Thursday, October 14, 2010

James McGovern: 'I Think the Constitution is Wrong'

Democrat James McGovern of Massachusetts seems to agree with Russ Feingold on the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

That became clear during a debate last night.

They're on the same page regarding campaign finance. McGovern is just a bit more honest than Feingold when it comes to expressing his opposition to free speech.


Video.


JAMES McGOVERN: We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened up 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. I don't think money equals free speech. I don't think corporations should have the same equality as a regular voter in this district.

"I think the Constitution is wrong."

WOW!

I love it when the truth comes out.

That's Feingold's position in a nutshell, but Feingold is just a bit more slick in the way he expresses the point. He's more adept at putting lipstick on a pig than McGovern.

The Other McCain has reaction from Marty Lamb, McGovern's Republican opponent.




If you oppose the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as McGovern does and Feingold does, you most definitely think the Constitution is wrong.
___________________

Here's the press release from Marty Lamb's campaign.

4 comments:

jimspice said...

"If you oppose the First Amendment and freedom of speech..."

Again, I think you are greatly misunderstanding the vast majority of us. We do NOT oppose Freedom of Speech, but realize the purpose of free speech is to ensure an open marketplace of ideas, and further suggest that money does not equal speech, but ensures an UNequal marketplace given the unequal distribution of money that flows naturally from capitalism.

"...you most definitely think the Constitution is wrong."

I can't think of a single section that I believe is wrong. There are sections that I believe the current court is misinterpreting, and as written, absolutely there was truly terrible mistakes, but they have been largely fixed. If you cannot think of any, I'd consider YOU the un-American one.

Mary said...

Whoa! You sound like a bearded Marxist!

But I digress...

So you're against all the MoveOn.org millions that Feingold has accepted?

And you're against all the millions poured into the campaigns of Feingold and Barrett by unions?

And you're horrified by Doyle funneling $1 million to the Greater Wisconsin Committee to attack Walker?

Are you willing to condemn the hypocritical Feingold and Barrett for circumventing the "open marketplace of ideas"?

A misinterpretation of the Constitution is not the same as McGovern's assertion that the Constitution is wrong.

jimspice said...

"So you're against...and...and...and..."

Yes. I'd be a hypocrite if I said no, would I not? But that's how I would PREFER it to be, not how it is. As the rules stand, I say use every means available to win. Just like earmarks; I hate pork, but as long as it exists, I expect my reps to do whatever it takes to maximize my state's chunk.

The system I would like to see is publicly financed elections, no chance to opt out, with the challenger getting extra money to help overcome the HUGE advantage of incumbency. Beyond the fairness aspect, I think the amount of money spent on elections is just obscene; people don't spend that kind of cash unless they expect to get something in return.

"...assertion that the Constitution is wrong. "

But the Constitution DID get certain things wrong, but which have been corrected. Again, it would be hypocritical of me to acknowledge previous flaws but cast scorn on those that perceive current flaws though I may not.

Mary said...

Defend McGovern if you wish.

I contend it was shocking for McGovern to say that the Constitution is "wrong" in the context he said it.

The framers, in their brilliance, provided for an amendment process to use when necessary. Obviously, that has been necessary in the course of our history, but I'm not talking about everything that's happened since the document was ratified. I'm speaking specifically of McGovern's statement in the context of the debate.

What I really object to is the hypocrisy of the Dems and the sleazy slurs of Obama when it comes to campaign finance.

Obama really has diminished the office of the presidency with his unfounded attacks, in my opinion.