My Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column on the recall elections is here.
I note from the comments that one local blogger seems to think that its incongruous that I would criticize campaign ads for being inaccurate since I supported (actually I voted for) Mike Gableman. The fact is that I criticized Gableman's Reuben Mitchell ad at the time it was run. In fact, my criticism - and that of Charlie Sykes - were cited by Rob Henak in support of his motion to recuse Justice Gableman in the Allen case.
8 comments:
The corporate and union control over our goverment keeps our elected representatives from doing the will of the people because of these ads.
There is no way we can eliminate these ads because the money is needed but we certainly can say how that money can otherwise be spent by any goverment created entity.
The only way to resolve the problem is to limit corporate, union and other entities to contribute only to media outlets (TV, Radio, Newspapers, Bloggers, Magazines etc.) to cover the costs of campaigns.
We can all see that Pres Obama is more concerned with raising funds for his campain then he is to deal with the economic problems of the nation. That problem exist at all levels of goverment and needs the attention of responsible people everywhere.
"There is no way we can eliminate these ads because the money is needed"
That should read that there is no way we can eliminate the money being spent on the ads because it is needed in the economy.
It should also read that ads should only be ran by the candidates themselves by funds received by supporters in their districts.
Viva Citizens United!
Ah, the Greenberg 'solution'!!
Another Lefty, Walter Meade, dismantled that meme early on.
See: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2011/08/greenberg-essay.html
In short: you state that Union and Corporates control DC, so the best way to end that control is (ta-da!!) to give DC MORE control over political advertising.
Uh-huh.
Perhaps the proper method would be to allow the IRS decide if gov created entities are misusing their priviledges.
Rick, you seem to have missed my point on the Gableman recusal motion. My reference to the fact that even you and Charlie Sykes refused to defend the ad in question was intended to make a point, i.e., that the ad was even beyond what Sykes (who has never let the truth interfere with a chance to make political points with his gullible listeners) and you (the ultimate advocate of all that is right wing), could stomach.
The recusal argument was intended, in short, to emphasize the total outragousness of the Gableman ad, not to endorse the accuracy or fairness of anything else said by you or Charlie.
I have no information about the background of this fact or case so i don't think i have a right to criticize anything but just read and try my best to understand it well!
HP Pavilion DV6 battery
Post a Comment