• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama's So Cool...

daenku32 said:
Can't have president going on late night talks shows to promote keeping student loan rates low.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, you can't. It violates campaign finance regulations. But then, rules are for the little people, so I guess I'm wrong, you can.
 
Last edited:
daenku32 said:
What campaign finance regulation would that be?

EDIT: I can only find Breitbart's site's claim to a violation, but knowing their reputation on correctly assessing the law, I'm giving this debunk "equal time" credit:
Sorry Breitbart, Obama and Fallon Didn’t Violate the Equal-Time Rule
Click to expand...

Yeah, that argument is crap. Basically, the Anderson case only shows that "news" doesn't need to be in the traditional nightly news format. But Fallon isn't news. It isn't fluff news, it isn't even entertainment news. It's just entertainment, and if it qualifies as "news", then anything can and the entire equal time provision has no meaning at all. I'd actually just as soon be rid of the damn thing entirely, but as long as it's the law, then the government has an obligation to enforce it.
 
Wasn't Mitt Romney JUST on Letterman reading a top ten list? I mean JUST?

So the criticism about going on a late night comedy show...and equal time...and the dignity of the office...is just partisan crap based on lies and hypocrisy?

Right, it's the GOP and their Breitbrats. Of course it's partisan crap based on lies and hypocrisy.
 
Unabogie said:
Wasn't Mitt Romney JUST on Letterman reading a top ten list? I mean JUST?

So the criticism about going on a late night comedy show...and equal time...and the dignity of the office...is just partisan crap based on lies and hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

The equal time argument doesn't apply, because Romney wasn't presenting his political position. But Obama's "slow jam" was basically a presentation of his political position on student loans. If you're just showing up to chat, or do a purely comedy bit, then equal time doesn't apply.

Right, it's the GOP and their Breitbrats. Of course it's partisan crap based on lies and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

No. The problem is your ignorance of what equal time applies to.
 
FWIW: The dog wars, while unimportant, was at least entertaining. I'll keep an open mind to the "cool" Obama meme.
 
Ziggurat said:
The equal time argument doesn't apply, because Romney wasn't presenting his political position. But Obama's "slow jam" was basically a presentation of his political position on student loans. If you're just showing up to chat, or do a purely comedy bit, then equal time doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Now of course, I would argue that Obama wasn't on the show promoting his re-election campaign. He was advocating a specific policy. If Michelle Obama right now goes on a show and advocates for healthy school diets I don't see that as campaigning to re-elect Barack Obama, although it could be construed as that since promoting healthy kids is one of the "good" things.

To me it's much in the line with "issue ads" that can be done by anyone and kept outside of election law.
 
Last edited:
daenku32 said:
Now of course, I would argue that Obama wasn't on the show promoting his re-election campaign. He was advocating a specific policy.
Click to expand...

When you are running for office, there is no distinction between advocating your policy and promoting your re-election.

To me it's much in the line with "issue ads" that can be done by anyone and kept outside of election law.
Click to expand...

When you aren't a candidate, you can claim that there's a difference, because candidates could, in principle, change their position to conform to what you advocate. But when it's the candidate in question promoting a policy, then there really is no line.

Look, I don't actually have a problem with the action itself. But given how much crap has been flung over Citizens United, which affirmed freedom of political speech, the people who got their panties in a bunch over that decision don't exactly have grounds on which to defend Obama over this violation. If you agree that Citizens United was correctly decided, then I've got no problem with you concluding that this appearance shouldn't matter. Oh, and Obama is a hypocrite.
 
It's great to see that this is so important. I guess that means all the other things are under control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom