Still Pissed Off About the Hawley-Smoot Tariff

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Addendum to the Addendum

It seems that Amish, who I must assume is posting in my comments section using a computer powered by butter churns, agrees (gasp!) with the Dems on the Anti-Propaganda stuff. I haven't had any time to look into existing federal laws, so I can't comment more fully just yet. But I will publish (with permission) the full text of an e-mail that Amish sent me for my readers to consider:

Amish v. Sobek

Lets pretend that i am a car salesmen and you came to buy a car from me. You listen to my sales pitch but you arent sure that the car is as good a deal as i claim it to be, so you decide to take the car to a local mechanic to get the car checked out first. So you take the car to the shop and the mechanic tells you its a great car and you should snap it up before somebody else buys it. Now if it turned out that the mechanic you saw actually worked for me and didnt tell you? Wouldnt you feel you were mislead? And what if it turned out that i jacked the price up by a couple of hundered bucks to pay the mechanic? How is this different from a president, who cant seal the deal with the American people about "No Child Left Behind", who pays a journalist (who claims to be giving nothing but his honest opinion) to publicly make the case for the administration? The fact that Williams was paid with taxpayer money is the worst offense. What if democrats in congress decided to spend millions of dollars in advertising to promote partial birth abortion or affirmative action? No- spending taxpayer money to promote pet legislation is wrong no matter who is doing it.

If a politician isnt skilled enough to presuade the public that his policies are in the best intrests of America, then i dont think they should be allowed to use cold hard cash to make up for their shortcomings as a public speaker. The President of the United States has the greatest pulpit in the world; any time he wants to speak directly to the american people he just has to say the word, and no matter how much the media filters his message, the American people will hear him. Ask yourself: Why Williams? Was there no one in the White House, the Senate, or the House on the republican side who would be a more effective spokesman than Williams? How many people have ever even heard of Williams? Very few i believe. $200,000 given to a man in exchange for a few editorials and a promise to interview Rod Page a time or two on a television show that airs at 2 a.m. is not what i would call a good deal. What if the Kerry campaign had paid 60 minutes reporters to air nothing but negative stories about Iraq for the last month of the election? How is it ok to buy reporters opinions on one policy issue and not another?

So (for once) i am going to have to agree with the democrats, and say that their should be a law to stop this sort of thing. I love free speech but i dont think that giving taxpayers money to a journalist in order that he might influence a policy debate qualifies.

now lets pretend im a traveling salesmen and your a farmers daughter....