Will: Argue divided government
posted at 8:16 am on September 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
George Will offers John McCain some advice on how to keep the narrative now that Sarah Palin has captured the nation’s attention. Break out the power of the veto pen, Will advises, and remind voters that they need a counterbalance to a Democratic Congress. List the calamities that will follow without it — which Will helpfully provides:
The incumbent Republican president’s job approval is in the low 30s but is about 10 points higher than that of the Democratic-controlled Congress. The 22nd Amendment will banish the president in January, but Congress will then be even more Democratic than it is now. Does the country really want there to be no check on it? Consider two things that will quickly become law unless McCain is there to veto them or unless — this is a thin reed on which to depend — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has 40 reliable senators to filibuster them to deserved deaths.
The exquisitely misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would strip from workers their right to secret ballots in unionization elections. Instead, unions could use the “card check” system: Once a majority of a company’s employees — each person confronted one on one by a union organizer in an inherently coercive setting — sign cards expressing consent, the union would be certified as the bargaining agent for all workers. Proving that the law’s purpose is less to improve workers’ conditions than to capture dues payers for the unions, the law would forbid employers from discouraging unionization by giving “unilateral” — not negotiated — improvements in compensation and working conditions.
Unless McCain is president, the government will reinstate the equally misnamed “fairness doctrine.” Until Ronald Reagan eliminated it in 1987, that regulation discouraged freewheeling political programming by the threat of litigation over inherently vague standards of “fairness” in presenting “balanced” political views. In 1980 there were fewer than 100 radio talk shows nationwide. Today there are more than 1,400 stations entirely devoted to talk formats. Liberals, not satisfied with their domination of academia, Hollywood and most of the mainstream media, want to kill talk radio, where liberals have been unable to dent conservatives’ dominance.
It’s an interesting tactic: run against a Congress of which both candidates are members. That carries some obvious risk, as McCain’s long tenure in the Senate would make it look as though he’s part of the problem he attacks. However, under Democratic leadership, popular opinion of Congress has taken a nosedive into single digits. It seems to be the one unifying factor in America these days — almost everyone hates Congress.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen an outbreak of Congressmen jokes: A Representative, a Senator, and a lobbyist walk into an airport bathroom …
That argument also sounds almost cynical, in a way. The Republicans have been buoyed by recent polling that shows them within striking range of narrowing their gap in Congress or having a long-shot chance of taking the majority. A McCain call for divided government might sound like a white flag on Congressional elections. Would this argument throw cold water on voter enthusiasm to reject the 9%, do-nothing leadership of the House by telling voters not to worry about removing their Democratic incumbents if McCain wins?
However, Will may be right in this case. It’s more likely that the Democrats will keep the House, and there’s almost no way they can lose the Senate, with 23 Republican seats up for grabs and only 13 seats for Democrats to defend. There is little doubt that one-party rule by Democrats will result in both the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check getting written into law. Both of them would severely undermine the American practice of freedom, one by silencing free speech on the airwaves, and the latter by eliminating the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Card Check is a blank check for a spigot of money that will float Democrats in elections for generations, the only reason for its existence.
McCain needs to emphasize these two potential outcomes and cast himself as the last defense against these two destructive bills. It doesn’t have to be the only theme he uses, but it should be one of the arrows in the quiver.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Nah.
McCain’s reputation as a maverick would prevent that.
jgapinoy on September 18, 2008 at 8:22 AM
I’m not sure sure the Dems are going to have overwhelming victories in Congressional elections this year, Ed.
ManlyRash on September 18, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Might? It is a white flag. Is Will French?
mred on September 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM
I’m all for divided governments. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.
Lehosh on September 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM
The suggestion has merits, but smacks of defeatism.
AP might like it.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Run against The House, just kind of forget to mention the Senate.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Bravo gridlock . . . it beats the hell out of communism.
rplat on September 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM
well, if BO wins, we probably won’t have to worry about someone hacking into our email accounts because they will be under government survelliance anyway. For you and me.
bloggless on September 18, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Yeah. I tend to be happiest when government is doing the least to f up my life.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2008 at 8:27 AM
I’m not sure quite how effective the “divided government” argument would be since McCain’s biggest talking point is that he is not beholden to party. He’s always talking about his desire and talent for working across the aisle.
BigD on September 18, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Yeah Ed and AP seem to like defeatism. Almost as if they were secret Democrats. Michelle – Hot Air needs a housecleaning
bill30097 on September 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM
It seems that everything that is bankrupting now has the hands of the democrats all over it. Obama, being the most liberal candidate to ever run for the presidency is just a lightweight political hack with directions provided by others. He is a disaster looking for a place to happen. Biden merely provides the comedy to this dysfunctional duo.
volsense on September 18, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Let me guess:
One took a stance FOR increased taxes.
One took a stance AGAINST increased taxes.
AND
One just took a WIDE stance.
(Do I win anything?)
Yoop on September 18, 2008 at 8:31 AM
but, but, but…what about bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle, mah friends?
Fletch54 on September 18, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Yeah Ed and AP seem to like defeatism. Almost as if they were secret Democrats. Michelle – Hot Air needs a housecleaning
promachus on September 18, 2008 at 8:33 AM
If I were McCain, I would label them the “Do-nothing” Congress and push the idea that since he has been in Congress so long, only he knows how to get them back to work.
Kafir on September 18, 2008 at 8:33 AM
McCain needs to hammer down the soiled hands of the democrats and the mess they led the financial market to.
McCain and Palin need to initiate this argument. There is only so much talk radio and conservative blogs could do.
Even Rush said that this is an issue McCain can drive home and there is talk radio but they can only go so far.
McCain is the candidate for president and he should engage.
jencab on September 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Let’s say democrats manage to keep a lock on Congress and Obama seizes the White House.
Obama doesn’t like congressional democrats. Obama likes Obama.
Obama’s National Civilian Security Force can be unleashed on democrats too, the NCSF can smear them, quote them falsely in Spanish to create mob violence against them, and steal their e-mails too.
Divided government indeed. You old-fashioned JFK Democrats out there, you need a republican in the White House more than we do. I don’t think this Obama fellow is such a nice man, and you seem to play no role in his ambitions. When local thugs use eminent domain to take your family’s property away in retaliation for criticizing The One on the House floor, who will be there to help you? When pictures of your kids are posted on the left-wing hate sites to make you snap back in line, who will be there to help you?
Join us, please. McCain/Palin 2008.
jeff_from_mpls on September 18, 2008 at 8:35 AM
McCain could very well try this, but has to also consider the Congressional baggage he has:
2nd Amendment? Gun Owners of America’s assessment.
Judges? McCain voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg.
Illegal Immigration/Border Security? There’s a half-beaten, but not yet dead horse.
Free speech? Yeah, that McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform hasn’t been working out well…
I’ve written McCain off. If we’re serious about “change”, then we should start with Congress, not sit back and hope that someone with 25+ years in Congress will all of a sudden change his tune. A newly elected conservative Congress would have a much better chance of preventing bad legislation and poor judge confirmations than McCain as president would. McCain is part of the problem, not the solution.
Send_Me on September 18, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Isn’t George Will one of those “Northeast Corridor Conservatives” I read about somewhere else???? Who pays him? Who does he hang out with? Who is he usually trying to impress? Sounds to me like something Bill Clinton would say.
CC
CapedConservative on September 18, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Yes, indeed. Some people look at the insufficiencies, even serious problems, of McCain, and forget the effect of the alternative.
Indeed, though I will say, though, Ed has at least been more balanced and rational. At least he hasn’t been overtly trying to undermine support for the McCain-Palin ticket.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Liberals will retain the House,at 9 %,
how low can it get!!
canopfor on September 18, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Well, folks like Dick Durbin are up for reelection. I think it’d be pretty cool to get him booted.
http://www.sauerberg2008.com/index.aspx
http://www.moveondickdurbin.org/
Send_Me on September 18, 2008 at 8:42 AM
This title has the same sinister ring to it as “Pro-choice”.
It would mean the end of many small businesse that simply can’t afford to pay union goons. Painting this as a way to foil ultra-rich tycoons living off the sweat of their suffering serfs is probably how someone that never owned a business or tried to start a business, or never had a real job other than union goon or professional politican would see it, but it simply means messing with one of the key areas of the economy and the freedom that this country offers in the private sector.
This bill is a terryfying example of the economic “change” this country will see if the Dems remain in control.
Hening on September 18, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Slightly OT, but relevant to the overall theme:
Is Queen B**** Pelosi trying to push Charlie Rangel under the bus? Remember, Charlie was one of the last holdouts to abandon Hillary and come over to the Abomination.
either orr on September 18, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Wasn’t one of the guys,either at Freddie Mac,or
Fannie May,get paid 9 million,or was it 90
million,as a CEO,and was a former member of
the Clinton Administration and is a Liberal?
canopfor on September 18, 2008 at 8:45 AM
ONE PARTY RULE BY DEMOCRATS ushered in by Netgate and APgate.
Lest we forget,
Watergate was the stupid attempt to burglarize documents proving that the DNC directly produced prostitution at their convention.
In comparison,
Netgate wins WORST-TO-DATE-GATE hands down!
Netgate is not just burglary. Netgate was not to prove the RNC organization’s guilt of corruption for publication. Netgate not only has all of the legal ramifications that Ace/Spades posted yesterday regarding POTUS protection applying to candidates in campaign. Netgate, besides attempting to coerce the direction of the POTUS election, IS A HATE CRIME against the specified female minority VP candidate. And the AP are co-conspirators.
APGATE endorses hate crimes against heterosexual women POTUS VP candidates. APGATE endorses theft of personal identification from typical American families. APGATE proves that the AP believe we are their slaves, their property.
The Constitution does not grant the free press ownership of citizens as slave property.
maverick muse on September 18, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Allow me:
Fixed for you. No problem. Glad to help.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Liberals will retain the House,at 9 %,
how low can it get!!
canopfor on September 18, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Even though Democrat voters may rate the congress low,they love their own Democrat representative, so they keep voting for them
SKYFOX on September 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Union Bosses are grandfathered into Obama’s National Civilian Security Force.
Nice car you got there. So, ya votin’ union, chump?
jeff_from_mpls on September 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM
I’d definitely like to see this idea getting some press — there really are small-government independents who don’t warm to McCain for the obvious reasons. And if they’re wavering between the two candidates, the “divided government does less harm” meme could win them over.
But for all the reasons cited above, this shouldn’t be an argument the McCain campaign ever so much as acknowledges.
But it’s nice to see George Will doing his part to mobilize his slice of the GOP’s big tent.
…
My pathetic contribution to the joke files:
“A Representative, a Senator, and a lobbyist walk into an airport bathroom … ” but somehow it’s the American taxpayer who ends up getting screwed.
ClintACK on September 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM
This would help with the base, but I don’t know who else. Most people would be against the unfairness of the fairness doctrine, but it’ll get twisted into a referendum on “hate radio”, which we lose.
Similarly, card check is unpopular but it won’t be a motivating issue for many people besides union members, which McCain needs in OH, MI and PA.
BuzzCrutcher on September 18, 2008 at 8:49 AM
This strategy generates a 6.1 on the Eeyore Scale of Doom.
Akzed on September 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM
George Will makes the argument for late October, when sharp polling number shifts are less likely to occur. Making that argument in mid-September, before any of the four debates have occurred, would be like a football team game-planning to just play defense for the final two quarters of the game with the score tied.
jon1979 on September 18, 2008 at 8:52 AM
The Democrat America is a downright mean place.
No ifs, ands or buts about it. Who’s yo daddy?
Decency disappears as Democrats Progressively usher in Marx. That’s with or without Obama who would merely facilitate the ways and means of tearing down firewalls.
Whatever laws are on the books, they will be confounded to hurt you, not protect you just as the Democrats enable further corruption and destruction of our daily lives and our Constitution.
maverick muse on September 18, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Just say no to this advice.
Loxodonta on September 18, 2008 at 8:55 AM
It helps to remember that the current Congress is unpopular not because it is controlled by the Democrats but because it is ineffective. It hasn’t passed one major law that has relieved any problems. It’s a do-nothing Congress. And the reason it is a do-nothing congress is that even though one party technically has a majority, that majority is so razor thin that no serious law can pass. The Dems can’t push through their agenda and the Republicans of course have an even harder time. Plus you have a President who isn’t really interested in pushing through any more major legislation anymore.
This situation might very well change next year if the Dems indeed increase their majority in Congress. They will have an easier time breaking filibusters, plus the new President, whether McCain or Obama, will have a legislative agenda, and with it a willingness to cut deals in order to push that agenda through. So the next Congress will have a chance to look more effective and less partisan, which will increase their popularity.
factoid on September 18, 2008 at 8:56 AM
yep
maverick muse on September 18, 2008 at 8:58 AM
So I assume you’re aware of the following:
“1. Ammunition Restriction Study. Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Bill Frist (R-TN) offered this amendment to S. 1805. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called “cop killer” ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06. The amendment passed the Senate 85-12 on March 2, 2004.
2. McCain Gun Show Ban. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered a gun show amendment (to S. 1805) on March 2, 2004. His language would outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows, unless the buyer agrees to submit to a background registration check. Also, it could effectively eliminate gun shows because every member of an organization sponsoring a gun show could be imprisoned if the organization fails to notify each and every “person who attends the special firearms event of the requirements [under the Brady Law].” Thus, if the person responsible for handing out “Brady pamphlets” took a break to go to the bathroom, everyone responsible for the event could be sent to prison. The McCain amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53-47.
3. Lock Up Your Safety Requirement .This amendment, offered by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) on February 26, 2004, passed the Senate 70-27. This amendment would require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit “gun tax” by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad and implicit cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms. Of course, a locked gun then becomes unavailable for self-defense. The Kohl amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.”
Here’s some more if you like… But hey, believe what you will.
Send_Me on September 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM
What a brilliant approach…. Forget about my ideas, elect me so “that guy” doesn’t have too much power.
Forest Gump: My Momma always said “Stupid is as stupid does”
CC
CapedConservative on September 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM
As I said on another topic, Ed has at least not overtly tried to sink Mc/P. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
“Allah is in the House” was AP’s old blog. Here, it should be, “Get Allah out of the house!”
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM
+1
a fine joke, crisp narrative, well executed.
jeff_from_mpls on September 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
With the way things are going right now, that Democratic Congress that Will is referring to may not be Democratic after November. People are getting peeved off big time, and I think they may be taking on their frustrations on the current Party in power come Election Day.
pilamaye on September 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Reagan operated in a divided/democrat controlled state government and took his popular policies directly to the people……and WON most of his proposals. He did the same as a President. Common sense policies will always overtake partisan prejudices. Run-away government spending and BAIL-OUTS have got to stop. While McCain and Palin will attempt to put the brakes on, an Obama Presidency will be full steam ahead…….right over the fiscal cliff. The choice is easy.
Rovin on September 18, 2008 at 9:03 AM
On the ammo ban, the NRA (an organization far more successful than GOA, btw) actually accepted that. Note that it “would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called “cop killer” ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06.” This provision was offered to head off an actual ban. All this does is commission a study. Nothing will come of it. GOA is purist to the point of losing ground in legislation.
On the gun shows, I basically agree there. However, that is far better than Hussein’s five-mile “gun-store-free” radius around schools.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:06 AM
A few weeks ago Glenn Beck pointed out the last time we had liberal prez with Dem congress we got FDR/New Deal and LBJ/Great Society. Of course these programs are still with us. Social security, utterly unsustainable, medicare too, and welfare, that’s a mixed bag at best. Kids having kids, supported by the govt, no daddies, gangs, cycle of poverty. LBJ’s War on Poverty didn’t work out too well.
What will Obama do? He does want to soak the rich with taxes, which has to cripple the economy even more. Raise the soc. sec. tax threshold for high income-earners, breaking the trust of the original promise of soc sec, you put in a little, take out a little, not you put in so others can take out. It would become another govt program for the poor rather than a personal retirement supplement. Cap gains rates up, fed income tax rate up for top 5%, the other 95% get a tax CUT. ?! Hello? A lot of this would be pushed through. Because a new prez’s first year has the imprimateur of the people on it, Congress lets him have a good deal of what he wants. We voted him in, we made our choice, let Obama be Obama. And with a Dem congress … that much more of his agenda would pass. It’s a good argument for McCain/Palin.
Paul-Cincy on September 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM
On gun locks, this is a relatively small matter, the “cause of action” problem can be headed off by legislation, and it is far better than Hussein’s desire of the heart to have all guns locked up, period [reference to his friends in Chicago omitted].
Again, you are being unrealistic. Your efforts will get Hussein elected, and that would be far worse. Ideological purism such as yours is self-defeating.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
It’s remarkable they can’t pass any bipartisan legislation. They are really screwed up.
Paul-Cincy on September 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I’m willing to bet they’ve done their share of spending taxes, hardly leaving them as do-nothings. They certainly passed legislation requiring banks and s&l to loan mortgages to unqualified applicants INCLUDING ILLEGAL ALIENS amongst the “I deserve everything” American blood suckers who bought more than they could afford.
Congress needs to be sworn to FIRST DO NO HARM. Maybe they’d do less legislation binding America to self destruction.
Primum non nocere
maverick muse on September 18, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Tommygun,
As a longtime former Captain’s Quarters participant, I must disagree with you. Allahpundit and ED are a perfect combination that offer us perspectives that challenge the dialogue. If you want a one-sided cheerleading blog that fits your view, please feel free to find one.
Rovin on September 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM
TG, with all due respect, AP works here and you don’t.
BigD on September 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Howsabout running on reinvigorating the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just a thought.
Akzed on September 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
“Get Allah out of the house”!
Tommygun on Sept 18,2008 at 9:01AM.
Tommygun:There will be no talk of mutiny on the U.S.S
Hot Air during an election cycle!! haha.
canopfor on September 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Just keep providing the facts- a Dem in power is going to amplify the do nothing congress to intolerable levels.
Providing a nice picture of Harry, “not really a very good Mormon” Reid, and Nancy, “gimme another lemon to suck on” Pelosi, would be a nice touch.
anniekc on September 18, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I must disagree with you for two reasons:
1. “Perspectives that challenge” is not the same thing as “undermining the war effort,” and some alleged need for such “perspectives” does not justify such “undermining.” Lincoln called for removing Congressmen doing such things. I must agree. The Cause is more important than such academic exercise, which is destructive at any rate.
2. The more I look at Ed’s articles, the less defending I am of him. Ed is better than AP in some substantive ways, but my previous defenses of him are being shown to be flawed.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Is that me committing mutiny against the command of the ship, or the crew of the ship committing mutiny against the cause?
For which, I am eternally grateful, btw.
Of course, under a Hussein administration, no one might work here under Internet “fairness” laws, and “Allah” might have to get a new handle to avoid “offending” the new administration.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I’m not sure what respect is due there.
AP and Ed run this blog. Tommygun is someone who has the privilege of posting here. Hopefully the difference is obvious enough.
Esthier on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I think Troopergate could shine a light on a lot of the muck in Washington. Mike Wooten bragged that he could do whatever he wanted because he was a government insider with a union behind him. And look at how the establishment media and politicians have made PALIN the criminal for suggesting there was a problem with that “business as usual”.
What is happening to Palin from the lefties is strong-arm tactics, and people need to know that the democratic congress wants union powers to be able to use those tactics on every worker. You want your e-mails hacked? Fine. Vote democrat and you may as well have a bulls-eye target on your back for union thugs to shoot at. Sarah Palin won’t be the only “little guy” who has to face crap from America’s political machine.
The only weapon the “little guy” has against that machine is his ability to shine the light of day on it & get the public to apply free-market pressure to keep the power players honest, since those who are supposed to enforce the law and/or ethics are part of the political machine, the mob – the unionized Congress that won’t ever really go after one of its own no matter how corrupt.
But democrats want to take that weapon away too. For instance, every article saying that Palin’s e-mail was hacked would also have to say, “But some say she deserved it.” The Fairness Doctrine would silence alternative voices to the same MSM that is tearing Alaska apart looking for dirt with which to destroy a “little person” who dared to look Washington in the eyeballs.
The establishment media and the establishment Congress are scared shi!tless of you and me – the little people who just might be able to find a voice to counter their own, unless they are silenced for their own good. That’s why they have to coerce people into union taxation for the democrat party and silence dissent.
Chicago thuggery soon showing at your hometown.
If America is up to an earnest discussion about this, now would be a good time (perhaps the last chance) to have it.
justincase on September 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM
A lot of truth there. Good points!
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
And they are free to exercise their authority on this blog. At least, until the “fairness doctrine” tells them otherwise.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Nah. AP has a mean streak, but that’s about it.
captivated_dem on September 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
It’s tough to campaign on divided government, but it’s pretty clear that the most productive Congresses and Presidents in recent memory were the Democrats with Reagan in the 1980s and the Republicans with Clinton in the 1990s. Clinton was a miserable failure until he got a republican Congress that forced him to sign welfare reform and balance the budget.
I have joked with my friends for years that the ideal situation really is a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, preferably with a line-item veto. Democrats are better at spending money and doing the micro-stuff of government. Republicans are better at defending the nation and managing the bureaucracy (or at least we used to be, I can’t defend this Administration).
rockmom on September 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM
and
But all that being said, I do appreciate your point. I have made my point as to the effect of the current editorial practices, and others have seen it as well.
We can see what happens.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Off topic, nearly: yesterday while shopping, three clerks commented on my McCain button favorably. All three were in their 20’s-one asked where he could get a button, the other two, young women, like McCain more than Palin. Go figure.
Doug on September 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I hope that not a single one of us will tolerate such an anti-American law.
Esthier on September 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
No offense intended, but I sincerely doubt anything will happen. AP and Ed have been criticized before. I haven’t seen them ban anyone over it or even change their writing styles (thank God).
I wrote something because I consider those comments rude. If you don’t like what they’re doing, then you might prefer going somewhere else.
Esthier on September 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Your “point #1″ reeks of totalitarianism. Even Lincolns threats (while possibly justified) were illegal and itself threatened the constitutional right to criticize our government. While you use the term “undermining” to re-shape your argument, others are reminded of the totalitarian monarcys that proceeded our government where dissent was met with persecution. Very slippery slope here my friend.
Your #2 point inforces exactly what I wrote above. Your right to defend or dissagree with Ed and Allahs perspectives are clearly not in jeopardy, (even if a majority of the “crew” would have you thrown overboard or into the brig with no rations.:) Where else in this world could you find tolerance and dissent allowed in the same venue with out your life threatened by those who disagree with your views. By all means, speak your mind—-but I might suggest you practice the art of treading water. :)
Rovin on September 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I’m not quite clear that the Fairness Doctrine will come back with a Obama presidency, since I have the hope that some Democrats will realize how much the Fairness Doctrine violates the values of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, I fear much more that which we don’t know yet. Who could have predicted–at the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992–that the current turmoil in the housing market would be the result of tinkering by Democrats to help minorities buy houses? We simply don’t know what good intentions of the Democrats will lead to their next act of colossal stupidity. And it’s a waste of time to even try to predict what it will be. Instead, we need to think about Democratic economic policy being like a hurricane wondering in the Gulf of Mexico and us having no idea where it will hit shore.
thuja on September 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Great one, Lehosh…and fortunately, in the past, the American people have very clearly voted for divided government many times. Even my home state of Kansas–generally regarded as the most Republican state in the union–regularly puts in a Democratic governor.
