Update: Welcome Campaign Spot readers to the “Blog That Cannot be Named.” (Geraghty’s description made me immediately think of Harry Potter, proving what a nerd I am.)
Enjoy your stay. Check out the main page for various campaign-related issues and other random commentary. For instance Jerry Brown apparently isn’t a very good attorney general—you know, if you think that attorneys general should actually know the laws they are suppose to enforce. I also poke a hole in the claim that Christine O’Donnell created a false internet resume, here and here—which might be shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, but oh well. And Gerry Connolly (D-unce), running for reelection here in Northern Virginia, confesses he is not doing his job and indeed doesn’t know how to do his job. Oh, and sixteen arguments why sex is healthy for you. Okay, now we know what everyone will click on.
Also, watch Patterico; I may be guest blogging very soon, and even if not, they often have useful stuff.
Also, watch Patterico; I may be guest blogging very soon, and even if not, they often have useful stuff.
Update: The story gets weirder. He actually has two explanations. The first was during the debate and that time he denied saying it, but instead claimed he said that he was saying “my friend’s” interpretation of the constitution was wrong. I guess the charitable way to interpret it is he misspoke and literally thought he said what he meant to say, rather than what he did say. Interesting. But then we have the previously reported he claimed he meant to say the court was wrong. I decided to look a little deeper and it appears to come from a blog post on the official site written by “Scottzoback” which is obviously not the candidate himself. Of course the statement is written in the first person but who’s to say where it really came from?
Last night, Rep. Jim McGovern (D) debated Marty Lamb (R) and in the middle of it he says this, which according to Real Clear Politics was in response to a question about Citizen’s United:
We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings[.]
(emphasis added.) In the video, you can also hear him say after that he doesn’t believe that money is speech, and that corporations should not have the same right to speak as people. Now Jim Geraghty is absolutely right to say it is not as per se bad as Phil Hare saying famously he doesn’t care about the constitution. This is because congresspersons take an oath to uphold the constitution, even if they disagree with it. So when Hare says he doesn’t care about it, he is saying he doesn’t care about keeping that oath.
But what McGovern said was still pretty bad, because he is not merely disagreeing in general, but specifically about the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression goes directly to the heart of whether this is a republic or not. A nation that has no freedom of expression is not a republic or a democracy, even if you have the right to vote. I mean the syllogism is pretty direct. The right to make a choice implies the right to make an informed choice. The right to make an informed choice requires me to hear lots of information regarding that choice. That means in terms of speech, that people and yes, even corporations, must feel free to express themselves so that you can get the maximum amount of information about that choice, so you can make an informed choice. Thus the right to choose between two candidates is meaningless without the right to speak freely about them.
So disagreeing with the constitution is not per se bad, but disagreeing with free expression is. Put simply, the right to debate should not be up for debate.
