Branch Rickey on March 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM

I think we finally understand each other. I get you point about none of the AS signatories being the nominees as well. I just think the hyperbole of it being the WORST EVER was a bit much, but BCRA is a fresher wound for sure.

Do you understand “war-time” vs. 60 days before an election?

Indeed I do, however I still think that the A & S act was a FAR greater attack on 1st Amendment Rights (the Quasi-War was a pretty shoddy excuse) than McCain Feingold. Also, where does it say your firs[t] amendment rights go away in time of war?
Who says its ok to jail journalists and editors? Not meaning to condecend but I didnt think we were connecting very well on what I saw as the issue.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Where does it say it’s o.k. to excessively fine and threaten jail time if you bring up a candidate’s record 60 days prior to an election in a broadcast advertisement? McCain-Feingold. This is not an abuse of the fundamental right of free political discourse? Taking away an entire medium from voters in order to protect, essentially, an incumbent’s seat isn’t a “slippery slope?”

OK, so you think that “quasi-war” time measures are unnecessary when there are known traitors working in journalism not as a free expression of political discourse but to purposefully incite riots over things which did not occur? I don’t know your answer, just asking. Yes it is ok to jail journalists and editors if they break the law, imho. Ok, I think we are actually arguing the same points that both incidents take away freedom of speech but the contexts are quite different. Plus, none of those involved with the A & S are the current nominee of the republican party in ’08.

I just think McCain has a lot to hide. And I don’t think his answers about Vicki Iseman were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. His statement (that they “did not have a romantic relationship”) seemed very Clinton-esque. I don’t care if the relationship was “romantic”, I care if it was “inappropriate” in any way.

Similarly, his statement “At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust” could be interpreted along the Clinton lines that personal sexual conduct is none of the public’s business, so it doesn’t betray the public trust. But, did he betray his wife’s trust? I certainly think the pictures of that week (from the way his wife looked at him on the eve of victory to the way she looked at him only a day or two later after the story had broken) tell stories of thousands of words. I think he did betray his wife’s trust. At this point, that’s just my thoughts. But I wouldn’t be surpised if other evidence emerges. I think it is exactly that evidence that McCain fears (and the reason for his “Oh no!” comment).

Red Pill on March 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM

YOu are just dying for something…anything…

sad really

Some analysts say that could explain his amazing vigor on the campaign trail at the age of 72….

I would have strongly recommended going back and examining the last 12 months of Dick Morris’ columns, and transcripts of his opinions from interviews (e.g., O’Reilly), prior to citing him as a prognosticator of any merit. At one time or another, Dick Morris has nearly opined every possible viewpoint, and has pronounced each with all the seeming authority of Moses himself, as to what was definitely going to happen come the end of the week!

The only problem has been that in expressing those various and several prognostications, Morris has virtually littered the political landscape with busted predictions!

Here is just one — I’m paraphrasing, but he said it repeatedly: Unless Condi Rice gets into the race, Hillary will be the President come January, 2009.

So, citing him for what will now happen, is a little like buying a lottery ticket — eventually you might be proven right!

Red Pill on March 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Better than nothing.

Left out of the entire equation is poor John McCain. Unable to get a word in edgewise and unsure of which Democrat to attack, he will have to watch from the sidelines as Hillary and Obama hog the headlines. If the superdelegates deliver the nomination to Hillary in the dead of night without leaving fingerprints at the crime scene, McCain’s nomination will be worth having. If Obama prevails, it won’t be worth the paper on which it is written. The giant killer, Obama will have soared to new heights of popularity and McCain won’t be able to bring him back to Earth in the nine weeks that will remain.

-Dick Morris

Do you understand “war-time” vs. 60 days before an election?

Indeed I do, however I still think that the A & S act was a FAR greater attack on 1st Amendment Rights (the Quasi-War was a pretty shoddy excuse) than McCain Feingold. Also, where does it say your firs amendment rights go away in time of war?
Who says its ok to jail journalists and editors? Not meaning to condecend but I didnt think we were connecting very well on what I saw as the issue.

So being suspected of a crime during wartime

Do you even know what I am referencing?

John Adams, Lincoln, and Wilson wholesale jailed newspaper editors for exercising 1st Amendment rights.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Yes, Mr. Condescending Squid, I do know to what you are referencing. Do you understand “war-time” vs. 60 days before an election?
Thanks to McVAIN and his slush fund pals running an issue ad will get you more than just imprisonment. Heck, Rush Limbaugh got censured by the senate. Wake up. You obviously fought for freedom and so now is probably not the time to be blinded by a wolf in sheep’s clothes.

Really?

Yes really.

So being suspected of a crime during wartime

Do you even know what I am referencing?

John Adams, Lincoln, and Wilson wholesale jailed newspaper editors for exercising 1st Amendment rights.

He claims to be a champion of freedom but gave us McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform — which, by limiting free speech during elections, is perhaps the greatest infringement ever on the First Amendment.

YEP!

I am sure those jailed for the Alien and Sedition Act would beg to differ and those locked up by Lincoln, Wilson and FDR would also have something to say.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 8:03 AM

So being suspected of a crime during wartime equates with sitting senators telling the American people to “shut up” with issue ads naming the “candidates and their records” (of all things – their records!) while they are trying to re-establish their taxpayer slush job for six more years. Really?

Or a downright mean beanball?