It won't change the way I feel on any given issue or necessarily change the way I vote, but I have been wrestling with the possibility of resigning from the Republican party from the time when I first read a copy of the complaint.
Rather than listen to a large part of their constituency on an important issue, the Republican Congressional Committee has become unhinged.
They have used a law to try and clearly muzzle free speech. If the complaint goes forward, then no radio talk show host is safe (Limbaugh, Hannity, Stern, etc.)
More details when I have time...
(5:26pm) - Buckle up. John & Ken's rally next to Dreier's office this Monday is sure to be quite a show.
(7:08) - Lonewacko gets the ball rolling over at Free Republic.
The LA Times has been conducting interviews on this, so its only a matter of time before they pick up the story.
Posted by Justin Levine at October 28, 2004 05:16 PM | TrackBackIt's not the Republicans that have become unhinged here.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 28, 2004 07:57 PM (Permalink)This is the second recent example I've seen of an organization taking action to quiet something, and having it backfire.
The first one was the Queen of Sky incident. Because of my untrendiness, I'm just learning about this right now. This is the Delta flight attendant who has a blog in which she talks about Anonymous Airlines, and takes some care to disguise the name of her employer. Unfortunately for her, she posted a picture of herself in uniform. Frequent flyers could identify her employer by looking at the uniform. So could Delta, who suspended her immediately. Ever since, Delta has received a ton of negative publicity.
Same with Dreier. In a way, you can't blame Dreier for thinking that Clear Channel was just another conservative organization (like a 527) that he could manipulate at will. Only problem is that Clear Channel isn't quite ready to officially become a subsidiary of the Republican Party, and even if they were, John & Ken would never stand for it and would probably rather be fired than be forced to shut up. So Dreier's attempt to silence John & Ken has ended up with yet another diatribe against Dreier from a high wattage radio station - and this one might get voters in his district to wonder whether he truly represents their interests.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at October 28, 2004 09:41 PM (Permalink)I'm not ready to write off the Republican Party (the party that would fill the Republican vacuum are the Democrats), but I will say unhesitatingly that the California Republican Party was stunningly wrong and stunningly stupid to submit legal paperwork against KFI. Sheer idiocy!
Posted by: clark smith at October 28, 2004 11:52 PM (Permalink)Oh, thanks for the correction, Justin. I had mistakenly thought John & Ken had said during their show that the California Republican Party (rather than the National one) brought the filing.
You're right. It makes sense that it would be the National Republican Congressional Committee who would submit the claim rather than the State Party, on account that Dreier is in a National (not State) office.
Not only was it reprehensible for the NRCC to attempt to stifle KFI, it is as I said earlier, stunningly stupid.
First of all, the FEC is not going to go after KFI on account of the crybaby whining of Dreier.
Secondly, even if the FEC did their bidding, the NRCC should be careful what it wishes for. As John Kobylt alluded to in Thursday's show, in going after talk radio, the NRCC is biting the hand that feeds it. Such FEC encroachment into radio programming would inevitably come back to bite Republican interests--and bite 'em hard!--in the posterior regions.
Finally, to legally threaten John & Ken is about as astute as a pugilist using a hornet's nest as a speed bag. The ignorant fools back at the NRCC have just tapped-danced on a fire ant nest--as if J & K weren't stoked already. I hope the turkeys back at campaign headquarters enjoy the welts that they stand to receive for their trouble.
The stupidity factor alone scares me insofar as the NRCC's attempted legal recourse against KFI. What on earth were they thinking?, and what on earth are party officials in whom resides such idiocy doing so near the top of the Party? It's beyond my fathoming.
It's no secret that the Republican Party has gone bonkers on the subject of illegal immigration. Joe Baca getting Asa Hutchinson to call off the roundup of illegals pretty much says all that need be said. Of course the Democrat Party is even worse on illegal immigration, so there's no hope for remedy from any Party at all likely to wield the reins of power.
I don't blame you for your outrage, Justin; quite the contrary, I share it.
The Republican Party disappoints me in a number of ways, and I support them in general terms primarily from an admittedly Machiavellian calculation, founded upon the understanding that where the Republicans are bad, the Democrats are worse.
Posted by: clark smith at October 29, 2004 06:23 AM (Permalink)kevin murphy,
It's not the Republicans that have become unhinged here.
Could you expound on that a bit?
Posted by: clark smith at October 29, 2004 06:27 AM (Permalink)Clark--
I really hate this issue, as it divides Republicans.
Sure, suing a talk radio host is stupid. Granted. Only gives them a bigger platform. On the other had, the despicable McCain-Feinfold law may give cause for a suit. Don't assume it doesn't.
But this whole anti-Dreirer campaign was unhinged from Day One. I cannot begin to count the ways it is unhinged, but here are a few. If this post gets a bit long and ranty, well, that's the nature of dealing with an issue that is stupid to the sixth power.
1) Get over immigration. Get over Prop 187. The fact of the matter is that the US and CA in particular are going to have large numbers of non-white, initially-non-English-speaking, immigrants for the foreseeable future. See Canute, King. Accept the tide and use it. Holding it back won't work.
2) If not for Prop 187, the most colossal blunder ever committed by the CA Republican Party, we'd be looking at a sure-thing Bush vote out of CA next week. Hispanics were trending Republican until that Prop drove them out of the party. Immigrants, being largely opportunity-seekers, are a natural Republican constituency. Bush knows this, Schwarzenegger knows this, Dreier knows this. Know-Nothings don't know this. Forcing Republicans to try to out-ni**er each other is a really bad idea.
3) Dreier is a Republican, and his opponent is a liberal Democrat who can't believe her silly luck that a couple of publicity-seeking radio yahoos without the brains God gave a turnip are making her token candidacy suddenly viable. Is there anyone on the planet who thinks that she will cast even one vote in the direction of restricting illegal immigration? Or reducing welfare? Or lowering taxes? etc.
If you want to challenge a Republican, do it in the flipping primary, for God's sakes! THat's why we have them.
4) If you really want to take a stand against those who would turn immigrants into another Democrat welfare-client group (against all the natural instincts of immigrants), why not one or both of the Sanchez sisters? See here. Where the F*** were you guys when Gloria Matta Tuchman was running against Loretta in 2000? I wrote a check, did you? Or last year when Linda Sanchez squeaked by? But no, you go after a Republican who is marginally not toeing the fully xenophobic line.
5) Driver's licenses have utterly nothing to do with a Congressman. If you really want to rail against documenting illegals (which is, agreed, a very bad idea), there are LOTS of better ways to do that without attacking federal Republicans. Suggestion: work on a license ballot initiative that has a citizen checkbox and a legal resident checkbox, but is available to all (neatly documenting illegals as illegals). Or some such. But again, Why Dreirer? Supid, stupid, stupid.
6) Why would anyone in their right mind want to remove one of the most effective, senior, Republicans from California (a thing we ought to be working to increase), in favor of a dimwitted Democrat who'll be able to offer her Republican district nothing for two years from her office in some basement of some annex?
Sorry if this seems ranty, but I didn't want to post this, and it's actually quite a bit toned down from what I really think of these sh*t-for-brains crap artists on KFI who are willing to divide Republicans to boost their ratings.
But, hey, we all have our pet peeves. C'mon over Tuesday and enjoy my party.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 29, 2004 08:31 AM (Permalink)The fact of the matter is that the US and CA in particular are going to have large numbers of non-white, initially-non-English-speaking, immigrants for the foreseeable future.
You seem to be ignoring an awful lot of things. For instance: we've basically given a foreign country partial control of our immigration system. Fox says all Mexicans in the U.S. - including Mexican-Americans - are part of the larger "Mexican Nation." Some California legislators seem to have divided loyalties, to put it mildly (like encouraging the Mexican senate to interfere in the driver's license debate, or what they did with Zedillo and 187). And, the whole issue of remittances, which basically make Third World countries dependent on sending us more and more people.
As for 187, that was never a mistake. The mistake was some people who failed to indicate that it only affected illegal aliens, not all "Hispanic-Americans." 187 had around 55-60% of support among "Hispanic-Americans" before those mistakes were made. Don't believe the CW.
I'd suggest looking at some of the things Bush has done to prevent people like Tancredo from doing the right thing about this issue. Doing something like PHS is the only way to send a clear, unmistakable message that Americaland is fed up.
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at October 29, 2004 02:07 PM (Permalink)And now Bush, who speaks Spanish and has Hispanic in-laws, polls less than 1/3rd of Hispanic citizens. Must be their support for abortion rights.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 29, 2004 02:27 PM (Permalink)kevin murphy,
I appreciate you, as well as your "rant;" I've got no problem with that (though we're clearly not in full agreement regarding illegal immigration). Thank you for ‘putting it out there.’
I must say, however, that the blanket use of the word xenophobe to describe those who disagree with you in immigration issues, is erroneous, disingenuous in principle, and possibly even wrong-spirited (the lattermost being a matter of the heart, so I would not presume to judge you there).
I've seen this same dropping of the "-phobe" bomb against those who have principled disagreements with the gay-rights' movement, being verbally marginalized through the epithet "homophobes."
Dreier has done this same thing, deriding as xenophobes those who disagree with him on immigration and free trade. It's unbefitting of respectful conversation and principled rhetoric, and it pains me to see such a highly charged term misused like that.
Kevin, I hope you'll put far away from you the use of such wrong and demeaning language to describe those who guilty only of differing with you on matters of immigration. Disagreeing with you does not make a person a bigot.
Again, I want to close this comment by assuring you that I respect you as well as your stand on the political issues surrounding the thorny race between Dreier and Matthews.
I second your notion that the Dreier-Matthews race must be viewed in terms much wider than their professed positions on illegal immigration; illegal immigration is but one issue among a panoply of others. I also firmly agree that the time for opposing candidates of one's own party is in the primaries, not the general election.
While of course not all (nor even most) who are driven by issues of illegal immigration are "xenophobic", there is a strong element of that in such groups -- especially those who object to immigration in general. Or at least there is in MY experience. Being from an ethnic group that experienced this kind of thing long ago, I am maybe overly sensitive to this.
However, as I said, that was a rant, and I tend to get a little wound up in writing rants.
I support immigration. Immigration is the lifeblood of America. Wouldn't be America without it. I admit that *some* illegal immigration does NOT push any buttons with me. Sorry, but it doesn't. What it tells me is that there is such demand for coming to this country that we need to increase the allowed immigration, perhaps dramatically. I will accept that massive immigration from one nearby country with a grudge is probably not a great idea, but that's more about access than some kind of plan. Which the current laws exacerbate.
Like pot laws or the 55MPH speed limit, if people are wholesale ignoring the law, then it's the law that needs changing, not the behavior. A libertarian attitude, perhaps, but there you have it. (That doesn't mean I think amnesty is a good idea, it means that I think tripling quotas is a good idea.)
As far as trade issues, I am a free trader, and I support outsourcing as a valid business practice (even though my own profession is affected).
Now, I note that the Democrat you're trying to elect is a feminazi who cares not one whit for any single positon you hold. She can't believe her dumb luck that people she'd have no problem putting "up against the wall" are trying to get her elected.
Lastly, why didn't you guys do this in the primaries? That's what they're for. This is just a dumb stunt at this point in time. I'm sorry if I use words like "dumb" and "stupid" but there aren't a lot of neutral synonyms for how I see this one.
I note that your support on the very conservative Free Republic is, um, mixed. This might tell you that something is wrong here.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 29, 2004 05:32 PM (Permalink)But all that aside, even if I totally agreed with every particular of the complaint agasint Dreier, even if I thought that these radio guys wad anything but their own interests at heart, and even if I thought that this meant Dreier should be replaced as a Congressman, it still remains foolish to replace him with someone who not only is to his extreme left on the immigration issue, but to the left of nearly everyone on everything.
How can this make sense? The mind just boggles. It's like one of those Trotskyite vs Maoist arguments, where anyone on the outside just throws up their hands and says "Huh? WTF are they talking about?".
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 29, 2004 07:05 PM (Permalink)kevin murphy,
Agreed, xenophobia correctly applies to those opposing any immigration whatsoever (and provided this blanket opposition is race-based).
That having been said, no nation (yes, America included) is ethically or morally obligated to accept for citizenship everyone who wishes to emigrate there. Not only is it not obligatory, it is not necessarily in the best interest of the country in question. We’re in basic agreement on this, though I’m confident we differ as to the legal quota amounts that America should offer to potential immigrants.
What [illegal immigration] tells me is that there is such demand for coming to this country that we need to increase the allowed immigration, perhaps dramatically.
In my mind that is backdoor amnesty. That is solving to problem of illegal immigration by making it legal, as though 'POOF' that will make the problems associated with illegal immigration go away.
I'm afraid President Bush's Guest Worker Program is more of the same. If we're unwilling to deport illegals already here, what makes anyone think we'll enforce the Guest Worker Program when a guest workers' alloted time in the program is expended?
Such immigration has proved and is proving disastrous to affected parts of the American southwest, and is inescapably and undeniably so. Hospitals are shutting down; schools are overcrowded; wages are driven down.
When twenty illegals sleep in a one bedroom apartment, the only way citizens can compete for similar low-wage jobs is to consent to live in similar conditions. Citizens have a right to enjoy a higher standard of living than this, while still remaining competitive in such a job market.
Will a head of lettuce be a little more expensive with a reduced illegal alien workforce? Probably; but the social costs of illegal immigration far outweigh the benefits.
The answer to illegal immigration may in large part be met by strictly enforcing illegal hiring by employers. Dry up the illegal job market, and a disincentive is established for illegal immigration in a way that barrier fences at the border cannot achieve.
I'm not sure I like your rough equation of 55 MPH law with pot usage. Doesn't pass my smell test, but then I have a visceral reaction against libertarianism generally, at least where it seeks to give license that which I deem morally or societally objectionable.
As regarding free trade, I guess I'd view myself as a 'fair trader.' I'm not averse to open trade, so long as both each involved trading partner has reciprocal openness in policies upon which fair trading for each other party can be reasonably expected. I'm also adamant that we not use "free trade" as an excuse to aid our political, military, or ideological enemies, such as nation-states who operate as dictatorships, who grievously repress human rights, or who threaten violence against their neighbors.
Sure, we can sometimes profit from doing business with dictatorial regimes such as China (though even there we may find it eventually bites us in the butt), what monetarily profits is not always what is morally right.
Now, I note that the Democrat you're trying to elect is a feminazi who cares not one whit for any single position you hold.
I understand your statement to refer to the "Fire Dreier" campaign in general, rather than me in particular. Personally I've never been impressed by Matthews. As a rock-ribbed conservative, "feminazis" are so not my type. :-) Much as I dislike Dreier, I have always been deeply conflicted over "Political Human Sacrifice."
I'm sorry if I use words like "dumb" and "stupid" but there aren't a lot of neutral synonyms for how I see this one.
No need to apologize, nor recant; your description might even be accurate. I must say that while I have some sympathy for John & Ken's campaign, a case can certainly be made (and you have made it fairly eloquently) that "Political Human Sacrifice" is a satiating quaff of 'Kool Aid,' that would ultimately result in a net loss to Conservatives. I wouldn't argue with you there.
Thanks again for this dialogue. It is a conversation very much worth having.
Posted by: clark smith at October 29, 2004 07:34 PM (Permalink)order cheap soma online - it's the easiest way to lose your weight!
Posted by: order soma at November 25, 2004 01:29 AM (Permalink)