Ok, enough. I have to say it.
Yes, that's right, it's time to bitch about Bloomberg. No, I don't want Freddy Ferrer to win, of course—but Bloomberg wouldn't be my choice either.
I just saw a Bloomberg ad on TV, in which he says "I believe government can be a force for good." What kind of Republican starts out a political ad like that? Yeah, I know, a Republican who wants a prayer of winning in Manhattan. But still. It's just wrong.
Doesn't anyone remember The Three Great Lies?
The first: I'll still respect you in the morning.
The second: The check is in the mail.
The third (and the one that applies to Bloomberg's statement): I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Sigh. I'm glad that Republicans are going to have such a long reign in NYC—but it'd be nice if they weren't moving further and further away from traditional Republican ideals as time goes on.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Ok, enough. I have to say it.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
This is an easy one for me
The House has apparently decided that internet speech can be restricted by campaign finance laws:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections. . . .I didn't know that Congress was discussing this today, but for some reason I started thinking about this possibility today. And I reached a decision.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
I have no intention of limiting my internet speech, no matter what laws Congress passes, no matter what rules the FEC passes down.
And I'm willing to go to jail to stand up for that fact.
Does anyone want to bet that I'm the only one who feels that way? Congress is in for a rude awakening if they or the FEC tries to restrict our speech, as it can't possibly play well in the press for them to start arresting people for violation of such laws. I don't care how much the press wants to see us silenced—this is a battle that only free speech can possibly win.
Who's with me?
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Still swamped at work, but I'm on my lunch break and I wanted to get a few thoughts down regarding Alito.
Fortunately, it won't take much effort, because many brilliant columnists have already said everything I could hope to say.
First off, Ann Althouse explains in the NYT why it's a bad idea to draw such a quick comparison between Alito and Scalia.
Follow that with George Will's explanation of the benefit Alito's nomination poses for the country and Jonathan Adler's description of Alito as neither pro-life nor pro-choice, but pro-law and Cass Sunstein's suggestions as to how we might sort out Alito's judicial philosophy.
Finally, and most importantly as far as this blog is concerned—alongside George Will's thoughts—we have Michael Barone's perspective on the Democratic response. Specifically, he explains why they won't filibuster, or actively oppose Alito's nomination. All good stuff.
That should keep you busy at least for a little while...
(P.S.-Major hat tip to RCP.)
Monday, October 31, 2005
And it's one I'd never really considered before.
By the way, I'm playing catch-up at work today—after running crazy on one project all last week, I have a lot of smaller loose ends to tie up today and tomorrow, hopefully in advance of the next large project. So, blogging will likely be extremely light until tomorrow. I do want to get some thoughts up on Alito, which I'll try to do on my lunch break—if I have time for one today.