I went to a Netroots Nation fundraiser in town yesterday evening and on hand to talk a bit were some of our best, most solid progressive members of congress, including Senator Russ Feingold and Reps. Lloyd Doggett, Rush Holt, and Steve Cohen. I'm not sure I'd ever heard any of those guys actually speak before or not, but one way or another there's this nice warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from listening to the real good guys of the political world. So much of what happens when you blog is focused on complaining about bad actors, but the morale boost that comes from the reminder that there are good people out there fighting the good fight is really nice.
« Six Months At a Time | Main | Boston's Worst Nightmare »
The Good Guys
10 Apr 2008 03:22 pm
Comments (31)
Any photos from the fundraiser?
So much of what happens when you blog is focused on complaining about bad actors
I wonder why that is.
Thanks for the reminder....
Russ Feingold for VP? Wait, I forgot, integrity is too liberal for American.
Feingold is not one of the good guys, at least not until he's capable of reading and comprehending the First Amendment. When he figures out why his campaign finance "reform" ideas (better label: Incumbent protection) are contrary to the First Amendment, then he can possibly be called a good guy. Before then? For all your fretting about the war, his (and McCain's, for that matter) pushing of this does more damage to the Republic than anything Bush has done.
For all your fretting about the war, his (and McCain's, for that matter) pushing of this does more damage to the Republic than anything Bush has done.
Last I checked, the Supreme Court retains ultimate authority over first amendment matters, as it should be. By contrast, Bush has greatly accelerated the long-term trend toward lack of executive accountability in matters of foreign affairs and war, a trend which has already taken us a very great distance from what the Founders intended.
So no, James, McCain-Feingold is nowhere near as damaging to the Republic as the war.
Oh, and if you're opposed to "incumbent protection" measures, James, you must be opposed to the general phenomenon of politicians who refuse to be accountable or answerable to the will of the voters. So you can't tell me you favor the imperial executive. Not if you want to retain any credit for intellectual coherence, anyway.
DailyKos and the Nutroots...
Screw Them.
Brilliant contribution, Kevin.
The Court is not perfect - there are any number of horrendous examples of bad rulings, and their acceptance of McCain/Feingold is merely the latest example. Also, the three branches are co-equal on interpreting the Constitution; Marshall arrogated the power of review. The Congress can remove things from the court's purview, and the President can decline to enforce rulings.
As to the executive (or Congress) over-reaching - that's what elections are for. If and when such over-reach happens, there's a perfectly useful remedy available to the people.
As to the executive (or Congress) over-reaching - that's what elections are for.
Ah, no. Constitutional matters were never meant to be left up to the popular will. Even if George Bush's executive aggrandizement were popular and won him elections, it would not be healthy for the Republic. Plus if Congress (and through it, voters) can't exercise the power of review because the Executive operates in secret...
Ryan,
That's what the other branches of government are for. If Congress truly believes that there have been violations of the Constitution, they have the power to impeach. Failing that, the people get a new election after 4 years. There are remedies built into the system.
What you seem to believe is that if bloggers just yell loud enough, something magic will happen. It doesn't work like that.
Go Doggett! He is an under-appreciated Congressman. His speeches back in 2002-03 in the run up to the war were always thoughtful and prescient.
Honest to God, this reads like the work of Kathryn Jean Lopez. Only, sure, she'd have a Right To Life organization featuring key conservative players where Matt has his lefty heroes.
Still in sentiment, tone and prose it's very, very Kathryn Jean Lopez.
Scary. And damning.
Thanks Matt
Don't forget, Rep Brad Miller was there too!
Under McCain and Feingold's rules, you can't buy an "issue ad" that mentions a candidate for federal office by name within 60 days of an election. How exactly does that comport with the First Amendment? How could you possibly view anyone who supports such an atrocity as anything other than a villain who's out to destroy the Republic as we know it?
The country survived the Mexican American war and the Spanish American war, both of which had fully imperial aims. It will survive the Iraq war as well. What it might not survive is misguided attempts to destroy the First Amendment, cheered on by people who can't figure out that it will be their speech that will be silenced next.
Some fun facts about Feingold that makes him awesome:
- Returns any pay raise that the Congress votes for!
- Has a freaky photographic memory!
- Defeats great opponents in every election!
- Travels to every county in WI a LOT despite being so freaking poor that doing so must suck
None of those "cool facts" about Feingold make him any less of a menace to the Constitution.
James, just out of curiosity, can you outline the steps for us that will lead from McCain/Feingold to the destruction of America? Details please.
It's fairly simple. McCain/Feingold want to ban speech (other than from "mainstream" media) that criticizes a candidate for office close to an election. There have been multiple attempts to extend that to the blogosphere now; resisting that is one of the few things I've seen RedState and Kos agree on.
If you can't criticize a candidate on TV, radio, or in print - and, if they accomplish their next goal - which is to prevent the same thing on the net - then how much freedom will you have left? Will you be excited at the point where the Republican in your district can't be criticized in the runup to an election in any media format? What McCain and Feingold want is nothing less than the destruction of free speech. Which, in my book, would be the beginning of the end.
The war in Iraq will eventually pass, without any lasting impact (as have previous wars that had large scale opposition). Restrictions on rights don't come back that easily. The war on drugs has been savaging the 4th amendment for 3 decades now, with no end in sight. Now, under the banner of "good government", Feingold and McCain (and their allies) want to do the same thing to the First Amendment.
Which is why I object to calling Feingold a "good guy". He's anything but.
Go Doggett! He is an under-appreciated Congressman. His speeches back in 2002-03 in the run up to the war were always thoughtful and prescient.
Yeah, I lived in his district, just a couple blocks up from the border of one of the loopy districts DeLay drew to beef up GOP representation in congress. The state GOP would love to take him down but it ain't never gonna happen. He'll represent Austin for as long as he wants to. Fine with me.
If you are upset about McCain-Feingold but not about the fact that we went to war in Iraq in the first place, have been torturing people and wiretapping without warrants, then your priorities are out of whack.
And some of the bad guys probably actually admire these good guys. Can you imagine how horrible it must be for a shark to be stuck doing business with sharks, dining with sharks, vacationing with sharks, marrying and socializing with sharks? You'd be in your element, but you'd get worn down, and sad.
Amen. More like Lloyd, please.
There are no "good guys" in politics or the state.
Matt is being suckered by the "Big Dog Democrats" just like he was on Iraq.
Matt does not learn.
"Reality Man" - Go look into the things Wilson did during WWI. They make anything Bush has done during this war pale into insignificance.
So yes, I worry about McCain/Feingold a whole lot more than I worry about the war - in the long run, it's a much bigger problem.
robertson/reality man -- why this fallacious joining of issues -- I can hate the prosecution of this war and hate mccain-feingold -- watch me do it now (looks better on TV).
If only the Dems could have manufactured some more votes in some key states, alas.
mike - I'm objecting to Feingold being honored, as he doesn't deserve it. I view the depredations against the First Amendment as far, far more serious than the war, and here's why: take Feingold's (and McCain's) restrictions to where they want to take them (across all media). There went your ability to criticize the war, because they want to make that kind of advocacy illegal - at least when it's related to discussing a candidate for office.
James,
The war will certainly have long-term repercussions. Hell, you can't separate the Right's delusional belief that Vietnam was a good and just war with their advocacy of the current catastrophe. War always has long-term consequences--the children and loved ones of the dead do not forget.
As for Feingold, he is honored mostly for integrity, which is obviously a rare commodity in Washington.
The Vietnam war will cease to have the kind of impact you worry about within 50 years - for the same reasons that Wilson's actions against what he called sedition have had little long term impact: once all the partisans die off, it fades.
However, limitations on rights have a way of sticking around. Long after Vietnam and Iraq have passed on by, the First amendment damage done by "men of integrity" like McCain and Feingold will still be with us.
Marshall,
No, Steve Cohen is not black.
James,
All McCain-Feingold did was establish legally that there is a distinction between bribery and free speech. The only abridgement of the First Amendment I'm aware of that would include bloggers was an amendment that would have required disclosure if the blogger was a paid operative of a campaign. And that's really not too much to ask, is it? That amendment was defeated, by the way...
Comments closed April 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Burning question: is Steve Cohen black?
Posted by Marshall | April 10, 2008 3:53 PM