You're des-THPIC-able, Miss Mitch! (You tell it, Daffy!)

Isn't this a better look for Senate Minority Leader "Miss Mitch" McConnell? Even with the still-clenched body language, doesn't he seem worlds kinder and gentler?

by Ken

So this morning on the radio they were playing clips from the Senate dialogue on a bill that I gather is intended to increase transparency in political contributions.

So there was Maine's Independent senator, Angus King, saying that you couldn't get up and speak at a town meeting, perhaps our truest form of democracy, with a bag over your head. After all, he went on, who you are is an important part of the package of comment you're delivering; listeners need this information to help evaluate the comment.

Interesting, no?

Then there was "Miss Mitch" McConnell, declaring in that repulsive lying drone we've come to know and hate that that this is nothing more than yet another atttempt to limit free speech.

Now I'm not sure either senator had it quite right, or quite meant exactly what he was saying. As I'm sure Miss Mitch might have pointed out, if it had been paying attention, you certainly could speak at a New England town meeting with a bag over your head. Who's to stop you? I think Senator King is certainly correct to the extent that such speech wouldn't be taken terribly seriously, but I don't see that you couldn't do it.

And I for one regret that Miss Mitch didn't stick it to Senator King by wearing a paper bag over its own personal head, as illustrated above. Not only is it allowable on the Senate floor, it's an unarguable improvement.

To go with this much-improved new look, I think Miss Mitch could look to deploying a new voice. Once no one has to look at its loathsome face, there will be even less tolerance for the droning sound of savage imbecility that accompanies it. My first thought was something along these lines:



But on reflection, I had to conclude that Daffy is too upright, too characterful to serve as the voice of Miss Mitch. I think something more along these lines might be more suitable:



NOW, AS TO MISS MITCH'S FIBBING --

Even as hopelessly pathological a liar as Our Miss Mitch knows that limiting free speech isn't what this legislation is about. It just says that because . . . well, because even an "it" has free speech and knows it can say it.

We already know that what Miss Mitch thinks of as "free" speech isn't free at all; it's in fact quite expensive -- it might be better to call it "top-dollar speech." This Miss Mitch believes in fervently. It also believes fervently in dishonest speech, which after all is the lifeblood of its public career.

And, regrettably, neither of these -- top-dollar speech nor dishonest speech -- is being challenged here. The Supreme Court, alas, regards it as a done deal that money is speech, and as for dishonest speech, well, it's well established that it's as much protected as honest speech; we don't distinguish, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The traditional remedy for objectionable speech is supposed to be more free speech., though of course when it's actually top-dollar speech, it's not so easy to counteract, which of course is what proponents of Miss Mitchified "free" speech count on.

Which still leaves the "secret" part, and here Senator King's town-hall analogy seems to me quite interesting. The last I checked, even as fervent an upholder of the dictatorship of the overprivileged as Supreme Court Justice Nino Scalia was writing in no uncertain terms that the Constitution provides no protection for the identity of a free-speechifier. So when Miss Mitch demands protection for Top-Dollar, Lying, Secret Speech, in reality only two of those things are protected. And the legislation at issue is in fact aimed at the unprotected "secret" part.

Consider that even with a paper bag over its head, we'll still know that it's Miss Mitch.

#