Pretend for a minute that you aren't a Democrat or a Republican, because that shouldn't matter here. If you heard a political party - be it Dem or Republican or Nazi or Green - was enlisting sheriff's, prosecutors, and attorney's to use threats of imprisonment and financial loss to restrict what was said about their candidate, what would you think?
Would you worry that this was restricting the process of free elections? That it was a waste and corruption of taxpayer dollars? That it was an affront to free speech and an insult to the intelligence of the voters it 'protected'?
I think it's all of the above. The Barrack Obama Truth Squad - I'm not making that name up - has enlisted Missouri D.A.'s and law enforcement to immediately squash any 'attack' or 'lie' about their candidate. What constitutes a 'lie' or 'attack' is no doubt in the eye of the beholder, the beholder being an employee of the Obama campaign.
On all that I care and love, I swear to you this isn't about partisanship - it just plain makes me sick. Oh, if the shoe was on the other foot and the GOP did this I'm sure I'd squirm and fidget and dodge and dash for a minute before coughing up the truth, but in the end I'd still have to say - THIS IS WRONG.
Watch the video here. What really bothers me is the cavalier attitude the 'Truth Squad' members show about the whole process. They are employees of the people, with salaries paid for by taxpayers, sworn to uphold the law, and they are that flippant about trumping the 1st amendment?
Keep in mind, their sole purpose is to police, on our dime, any 'attack' upon Obama. No mention of similar dilligence on behalf of McCain, or Nader, or anyone else. How the does that fly in America?
From what I understand this is in fact a legal process as the result of a state 'ethics' law regarding speech, just another example of the softening of our rights to quote protect unquote our fragile little selves from the words of others. Please realize this isn't about some Klan propaganda. This is to confront items of speech no worse than what I've read daily in JLand about Palin, the usual safe throwaway crap that's a by-product of the deep emotions of politics.
Lord knows it's 1000% times less personal and less revolting than the Media attacks on Palin and McCain. As evidence, from the supermarket checkout aisle:
Nice huh? Maybe the Missouri D.A. will file charges against the paper's distributor in that state. Probably not.
BTW, if something I've written here is read in Missouri and offends your sensistive ears, feel free to have that DA shoot me an email. I'd love to talk.
* * *
Update: The Gov. of Missiouri has issued a press release concerning the Truth Squad.
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
hat tip to And Rightly So!
7 comments:
I cannot tell you how appalled I am at this. This is a shameful way to run a campaign and, once again, shows us the character of B. Obama.
Joyce
I NEVER talk politics. Mostly because it confuses the begeezes out of me. I agree completely with your opinion here. It is abhorrent! I heard someone say that someone in Washington said that the Constitution was antiquated and unsuitable for today's society. B&^% #@%T.
Anyway... they main reason I have a hard time following politics is because of the mud slinging and how everyone can twist things to fit in their version of how things should be. (kind of like religious nuts do with the Bible) I just wish there were an easier way of telling who is actually telling the truth and speaking facts over those twisting the facts with their opinion.
~Rosemary
I have been hearing about this also. Things are getting dirty.
Julie
This illustrates why I have no respect for most "ethics" regulation, beyond disclosure requirments. The legislation invariably becomes merely another tool o fpartisan politics--often unethical partisan politics. Even disclousre requirements are often used that way, but disclousre requirements are necessary. Almost all other "thetic" legislation is not.
Yes, ethics legislaton is often used to restrict free speech. An example is McCain/Feingold, which is one of the many reasons I have never supported McCain politically. I have again withdrawn my post-Palin "endorsement" of McCain--never very strong, except in my condemnation of the leftist dampaign to destroy Palin--in my own AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative".
Well, I certainly hope that Mr. Obama makes some sort of statemet to his overenthusiastic supporters--because, basically, that STINKS!!.
Of course I have heard that people asking for signatures in support of a list of paraphrased Bill of Rights report that 98% of those approached refused to sign.
;^) Jan the Gryphon
PS: I may have to get me one of those t-shirts from http://www.whatonearthcatalog.com that says
> I'M SICK OF POLITICAL ADS
> and I approve this message
-j
I read something you wrote on Beth's journal, agreed with the basic content, & decided I'd pop over ...then forgot :). Better late than never.
What constitutes a 'lie' or 'attack' is no doubt in the eye of the beholder. < you wrote
I agree when it comes to "attack," but not with lie. Some things are pretty easily defined as lies: Obama is a Muslim. Palin's baby is really her daughter's.
That said, I think the attacks on Palin have been much worse of late than those on Obama. Neither side seems to have a well-developed sense of remorse about ANYTHING that can make the other side look bad, even if they SAY they do. I believe in owning your own behavior in all of its abject glory, but some of what is flying back & forth is just worthless, nonissue crap. Do I think the average person should have to foot the bill for it? NO. Do I think it is reprehensible? Yes. Will it always go on in politics if people(not just pols) rewrite experiences to suit their point at the time? Yes.
~Mary
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment