People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, December 31, 2011

And That's a Good Thing

The New York Times this morning stands aghast that outsiders are influencing the Iowa Republican primary, and that it's all the fault of the Supreme Court nullification of campaign finance law.  The gist of the outrage:
In a stark illustration of how last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance has created powerful new channels for outside money to influence elections, the negative onslaught is the work of a group called Restore Our Future.

The battle in Iowa has underscored what advocates for tighter campaign finance restraints have warned for months: that the new groups will be deployed to devastating effect, in the primary season and then in the general election.
"[N]ew groups will be deployed to devastating effect."

Unlike old groups, like the New York Times, outsiders all, who spend their every waking moment trying to influence - to devastating effect - the outcome of the Iowa Republican primary.

In truth, those "new" outside groups have done the voters a favor.  We've learned a great deal from them about Newt Gingrich.  And about the other candidates.

In any other context, the deep thinkers at the Times would consider information - including information skewed toward one's personal preferences - to be a good thing.  But when it comes to politics, that doesn't fly.  Only the information - often skewed to the max - provided by select outsiders is to be countenanced.

Idiots?  Or sneaky politicians themselves.  You decide.

* Lest one climb aboard that high horse and suggest that lobbying groups and PACs formed to influence the outcomes of elections are somehow unworthy of that lofty, impartial position held by the likes of the New York Times, I offer in response its article, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk."  Gutter politics if there ever was such a thing.