Senator
McCain, and all your "reformist" meddlers: You mucked
it up, big time, in your narrow-minded and self-serving incumbent-protection
scheme.
|
Blame
John McCain for the Campaign Ads
During
the course of this rotten-to-the-core campaign year, some phrases
have been repeated über ad nauseum. We may not have picked
your most detested, but ours is, "Hi, Im Johnny Scum,
and I approved this message."
Since
no one but an insane, imbecilic, lying weasel would have approved
the vicious screed that follows, the candidates must have substantial
reason for confessing to drive-by slander, de facto perjury and
irritable mouth syndrome. All that on your TV, in your living room,
where you were all snug just trying to watch reality hotties (male,
female and other) while waiting to meet your Canadian flu shot connection.
"Honey,
the President just approved saying the Senator is Osamas French
half-brother whose mother then married her first cousin."
"Thats
nothing, sweetheart. The Senator just approved saying Teresa loves
Rosie ODonnell, and hes inviting Christopher Reeve to
the inauguration."
Nay,
friends, the candidates are not telling you they approve their Moorewellian
crud sling because they want to.
John
McCain made them do it. The rule, called "stand by your ad,"
against which Loretta Lynn should have sued and still could, is
one of those oh-so-precious details of McCains much-vaunted
campaign finance reform. It requires, through official U.S. Government
edict, that a candidate appear in political ads and say those words.
It was pushed by buzzed-out busybodies in bowties, some of the same
bunch that condemns dodge ball as cruel and lobbies for transgender
restrooms in grammar schools. Sensitive people who want to save
the shrimp and set up animal courts.
The
goofball rationale for "stand by your ad" was that it
would curtail the over-the-silo, under-the-cellar rhetoric of attack
ads. Why, no candidate for public office in these United States
of America would dare say such stuff if he or she had to personally
approve it, in person and on air.
That
worked out really well, didnt it?
In
actuality, the requirement has only sliced away some of the time
for the real campaign messages and violated the First Amendment
by both constraining and compelling political speech at the same
time, not an easy feat. In other words, you cant say what
you want to say unless you say what we say you must say. Got that?
Read it again, because thats exactly what it means. Sometimes,
that quaint notion of government "of, by and for the people"
gets a bit muddled in the hands of those whom "we the people"
elect to run it for us.
Here
are some messages we approve:
Senator
McCain, and all your "reformist" meddlers: You mucked
it up, big time, in your narrow-minded and self-serving incumbent-protection
scheme. We said so at the time, and the evidence is in, on "stand
by your ad" and a lot more of your legislation. Please go away
now.
President
Bush: You should never have signed the aforementioned in the belief
that the Supreme Court would do the right thing and squash it like
a bug. You need a mistake to refer to? Try that one.
Supreme
Court: If the First Amendment does not mean what it says, you have
muffed badly your extra-judicial interpretation thereof. Please
correct your mistake at your earliest convenience. Well
be working to get you cases to make it easier.
Candidates
All, Great and Small: You are running to represent us in what we
need our government to do. We have differing views on that, so we
elect some of you to sort it out for us. We are not electing you
just because you cant find other gainful employment. What
you have done and will do, what your opponents have done and will
do should be part of your messages to us. External constraint of
those messages is wrong. Internal restraint is a guide to your character.
Since religion has become a significant factor in this election,
we suggest you re-read Dante. Dont even bother asking what
Jesus would do this time out, because, from the best we can tell,
not one of you is anywhere close. (If we are wrong on this point,
please show us your ads and we shall issue a retraction.) We may
not soon escape voting for the lesser scumbag, but some of you might
do well to at least pose more convincingly.
[Posted
October 21, 2004]
|