« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Chuck Schumer (D-NY): Free speech is un-American.

I'm sure that he *means* well, or at least that he means *something*.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 21st, 2010 at 03:49 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via AoSHQ:

The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is “un-American,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.

Schumer, a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

“I think it’s an un-American decision,” Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. “I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.”

Democrats have responded quickly to rebuke the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case, handed down Wednesday. The decision essentially kills a sizable portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold Act for its high-profile sponsors.

Remember, folks: this guy is what the Democratic party thinks a populist looks like.  To wit: a rich lawyer from Harvard who has never held a real job in his life.  I’d also love to hear what he was planning to have hearings on.  The inconvenience of having an independent third branch of government?  The insensitivity of the American people in expecting its legislators to have a working grasp of Constitutional theory?  The tragic lack of ego-affirming public exposure for Chuckie Schumer right now?  Anything is possible in these halcyon times.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • penguin2

    Seeing/hearing him is like nails on chalkboard. Now he is going to take on the Supreme Court? If our side doesn’t see the deadly seriousness of the left, I don’t know what else is going to convince them. The Left seeks absolute power…….

  • redneck_hippie

    evil calls for congressional hearings.

  • mriggio

    since you won’t actually be PASSING LEGISLATION anytime soon.

  • http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

    (James Herriot)

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    Moe, not sure where you live but I know Erick lives in the Atlanta area. Can we get him to attend the 10th Amendment Summit for us RedStaters?

    http://summit.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

  • becolt

    that this nincompoop is my senator

  • becolt

    from All Creatures Stinky and Incontinent?

  • Spartan4Life

    And the Environmental Lobby is just trying to plant trees and the Trial Lawyers are just a bunch of good old boys.

    The only difference between the Corporate lobbyists and the Democrat Party Special Interests is the Corporations actually create jobs, not kill them.

  • Ivan Yurkenov

    Chuck Schumer is the walking, talking definition of the very concept of what is unamerican! What part of the separations clause of the Constitution does “Schmucky” not understand?

    McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional at its core and never should have become law. Being able to spend however amount of money one wishes on any candidate or issue IS speech, to be protected under the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, PERIOD.

    Re-electing this numb-skull every time he stands for renewal, is a sad reflection on New York state.

    Ivan

  • michigan

    This decision is analogous to throwing holy water on Count Dracula, or in this case ?Count Chuckula? played by a fictional protector of the constitution. We?ll be using stakes in the next two election cycles.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    Expect that there will be an exception for unions.

    and George Soros.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    it would be a good thing if neither corporations NOR unions had the ability to lobby or electioneer. But then again, it would be even better if there was no reason to get into politics because the government didn’t have the power to grant them any special privileges.

  • USNJIMRET

    then being given even MORE ability to express out “chatter” must really bother him!
    So much that I hope that his increased use of TUMS results in a nice stock price increase!!

  • http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

    …are a man of refined tastes

    Cordially

  • E Pluribus Unum

    This will, I suspect, put corps on closer to an even footing against unions. I say so relatively uninformed of the particulars. But I think it’s safe to say that if Chuck Shumer has his nose out of joint, something very good for America must have just happened.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    NY is next on the Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts express. People have finally realized that blind voting for Democrats has done significant damage at the state and federal level.

    So first on the hit parade is Gillibrand- the other Democrat appointed Senator who is a big zero for New Yorkers. Next will be Chuckie, Reid’s right hand man, Pelosi’s lunch partner, Obama’s page and the Constitutions worst enemy.

  • Brian_Roastbeef

    Really, I wish that the GOP here in NY had its crap together, but they don’t. We couldn’t even get Giuliani recruited to take on Gillibrand, and now we’re hoping that the Brown victory will encourage King or Pataki to take her on.

    In this environment we’re looking for $2.10 show bets when the trifecta should be in play. If the NY GOP saw that they’d have done a better job getting Pataki in against Gillibrand, let Lazio beat Paterson, and recruit Rudy to run against Schumer. It really could be done and should at least be tried. How many more opportunities will we have to knock off Schmuckie?

  • muffin

    why is Shoo-mer still talking?

  • Achance

    manpower and other infrastructure to the Democrats so that the Ds can use their hard money directly on candidates. The call it member education but they can also do general GOTV by putting a non-partisan fig leaf on it. They get away with a lot of illegal activity of this sort because the Democrats like them doing it and the Republicans are either afraid of them or think if they’re nice, the unions will like them.

    McCain Feingold really clamped down on businesses because they couldn’t use the member education dodge that the unions had.

    The private sector unions don’t trouble me so much as long as dues objector rights are observed – which they aren’t now – anywhere, including Red states. But if I were King for a day, at the end of that day ALL public employees and their agents/representatives would be absolutely prohibited from taking any action to influence the outcome of any election, ballot proposition, or legislative action beyond casting the employee’s individual secret ballot. No endorsements, no member education, no GOTV, no NOTHING that has as its purpose influenceing the political process beyond with strict limitations being able to lobby a legislative body for approval of their own contract.

  • The_Rebel

    stated:

    “For Schumer to be so upset, one can bet that a loophole or something underhanded was ripped away from crooked politicians.Someone enlighten us.”

    Yes, inquiring minds want to know.

  • wolfster38

    If Chuck hates it, it must be good for America.

  • Leopard1996

    Like the special interest money that let Obama raise boatloads of money in 2008, he had Immelt, Buffet, and a few others practically blowing him and paying for the privledge, but some oil company cannot donate money or fund commercials point out there side.

    I think my boy Obama needs to have a Coke and a Smile, and shut the )))) up.

  • majorkong

    I suppose the true reason Schumer is so bent out of shape over the SCOTUS decision is that challengers now have a real chance against him and other deep-rooted incumbents and their war chests.

  • wolfster38

    It’s ok if Chuck spends your money, but do you dare spend your own. Your not smart enough to spend it.

  • jimnden

    are the ones who routinely cheat. The ones who accept donations made in any name at all, so long as the credit card is approved.

  • wolfster38

    Banks
    Insurance companies
    Health care
    Drug makers
    All the American People
    Tea Party
    Wow, I’d hate to piss off these people!

  • california_red

    “As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I’m announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks,” Schumer said.”

    Excuse me, but I don’t think Article I or Article III says anything about the Senate Rules Committee having the power to govern the Supreme Court. Is there an updated Constitution that I should be referring to?

  • california_red

    Public empolyees unions pit the employee against the taxpayer, because the taxpayers are the Ownership of the “company”. It is counter intuitive and should be illegal. Here is CA, our state will go down in floames before the public employees unions give a single inch to restore prosperiity to the state. Between CA state public employees, local government employees, teachers, fire and police, there is no voice for the average tax payer.

    Think about it, if you could in essence vote yourself a boss that would give you a raise and ensure the safety of your job no matter what the consequence, wouldn’t you?

  • jhip87

    I’m curious how the readers of this blog who support the SCOTUS’s decision support their views. A quick argument: Only people can speak; abstract objects are not people; corporations are abstract objects; so, corporations cannot speak. If this is a sound argument, then corporations have no speech for the 1st amendment to protect. Another argument: Speech occurs only when language is used; donating money does not involve using language; so, donating money is not speech. So, the 1st amendment is irrelevant to corporate donations to political campaigns. Both of these arguments seem pretty compelling to me, though there are objections to be heard. Perhaps, in lieu of making ad hominem comments, those who agree with the majority of the SCOTUS should show why these arguments are unsound.

  • aelie

    State employees here in California want most pay for least work. Majority of our state’s tax revenue comes from non-state employees. Hence most of those employees’ paychecks comes non-state employees. It’s basically become a wealth redistribution system, pure and simple.

  • jimnden

    I’d refer you to Scalia’s concurring opinion. Read it.

  • persiflage

    intense Corporate/Lobbyist interest in politics is that the government intrudes into too many niches and controls/regulates too large a part of the economy. If the “prize” were not so sweet, there would be far fewer and less motivated seekers. Just think, it might be possible to turn all that lucre into something more productive than greasing the egos of pompous asses and making them feel important and powerful.
    Oops – is “pompous asses” objectionably profane when talking about my representatives?

  • california_red

    it is established that conduct can amount to protected speech. Flag Burning, wearing arm bands to protest something, riding naked on a horse like lady godiva to protest taxes. When you look at this, the act of donating to candidates is symbolic speech, especially considering it enables them to do actual speaking in the form of political advertising and campaigning. In many ways, this is political speech and should be given the highest degree of protection.

    As for the question about corporations not being a person, per se. Corporations are recognized entities in many areas of the law. Corporations can sue, buy and sell property, are entiled to due process, and to redress their government, In many ways corporations function exaclty like an individual. The only provision that I am aware of in the Constitution that does not apply to corporations is the privileges and immunities clause of Article IVwhich applies only to “citizens of the United States.”

    If you look at the 1st amendment, it says “Congress shall make no law….” there is no mention of laws against citizens, private individuals, or corporations. It says Congres shall make no law and it is established jurisprudence that Corporations are entitled to protection under the 1st.

  • zroxx

    In the sense that a corporation is a voluntary association of citizens how is it different from a PAC that raises donations and then spends that money on advocacy and persuasion? It isn’t. A ban that says the management/board/owners/shareholders (who are people) of a corporate entity (including for and non profit entities) cannot advocate together through their organization for or against political issues is a restriction on the speech of those owners/shareholders – an unconstitutional restriction as per this court’s ruling.

    Look at it from a different angle: most newspapers and media outlets are organized as corporations. Most of those routinely editorialize and those editorials often function as statements of advocacy on a given issue or outright support for a given candidate. Absent a decision such as this, why wouldn’t we assert that CNN or FoxNews or the Daily Springfield aren’t people and therefore should be restricted from spending money to broadcast or publish any opinion/advocacy pieces that same way that Citizens United was restricted?

    There is a good article from an actual legal professional on this very subject here.

  • Scope

    look at his past comments. He is a leftist Liberal.

  • Scope

    n/t

  • SteveLA

    So your argument is that corporations have no rights, but Unions and the Media corporations do?….Hmmmm

    Can you explain that mental jujitsu to me please?

    The 1st Amendment ether means what it says, or it don’t. The Supremes said today what they think the Constitution means, which is their job.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    “Readers of this blog” told me I needed a ban right away.

    Post in good faith or get out. Check that, I’m kicking you out.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    You’re not particularly curious: you’re mostly trying to figure out how waste our time.

    Now say you’re sorry. Try to do it in less than 20 words.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I weep for the loss of him/her.

  • jimnden

    “Recoil”

  • Leopard1996

    Thanks to the over abuses of the “commerce clause”, it opened the floodgates for crony capitalism.

  • mschmitt

    Because cute, cuddly, kittens die when people like jhip are not subjected to immediate moderator blam-sticking (Shazam: take that McCain-Feingold).

  • ooga007

    First, Schumer is a fool…Second, why in the world is Sarah Palin campaigning for McCain? McCain has to go!

  • Scope

    thank you. We don’t need lurkers reading that tripe.

  • Jack_Savage

    No word on whether the Boys and Girls Club will be paid back. Owners were overheard saying “I hate voters! I hate listeners! I hate the free market! They ruin EVERYTHING!”

  • wolfster38

    The Supreme Court just gave the people of this country a great tool!
    I mean, whats the problem? Obama likes a level playing field !
    Remember: Be careful what you wish for!

    I don’t know about all of you, but I think it’s time we find some worthy causes and write a few checks. And while your watch the plasma (California excluded from this offer) you can say proudly “I helped pay for that!”

    God Bless America !

  • wolfster38

    MSNBC’s Overbite is foaming at the mouth!

  • http://www.mysimplehomegarden.com tbaleno

    Because I think though the ruling was correct, we do need to have a way to limit contributions from lobbiests/corporations and special interest groups.

    Imagine if the healthcare companies could give as much money as they wanted to coakely? Do you think the grassroots could compete?

    We need a constitutional way to limit contributions by companies and large orginizations.

    We need the people to be able to compete with these groups.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Plus, the “big corporation” and “special interest” argument is often a canard. Those special interests are big and powerful becaue they represent huge indunstries that employ huge numbers of people and generate huge amounts of wealth and pay huge amounts of taxes. If someone has concrens, they can be addressed through transparency and open government, not by restricting the First Amendment.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Mark Levin had the guy on his show this pm, David Bossie I think. His initial complaint was about something relatively minor, but was somehow turned into this big case, which had not been his intention but he’s of course happy. His company has made many good DVD’s, some would be familiar to people here. As Bossie related, Justice Roberts did a terrific job as did Ted Olsen. Anyhow, a bad week for George Soros. News tonight Air America has filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

  • The_Rebel

    the healthcare companies? She went to D.C. about 10 days before the election to meet with a group of 16 such companies and lobbyists, including Blue Cross Blue Shield. She was there for money, not for a social visit.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Is the correct spelling.

  • eburke

    However, I’ve got an idea that’ll help out both you *and* becker.

    Set up a camera equadistant between John McCain and Chuckie Schumer. They’ll kill each other trying to be the first one there and we’ll be rid of both of ‘em.

  • bobco

    Schumer is a firebreathing elitist progressive, thats a given. Watch his facial expressions as he spews his fiery socialist and anti-American puke, one of the more forceful bodies in a very serios movement to truly
    “change” our country, without the “hope”!

    This is a smart man with a diabalicle keen sense of the big picture in regards to the progressive movement led not by The left socialist poster boy Obama, but by an extremely well funded, well organized anti-constitutional proactive socialist group of thugs that, ufortunately have totally infiltrated our government. I fear that but by the grace of God, Lady Liberty may be nearly dead.

    I have asked myself and many others, how could the greatest, most charitable and diverse country succumb to this, the absolute brink of socialism and tyranny? Well I did some research, a lot of research and I found definitive answers! Has anyone read anything about the Cloward-piven strategy? What does the average person know about Sail Alinsky?What active roll does George Soros play in our current administration and main stream media? What is the open socirty institute? Do you understan the “shadow party”.

    If you really want to see thru these Obamanots, go resarch everything these turncoats DO NOT want you to know, and I do mean EVERYTHING! Go to www.discoverthenetworks.org, this is the absolute best place to get the facts, ALL the facts!

    Oh and by the way, schumer you suck!

  • seandparnell

    You nailed it. The first amendment does not somehow vanish because citizens chose to voluntarily associate themselves with each other to advance common interests, whether that’s profits, collective bargaining, or advancement of particular agenda.

    A great ruling, one that we’re pleased to have played a role in helping along. Now we just have to get rid of the rest of these noxious rules that limit how citizens are able to support the candidates and causes of their choice.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org
    http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

  • seandparnell

    “The people” ARE “these groups.” Some of them might be people organized into groups that you don’t particularly agree with, but that’s how our system of government works – the other side gets to advocate for their beliefs too.

    Besides, contributions by companies are currently banned. Only a real live person, or a PAC or political party that collects money from real live persons, is able to give to a federal candidate.

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org
    http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

  • seandparnell

    You’re right that the case started as kind of a small, technical issue related to whether video-on-demand was covered by McCain-Feingold. The reason it got “big” was because in the original oral arguments the government said that they could ban books under campaign finance laws and previous rulings. That did not go over well…

    For an account of how this happened, you can read here:http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/citizens-united-v-fec-did-the-solicitor-general-blow-it-or-is-the-problem-the-theory

    For those interested in the issue, we’ll be doing analysis and commentary on the decision that you can follow here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org
    http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

  • seandparnell

    Campaign finance “reform” suffered another loss last night, before today’s blockbuster SCOTUS ruling. A federal judge in Arizona struck down part of that state’s scheme of taxpayer financed political campaigns. Details here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/death-by-a-thousand-orders-for-tax-financing-in-ariz

    Sean Parnell
    President
    Center for Competitive Politics
    http://www.campaignfreedom.org
    http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

  • Leopard1996

    And having full information. If I am a shareholder in company X, or my 401k, or mutual fund that I am invested in, pays for a commerical that I don’t agree with, I divest, I make sure that other divest, maybe using tools like Redstate and other blogs, I manage to organize such a boycott that puts company X out of business.

    Remember a corporation is a group of people that pooled their money together to start a company, and now those people are making a return on their investment. Why should they be denied of using some of the returns to pay for an ad or two, and as I said before if we feel that the corporation in question is “immoral” and we know that that corporation supported candidate X, candiate X starts polishing off is resume for a job other than elected office.

    As someone else said, Coakley probably got more than enough from the health insurance companies and she still got pounded.

  • vondutch

    I betcha most who visit this website regularly have dug a little deeper into our founding as a nation.

    I would think that the founding fathers did not intend for corporations to have a greater influence over the American political process than the individual voter.

    How can anyone as a common sense, back to basics conservative not support severe limitations of corporate influence in politics. Just doesn’t make sense fellas.

  • vondutch

    McCain was trying to give back the government to the voters – it was flawed legislation based on compromise, but it was a start. I, for one, get ill thinking of the influence corporations have over our political process.

    I want my country back, unfortuantly PepsiCo, Microsoft, and Exxon have the keys.

  • Jack_Savage

    The one thing that we all have which is equal (assuming ACORN is not involved) is our vote. No corporation can buy it and no corporation can duplicate it, so no corporation will ever have more of an influence on elections than the individual voter. Ever.

    The simple fact is that the left is hgihly organized and pours millions into campaigns through their various groups. Would you rather George Soros have more of an influence on elections that American corporations?

    Plus, anything that further unhinges Chucky Schumer has got to be good.

  • http://www.hopeychangemas.com VizBiz

    It’s just great entertainment since Tuesday. I just saw Bawney Fwank on the Madcow show. He’s seems to think since congress can regulate corporations then they can pass regulations that will stop this free speech. I say go ahead Bawney, it should be fun to watch.

    Ok, so we’ll see more ads during the election, get a little more mail. So what …… I think the American people are paying more attention to action these days more so than words. Thank God.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    They can’t stand it when we laugh at them.

    Shoo.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    Since he profits from corporations that lobby him more than any other Senator. Three of the top five highest spending on lobbying types of corporation give more money to Schumer than any other Senator. If corporations can spend money directly on ads they won’t be spending so much taking Schumer to lunch, and that is bad for Chuck.

    LOL! What a chump!

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Unless you think convicted criminal billionaires like Soros are the common man. Bankers run this country, are well entrenched in government, have taken advantage of Soros backed McCain Feingold to do so. Even Cramer has said so and he’s a proud leftist. Why would George Soros have pushed for McCain Feingold? Because he wanted transparency in politics? A twice convicted stock criminal, no that wasn’t his intent. Corporations give to all kinds of groups who then give to other groups and most of them lead to Soros or the Sandlers–billionaires, corporate entities. Most people don’t have all day to try to track down where all the money is coming from. Or that Soros supported groups have been convicted of giving millions illegally to candidates with only a slap on the wrist for punishment. The idea is to overwhelm the system, which is what he does. Soros wanted to be in the White House and bought his way in. Is that nice and American and conservative? No. In today’s Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was nothing like a big evil corporation–it was a guy from a small company who wanted to buy advertising to sell a DVD he had made about Hillary Clinton. He was denied airtime because he wasn’t a licensed media entity among other things.

  • jayburd

    by bankrupting third world countries through currency trades. The left doesn’t care where their money comes from but they’ll sure as hell demonize you for accepting honestly earned money.

  • azindependentthinker

    the devil.

  • azindependentthinker

    is giving John boy some payback for not outing her and revealing what really happened on the campaign trail. She will not be relevant much longer. Also, she is not a true conservative, she is not articulate on the issues, and she will get slaughtered in any election she’s involved in. She is a voice, but she should stick to posting on facebook. We don’t need a hockey mom with 5 kids who can’t answer softball questions from Hannity or Beck. I know there are a lot of Palin fans here, but this is the truth…If repubs/conservatives follow her we are done. I live in arizona and conservatives here and the country have had ENOUGH of McLame and his garbage. Being liberal doesn’t make you a maverick, it makes you a liberal…no more RINO’s! J.D. Hayworth is the candidate to support in arizona, not perfect but good enough, and we at the grassroots level are doing everything we can to get rid of McLame…

  • novimir

    In 10 years we will look like Russia being ruled by a small set of oligarchs who control both the business and politcal environment.

    Anyone who wants their individual voice to be heard should be outraged, because today we lost the ability to be heard on any issue which monied interests care about which means any issue of consequence.

  • audax

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

  • audax

    Judge Roberts concurring opinion is good reading.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

  • sarge324

    this supreme court of consists of five conservatives against the bill and four progressives for the bill.everything is on an level playing field now and schumer upset.all the cheating and underhanded deals the progressives are doing on the elections now have an american money to fight.finally the tilt is going americas way.stay mad vote them out in 2010.

  • conservativegeorgian43

    Our dearly beloved (NOT!) socialist president had the colossal nerve to be outraged because “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics”.

    Special interests? You mean like the SEIU and all union buddies? ACORN? Fanny & Freddy? every socialist Dem in Congress? etc., etc.

    What a bunch of lying hypocrites!

  • renny

    In 1972, the pres. of the NEA said that teachers are now social engineers. That answers it all.

  • renny

    to uphold the 10th Amend. and remove NJ from mandates and fed. laws that are unfunded and/or not mentioned directly in the Const.’s enumerated powers.

  • doncorleone

    Troll models like chucky”the attack poodle” will spew that free speech is unamerican. When they completely abused Mccain/Feingold, America was the epitome of the free speech model. What’s unamerican, is how a presidential canidate amassed 650 million dollars for a presidential campaign, much of it bundled, and it’s whereabouts unknown.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Schumer thinks he is safe since there is plenty of room between him and his next election cycle in 2010. Don’t forget, Chuck is not just one of the cool-aid drinkers, he is making the elixir. Accordingly, any decent candidate could cut him back significantly from the 70% he received in the last election.

    Agreed, the NY GOP is a useless bunch of old-timers and party acolytes who can’t find their behinds with both hands. Nonetheless, a strong candidate with popular appeal and grass-roots backing could present a real problem for Chuck. Look no further than at Brown in Mass. as a prime example of what CAN be done.

    If one looks at the record, Schumer has done nothing for NY as Senator and spent all his time cheer-leading for the Pelosi, Reid and Obama agenda that has fiscally destroyed this state (Schumer supports the “Stimulus”, Cap and Trade, trying terrorists in NY, etc). That is a very unpopular, dangerous electoral territory. In fact, it is toxic.

  • freedomofthought

    Moe

    Are you being sarcastic?

    You may be right by the calendar *a)
    Dictionary:
    halcyon days
    a. a fortnight of calm weather during the winter solstice
    b. a period of peace and happiness
    ———
    But not the state of this nation and the economy (b. above &
    Thesaurus below:)
    Adj. 1. halcyon – idyllically calm and peaceful; suggesting happy tranquillity; “a halcyon atmosphere”…peaceful, peaceable – not disturbed by strife or turmoil or war; “a peaceful nation”; “peaceful times”; “a far from peaceful Christmas”; “peaceful sleep”

    2. halcyon – marked by peace and PROSPERITY; “a golden era”; “the halcyon days of the clipper trade” golden, ROSPEROUS

  • realskinny

    of “the people”. Their influence is baleful only in direct proportion to the power of the government. They would not be asking for handouts and favors if the government was not capable of giving them.. Restricting campaign financing (which will inevitably favor incumbents and the Majority at the time of the restrictions) is attacking the symptom and not the problem.

    The Founders fully understood the problem of Factions (what we call Special Interests). As usual their remedy was not to restrict political speech but to reduce government power by dividing it into branches and layers, each of which, they hoped, would jealously guard its power. It worked pretty well too for a century and a quarter. As the Progressives expanded Federal power corruption also expanded. Just as today’s Progressives, those of a century ago were smarter than the Founders. Too much freedom was the problem and the first waves of campaign finance reform began.

  • realskinny

    If we knew nothing else about this case but a list of those bellyaching we would know it was a good decision.

  • realskinny

    Why are you frightened of freedom?

  • irbobert

    Shuck Schumer –
    Where is his intelligence — if he thinks the pen is stronger than a Colt .45 when some drugged ding-bat breaks into his home carrying a pistol in one hand and a knife in the other, and couldn?t care less if he kills you or not?. ?I know what, I?ll just tell him to put down his weapons because it?s against the law to carry a firearm?! Then I can go back to bed knowing me and my family are safe.
    I wonder if you asked him, ?Do you, or your guards, carry a weapon?? Do you think you would get an honest answer? I thought so.

  • hogflight

    in full display so that the Novembers results are even better for us.

  • olddog

    Of most of our elected officials at all levels, is rampant but has been increasing every election cycle as they keep getting reelected by an electorate who is being mislead, till it has become very visible even though the l.s.m. doesn’t cover it. Many of them would be in jail if they worked for a private business and did what they are doing to, “We the people”. It is time for all ,to vote, like our very lives depend on it, because, it may come to that. You really don’t want, what they are bringing.
    Support Our Troops.
    One Old Dog

  • olddog

    going, stay mad as HELL,Remember this November,
    what they are trying to do to our great Nation.

    Support Our Troops!!!
    One Old Dog

  • olddog

    2nd constitution is the one in chuckie’s mind, the one, that never employed gainfully, lawyers like him and obie, want for us, the chattering rabble, the Reid smelly ones.!!
    Support our Troops!
    One Old Dog

  • Brian_Roastbeef

    and Scott Brown does show us that it doesn’t need to be a massive name to defeat him. Still, do we have a Scott Brown in this state? After all, we didn’t win Mass. just because Coakley was a crappy candidate in a crappy environment for Dems. That helped, but Brown didn’t really start pulling ahead until after “It’s the people’s seat.”

    We need a guy like him who is willing to take a truck an chug it around the state. Somebody with a fiscal conservative message and an ability to cut through the nonsense we get from the pols and their media lackeys. Enough of us in Central and Upstate NY who have been consistently ignored by the Dems. will be open to such a message, probably to the point that it would cover moderate losses in NYC.

    The problem is that guys like that are just looking at what they see as the low-hanging fruit. For example, the guy that springs to mind as willing to do that sort of work is Rick Lazio. I believe that he could come from behind to beat Schumer as Brown did vs. Coakley. Instead he’s going after Paterson, whom polling suggests would finish 4th in a four way race vs. my three cats. I guess it isn’t really that we don’t have the candidate to beat Schumer. Its that nobody is looking in his direction. They’re awed by his big name and not looking at the pathetic elitist and vulnerable left-wing rubber stamp behind the curtain.

    Maybe my cats and your dog should be running this state. Couldn’t screw it up much more than it already is.