Isn't it time the media did a story on the obvious partisanship of MTV 'Rock The Vote" and P. Diddy's "Vote or Die"? These are HUGE undertakings to register democrats in the disguise of non partisan get out the vote efforts.

But, make no mistake about it. These efforts are having an impact. Democrats see a large voting bloc that can be easily swayed and one that, with MTV, they already have the attention of. We ignore them at our peril.

Bill, tried to find the audio clip of you on the Pundit Review radio site, but can't. Is it not up yet?

Also, did you get my e-mail?

MTV is a joke...I remember growing up in the 80s...it was pretty good then...but now it is pure junk...and surprise, surprise, it's owned by the parent company of CBS...

As for P Diddy, he is a media whore whose own musical career is washed up...he too is just a big ego...another limousine liberal who thinks he is saving the world while in reality he is just serving himself...

Attention kids!

There is no draft. I know that you're scared and don't want to go into the service involuntarily. Well you won't have to because a few of your buddies will step up the challenge in your place. And when they do, remember to say thank you. An all volunteer military is smarter, stronger, better trained, more motivated, and frankly, better off without those of you who don't want to serve.

So get over it. No draft. None.

(Great post, Bill)

Speaking to the Des Moines Register, Kerry said "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension" of the military.

The implicatons of this statement are profound. There is not the slightest doubt that no matter who wins the election no other nations are coming to the aid of the coalition or the Iraqi's. France and Germany have acknowledged this in recent weeks.There is also no doubt that Congress will not institute a draft.

Given these realities Kerry' statement says a lot about his Iraq strategy. Here, at long last, is an admission that Kerry doesn't have a plan to win the war. His plan is in fact to withdraw as quickly as possible... because "if we go it alone", as we must, he "doesn't know how you do it."

If Paris Hilton is pro-Kerry AND against amateur porn then it seals my vote for POTUS Bush. I mean seriously, when are the Democratic demagogues going to learn not to f*** with amateur porn?

It seems that the MTV-sponsored "Rock the Vote" is still trying to scare the dumber portions of the youth of America

Like MTV viewers, for example.

Young people don't vote. They talk, but they don't get up in the morning and actually go to the polls. And, if they do, they don't know where the precinct polling place is.

This is why neither major party pays any attention to the youth vote in its campaigns, in its allocation of funds, and in its major issue statements.

Remember Howard Dean? His "youth vote" gave him about 15% of the DEMOCRATS!

Hence, Kerry's statement on the draft is another indication of his occasional brain lock. Soon after Kerry made the statement, Mike McCurry was basically denying it.

Just another Kerry gaffe.

why doesn't Kerry's manditory national service plan (aka a draft) get any press

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

BTW: we can vote absentee in VA. I've already Voted Bush/ Cheney (Lisa) 8th Congressional race

Smarmy little bastards, all of them.

f

MD,
your right except when people like P.Diddy just happen to give out free CD samples or his line of clothing samples ect. They will get their scrawny teen butts out of bed for that. It will happen. Just you watch.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here; Kerry's revival of the draft urban legend is an expression of anxiety (if not outright desperation), not confidence. Even with the debates, the best he could do was get more-or-less tied with Bush, and now, as the weekend polls indicate (though these days you need a whole canister of salt to take them with), Bush is moving back into the lead he enjoyed before the first debate. Couple that with the fact that most of the states that Kerry has to contest in the last 17 days of the campaign are _blue_ states, and you see where his campaign is really starting to get worried. (And us Bushies had better not get complacent, either. That almost sunk us in '00 and it can't happen again. GET TO WORK!)

I've seen a recent local election swayed by free drinks for a "I voted" sticker, and the guy that the town barflies agreed to vote for could barely spell his own name (and no that isn't an exaggeration). Not suprisingly the mastermind of that "get out the vote" campaign now has a Kerry sign in front of his house. The Rock the Vote is just a few steps away from pulling something like that off on a national scale (maybe, "Free iTunes downloads with an 'I voted' sticker, and did we mention one of the candidates wants to draft your ass? Don't forget to vote for a free song!")

I'm going to be very nervous until the 3rd of November, then I'll either be happy or sick.

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2004/10/16/mtv-non-partisanship-and-the-draft-nothing-but-lies-from-beginning-to-end/

I've done some additional research on Muller, if you are interested. Seems to be sort of an International ANSWER type.

But.. but.. John Kerry, the non-partisan candidate for Presidante says its true!

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

Well the major thing they are missing is that the president isn't the person who can bring back the draft-that takes a bill in congress. MTV is essentially using the fact that probably the majority of youth out there don't have a clue that the president doesn't make the draft decision, congress does and congress just overwelmingly voted "no" on the issue.

Also, I can't remember where I read it, but a day or so ago, there was an argument that Kerry's proposal to expand the military and add tothe Army would be more likely to require a draft, than Bush's current plan to restructure where we have troops stationed, and move troops out of places they are no longer needed. Personally I think both men are right-I think we need to restructure our overseas military assignments, but I also think it was a bad move in the 90's to reduce our armed forces the way we did.

I also don't think either plan would require a draft.

Well, let's see here. We're at war, our troops are overextended, things are not looking too bright in Iraq (meaning we will surely be there for several more years, not that we will not succeed), and young people are nervous. No matter who is president, this is a problem. And who does this problem affect most? It's not people past the draft age, of which group I presume most of the posters on this thread are from, but rather the young, of which the majority have never voted before. This is a serious concern to them. Now let me quote a few more things from the letter that Bill posted part of:

"This Is Rumor Control has been talking about this for months, you've read about the crisis in retention and recruitment, "stop loss," and the Defense Science Board's findings that there is an "inadequate total numbers of U.S. troops" and "a lack of long-term endurance" to meet US security and stabilization commitments around the world. If the Army can't get enough volunteers to meet the demands it faces, then a draft will not be a matter of choice.
This should not be a partisan issue. Neither the RNC nor the DNC should be telling other organizations what to do. Clearly, this issue is making everyone uncomfortable; all the more reason to keep discussing it so that voters have a clear picture of where each candidate stands. It's not enough for them to simply keep stressing that they're committed to not having a draft. We don't expect that anyone really WANTS a draft. But that doesn't mean that one won't happen.
We're still waiting for either candidate to explain how exactly they plan to meet our long-term military needs without resorting to a draft. We're waiting for either candidate to explain how they'll sustain tens of thousands of combat troops in Iraq over the coming years without breaking the Army's back. We're still waiting for honest engagement, discussion, and debate over an issue that literally is a matter of life and death for young Americans. This isn't going to go away simply because the RNC asked that no one talk about it. If you remember, it was precisely that lack of debate and honest discussion that got us into Iraq in the first place."
(See site for links).

Now I don't know much about Rock the Vote, but what I do know is that young men of draft age are very worried that they may have to go to fight a war they don't want to (I am a grad. student and I talk to students all the time, about this issue and others). So for people like Kieth to say that there is no draft and other (presumably more patriotic) young people will take over for all those slackers who don't want to fight for their country is seriously misunderstanding the how things actually are among these people. And for Drill SGT to equate Kerry's national service plan (long since abandoned) to military combat service is a dramatic distortion.
Now I think for Rock the Vote or any youth-political organization to address this possibility is legitimate, and if you don't, well then I urge you to ask yourself, are you the one who would be obligated to fight in the event of a draft?
To suggest that an organization committed to turning out a youth vote should not address issues that affect those potential voters is foolish and anti-democratic. And Mr. Gillespie's suggestion that they have an "obligation" to "immediately cease and desist from promoting or conduction your 'draft' campaign," amounts to an attempt at censorship considering where it comes from. To suggest that young voters should not be concerned about conscription reveals a significant misunderstanding of the concerns of today's youth.

Mantis -

If the draft is as they say ...

This should not be a partisan issue.

... then why is Donald Rumsfeld's name on the card. Why is the draft tied to a "get out the vote" drive. Since both candidates have made their positions clear, why does registering to vote have any impact on the likliehood of a draft?

And if it does - and getting information out about this issue is so important to them - why doesn't Rock the Vote explain that Democrats were the ones that proposed the draft bill, and why do they not feature the fact that Kerry is the only candidate that has proposed some sort of compulsory public service for America's youth.

Why do they not link to or excerpt Donald Rumsfeld's letter explaining why a non-volunteer army is impractical?

Claiming that this is anything other than partisan fearmongering to get Bush removed from office is disingenous, naive and/or insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Bill--you left out the recent 402-2 vote in the House against the draft. It seems like anyone seriously investigating, on a non-partisan basis, the possibility of a draft might look at that vote.

P.S., the two votes in favor were Democrats.

Not to mention that the bill voted on was written and sponsored by democrats.

I think Bush has made his position clear that an all volunteer army is a better army, and they won't be asking for a draft.

Also, once again, the people who ultimately determine whether or not there is a draft is congress, not the president, and congress just made it pretty crystal clear that they do not intend to vote for a draft, other than a few renegade democrats.

The problem with the MTV issue is that it is covered in a partisan way-and it is obvious.

1. "Because Bush says so" isn't going to convince any undecided voters. He has a giant credibility problem when it comes to this subject especially. The Kerry campaign has been very effective at painting him into this corner -- they've whacked him and whacked him and whacked him on his credibility regarding Iraq, his inability to convince allies to provide troops, etc.

2. The upshot is this: What happens if large scale military action is necessary against, let's say, Iran? Bush won't be able to convince any allies to send troops, no matter how compelling the case is. So, where will the troops come from?

3. I personally don't think that there will be a draft. Rather, as the Mad Mullahs of Iran have figured out, the US will lack the capacity to project force on a large scale. And that is a HUGE blow to US power and influence--the ability/threat to use force is much more valuable than the fruits of using that force. Iran can effectively tell the US to go f@ck itself when it comes to its WMD program. There will be no large scale military action, regardless of what Iran does.

Regarding the partisan nature of MTV's activities:

Given that not a single conservative (that I know of) had a problem with public airwaves being used by Sinclair as a propaganda tool against my candidate, you'll have to forgive me if I have absolutely no objection to MTV doing what it can to screw Bush.

Given that not a single conservative (that I know of) had a problem with public airwaves being used by Sinclair as a propaganda tool against my candidate

You know what Geek? I am sick and tired of incessant negative argumentation. It's ridiculous, it accomplishes almost nothing, it's too easy, it adds very little, and it's all you ever bring.

What about Nightline's overt commercial for the Kerry campaign?

What about Fineman's prediction of an all-out MSM spin for Kerry that would be worth a 15 point bounce?

What about Mary Mapes and Dan Rather ...

What about CNN and the AP spinning that poll in the post above ...

What about, what about, what about.

We can play this game of "gotcha" that points to ideological inconsistency all damn day. And the funny thing is, if you go that route of gauging partisan support in the MSM, you will lose on the balance sheet - because all you've got is FOX and Sinclair - a conservative-oriented TV network of 61 stations that wants to run an anti-Kerry doc, and provide equal time for a rebuttal, less than a week after PBS's Frontline fellated Kerry in their fawning biopic.

Not to mention the fact that Kerry's anti-war activity has been gravely undercovered thus far, and his past is actually newsworthy, seeing as it was national news way back when, and some vets are still pissed about it. Not having seen "stolen honor," I can't judge how far over the line it goes from the "hard news" of Frontline, or NBC's thrice a week interviews with Kitty Kelly about Goerge Bush's supposed cocaine use at Camp David.

But I digress from the topic, and so do you. MTV is misrepresenting their organization (read: lying) as a bipartisan organization and scaring kids with FAKE rumors about a draft that will not happen.

Putting aside the futility of the tit-for-tat pissing match that I just mentioned, if you are comfortable with these deplorable, misleading tactics because you can find a trace of logical or moral inconsistency in this monolithic entity that you blithely describe as "the right wing ..."

... then I feel bad for you. Because you will wake up on Nov 3 with shreds of intellectual honesty or consistent moral character.

Oh, and ...

The upshot is this: What happens if large scale military action is necessary against, let's say, Iran?

US Military force structure is built around being able to fight 2 major simultaneous conflicts and maintain a sizeable reserve force. (Afghanistan is not a major conflict)

1. We are not at our limits.

2. Iran would be convenient.

3. New Iraqi forces are coming online more quickly than you think.

4. Re-enlistment rates are actually beating goals.

We're in a race to get the Iraqis up and running, and I suspect that we'll win the race.

Geek esq The upshot is this: What happens if large scale military action is necessary against, let's say, Iran? Bush won't be able to convince any allies to send troops, no matter how compelling the case is. So, where will the troops come from?

To speculate that Bush couldn't organize another coa;ition is only speculation on your part, zero facts just guesswork.

Where will the troops come from? I assume your talking large scale invasion. Two points: An invasion may be the least desirable method, cruise missiles are wonderfull things, and so are the three aircraft carrier stations that sit within spitting distance of the Iranian coast. (and BTW within sight of the Bushire nuclear plant)

Secondly if more troops are needed the most likely place is to speedup the pull out from Germany for any needed offensive. A pullout you fail to consider when spewing your nonsense over a potential draft.

I entered the US Navy after the volunteer mil started. It was an unqualified mess. Less than 6 months after enlisting an F-14 crashed on deck of the USS Nimitz (26 May 1981). 14 people died, all the dead (including the pilot), 80% of the flightdeck personnel were so high on drugs they couldn't see straight and the majority of those were draftees.

It took nearly a decade to clear out the misfits, drug addicts, convicted felons, (Given a choice by a judge: serve the mil or go to jail), and various and sundry other malcontents.

There is zero thoughts to restart what was an unmittigated disaster.

Mantis,
Perhaps this will make you feel better.

From Miltary.com April 14, 2004:
"Despite a rising tide of combat deaths and the prospect of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates."
It goe on to say: "Even the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof," said Guard spokesman Maj. Robert Howell."

"The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all met or exceeded their year-end recruiting goals for fiscal year 2003, which ended Sept. 30. The figures continued to climb in the first half of fiscal year 2004, which was reached March 31."

So stick that in your democrat talking points and smoke it.

The link for that article is http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

"1. "Because Bush says so" isn't going to convince any undecided voters. He has a giant credibility problem when it comes to this subject especially."

Exactly how does he have a credibility problem on this issue? He has never advocated a draft, and has made it clear he does not intend to. And John Kerry is out there talking about Bush's "secret" plans to bring back the draft. John Kerry is a member of congress, he should know better.

The FACTS are that the president does not have the power to bring back the draft, and there isn't a congressman or senator out there (other than a few democrats) who support or want a draft. Not a single republican wrote, co wrote or co sponsored those draft bills, and they didn't vote for them either.

I think this is a gimmick on Kerry's part, to scare young voters into voting for him, and Kerry knows better, and does it anyway to garner vote for himself.

Kerry promises to increase the Army by 40,000 men. How is he planning to do this? Seems to me, Kerry has a plan to impose the draft.

Exactly how does he have a credibility problem on this issue? He has never advocated a draft, and has made it clear he does not intend to.

Yes but see this is just like the leftist claims that Bush has "divided" the country because their side doesn't like him; same rules apply here. Bush is responsible for proving beyond a shoadow of a doubt that every charge and accusation from the left is false, the left never has to prove they are true (see Rather, Dan). Being a leftist is never having to say your wrong.

We've reached the point that correcting errors is considered "censorship". Essentially the left believes it should be allowed to say ANYTHING while attacking ANY statement by their opponents as "lies" and "attacking their patriotism".

Have you apologized to Saddam yet?

"We've reached the point that correcting errors is considered "censorship". Essentially the left believes it should be allowed to say ANYTHING while attacking ANY statement by their opponents as "lies" and "attacking their patriotism"."

Exactly.

The left wants a different standard, and because they basically controll the MSM they get it. I shudder to think what this election would look like, if the MSM was the only thing we had as a source of news.

Oh, and Geek please tell me how Kerry is going to enlarge the military without a draft, if he is so certain that it is going to take a draft to keep our current strength?

Kerry is a hypocrit, and he wants to rely on a scare tactic to get votes.

For the total headcases who just can't find enough people to contact on Bill's list, the complete list of press contacts for MTV Networks can be found here in evil PDF format.

Bill:

Gillespie's letter also reads:

As a "non-'artisan" organization that enjoys the benefits of being formed under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, you have an obligation to immediately cease and desist from promoting or conducting your "Draft" campaign.

That sentence carries with it the threat of legal action against Rock the Vote. Would this not constitute attempted censorship?

--|PW|--

Pennywit... how would removing the tax-exempt status of a clearly partisan organization be censorship?

Your blog doesn't have tax-exempt status, does it? Do you feel censored?

Watcher:

Censorship can consist of any number of things; one such thing is the imposition of consequences for the expression of an opinion.

Your query regarding my blog doesn't match Rock the Vote's situation because the action threatened in Gillespie's letter is not taxable status, but rather the loss of tax-exempt status.

--|PW|--

- Bill .... The whole "draft the whales" boob-bomb has been so widely discredited that it deserves no more attention, other than possibly editorial pointing and laughing...

- Kerry's camp is really starting to show the first stages of panic. All of their heavy metal hit options are gone now that the debates are over. Stump speech bomb's, lame MSM endorsements, and boosts by the liberal press is all they have left. To date their best shots barely got them a few days of a tenuous poll tie with Bush and now thats even fading....for an interesting take on the polls check out Steve Beste's analysis:

http://denbeste.nu/special/polltrends.shtml

- At least the liberal spin-dummies are getting a tad better at cut and paste, if still clueless about the little matter of voracity of sources...Then again its hard to take someone serious with a name like Jehmu, which brings to mind a reference to the latest Orca attraction at Sea World.....

- Her T shirt should read:
"Support Beautification...Help me find my Burka" ....

Well, Bill, like I said I don't know much about RTV or their motives (Yes the Rumsfeld sig. is pretty fishy). Regardless of that, the main point of my post is that this is a real issue to many people, despite others' insistence that they "not worry about it" and "there will be no draft". As far as the Bush administration is concerned, well it might be time to face up to the fact that a lot of young people, and others, do not trust this administration. Whether they have good reasons for this can be debated (I personally think there are many good reasons). But I don't think this makes it an anti-Bush issue due to the fact (noted by MTV and my earlier post) that neither candidate has proposed a realistic way to maintain and quite possibly raise our troop levels in Iraq and elsewhere without a draft. Bush says we'll just win in Iraq and everything will be fine, Kerry says we'll add 40,000 troops (from where?). Neither of these proposals is very convincing and we have a large number of newly registered draft-age voters to whom this issue is of major importance. So for all of those who claim they should just not worry, well that's not going to happen. And for those who say everything in the military is just hunky-dory, well, some of us just aren't buying it.

Mantis wrote:
[...]
"So for people like Kieth to say that there is no draft and other (presumably more patriotic) young people will take over for all those slackers who don't want to fight for their country is seriously misunderstanding the how things actually are among these people."

Mantis,
I AM one of those "presumably more patriotic" young people. I was in Iraq for seven months as a Marine in 2003. And I called no one a "slacker." I am just more informed about the mechanics of our all-volunteer forces. Young people who do not understand how the military works are being preyed upon by anti-draft activists acting side by side with every other left-leaning group in an effort to scare them into voting for Kerry. If you cannot see that then it is you who are "misunderstanding" things.

I say again. There. Is. No. Draft. Period.

Kieth,
I can certainly see the left using this issue to as you say, "scare them into voting for Kerry." This much is obvious and I have no intention of saying otherwise. You didn't call anyone a slacker, and I shouldn't have implied that. I have no doubt that as a Marine you are more familiar with the mechanics of our all-volunteer forces (whom I personally admire for their service to the country). But I must say without a genuine plan from either candidate on how they will deal with a likely (though certainly not inevitable) shortage of troops, the standard response of "don't worry, everything's fine" and "There is no draft" aren't very reassuring to many.

Pennywit-501 c3 is the same tax exempmt code that churches and other non proffit organizations form under (they are different from 527's).

So if you think this is censorship, then do you support removing such restrictions from churches etc.

Under this tax section, non proffit groups are not permitted to endorse one candidate over the other, and the Christian Coalition got its hand smacked for using voter guides, that didn't directly endorse candidates, but certainly left the impression of which one they were endorsing. I don't see this as being any different.

Basically, if you sign up under that tax section as a non proffit group, you are voluntarily subjecting yourself to a certain level of censorship. If MTV doesn't want to be "censored" they can always go with a different tax code and give up the tax exempt status.

Just:
What I am saying is this: Gillespie's reminder of Rock the Vote's status was an implicit threat to use the machinery of the law to punish Rock the Vote for taking a political stand.

Granted, 501(c)(3) organizations receive special perks. Yes, trying to stop the Christian Coalition from distributing its voters guides was a form of censorship. Yes, restricting churches' speech under the aegis of the tax code is a form of censorship.

It is all legal censorship, (and it may be a good thing to keep it legal), but it's still a form of censorship.

When an individual files a complaint against another, whether for defamation or for other actions, it is asking the state to punish another for speech.

I'm not necessarily commenting on the rightness or wrongness of Gillespie's threat; I'm merely offering a definition and analysis.

--|PW|--

Did anyone really expect that an MTV voter drive would be non-partisan? Have you ever watched MTV News (I am ashamed to admit I did a few times in my callow youth). You can imagine the pot-smoke-filled-room where they thought up rock the vote, right? "YEAH..If we just get the kids to vote...the world would be...like...BETTER!"

RMR

Pennywit -

That sentence carries with it the threat of legal action against Rock the Vote. Would this not constitute attempted censorship?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Please tell me that you were kidding.

No, Bill, I am not fucking kidding you. That sort of sentence, in the context of a letter like that, is usually a precursor to overt legal action.

--|PW|--

Bill -- an extension of my last comment:

I've seen that sort of sentence before; you throw it out in the letter you send right before you send in the lawyers.

Using my criteria, one could say that the Christian Coalition voter guides from the 90s, when they were attacked, were censored as well.

--|PW|--

Mantis: Perhaps you could clear up considerable confusion over your position if you could explain why you think there will be a shortage of troops in the next four years.

"Not enough US troops in Iraq" does not equal "not enough US troops worldwide".

As a bonus, you could also explain why generic fear mongering amongst the ignorant (which is exactly what all this draft nonsense is about) is considered proper political discourse...after all Rock the Vote doesn't seem to actually be educating people about the draft, merely repeating over and over "Iraq! War! YOu could be DRAFTED!" You yourself seem to have admitted you know nothing about military operations or force levels, or really anything on the subject, and people who are knowledgable have attempted to tell you the truth of the matter, but this is casually dismissed with a wave of the hand because you appear to treasure a political ideology over rational discourse. I mean, if this was a question about the strucure of the proton, you'd listen, but if Kerry comes out and calls into question the existance of the up quark because it isn't suficiently multilateral, well, let's ignore all the advice of the physicists, shall we? There's legitimate concern about the proton!

Should the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy respond in kind? Perhaps people could go to various colleges and tell all the white folk that the Democrats are considering legislation to force colleges to increase minority representation, by kicking out people who don't make a perfect 4.0 average. I mean, that's a legitimate fear, isn't it? Are not white middle class students worried about getting into good colleges because of percieved quotas? Perhaps a bill could be introduced into Congress by a Republican to show that, hey, it's true, Congres is going to vote on it, and then quietly kill the bill while shrieking in mass emails to the gulliable.

Pennywit -

They are violating IRS and Federal Election law - by your definition then, they deserve to be "censored." It's illegal.

If I declare my enterprise a church and start selling TV sets, guess what? it's illegal.

Bill --

There's a considerable amount of that going on on both sides, from churches that have ventured into politics (black churches on the left, Catholic Church on the right) to, apparently, groups like Rock the Vote.

In this particular area of the law, there seems to be an epidemic of selective prosecution ... on both sides of the aisle.

--|PW|--

Pennywit -

I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer, because if I do, I'll say something that I regret.

Go look up "censorship" in the dictionary.

Also try to figure out what "selective negative argumentation" means. See also: "I know you are, but what am I?", "But mom, you said Tommy could do it, why can't I?" and "10 wrongs don't make a right."

I like the alternative:
Vote the Rock!
http://www.votetherock.com

VoteTheRock.com was established as a "portal" for conservatives and Christians across America as we push for MILLIONS of patriotic Americans to get OUT of the pews and INTO the voting booths this year!

The dictionary definition consists of eliminating things; in a broader sense, "censorship" also connotes the use of law to prevent the distribution of objectionable matter.

All I'm trying to point out, Bill, is that a large amount of politics is based on useful fictions. Since campaign-finance reform passed, those fictions have become much, much more apparent, and it may be time that there is a change in the law.

If you look at the way 501(c)(3) organizations have behaved in this cycle in particular, you will find that a case can be made that the system as a whole is broken; we have a situation in which one side or another, armed with the correct lawyer, can effectively silence the other side of a dispute by driving up the cost of speech.

I am not saying that one side or the other is more right or more wrong. I simply say that there are merits to any number of arguments.

--|PW|--

If you look at the way 501(c)(3) organizations have behaved in this cycle in particular, you will find that a case can be made that the system as a whole is broken

And you miss the larger argument - MTV - a major cultural institution to all people under 30 - is misrepresenting itself and LYING about the draft, in an overtly partisan manner.

Therefore, Gillespie's mention of the violation of campaign finance reform is not only smart, but justified.

In addition, the egregious attempt to scare up voters for John kerry, the non-partisan misrepresentation, and Ms. Brown's run for the "C" word, which is particularly abused by petulant whiners on the "left," should no be ignored, endorsed, or argued away by anyone that seeks to maintain objective integrity past this election season.

The draft fearmongering is deception, pure and simple. It's presentation is a lie. Don't you think that there are better things for you to try and defend? And I do say "try," because pointing out other negatives does not constitute a defense - rather, it's an indictment.

If I were Catholic, I would make daily offerings to St. Jude.

You're right about the substance of Rock the Vote's allegations. They're practicing the politics of fear. Gillespie's mention of the law is what we call a "veiled threat."

But enough about that. Let's talk about Rock the Vote, shall we?

Some of the smarter types aligned with Rock the Vote have tried to clarify that they just want to start a dialogue about the prospect of conscription.

Unfortunately, they've decided to run with it and start spreading rumors of conscription. Kerry doesn't help anything when he talks about a "backdoor draft."

(An aside: If we really wanted to address the stop-loss issue, perhaps Kerry could drop the draft language and instead talk about implementing a program to either retrain troops or recruit those who are qualified for MOSs where there is a shortage.)

Believe me, I'm as annoyed by the draft fearmongering as you are. However, the issue of a draft does merit discussion, but not the sort of discussion this country is having right now.

My own assessment (read: guess) is that we've got a lot of plates in the air right now, what with Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, China, Chechnya, Sudan, Liberia, Somalia, Morroco (sp?), Serbia, and God only knows where else being a potential trouble spot. Many of these can be aggregated into the vast "war on terror."

If those plates start crashing to the ground, the United States is going to have to get more troops somewhere, which may very well mean that this country goes with a draft.

I would appreciate it if leaders leveled with us and said, "This is a war. We don't know when this is going to end, but it's going to require sacrifice. Some people may have to make the ultimate sacrifice. We don't want this to happen. And we will do our best to avoid it. But you need to be prepared for this."

Unfortunately, today's politicians aren't going to do that. The political machine swings wildly between sunny optimism ("America is doing better." "Freedom is on the march.") and wild-eyed fearmongering ("They're going to draft you! They're going to draft your dog! Your goldfish is going to have to wear combat boots!")

In other words, this country needs leaders. I see no one in the current crop of politicians who measures up.

--|PW|--

Jason,

"you could explain why you think there will be a shortage of troops in the next four years."

Sure, when you consider Bremer's assertion that we have never had enough troops in Iraq, that we're calling up IRR troops, that we can't even replace wounded troops in some areas, the Army National Guard is having having problems with recruitment, and Bush's plan to pull troops from SK and Europe doesn't exactly put some people's minds to rest considering the possibility of engagement in yet another theatre(NK?). If we need a lot more troops in Iraq, they have to come from somewhere, which means pulling them from other areas. If we need to fight another war, or if Iraq becomes a lot worse or goes on for years at current levels, where will these troops come from? This is a legitimate question regardless of your confusion.

you could also explain why generic fear mongering amongst the ignorant (which is exactly what all this draft nonsense is about) is considered proper political discourse...after all Rock the Vote doesn't seem to actually be educating people about the draft, merely repeating over and over "Iraq! War! YOu could be DRAFTED!"

Well, see above to find out why it's not generic, but specific fear mongering. As far as RTV, I said I don't know much about them, but their website does have a lot of info (more than just "Iraq! War! YOu could be DRAFTED!").

You yourself seem to have admitted you know nothing about military operations or force levels, or really anything on the subject, and people who are knowledgable have attempted to tell you the truth of the matter, but this is casually dismissed with a wave of the hand because you appear to treasure a political ideology over rational discourse.

Now you're just making things up. I conceded that a Marine would have a better idea of the mechanics of the army than I, which according to your logic means I know nothing about the subject at all? That's a pretty big leap, friend. And as far as so-called knowledgable people telling me it's all going to be fine and I should go to sleep now, no one has offered a reasonable and detailed response as to why we could not possibly need more troops than we have volunteers in the next four years (regardless of who's president). I'm not sure what political ideology you think I treasure, but your idea of rational discourse is "because I said so, now shut up stupid."

but if Kerry comes out and calls into question the existance of the up quark because it isn't suficiently multilateral, blah blah blah

Have you even read my posts? I didn't say that Bush will have a draft, and Kerry won't (and I don't believe Kerry any more than I do Bush), I said it is a concern no matter who is elected. Try to pay attention.

Should the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy respond in kind?

I don't remember mentioning them, or any conspiracy, or the media in general at all. When you consider anyone with a different opinion a)intellectually inferior, and b)crazy and paranoid, you make your own efforts at what you call
"rational discourse" seem pointless and absurd. Plus you sound like a prick. As far as your analogy on affirmative action, I'm going to choose not to respond on the grounds that it makes no sense.

Pennywit -

You are not getting off that easy. Your characterization:

Gillespie's mention of the law is what we call a "veiled threat."

Is so far off base, I don't know where to begin.

#1: the RNC is not an arm of the government, just making sure you understand that.

#2: Characterizing a citizen or organization's right to sue or notify authorities of illegal activity that harms their person or group as some sort of negative "veiled threat" that is akin to censorship is ridiculous.

#3: The CHAIRMAN OF THE RNC does not really make something like a "veiled threat" in E-MAIL. The CHAIRMAN OF THE RNC is very well aware of the fact that E-MAIL can be used against him, as these idiots are, and as you are buying it, and when he makes REAL veiled threats, he'll do it in a phone call. This is notification.

He is bringing up the fact that they are violating their mandate. They are pulling the same petulant whine of people (typically on the left) that when anyone challenges them, even correctly, it's "censorship."

And you are buying into that meme.

Once again, I would back off of this argument, if only for the reason that you are losing credibility with me at about 9.82 m/sec. Suffice it to say that you know where I stand, I know where you stand, and I'm having a great deal of trouble respecting the fact that you've bought into such pussified interpretations of "censorship" and "intimidation."

My advice: put down the shovel or go dig somewhere else.

I'll make this one short and sweet, Bill.

Remember that civil legal action is brought when a plaintiff believes he has been harmed; in that sense, it is entierely possible for Gillespie to lodge a complaint with the appropriate bodies, much as Moveon et. al. tried their anti-Fox complaint a few months back.

The "notification," as you characterize it, is a precursor to the real threat, designed to let his opponent know he's willing to go to the mattresses.

The threat of litigation is what it is: an attempt to use the machinery of the law to browbeat somebody else into submission. You often see the same thing in SLAPP suits.

At this point, I don't think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this.

--|PW|--

Slight correction: It's a fax, not an e-mail.

--|PW|--

PW -

The threat of litigation is what it is: an attempt to use the machinery of the law to browbeat somebody else into submission.

What is wrong with you? MTV is VIOLATING THE LAW. Why do you chracterize holding them to account as "browbeating them into submission?"

Because they are working a misinformation campaign for "your guy?"

What is Gillespie supposed to do, allow MTV to propagandize the youth of America and do nothing?

This isn't a frivolus legal action - it's like calling the cops when someone is breaking into your house and trying to steal something.

Your interpretation of this situation is frustrating. This is why, even in its imperfection, election law exists. And while you can find all kinds of inconsistencies to make a NEGATIVE case (which as I mentioned, is almost always inconsequential argumentation), from a practical standpoint, you are dead wrong. If Rock the Vote wants to pull this crap, they need to declare as a partisan 527 and get it over with.

Grow a pair, will you? Seriously, you are starting to remind me of the ANSWER moonbats moaning about the "man's" oppression because they can't drop trou for an anti-war protest. It was an e-mail that made an objectively correct accusation, about a topic specifically germane to the group's activity.

Go look again at whose signature is on their mock-up draft card, will you?

I wonder if "Rock the Vote" is informing their minions that when they register to vote they will be required to pay taxes?

One quess I have as to why certain people never vote is so that they can avoid taxation. Plenty of people earn money under the table, so if your never register to vote, the government can't find you.

Bill,

If you review my history, you will know that I defend GOP organizations as readily as I defend any other group. No, I'm not defending Rock the Vote because they're for Kerry. At this point, I'm not even defending Rock the Vote. I'm simply defending an interpretation of language.

Now, you say:

Just because the big bad Republican sends them an e-mail reminding them of thier mandate under the law, does not equate to initimidation or censorship.

The thing is, Bill, I recognize this kind of letter. You "remind" somebody of their duty under the law only becaus you're about to bring the hammer down on him.

I equate it with "intimidation" because some lawsuits are all about intimidation. I equate it with "censorship" because I have seen individuals attempt to us the machinery of the law to punish other individuals for speech; Aycock v. Padgett, 516 S.E.2d 907 (N.C.App. 1999), filed by a board of aldermen candidate in North Carolina, is a prime example.

The plaintiff there had an interpretation of the law. It was a lousy interpretation, but it was just an interpretation. Gillespie's interpretation of 501(c)(3) may be more valid. I haven't read 501(c)(3), and I don't know nonprofit law.

You write:

What is Gillespie supposed to do, allow MTV to propagandize the youth of America and do nothing?

That encapsulates the crux of our argument right there, Bill.

I argue that this is an attempt to shut down Rock the Vote's Draft campaign through the law and is therefore a form of censorship.

You argue that the law must be used to shut down the Draft campaign and say it needs to be done.

We differ on application of the phrases "censorship" and "intimidation." You implicitly concede the "intimidation" phrase to me when you acknowledge that this letter may be the precursor to legal action.

Is Rock the Vote breaking the law? Perhaps it is, perhaps not. That particular fact has not yet been decided by an administrative law body or by a judicial body. Until it is, that is an open question.

And Gillespie and Rock the Vote's positions? They are interpretations of the law, not set in stone until they have been ruled upon.

My beef in this has very little to do with the "Draft" campaign or who supports whom. Indeed, if DNC chief Terry McAuliffe were to threaten a conservative group in the same way as Gillespie, my position would be virtually identical.

In both cases, one side would be attempting to use the machinery of the law to attack the other -- an action that I find distasteful.

To me, the larger issue is not whether Rock the Vote has broken the law, but rather that the law itself is broken.

For the past decade, boundaries have been pushed to the point where distinctions between a political 501(c)(3) and a political 501(c)(4) organization have become little more than convenient fictions, if they were more than fictions in the first place.

Now, for your attempted insults:

Grow a pair, will you? Seriously, you are two steps away from moonbat status.

I have no desire to enter a contest of ad hominem attacks with you. I have a great deal of respect for the work you have done in the past year, particularly with respect to the forged memos at CBS. I would like to think that such personal attacks are beneath you.

--|PW|--

Pennywit you are ignoring the obvious. Rock the vote signed up under that taxation catagory, they understood that they were not permitted to advocate one way or the other in regards to candidates, it isn't like they are shocked to learn that 501 c3 organizations can't do this. If they wanted to advocate, they very easily could have incorporated under a different tax code.

The charge is legitimate, and therefor is not a threat, the organization is violating the current law as it is written.

Also, my big question for Kerry on this is still-if Bush can't maintain the army at current levels without a draft, how is Kerry going to add 40k new soldiers without using one?

PW -

My beef in this has very little to do with the "Draft" campaign or who supports whom. Indeed, if DNC chief Terry McAuliffe were to threaten a conservative group in the same way as Gillespie, my position would be virtually identical.

In both cases, one side would be attempting to use the machinery of the law to attack the other -- an action that I find distasteful.

It's not a threat yet. Complaining about jackboots before jackboots enter the picture is distasteful. They are violating their mandate under FEC/IRS law, and Gillespie reminded them of it in an attempt to sway their discourse. He has every right in the world to do so because his assertion is absolutely correct. If RTV wants to say what they want, they are entitled to as a partisan 527.

My beef in this has very little to do with the "Draft" campaign or who supports whom.

So basically, you advocate that a political campaign sit back and just absorb a partisan political attack that not only uses 19th Century Spanish-American War style misinformation to scare people into voting for John Kerry, but also violates the law.

Wake up - that's what "the law" is for. It's an arbiter between interested parties with grievances. It's not "manipulation" of the law - it is the purpose of the law.

I have no desire to enter a contest of ad hominem attacks with you. I have a great deal of respect for the work you have done in the past year, particularly with respect to the forged memos at CBS. I would like to think that such personal attacks are beneath you.

You may like to think that, but no, it is not beneath me. And this is not ad hominem - it's very pointed, specific and germane to your argument: "Man up, Pennywit, man up." As I said, "grow a pair." (If it helps, I'm speaking in an abstract sense) I'm sure you don't have a problem with my assessments when I'm doing a ha-ha post on moonbats, and your oversensitivity that forces you to cry "censorship" and "intimidation" over Gillsepie's objectively correct e-mail is treading very, very close to moonbat territory. Your fret reminds me of a Dixie Chick.

Gillespie's charge is not oppression or intimidation - it is highly public discourse that correctly criticizes RTV under FEC regulations. I could care less about your respect for my previous work when your interest is buttressing the wussification of America by applying overly nefarious connotations to Gillespie's e-mail. I suppose flashing a weapon at a burglar does constitute some form of "intimidation," but it's certainly the appropriate and just course of action.

As I mentioned, my respect for your work is plummeting.

Perhaps we should avoid further discourse before we're forced to settle this with a knife fight in Lafayette Pak.

Funny thing, Bill. If I were in Gillespie's shoes, I wouldn't bother with the letter. I would just file an appropriate complaint and wage the battle in courts and in administrative hearings.

Why? Because if I were Gillespie, my job wouldn't be to ponder my personal peccadilloes about censorship. My job would be to win an election. That, and I don't believe in letters as tools of intimidation. I'd rather go straight for the jugular.

Now, as for the classification of the "Draft" campaign, I expect that if Rock the Vote is smart, they've been running this stuff by an election lawyer to make sure they stay within the "we're just trying to spark a discussion" category. If they haven't been doing that, then Rock the Vote is about to get itself in a load of trouble.

In fact, Rock the Vote's public response tells me they don't have a winning case. If they truly thought that Gillespie's threat was baseless, they would either say so or challeng him to meet thme in court.

I am fully willing to grant that Rock the Vote may be in violation of the law. But I hold (and continue to hold) that attacking Rock the Vote with the law is analogous to the SLAPP suits that you see floating around sometimes. Somehow, I don't think Gillespie would be threatening litigation if Rock the Vote were espousing opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.

That said, I believe that a more appropriate (non-censorious) response is to institute a counter-program that addresses Rock the Vote's "Draft" contentions and work through that in the free marketplace of ideas.

The difference in our approaches is that you are analyzing this in the context of your application of the law, and I am analyzing this in the context of Gillespie's overarching motivation. In that sense, you and I may both be right on this issue.

--|PW|--

A reasonable rsponse, and a good way to leave it.

Which sucks - I haven't cut anyone in along time, and I was looking forward to it.

Bill, a letter to you from the Moonbat Preservation Society was mistakenly sent to me. Shall I forward it to you this evening?

--|PW|--