Can Senator Cruz say 'straw man?' he can and he tried to prop up a few himself.
I asked Senator Cruz to support changes being proposed in the FOIA and, as such, I ended up getting his newsletter. I read today's communication and I said to myself, "Hey, nice guy standing up for the first ammendment right to free speech." However, after listening to his free speech here I realized he was trying to support Citizen's United.
In doing so, the Senator falls flat on his face using a straw man argument to support his position. If we implement this, he says, it will mean Congress can stop publishers from publishing political views (after all, they are corporations and publishing a political book like Hillary Artillery's new book is free speech). It will stop organizations like the ACLU from lobbying, he adds. All of which is total nonsense.
The good Senator from Texas is equating a corporation's political contribution with what the founders thought was free speech. He says nobody would say that a corporation is a "human being;" but that, nevertheless, they certainly have rights just like those of the ACLU "corporation" and the corporation that will publish Hillary's book. He fails to note the distinction between having a corporation buy time or space to promote its agenda--something we all agree constitutes free speech as it was originally intended--and having a corporation buy itself a representative. At this point, I'd like to mention Federalist Paper #57 in which Madison clearly says that the electors are to be the "great body of the people of the United States." GE and Koch industries may employ thousands but they are not the "great body."
Senator Cruz, I like you, am an immigrant but unlike you, I can feel the pulse of our great body. I'd like to see a Hispanic succeed but all I see are Hispanic politicians who have reached the Peter Principle because they no longer represent us, the great body. You only have to look at Senator Menendez who disregards the polls saying that expatriates want to increase US/Cuban relations while he continues to be "Mr. embargo." [soon I'll post on a response I got from him on this very matter].
In doing so, the Senator falls flat on his face using a straw man argument to support his position. If we implement this, he says, it will mean Congress can stop publishers from publishing political views (after all, they are corporations and publishing a political book like Hillary Artillery's new book is free speech). It will stop organizations like the ACLU from lobbying, he adds. All of which is total nonsense.
The good Senator from Texas is equating a corporation's political contribution with what the founders thought was free speech. He says nobody would say that a corporation is a "human being;" but that, nevertheless, they certainly have rights just like those of the ACLU "corporation" and the corporation that will publish Hillary's book. He fails to note the distinction between having a corporation buy time or space to promote its agenda--something we all agree constitutes free speech as it was originally intended--and having a corporation buy itself a representative. At this point, I'd like to mention Federalist Paper #57 in which Madison clearly says that the electors are to be the "great body of the people of the United States." GE and Koch industries may employ thousands but they are not the "great body."
Senator Cruz, I like you, am an immigrant but unlike you, I can feel the pulse of our great body. I'd like to see a Hispanic succeed but all I see are Hispanic politicians who have reached the Peter Principle because they no longer represent us, the great body. You only have to look at Senator Menendez who disregards the polls saying that expatriates want to increase US/Cuban relations while he continues to be "Mr. embargo." [soon I'll post on a response I got from him on this very matter].
Comments
Post a Comment