Since the Democrats have rendered the FEC unable to act, they now argue that it is up to the candidates to suppress the free speech of American citizens.

Recently, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain appealed to their donors to withhold money from these groups, saying they wanted to lift the tone of the fall campaign. They also want that money for themselves; itÂ’s a matter of simple self-interest for any candidate to corner all available donations. However, reining in the smear artists is the only truly convincing way to deliver on the endless vows for a cleaner, more uplifting campaign being heard from all the surviving candidates.

* * *

Since the Federal Election Commission has been rendered defunct by Congress, the hope for something better can be delivered only by the nominees themselves. Surely, a candidate for chief executive of the United States can be expected to show enough executive talent to confront and stifle his or her most out-of-control supporters.

Now wait just a minute here -- is it the position of the new York Times that only speech controlled by candidates or government agencies is uplifting or clean? What does that say of, for example, newspaper editorials or smear stories published by mainstream journaistic entities -- like, or instance, the New York Times. Is it possible that the logic of the editorial could require that there be regulation of the press by government and/or control of the press by presidential candidates?

Or might it be better seen as Exhibit A in the case against efforts to limit Americans exercising their rights under the First Amendment?

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.