The Orlando Sentinel reports that Rep. Alan Grayson is unhappy with a critic who created a website, mycongressmanisnuts.com, mocking Rep. Grayson’s congressmanwithguts.com website and seeking donations against him. Indeed, Rep. Grayson is so upset that he’s filed a complaint with the Department of Justice requesting “investigation and prosecution” of the website’s creator, Angie Langley. According to the complaint, Langley is violating federal election laws and should be fined and “imprisoned for five years.”
-
Contact
-
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- C-K Faculty Blog
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- Former Chef
- Gavel to Gavel
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
SeaDrive says:
And he’s a lawyer....
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:08 pmSuperSkeptic says:
But election laws are supposed to curb big nasty corporations? Where are you speech infringement defenders? Step right up.
Best part of the “complaint”: “Ms. Langley has chosen a name for her committee that is utterly tasteless and juvenile.”
BTW, Mr. Silverglate might want to take a look at that vague statute.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:08 pmdee nile says:
Why does the Sentinel story include the party affiliation of the guy with the website, but not the congressman’s?
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:10 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Also, the thing causing Grayson such hysterics: don’t know how accurate/up-to-date the website is, but according to the site, it has raised all of $3,725 from 92 people.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:14 pmBob from Ohio says:
Dee nile, it does id him as a “freshman Democrat”.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:19 pmBut he loves the Constitution says:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-scott-maxwell-political-roundup-12160920091215,0,2691401.column
“Tuesday’s paper revealed that Democrat Alan Grayson and Republican Ginny Brown-Waite are two of the biggest spenders when it comes to your tax money and their mail. Grayson has managed to spend about $82,000 filling up your mailboxes so far this year. And Brown-Waite was right on his tail with an $80,000 tab. And keep in mind: These two House members bill themselves as crusaders against government waste. (Apparently, “waste” is in the eye on the spender.) Grayson, of all people, should know better. His predecessor, Ric Keller, was renowned for his excessive self-promotion on the public’s dime. And yet Grayson’s mailers — filled with quotes from other politicians praising him and lines like: “Congressman Alan Grayson loves the Constitution.” — seem cut from the same cloth. Grayson’s welcome to send out such things; He should just use his own money to do so. They all should.”
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:22 pmdee nile says:
Darn. I knew I should’ve done a search ...
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:24 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Party affiliation aside, the gender affiliation of the “guy” with the website is “female”.
: )
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:34 pmDonald says:
My first impulse was to ask whether you (Prof. Adler) would bother to post this if it were a conservative Republican making such a request.
But I hate when people (e.g. Jonah Goldberg) always reflexively go for the it’s-a-double-standard complaint.
So let me say instead...yeah, this is lame. Grayson should get thicker skin, and take another look at the 1st Amendment, and NYT v. Sullivan, and let this go. Sigh.
[RESPONSE: I certainly would. I’m more than willing to slam Republicans, including my own Congressman. I’ve criticized Ron Paul for hypocrisy and bad judgment, and was ready to post about Rand Paul’s press aide until he resigned. Find me a Republican doing something like this and I’ll post it forthwith. Note also I made no mention of Grayson’s party in the post. JHA]
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:36 pmneurodoc says:
The news article says that before Grayson got to Congress, he had a record for going after “war profiteers.” How did he do it? Through qui tam actions against defense contractors?
How does the paper know what was in the complaint letter if it hasn’t seen it? If it has seen it, why didn’t it publish more of the letter itself?
INAPC (I’m not a political consultant), but this looks like a very ill-advised move to me. If he is crazy enough to file a commplaint like this one, which makes him look like such an idiot, when will he file some libel suits against his critics (rather than just telling them via the TV news to “STFU”)? About a decade ago, a disappointed candidate for office here in the Maryland suburbs of DC filed a libel suit against her opponent, and that did not go at all well for her.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:39 pmSoronel Haetir says:
If this sort of thing is actually criminal it just goes to show how messed up campaign finance limits are. Too bad we won’t get a court that rules the whole mess going back to Buckley was a mistake.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:40 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Neurodoc, anger, disappointment, and hurt pride cause people to do stupid things that in the cold light of day they wouldn’t.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:41 pmroguestage says:
This is idiotic. Not only is it a flagrant violation of free speech to use the criminal process to punish criticism of a political candidate, it’s just dumb politics. The article says that the site has managed to raise less than $4000 — how much do you want to bet that it has doubled that amount since the article went up?
(And to go with the knee-jerk ‘the other side does it too’ I seem to remember many people on this site encouraging Sarah Palin to file a trademark/copyright claim against the book ‘Going Rouge’, but we should all remember that two wrongs don’t make a right)
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:47 pmJohn Skookum says:
Name that Party! It’s always a Democrat, of course.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:50 pmPeteP says:
This aligns perfectly with Rep. Rosa Delauro’s ( D — Conn ) suggestion that Joe Lieberman should be ‘recalled from office’ because she didn’t like it when he was going to vote against cloture on the HC bill.
Let’s not worry about little details like ‘Connecticut has no such procedure to allow ‘recalling a Senator’, or ‘where does a member of the HOUSE get off suggesting what the SENATE has to do with THEIR members ?’, and just look at the basic point — her opinion is that anyone who votes differently from her should be removed from Congress, by any and all means required’.
Nice. Very nice. Very Democratic. Very Constitutional.
Uh huh.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 12:56 pmneurodoc says:
Yes, they certainly do, but the disappointed office-seeker I was speaking of went well beyond suing her opponent for libel. (She was an attorney and developer who had lost a civil lawsuit in which one of the plaintiff’s charges was “fraud.” Her primary opponent ran a radio ad in which the announcer said in a gravely serious tone, “X...guilty of FRAUD,” and then there was a clanging sound, like that of a cell door slamming shut.) She went on to seek out a hit man to murder her doctor husband, a philanderer, and the opposing counsel in her libel lawsuit. (Also, after she was criminally sentenced, she sued her by then ex-husband, the doctor, for medical malpractice and prevailed, the jury awarding her $1.)
Quote
December 19, 2009, 1:01 pmrjs says:
Adler: “According to the complaint, Langley is violating federal election laws and should be fined and ‘imprisoned for five years.’”
Grayson is claiming a violation of 18 USC 1001 in connection with representations to the FEC, but not a violation of federal election law itself.
Unfortunately, Grayson’s letter confirms the accusation in Langley’s website name. Everyone is nuts in Florida.
As for someone else’s statement that section 1001 is vague, it’s easy to avoid the prohibitions of section 1001. Don’t ever say anything to the federal government.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 1:05 pmVolokh Groupie says:
Most of his FEC arguments are pretty thin. The fact that the website spends its time attacking him doesn’t necessarily mean their fund raising is solely directed towards Grayson. They can just claim they’ll be directing their fund raising to multiple campaigns/groups while publicly attacking the most press worthy candidates (For example, MoveOn was mainly concerned with Bush during their presidency because he was the biggest money maker and biggest figure in the press but still funded other campaigns). I guess Grayson can hang his hat on that interview where they claimed their whole goal was to unseat him, but that statement by itself probably doesn’t differ from similar statements by different PACS and doesn’t prove that the money may not be going to multiple groups.
None of the ‘deceptively’ claimed to be a constituent claims are definitive bits of proof. Labeling the website ‘My congressman is nuts’ doesn’t imply she’s lying when she’s not a constituent — it simply means the website may be directed towards constituents who believe their rep, Grayson, is ‘nuts’. Most of her comments with the exception of the parts where it was about her living in the Lake County portion represented by Grayson are about other people and aren’t proof of anything. Even her claims that she lives in the portion of the county can’t be proven to claimed to be knowingly misleading contributors without accepting Grayson’s assertion wholesale that her political position necessarily meant she was aware of her mistake. None of this touches upon the fact that he’s obviously a public figure and a particularly visible one. I doubt Holder follows this up.
The optics of the entire complaint (including the references to the name of the website and what looks like a petty attempt to silence a critic by intimidation and threats) are pretty bad, though at this point i don’t think either Grayson cares much about that.
@Donald
I hope the VC contributors would follow this up if it were a republican who made the same complaint. I don’t disagree with the double standard complaint, but they’re necessarily aimed at a different issue from the party somebody may be appearing to defend.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 1:10 pmVolokh Groupie says:
This doesn’t prove anything about democrats. This proves something about Grayson. At worst it proves political firebrands are often thin skinned. It reminds me of Limbaugh’s recent attempt to get an opposing website shut down despite the fact it was obvious his claim would be weak .
Quote
December 19, 2009, 1:12 pmFen says:
“This doesn’t prove anything about democrats.”
Bullocks. It plays right into
1) the Fairness Doctrine, pushed by Dems to shut down AM talk radio.
2) Obama’s recently denouncing Fox News as an illegitimate news organization
3) NPR threatening to fire Mara Laison for “giving” FOX credibility by appearing as a panelist.
Its a common theme, where the pattern manifests as SEUI goon squads beating up protestors, or MoveOn thugs biting off people’s fingers. The Left seeks to supress opposition speech.
As for Grayson, its time for the tar and feathers. “Don’t think we’re not keeping score”
Quote
December 19, 2009, 1:43 pmSuperSkeptic says:
That’s pretty tough when federal election laws compel you to say things to the federal government. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s a real great system (for incumbent republicans and democrats, at least).
Quote
December 19, 2009, 2:01 pmJohn says:
Poor little Grayson. Seems he’s not heard of the Streisand Effect.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 2:02 pmRyan Waxx says:
And yet, somehow you managed to mention it anyway. Curious how that happens...
Quote
December 19, 2009, 2:36 pmArkady says:
You’ll let us know, Jonathan, when his lapses reach this level, right?
No higher form of corruption
Quote
December 19, 2009, 2:58 pmKazinski says:
Show us an instance of a conservative republican sending a letter to the US AG demanding a critic be sent to jail for 5 years, and then we can rip Juan for having a double standard.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 3:09 pmGringo says:
As Disney World lies within the boundaries of Representative Grayson’s Florida 8th District, could he be considered a Dumbocrat?
In addition to the examples that Fen gave, consider Nancy Pelosi.Here she is speaking in 2006 at a Town Hall meeting:
When antiwar protesters interrupt her, her response is to say “I appreciate that you as advocates can say that.” When the moderator tries to quiet the crowd,Nancy Pelosi’s responese is to say, “That’s OK, that’s OK.” Later on, when someone interrupts her, she responds, “I understand your anger.” She later says,“I’m a fan of disrupters,” when referring to FDR.
Contrast this to her calling the tea party protests “astorturfing,” and calling Town Hall protesters “unAmerican.” She understands only the anger of those who agree with her.If you are angry and disagree with Nancy Pelosi, you are “UnAmerican.” All too often the “liberal” Democrat position can be described as “free speech for me, not for thee.”
I wish that it were only Representative Grayson, but unfortunately there are too many examples out there. Recall Harry Reid talking about evil mongers. While the example I gave does not include the legal action that Representative Grayson discussed, the common thread with Grayson and Pelosi is to delegitimize and marginalize those who disagree with them. The difference between Grayson and Pelosi is that Grayson added “by any means necessary” to his efforts to marginalize his opposition.
“Free speech for me, not for thee,” is a stance all too often found among “liberal” Democrats.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 3:19 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Crust! But at least it’s flaky crust.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 3:26 pmJK says:
1. Who actually supports the “fairness doctrine”?
2. Why shouldn’t Obama be able to criticize Fox News? As long as he doesn’t threaten to use government powers to suppress Fox’s first amendment rights, his criticism doesn’t strike me as inappropriate.
3. Wow, I thought I wasted too much time following political news, but I don’t even know who Mara Laison is much less details about her personal relationships with her employers. But, on the face of it, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have a problem with one of your media personalities appearing on a competitor’s program.
This Grayson guy is seems like a dangerous fool, but so are you if you think this sort of thing is a systemic problem with one, and only one, of the major two political parties.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:09 pmGuy says:
A capital offense if if I ever heard one.
As for the whole democrats v republicans thing, I find it hilarious that every time someone does something like this, one side spins it to be partisan, then the other side spins their spin to be partisan. Sometimes we go up a level in the meta, “Republicans always say when a Democrat does something wrong Democrats have a predilection to do those things! But they don’t do that with other Republicans!” “So? Democrats do that too!” “Oh yeah? Well Republicans only point out that both sides generalize about the other side when they’ve been caught generalizing about Democrats! They’re hypocrites!” “Democrats do the same thing! You’re a hypocrite!”
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:09 pmCongressman Seeks to Send Critic to Jail | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more: Congressman Seeks to Send Critic to Jail Share this [...]
EMB says:
I think that there are plenty of people in both major political parties who become sufficiently angered by speech against them to try this sort of thing and don’t understand Streisand Effect. There tend to be if anything even more examples of this sort of thing at the local level.
I don’t think Obama is exactly the first president to refuse to be interviewed by a hostile news organization. Fox News has made it pretty clear what they think of the Obama administration, and Obama’s choice not to play nice with them (while perhaps a bad move politically) has nothing to do with suppressing free speech (as in this story).
There’s no vast left-wing (or right-wing) conspiracy to suppress political speech, just a bunch of powerful people in both parties who think the rules don’t apply to them.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:24 pmA. Zarkov says:
Suppose the AG does decide to go ahead and prosecute Angie Langley? Does anyone think he really cares about free speech? The threat of such prosecutions would certainly deter others from doing the same thing and that’s exactly what the Democrats want– they are only interested in acquiring more power. If the AG only prosecutes critics of Democrats why can’t he get away with that? What is to stop him? The fact is we have many would-be dictators among the Democrats. With their control over three branches of government, and their sycophants in the media there is little to stop them. The Republicans seem too disorganized, cowardly, leaderless, confused and just plain stupid to stop them.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:29 pmRyan Waxx says:
And then of course, you have the so-called high-minded person who condemns both sides equally... which is normally a tell that the evidence is stacked against his side, else a neutral position wouldn’t be an improvement.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:45 pmneurodoc says:
We’re talking Mara Laison working for National Public Radio, part of the Public Broadcasting Systems with public funding, and Fox News, a wholly commercial network. Their respective demographics must be about as separate and distinct as one gets between major broadcasters, and I can’t imagine NPR counting Fox as a “competitor.”
Quote
December 19, 2009, 4:55 pmBill Poser says:
Even weaker than the claim that the term “my congressman” implies that the writer is a constituent is Grayson’s claim that Langley’s saying that some of her friends voted for Grayson is a claim that she is a constituent. Surely one can have friends who reside in another congressional district.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 5:09 pmBill Poser says:
If Grayson were smarter, rather than filing this complaint, he would simply have pointed out that since Ms. Langley lives in Florida Congressional District 5, her statement that “my congressman is nuts” should be interpreted as applying to her fellow Republican Virginia Brown-Waite, who is the congressman from that district.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 5:14 pmGuy says:
We’re one more level up! Thanks for your help. Since my last post criticized the entire cycle, the ordinal measuring the total number of iterations is now omega+1, by my reckoning. Maybe we’ll all see the light by the time we get to the first inaccessible cardinal.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 5:35 pmgeokstr says:
Geez, where have you been the last 12 months?
I can find quotes from democratic congresscritters supporting it, asking it be imposed. A number of bills being pushed by democrats to impose controls on the internet have been discussed on this site.
In addition, the left is busy trying to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” by other names while claiming to be against it; stacking key committees at the FCC with minorities and no conservatives, setting up local “community committees” packed with ACORN and SEIU members to judge the “local content” of radio stations when their licences come up for renewal, proposals to make the renewals annual, proposals to tax radio stations that don’t measure up to the left’s fairness a 100% of profits tax. In addition, a nitwit leftist at the FCC is now being outed for recent quotes where he clearly doesn’t think much of the 1A, and wants to remove whites from positions of power in radio.
I could provide cites and sites but I’ll let you do your own research. All the leftists come here and say “where’s your sites” and when we provide them, they totally ignore them anyway, or ridicule the source.
Rule #5 at work.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 5:59 pmMike says:
This has nothing to do with Adler. But, yes, the GOP pulled a similar stunt in 2004.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 6:20 pmAnderson says:
Grayson is a pig. Oops — now he’s going to sue me.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 6:52 pmRyan Waxx says:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /timages/page/media/JNKFEC.pdf on this server.
Nice transparency, buddy.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 7:07 pmMike says:
Post loads fine. You be trolling. Anyhow, the FEC dismissed the frivolous complaint.
By the way, Donald F. McGahn II, the GOP official who filed the frivolous criminal complaint against the talk-show radio guys, is now on the FEC.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 7:21 pmrjs says:
Try http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000050CD.pdf for the complaint.
Here is the FEC’s decision: http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000050DC.pdf.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 7:27 pmAnthony says:
Indeed — other viewpoints are not welcomed by him.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 8:05 pmSarcastro says:
This just adds to the phalanx of anecdotes that prove liberals hate opposing speech. All the more reason to shut them up!
Quote
December 19, 2009, 8:37 pmRyan Waxx says:
So, if the subject is hypocrisy, lets see... there’s NOTHING on the “crime and federalism” site about this incident... which of course just shocks anyone who knows how balanced liberals are...
... And wonder of wonders, I do not see Mike or Rjs on that site lambasting the liberal for ignoring Rep. Grayson! Will ya look at that!
You proved something... although I don’t think it’s what you WANTED to prove.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 9:50 pmLeo Marvin says:
I tend to agree. You’d think anything this stupid would alienate him from friends and foes alike. The counter-argument, of course, is Sarah Palin.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 9:57 pmMike says:
Dude, you are mentally unbalanced. The Crime & Federalism site is mine. I am not even remotely liberal. I didn’t even know about the Rep. Grayson thing until reading the VC this a.m.
Get back on those meds. Or maybe take some Adderall when cruising the web — helps with reading comprehension.
Whatever you do, start over. You’ve obviously failed at life, and lack the ability to judge persons and situations. Go to a bookstore. Find the psychology section. Start reading books on body language...Talk to people. Ask questions. You’re not nearly as perceptive as you think, and thus have much more to learn from others than you have to teach others.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 10:12 pmRyan Waxx says:
Oh, and when you actually read the complaint and the response re: the republican?
Turns out they appear to have been doing something that would get you or me tossed in jail... but since they fell under a “press exemption”, the illegal behavior becomes legal. Surprise!
Yes, CLEARLY a bad-faith effort by the repubs...
/sarc
Quote
December 19, 2009, 10:12 pmRyan Waxx says:
You think owning the site makes your behavior BETTER?
Quote
December 19, 2009, 10:13 pmRyan Waxx says:
So, let me see if I follow the logic here:
Alder’s a hypocrite for talking about this incident, but not a similar incident involving a conservative.
BUT, Mike’s not a hypocrite for doing the exact same thing in reverse.
And anyone who thinks that logic pattern is wrong needs mental help.
Do I have your reasoning correct so far, Mike?
Quote
December 19, 2009, 10:20 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Leo, what do you imagine you are accomplishing with this kind of gratuitous dig at SP? If you really think about it, is it anything you want to accomplish?
