CNN: RNC tells TV stations not to run MoveOn.org ads

This country is heading away from democracy faster than ever. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before conservative dictators take over.

 

Let them do what they want to do, as long as the money is clean.

Last thing I want is the liberal media claimining they lost another election because of human error.

 

The RNC are a bunch of cry-baby wankers.
They can smell defeat and it makes them desperate.

 

That is f-cking outrageous. That reminds me, I haven't donated to moveon.org in a few months.....thanks RNC!

 

This is going to be an ugly ugly ugly election.

The Daily Show is going to be stocked with material from both sides.

 

maybe broadcast responsibilities related to political ads should be regulated separate and apart from the FCC. i'm not comfortable with ANY administration seeking reelection playing policeman with political ads running counter to its own campaign.

 

Well, folks, it was LIBERALS who wanted this campaign finance reform so badly. Not a day goes by when I don't hear how elections are "bought" with evil, dirty lucre. Well, now you want the law, but not applied to your little pet organizations. Can you say I smell..........

HYPOCRISY!!!!!!

You people are amazing.......

 

What in god's name are you talking about? Please explain your logic here for a second as to why the Republicans trying to intimidate TV stations into not running ads that are critical of them, indicates screaming red letter hypocrisy? That is the issue here, and that has b een made fairly clear, or so I thought.

PS: I note, once again, you seem to be incapable of arguing against anything other than cartoon foils, i.e. "LIBERALS"
Could you join the rest of us here in reality for a bit?

 

Sam said it, but it bears repeating.

How does the RNC complaining about ads being run against them equal liberals being whiny hypocrites?

I don't have a lot to give, but I will give something to Moveon.org. If they scare the RNC like that, they are doing something right.

 

Remember when moveon claimed to be non-partisan? Hahahaha.

 

Moveon is an obvious DNC organ that is engaging in political commericals in violation of the new Campaign Finance Reform Act your precious little Democrats supported like lemmings falling off a cliff. But now that is applied to one of your little lib pressure groups....no, that law doesn't apply, they are non-partisan. If Moveon.org is non-partisan, Al Franken is a conservative and the sky is purple.

 

Yawn, bamaslammer, since you're such an expert with S.527, please point me to controlling precedent which would preclude Moveon from claiming section 527 status. Thanks!

BTW, when your busting out your big redass "Hypocrisy" letters: WHAT ABOUT THE REPUBLICANS WHO FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO PRESERVE SOFT MONEY NOW SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER AGAINST IT? AT MOST ITS A TWO WAY STREET.

I guarantee you there are all manner of "non-partisan" s. 527 organizations on the right side of the aisle too, including: the NRA, Christian Coalition, and every other damned right wing interest group around.

So seriously, at best, you're screaming bloody murder about what amounts to a wash. Trust me, Shays-Meehan was the best theing to happen to the GOP in a long time.

 

Hmmmmm, lets ponder ECONOMICS, CENSORSHIP and FREEDOM for a second...

Some quotes from a few notable capitalist...



"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- Ronald Reagan

"There is, however, yet another reason why freedom of action, especially in the economic field that is so often represented as being of minor importance, is in fact as important as the freedom of the mind. If it is the mind which chooses the ends of human action, their realization depends on the availability of the required means, and any economic control which gives power over the means also gives power over the ends. There can be no freedom of the press if the instruments of printing are under the control of government, no freedom of assembly if the needed rooms are so controlled, no freedom of movement if the means of transport are a government monopoly, etc. This is the reason why governmental direction of all economic activity, often undertaken in the vain hope of providing more ample means for all purposes, has invariably brought severe restrictions of the ends which the individuals can pursue. It is probably the most significant lesson of the political developments of the twentieth century that control of the material part of life has given government, in what we have learnt to call totalitarian systems, far-reaching powers over the intellectual life. It is the multiplicity of different and independent agencies prepared to supply the means which enables us to choose the ends which we will pursue." - F.A. Hayak, Free-market Economist, father of modern-day Capitalism


"The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated - a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement." - Milton Friedman, Free-market Economist

 

here's another perspective on the bush ads controversy, and moveon.org, from the sister of the AA filght 77 pilot. she's a lifelong democrat, and the article appeared as an oped in today's WSJ.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004787

--
CAMPAIGN 2004
Our 9/11
The attacks happened to us all.

BY DEBRA BURLINGAME
Monday, March 8, 2004 12:01 a.m.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on our country, the families of those who perished on that day became forever linked through our shared anguish and grief. But "the 9/11 families" are not a monolithic group that speaks in one voice, and nothing has made that more clear than the controversy over the Bush campaign ads.

It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of "The Families of Sept. 11." They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.

The images of Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville have been plastered over coffee mugs, T-shirts, placemats, book covers and postage stamps, all without a peep from many of these family members. I suspect that the real outrage over the ads has more to do with context than content. It's not the pictures that disturb them so much as the person who is using them. This is demonstrated in their affiliation with Moveon.org, a rabidly anti-Bush group that sponsored a rally they held last Friday calling for the president to pull his ads off the air. But by disingenuously declaring themselves "non-partisan" and insisting that it is a matter of "taste," they retain a powerful weapon that they have learned to exploit to their advantage. They are "9/11 family members" and therefore enjoy the cloak of deference that has been graciously conferred upon them by the public, politicians and, most significantly, the media.

The leader of a lobbying group advised individuals at a 9/11 family meeting shortly after the attacks: "Make no mistake, you have a lot of power. Politicians are more afraid of you than you know." They know. As "relatives of 9/11 victims," they are virtually immune to challenge on the issue of who should have the loudest voice regarding the legacy of this national tragedy.

But this was a tragedy that was experienced and felt not just by us, but by all Americans. The American people responded to the horrors of that day with unflinching courage and an outpouring of love, support and empathy, the memory of which fills me with a gratitude that I can never repay. We families received cards, letters, homemade quilts bearing the names and likenesses of our lost loved ones, hand-lettered drawings from whole classrooms of children, and an unprecedented amount of charitable funds that sustained and continue to sustain those in need more than two years later.

These Americans, most of whom I will never have the privilege of meeting, also gave us something even more precious. When the planes hit the buildings and the towers fell, some of their sons and daughters balled up their fists and determined then and there that they wanted to "do something" about it. Those who donned the uniforms of our Armed Forces in order to fight the war on terrorism are not offended by the images of Ground Zero. On the contrary, they are moved and inspired by them.

Whatever these 9/11 families may think of the president's foreign policy or the war in Iraq, I ask them to reconsider the language and tone of their statements. We should not tolerate or condone remarks such as those of the 9/11 relative who, so offended by the campaign ads, said that he "would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush." The insult was picked up and posted on Al-Jazeera's Web site. In view of the sacrifice our troops have made on our behalf, this insensitivity to them and their families suggests a level of self-indulgence and ingratitude that shocks the conscience.

George W. Bush says that his presidency is inspired by an enduring obligation to those who lost their lives on that brutal September morning. The images of that day stand as an everlasting example of our country's darkest day and finest hour. They are a vivid reminder of the strength and resilience of our great country. They belong to us all--including this president. Let the candidates make their own choices. I trust the American people.

Ms. Burlingame, a life-long Democrat, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

only when the democrats and their PAC-Attack friends fashion a coherent anti-terror policy will their protestations over the politicisation of 9/11 not ring hollow.

 

We have a coherent anti-terror policy now? Like chasing shadows in Iraq while knowing that Pakistan runs a state sponsored nuclear flea market and letting the Saudis bankroll various terror groups?

Please basso, why don't you articulate this coherent anti-terror polciy for me, I'd like to know what it is.

BTW, I like your equation (no anti-terror policy for the dems (allegedly) = green light for emotional exploitation by the republicans). That's a brilliant equation, really truly brilliant.

 

Don't get your little leftist panties in a bunch....Sam. Our war on terror is based on going after the terrorists where they live, be it with Spec-Ops, Predator Drones, etc. You don't go boasting in the press about this, but let me see here, we've captured several key leaders, killed some more with Predator drones and you don't consider that a successful campaign. There is no pleasing you people when it comes to Bush. We could capture Osama and you would carp like a bunch of negative little magpies about how he had him all along and just waited until the right moment to announce it.

 

"going after terrorists where they live"

So why aren't we going into Saudi Arabia? That's where they live.

"you don't consider that a successful campaign"

Nope, not espeically. You're operating under the false assumption that if you kill enough terrorists, they'll go away. Wrong, wrong and wrong. There's not a finite number of potential terrorists out there, and each time you accidentally kill a family while killing one you create several more. It's a lesson that the Israelis have learned.

Don't you find it the least bit disturbing that while we are chasing down a bunch of losers in spider holes in Iraq that Pakistan is out selling nuclear materials ot th highest bidder? As welll as the fact that Pakistan sponsors terrorism rather openly (like our saudi buddies).

Face it, the president's pre-emption policy is a freaking shambles. Ignore the threats, concentrate on the 'easy' targets; that's not pre-emption, that's pretense; whcih is doubly dangerous in that it not only ignores the real threat but allows one trick ponies like you to pretend like everything is a-ok.

 

Yep, it has nothing to do with the pResident pledging not to politicize 9/11 and then doing his usual flip-flop, now does it!