GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl
Source: The Hill
ARepublican candidate running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania is planning to run a campaign ad featuring chants of "Let's go Brandon" during the Super Bowl on Sunday.
The ad from candidate David McCormick features text highlighting issues that have hindered the Biden administration including the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan and rising inflation against an audio backdrop of crowds chanting "Let's go Brandon."
The controversial phrase was made popular by conservatives and supporters of former President Trump and is meant to be an insult toward President Biden.
McCormick told Fox News, who was first to report on the ad, that the purpose was to highlight "self-inflicted" problems that have plagued the Biden administration in the last year.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senate-candidate-to-run-let-s-go-brandon-ad-during-super-bowl/ar-AATNRS2?li=BBnbfcQ
The guy must have some money (or wealthy backers) if he can afford a Super Bowl ad. He hasn't yet made it out of the primary.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Do you think that's the worst way anyone has ever treated a president?
From the good old days, when civility ruled the land, 218 years ago:
Sat Sep 17, 2016: He'd say, "they treat politicians with much more respect than when I was alive."
Heeeeeeeere we go:
Thu Mar 1, 2012: Do I have to post this again?
and
Tue Apr-13-10: Born, on April 13, 1743, in Shadwell, Virginia,...
and many other identical posts:
Everytime I read online about the decline in political discourse, I bring out this cartoon. This is how Jefferson was depicted.
I continue to carry a $2 bill at all times in my wallet.
"Congress shall make no law...."
It's No Laughing Matter - Analyzing Political Cartoons
The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions
It's also here:
Thu Apr 13, 2017: Happy birthday, Thomas Jefferson.
He was fortunate enough to live in a time of complete civility in politics, so unlike today.
Tue Aug 13, 2013: They're disrespecting our President!
Here's a message for everyone who feel politics used to be more civil in the good old days. No, it wasn't. I post this picture every time someone at DU says that politics has hit a new low.
Jefferson was one of the most detested presidents ever. People just loathed him.
Thomas Jefferson - The West
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffwest.html
The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002708977/
You'll get over it.
I was driving through Kingman, Arizona, on Highway 40 and saw this sign prominently displayed on a dilapidated bar off the highway. You can't even see the name of the bar, but his anti-Biden sign is visible for as far as the eye can see. Obviously the owner thinks it will bring him customers. In Kingman, it probably will.
The Chairman of the FCC speaks for the FCC. And what he said regarding the legislative history is persuasive and correct, and was obviously prepared by FCC attorneys. The Luken Memorandum has been cited in numerous law review articles (that's how I found it). How many cases or law review articles have cited your 1978 admin opinions? There is not much recent case law on the subject, mostly because using F-bombs or profanity in a political ad was not done because it would harm the candidate...at least that was the case before MAGAts lowered the bar on what was acceptable for political discourse on the airwaves.
But as I said above, I don't think today's FCC will do anything about Let's Go Brandon, anymore than it does anything about the F-bombs we now frequently hear on TV. It can do something, but it won't. The FCC is much more concerned with exposed genitals on TV.
So, all we can really do at this point is throw out counter memes.
Letters sent by the Chairman of the FCC in response to a letter from a member of Congress do not represent the "considered opinion" of the FCC. Indeed, the other members of the FCC do not see those letters in advance and have no input whatever into their content. Fowler's letter to Rep. Luken no more "speaks" for the entire Commission than Luken's letter spoke for the entire Congress.s
Yes, the letter was written with assistance of FCC lawyers. Likely those who were members of Fowler's staff. But even if it was written by the General Counsel's office (and I speak aas someone who has been an FCC attorney), I can assure you that those lawyers were directed to come up with an argument that supported the Chairman's position. In case you didn't know it, the General Counsel of the FCC is appointed by the Chairman of the FCC.
As for the letter being cited by law review articles, weren't you the one who pooh-poohed blog posts written by experts in the field? The law review articles that cite the Luken letter acknowledge its existence, but they can't characterize it as representing the official, considered, official, binding position of the FCC nor do they uniformly endorse the position taken in the Luken memorandum (despite your conclusion that it was "persuasive." )The Chairman was speaking for himself. Period.
Finally, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized the role played by both Section 312 ("reasonable access"
and 315 (no censorship) play in protecting political discourse from FCC regulation (including, for example, finding that the FCC not only may not give a broadcaster the discretion to refuse to broadcast libelous or offensive political ads (including ads graphically depicting aborted fetuses that are conceded be harmful to children), but also may not even require a broadcaster to channel political ads to a less desirable time period where the audience for the ads would be limited.)
