The notion that democracy has already been lost, as we begin what will obviously be a hard fought election season in which virtually anything can and will be said, could be dismissed as rather typical Washington rhetorical overkill. But the notion that democracy would be advanced – saved, “restored” – by limiting speech is nothing but a perversion of the English language. It brings to mind George Orwell’s observation, in his enduring essay “Politics and the English Language,” that “[i]n our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” and that the word “democracy,” in particular, “has several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with each other” and “is often used in a consciously dishonest way.” So let me say in the most direct manner that it is deeply, profoundly, obviously undemocratic to limit speech about who to elect to public office.
IN THE COMMENTS: Tyrone Slothrop said "Ted Cruz was similarly awesome yesterday":
Posts
45 comments:
Ted Cruz was similarly awesome yesterday.
Go get 'em, Floyd!
Up next, Harry Reid exposes the nexus between First Amendment lawyers and the Koch brothers' evil world domination machine...
Politicians seek to squelch criticism by taking away the means to do so. Campaign finance laws are anti-democratic. Pure and simple.
A complete waste of time. 66 Senators?
2/3 of the House?
3/4 of the states approving?
Even though it is by definition an incumbent protection amendment, I can't see it happening.
Awesome. However, we wouldn't want to limit Susan Rice's ability to become a great Orwellian actor. Maybe they cold get her to come and speak in support of the amendment.
Ted Cruz didn't believe one word of that nonsense he spoke about.
Aside from being undemocratic, this amendment simply would not make our politicians more responsive or less corrupt. The only way to reduce corruption and influence peddling is to reduce the amount of influence our government has to sell. Until you do that I do not see how anyone would think it is even possible to keep money out of politics.
Any response from John "regulate all campaign money" McCain?
Drill SGT, it's pure Kabuki. Most Heavy Hitter money goes to Democrats. This is just a a tactical proposal to obscure that fact and to use to smear Republicans (and Libertarians, seems we're joining the Big Time) for November.
SJ19 bill sponsor and its 42 co-sponsors.
Pat Leahy 39 years in Congress. How about a term limits bill.
The fact that at least 40 Democratic senators have signed on to this travesty proves the Democratic party and its supporters can no longer rightfully claim the adjective liberal.
Rush habitually calls the opponents of conservatism liberals. I think he's been wrong all along, and today he is clearly wrong. The opponents of conservatism in America are not liberals. Liberals are extinct. The opponents are fascists, and need to be labelled as such.
No good scheming cocksuckers is what these Dem senators are.
It's a perversion. And also a lie. Does Abrams work for the NYT anymore? For any liberal organization? How many liberal organizations are there that vigorously promote free speech?
It's hard to keep straight what is settled law that people should stop fighting and what is a poor decision people are obligated to oppose.
Thank God Dems figured it out, eh?
John McCain already tried this because he got hosed by Buffett and the millionaires billionaires.
How does Cruz do it without cliches, and a teleprompter?
I don't believe a word of the nonsense that you talk about, garage
It always strikes me funny when people pitch these ideas to the very people they're trying to get us to believe are NOT in charge. You'd think if they really believed that, they'd seek out the Secret Masters in their underground lair and give them the spiel instead.
"The only way to reduce corruption and influence peddling is to reduce the amount of influence our government has to sell."
Yes.
"Until you do that I do not see how anyone would think it is even possible to keep money out of politics."
There are two categories of "anyones" here. The naive and the corrupt.
"No good scheming cocksuckers is what these Dem senators are."
Nah. Cocksuckers are at least good for something.
The Koch brother's are Harry Reid's favorite shiny object.
garage mahal wrote: Ted Cruz didn't believe one word of that nonsense he spoke about.
Weak, weak, weak... so typically weak.
A real pleasure to read such a simple , yet robust, defense of the First Amendment and the court's decision in Citizens United.
Were the Democrats on the panel wearing brownshirts?
Bless you, Senator Cruz. Punch back twice as hard.
just like the Democrat Party's use of the term implies something it's not.
Schemer and Reid are interested only in short-term partisan advantage. So how does sponsoring this proposed amendment serve that goal? It's only of interest to the most rabid lefties -- those playing the role of Bolsheviks against whoever might qualify as today's Mensheviks. That would be the SEIU, NEA, and similar groups. But even for those entities, this bill to gut the First Amendment appeals only to the top leadership, not the rank and file members.
garage mahal said...
"Ted Cruz didn't believe one word of that nonsense he spoke about."
Garage mahal has stated the leftie position very well. We all agree that lefties think free speech for their enemies is nonsense. As noted above lefties are in no way liberal in any classical sense of the word, rather they are totalitarians - the exact opposite of liberals.
Tim in VT for the win!
Garage...Ted Cruz doesn't care what you think about him. He doesn't think about you at all.
Real American said...
just like the Democrat Party's use of the term implies something it's not.
6/4/14, 9:10 PM
Like the (un)Affordable Care Act.
Garage wrote;
"Ted Cruz didn't believe one word of that nonsense he spoke about."
Garage is projecting. He doesn't believe one word of that sentence.
Free speech...hell freedom in general...is the bane of the left. Always has been. There is a reason lefties leave in echo chambers, their positions, policies, hell survival requires it.
"the Democratic party and its supporters can no longer rightfully claim the adjective liberal."
or "Democratic".
Durbin looked uncomfortable listening to Abrams. I think he was embarrassed, as well he should be.
I am embarrassed that Senator Baldwin's name is on this bill.
We all agree that lefties think free speech for their enemies is nonsense.
Lefties don't think dollar bills equal free speech. It's pretty silly when you think about it.
"So let me say in the most direct manner that it is deeply, profoundly, obviously undemocratic to limit speech about who to elect to public office."
Silly to garage mahal, not silly to Floyd Abrams.
garage mahal said...
Lefties don't think dollar bills equal free speech. It's pretty silly when you think about it.
The idea that dollar bills equal free speech is just as silly as the idea that pictures of naked women is free speech.
Lefties don't think dollar bills equal free speech
...which is why all of their "campaign finance reform laws" tend to exempt groups like unions from them...
Curious, GM, with what part of the Cruz speech do you disagree?
garage mahal said...
Lefties don't think dollar bills equal free speech. It's pretty silly when you think about it.
So lefties would be fine if Congress passed a law that recognized the TV networks' right to broadcast political news and commentary, but prohibited them from spending any money on those operations?
Once again, garage demonstrates that he's just not very smart.
So lefties would be fine if Congress passed a law that recognized the TV networks' right to broadcast political news and commentary, but prohibited them from spending any money on those operations?
What would be the purpose of that law?
In garages world, the new York times doesn't need to spend any dollar bills in order to produce its paper. The networks don't need to spend any dollar bills to produce their news. NPR doesn't need to spend dollar bills to air its program.
Speech in the written and spoken form is just that thing we all do for free. No dollar bills required.
And the left says the right is unsophisticated.
So lefties would be fine if Congress passed a law that recognized the TV networks' right to broadcast political news and commentary, but prohibited them from spending any money on those operations?
In response garage mahal wrote: What would be the purpose of that law?
Oh my giddy aunt, you must be learning disabled, or something, garage, because such a law is a direct refutation of the idea that, in your words, "dollar bills equal free speech."
Post a Comment