Tuesday, October 05, 2010


Summing up the results of his paper's latest poll on the midterms, and noting in particular the benefits the GOP is deriving from secret money deployed by outside groups, Greg Sargent of The Washington Post asks:

Random question: I wonder how many principled conservatives are on board with the idea that powerful special interests are permitted to flood our elections with millions upon millions of dollars' worth of pro-GOP advertising, even as they remain anonymous.

My answer: Um, nearly all of them?

Really, Greg -- what on earth makes you think these Rand-bots would have a problem with the complete takeover of our system by unnamed, unaccountable plutocrats? Isn't that their notion of paradise?

As one of Greg's commenters says:

...what matter of conservative principle is it that you believe is affronted by advertising, anonymous or not? What part of conservatism favors giving the government power to censor and regulate who can speak how much and when?

We have a guarantee in our Constitution of freedom of speech, which is part of our unalienable rights. Why would conservatives oppose this?

Note the "We" and "our." When plutocrats secretly throw around millions of dollars this way, right-thinking Ayn Rand readers feel that what those plutocrats are saying to true patriots is: I'm you. (Actually, Rand-bots always feel that way about plutocrats -- "I'm you" or, at least, "You're potentially me, little striver.")

Recall the teabagger reactions to the Citizens United ruling that I posted last February:

(Yes, that says, "The news just keeps getting bet[t]er every day.")

If you have any doubt that God looks over America, you need only consider ... this reaffirmation of the freedom of speech....

I have even more examples at the original post, plus links. To 2010-era "principled conservatives," the way money is being used in this cycle is flat-out wonderful.

(Sargent quote via Balloon Juice.)

No comments: