Monthly Archives: October 2007

John Edwards Wants To Censor The Medical Information You Receive

Election '08, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Politics

Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards is proposing that drug companies be prevented from informing the public of the possible beneficial effects of their products:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says prescription drug companies should have to wait two years to begin advertising their new products to consumers.

Edwards on Sunday was outlining a plan to regulate what he views as a proliferation of misleading drug ads. In the decade since the government relaxed rules on advertising directly to consumers, spending on prescription drug ads has nearly quadrupled to more than $4 billion a year, he said in prepared remarks.

“With such aggressive and often misleading drug company marketing, it’s too easy for advertising — instead of doctors or proven results — to influence families’ health decisions,” Edwards said in excerpts of his speech provided to The Associated Press. “But the (Food and Drug Administration) has been an ineffective watchdog, reviewing only a small fraction of ads.

“It’s time to stand up to the drug companies and their lobbyists who have rigged the system. It’s time to stand strong for families, patients and doctors,” said Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina.

Besides the two-year delay on new-drug advertising, he would require drug companies to get FDA approval before launching major ad campaigns. He also would increase penalties for companies that violate truth-in-advertising laws and would require companies to disclose more information about a drug’s side effects and effectiveness compared to placebos and alternative drugs.

Because, you see, you’re too stupid to evaluate this information for yourself and you need a gatekeeper — whether it’s the government or your doctor — to tell you what to think.

Yet another example of the Nanny State paternalism that makes me conclude that there’s no hope for liberty in the Democratic Party.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

The Case Against An Elected Judiciary

Legal

Today’s Washington Post writes about the extent to which partisan politics has inserted itself into that peculiarly American institution, the judicial election:

Judicial elections are an almost uniquely American invention, with a patchwork of more than 16 selection systems spread across the country. In the 21 states that hold direct partisan and nonpartisan elections for the high court, some already have evolved from quiet, down-ballot contests to full-blown campaigns with consultants and multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns. An Illinois Supreme Court contest in 2004 cost more than 18 of the 34 U.S. Senate contests that year, and candidates for chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last year raised a total of $8.2 million.

The spending increases in large part reflect a decision by business groups to get involved in the contests. The National Association of Manufacturers announced in 2005 that it was establishing the American Justice Partnership to promote tort reform in the states, and the resulting battles between trial lawyers and business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have led to some of the most expensive campaign battles.

But it’s not just the money that has been injected into these races that is alarming, it’s the extent to which blatantly partisan politics have injected themselves into elections for positions that are, by tradition, supposed to be above politics:

The “new politics” of judicial elections, Brandenburg said, “demands that judges be Huey Long on the campaign trail and Solomon in the courtroom and not miss a beat in between.”

Some judicial candidates have been even more outspoken than in the past since a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said some state restrictions on the speech of judicial candidates were unconstitutional.

Former Alabama chief justice Drayton Nabors, unseated in the 2006 election, said in one of his television commercials: “I’m pro-life. Abortion on demand is a tragedy. And the liberal judicial decisions that support it are wrong.”

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer declared in his 2003 campaign, “I am pro-choice and proud of it.”

Here’s the problem. The judiciary, whether it’s on the federal, state, or local level is not supposed to be a partisan branch of government. Ideally, politics aren’t supposed to play any role at all in the administration of justice.

Realistically, of course, we all know that it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judicial process, but forcing judges, especially judges at the appellate Court level, to run in partisan elections where they are forced to take public stands on issues that are likely to come before them in Court. It comes close to violating the Code of Ethics that judges are bound by, and it gives the public the impression that the entire judicial process is something that can, and should, be influenced the same way a debate in the state legislature is. It demeans the judges who have to run for election, and it demeans the entire legal process.

An appointed judiciary has its flaws, but they are nowhere near as bad as a judiciary that is infused with the poison of democracy.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Ron Paul’s First New Hampshire Television Ad

Election '08, Politics

As I understand it, these ads are set to start running this weekend or early next week.

If this is the entire ad strategy, it’s disappointing. Part of the problem with using volunteers to do campaign ads is that, usually they can’t act and they have a hard time acting like themselves when the camera light comes on. This is clearly true with a few of the people here, especially the guy with the beard at the end.

However, as I noted yesterday, the New York Times reports that there are five ads that will roll-out starting this week and, for the opening shot, this one isn’t bad at all.

Update: A note to the overwhelming number of you who seem to think this ad is a bomb. To some extent, I agree. I don’t think it was very well produced, and the “actors were, well, just bad. A few things to keep in mind, though. First, this is supposed to be step one in a five-part ad campaign — so its worth waiting to see what comes next; if the next few have similar issues, then it’s time to raise questions. Second, the campaign is obviously trying to appeal to mainstream Republican voters, not people who surf the net or watch YouTube videos. Third, I’ve watched most of the YouTube videos that some of you have referred to; they’re good for amateur work, but for television ads meant to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, most of them don’t make the cut.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Mike Huckabee, Less Than Meets The Eye

Election '08, Politics

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is, in many respects, the flavor-of-the-month in the Republican Presidential field right now. He came in a surprising second in the Ames Straw Poll back in August, and he’s been rising in the polls to the point where Rasmussen now has him ahead of Mitt Romney in their national poll. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and says he favors the Fair Tax, but, as the Club For Growth’s Pat Toomey says today, there’s much less there than meets the eye:

During Huckabee’s tenure as governor, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. A dyed-in-blue tax hiker, Huckabee supported raising sales taxes, gas taxes, grocery taxes, even nursing home bed taxes. He virulently opposed a congressional moratorium on taxing Internet access, and sat on the sidelines while his Democratic legislature pushed the largest tax hike in Arkansas history into law. What’s more, on his watch, and frequently at his behest, state spending increased by 50 percent, more than double the rate of inflation, and the number of state government workers rose by 20 percent. Yes, as a presidential candidate, Huckabee has signed on as a supporter of the Fair Tax and pledged against raising taxes, but when a candidate’s long and clear record flies in the face of his election-year symbolism, you can chalk it up to politics every time.

As Toomey points out, this is precisely not what the GOP needs if it wants to regain the voters trust on fiscal issues that it lost prior to the 2006 elections:

In order to earn back the public’s trust on economic issues, not to mention offer a compelling contrast with a Hillary Clinton-led Democratic ticket, Republicans must present a consistent message. A big-government liberal like Mike Huckabee, who takes pleasure in attacking the Republican party as the “party of Wall Street,” will only reinforce the image of Republicans as “the big spenders that they used to oppose.” A Huckabee nomination, even as vice president, will make it impossible for the Republican party to reclaim its brand of fiscal conservatism and limited government, without which it cannot be a majority party again.

Huckabee makes no secret of his desire to turn the GOP leftward, calling himself a “different kind of Republican,” adopting protectionist positions, and peppering his campaign speeches with the kind of class warfare rhetoric one expects to hear from John Edwards. No doubt, this is the reason that the liberal media is so smitten with him.

Instead of talking about curtailing government spending, Huckabee refuses to endorse President Bush’s veto of a vastly expanded S-CHIP. He is an unabashed fan of No Child Left Behind and an opponent of private school choice. Huckabee is also quickly becoming the labor unions’ favorite Republican, recently gaining a union endorsement along with Hillary Clinton.

The media’s fascination with Huckabee will most likely continue to grow; especially since he’s currently running a strong third in Iowa, but the truth of the matter is that he’s exactly the opposite of what the GOP, and America, need.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 28