The problem is that the establishment (for lack of a better term) has an advantage in raising campaign funds, but has an even larger advantage in getting the media to do what it wants without spending money. So campaign finance limits actually help them. Think about what would happen if finance limits were taken to the extreme, and no one was allowed to spend any money. It would be pretty much impossible to beat the incumbant, because he would have a lot more name recognition.
I don’t see how fairness has ended.
Yes, it would. Oh, wait, that last sentence was meant to apply our solution, wasn’t it? Given a solution that violates free speech rights without making the playing field level, it seems to me that merely restoring free speech rights would be an improvement, regardless of whether it levels the playing field. Even if your solution did work, I would still find giving up rights to be too high a price to pay. Asking conservatives and libertarians for a solution that levels the playing field is a non sequitor, since that’s their first priority. It would be like asking the Pope for an alternative to abortion that allows pregnant women to avoid unwanted births.
The political world can be divided into two groups: those that believe that the government should ensure that people are fair, and those that believe that government should ensure that the world is fair. I am of the former category: if we can cooperatively work towards a fairer world, that’s great. But if we have to force people to go along to achieve it, the ends don’t justify the means. And if we don’t need to force people, if we can get people to go along voluntarily, then we don’t need the government. We should not be made slaves to the God “Fairness”.
Originally posted by Trinopus
…But Rush Limbaugh can say things every bit as untrue, and get away with it, day in and day out. He faces nary a consequence for his actions…
I was listening to the Rush L show (only English show on here in Germany at 6pm when I commute home). Rush was saying that Arnold S’s father was a Nazi, implying by default, that Arnold was a Nazi, too. So this caller comes on, they banter this about awhile, and then she says; well, she wouldn’t vote for Arnold because she doesn’t support Nazis.
Now; I’m no fan of Nazis, or of Arnold S, but it’s kinda scary, how a nationally syndicated blowhard is able to twist things so as to create guilt by association… there’s lots of reasons to NOT vote for Arnold, but his father’s deeds are not one of them.
Not sure how long you listened to the program but Rush Limbaugh was quoting Katie Couric on the Today show when she interviewed a California Democratic spokesperson. His point was how unprofessional and one-sided her statements were in relation to other interviews.
from the Rush website:
Here’s what Katie said introducing a discussion segment on Arnold: “Let me ask you about his - his baggage, if you will. He’s admitted smoking marijuana, using steroids during his body-building career; he’s the son of a Nazi party member; he said he was prejudiced before overcoming those feelings by working with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, and the dean of the center said an investigation of Schwarzenegger’s late father conducted at the actor’s request found no evidence of war crimes. Through his publicist he’s denied allegations published in Premiere magazine in March 2001 that he sexually harassed women and committed infidelity…”