Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic
Here's the video that Obama doesn't want you to see:
In fact, he wants so badly for you not to see it that he's trying to force the DoJ to silence the group responsible. Think about that for a second...if Republicans attempted to silence a group criticizing one of their candidates by siccing a government agency on them, the left would call them fascists and thugs. But when the shoe is on the other foot? Not a peep.
This is an utterly disgusting attack on the very essence of free speech our founding fathers sought to protect with the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Political speech. Obama doesn't like what the American Issues Project has to say about his relationship with Bill Ayers. I don't blame him. I wouldn't be very happy if I was friends with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and someone called me on it. Must be terribly embarrassing. Bummer that. But facts are stubborn things. Obama has been less than truthful about his association with Ayers, and there's ample evidence of how close he was to Ayers.
The Obama camp can retreat to silly excuses such as Obama being a child when the crimes were commited, but that's unimpressive, given that Ayers never paid a debt to society for his crimes...never apologized...and has said that he "didn't do enough" in his attacks. That's sick, and it is perfectly reasonable to call into question why, as an adult, Obama chose to associate with (even work closely with) someone of Ayers' ilk.
Not surprising that he wants to silence this criticism, but that doesn't mean we should let him get away with it.
8.26.2008 at 10:59 PM
And this administration pushed for the Patriot Act (i.e. Section 215) be enacted - and extended. That is quite wonderful for Freedom of Speech, isn't it?
8.26.2008 at 11:32 PM
And....as if you care about WaPost :) but: blog.washingtonpost.com/.../obamas_weatherm
8.26.2008 at 11:42 PM
Well...at least I still have *a* reader, anyway.
Moral equivalence is never a winning argument, Dave. Try addressing the substance of my post...is it, or is it not wrong for someone who wishes to be President to use the government to silence his critics?
FWIW, McCain is on my shit list here, too. I'm no fan of McCain-Feingold, and I'm much more agitated that Bush signed it into law, despite declaring that he thought it was unconstitutional, than I am about the Patriot Act.
Speaking of which, you might try a little perspective on Section 215, which has zero to do with freedom of speech, even if you buy into the paranoia about it. But as for the paranoia, try the following:
"Critics of section 215 deliberately ignore the fact that any request for items under the section requires judicial approval. An FBI agent cannot simply walk into a flight school or library and demand records. The bureau must first convince the court that oversees anti-terror investigations (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court) that the documents are relevant to protecting “against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” The chance that the FISA court will approve a 215 order because the FBI “doesn’t like the books [a person] reads . . . or because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy” is zero."
www.city-journal.org/.../13_3_straight_t
At least the Patriot Act has a compelling reason to exist, namely keeping the citizens of this country safe from terrorists who wish us harm, something that seems to be working, I might add.
McCain-Feingold, and Obama's attempts to use the resources of the federal government to silence his critics, have no better reason to exist than the fact that politicians tell us that money corrupts, and therefore must be controlled. What they really mean is that they want to decide who gets to speak during a campaign...which is exactly what Obama's attempting to do here.
Aren't you glad you asked? ;-)
8.26.2008 at 11:54 PM
Please, sapre me about what a campaign would *allow* or *not* - with the numerous occasions that GOP gatherings for the 2004 Presidential election and for the Congressional elections in 2006 restricting people with dissenting opinion I hardly think there is a case for a tenuous connection as this. As for "interpretations" of Section 215 - I'll take my analysis over someone who thinks that it is likely that my family abused welfare when we were on it (when I was a child) and just as to "accustom people to look to the government for their support rather than to themselves". No thanks. www.rightwingnews.com/.../mac_donald.php
8.27.2008 at 12:10 AM
Regarding the Post's "Fact Checker" you're right that I'm not impressed. Oddly, they omit several well-established facts:
- The Post says: "The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board." Wrong. Obama also served from 1995-2000 as the chairman of the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded by none other than William Ayers. Hardly a "tenuous" link, I'd say.
- The Post notes Hillary's Weatherman connection as though that has some relevance. If Hillary hangs out with domestic terrorists, does that make it OK for Obama to do so?
- The Post ignores completely that Obama's campaign for the Illinois state senate was launched at the home of...wait for it...William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
- The Post twice notes that Ayers wasn't convicted of any crimes. Of course, the fact that he admits to having bombed federal buildings makes this point look kind of silly. The man is an admitted domestic terrorist, and is unrepentant about what he did. That should exclude him from the company of respectable people, but clearly Obama valued the political gains he could get from associating with Ayers, and wasn't worried about the association.
- The Post ignores Obama's less-than-forthcoming description of Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," etc. Obama's statement, which came during the Philadelphia dem primary debate, may have been factually true, but it hid relevant information, such as the board Obama served on with Ayers, as well as their work together on the CAC. Obama's answer certainly appears to be deliberately misleading. If Ayers radicalism isn't relevant to Obama's judgement, why hide the association, or try to minimize it?
"Guilt by association" suggests an evil smear attempt. The truth is that Obama chose, over and over again, to associate himself with Ayers. I'm perfectly content to let all the facts come out and have the American people decide for themselves whether or not it suggests poor judgement on Obama's part, or whether we should just let bygones be bygones with Ayers. The fact that the Obama campaign isn't willing to allow that without a fight suggests that they're worried about what Americans would decide.
8.27.2008 at 12:16 AM
Your attack on Mac Donald notwithstanding, it's a simple fact that Section 215 requires judicial oversight. The notion that the government can simple parade into a library and demand records is false, plain and simple. And again, that's a question of privacy, not freedom of speech.
You don't appear to be interested in addressing the actual point, so I will leave it here. Feel free to have the last word if you like. I need to get some sleep.
8.27.2008 at 12:41 AM
No attack - just that I don't agree with her at a fundamental level, so I find myself not willing to concede to any opinions she may have. You can paint that any way you like - your perogative. As for Section 215, does that FISA judge need probable cause? Any evidence? The proceedings are ex parte. Does it allow for obtaining records without probable cause of past or planned criminal conduct? So perhaps the FISA judge is more of a nicety than a true requirement.
So, an arguably shaky tie to Ayers, possibly much stretching of whatever truth there may or may not be, you not denouncing any past similar activities of the GOP. Good job with an objective opinion on the matter.
8.27.2008 at 9:54 AM
David are you listening to yourself?
1. You don't have to agree with Mac Donald on her *opinions*, but she's right on the *facts*. Section 215 is not a free pass to snoop anywhere, anytime. If you're not satisfied with the FISA review, you're welcome to agitate to change the law...that's what we do in a free country. But you're wrong in several ways to portray the enactment of section 215 as an attack on free speech.
2. The only way that Obama's ties to Ayers can be called "arguably shaky" is if you honestly believe that someone like Ayers would tap someone like Obama to chair his organization (the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) without knowing them reasonably well. Even Chicago Mayor Richard Daley described Ayers and Obama this way: "They're friends. So what?" Daley's a lot closer to Obama and Ayers than either you or I...is he wrong? "friends" doesn't sound "arguably shaky" to me.
3. Folks on the left need to decide...is the defense that Ayers is an OK guy, or is the defense that Obama didn't really know him well, and that he was only 8 when Ayers committed his crimes? Mayor Daley seems to be in the first camp, while you seem to be in the latter camp. Neither seems particularly convincing to me, particularly when you all can't decide which story to run with.
4. Exactly which "past similar activities of the GOP" are you referring to? I'm not aware of any GOP candidates with even "shaky" ties to unrepentant domestic terrorists. If you're talking about the issue of free speech, please refer back to my indictment above of both Bush and McCain WRT McCain-Feingold.
5. I have made no claim, and make no claim, to objectivity. I'm stating the facts to the best of my knowledge, and my opinion on those facts. The facts (Obama's service with Ayers, the launching of his campaign at Ayers' home, the requirement of judicial review for section 215, etc.) are easy enough to verify. My opinions are just that...opinions, subjective and personal.