Ammo For Sale

« « Mass. Assault Weapons Ban | Home | Les has more » »

In defense of Michael Moore

I never thought I’d say that but Spoons reports that the ads for Moore’s new film may violate the incumbent protection act err campaign finance reform:

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

I’m no fan of Michael Moore and his looseness with the truth but that is inexcusable.

Update: Mike has moore.

11 Responses to “In defense of Michael Moore”

  1. Xrlq Says:

    B-b-but… that law was only supposed to apply to Republicans!

  2. Stormy Dragon Says:

    Personally, I agree with the action against Moore. It’s a bad law, but as long as it is a law, it should be applied equally.

    If I’m not allowed to finance political speech, then neither should Miramax/Moore.

  3. tgirsch Says:

    Xrlq:
    B-b-but… that law was only supposed to apply to Republicans!

    Yeah, I’m sure that’s precisely what McCain had in mind when he helped draft it, and what the Republican-controlled House and Senate had in mind when they passed it.

  4. SayUncle Says:

    Unintended consequences is no excuse.

  5. tgirsch Says:

    I don’t like the law any more than you do, Uncle; I was merely objecting to Xrlq’s apparent attempt to paint the issue as entirely partisan, when it isn’t.

  6. Xrlq Says:

    Entirely partisan, no. Primarily partisan, yes. I could be wrong, but I don’t think this turkey got much of its support from Republicans. Contrary to the implication of your generic reference to “the Republican-controlled House and Senate,” it doesn’t take all that many Republican Reps or Senators to get a majority.

  7. dave Says:

    Wasn’t Mikey Moo a big proponent of the campaign finance reform bill?

  8. tgirsch Says:

    Xrlq:
    Contrary to the implication of your generic reference to “the Republican-controlled House and Senate,” it doesn’t take all that many Republican Reps or Senators to get a majority.

    Well, it either takes quite a few of them, or it takes the Republican president signing it. Either way, substantial GOP support is required.

    As it turns out, in the Senate, 9 Republicans voted “Yea,” and 3 Democrats “Nay” — so it wasn’t entirely along partisan lines, nor was it a case of just a couple of people crossing the party line — 12% of the Senate crossed party lines on this. Not exactly what you might call “wide bipartisan support,” but you can’t really call it partisan either.

    In the House, it was even less partisan. 41 Republicans voted for it (almost 20% of them), while 12 democrats voted “no.” For what it’s worth, the independents were evenly split, 1-1.

    So you had a total of 50 Republicans, plus the president, who helped get this passed.

  9. persnickety Says:

    CRF is a very vile thing, but since it has been enacted, let it be enforced. Let enough people see how bad it is, and maybe it will get withdrawn????

  10. Xrlq Says:

    Maybe we’re arguing semantics. In my book any bill where 88% of the Senators and 87.6% of the Reps vote along party lines is a pretty damned partisan bill.

  11. tgirsch Says:

    Xrlq:
    Maybe we’re arguing semantics.

    Possibly so. Thing is, though, Bush signed it. If it were that partisan an issue, he could have vetoed it. (Then again, Bush doesn’t veto anything, does he?)

    By your standard for “partisanship,” I’m guessing there’s very little in Congress that ever gets done that isn’t partisan. (Except when it’s really stupid, e.g. USA PATROIT).

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives