William Safire: Conservative Critic of Media Monopoly

Bill Safire and I disagreed on more issues than we agreed.

It's like that with former Nixon speechwriters and Nation scribes.

But Safire, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist who has died at age 79, was an honest conservative.

He had ideological commitments, and partisan inclinations. He did not merely work in Richard Nixon's White House, he shared many of Nixon's ideas. And where they disagreed, it was often because Safire stood to the right of the 37th president.

Once he exited Nixon's employ -– with his honor essentially intact -- Safire was free to advance conservative views without having to play political games.

Unlike so many of today's faux (or should we spell it "Fox") conservatives, he did not barter his ideology's good name off to the highest corporate bidder.

Because of this, Safire and I found common ground with progressives during one of the most intense battles of the Bush-Cheney era.

When Bob McChesney and I were campaigning with our allies in the media-reform movement to prevent Bush administration appointees on the Federal Communications Commission from removing the few remaining barriers to media consolidation, Safire was an ally. We were in frequent communication during that spring and summer, and I found myself referencing Safire's columns on a regular basis. Indeed, when I testified at the FCC building on the eve of the June 2003 FCC vote, I had the honor of highlighting the vital contribution my conservative compatriot had made to the struggle for media diversity.

Safire wrote a number of columns arguing against lifting regulatory caps and barriers that had been put in place to prevent a handful of corporations from gaining control of media conglomerates from gaining control of the national discourse -- and to prevent an individual corporation from dominating print, broadcast, cable and digital communications in a city.

"(While) political paranoids accuse each other of vast conspiracies, the truth is that media mergers have narrowed the range of information and entertainment available to people of all ideologies," he explained a Times column written when most major media outlets were ignoring the FCC fight.

To a greater extent than most prominent conservatives (and quite a few prominent liberals), Safire understood that a one-size-fits-all media would diminish the range of debate -- squeezing out dissent from the left and the right in a manner that would ultimately undermine democracy.

"Does this make me (gasp!) pro-regulation?" asked Safire in one of his 2003 columns. "Michael Powell, appointed by Bush to be F.C.C. chairman, likes to say 'the market is my religion.' My conservative economic religion is founded on the rock of competition, which -- since Teddy Roosevelt's day -- has protected small business and consumers against predatory pricing leading to market monopolization."

When the FCC voted 3-2 in favor of removing the barriers to media consolidation, Safire observed that:

The Federal Communications Commission, in business to protect the public's interest in our nation's airwaves, has by a 3-to-2 vote opened the floodgates to a wave of media mergers that will further crush local diversity and concentrate the power to mold public opinion in the hands of ever-fewer giant corporations.

This troubles some readers, listeners and viewers who don't like homogenized news or one-size-fits-all entertainment forced down their throats. When I inveighed against this impending sellout a couple of weeks ago, thousands -- no kidding, an unprecedented torrent -- of e-mails came roaring in, many beginning "Though I consider you a rightwing nutcase on most issues, I'm 100% with you against this big-media power grab.

It wasn't just people who thought Safire was a rightwing nutcase who paid attention to what he was writing.

A considerable crowd of conservatives – including a few genuine "rightwing nutcases" -- allied with progressives to defend media diversity.

After the commission's vote, Safire declared "Now it's up to Congress to overturn the ruling by the roundheeled FCC."

And darned if a number of conservatives in the House and Senate didn't sign on with progressives like Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold and North Dakota's Bryon Dorgan.

Ultimately, Congress and the courts signaled their opposition to big media's power grab. And the FCC was forced to back down.

It was one the most successful fight backs against the Bush-Cheney's administrations pro-corporate agenda during the former president's first term.

And Bill Safire, an honest conservative, played a critical role in popularizing the project and in getting other honest conservatives to accept that debates about media consolidation were really debates about whether America would have a democratic discourse in which all voices could compete and be heard.

"The effect of the media's march to amalgamation on Americans' freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners," Safire explained, in a scathing attack on the corporate-friendly FCC majority, which media reformers circulated broadly. "This far-reaching political decision should be made by Congress and the White House, after extensive hearings and fair coverage by too-shy broadcasters, no-local-news cable networks and conflicted newspapers."

That argument, on basic democracy and good government principles, paralleled the one made by progressives on the issue. It was grounded in an understanding that some issues, and some threats, transcend ideological differences.

Safire believed that, in a fair debate, conservative ideas would prevail.

I believed that, in a fair debate, progressive ideas would prevail.

What we shared was a faith in the value of that fair debate, and a recognition that it can only occur when the media has many different owners -- and many distinct and dissenting voices.

Comments (58)

1. "Though I consider you a rightwing nutcase on most issues, I'm 100% with you against this big-media power grab."

   My sentiments exactly. You got one right, Safire. R.I.P.

   Posted by Sorelish at 09/27/2009 @ 9:59pm

2. As always Mr. Nichols, you write a superb tribute.

   It always makes me proud of your magazine.

   It is sad you have had to write so many of late.

   Well done sir.

   Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2009 @ 10:18pm

3. I remember and honor in William Safire also a passionate concern for words and their use for clear and unambiguous expression. He shared George Orwell's principled opposition to thoughtlessly sloppy or propagandistically deformed English. Though I didn't share Safire's opinion in many particular cases, I always read with interest his columns on contemporary uses and abuses of words.

   But John Nichols has reminded us of an even better virtue. In opposition to the pro-oligarchy FCC, Safire was a trust-buster, which is to say an old-school conservative, which is really not so different from an old-school liberal. Our modern Congress, which has been largely bought and paid for by the biggest campaign contributors, has very little of this old-fashioned virtue left.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/28/2009 @ 06:49am

4. Like him or not, Safire represented the slowly DYING segment ...."intellectual conservatives". Buckley, Friedman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, etc.

   Now the Right is represented by their AM radio and Fox News hosts and folks like George Will are repudiated as "RINOs" when they dare to disagree with the orthodoxy (like on Afghanistan).'

   It's all simplistic talking points and "Obama wants to let Government run our health care AND take away my Medicare!!!!" idiocy.

   Intellectual conservatism (and yes, it exists) is dying.

   Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 07:31am

5. what Mask means to say is "intellectual conservatism IN THE MEDIA is dying."

   I'm not so sure it is, but that's what Mask is referring to.

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 08:42am

6. actually,

   intellectual liberalism (in the media) is dying as well.

   the wonderbreadification of news!

   ••

   NEWSFLASH!

   Washington (Coke News Service) --

   Today President Obama enjoyed the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola while entertaining visiting dignitaries from the health care industry.

   Everything else is going great!

   ••

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 09:06am

7. Honest? Safire repeated for years lies about the Middle East, especially about the Palestinians. He engaged in thinly-veiled libel against those who criticized Israel.

   Many of those who supported the Iraq war crimes have attempted to cover their tracks or to hedge, offering tepid accounts of why they weren't really in support of the war when all their writings indicated otherwise. Safire hasn't done that. I guess you could call that honest.

   He may have been better than most conservatives, particularly today, but he was far from honest.

   Posted by hsansom at 09/28/2009 @ 09:14am

8. rest in peace. a REAL conservative, dare i say "progressive conservative", has passed...not a satano-aynrando anarchist.

   smart man. not an ideologue. rare breed on the right these days, one rarer.

   Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 09:32am

9. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 09:06am

   If it's living on in academia, who cares? None of those Liberty University or Regent University guys are out there in the trenches, from some form of "Firing Line" to even Fox News.

   Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:56am

10. I wasn't terrible familiar with this work. I know I read him several times, but it's been a while.

    My recollection is that he wasn't all that conservative for my tastes. Being the NYT's "Conservative" is like being the tallest guy in Japan; or the smartest guy on an internet chat forum.

    Still, I know he will be remembered as a serious journalist who was scrupulously devoted to his craft.

    May he rest in peace

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 10:10am

11. My recollection is that he wasn't all that conservative for my tastes.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/28/2009 @ 10:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    time to rethink some ideology.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 10:27am

12. Safire was a right wing demagogue, a neo-con of the first order. Remember his prediction that the Iraqis would be hailing the invading Americans as liberators?

    Is a thinking neo-con any better than a non-thinking neo-con?

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/28/2009 @ 10:29am

13. If it's living on in academia, who cares?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 09:56am

    sadly,

    very few.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 10:35am

14. As a conservative/libertarian, I have lamented the dirth of intellectual voices that are publicly known.

    It's not that we don't have any, it's that for the most part, they do not garner media attention the way that more shallow thinkers like a Hannity attract.

    But they are present and conservatives would be better advanced in their philosphy if they would elevate these thinkers into more influential status.

    there is even a website dedicated to intellectual conservativism

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/

    Add to these, I would add

    Dr. Thomas Sowell (African American)

    Dr. Walter Williams (African American Economics Professor)

    Steven Calebresi (Prof of Constitutional Law at Northwestern & Co-Founder Federalist Society)

    Dr. Victor David Hansen (Prof of History @ Stanford, Author, Historian)

    Larry Elder (African American Lawyer & Author)

    George Will (Columnist and Author)

    Mark Levin (Constitutional Lawyer, Author, and Talk Show Host)-Levin is controversial because of his at times outrageous anger. However, a reading of Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto (NY Times #1 Best Seller) and listening to his discussions on law and history reveal him to be a genuine intellectual.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52160

    There are more but as I stated, it is the Hannity's and the like that get the media attention.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:00am

15. by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 07:31am...

    Agreed, Mask...

    The left is going nowhere... because the right lost it's head... because the left has little or no spine... because the right is bullying and abusive... because the left is 'self absorbed'... because the right holds to ideological mythology... because the left holds to passive aggressive fantasies... because the right... because the left...

    We need each other... to consider all the alternatives...

    We need each other to think about real issues...

    We need each other to keep our debates 'above the belt'...

    We need each other to bring both peace and prosperity into this conflicted world...

    We need each other to raise the bar...

    ...and we all need to stop 'playing God' and listen to each other... earn our opinions with study and research... and stop 'taking sides' before we even know what the issues are...

    Posted by ttr at 09/28/2009 @ 11:10am

16. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:00am

    So, Larry, do you agree with Mark Levin's assessment of Glenn Beck as "pathetic"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:11am

17. It is the 'study habits' of Beck's followers that is truly pathetic, Mask...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 09/28/2009 @ 11:19am

18. So, Larry, do you agree with Mark Levin's assessment of Glenn Beck as "pathetic"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:11am

    I don't know. Mainly because I really don't know anything about Beck other than what I've read here. I don't watch him, so, if Levin and the left put him down, I have no reason to dispute that assessment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:24am

19. antisocialist: you NEED to starting watching and listening to the right-wing media...otherwise Mask has nothing to say!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 11:26am

20. Intellectual conservatism (and yes, it exists) is dying.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 07:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Agreed. And "Realism" as foreign policy is fighting for its life.

    Posted by OneVote at 09/28/2009 @ 11:49am

21. antisocialist: you NEED to starting watching and listening to the right-wing media...otherwise Mask has nothing to say!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 11:26am

    I'm too old to change my ways. I just have to keep listening to "conservatives" like Amy Goodman and Arundhati Roy. I don't get to listen to Bernie Ward anymore, since he went to prison for child pornography.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:53am

22. Though not my favorite columnist, may William Safire RIP.

    Posted by Denise29 at 09/28/2009 @ 12:28pm

23. Posted by ttr at 09/28/2009 @ 11:19am

    Keeping a VERY short memory is paramount. Scott Rasmussen tells them "Congress has an approval down to 16%!!!!!"....

    and you're not supposed to remember that Razzy had Congress down to SINGLE digits in the Summer of 2008, and Dems held, even gained ground in Congress.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:29pm

24. "I don't watch him, so, if Levin and the left put him down, I have no reason to dispute that assessment."-----Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:24am

    Uh...oh. Shouldn't have said that, Larry. Beck is the rising star among the folk that are going to back you up.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:31pm

25. How magnanamous of the nation (hardly). While liberal leftist and Demoncrat bias monopolies the failing T.V. media, newspapers, cable, and the dish networks which is why I don't follow any of them a salute is given compromised moderate conservative thought.

    Maybe it is time to join the millions of Americans that reject the propoganda machines the left and Demoncrats have monopolized and listen to talk radio and cable in FOX in order to hear views and values that track more with the ideals of independent American citizens even if it costs a few dollars!

    You have convinced me mAsKed fool!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

26. Without leftist spin;

    Only 41 percent of voters now support President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform proposal -- down from 44 percent two weeks ago and the lowest level of support yet measured by Rasmussen Reports.

    Rasmussen's nationwide telephone survey also found that 56 percent of voters are now opposed to the plan.

    Just 33 percent of senior citizens favor the plan, while 59 percent are opposed.

    Other findings of the poll:

    46 percent of respondents believe the reform plan will likely pass and become law this year, but 47 percent think it will likely not pass, including 15 percent who say it is not at all likely to pass.

    While 23 percent of voters "strongly favor" the legislative effort to reform healthcare, 43 percent are "strongly opposed."

    24 percent of respondents say the quality of healthcare will improve if the plan passes, and 55 percent say it will get worse.

    54 percent say passage of the plan will increase the cost of healthcare, and 23 percent say it will lower the cost.

    The overwhelming majority of voters -- 78 percent -- believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has.

    53 percent think tort reform will significantly lower the cost of healthcare.

    48 percent of respondents want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program, and 13 percent want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.

    "The most important fundamental is that 68 percent of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate as good or excellent," Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal.

    "Most of these voters approach the healthcare reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain."

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:50pm

27. Interesting how the leftist controlled biased outlets keep trying to spread the LIE that 65% of Americans support the Obamanation and Demoncrats power plays to socialize healthinsurance and nationalize industries vital to the continued dominance of U.S.A. intrest at home and worldwide!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:54pm

28. The Next William Safire [Mark R. Levin]

    As I think about it (although not for long), perhaps David Brooks fancies himself the next William Safire in that he feels an obligation to show his far-left editors and colleagues that he is a "new kind" of conservative, i.e., a non-conservative. The more he is criticized, the more he is ingratiated into the Gray Lady's fold. I expect he'll become a regular on many of the talk shows who can use him as the house conservative. Let's see.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 2:16pm

29. I find any argument about a lack of diversity of viewpoints in the media today to be ridiculous.

    There was a time when TV journalism consisted of 3 networks and PBS. Then you had a daily newspaper. AM radio was bland and all but unlistened-to, a place for country music or local talk.

    Today we have access to a far wider field of ideas and opinions than at any time since moveable typeface.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/28/2009 @ 2:31pm

30. I find any argument about a lack of diversity of viewpoints in the media today to be ridiculous.

    There was a time when TV journalism consisted of 3 networks and PBS. Then you had a daily newspaper. AM radio was bland and all but unlistened-to, a place for country music or local talk.

    Today we have access to a far wider field of ideas and opinions than at any time since moveable typeface.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/28/2009 @ 2:31pm

31. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/28/2009 @ 2:31pm

    Only 1 repeat, progress!!!

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:36pm

32. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 2:16pm

    Thx, another example of Levin's ability to penetrate past the nonsense and speak the truth.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:36pm

33. Larry, why the need to list the race of some of your intellectuals?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2009 @ 2:39pm

34. "Most of these voters approach the healthcare reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain."

    And we can be sure that if they let themselves be guided by polls of ignorant people like themselves – and like you, "BigPasture," they will continue to find their irrational fears validated again and again.

    But no poll matters as much as research. And what the research shows is that we, the people of the United States, spend more per capita on health care than the citizens of any other industrialized country, while at the same time we generally rank first in infant mortality and last in life expectancy.

    Of course, something should be done about this, and of course, we cannot expect the Democratic Party to do it now any more than we could have expected it 16 years ago. But I am satisfied that at least I am trying to push our elected representatives in the right direction. The same cannot be said for the professional Republican fear mongers - or for their unfortunate dupes.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/28/2009 @ 2:42pm

35. Larry, why the need to list the race of some of your intellectuals?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/28/2009 @ 2:39pm

    I actually took a few minutes to ponder that distinction. But, often here, I see the repeated comments of some on the left about conservativism being a "white man's philosophy". It simply isn't true and I was simply making that additional distinction.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:46pm

36. Of course, something should be done about this, and of course, we cannot expect the Democratic Party to do it now any more than we could have expected it 16 years ago. But I am satisfied that at least I am trying to push our elected representatives in the right direction. The same cannot be said for the professional Republican fear mongers - or for their unfortunate dupes.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/28/2009 @ 2:42pm

    right Jakob. This has nothing to do with ideological differences. It's all fear mongering and ignorance according to leftists like yourself.

    As long as the left continues in this strawman argument, you cannot have an open and serious debate.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:48pm

37. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:36pm

    Bet that Levin backs down before Beck does, Larry.

    Mark is picking up Hannity's table scraps and maybe the New York market, but he doesn't have Glenn's distribution or a spot on Fox.

    He may think Beck is a doofus or huckster, but he's the one leading the Tea Partyers around by the leash and if they see Levin keep dissing Crying Man....they'll turn on him and all Levin's friends, even Limbaugh, will dump him in a scramble to save themselves.

