Keith Olbermann on today’s Supreme Court decision:
-
‹ Home
Info
-
Subscribe
-
Users
Links
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- Axios
- Barry Deutsch
- Bearman Cartoons
- Beau of the Fifth Column
- Capitol Steps
- Cook Political Report
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Digby
- Eclectablog
- Electoral Vote
- Fair and Unbalanced
- Fark Politics
- Five Thirty Eight Politics
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Hackwhackers
- Heather Cox Richardson
- HuffPost Comedy
- John Fugelsang
- Kung Foo Monkey
- Last Week Tonight
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Davies
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- News of the Weird
- O'Carl's Law
- Politicususa
- PolitiFact
- Propaganda Professor
- Raging Pencils
- Randy Rainbow
- RCP Cartoons
- Saturday Night Live
- Slowpoke
- Stonekettle Station
- Ted Rall
- The Nib
- The Onion
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- USN Political Cartoons
- What Now Toons
-
Tags
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
-
Archives
You are Visitor #
11 Comments
When Bush picked John Roberts as Chief Justice he (Bush) had a “vision” of an ultra-conservative America,fixated on Fox News and Pat Robertson, marching backwards into the future. As of the latest Supreme Court decision that vision is closer to all of us.
As for Olbermann, even when I completely agree with him, I still can’t stand his method of delivery. A pompous blowhard, regardless of political stripes, is a tool. On those rare occasions when Limbaugh speaks the truth, he’s still an ass in the way he presents his opinions.
An ass is an ass.
He is dead on with his assessments, and I’m not sure my optimistic aspect can summon what’s needed to hope for a less than dark outcome from this decision. To call for a revolution — a return to the republic we are supposed to be, not the increasingly feeble democracy we have become — or to dust off the passport? It is a sad way indeed to start the teens after bidding a more than welcome goodbye to the grim aughts. Any true citizen of our fine country that isn’t outraged isn’t paying attention.
I have a very conservative co-worker with whom I have some spirited (but never mean-spirited) debates. Being a moderate, I come off as a liberal to him, but we agree on way more points than one might expect. (But what’s fun about debating things on which we agree?)
Today I asked him his opinion of this Supreme Court decision. He, as I expected, was all in favor. I asked why, and basically it was because his “side” has more power now (conceivably) to push its agenda forward. In other words, he admitted it was a politically partial opinion.
However, he is also someone who deeply believes in campaign finance reform. I asked how those two beliefs can cohabitate? And he actually admitted they cannot.
Grass roots activism, which was already on life support, was killed with the decision, and he admitted that. But you know what? Because it will likely favor his political agenda, it’s okay.
Yeah, I know that unions will likely benefit as well, but as a moderate, I don’t want ANY special interest money (or any MORE than already is) financing our legislators.
Oh, and in this instance, Olbermann (for once) didn’t come off as a pompous a-hole, so I will admit my assessment of him in the earlier comment is not necessarily universal.
I thought his delivery was good as well, Sammy. I am a libertarian working at a University, so often politics are best left undiscussed! After giving it some thought, I think Olbermann is right about the future of the unions too – they may benefit initially, but if this is allowed to run its course, they will falter at the hands of corporations eventually.
Campaign finance reform has needed rework for a long time, can’t say I have an ideal answer. I was an advocate for state-mandated equal time for all candidates, take the fundraising out of it. But then I saw a publication that a friend of mine in CA got prior to an election – looked like a phone book. Every candidate, no matter how marginal or crackpot, had their say in this publication that was printed by their government and mailed to all citizens at ridiculous cost.
I want our Republic back!
“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
Amen, TJ, amen.
This is indeed outrageous, maybe the dawn of a new (darker) era.
What bugs me is, where is the conservative rage? Why are the tea partiers not up in arms? There’s a host of reasons why — if they have the courage of their convictions — they should be joining with liberals right now.
You might find these statements by the prez of the Corp the recent SCOTUS ruling was about to be helpful in your thoughts and arguments.
Excerpts:
In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled… See More
“Hillary The Movie.”Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable “on-demand.” In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office.
I was stunned by the government’s decision. I believe that,
above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered “our” government?
From Thomas Paine’s publication of “Common Sense” before the American Revolution, to the ratification debate featuring John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison memorialized in the Federalist Papers, to the editorial writers of today, advocacy of political causes through popular media is inextricably intertwined with the fabric of this country. It is no coincidence that in the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is both first and absolute.
Over the last hundred years, however, Congress and the courts have decided that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” does not mean what any citizen reading those words for the first time would reasonably think.
For the last hundred years, progressively more restrictive laws have been passed encroaching on our right to free speech. Each time a new law is passed, it is done incrementally and under the guise of “good
government” so as not to frighten us. But as soon as we have grown accustomed to the previous law, another is passed that takes away just a little more of our freedom.
There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke. This is not an issue that is easily categorized as “conservative” or “liberal.” In our case, the ACLU joined with the NRA, and the AFL-CIO joined with the Chamber of Commerce in support of Citizens United and
the First Amendment. We were fighting as much for the rights of filmmakers like Michael Moore as we were for our own right to produce, advertise and distribute films.
Thankfully, the Roberts Court has put the brakes on a slide
down a very slippery and very dangerous slope. With yesterday’s ruling, so-called “reformers” have been put on notice that, as Justice Kennedy said in the opinion of the court, “when Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not
choose an unconstitutional remedy.”
David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring the government to citizen control.
Also in this audio (Jan 21) – interviews with the owner of CU who tells the full details about how he was excluded when others were not and in the first few minutes the host reads the judgment so you can hear it for yourself. Also an attorney who was involved with Buckley vs Valeio (sp?) is interviewed about it. http://marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
*I don’t listen to this host, but this was passed on to me by a friend and it contains the information stated which should be very helpful in learning the full details so you can draw your own conclusions.
Thomas Jefferson also said that from time to time the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots. I don’t think many of my countrymen value their freedoms enough to bleed and die for them.