In discussions of “gridlock,” I often hear people refer with admiration to the British parliamentary system, in which, of course, the head of the majority party is also the chief of state. That admiration tells me everything I need to know about that person’s view of government in general.
glendower on September 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM
As you can tell from my screen-name, I am a big fan of divided government.
gridlock2 on September 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM
What I’d like to see happen is for you to start your own blog.
The world will flock to it, I’m sure. For the righteousness.
Nichevo on September 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I’m a big fan of divided government. It reduces the amount of damage Congress can do. That Orwellian “Free Choice” business is just off the scale. I can’t believe that would stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, but it might if Obama is the one appointing the judges. What’s next, having some Democrat ward heeler “helping” you complete your ballot in every election? Fascism is alive and well on the left.
doppelganglander on September 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Precisely what Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, on Greta, explained – how dangerous it w/b for this country to hand all over to Obama, under Pelosi/Reid.
This lady, Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a democrat for Hillary, gave W. Blitzer the most elegant shelacking I’ve ever seen. She will be an incredible asset to the McCain/Palin ticket, and she said on Greta that she told her family that she’d campaign until the hour of voting.
Entelechy on September 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Interesting predicament for McCain. Siding against Congress seems to me a no-brainer. Of course the backlash can be answered by in one line.
Which do you think was a more formative experience in John McCain’s life: 26 years in Congress or 5 1/2 years as a POW?
Answer: Obama does not know hard times. McCain does. Hard times don’t last, but hard leaders do. McCain has toughness that Obama can only dream and write about. McCain is a leader, Obama is a figurehead. Case closed.
Angry Dumbo on September 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
None of that sounded particularly unreasonable.
Personally, I would be for a ballistics test of every gun before it is sold.
Count to 10 on September 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
A better way
Will’s advice is divisive. The better way would be for
McCain/Palin to campaign on behalf of republicans running for both houses.
Their pitch in each case would be along the lines of: We need help. A veto is a negative thing – if the democrats win, I’ll be vetoing legislation like the sham energy bill, like the free choice act,, and we’ll end up fighting them on every issue for another four years. but if you send “Joe” to congress, then together we can achieve positive things like a real energy bill, like… and so on and so on.
Paul Murphy on September 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Run an add with a petite woman holding her child who is approached by a large mean union thug who then trys to force her to sign the card. Show him on her doorstep like a hitman from The Sopranos and then show her looking at him outside her drapes and then to her child as a tear forms, then her slowly take the card and drop it in the garbage.
Union thug intimidation is what that bill is all about.
No secret ballot to protect voters from the vicious intimidation of the unions.
My Dad was in a teachers union in CA for years. He obviously HATES the union.
Sapwolf on September 18, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Tell me you’re joking. McCain’s reputation as a “maverick” rests entirely on his willingness to shaft his own party and work with the left wing of the Democrats. I’m not seeing how that makes him an effective countweight to a Democratic Congress. His immediate instinct would be to work with them to pass all sorts of far-left bills. Hell, that’s what he’s been doing in the Senate.
flenser on September 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
That is completely unresonable. Ballistics tests are a joke. They have no value whatsoever.
flenser on September 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Was it my imagination or did this post come out under Michelle’s byline this morning? Maybe I didn’t have enough coffee.
I consider myself a defender of the constitution and a limited government advocate before I am a Republican. There is no more clear evidence that Republicans cannot be trusted any more than Democrats with united government than the first six years of the Bush administration. Out of control spending, rampant corruption, biggest new entitlement program since LBJ, explosion of earmarks, massive deficits, gutting habeas corpus, immigration, on and on. The Dems will be hard pressed to match that record, but I’d rather not find out if they can get there by giving them all the keys.
I have been beating the divided government drum for two years on my blog. I voted for John Kerry to get divided government in 2004 and lost. I supported a straight Dem ticket in 2006 to get divided government and won. This year I will vote to re-elect divided government by supporting John McCain.
This scholarly article from a Constitutional lawyer puts more than a little academic cred behind the divided government thesis.
Anyway, Ed – FWIW I recently initiated a “Coalition of the Divided” blogroll for anyone who says anything vaguely positive about divided government. You are now a member in good standing.
mw on September 19, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Comment pages: