Citizen's United II - the other foot

[kandrathe]

This may be worthy of some political discussion.

In the sequel, we find two Hillary biopics planned respectively by CNN and NBC, which would run during the 2016 election cycle or just before. Media now being politically free to actively campaign for or against are preparing for the next US presidential campaign cycle.

For me, I don't accept the argument that there should be restrictions on media's 1st amendment rights to broadcast any film, even a fawning one, during a campaign. That’s the Obama argument. Now it’s being used against Hillary. It's popular to try to distill CU into a slogan, like "corporations aren't people". But, that fails to grasp the complexity of how law applies to organized legal associations and groups (ala. bodies, or the corpus of incorporation).

I am both mildly shocked and amused by the hypocrisy of both sides. The one side for cheering Citizens United decision, but complaining of its inevitable result being used against them. And, the other, for so vociferously denouncing the Citizens United decision, but then jumping on the free speech band wagon (since you know it will be actively used by the other side).

Both sides reveal their shortage of principle and virtue. But, meanwhile reinforce our prejudices that our politicians act only in what is in their self interest, while grandstanding on those same issues only for personal gain.

What I see at stake is the fight over the freedom of speech, whether it's the US government's attempts at silencing whistle blowers, or a recent civil suits lifetime gag order on the children (7 & 10) in a family, or being allowed to voice support or criticize political candidates. Or, my right to even reveal my thoughts here on this forum.

[Jester]

I am both mildly shocked and amused by the hypocrisy of both sides. The one side for cheering Citizens United decision, but complaining of its inevitable result being used against them. And, the other, for so vociferously denouncing the Citizens United decision, but then jumping on the free speech band wagon (since you know it will be actively used by the other side).

Of course the Democrats are going to fight the next campaign as hard as they can, with whatever tools are legally available. That is neither contradictory nor hypocritical, even if they believe that a fair election would be run under different rules.

Now, to put all your support behind changing the rules, then howl with misery when your opponents follow the new rules? That's hypocritical.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Now, to put all your support behind changing the rules, then howl with misery when your opponents follow the new rules? That's hypocritical.

And, vice versa, which is all I'm saying. In fact, its also irony when powerful advocacy who reject CU are using funds by big money liberals, like the Ford Foundation, which are enabled by CU.

Some one who is consistent in their beliefs, does not blow with the wind. If clubbing baby seals is legal, I'm still against it, even when doing so might further my fight against it. Or, equally hypocritical would be driving through Obamacare with an amendment requiring all Congressional staff to equally participate, then getting a Presidential waiver for Congressional Staff who would need to surrender their Cadillac health care plans. Or, say by demanding Russia (with whom we don't have an extradition treaty) extradite Edward Snowden, while refusing to extradite Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to Bolivia, or the CIA agents who illegally snatched the Islamic Cleric from Milan, with whom we do have extraditions treaties.

For the most powerful government on the planet, laws become inconvenient and often ignored when it is applied to the them. The CU decision really just made legal and open, what was being done surreptitiously. But, I'm not one who argues from the position of "If illegal things are going to be done anyway, then we might as well legalize it" Which I hear to justify everything from campaign finance, to drugs, etcetera. At some point, we need to have scruples, morality, and principles upon which we determine we will not just capitulate. Maybe that would be selling organs, or children, or enslaving people. There is some need for scruples in even the most liberal of thinking. I'm fully in support of any campaign financing reform that will enhance "the power of the people" over the power of money, if it can be done with respect to expected civil liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, and free association. Of course, the more egregious money in our politics happens after the election, with quid pro quo corruption, kick backs, and the like.

[Jester]

And, vice versa, which is all I'm saying.

And what, vice versa? Republicans are whining about the results of repealing a rule they themselves opposed. Democrats did what?

In fact, its also irony when powerful advocacy who reject CU are using funds by big money liberals, like the Ford Foundation, which are enabled by CU.

Some one who is consistent in their beliefs, does not blow with the wind. If clubbing baby seals is legal, I'm still against it, even when doing so might further my fight against it.

This is not ironic, nor is the comparison with clubbing baby seals (lol) a reasonable one. Campaign finance issues are tricky because of the problem of competition. If Team R is playing by the actual rules, and Team D playing by what they'd prefer the rules to be, this means a structural advantage for Team R. And that means (and this is actually irony), that trying to lead by example actually results in the bad rules being harder to overturn.

If you think that all legislation must be pure as driven snow, not only well-motivated and with good effects, but brought about by the purest conceivable methods, then I applaud your idealism, but seriously? This bears no resemblance to how US politics works, or ever has worked.

To make a different, and I think more credible, analogy: I can be against nuclear weapons, but also not believe that only one side should get rid of them, because of the problems that result from asymmetrical possession of nuclear arms. It makes perfect sense to support *mutual* disarmament, but not *unilateral* disarmament.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If Team R is playing by the actual rules, and Team D playing by what they'd prefer the rules to be, this means a structural advantage for Team R. And that means (and this is actually irony), that trying to lead by example actually results in the bad rules being harder to overturn.

I'd equate it more to doping in Bike racing. Everyone was doing it, which convinced everyone to do it. Yes, the playing field is the playing field. But, if you believe something is wrong, and do it anyway just to win then I'd say you are being hypocritical, and not true to your beliefs. And, who's to say it is the only way to win? It seems expedient, but I feel a more moral and actual victory would be to expose the doping (or the excessive influence of the Ford Foundation or Koch brothers) and win without it.

Yes, I tend to be idealistic and hope for the type of system I'd respect.

[Jester]

I'd equate it more to doping in Bike racing. Everyone was doing it, which convinced everyone to do it. Yes, the playing field is the playing field.

No, for two reasons.

First, doping is cheating. This is not. There's a big difference between cheating, because everyone is, and playing within the rules, even if you think the rules are too loose.

But, more importantly, democracy is about *who gets to set the rules*. If you think corporate influence in politics is bad, then you want to regulate it, but you can't regulate diddly squat if you can't win elections.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Who is to say what is cheating? The preponderance of bike racing enthusiasts, who write the rule book. If the biking rules were rewritten to allow certain performance enhancing, then it is akin to changing the rules on the 1st amendment freedom to spend money placing political ads.

If you fight against changing the biking rules, and lose that battle -- do you go against your principles and then do what you fought against, because the rules say you can? I'd still say that this is where politics becomes unprincipled. Like the guy who said, "If elected, I will fight against the growing money in politics and not take any PAC contributions." Who then goes on to become the largest consumer of PAC contributions.

In my life it comes up in the kinds of freelance work I have the opportunity to do, and I often refuse to take certain jobs when the ethics of the organization, or people in the organization conflict with my own. For example, one principle I adhere to is that I'm careful to not use my skills to build anything that would be used to cause harm people (e.g. missile guidance systems). Somebody will take the job and do it, and maybe they don't care. I don't want to wonder if I helped some third world dictator massacre innocents. So, I might be idealistic. But, that's the way I roll and why I'd make a lousy politician. I can't lie to people.

[Jester]

Who is to say what is cheating? The preponderance of bike racing enthusiasts, who write the rule book. If the biking rules were rewritten to allow certain performance enhancing, then it is akin to changing the rules on the 1st amendment freedom to spend money placing political ads.

I am puzzled by this entire line of argument. Either you're trying to confuse the issue, or something is somehow not being made clear.

Election law is passed by congress and interpreted by the judiciary, same as anything else.

Cycling competitions have rules. They are set by the organizers of the individual events. If you violate the rules, you're cheating. If you don't, you aren't. It's not a popularity contest; the "preponderance of biking enthusiasts" don't get to vote on it. And even if they did, there would still be one given set of rules for each event, and if the rules changed, then the next event would have new rules. Simple.

(Afterthought: To make the analogy square, imagine a Tour de France where last year's winner sets next year's rules!)

If you fight against changing the biking rules, and lose that battle -- do you go against your principles and then do what you fought against, because the rules say you can?

If the rules were changed to allow doping, then it would not be cheating to dope, nor would it be unethical or hypocritical for someone to be doping, even if they supported a ban. If that's what the sport allows, then that's what it allows, and the competition is by the rules. Erythropoetin and blood transfusions aren't unethical or illegal in and of themselves. (And neither is advertising.)

Like the guy who said, "If elected, I will fight against the growing money in politics and not take any PAC contributions." Who then goes on to become the largest consumer of PAC contributions.

... which would be hypocritical. But, of course, the Democrats have not said anything like "we will not allow anyone to (quasi-) advertise on our behalf." So, this is still not the same thing.

-Jester

[eppie]

Cycling competitions have rules. They are set by the organizers of the individual events. If you violate the rules, you're cheating. If you don't, you aren't.
Simple.

Not really. A doping substance is usually put on the black list after it has been used a while. As long as you find more inventive ways of doping you stay ahead of the pack, while probably staying within the 'biking law'.

But it is cheating.

Probably it is even more cheat'iyi to use the substance before it is banned (and technically it is legal) than after it is banned (when you know they test for it).

[Jester]

Not really. A doping substance is usually put on the black list after it has been used a while. As long as you find more inventive ways of doping you stay ahead of the pack, while probably staying within the 'biking law'.

But it is cheating.

Probably it is even more cheat'iyi to use the substance before it is banned (and technically it is legal) than after it is banned (when you know they test for it).

It is cheating according to whom? There are hundreds of ways of improving performance. Some of them are against the rules. Most of them aren't. As far as I'm concerned, cyclists compete within the existing rules, and cheating means breaking those rules.* There is no grand cosmic definition for "cheating" outside of them.

-Jester

Afterthought: Which is not to say that those rules can't be fuzzy, or arbitrary, or that any given thing "is" or "is not" cheating under a given set of rules. Just that, cheating is not something which has a definition except under a code of rules, whatever that code may be.

[eppie]

Not really. A doping substance is usually put on the black list after it has been used a while. As long as you find more inventive ways of doping you stay ahead of the pack, while probably staying within the 'biking law'.

But it is cheating.

Probably it is even more cheat'iyi to use the substance before it is banned (and technically it is legal) than after it is banned (when you know they test for it).

It is cheating according to whom? There are hundreds of ways of improving performance. Some of them are against the rules. Most of them aren't. As far as I'm concerned, cyclists compete within the existing rules, and cheating means breaking those rules.* There is no grand cosmic definition for "cheating" outside of them.

-Jester

Afterthought: Which is not to say that those rules can't be fuzzy, or arbitrary, or that any given thing "is" or "is not" cheating under a given set of rules. Just that, cheating is not something which has a definition except under a code of rules, whatever that code may be.

If you can reasonably expect a substance to be banned once it is known (or is known to have a great effect on stamina, muscle growth or whatever) it is cheating even though it is not against the rules of the moment.
Maybe not legally but for sure when keeping the unwritten rules of the sport in mind.

Take the shark suits used by some swimmers a few years ago. When the first swimmers raced with those they had an unfair advantage over the ones who didn't. Indeed some time later they were banned.
If you find sports a contest between men or women to show their ability to do something better than another under a given set of circumstances (which I do) having two people swim against each other, one with a shark skin suit and the other one not is not a fair race. And even though you can't fine or punish the guys that started with the shark suits, it is still an unfair race. Probably you can't call it cheating because contrary to doping you can see it.


But we are of course discussing two different things. You talk about cheating only based upon a rulebook, and me cheating when keeping the spirit of the game in mind.

I for example find F1 racing something that should not be called a sport. Spend more money, make a faster car, win more races. But of course it IS according to the rules.

[Jester]

If you can reasonably expect a substance to be banned once it is known (or is known to have a great effect on stamina, muscle growth or whatever) it is cheating even though it is not against the rules of the moment.
Maybe not legally but for sure when keeping the unwritten rules of the sport in mind.

Possibly, and unwritten rules make determining whether something is cheating or not (ex ante) very difficult. On the other hand, your criteria don't work, at least not in absolute terms. Protein and carbohydrates have absolutely critical effects on muscle growth and stamina. No sport is insane enough to ban them. Testosterone (and other hormones) aren't banned per se - your body produces them naturally - but taking extra is doping.

For instance, I was given a testosterone shot as a baby, for heath-related reasons. I'm sure it had a positive effect on my later development. Would I be cheating if I played competitive sports? What about if someone takes medicines for an illness? Or uses high-energy sports drinks, to improve their performance? Or just gets high on pot because it's awesome and what snowboarders do, man?

It's not so simple as that.

Take the shark suits used by some swimmers a few years ago. When the first swimmers raced with those they had an unfair advantage over the ones who didn't. Indeed some time later they were banned.

Swimmers regularly shave, because it gives them an advantage. And wear speedos rather than baggy trunks. And goggles. Are those advantages unfair? Why not just allow them all, rather than ban them all? How are we supposed to know beforehand what's going to be banned, and what not?

And even though you can't fine or punish the guys that started with the shark suits, it is still an unfair race. Probably you can't call it cheating because contrary to doping you can see it.

Correct. It's not cheating until they ban it.

But we are of course discussing two different things. You talk about cheating only based upon a rulebook, and me cheating when keeping the spirit of the game in mind.

The spirit of a game is (largely) competitive. You do what you have to to perform as well as you can. You train harder. You eat and exercise smarter. You adopt better tactics. You get the best equipment. You play within the rules. Don't like the rules? Get them changed, or play a different sport.

Different sports, different rules. What is "in the spirit" of hockey would be grounds for immediate elimination in figure skating. Wearing thick protective armour is normal in american football, and illegal in taekwondo.

To frame this in terms of the original discussion: If the IOC said that shark suits were perfectly legal, would it still be against the "spirit" of competitive swimming to wear one? Would you be a hypocrite for wearing one, assuming you also thought they made the wrong decision? I don't think so.

I for example find F1 racing something that should not be called a sport. Spend more money, make a faster car, win more races. But of course it IS according to the rules.

This is going to be another one of those "respecting musicians" conversations, isn't it? Why on earth would they pay star drivers lots of money, if teams could just put anybody with a driver's licence behind the wheel of their car, and have the same chance of winning?

-Jester

[eppie]

[quote='Jester' pid='207297' dateline='1376315227']

It's not so simple as that.[/quote]

Indeed, that is the point I was trying to make.


[quote='Jester' pid='207297' dateline='1376315227']
Swimmers regularly shave, because it gives them an advantage. And wear speedos rather than baggy trunks. And goggles. Are those advantages unfair? Why not just allow them all, rather than ban them all? How are we supposed to know beforehand what's going to be banned, and what not?
[quote]

It is not the shark suit per-se as some divinely created 'wrong' it is using it while other don't.....and going 10 % faster just because of it. In ice skating they started using skates where the blade is not attached to the heel of the shoe anymore......this is allowed and now everybody uses them. Same example different choice.

Anyway, everyone in swimming agrees that a race between a person with a shark suit and one without is not a real race.


[quote='Jester' pid='207297' dateline='1376315227']

Correct. It's not cheating until they ban it.

[quote]

If through some coincidence it isn't written in the rulebook of javelin throwing you can use a javelin with remotely controllable wings that flap out mid-flight, and someone does during the Olympic final it is cheating in all but the legal sense of the word. Things GET banned because they are perceived by most as cheating and because they were not banned before. Of course the person doing it will not get punished because it is not legally wrong.


[quote='Jester' pid='207297' dateline='1376315227']
The spirit of a game is (largely) competitive. You do what you have to to perform as well as you can. You train harder. You eat and exercise smarter. You adopt better tactics. You get the best equipment. You play within the rules. Don't like the rules? Get them changed, or play a different sport.

Different sports, different rules. What is "in the spirit" of hockey would be grounds for immediate elimination in figure skating. Wearing thick protective armour is normal in american football, and illegal in taekwondo.

To frame this in terms of the original discussion: If the IOC said that shark suits were perfectly legal, would it still be against the "spirit" of competitive swimming to wear one? Would you be a hypocrite for wearing one, assuming you also thought they made the wrong decision? I don't think so.

[quote]


No me neither.


[quote='Jester' pid='207297' dateline='1376315227']
This is going to be another one of those "respecting musicians" conversations, isn't it? Why on earth would they pay star drivers lots of money, if teams could just put anybody with a driver's licence behind the wheel of their car, and have the same chance of winning?
-Jester
[/quote]

I don't know, ask Michael Schumacher.

As for that; you know why multinational publicly traded companies pay their CEOs so much? Because they do such a good job and no-one else can? No it is mainly because stock prices go up........shareholder think people that get more will be better for stock prices because the company takes their hiring of management serious.

Most companies would do just as good (maybe better) when they would pay for example half. Of course paying 10 or 20 million for a company that turns over 5 billion a year doesn't make a difference and will not create too much outrage, and because CEO and board basically decide each others paychecks they can do this. (by the way, this is not my opinion, I read this years ago in an article about a research from some psychologist)


Money rolling around in F1 is so much because of advertisement, it doesn't really matter what you pay a driver. That doesn't mean everyone with a drivers licence could do the same but they hardly searched the entire globe for the best driver right?

Michael Schumacher made what? 20 million per year? When he came back and drove another car he didn't win a race anymore.....but probably he was just too old right?
NAscar is a much more fair sport with that respect I guess.

Samuel Eto'o has the highest wage of any football player in the world. IS he the best? Is he close to the best? I don't think so, he was attracted by a guy wanting to advertise himself by buying a football club and showing the world how serious he is and how much he can pay.

Professional sports is about money....some players are bought just because they sell so many T-shirts!. Money and how good a player you are don't always go 1 on 1.

[Jester]

It is not the shark suit per-se as some divinely created 'wrong' it is using it while other don't.....and going 10 % faster just because of it. In ice skating they started using skates where the blade is not attached to the heel of the shoe anymore......this is allowed and now everybody uses them. Same example different choice.

Anyway, everyone in swimming agrees that a race between a person with a shark suit and one without is not a real race.

Right. Which is why, to loop all the way back to the original topic: If advertising by third parties is allowed, but only Republicans take advantage of it, then that's not a "real" electoral contest. One party has an unfair advantage. And even if the other party would prefer nobody be allowed to (advertise, use a shark suit, use fancy skates), so long as they're allowed, they should be used.

If through some coincidence it isn't written in the rulebook of javelin throwing you can use a javelin with remotely controllable wings that flap out mid-flight, and someone does during the Olympic final it is cheating in all but the legal sense of the word. Things GET banned because they are perceived by most as cheating and because they were not banned before. Of course the person doing it will not get punished because it is not legally wrong.

Right. Someone comes up with a super-javelin? Then the javelin community will have to ask themselves if they want to either go the shark suit route and ban it, or the skates route, and allow it.

Usually, sports have judges with some discretion, and that discretion is also part of the (ex ante) rules. This prevents people from doing something ridiculous that nobody ever thought of. But it's not cheating unless you intend to break the rules.

I don't know, ask Michael Schumacher.

I presume Michael Schumacher thinks racing is a sport, and that his victories on the track are a team effort in which his skill is a critical component. It would be very bizarre if he didn't.

Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in a long conversation about sports salaries. All I wanted to say is that, just because there is money involved somewhere, doesn't mean it's not a sport. Which seems really obvious to me.

-Jester

Afterthought: Forbes has Eto'o at number 15. All the players above him are obviously among the very best in the entire world. The debates about their relative values are no doubt endless, and I don't care at all, but I'm certain you don't hire Messi or Ibrahimovic just to sell t-shirts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinaset...r-players/

[kandrathe]

And, really, in a way the contest "cheating" all relate to my original thought which is that I am wary of those who have flexible morality when it comes to winning. If one takes a stand against shark suits, skate blades, Super-PAC money, or performance enhancements, then I feel one should remain consistent to that viewpoint, or clearly explain their flip-flop.

I don't have a problem with super athlete serums in sports, as long as it is accepted by the league, and openly reported. The same transparency in politics would be nice, but money trails and quid pro quo deals are not so easy for the casual voter to unravel and understand. I would think an obvious solution would be to eliminate as much money spent at the federal level as is possible, deferring it to state, or local level, where those closest to the costs/benefits can keep their governments more accountable to the people.

Ironically, it is the big blue states who generally embrace income distribution who hemorrhage federal infrastructure dollars to little conservative red states who profess to not want it.

[Jester]

And, really, in a way the contest "cheating" all relate to my original thought which is that I am wary of those who have flexible morality when it comes to winning. If one takes a stand against shark suits, skate blades, Super-PAC money, or performance enhancements, then I feel one should remain consistent to that viewpoint, or clearly explain their flip-flop.

This IS a consistent position. "I believe that the presence of (shark suits, third-party ads, steroids) is detrimental, and they should be banned. But unless it's banned for everyone, I will continue to use them, because that's within the rules, and only fair."

This is not a "flip flop". It is not inconsistent, or hypocritical, or flexible morality, or anything else.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This IS a consistent position. "I believe that the presence of (shark suits, third-party ads, steroids) is detrimental, and they should be banned. But unless it's banned for everyone, I will continue to use them, because that's within the rules, and only fair."

This is not a "flip flop". It is not inconsistent, or hypocritical, or flexible morality, or anything else.

When I was young, I trained and competed with horses. One of my competitors, in order to get their horse into an adrenaline rush, would literally whip her horse (or her father would do it) before her events to get the best performance.

It was not against the rules. Legal or not there are lines I will not cross. I would get extra satisfaction in beating her with skill and training, and not having to abuse my horse (who was then one of my best friends - we had a relationship of mutual trust).

[Jester]

When I was young, I trained and competed with horses. One of my competitors, in order to get their horse into an adrenaline rush, would literally whip her horse (or her father would do it) before her events to get the best performance.

It was not against the rules. Legal or not there are lines I will not cross. I would get extra satisfaction in beating her with skill and training, and not having to abuse my horse (who was then one of my best friends - we had a relationship of mutual trust).

This makes sense, for something which we should be *ethically* forbidden from doing, even if it's within the rules of the particular game. It's against the "rules of life," don't be cruel to animals! But third-party advertising is not inherently unethical. The political contest would serve everyone better without it, but nothing in particular is gained by having only one side stop.

(To be clear, that's not even what the original post actually refers to. This is just Republicans throwing a snit fit and taking their ball and going home. The Dems aren't doing anything, not even through proxies. I'm with Atrios - this would hurt Hillary more than help, in any case.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This makes sense, for something which we should be *ethically* forbidden from doing, even if it's within the rules of the particular game. It's against the "rules of life," don't be cruel to animals! But third-party advertising is not inherently unethical. The political contest would serve everyone better without it, but nothing in particular is gained by having only one side stop.

(To be clear, that's not even what the original post actually refers to. This is just Republicans throwing a snit fit and taking their ball and going home. The Dems aren't doing anything, not even through proxies. I'm with Atrios - this would hurt Hillary more than help, in any case.)

-Jester

I think if it were limited to, "Our candidate is great, rah rah" it would be one thing. But, it's quite another to use unlimited 3rd party funds to swift boat your opponent, shifting smears and libels until the election.

My only hesitation is due to free speech concerns.

{Slightly off topic ramble}
You are right about Hillary. She's to the right of Obama, who ended up out Bushing Bush when it comes to drones, and extrajudicial, unilateral asymmetric war crimes. I sense she's more militant with less of conscience than he has.

To be fair, once the position of world emperor was carved out, it is hard to cram that genie back into its bottle -- to surrender the vague and loose interpretations of "for the public good", "authorization for war", and "war on terror". It is natural for the ever growing monstrosity of a federal bureaucracy to become the heartless, spineless, and brainless beast who destroys at the whims of its incompetent puppet masters. The strings are their for the plucking, and whomever finds themselves in control will be harried into action.

Anyway, I can't imagine her getting that seat, unless the Republicans find yet another feckless, brainless, boorish, misanthrope who halfheartedly panders to the political winds (yeah, I'm thinking of Chris Christie). I think their best bet is Marco Rubio who maybe hasn't totally demolished his cred with the Hispanic vote. Polls show about a 5 point lead for Hillary, but she's been mostly out of the spotlight.

Or, if the Libertarians field a solid 3rd candidate splitting off some of the Republicans and some of the independents -- ie. Rand Paul. My issues with Rand Paul are that sometimes he leads with what is ideologically sound, but a realistically impractical idea. Ideally, we can figure out how to privatize retirement, but realistically it has issues that need a detailed and nuanced response.

{Slightly off off topic ramble}
But, that is much like what Obama has done with say, the coal industry. By 2016, our coal industry (which was 50% of our electric generation) will be out about 1/4 million highly paid union jobs. Not many people understand or hate coal as much as I do, but even so, I would have pressed for a reasonable, painless transition out of coal. As it stands, we'll damage the economy, and drive up the price of electricity -- all in order to score political points.

[Jester]

]I think if it were limited to, "Our candidate is great, rah rah" it would be one thing. But, it's quite another to use unlimited 3rd party funds to swift boat your opponent, shifting smears and libels until the election.

This kerfuffle is about two potential Hillary Clinton biopics. This is none of: unlimited third party funds, swiftboating, smearing, or libelling.

However, political ads are, by their nature, combative. You are trying to convince people to vote for you rather than the other candidate. Sometimes, that means saying nasty things. I agree with you that lying is something no campaign should do, on basic ethical grounds. Nor should they support their proxies in lying. But that's an entirely different argument, which has nothing to do with unilateral disarmament in campaign finance.

To make that clear: Parties can lie in any medium. Should they forsake them all, because they could conceivably be used badly?

My issues with Rand Paul are that sometimes he leads with what is ideologically sound, but a realistically impractical idea. Ideally, we can figure out how to privatize retirement, but realistically it has issues that need a detailed and nuanced response.

His campaign staff included someone who toasts to John Wilkes Booth's birthday, right up until it became a major scandal. Is this really "ideologically sound"? Sounds like the same total inability to escape the lunatic, racist, sexist, homophobic fringe that has marked (or even defined) his father's career.

But, that is much like what Obama has done with say, the coal industry. By 2016, our coal industry (which was 50% of our electric generation) will be out about 1/4 million highly paid union jobs. Not many people understand or hate coal as much as I do, but even so, I would have pressed for a reasonable, painless transition out of coal. As it stands, we'll damage the economy, and drive up the price of electricity -- all in order to score political points.

This is baffling. You hate coal. Presumably, that means there are good reasons to hate coal. And yet, when Obama goes after coal, you can't think of a possible reason for it, except to "score political points"? Maybe he hates it for some of the same reasons you do?

On the practical side, gas seems to be coming online fast enough to make coal irrelevant in pretty short order.

-Jester