From Volokh:
As co-blogger Jonathan reports below, the Obama campaign has sicced its lawyers on t.v. stations that might air a well-sourced NRA advertisement that correctly points out Obama’s longstanding anti-gun record. The proper response to such attempts to infringe on the First Amendment is to make sure that the video in question receives the widest circulation possible, to deter the Obama campaign, and other campaigns for that matter, from engaging in such tactics in the future. So here it is. Share it with a friend, with a note that Obama is threatening legal action against stations that run it, in violation of the First Amendment.
Here at Haemet, we’re big fans of the First and Second Amendments. So, like Prof. Bernstein, we’ll also do our patriotic duty and air this offending ad.
If anyone can find an internal untruth in the ad, please note that in the comments. (I’ll distinguish something untrue about what the ad itself says, and whether or not Obama has said other things that contradict a truth in the ad - i.e. an external contradiction.)
Sphere: Related Content
Just doing my patriotic duty:-)
Why don’t you check this out?
http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf
You don’t want to get your information straight from Obama though right? Better the he said she said crap you usually go for.
While I am here, just thought I would mention that again Tina Fey did a fantastic job of imitating Sarah.
Sarah Palin makes Miss South Carolina 2007 look brilliant!
I think I’d trust the NRA on this one
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4189
Sunflower Desert’s last blog post..Who’s Your Daddy?
Hmmm …. I think we should look at The One’s record instead of what is on his website:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4191&issue=
Sunflower Desert’s last blog post..Who’s Your Daddy?
Did you come here to pee all over the nice carpet again? While I’m flattered that you find Haemet to be a good enough blog to keep coming back to, despite your political disagreements with us, I wish you would try to contain the internet version of your bodily fluids.
But Tammi… those are actual facts, which are, um, not the spoken words of the One. Clearly, when John talked about the Word, he was talking about Obama.
Don’t flatter yourself Roxeanne. I actually enjoy looking at the opinions of some of the people on the righty blogs. You are usually not one of them, although every once in a while something smart comes out of your mouth. Even Sarah Palin can say something smart now and again. Just not often enough for most of us. By the way, I haven’t heard any opinions on the Sarah Palin interviews from any of you. Anyone?
Regarding John McCain…
Can someone please explain how voting 90% with the current administration gives someone the title of “maverick”?
According to Random House, the definition of Maverick: “a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.”
Is agreeing 90% of the time taking an independent stand from his associates?
That’s an interesting question. The quick answer that I’ll give you, since I’m a tired girl who is about to head to her warm and cozy bed, can be found here.
I’ll probably be doing an actual post on it sometime. It’s a very interesting statistic from a civics/constitutional law perspective; the Senate and the President occupy different branches of government, so it’s not like saying that McCain voted with Sam Brownback some percentage of the time; Bush was never a part of the Senate. The statistic is inherently flawed, because it’s somewhat nonsensical to talk about a Senator and a President voting together any percentage of the time.
Here is an example…http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91544414
I make no claims to be a lawyer but…
As for the ideas in the article that you linked, Isn’t it comparing apples to oranges? The statement can just be rephrased to say that McCain VOTED THE SAME as Bush(not with) 95% of the time in all of the issues that reached resolution. We aren’t keeping track of the ageements or lack of agreements on issues that did not reach resolution. As for your argument about “voting with” Bush, it is sort of null and void if you include this statement (from the article you quoted) :
So what about Obama? In 2006, the last year he was present for at least 95 percent of the votes on issues in which Bush took a clear position, OBAMA VOTED WITH THE PRESIDENT NEARLY HALF THE TIME. (His total Bush presidential agreement tally is 40 percent.)
The point is, the description of McCain as a “Maverick” is just not true. I just went through his voting records AGAIN, and most of the time in the last couple of years he agrees with his party. That is not being a free thinker. Maybe 4 years ago we would have seen him in a different light. In fact I would even go so far as to say that perhaps then he was a “maverick”. The last couple of years, not so much. Now I understand the nickname “McSame” (Although, I don’t think one could say that I am the name caller around here)
What is that saying…If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck….??? (Referring to McCain)
Now, I am to assume that since you quoted Michael Smerconish, you may be interested in this article that he wrote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/11/hunting_binladen/index.html
I have been sniffing around in a circle and now I feel a bit dizzy but could it really be that we are having a grown-up argument with no reference to dog pee?
I take it I won this argument:-)
In this place called reality, when you don’t respond, you lose. Sorry.
Whatever makes you happy.
Um, I just dug your comment out of moderation. I did not get an email telling me to moderate it. Usually, if you post two or more links, the spam filter will eat it. If that happens, drop another comment, without links, letting me know it’s in there.
Also, try clearing out your cache every once in a while.