Quote
December 19, 2009, 10:52 pmLeo Marvin says:
Laura, it’s not a gratuitous dig at Sarah Palin. It’s a comment on the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” state of our politics.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 11:01 pmSarcastro says:
[Laura(southernxyl), while I wouldn’t call Palin stupid, I do kinda think that Leo Marvin makes a bit of a point.
Palin is indeed a good counterexample for the idea that lack of political calculation in one’s actions (i.e. “acting stupidly”) does not alienate someone. The political and the personal are often quite seperate.
And, in both the Grayson and Palin cases, a hefty does or populism doesn’t hurt either.
Though I fervently hope so, I doubt we’ve seen the last of Grayson. In fact, I’ll bet his popularity among the left wing goes up.]
Quote
December 19, 2009, 11:03 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
No, it’s not. You’re saying that Palin is the counterexample to the supposition one would have that stupidity would alienate people; in a thread that is not about her at all. That is a gratuitous swipe. It’s only millimeters away from “Ear Leader” and “Obamination”. Again, what do you imagine you are accomplishing when you do this, and is it anything you want to accomplish?
As to Sarcastro’s comment, a “lack of political calculation”, which some may find refreshingly honest, is NOT the same as “stupidity”.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 11:37 pmJim Miller says:
For those who want to know more about the NPR journalist, Mara Liasson, here’s a link. You (probably) can see her tomorrow on Fox News Sunday, where she is a regular panelist.
I doubt whether I agree with her on even half of the issues, but she has always struck me as a professional, and more decent and honest than most journalists.
Quote
December 19, 2009, 11:55 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Congressman Seeks to Send Critic to Jail -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dallas Divas and Suffolk Media Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Congressman Seeks to Send Critic to Jail: The Orlando Sentinel reports that Rep. Alan Grayson is unhappy with a.. http://bit.ly/7cs9vk [...]
readery says:
Lieberman CAN be recalled from office. People simply have to wait til the next election.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 12:57 amtheobromophile says:
Grayson: objectively appalling. One of the most important purposes of the First Amendment is to allow citizens to criticise their elected officials.
Larger point w/r/t some Democrats: Obama did a bit of this during the election. He had a bunch of people in Missouri — prosecutors, police officers, etc — who were advised to be a “truth squad.” He spent a bunch of money airing a commercial that attacked a private citizen (Gianna Jessen) for her commercial which only urged him to reconsider his position on the BAIPA. Pathetic, really.
Larger point as to why conservatives are howling: after eight years of listening to “BusHitler” (and similar rhetoric), when a member of the opposing side does something that actually violates the Constitution of the United States, it’s very tempting to match the vitriol thrown at our side for possible, alleged, or hypothetical violations of the Constitution.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 1:21 amLeo Marvin says:
Laura, the “stupidity” I referred to was what Grayson did, not Grayson himself. So my counter-example was (how Palin supporters have reacted to) some stupid things Palin has done, not an implication that she herself is stupid. If you’re saying it’s controversial to suggest that Palin, or any other politician for that matter, has done stupid things, I disagree. And if you believe it’s comparable to stuff like “Ear Leader,” I’d urge you to give that a little more thought.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 7:21 am“Congressman Seeks to Send Critic to Jail” says:
[...] what you say about Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) [Adler/Volokh, WeaselZippers, Orlando [...]
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Leo, why Palin? Is she really the only example you can think of, of a politician who’s done some things you regard as stupid, who is also popular?
I’ve given that a lot of thought, thanks. I think it’s very ironic that on the one hand you hear “Palin lies!” all over the place, and on the other, people casually drop lies about her at random moments, when neither she nor that particular lie is even relevant to the discussion. See here for instance.
Since you don’t want to think about what you are accomplishing with your little backhand slaps at Palin, I’ll spell it out: People on her side, who would otherwise be judiciously critical of her shortcomings, can’t do it now because they would be piling on. Their criticism now can’t be constructive because you’ve moved the conversation so far into the destructive zone that it can’t come back. Just like the “ear leader” crap, this absolutely leads straight to polarization instead of shared goals and productive conversation. Is that what you want? I don’t know, maybe it is.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 10:39 amJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
This is a small example on why I think the Republicans and the Democrats are the same. Both follow the Constitution until it stops them from pursuing their goal, then they ignore the Constitution.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 10:57 amLeo Marvin says:
As I explained, my comment wasn’t about Palin so much as it was about some of her supporters, and their left-wing counterparts who Sarcastro predicted will circle the wagons around Grayson. Since the OP was about Grayson, I think it was reasonable to use a right-wing example to illustrate something about both sides. Why Palin’s? Hers was the first one that came to mind.
I’ve never said anything about Palin more critical than what’s been said by Davids Brooks, Frum, Bernstein and Nieporent, lefties all. So what does your irony have to do with what I did say?
What are you trying to accomplish by claiming to know what I want or think? More important, you’re making my argument. You’ll probably disagree, but I think the Clintons were attacked more viciously than the Palins have been. Yet though his behavior didn’t justify his enemies’ tactics, few of Bill’s supporters shied away from saying what he did was wrong. And the American people still came down on his side. So I’m not persuaded that for Palin’s partisans to criticize their own would be piling on. And even if they can’t bring themselves to say what they think, they don’t have to defend what they know deserves criticism just because they don’t like their opponents. That’s the sort of intellectual dishonesty that turns arguments into feuds. Which was my point.
How have I “moved the conversation so far into the destructive zone that it can’t come back?”
Laura, I used blind, partisan support for Palin to illustrate a point about blind partisanship on both sides. How you can equate that with “ear leader” is beyond me. Are you suggesting that because some people went over the top attacking Palin, she’s now off limits to legitimate criticism? If bad arguments can drive out good ones, the bad ones are all that’s left.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 7:42 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Leo, look at your original statement.
In other words, “Sarah Palin” is shorthand for stupidity that you would think would alienate a politician from friends and foes alike. Now you’re fleshing your argument out, but that doesn’t negate the fact that your original statement was a cheap drive-by.
You’re going to tell me that Clinton’s supporters didn’t excuse his behavior? I didn’t hear “it was just about sex” over and over? About how the Republicans were crucifying him over a little sexual dalliance that was no one’s business? I still don’t hear these things? Please.
Quote
December 20, 2009, 8:18 pmLeo Marvin says:
Laura, please stop telling me what I want, believe, and now intend. First, if you’re going to quote me, show the relevant context, in this case neurodoc’s comment to which I responded. He and I were both referring to behavior one would expect to be politically toxic. I mentioned Sarah Palin as a counter-example of highly partisan politicians whose supporters refuse to criticize such behavior because they care more about a unified front than they do the consistency of their principles. But even if for whatever reason you read that differently, I’ve told you three times what I meant. So if you’re going to challenge my honesty, please back it up with more than just your own interpretation.
I’m sure you can find some who did, but by and large, no, they didn’t.
You’re conflating how Democrats responded to attacks on Clinton with what they said about his behavior. The campaign to vilify Clinton, of which the impeachment was the most egregious chapter, was a disgrace, unjustified by anything he did. But that doesn’t make what he did right, and most Democrats said so. You’d have to be willfully blind to think Clinton wasn’t widely criticized by Democrats, even while they found the behavior of his enemies worse.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 1:10 amNickM says:
Leo — there’s 2 different types of politically toxic actions: those that come across as really stupid (including taking extremist positions), and those that come across as nasty/venal (including criminality).
The first type (which I think is what you’re indicating Palin has done) is a lot easier for supporters to live with — after all, it doesn’t make her a bad person. Grayson seems to me to be the second type.
Nick
Quote
December 21, 2009, 2:47 amRichard Nieporent says:
The reason Grayson didn’t sue Angie Langley for libel for her mycongressmanisnuts.com website is because it would fall under the truth is a defense part of the libel law.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 8:30 amRichard Aubrey says:
I may have a memory issue, but my recollection of the Clinton misdeeds was that there were two phases.
Until circumstances forced the Clintons to admit what had been alleged, they were innocent.
Once they admitted it, whatever it was wasn’t wrong.
So, yeah, the stuff was wrong, until it was indisputable, after which it wasn’t wrong.
See the justifications for Travelgate, for example.
The one– free grope rule from the then head of NOW ref K. Willey.
A little nookie in the Oval Office? Stop being so judgmental.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 3:08 pmLeo Marvin says:
I agree about Grayson and mostly about Palin, though Walt Monegan and those who live outside “the real America” might have something to say about that.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 3:31 pmLeo Marvin says:
Richard, I don’t doubt that’s exactly how you remember it.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 3:34 pmRyan Waxx says:
Yes Leo, I’m certain that there is no one who sought to minimize something Clinton did after it was proven he did so. For example, I happen to know that NOW has never criticized a CEO for having sex with one of his subordinates. No, really!
Quote
December 21, 2009, 4:15 pmLeo Marvin says:
Ryan, let me know if you any non-straw man arguments you’d like me to respond to.
Quote
December 21, 2009, 7:46 pmLarry says:
http://www.numbersusa.com/change/immigration/numbers/
Quote
December 21, 2009, 9:44 pmneurodoc says:
Your response first to Richard Aubrey, then to Ryan Waxx suggest that you don’t think there were a non-negligible number of Clinton apologists who tried either to deny the evidence or minimize their misconduct. Is that the implication of your responses to them, in particular with regard to the tolerance of his misconduct by many feminists? The partisan fury of their opponents may have been more consequential, but there were those unabashed apologists. (BTW, did anyone ever figure out how the missing Rose billing records showed up in the WH living quarters?)
Quote
December 22, 2009, 12:59 amLeo Marvin says:
neuro,
My comment to Ryan was that his was a straw man. I never denied what he said, and though I don’t recall the NOW details, I don’t doubt them. And I criticized Richard’s comment not because it’s entirely false, but because it’s so sweeping, neither is it true. (That it’s so much broader than what Ryan said is why Ryan’s comment to me was non-responsive.)
So no, there were certainly non-negligable numbers who denied Clinton did anything wrong. I said “few,” which is vague, but to be clear all I had in mind was that most didn’t deny it. The exact numbers or proportions were immaterial to why I brought Clinton up in the first place. It was only to illustrate to Laura why I found her “piling on” excuse for not criticizing Palin unpersuasive. In fact, I reject that excuse because I don’t believe partisan interests justify dishonesty, but I wasn’t trying to make the normative argument, just a prudential one. So I pointed out that most of Clinton’s supporters were critical of his behavior, while still defending him from his attackers, and that the judgment of the American people as evidenced in his high job approval ratings suggests the internal criticism wasn’t terribly damaging politically.
Quote
December 22, 2009, 3:07 amLeo Marvin says:
Richard,
I’m not going to re-litigate the Clinton controversies seriatim. Unfortunately far fewer opinion polls back then sorted responses by party and ideology, but I found one which, while not exactly on point, is close enough. It showed that while 72% of Democrats disapproved of how the House was investigating Clinton, 52% thought he should be censured, impeached or should resign. CNN/Time Poll, October 14–15, 1998. I’m long past believing you can be convinced by evidence that contradicts your biases, so I’ll just let anyone else who’s still interested decide for themselves whether that 52% is more or less than “a few pro-forma condemnations.”
Quote
December 22, 2009, 6:20 pmGrayson vs. “my congressman is nuts” | Radio Vice Online says:
[...] Toldjah, Volokh Conspiracy and Hot Air have posted about this story during the last few days. Fun [...]
When Will the Mainstream Media Report That Alan Grayson Is Nuts? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine says:
[...] vampire fighter, scourge of harlots, courageous Wallenberg in the GOP genocide, puckish master of political rough and tumble, is being ignored by the establishment media. Just look at how The New York Times, ABC, Salon, [...]