    The "smart guys" don't run the show anymore on the Right....the guys who can get 70,000 on The Mall screaming "Obama wants to kill my granny!" and "Show us the REAL birth certificate" do.

    Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:59pm

38. Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:59pm

    I believe that Levin will last longer than Beck. From all appearances of what I'm reading, he will be a flash in the pan type.

    And neither Hannity or Limbaugh will ever turn on Levin because they both respect him too much. Not saying it couldn't happen given the nature of people, but not likely.

    But that's not the subject. The question was regarding if there are any conservative intellectuals, and Levin is clearly one.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:11pm

39. The "smart guys" don't run the show anymore on the Right....the guys who can get 70,000 on The Mall screaming "Obama wants to kill my granny!" and "Show us the REAL birth certificate" do. Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person |

    --70,000 people...in a country of 300,000,000.

    the maskerade continues...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/28/2009 @ 4:06pm

40. mark levin is loony.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 4:33pm

41. mark levin is loony.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 4:33pm

    Then you must think Obama is looney?

    After all, Levin is also a constitutional scholar,and author, also holds JD in Law, also graduated magna cum laude. However unlike Obama, Levin has actually worked in the US Attorney General's office, has filed briefs and argued them before US Courts of Appeal, and is the founder and president of a Legal Foundation. So, unlike Obama, Levin actually has a paper trail of published legal papers to review.

    Now explain why this man who seems to be a brilliant legal scholar and author is a looney in YOUR view FZ?

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 4:59pm

42. Unfortunately it took a whopping 20 or so posts to become a pissing contest.Bill Safire will be missed,he was the consumate professional. He stayed loyal to his ideas isn't that what is important.Why take every opportunity to shoot at each other. It's about time to think a little harder.

    Posted by whatozz at 09/28/2009 @ 5:55pm

43. Bravo William Safire, we need a whole lot more around like you, not afraid to say the truth and pinpoint corporate Media for the extreme harm it can (and has) caused.

    Posted by Virginia888 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:28pm

44. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

    intellectual conservative is a good one. honorable folks. i used to hang over there. highly recommended.

    have to go back and have some fun. i'm a progressive anti-aynrandian conservative, after all, and like to think myself an intelectual...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:31pm

45. mark levin is loony.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2009 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Who is Mark Levin?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 8:25pm

46. OK, sorry, had to look him up.

    Apparently he has also authored such witticisms as calling Hillary Clinton "her Thighness" and has referred to Justice Sotomajor as a "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus 50 pounds." (I'm sure with blithe unawareness of Ms. Ginsburg's illness.

    IOW, a jerk, and no movie star himself, by the way. Even David Frum castigated him for being, well, a prick.

    You can keep him.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 8:42pm

47. Sotomayor.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 8:43pm

48. William Safire? Could have been seated at the Algonquin Roundtable.

    Mark Levin? Perhaps under it.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 9:03pm

49. OK, sorry, had to look him up.

    Apparently he has also authored such witticisms as calling Hillary Clinton "her Thighness" and has referred to Justice Sotomajor as a "Ruth Bader Ginsburg plus 50 pounds." (I'm sure with blithe unawareness of Ms. Ginsburg's illness.

    IOW, a jerk, and no movie star himself, by the way. Even David Frum castigated him for being, well, a prick.

    You can keep him.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 8:42pm

    Gladly. he is a national treasure and certainly far brighter and knowledgeable on the constitution than most liberal scholars.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 9:03pm

50. I'll treasure him like a carbuncle.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 9:05pm

51. Jul. 29--Apparently prodded by lawyers for a conservative legal foundation, the Wisconsin Education Association Council announced this week that it has paid $171,091 in federal taxes based on money it spent on political campaigning in 2000 and 2002 that was not tax-exempt.

    The Landmark Legal Foundation asked the Internal Revenue Service in April to investigate whether the council, the state's largest teachers union, had paid required taxes on money it contributed to Democratic organizations. Landmark said the council had not paid taxes on $430,000 it gave to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which contributes to races nationwide. Stan Johnson, the council's president, said in a statement: "I initiated a complete review of WEAC's tax filings from the last several years, and our review found donations WEAC made to independent issue advocacy organizations in 2000 and 2002 that should have been subject to taxation.

