Jonah Goldberg Is An Idiot

I get fed up with lefty bloggers whining that Glenn R. hasn't paid proper attention to their outrage du jour. (I don't know what it is, but they have one every day). Now Jonah joins the "Glenn should cover everything all the time" chorus, this time on the subject of campaign finance reform.

I quote from The Corner: "I COULD HAVE SWORN.... That Instapundit was one of the good guys on this. But the Spoons experience says otherwise..."

For heaven's sake. Glenn was traveling on Thursday, and anyone who needs Glenn to hold their hand and hear him say "Check out Mickey Kaus or the Volokh Conspiracy for coverage" is probably so far behind they will never catch up anyway.

We also note that Messr. Goldberg works for an online mag where many voices are heard. Does Jonah G. write on every topic of importance, or does it count if, for example, Rich Lowry tackles something? Should I march around saying, I thought Jonah was one of the good guys on some damn topic, but since he has not personally opined, I guess he isn't?

I only ask because Glenn R. does not have such help (or if he does, he's not saying.)

Anyway, I have many links to news outlets and blog-analysis in this post. My Spoon link is here. And since these righties are irritating me, I am now thinking that, although I object to this Supreme Court decision, and don't like the direction it may lead, the hyperbole of some of the critics is absurd. I will pick this from Spoons, as an example:

...With today's decision, our Nine Robed Rulers have given their approval to Congress's efforts to make it a felony to criticize them under certain circumstances.

Think about that for just a second. We now live in a country in which someday soon, a man could be sent to federal prison for years for saying, at the wrong time and place, that Hillary Clinton is a bad Senator, or that George Bush shouldn't be reelected. In the United States of America!

Well, that "wrong time and place" would have to be a paid broadcast advertisement, few of which appear by accident (incredible, but true). The speaker could certainly criticize Hillary! (under the law) in a blog, a paid newspaper ad, a newspaper op-ed article, a television interview, or on a street corner. "Saying it" continues to be protected; buying airtime to broadcast it can create problems.

As I said, I don't like the direction this law is headed, and I am deeply disturbed by the process under which the Court is allowing Congress to set the rules under which Congressmen can be criticized. However, let's not go overboard here, with arguments so extreme that our own credibility is put at risk.

And I should note that Jonah G. was the knucklehead here (well, maybe there are two of us now). "Spoons" simply pointed out a glaring error in the Goldberg commentary. More from Spoons here, here, and here (and I smell cover-up; this one seems a bit critical, regardless of the unconvincing disclaimer.)

Comments

[Glenn Reynolds]

"I only ask because Glenn R. does not have such help (or if he does, he's not saying.)" Nope. It's just me here at InstaPundit. Kevin Deenihan served as my "intern" for a few weeks a while back, but I wasn't able to make proper use of his talents. I guess a better administrator could delegate a lot of what I do, but I think then it would feel too much like work.

[Cruisin4Bruisin]

Hmmm, it's the Instapundit Intern Imbroglio!!! It's the End of the World as We Know It! Just when did this intern thing take place and how come we weren't informed?! Full Disclosure! FULL DISCLOSURE!!! Perhaps Instapundit doesn't really exist, after all and is the creation of a secret cabal of UT Law student... It's just a theory but y'know, it hasn't been disproven...

[Kim du Toit]

None of this matters.

The plain facts are these:

1. Congress passed an un-Constitutional bill.
2. President Bush signed it into law.
3. The Supreme Court rubber-stamped it.

It's shameful, plain and simple.

And your weasel statement: "you can SAY it, you just can't BROADCAST it" is equally shameful.

A pox on all of you.

[David Andersen]

"However, let's not go overboard here, with arguments so extreme that our own credibility is put at risk."

By all means, let us be restrained. That strategy has worked wonders for the last 80+ years. It's definitely kept creeping socialism at bay. Why we’re doing so well with this strategy that socialism is at death’s door. The Republican administration is hammering the final nails now by passing its own statist measures which apparently is intended to confuse the opposition to death! Hell, it doesn’t make sense to me, but these are our limited government leaders; they must know what they’re doing!

But above all, let's not have any outrage. Let's be calm and let's have no emotion over the rendering of the Constitution, even if it’s only tiny shred by shred. Like you say, it's only paid broadcasts. We can let that one slide by. We’ll put a stop to this next time. Besides, right now we’re busy scheduling the signing ceremony for the Prescription Drug Benefit Act and we can’t be bothered.

[TM]

...your weasel statement: "you can SAY it, you just can't BROADCAST it" is equally shameful.

I would normally hold out for "Mr. Weasel", but since I started with the name-calling I guess I have forsaken the high ground.

As to whether the bill is un-constitutional, the simple circular response is, its OK if the Supreme Court says its OK. Well, I think that's BS, too. But the fact is, there is some fairly heavy legal talent on the other side of this question. As a non-lawyer, I am astonished that the ACLU cannot purchase an ad criticizing a Congressman sixty days prior to an election without first registering properly, so my opinion is that this is unconstitutional. Evidently, opinions differ, and I don't suppose there is an objective truth to this question. We just have to register our opposition, as it were.

Two details of this decision are troubling. First, in their opinion, the majority seems to say, roughly, we will accept this as legal because the record indicates that Congress tried very hard to stay within previously established guidelines. I would love to watch those five referee a football game - "C'mon, ref, I tried to stay in bounds, surely that is the same as actually doing so!".

Secondly, having incumbents write the rules under which they can be criticized seems absurd. Fortunately, it was Bipartisan, just like the title says!

[Glenn Reynolds]

Here's the Insta-intern's only appearance, as far as I can remember:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/001609.php

[TM]

TM: ...let's not go overboard here, with arguments so extreme that our own credibility is put at risk.

David Anderson: "But above all, let's not have any outrage."

Hmm, the sarcasm doesn't excerpt well.

Regardless, Mr. Anderson seems to be suggesting that we cannot be both outraged and logical, and seems to imply that, given the circumstances, irrational arguments are the way to go.

I disagree.

Now, when I linked to Mickey yesterday, I was going to mock him with a line like "When they came for the incorporated 527s, I said nothing, because I was not an incorporated 527...".

However, it didn't fit my brisk stylistic flow, and I figured the Thomas excerpt, (and my post title) made the same point a little less hysterically. But I sure was outraged! And still am, actually. I'm just not convinced that bad arguments are a good strategy.

[CANCER]

Goldberg writes one column a week, if that, and he criticizes GLENN!?

[Crank]

I think Goldberg may be missing the fact that some of us can't drop what we're doing in the middle of the work week to read a 300-page opinion.

[David Andersen]

“Regardless, Mr. Anderson seems to be suggesting that we cannot be both outraged and logical, and seems to imply that, given the circumstances, irrational arguments are the way to go.”

Hardly. I’d never advocate irrational arguments. However, the sole example you used, from Spoons, was neither irrational nor hyperbolic; colorfully descriptive perhaps, but nevertheless accurate. Given this, and your comment in reference that “the hyperbole of some of the critics is absurd,” I concluded that you were arguing for some sort of sedate, smoking-jacket, men’s club discourse with the ideological enemy.

The ant-leftist crowd has for far too long failed to vigorously defend its highly defensible principals. The political conservatives (Republicans if you will) are particularly abhorrent at logically defending and explaining the rationale for anything they believe or do, let alone become outwardly passionate about it. The former would be a refreshing start, but we’re long overdue for the later, especially when this (the upholding of the Incumbent Protection Act) kind of treasonous stab at the Constitution occurs.

“But I sure was outraged! And still am, actually. I'm just not convinced that bad arguments are a good strategy.”

Glad to hear it. That makes two of us. My apologies for assuming otherwise.

[sym]

The spoons excerpt was hyperbolic. Noone will ever spend years in a federal prison for violating broadcast restrictions. I'd be willing to wager money on it.

[TM]

Here is a summary of the BCRA, and under penalties we see this:

Senator Thompson amended McCain-Feingold to include harsher fines for violating federal election laws. For any violation where the sum involved is less than $25,000, a person may be fined or imprisoned for no more than one year, or both. For any violation where the sum involved is greater than $25,000, a person may be fined or imprisoned for no more than five years, or both.

However, that amendment applies to the Election Commission generally, not the BRCA specifically; a bit further on, we see this:

Sentencing Guidelines for FECA Violations (sec. 316)

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is directed to develop and/or amend FECA violation guidelines based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances and make legislative recommendations to Congress within 90 days of McCain-Feingold's enactment.

Penalties are to be enhanced for violations involving foreign money, large number of transactions, large dollar amount, use of governmental funds, intent to achieve a benefit from the government, and involvement of candidates and/or campaign officials.

That leaves me with two reasons for arguing that Spoons was hyping his case. First, while he may have been technically accurate, "wrong time and place" suggests (at least to me) an element of unpredictable bad luck; it strikes me as a real stretch that someone could appear in a paid broadcast ad without having been apprised of the possible consequences, especially since (again, my guess) lawyers already review these ads.

Secondly, I doubt a first time, hard luck offender would be jailed, rather than fined, although again, I suppose it is technically possible.

Anyway, my real frustration is, the rest of you can write your Congressman. My guy is Chris Shays himself (yes, the bill is also called Shays-Meehan). We hated him for his laughable reprise of "Hamlet" during the 1998 impeachment, and we hate this bill, but I don't think I am going to change his mind, and his opposition is already energized (well, the other guy is energized, I have to put up some Christmas lights...)

[Bruce Telles]

You write:

"'wrong time and place'" suggests (at least to me) an element of unpredictable bad luck"

You also state that the McCain-Feingold restrictions on issue ads don't bother you because "'wrong time and place' would have to be a paid broadcast advertisement, few of which appear by accident (incredible, but true)."

Oh please! Your comments make it sound as though the major problem with restrictions on political speech lies in restrictions on inadvertent speech -- you know, speech which happens "by accident." This is odd, since none of the alternative forums you apparently think mitigate the restrictions on paid advertising (including blogs) happen "by accident" or due to "unpredictable bad luck." In fact, one of the main points of your post was (ironically enough) how much work it is for a guy like Glenn Reynolds to publish a blog. I'm sure your blog doesn't just fall out of your ass on the way to breakfast, either.

I doubt, if you think it through, that you actually agree with some of the sentiments you express in your post and comments. Suppose Congress decided to extend its prohibitions on pre-election speech (the USSCt candidly admitted more regulation was likely) to cover blogs. Would this be OK with you as long as you have been "apprised of the possible consequences" and had a chance to have a lawyer review your posts?

[TM]

Evidently I have not been successful in articulating my point. I excerpted this from Spoons:

Think about that for just a second. We now live in a country in which someday soon, a man could be sent to federal prison for years for saying, at the wrong time and place, that Hillary Clinton is a bad Senator, or that George Bush shouldn't be reelected. In the United States of America!

This is technically correct. However, I object to it as hyperbole: "wrong time and place" suggests to me that any of us could be busted for criticizing Hillary on a street corner if the thought police happen to be standing nearby. In fact, it is only in fairly well defined and somewhat predictable circumstances that a violation might occur, so arguments that imply, "they are everywhere, it could happen to you" strike me as overblown, and probably unconvincing.

That does not mean that I believe there are no valid objections to these regulations. I think it is ridiculous that people have to register with the government in order to broadcast their objection to it; the idea that the NRA should form a PAC and meet its disclosure requirements so that gun owners can fight for their right to avoid gun regisration strikes me as absurd, and I am shocked that the court did not strike it down.

However, even though I object, I am not going to start shouting that the thought police could bust me too, if I say the wrong thing at the wrong time and place. Instead, I am going to exercise enormous self-restraint, focus on what the bill currently bans, and point with alarm (or what passes for that around here) to the direction the law is taking.

So no, I did not "state that the McCain-Feingold restrictions on issue ads don't bother you because "'wrong time and place' would have to be a paid broadcast advertisement". I tried to explain that the circumstances under which a person might have a legal problem are much narrower than Spoons was implying. That is different from stating that I don't consider the regulations to be a problem at all.

Look, I might agree with someone who thinks kids should not eat chocolate bars, because of cavities and obesity. I would still object to a candy bar critic who said that kids should not eat chocolate because it causes cancer. Right idea, overwrought argument.

Anyway, I appreciate the enormous vote of confidence expressed with "I'm sure your blog doesn't just fall out of your ass on the way to breakfast, either".

However, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that views differ on this point.

[David Andersen]

"However, I object to it as hyperbole: "wrong time and place" suggests to me that any of us could be busted for criticizing Hillary on a street corner if the thought police happen to be standing nearby."

Right, or it could just be a more flavorful way to state "60 days before an election on a television broadcast." That's how I read it.

I'm guessing if Spoons would have written:

"Think about that for just a second. We now live in a country in which someday soon, a man could be sent to federal prison for years for saying, 60 days before an election on a paid television advertisement, that Hillary Clinton is a bad Senator, or that George Bush shouldn't be reelected. In the United States of America!"

you probably wouldn't have objected. But the point of the statement wasn't the technical conditions of the offense, it's that there is an offense at all!

[Bruce Telles]

TM: Thanks for the thoughtful response, notwithstanding my wiseass vote of confidence. Nonetheless, I'm still puzzled by your claim of hyperbole.

You concede that Spoons is “technically correct” in saying that Americans “could be sent to federal prison for years for saying, at the wrong time and place, that Hillary Clinton is a bad Senator, or that George Bush shouldn't be reelected.” If, by “technically correct” you mean that the above statement is in fact an accurate description of the state of the law after McConnell, I don’t think it’s fair to then accuse him of hyperbole (defined in my Webster’s New Collegiate as “extravagant exaggeration”). (An aside: I have no idea whether McCain-Feingold provides for jail time for any violations of its provisions or only allows fines – perhaps Spoons is hyperbolic, or at least wrong, on this point.)

I basically agree with Dave: I think that by “wrong time and place” Spoons meant “60 days before election in a political ad.” That’s how I took it. You took it to suggest something much broader – OK, fine. What still confuses me is whether you think the restrictions on political speech immediately prior to elections is bad.

It seems to me (tell me if I’m wrong) that your problem with Spoons is not that he’s hyperbolizing (i.e. "extravagantly exaggerating" the state of the law), but that you think he’s overreacting. It seems like what you’re saying is “Gee, this guy’s going off about people being thrown in jail for saying things ‘at the wrong time and place’ but it’s not like they’re prohibiting saying things on streetcorners, or in blogs, or at your local bar. All they’re doing is prohibiting saying these things in issue ads before elections.” Yep, that IS all they’re doing, and I guess my question is “Do you not have a problem with that?”

My point is essentially this: I’m confident that you’d agree with me that prohibiting political speech on streetcorners, or blogs, or at bars would be a bad and alarming development. However, after reading your post and comments I’m NOT sure that you’d agree that prohibiting such speech in pre-election advertising is a bad and alarming thing.

And, by the way, when you talk about yourself “exercis[ing] enormous self-restraint” --this might also (and better) be described as the GOVERNMENT exercising a “prior restraint,” resulting in a “chilling effect” on speech. That sort of stuff used to be against the law in this country.

[Bruce Telles]

TM: Just re-read your comment above and upon a second reading, it seems apparent that your comment about "exercising self-restraint" relates to restraining yourself from the kinda hyperbole you think Spoons engaged in. My bad. Strike the last paragraph of my prior comment.

[Google]

JeremyT:
Search Google http://www.google.com/

[angels gold]

I am so happy to earn some angels gold.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!