Sam asks Bruno and Connie, "Do you know what we're talking about here?" There's a lot of repetitious back-and-forth here while everyone ascertains that everyone knows what everyone else is talking about, which is, as Sam puts it, "unlimited, unregulated money that can be raised in staggering amounts." Sam states, "Understand, it's not like there's a law that envisions soft money; it's just that there's no law that specifically bans it. It's a loophole so big you could race the America's Cup through it. How could the President be opposed to soft money one year and take it the next? Where's he going to be on campaign finance reform tomorrow?" Bruno replies, "Exactly where he is today: leading the charge against it. In the meantime, Congress and the FEC have been sitting on their hands. Is that our fault?" Connie dutifully states, "No." Bruno continues, "So now Bartlet's supposed to obey a law that doesn't exist? What's next, imaginary speed signs?"
- Television Without Pity, Recap of The West Wing Episode, "Gone Quiet"
Once again we have helpful conservatives encouraging liberals to chop their legs off. You know those helpful folks who have suggested that if you claim to be a liberal and you aren't giving any excess income you earn to the government, you are a hypocrite. Who suggest that any wealthy liberal, or any upper middle class liberal, is by definition a hypocrite. Who suggest that any criticism of the president is dirty campaigning and hypocrisy (after all Liberals didn't like it when they were accusing President Clinton of murdering Vince Foster and raping White House staffers, so we shouldn't go around saying that his plans for post-war Iraq were largely based on fairytales and faulty intelligence).
Well, now that Senator Kerry, who may be our president down the road, is acting like he wants to win this race, well, they think he's a hypocrite. Or so a Wall Street Journal editorialist suggests.
"Even better, this Kerry trial balloon exposes campaign-finance limits as a monumental farce. The Kerry camp is considering this maneuver so it can keep raising and spending money as long as possible without having to abide by spending limits that kick in once a party formally nominates its candidate. . . .
This is always the way with campaign-finance limits. Politicians endorse them to sound holier-than-thou but then immediately turn around and exploit or invent loopholes and exceptions."
Of course, this person presumably has little problem with the Republican party scheduling their convention so late so as to take advantage of September 11th celebrations. The fact of the matter is that Senator Kerry is not suggesting anything illegal or immoral. He's suggesting running his campaign the same way President Bush is running his campaign. Now I might agree that it would be nice if both parties agreed to a set limit to how much they could spend, but I know that they aren't.
Secondly President Bush's campaign staff is channeling his money into flatly dishonest campaign ads. I don't need to go over this again, but the accusations against Kerry's voting record on defense have been met. If President Bush is going to continue to air such negative ads and John Kerry goes off the stump (as this editorialist would suggest) than how is he to answer these charges? The answer is obvious, he won't be able to. I can understand how this Wall Street Journal Editorialist would enjoy that, but I'm not sure it's the best strategy for Kerry to follow.
I mean lets take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Liberals are well known for complaining about the negative influence of money in governing. So why is Kerry spending any money at all running his campaign. Doesn't that make him a hypocrite? He should just spend as little as possible if he's going to be true to what conservatives think liberal ideals are.
On the other hand, maybe I'd best not give them any ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment