor and a swarm develops.

Is that good? For the most part, yes. It can also cause harm. And that is something we need to watch.

But the Digital Gazette is a self-correcting entity. Those who make personal attack and unfounded innuendo their foundation will soon be shunned except by those who are virulently hard-core like themselves. Readers. Accountability.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress