Redstate

and if they have to break a few rules in order to wreck the comstiution, so be it. America must be saved from free political speech, and kept safe for porn and Al Qaeda phone calls to its operatives.

As I said on Skepticseye, not to be too repetitive:

Gaah.  If you're in Congress and persuaded that the Internet exemption is a bad idea, because Internet ads will bury modest Americans,  then by all means make your case, vote against it, and take a stand.  Feel otherwise?  Vote for it.  

Oppose the exemption, but feel just a little timid/scared . . .  well, tout the alternative no one understands!  Then, play games until we've got Rules good and confused and delay the question for another day.

Delay.  Not solve.  No, we'll let the FEC stick their necks out now, then complain why they didn't get it right.  Not exactly Profiles in Courage Award territory, eh?*

Remember that the next time Mr. Straight Talk wants you to believe he's "different."  Or Mr. Moderate Reformer.

__

Fn.  No, really.  There's a "Profiles in Courage Award. " In 1999, it was awarded to John McCain and Russ Feingold.  You can't make this stuff up.

It's a joke! I am starting to suspect he is not even going to be in the top two contenders! Alienating the blogosphere is not the way to win a primary.

What does he have to do with a closed session of the House Rules Committee?  Sure, BCRA was garbage, and McCain probably opposes this bill, but how can you say he had anything to do with today's action?

I hope not. Anyone who eviscerates the First Amendment does not deserve to be president.

Frankly, I disagree with the redstate-kos push to carve out speech protection for bloggers. How can we say "Save Our Speech" as we stand by while the speech of others is abridged?

I'd much prefer that we let McCain get his way, and then file a class action to have the entire campaign-finance regime ruled unconstitutional. Surely there's a Supreme Court-bar lawyer out there who can convince the Roberts court that the plain words of the First Amendment -- "Congress shall pass NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech" -- actually mean that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

What's the freakin' problem?

...not a McCain supporter...only way would be last second "insurance" in '08 if Bush is still hovering around 40%, Giuliani's not running, and McCain is the only one who can win the general.  Fortunately, I think this circumstance in which a McCain candidicy must be supported will not occur.

Speaking on behalf of people who were Born to Regulate™ this isn't such a bad result.  Sure, they're going to pull it off the front burner for a couple of days -- do you know why?  They're testing you.  They're testing all of us, basically, and more importantly, they're testing the electoral waters.  It's a controversial decision (to them) and they want to make sure, positively, absolutely, that there will be the least amount of backlash possible.  The reason is that there are plenty of easily scared constitutents who don't blog and who "Think this whole internet thing is just getting out of hand."  My 65 year-old Aunt does.  She certainly doesn't want to see the blogosphere get any stronger, and I'll tell you right now that she has a LOT more money and influence than I do.  

The New York Times has assured that there will be backlash, which to me proves even more why HR1606 should be passed expeditiously.  In the meantime, keep the last few posts on the front page front and center, because the next week will really determine how ambitious our congresspeople are.