Another Reason Not to Be a Democrat

Reason number 76372 not to belong to the Democratic Party:

They target a private citizen to silence him from using his constitutionally-protected first amendment right to free speech.

It’s ok to disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I happen to agree with much of what he says, and think he’s a positive influence. And if you disagree, that’s your opinion, too.

But government entities have no business harassing private citizens’ free speech. This must be part of the “change” Obama promised to inflict upon Americans.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Limbaugh Ruling Inadvertently Overturns Roe v. Wade

Scrappleface satire via the lovely Miss Vox:

(2004-10-06) — Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeals inadvertently overturned the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling today when it denied Rush Limbaugh’s petition to protect his right of privacy regarding medical records.

A spokesman for the court said that by ruling Mr. Limbaugh had no right to privacy regarding medical records, it denied the central tenet of the 1972 Roe V. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found that the right to privacy protected a woman’s right to an abortion, at least for several months.

“On behalf of the 4th District Court of Appeals,” the unnamed spokesman said, “Oops.”

It Was a Fun Party Until I Knew Who Was Paying For It

Thanks to a Wizbang lead, I can answer SondraK’s recent question about why Air America was no longer on the air. SondraK? An Air America listener? Perhaps she takes Zantax afterwards.

Air America went on the air with great fanfare, throwing lavish parties and promising to uproot Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves. The only problem appears to be that they don’t have any money, they ranted and raved against the very capitalists that they are now making sales pitches to. Air America’s days are over unless George Soros rides to the rescue – which he might, this is a perfect opportunity – and bails them out. I believe some liberal will float them a gift to get them through the election cycle since Air America would be able to get around McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws.

What happens after that? Air America looks like they might be selling off their assets (but not the liabilities) to a shell corporation that they also hold. I think that’s illegal, so we might be seeing some free Air America publicity as Air America executives plead innocent and blame the collapse on conservative activitists.

What caught my eye about the original article was the extravagant party Air America threw but didn’t follow up with actually paying the bills. Wizbang gets it spot-on:

Mr Visotcky gives us the defining quote of liberalism. “It was a fun party, until I knew I was paying for it,” as long as they can play with other people’s money their motto is “Party On!”

With one sentence, the Air America guest eloquently sums up everything I think is wrong with liberalism. “It was a fun party until I knew who was paying for it.”

Cato Critique Misses Mark

I think I like 1/2 the articles at The Cato Institute. Some days they have excellent commentary on politics, other days I wonder if their hats are on too tight. Today was one of those days.

In today’s “Bush, Kerry, and Partisan Hypocrisy,” David Boaz criticizes the hypocrisy of both parties. While I would agree that hypocrisy is rampant in the almighty struggle to lay claim to the mediocrity of the undecided middle ground, he chooses terrible examples to make his points.

Republicans are criticizing a decorated Vietnam veteran, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, while liberals are denouncing President Bush for avoiding service in what liberals called an illegal and immoral war.

Republicans may be criticizing a Vietnam veteran, but they are not criticizing his war record. He served his tour of duty and earned his Purple Hearts (although there are some unsubstantiated claims about his first one). Nobody is criticizing that – in fact, that’s one of the few things Republicans like about Kerry.

They *are* criticizing his actions after the war. I don’t think it matters what he threw over the fence – medals, ribbons, his own ribbons, somebody else’s medals, used hankies – but he threw something, and whatever point he was trying to make, he made it. He’s anti-war. Got it. He also threw out some wild unfounded accusations that appear to be untrue about the horrors he committed under orders. *That’s* what Republicans criticize. They thought it was in poor character then, they think it’s poor character now.

[…]Conservatives used to think that sexual harassment laws were a good example of big government trying to regulate everything under the sun. Feminists, they thought, wanted to criminalize normal flirting and dating. Feminists pushed a law through Congress that allowed plaintiffs in a sexual harassment suit to examine the defendant’s personal life in search of examples of similar behavior. It was the sort of thing that led Rush Limbaugh to call them femi-Nazis.

Then Bill Clinton — who perhaps unwisely had signed that law — was accused of making sexual advances to a low-level employee of the Arkansas state government when he was governor. Suddenly the conservatives were born-again femi-Nazis. Hang him, they said. It just can’t be lawful for a powerful man to make a vulgar advance at a woman who works for him, however distantly. And then when the legal pursuit of that accusation uncovered a case of actual sexual involvement with a young woman in the White House, they were ready to lynch him.

And the feminists? Suddenly they discovered the virtues of laissez faire. Consenting adults, they said. Intrusive regulation, they cried. No one should be asked such questions, they insisted — the questions they had earlier insisted powerful men must be asked in investigations of sexual harassment charges.

I agree with the hypocrisy of the uberfeminists – I never understood why they supported Clinton, since Clinton was doing everything they despise in men. But the criticism of the Right is unfounded.

Yes, the Right balked at the intrusiveness of government being able to nose around in past behavior. If that behavior didn’t lead to accusations or convictions, then there’s no way to prove it’s true and therefore should not be admissible in court. The Right never swayed from that position. (I’m not going to go into the double standards in the Kobe Bryant case)

The Right criticized Clinton’s early sexual advances as an example of his questionable character. That wasn’t a court where Clinton was being tried; it was just multiple corroborating stories about his misbehavior. The Right wasn’t suggesting prosecuting him for that behavior, just pointing out that Americans should be expecting a higher standard in our President.

And by the time it got to the “blue dress” episode, the Right wanted a “lynching” because Clinton lied on the stand. He committed perjury. The “blue dress” itself was just another example of his poor behavior, another lowering of the standard we expect in the President. There’s no hypocrisy here – the Right wasn’t trying to “lynch” Clinton because of prior infidelity – they wanted him impeached for perjury.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of serial groping in 2003, conservatives and feminists resumed their old positions. Feminists were shocked, shocked to discover that a powerful and testosterone-laden movie star had touched women without their consent. Republicans, meanwhile, tossed aside both their old traditional values and their newfound quasi-feminism to dismiss the charges.

I think that’s an unfair accusation – Republicans had 4 prominent Republican choices on that California ballot they could have turned to. If they thought Schwarzenegger’s character was questionable, they would have dumped him in a heartbeat. The criticism here was that the 25 year accusation didn’t surface until the weekend before the election, and even then, the L.A. Times held onto the information until the last possible second.

I don’t believe the Right has changed their tune in these examples. The Left has – first, let’s “put Vietnam behind us” when it comes to Clinton, then with Kerry suddenly Vietnam experience is important. (I had a lot more respect for Howard Dean when he was in the race. I wouldn’t have voted for him, but I would have respected his unabashed anti-war position.)

If Boaz is going to accuse the Right of hypocrisy, he’s going to have to come up with better examples than these.