RNC Surveys in Lieu of Facts, Ideas

This is the unedited version of an article that originally appeared in the Missouri State University newspaper, The Standard.

________________________________________________

Recently, in a show of absolute desperation in the final weeks of a close gubernatorial race in the swing-state of Virginia, the Republican National Committee issued a survey meant to influence and misinform anyone who received it. The answers you give in the survey aren't important, it's what you take away from the questions the GOP is interested in.

The survey is so spurious, even the Washington Post called it out, featuring the most biased of the right-leaning questions. Because this development is so awesome, so desperate and devoid of intellect, I thought I'd address the questionnaire, and specifically the questions highlighted by the Post, because I only have so much room.

Please, though, try to find the full survey online. It's pure gold the whole way through. The selection is purely for my own convenience. But, to address just a few of the more ridiculous accusations/questions...

“1. Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?”

This one isn't just misleading, it's a bit stupid. Apparently, no one involved in the production of these surveys realized their's a difference between “deficit” and “national debt.” Just to clarify, there is a difference – deficit is the annual shortage of funds, national debt is the total accumulation of deficits over time.

Easy to confuse, right? Well, no, not really... Especially if it's your job to know these things, y'know, like if you work for the RNC. The benefit of the “confusion,” though, is that the national debt over the next decade is way bigger than the annual deficit; about twenty-three times larger. What an unfortunate mistake.

“4. Should English be the official language of the United States?”
The correct answer to this question is also a question - “Exactly how racist is the Republican party?” See, official language requirements would have little to no effect on anyone in the country save school children, who are required to be taught in their native language.

Any such legislation wouldn't stop illegal immigration, for example, nor would it place more than a few basic language requirements on potential new Americans. Businesses would still print packaging in multiple languages, much to the consternation of easily-confused Republicans, and government would only reduce its efforts to instruct immigrants at the expense of public safety.

“9. Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington?”

Of course not – screw the bureaucrats. It's corporate cronies that truly have our interests in mind. Or, most telling, I heard of a plan recently that truly reveals conservative intentions.

A church-funded insurance co-op, called Samaritan Ministries, is operating on the same basic principles that a government-run co-op would have – instead of worrying about your own insurance costs, you contribute to a group plan or account that would cover anyone who chose to participate. In fact, the only real difference between this plan and proposed government programs is the role of the church.

Conservatives, or at least conservative Christians, are only opposed to welfare if their opposition is holding the purse-strings.

“13. Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed?"

There is at least one Democrat proposing the reinstitution of the draft. So far his efforts have garnered little to no support among fellow Democrats, who seem strangely preoccupied with their “careers in politics” or whatever.

This is pretty awesome, though. What do you do when attacking your opposition as a party of cowards and draft-dodgers loses its impact? Why, accuse them of the exact opposite! Instead of handing out purple-heart Band-Aids – which cost money, by the way – you can just make sweeping and baseless accusations about your opposition, which is completely free.

What do you do when you're entire political party has run out of ideas? I guess you send crap like this out to your constituents and hope they don't know how to Google. God, what a great time to be liberal.

Glenn Beck and international law (and why I love Marc Randazza)

There exists a particularly funny web site that mocks the investigative style of Fox News personality Glenn Beck. The web site is http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/. It satirizes the whole tactic of making some frivolous speculation and then saying that they were only asking questions - a technique regularly employed by Beck. It's positively abominable behavior for anybody considering themselves a journalist, but hey, it's Fox News.

Anyway, Beck has filed a grievance with WIPO (the World Internet Property Organization) that seeks to strip the URL from its owner, thus silencing the site. Pure gold. But there's an important question to ask here: why did Beck file his complaint with an international body rather than with the courts here in the good ol', god-blessed, US of A? The web site's attorney, Mike Randazza, puts forth a hypothesis in his response brief, along with batting down the allegation that the site was set up to confuse fans of Beck into thinking that Beck was tied to the site somehow:

There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck's own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused - even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent's website wondering "where did all the race baiting content go?" We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent's website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent's website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck's very rhetorical style. Beck's skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent's constitutional rights.

Sofa king, beautiful.

He also provides comparisons from Beck and from the web site in order to highlight the satire. First, from Beck:

No offense and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I've been to mosques, I really don't think Islam is a religion of evil. I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly. With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying let's cut and run. And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview because what I feel like saying is, sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy. But that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Then, from the web site:

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

But don't worry - this gets better.

Yesterday Randazza emailed Ed Brayton, alerting him to another brief he had filed. It contains a quote from Beck that Beck must have just forgotten about:

Let me tell you something. When you can't win with the people, you bump it up to the courts. When you can't win with the courts, you bump it up to the international level.

And the irony begins to reach neck-level. Randazza also has another spectacular Beck quote, in which Beck is explaining why he called Harold Koh, the Dean of the Yale Law School, a "threat to American Democracy" for his position on transnational law. Beck said:

[Koh] wants to subordinate the American Constitution to foreign and international rules. We see that in his attack on First Amendment free speech principles, which he finds opprobrious.

Randazza provides one last Beck quote just for good measure:

Once we sign our rights over to international law, the Constitution is officially dead.

A lot of people would just be tempted to leave it there, but Mr. Ranazza is apparently no ordinary lawyer. He concludes his recent brief with the following request:

I hate to presume anything about anyone, but I presume that Mr. Beck will agree to this stipulation. It would be an interesting day indeed if Mr. Beck preferred to risk that a panelist would apply French law to a case between two Americans over a matter of public discourse...

I am certain that neither party wishes to see First Amendment rights subordinated to international trademark principles, thus unwittingly proving Mr. Beck's point. Lest this case become an example of international law causing damage to the constitutional rights that both of our clients hold dear, I respectfully request that your client agree to stipulate to the application of American constitutional law to this case.

I would like to become a lawyer, but I don't think I could ever be this good.