Post-election political ponderings

Post-election political ponderings

So, recently suspended anchorman Keith Olbermann gave a few thousand smackers to some liberal Democrats? What’s next? Did George Stephanopoulos really work for Bill Clinton? Did Dan Rather really endorse Al Gore? Say it ain’t so.

   The real issue about the recently suspended TV personality Olbermann isn’t that he gave money to Democrats, it’s that he gave so doggone little.

A man of his means only contributes 7 lousy grand to three politicians? That’s like Karl Rove giving Bush-Cheney two or three sawbucks. Or the Heinz folks sending John Kerry a bottle of ketchup and an H-57 gift card.

   If there’s a bright side to Olbermann being on the nightly news, it’s that those sports fans among us no longer have to put up with him on ESPN...

   • Elsewhere in the news this week, American Spectator founder and editor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. writes in his column “The Delusionals,” “Liberals are having a difficult time explaining what happened to them on Election Day.

Actually, it appears that many of them do not know what happened to them. They are in denial.”

   Many seem to be.

   Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland may be one of them.

   The governor has, thus far, refused to cease and desist his 3C rail project, the infamous high-speed train to Cleveland – a place no one should be in a hurry to get to.

   In spite of a request by Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich to quit working (and spending) on the high-speed train, the Strickland administration says it has no intention of abandoning the project.

   (Pork-barrel politics be damned. Full steam ahead. Shovel on a little more coal, and when we cross that White Oak Mountain, watch the 97 roll. Choooo-chooooo!)...

Get over it, already

   • When the nation deemed it necessary to hand a congressional majority to the Pelosi-Reid faction four years ago, it was obvious many voters had had it with Bush policies and his inability to veto the GOP congressional spending spree. 

   Two years ago, American voters were in much the same mood when they rejected the best the Republicans could offer in John McCain.

   But last week, after witnessing four years of Democrat control of Congress and two years of Democrat control of the White House, and after seeing no significant improvements, either foreign or domestic, voters again rejected the status quo. God bless ’em.

   And if the new Congress cannot find meaningful ways to rein in government spending and limit bureaucratic intrusions in the ensuing two years, voters should send the incumbents packing again. Turn the rascals out. If that doesn’t work, then, turn ’em out again.

   President Obama may wear out the word “gridlock” in the next two years.

   It was clearly his favorite term on Nov. 3. But congressional gridlock would be an improvement over a Pelosi-Reid Congress that forces unconstitutional laws on the American people.

   • Then, there’s those who like to insinuate that the United States Supreme Court cost them the election.

   Supposedly, if you repeat the same lie often enough, people begin to take it for the Gospel of Luke. For HCP readers, I trust that is never the case. You are too smart for that. You are wise enough to know that all you have to do is “Lookitup,” as my first-grade teacher used to say at good ol’ Concord Elementary.

   When some folks continue to insist that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “corporations are citizens” and that the High Court has made it legal for “foreign dollars in U.S. campaigns,” you’re smart enough not to fall for the inaccurate political speak. Right? Of course you are.

   President Obama said in January: “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well,  I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

   United States Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito then mouthed his two most-famous words during the president’s address: “Not true.”

   Yet, the false claim that the Supreme Court gave “citizenship to corporations and allowed foreign money into campaign financing” remains a believable myth for many Americans.

   Nevertheless, as Justice Alito said, it’s not true. Granted, foreign money may indeed end up in the hands of politicians’ campaigns, but to insist the Supreme Court legalized the practice is just plain wrong.

   Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at Capital University Law School, wrote that (Obama’s) swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics – scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our (republic).”

   Professor Smith said “The president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that (the) Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, “opened the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. The president’s statement is false.

   “The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making ‘a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a federal, state or local election’ under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.

   “Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any ‘expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.’

   “This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind,” the professor said.

   The same applies to those who would propagate this myth.

   Simply put, the U.S. Supreme Court did not give citizenship to foreign corporations. What it did was to apply the same First Amendment standards on an equal basis. In other words, the U.S. corporate campaign contributions and advertisements are as legally permissible as the unions’ campaign contributions and the individuals’ campaign contributions. And our Harvard law school president knows it.

   The National Review editors summed it up like this: “The idea that the government ought to be empowered to punish any party for engaging in political speech is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is a fundamental affront to the founding principles of our republic.”

   As for this week’s argument on Page 5 that some media refuse to accept anti-fast food advertising, that’s like arguing apples and oranges (or hamburgers and chicken nuggets).

   Private media companies have every right to reject an advertisement which they deem unacceptable. That’s a far cry from an arm of the government restricting free speech – and rationale minds can easily comprehend the difference.

   Man, I’m glad the election is over. Here’s to Gridlock. Cheers!

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.

So, recently suspended anchorman Keith Olbermann gave a few thousand smackers to some liberal Democrats? What’s next? Did George Stephanopoulos really work for Bill Clinton? Did Dan Rather really endorse Al Gore? Say it ain’t so.

   The real issue about the recently suspended TV personality Olbermann isn’t that he gave money to Democrats, it’s that he gave so doggone little.

A man of his means only contributes 7 lousy grand to three politicians? That’s like Karl Rove giving Bush-Cheney two or three sawbucks. Or the Heinz folks sending John Kerry a bottle of ketchup and an H-57 gift card.

   If there’s a bright side to Olbermann being on the nightly news, it’s that those sports fans among us no longer have to put up with him on ESPN...

   • Elsewhere in the news this week, American Spectator founder and editor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. writes in his column “The Delusionals,” “Liberals are having a difficult time explaining what happened to them on Election Day.

Actually, it appears that many of them do not know what happened to them. They are in denial.”

   Many seem to be.

   Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland may be one of them.

   The governor has, thus far, refused to cease and desist his 3C rail project, the infamous high-speed train to Cleveland – a place no one should be in a hurry to get to.

   In spite of a request by Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich to quit working (and spending) on the high-speed train, the Strickland administration says it has no intention of abandoning the project.

   (Pork-barrel politics be damned. Full steam ahead. Shovel on a little more coal, and when we cross that White Oak Mountain, watch the 97 roll. Choooo-chooooo!)...

   • When the nation deemed it necessary to hand a congressional majority to the Pelosi-Reid faction four years ago, it was obvious many voters had had it with Bush policies and his inability to veto the GOP congressional spending spree. 

   Two years ago, American voters were in much the same mood when they rejected the best the Republicans could offer in John McCain.

   But last week, after witnessing four years of Democrat control of Congress and two years of Democrat control of the White House, and after seeing no significant improvements, either foreign or domestic, voters again rejected the status quo. God bless ’em.

   And if the new Congress cannot find meaningful ways to rein in government spending and limit bureaucratic intrusions in the ensuing two years, voters should send the incumbents packing again. Turn the rascals out. If that doesn’t work, then, turn ’em out again.

   President Obama may wear out the word “gridlock” in the next two years.

   It was clearly his favorite term on Nov. 3. But congressional gridlock would be an improvement over a Pelosi-Reid Congress that forces unconstitutional laws on the American people.

   • Then, there’s those who like to insinuate that the United States Supreme Court cost them the election.

   Supposedly, if you repeat the same lie often enough, people begin to take it for the Gospel of Luke. For HCP readers, I trust that is never the case. You are too smart for that. You are wise enough to know that all you have to do is “Lookitup,” as my first-grade teacher used to say at good ol’ Concord Elementary.

   When some folks continue to insist that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “corporations are citizens” and that the High Court has made it legal for “foreign dollars in U.S. campaigns,” you’re smart enough not to fall for the inaccurate political speak. Right? Of course you are.

   President Obama said in January: “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well,  I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

   United States Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito then mouthed his two most-famous words during the president’s address: “Not true.”

   Yet, the false claim that the Supreme Court gave “citizenship to corporations and allowed foreign money into campaign financing” remains a believable myth for many Americans.

   Nevertheless, as Justice Alito said, it’s not true. Granted, foreign money may indeed end up in the hands of politicians’ campaigns, but to insist the Supreme Court legalized the practice is just plain wrong.

   Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at Capital University Law School, wrote that (Obama’s) swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics – scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our (republic).”

   Professor Smith said “The president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that (the) Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, “opened the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. The president’s statement is false.

   “The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making ‘a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a federal, state or local election’ under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.

   “Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any ‘expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.’

   “This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind,” the professor said.

   The same applies to those who would propagate this myth.

   Simply put, the U.S. Supreme Court did not give citizenship to foreign corporations. What it did was to apply the same First Amendment standards on an equal basis. In other words, the U.S. corporate campaign contributions and advertisements are as legally permissible as the unions’ campaign contributions and the individuals’ campaign contributions. And our Harvard law school president knows it.

   The National Review editors summed it up like this: “The idea that the government ought to be empowered to punish any party for engaging in political speech is not only a violation of the First Amendment, it is a fundamental affront to the founding principles of our republic.”

   As for this week’s argument on Page 5 that some media refuse to accept anti-fast food advertising, that’s like arguing apples and oranges (or hamburgers and chicken nuggets).

   Private media companies have every right to reject an advertisement which they deem unacceptable. That’s a far cry from an arm of the government restricting free speech – and rationale minds can easily comprehend the difference.

   Man, I’m glad the election is over. Here’s to Gridlock. Cheers!

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.