Musical duo from Philly, big in the early eighties.
Led Zeppelin with Over the hills and far away.
Iconic 1973 song from the album Houses of the Holy.
"To address the election more directly: I loathe what the Democratic Party has done these last few years and I dearly hope that today sees the dethroning of Harry Reid. I would also like to be represented in Washington by someone other than Senator Shaheen and Congresswoman Kuster. Nonetheless, I regard the Republican Party as a largely repulsive institution. Yesterday, one of the last of this season's election flyers arrived at my Post Office from the GOP. It read:
SCOTT BROWN HAS A
STRONG RECORD OF FIGHTING
FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.
SCOTT IS PRO-CHOICE & SUPPORTS
ISSUES IMPORTANT TO WOMEN.
Now Scott Brown is certainly "pro-choice", as is his right. It hasn't been a big part of his campaign - he got a lot of traction from immigration, and from Jeanne Shaheen's abysmal debate performances - and realistically, whatever one feels about abortion, today's election results won't make a whit of difference on the issue. Still, I'd have no objection to Mr Brown sending out campaign literature bragging about his position.
But this flyer came from the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.
The official position of the State Committee is that it is opposed to abortion. You can read the platform here:
We believe that life is sacred, from conception to natural death and that we cannot diminish the value of one category of human life without diminishing the value of all human life.
In addition the NH GOP is committed to...
Support the unborn child's fundamental right to life and implement all possible legal protections
Encourage individuals and organizations who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers through adoption, support, counseling and educational services
Now maybe that's all squaresville, uptight social-conservative stuff, and not where the party needs to be in 2014. Nevertheless, it's the official position, and the base has been disinclined to change it. So when a pro-life State Committee sends out leaflets boasting about being pro-choice, they're telling you that those two bolded words "we believe" are meaningless when uttered by a New Hampshire Republican official. Why would what they claim to "believe" on Obamacare or debt or foreign policy be any more reliable? When a man tells you his word is bullsh*t, take him at it.
More revealingly, look at how the State Committee characterizes Brown's position: The candidate is "pro-choice" and "supports issues important to women". That's Democrat framing: Opposition to abortion is part of the Republican war on women, etc. Furthermore, being "pro-choice" is evidence that Brown "has a strong record of fighting for what is right". So it's not just a policy dispute or a matter of personal conscience on which people of good faith can disagree. Being "pro-choice" is "what is right" - which presumably means being pro-life is what is wrong.
This is what the supposedly pro-life Republican Party is mailing its base on the eve of a low-turnout midterm election."
"If political material gets posted online but no one pays to post it, does it get regulated?
It’s literally “free speech” and right now, the answer is basically no, it’s not regulated — but in a surprise move late Friday, regulators said they were honing in on the YouTube videos, tweets and blog posts that have been playing an ever-larger role in political campaigns.
Conservatives, bloggers and even parody makers could all be targets.
Ann M. Ravel, a Democrat and the vice chair of the Federal Election Commission, announced Friday evening that the FEC would begin moving to regulate internet-based campaigns and videos, items which are currently free from most federal regulation, the Washington Examiner reported.
“A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” Ravel said.
Ravel’s statement came after the FEC board was split 3-3 over whether two anti-Obama YouTube videos violated FEC rules because the videos, placed on YouTube for free, did not come with any disclosure and the campaign that produced them did not report financial information, the Examiner noted.
Since 2006, the FEC has left political videos and websites largely unregulated — except in cases where, for instance, a campaign paid money to place a video on a website — but now a huge swath of the internet could become subject to new regulations.
“I told you this was coming,” FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, told the Examiner, citing his earlier warning that federal regulation of conservative online political activities — including parody videos and political blogs — was likely on the way.
The aggregator site Drudge Report, one of the first and foremost conservative presences on the internet, gave the news of the FEC move top billing Saturday morning as the Examiner noted that right-wing websites will likely be targeted under the new regulations."