    "WEAC made these expenditures to support these issue advocacy organizations' efforts, consistent with WEAC organizational priorities. We erred in not separating the revenues used for these donations from the rest of our revenues. These expenditures were lawful and complied with all campaign finance laws, but recent IRS rulings have required non-profit organizations to pay taxes on certain types of issues ads."

    Johnson described the payments as voluntary and said the council had adopted new procedures "that assure these tax-filing errors will not be repeated." MARK LEVIN, president of Landmark, which is based in Virginia, said, "We're glad we could help them with their accounting, and we intend to help them with their accounting every year from here on out."

    Oh yea, that Mark Levin! Apparently the Demoncrats could use him also!

    Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 10:52pm

52. William Safire, a Nixonian picador, who smilingly witnessed the post-Watergate scrum of the left hating, Wallace flirting, "libertarian" boosting frustum, soon to be called neo-cons.

    No wonder he had so much time for literary trivia. This man had the patience of Job!

    Imagine having to wait almost thirty years for your political tree to bear fruit!

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/28/2009 @ 11:27pm

53. Safire was a Jew who,in Ariel Sharon's anschlauss on Lebanon, and as Reagan was pulling his chestnuts out of the fire prior to the Shatilla and Sabra slaughters, wrote an article that called on CHRISTIANS! CHRISTIANS! -- YES, WE MEAN YOU CHRISTIANS -- to come to the aid of CHRISTIAN PHALANGISTS ! - the only faction siding with Israeli aggressors against the Shia/Hezbolla/Palestian camps in the south. Safire used the word "Christian", or variants, 30+ times -- obviously in order to vebally link Christian public opinion, here, with Reagan's sacrifice killing 260 U.S. Marines there. "Hell, what do Amerocan's care about that? -- honor to get to die for The Jewish cause!" was the subtext, and suited jokerman just fine.

    I saved that article for years; wrote him and the Times about it. I had not previously experienced my religion being street-hustled for Old Testament based causes, and he furthed my retroactive understanding of hatred of Nixon; and later understanding of neocons. Now let Will chill Will in the Inferno.

    Posted by jones at 09/29/2009 @ 01:19am

54. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:11pm

    Sorry, Larry. Levin can't hold up against Beck. Crying Man's followers are more cultish than Rush's ditto-heads.

    He keeps dissing that phoney huckster and his zombies will turn on Levin and demand his head on a pike next Tea Party.

    Plus Levin isn't exactly "Bill Buckley" himself. His signature line is "Get off the phone, ya big dope!" Hardly the indication of a "thoughtful debator".

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:37am

55. Little P you just won't learn will you. Do you post on righty sites or do they tell you that yopu are a stiff there too.

    Posted by whatozz at 09/29/2009 @ 07:52am

56. Plus Levin isn't exactly "Bill Buckley" himself. His signature line is "Get off the phone, ya big dope!" Hardly the indication of a "thoughtful debator".

    Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 07:37am

    That's radio entertainment. It's his writing that is foremost such as Liberty & Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto.

    Yeah, I see that Beck has a paperback best seller. But it seems to be just restating Thomas Paine rather than original thought.

    I'm not saying that Levin will surpass Beck in popular culture. I don't really care about that anyway. I am confident that Levin is the genuine article when it comes to providing intelligent thought to conservativism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 08:49am

57. Yes, and with that sophomoric, frat boy sense of humor, a real class act.

    Keep him right out front and center, as he's just what your movement (it's a "movement" all right) needs.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/29/2009 @ 4:34pm

58. Good article, may I add...this points up the obvious issue between democracy, money and access to the mechanism(s), that give to the individual, the ability to disperse (his) "free speech" to the masses -- as it comes before the supreme court.

    It appears what we are witnessing is that the FCC did not go far enough to safeguard the "people's right to know". Unfettered market share (monopoly) by the few such as Rupert Murdock, clearchannel and the one or two other providers of content, is a de facto "hostage situation" with the public being the hostage.

    Because of the wealth needed to buy into major media markets, along with a low public/private ownership ratio, (and no laws mandating othrwise) there is no "real" diversity in ownership. MSM conglomerates are often only a part of even larger "industrial" concerns by uber-rich owners. The MSM owner then, uses (his) outlets "product" (news/entrtainment/propoganda) to "lobby" (spin) to the people.

    So, if this is already the case, what chance do the people have "if/when" the supreme court rules that "corporations" are individuals and protected by the "free speech" clause.

    Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Posted by thommie at 09/29/2009 @ 9:13pm