Know Thy Subject…

Jay Rosen takes on David Gregory and Erin Burnett regarding their knowledge of the Citizens United decision…or lack thereof?

Request that the ads be taken down? Huh?… That’s what David Gregory said. But what sense does that make? And what does Gregory think he’s doing here?

The whole import of the Citizens United decision is that candidates can benefit from unlimited donation and unlimited expenditures as long as they don’t coordinate with the Super PAC’s that advertise to their benefit. If they tried to coordinate, if they said something like, “Take those ads down, and our opponent will do the same…” they would in all likelihood be VIOLATING THE LAW. What a great excuse for not doing it.

Does Gregory understand that? It’s not clear. If he does, then what the hell is he asking? If he does not, then why the heck is moderating this debate?

But he’s not alone. Last week, Erin Burnett of CNN acted out the same confusion. On her wretched, embarrassing, nails-on-the-chalkboard CNN program, she asked a Romney representative the following question…

BURNETT: All right. And a final question on super PACs. I know there’s been a lot of comment about this, a lot of frustration among people like Newt Gingrich, about super PACs that were supporting Mitt Romney running negative ads in Iowa. Mitt Romney was on — with Joe Scarborough saying he doesn’t like super PACs and wish they didn’t exist. Now, Barack Obama said the same thing and he’s got super PACs. So, if the general election ends up being Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, would Mitt Romney say let’s shake hands and no super PACs?


16 Responses to “Know Thy Subject…”

  1. lonestar77 Says:

    “David Gregory and Erin Burnett are either incompetent or deluded or both. The only other explanation I can think of is that they’re seduced by their own games of puppy gotcha.”

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the it’s the latter.

  2. The issue is one of popular liberal claptrap and both lightweights are just following the flow. If Lawerence Spivak weren’t dead, he would want to be.

  3. is that candidates can benefit from unlimited donation and unlimited expenditures as long as they don’t coordinate with the Super PAC’s

    Hmm, I don’t think Citizens United dealt with donations. It had to do with corporations or unions using expenditures on political ads 30 or 60 days before an election.

    Donations weren’t touched.

    I’m not sure what Professor Rosen means here.

  4. Chrissy Matthews said the same thing to Gov. Sununu about Super Pacs for Mitt Romney. Basically these anchors are hoping we are all a bunch of stupid sh**heads that they can pull the wool over our eyes and my guess is there are a lot of stupid sh**heads out there who fall for all this crap. An uninformed electorate is what the Demos need – maybe that’s why they want schools to stay unionized so they can keep stupidity alive!

  5. Citizens United is kind of a red herring in this. We’ve had ‘independent expenditures’ in political campaigns for decades. And the rules haven’t changed: there can be no, zero, zip, nada coordination between the independents and the candidate’s actual campaign. If there is, on either side, it’s a violation of federal law. The problem is the talking point is too tempting for Burnett, Gregory, and Matthews and they can’t resist using it. Whether they don’t understand the law, or do understand and just don’t care, it’s misinformation.

  6. YES, they should both know better than to suggest a candidate do anything about the Super PAC ads. As I said in a post under the Matthews vs. Sununu fight, collaborating with the Super PAC is illiegal, and yes, you can go to jail for it. Jeff Smith of Missouri’s 4th district served prison time for it (and that was before Citizens United). For all of you who want to just blame this on liberals, I should point out that it is Gingrich whining about Romney’s SuperPACs the most. Matthews, is liberal, but Gregory is fairly straight and I would argue that Burnett is, well, wherever the money is at (seems leaning republican now that she is marrying a rich republican). I loved Rosen’s article because somebody needs to point out the obvious to these nitwit TV personalities. Thank you, Jay Rosen, for taking them to task.

  7. It’s the same misinformation that started the day the Citizens United decision came down. People who earn their living discussing/reporting the political process should know better. Some of them probably do know better and are intentionally misleading.

  8. ^ ^ Elle: I’m too lazy to search for it, but am abso-freakin-lutely positive that Newt Gingrich thoroughly and accurately addressed PACS in relation to the problems of McCain-Feingold long before Citizens United. He does know better and so I have no doubt whatsoever that his misinformation is quite intentional.

  9. Newt’s misinformation is always intentional.

  10. You’re right. In that, he’s no different than Obama.

  11. Newt’s a little more blatant about his dickishness. A little.

  12. Hmmmm… I’ll have to ponder that point a while.

  13. No doubt, Newt’s misinformation is intentional.

  14. If Newt was any more full of it, his hair would regain it’s original color.

  15. ^^ Ha ha ha ha ha

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: