In a delicious irony:
Boy, the idea that we can require broadcasters to operate in the public interest is pretty much out of the liberal playbook rather than those free market Republicans.
I dunno how ironic it is - Republicans have always favoured their idea of Big Government (though they don’t call it that, of course), be it censorship or drug enforcement or military spending or whatnot. Environmental and workplace safety regulations, though, that’s “Big Government” and it’s hippie liberal nonsense to be opposed with good Christian strength and resolve!
Your quote isn’t in your link. Your thread title says Palin, and your quote says Bachman.
I think the irony is that Bachmann’s lawyers sent a TV station a letter complaining about the airing of misleading information, while the title of the OP references Palin; the thread is supposed to be about big government but it isn’t; and the link in the OP has god-knows-what to do with anything.
I think sh1bu1 should expect a cease and desist letter from… someone.
Palin, Bachman, whatever. Mods: can you change the title?
Well that would be fine if that’s all she did, but she specifically uses the wording of the FCC regulations rather than just asking them to not run what she sees as misleading ads.
Fixed. I’ve also moved this thread to Elections from Great Debates.
Are you suggesting that she not use laws that are on the books even if she may disagree with them, giving her political opponents an advantage?
Yes I am actually, in the same way I wouldn’t expect a liberal DA to charge someone with sodomy in the states where it is still on the books. If she belives in the power of free markets then she should have no problem with these radio station: they’ll change when people stop listening to them.
Of course this is on top of her being a serial liar who now is offended when someone misrepresents her.
Bad analogy, since the laws we are talking about directly affect politicians like Bachman. The sodomy law has no effect on the DA.
It’s not a free market when the government regulates it.
You probably think taxes should be higher. Do you pay the extra amount that you think the government should get from you?
I dutifully pay the extra 3% tax on my adjusted gross income over $250,000
If a Republican accused someone of theft, assault, or murder, would you call them hypocrites for not relying on the power of the free market to punish criminal offenders?
Nice try.
Anyway, it’s absurd to think that people should not take advantage of laws like this, since not doing so concedes an advantage to your political opponents. You’ll not be seeing Obama admonishing the super PACs that will spring up to support him due the the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling which he strongly criticized. That’s because he’s not stupid.
That is what she herself suggestsfor those who think they pay too little income tax:
I hadn’t heard of Republican’s proposing to get rid of laws against murder, theft, and assault. But it sounds intriguing. Can you perhaps provide a link?
I don’t think he’s allowed to admonish them. That would be co-ordination; and if I understand the law it’s John Stewart who decides what the super PACs do. But yes, I do think he’s hypocritical if he in any way encourages them or fails to legally admonish them.
Has Michelle Bachmann proposed to abolish the FCC?
Jesus, this is turning out to be the stupidest debate this Elections forum has ever seen.
Well thisis her on the possibility of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine:
And who said anything about abolishing the FCC?
Her political opponents? Shes dropped out of the GOP primary and doesn’t have a challenger in her Rep district. I don’t think she has political opponents, at least in the sense of people she’s campaigning against. And the ad she’s protesting isn’t in her state, isn’t run by a someone running against her and doesn’t say anything negative about her.
The OP is kind of a mess, but I think there’s a decent case to be made the Bachman’s actions here are, if not ironic, at least dumb. She isn’t simply using the existing rules of the game to beat her opponents, she’s trying to get the FCC to do something it, to my knowledge, has never done, block a political radio ad due to its “misleading” content. Given that far more misleading ads have run in past years (and this year) without the FCC taking action, this is dumb because it isn’t going to happen, and its ironic because Bachmann is essentially asking for more gov’t regulation of political speech, something I doubt she would support in any other context.
ETA: actually, I don’t think she’s really asking the FCC to do anything, just threatening the radio-stations that she might do so if they don’t pull the ads.
The letter was from Bachman for President. Under that banner, Gingrich is a political opponent.
She’s not asking the FCC to do anything. If you read the letter, she’s saying that the stations do not have an FCC mandate to air this ad, and that they therefore shouldn’t since it’s not in “the public interest” to air and ad with misleading info in it.
She, or her lawyers, are trying to keep control of who she endorses.
Smart or stupid, I dont know, but seems like the kind of thing lawyers do all the time.