July 12-14, 2007
Jul 12 11:18 The Political Grapevine Jul 12 12:09 Firefighters Criticize Giuliani; Giuliani Fights Back Jul 12 21:56 Reid: Iraq Heading in "a Dangerous Direction" Jul 13 02:41 Prosecution Case Takes Major Hit Jul 13 11:18 Bush's Push Stops Senators' Slide Jul 13 12:25 Ellison's Fatal Flaws Jul 14 01:19 Lugar, Warner Offer Unserious Proposal Jul 14 03:59 Democrats Vote For Censorship Jul 14 15:03 MEDIA ALERT!!!
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006
The Political Grapevine
Yesterday, I sent this link to this post about John Murtha to FNC's Brit Hume with the goal of raising the profile of this emerging scandal. Lo and behold, Brit mentioned me on the Political Grapevine. Of course, it's flattering to be mentioned by such a serious journalist but the best news is that it's raising the profile on the scandal. Check this out:
Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha refused to comment today when asked by Gary Gross of the Let Freedom Ring blog for a reaction to Colonel Ware's recommendation. You'll recall that Murtha has said the Marines "overreacted" and "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." But today his office said he would not comment because the investigation is ongoing.Here's what Hume said about Col. Ware's recommendation:
An officer investigating murder allegations against a U.S. Marine accused of shooting three of the 24 Iraqis killed in Haditha has recommended the charges be dismissed.The good news is that this case is moving out of the shadows and into the sunlight. Once it gets there, it will 'disinfect' this entire charade. Those that have followed this from the beginning know that there have been alot of accusations flying that simply didn't add up.
Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware says the government's theory that Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt executed the three men was "unsupported and incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis. Sharratt testified at a preliminary hearing that he fired only after one of the Iraqis pointed a gun at him.
Colonel Ware's recommendation is not binding. A final decision on whether Sharratt will stand trial will be made by the commanding general overseeing the case.
Three other Marines face murder charges in the Haditha incident, which occurred after a Marine was killed in a roadside bombing.
Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha refused to comment today when asked by Gary Gross of the Let Freedom Ring blog for a reaction to Colonel Ware's recommendation. You'll recall that Murtha has said the Marines "overreacted" and "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." But today his office said he would not comment because the investigation is ongoing.
Tim Harrington has done yeoman work uncovering one troubling thing after another about the investigation of this incident. The thing that initially got me upset about this process was (a) Murtha's total willingness to throw these Marines under the bus while denying them their constitutionally guaranteed rights and (b) his willingness to do that without the slightest bit of proof.
Rep. Murtha couldn't have had proof because Col. Ware couldn't have made this recommendation if there was wrongdoing. What's most frustrating is that Rep. Murtha's office stopped answering calls early Wednesday afternoon. The bad news for him is that I've forwarded this information to the House GOP leadership so they can ramp up the pressure.
Last fall, Murtha was named one of the most corrupt politicians in America by CREW. That's pretty amazing considering the fact that a significant portion of CREW's funding comes from George Soros:
CREW has received financial backing from George Soros's Open Society Institute, Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation, the Streisand Foundation, the Arca Foundation, the David Geffen Foundation, the Wallace Global Fund, the Mayberg Family Charitable Foundation, the Woodbury Fund, and the Sheller Family Foundation, all institutions distinguished by their support for far-left causes.It speaks volumes that CREW issued that rating long before this information came out. Their rating was based on the other corruption that Murtha was involved in.
The Jawa Report is on the case, too. Here's what they have to say:
John Murtha (D) should be forced to resign from Congress for his atrocious prejudging and slurring of our Marines. Hopefully, he will have a lawsuit brought against him. Tim McGirk of TIME should also be fired for getting this politically driven, insurgent-initiated propaganda witch hunt started.I couldn't agree more. Mssrs. Murtha and McGirk should be run out on a rail for their disgusting behavior. McGirk wrote an article that's been essentially discredited. Murtha made inflammatory accusations that were officially discredited yesterday.
In other words, they deserve each other.
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:19 AM
No comments.
Firefighters Criticize Giuliani; Giuliani Fights Back
According to this article, the IAFF "has gone on the offensive against Rudy Giuliani."
Here's the opening paragraph of the article:
The International Association of Firefighters has gone on the offensive against "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani, releasing a 13-minute video that viciously rips into the former New York mayor, who has been using his leadership demonstrated on September 11th to urge people around the country to support him in his quest to become President of the United States.After going on the offensive against Mayor Giuliani, though, the IAFF found out that Giuliani hits back hard:
Former New York firefighter Lee Ielpi, whose son died on Sept. 11, and former Office of Emergency Management Commissioner Richard Sheirer appeared with McKeon, calling the video full of "half-truths."Undeterred, Harold Schaitberger, the general president of IAFF, said this:
"I was there. I saw it. I experienced it," said Ielpi, who worked at ground zero for the nine-month cleanup. "I'm not going to let lies like this go."
"Giuliani's biggest problem is that this video is a bipartisan condemnation of his record on 9/11," Schaitberger said.Schaitberger's video won't change anyone's minds because they saw the leadership showed after 9/11. The only time that negative ads have an effect is when they re-enforce a previously held view or when they're run against an unknown. Trying to undo the public image of someone that is world-famous is almost impossible. I don't know how much money the IAFF spent on this but, whatever it was, they spent too much.
The 13-minute video was being distributed to the union's 280,000 members, to the media and online. Still, it's too soon to assess the political fallout from the video; it will all depend on how many people view it and take it seriously.It isn't too soon to assess the political fallout of this garbage. This will backfire on the IAFF and on Mr. Schaitberger. This reporter is right in saying it depends on "how many people view it and take it seriously." I don't care how many people see it, they won't take it seriously. It's that simple.
Posted Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment 1 by alec at 13-Jul-07 09:53 AM
Rudy Giuliani or Vampire Ghouliani?
Reid: Iraq Heading in "a Dangerous Direction"
That's the gospel according to Harry Reid, at least in this statement:
"Today's report from the President confirms what many had suspected, the war in Iraq is headed in a dangerous direction. The Iraqi government has not met the key political benchmarks it has set for itself and Iraqi security forces continue to lag well behind expectations. Our courageous troops continue to bear the burden for securing and rebuilding Iraq, while Iraq's factions fight a deadly civil war.Contrary to what you might think, Sen. Reid isn't lamenting the hopeless state of affairs in Iraq. He's lamenting the fact that Operation Arrowhead Ripper is changing the reality in Iraq and that people are reading about that changing reality in newspapers nationwide on a daily basis.
"As the President and his team continue to be bogged down in Iraq, we have learned that the enemy that attacked this nation nearly six years ago has reconstituted and rebuilt itself. America deserves better. Our security demands more. We must change course now, not in September. It is time for the President to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation. That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq, and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al Qaeda."
There are so many flaws that it's ridiculous. Let's start with this one:
"The Iraqi government has not met the key political benchmarks it has set for itself..."Reid, Murtha and Jimmy Carter keep saying that this isn't winnable militarily. I've said many times that there isn't a military- only solution. The truth is that there won't be a political solution until the military kills enough AQI terrorists and Mahdi Army insurgents.
Think about the old cliche that it isn't the poet that gives us freedom of the press, that it's the soldier & the debate immediately changes.
Our courageous troops continue to bear the burden for securing and rebuilding Iraq, while Iraq's factions fight a deadly civil war.If we're "fighting a deadly civil war", why have casualties dropped 36 percent? Besides, it isn't a civil war when one side is comprised by al-Qa'ida terrorists from other countries.
"It is time for the President to listen to the American people..."Didn't Sen. Reid say throughout the campaign that President Bush was supposed to listen to the generals? Which is it?
"That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed..."It's true that his past policies failed but Sen. Reid needs to admit that (a) his policy going forward is a disaster and (b) that Operation Arrowhead Ripper has moved us in a different direction. Just because the change of direction isn't the change of direction they'd hoped for doesn't mean it's the wrong change.
Based on the plethora of success stories from Baqouba to Baghdad to Ramadi, shouldn't Sen. Reid admit that his characterization of Iraq is a bald-faced lie?
"That means...refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al Qaeda."Sen. Reid needs better briefings. If he had better briefings, he'd know that most of the Sunnis being killed are AQI terrorists. If Sen. Reid is serious about "defeating al Qaeda", then the best thing he can do is support Gen. Petraeus' plan. If, on the other hand, he simply wants to sound like a political hack who doesn't care about winning, he should keep saying what he's been saying.
If Sen. Reid wants to know why he's got a 19 percent approval rating, I'd tell him that making one ridiculous statement after another is the biggest part of that.
Originally posted Thursday, July 12, 2007, revised 13-Jul 12:14 AM
No comments.
Prosecution Case Takes Major Hit
Based on this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, the details from Col. Paul Ware's recommendations make the prosecution's case against LCpl. Justin Sharratt almost impossible to win. Here's the most damaging part for the prosecution:
Col. Ware wrote in his report: "It is difficult, if not impossible to believe that trained and experienced Marines would decide to execute 4 unarmed men by leading them into a house, moving them to a back room with no light [curtains were closed] and allow them to move about the room while trying to shoot them with the least-effective weapon in their arsenal."Col. Ware has just said that, "To believe the government version of facts", you'd have to believe that these Marines didn't just make a mistake. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do wrong. I'm not a lawyer but I'd have to think that that's an impossible burden for the prosecution to meet.
Naturally, Justin Sharratt's father couldn't be happier about this news:
Cpl. Sharratt's father said the conclusion reached by the investigating officer was the only one that made sense. "When you see the amount of evidence that was presented, that was the only decision that could have been made," Darryl Sharratt said.I recently had the privilege of being a guest on Kit Jarrell 's BTR program along with Darryl Sharratt and Tim Harrington. Based on our conversation that night and on what Tim told me, Darryl Sharratt is heartbroken over what his son has gone through but he's also resilient and persistent, too. I'm honored to call Darryl Sharratt my friend and I look forward to meeting him and his son when the charges against Justin are dropped.
One of the reasons why I've developed a friendship with Darryl is because we share a disgust for John Murtha's ignoring Justin's constitutional protections. That's why I'll be working with Darryl (and hopefully Justin) next fall to get John Murtha 'fired'. I can't stress enough the level of disgust I have for Mr. Murtha.
It's bad enough that he didn't wait to get briefed before accusing Justin Sharratt and the other heroes in Hilo Company of "murdering innocent civilians in cold blood." It isn't that he threw Justin Sharratt's constitutional rights out the window, although that played a huge role in my disgust. It's that he did these things to curry political favor with the anti-war activists because he wanted to be the House Majority Leader.
The fact that Rep. Murtha was willing to throw true American heroes, who have served their country with distinction, to the wolves just to increase his political power should disgust every patriotic American who holds our soldiers in high esteem. That type of treachery shouldn't be accepted amongst anyone but it certainly shouldn't be overlooked from our elected officials.
That's why I'm calling for John Murtha to apologize to these soldiers individually and to the Marine Corp for smearing their good names. That's also why I'm calling on John Murtha to resign his seat in the US House of Representatives . I'm calling on Speaker Pelosi to follow through on her promise of running the "most ethical congress in history" by pressuring John Murtha for his resignation.
That's the only acceptable resolution to this unfortunate chapter in military history.
Posted Friday, July 13, 2007 2:42 AM
No comments.
Bush's Push Stops Senators' Slide
According to this LA Times article, it appears that President Bush has 'stopped the bleeding' on Capitol Hill. Here's what one of his biggest critics, Sen. John Warner, (R-VA), said:
"In deference to the president,I think it's important that we wait until all the facts are in in September," said John W. Warner (R-VA), former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman. Warner is working on a proposal that would call on the president to make plans to remove U.S. troops from most combat operations.Unfortunately, Democrats seem intent on pushing unilateral defeat. Here's Charles Krauthammer's take on that:
A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq 's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an " astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.In other words, territory that people had written off as AQI sanctuary is now firmly under control. Think of the implications of that last sentence:
...the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.What makes this all the more incredible is that Democrats continue to insist that progress isn't being made in Iraq. They've been 'shifting the goalposts' all along and it's about to catch up with them. Several months ago, they complained about how Baghdad wasn't secure. When was the last time you heard them complain about that? I don't recall the last time, which should speak volumes.
Their latest rallying cry is that the Iraqi government isn't making enough progress on the political front. After President Bush released the official report stating that Iraq has met 8 of the 18 benchmarks, here's what Harry Reid said:
"The Iraqi government has not met a single political benchmark in its entirety," said Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.The political benchmarks not being met isn't a major setback. Progress on that front likely won't happen until Iraq is secure. By focusing on the political benchmarks, Reid is showing his priorities. He didn't bother addressing the substantial military progress being made. Sen. Reid is showing signs of irritation, too. The prime example is this exchange with ABC's Jake Tapper:
TAPPER: I'm sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?Talk about stating the obvious. Reid saying that "This is not a debate" is stating the obvious. In fact, I don't think an honest person could call what they were having a dialog, much less a debate.
REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safe,.We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We're now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That's enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers' money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that's enough
TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question
REID: OK. This is not a debate
TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?
REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?
This is what happens when Democrats are asked tough followup questions. They aren't used to being challenged, except if they appear on Fox News Sunday. They certainly aren't challenged when they appear on Chris Matthews' Hardball or Tim Russert's Meet the Press.
Harry Reid's strategy is apparent, too. That strategy is to (a) repeat their talking points, (b) not respond to questions that would require a serious, thoughtful answer and (c) demagogue cherrypicked topics. The last thing Sen. Reid wants to do is engage in an intellectually honest discussion of the biggest issues within the Iraq issue. He doesn't want that because he knows that their position, if challenged, is an indefensible position.
Here's another crucial point from Krauthammer's article:
But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al-Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial levels with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.It's time that we gave war a serious chance because the cost of losing is too high a price to pay, especially when real progress is being made.
The costs are heartbreakingly high, increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.
Posted Friday, July 13, 2007 11:19 AM
No comments.
Ellison's Fatal Flaws
After Keith Ellison's outlandish statement at the Atheists for Human Rights event, Ellison felt the need to spin his side of the story. This editorial in this morning's Strib didn't help him. Here's the section that exposes Ellison's naivete on the War for Western Civilization:
If the president had embraced the good will of the post 9/11 world to marshal an international effort to eliminate the terrorist cells responsible for this heinous act, we wouldn't be mired in a five-year war. We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida instead of creating a virtual recruiting station for them in Iraq. As it is, we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments and other Bush administration failures.Let's start with his statement that "We could have effectively eliminated Al-Qaida..." There isn't an American alive who isn't for eliminating al-Qa'ida. There are people, like Keith Ellison, who haven't grasped the reality that al-Qa'ida isn't the only terrorist group out there and Afghanistan wasn't the only swamp that needed draining.
The reality is that we need a comprehensive strategy to win the War for Western Civilization. The Democrats' stated strategy for winning that war is finishing the job in Afghanistan, kill al-Qa'ida and use endless diplomacy to bring Iran and Syria over to our side. I don't think that that's the type of comprehensive strategy that will yield victory in the greatest challenge of our lifetime.
Here's another Keith Ellison statement that jumped out at me:
"...we may need years to shake off the taint of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, FISA violations, Patriot Act encroachments..."There's no arguing that Abu Ghraib is a national disgrace. I can make quite the arguments that the NSA intercept program and the Patriot Act aren't national disgraces. In fact, I could make a strong case that the NSA intercept program, Gitmo and the Patriot Act are rousing American success stories.
In fact, Ellison's complaining about the Patriot Act is utterly predictable considering the fact that CAIR lobbied Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers to gut it as far back as July, 2004:
Working with [John] Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).This is part of their incoherent policy that we "should've connected the dots" prior to 9/11 but we shouldn't tear down the Gorelick Wall (one of the key provisions in the Patriot Act) because it violates our civil rights. They can't have it both ways. Either they want us to connect the dots or they want us to keep in place the very thing that prevented us from connecting the dots.
It's also been the Democrats' mantra that the NSA intercept program violated FISA laws. The reality is that the courts, including the FISA Appeals court, ruled that there is a constitutional basis for intercepting incoming or outgoing communications if these intercepts are foreign communications. The court ruled that this doesn't violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights because those intercepts are reasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches, not reasonable searches.
This past Sunday I spoke to constituents about religious tolerance and the erosion of civil liberties in a post-9/11 America. It is precisely in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9/11 that we must be most vigilant about our precious civil liberties. Unfortunately, some have tried to misconstrue my remarks.While I generally agree that we must be "vigilant about our...civil liberties", I'd also argue that we must be most vigilant in protecting America's civilians from future terrorist attacks. If our government can make the case for limiting our civil liberties while providing vigorous oversight of programs that limit our liberties, then I think it's imperative that we protect people first.
What Ellison won't talk about are his comparing President Bush's supposed trampling of our civil rights with Nazi Germany. First of all, President Bush implemented the Patriot Act and the NSA intercept program to protect people. Secondly, the Patriot Act is subject to congressional oversight. Hitler's violence was implemented to stifle all dissent and to give him total power over who lived and who died.
It's time that Rep. Ellison offered President Bush a formal apology for making such outlandish comparisons. Anything less is unacceptable.
Posted Friday, July 13, 2007 12:26 PM
No comments.
Lugar, Warner Offer Unserious Proposal
Of course, that isn't how it's being reported but that's what it is. Here's what they're proposing:
Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush by mid-October to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.This isn't a serious proposal because President Bush will veto it if it reaches his desk. Why would a president sign a bill like this, especially when it ties his hands and is diametrically opposed to his stated policy?
The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops.
That isn't the only concern. Depending on how it's written, there might be some constitutional issues, specifically with regards to the Constitution's separation of powers.
Warner, (R-VA), and Lugar, (R-IN), are well regarded within Congress on defense issues. Warner was the longtime chairman of the Armed Services Committee before stepping down last year, while Lugar is the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.They've been loyal members of the Republican Party. One thing they haven't been is leaders. This proposal is shameful because it's designed for purely political purposes. That isn't acceptable, especially since we're literally talking about life and death issues.
Posted Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:20 AM
No comments.
Democrats Vote For Censorship
That isn't exactly true but it isn't a huge stretch either. The Senate blocked Norm Coleman's amendment that would've prevented bureaucrats from imposing the Fairness Doctrine without an act of Congress. Naturally, Democrats blocked it because they can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment by Sen. Norm Coleman that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule which required broadcasters to air opposing views on issues.Sen. Coleman offered this amendment because several prominent Democrats, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin advocated its return while Sen. Dianne Feinstein said that she was considering bringing it back. Despite this knowledge, Sen. Durbin's office still released this statement:
Although no legislation has been offered to bring back the regulation, which was scrapped in 1987, Coleman and other Republicans have been mounting a pre-emptive attack in recent weeks, arguing that a return to the old rule would give the government too much power in regulating content. The House recently passed an amendment banning the rule's return.
Republicans have seized on a comment made last month by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, (D-IL), who said "it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine." But Durbin's spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said that Durbin was expressing support for the concept but has no plans to introduce legislation.Mr. Shoemaker says that there isn't a "big conspiracy" or "secret plan" or anything. Let's put that to the test by comparing that to this exchange between Sen. Coleman and Sen. Durbin:
"There is no big conspiracy here, there's no secret plan, there's no nothing," he said.
Mr. Durbin: I'm sorry to interrupt you but I really wish that through the commerce committee or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, we can really get into this question. But the senator is arguing that the marketplace can provide. What is the senator's response if the marketplace fails to provide? What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view? Since the people who are seeking the licenses are using America's airwaves, does the government, speaking for the people of this country, have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a despair balanced approach to the, a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the American people?Forgive me if it sounded like Sen. Durbin sounded too eager to regulate free speech to believe that a big conspiracy or grand plan to implement the Fairness doctrine. Frankly, after hearing that exchange and reading Mr. Shoemaker's statement, I wouldn't trust Sen. Durbin. You couldn't convince me that he wouldn't gladly implement the Fairness Doctrine in a heartbeat.
Mr. Coleman: Mr. President, I'll respond to the final question here. Very clear disagreement here. The government does not, does not, have the responsibility to regulate content of speech. That's what the First Amendment is about. It's exactly what the First Amendment is about. Government's not supposed to be regulating content. And in a time in 1949 when you had three network TV stations, basically, when had you limited channels of communication, I presume there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that, in fact, government needs to step in and ensure balance. But now we're in 2007. We're at a time where we've got 20,000, you know, opportunities for stations and satellite, where you have cable, you have blogs, you have a whole range of information. I think it would be...I...I can't even conceive -- I can't even conceive that the market could not provide opportunities for differing positions because it does. And in the end...in the end, consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices. And so if they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other, that's ok okay. And I think it's very dangerous, I say to my...my friend from Illinois, I think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced. Because as we see on the floor of the senate, oftentimes amongst ourselves, learned...hopefully learned individuals who've the great humble opportunity to serve in the US Senate, we have differences as to what is fair and balanced. And so the reason I think we have a First Amendment is that we get government out of...out of the...the measuring, controlling, dictating, regulating content and that's my concern.
John Kennedy stated, "we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." Mr. President, I'm not afraid of of, of the people. I'm not afraid of the people having access to the in information, ideas that they want to have access to. But I am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content. We have a first amendment. That's the underpinning, the foundation of all the other amendments. The fairness doctrine flies in the face of that. It was rejected. It was rejected in 1987. The idea of bringing it back today is a very, very bad idea. This amendment specifically includes the Armed forces network. Our folks are out there on the front line fighting. They should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the FCC is listening and monitoring and deciding what is fair and what is balanced. Let the people decide. Let the market decide. Let the first amendment flourish.
Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
This fits into a pattern of behavior with liberals. Long gone are the days when liberals fought against censorship. Let's also stipulate that the Fairness Doctrine is just a fancy name for censorship.
Sen. Coleman's office quickly issued a statement on what happened:
"Rather than allowing a full and complete debate on the amendment, Senate Democrats prematurely chose not to allow it to move forward. After blocking the ability of the entire Senate to debate this measure, they suddenly proceeded to rationalize the Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor. It's quite clear that the reinstitution of the misleadingly-named Fairness Doctrine would threaten our constitutional right to free speech and fundamentally undermine the workings of our free market democracy," said Coleman. "In this day and age, reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine is not about equal balance, as its supporters claim, it is about muzzling broadcasters. I believe it is a dangerous proposition for the government to be in the business of rationing free speech and determining what is fair. At the very least, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have allowed this amendment to be debated."Democrats are quick to use words like fair because they know that people respond to those words. Senators like Durbin talk about making things fair on the talk radio dials. They also talk about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. What they never seem to do is define the word fair. It's worth remembering that the DFL plays this game, too, except that their word is more. In that instance, they never seem to say just how many dollars goes into a 'more'. They don't because their goal is to be vague so that they can keep pushing without getting pinned down.
Posted Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:59 AM
No comments.
MEDIA ALERT!!!
This afternoon, I will be a guest on the Dirk Thompson Show on 610 WTVN. Today's topic: John Murtha running for cover.
Starting at 5:05 CDT, I will be Dirk's guest along with my friend Tim Harrington. This show figures to be explosive so don't miss it!!!MEDIA
Posted Saturday, July 14, 2007 3:05 PM
No comments.
