Friday, July 20, 2007
|
|
The night Mitch McConnell became the leader of the Republican Party.
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
1:12 AM
|
Posted by Generalissimo
A remarkable thing happened in the United States Senate earlier this evening, and it occurred over a rather unremarkable piece of legislation that was being debated. Conservatives, frustrated at the lack of a genuine leader of their party, may have finally found one in Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell.
After Democratic leader Harry Reid’s MoveOn.org all-night session Tuesday night, a move that resulted only in helping unify the weak-kneed Republicans who were peeling away from continued support of the Petraeus surge in Iraq, McConnell, the Republican leader, served notice to anyone watching C-SPAN that he now runs the Senate.
The Senate spent much of the day discussing the merits, or demerits, of HR 2669, the Student Loans and Grants Act. Maybe it was the culmination of a long week already, or maybe it was the upper chamber being lulled off guard by the increasingly senile senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd, who spent 25 minutes decrying the plight of the helpless fight dog in response to the weird Michael Vick story in the news, but tonight, McConnell and the Republicans decided to take control of the Senate. The Republicans offered amendment after amendment to the bill, catching the Democrats flat-footed. In case you want to hear about the plight of the fight dog, here’s Robert Byrd’s Senate floor address.
After a couple of Republican amendments failed, Mitch McConnell took to the floor and offered his own amendment, which was a Sense of the Senate that Guantanamo detainees not be allowed released or moved to U.S. soil. To conservatives, this obviously makes sense. To liberals, especially California’s Dianne Feinstein, one of the chief proponents of the effort to close the detention center at Gitmo and relocate these detainees into the American justice system, especially when tagged onto a student loan and grant bill, you’d think this measure would go down in flames. Except a funny thing happened. The bill was titled in a way that you had to vote yes to vote no, and no to vote yes. The final vote was 94-3, officially putting the Senate on record as saying terrorist detainees shouldn’t be moved to the U.S. Before the Democrats, who clearly hadn’t read the amendment, realized they screwed up, the vote was recorded.
Jim DeMint of South Carolina was the author of the next amendment in line, had just gotten the consent of Bernie Sanders, the presiding officer, to order the yeas and nays. Up stepped Massachusetts senior Senator Ted Kennedy, now obviously aware that he and his colleagues just got bamboozled, and went on a full-throated rant, with reckless disregard to obvious hypocrisy, and blasted DeMint and the Republicans for slowing down the works in the Senate. The rant is worth hearing, so here it is.
Once the rant was over, Kennedy threw the Senate into a quorum call so that the Democrats could regroup. The session progressed well into the night, and McConnell could easily have rested on his laurels, but he wasn’t finished. Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar offered his own irrelevant amendment, asking for a sense of the Senate that President Bush not pardon Scooter Libby. McConnell, with that wry smile he offers when he’s up to something, countered with a secondary amendment to Salazar’s, saying that if it’s fair to bring up the Senate’s view of potential future inappropriate pardons, maybe we should also have a sense of the Senate of past inappropriate pardons, and proceeded to maneuver the Senate clerk into reading off the laundry list of Clinton administration pardons, including those of Marc Rich and others, which again set the Democrats off in a tailspin. After throwing the Senate back into a quorum call for half an hour, the beleaguered Harry Reid came out and pulled the Salazar amendment off the floor. He’d been Mitchslapped twice in one night.
Once again, the senior Senator from Massachusetts took to the floor, this time directing his venom at McConnell. Here’s the audio and text.
What in the world does the Republican leader have against this legislation? The legislation that we have here before the United States Senate passed 17-3. The authorizing provision that changes policy was virtually unanimous. Young people all over the country are looking in here in the United States Senate. This is about the future of this next generation. Their hopes and their dreams. It’s about our country and being able to compete in the world. It’s about the quality of our armed forces, about getting well-trained, well-educated young people. It’s about our institution, whether they’re going to be functioning and working. Why can’t we go ahead and vote on this legislation? We were here for two days, waiting for different amendments on education. And few of them came. Why in the world are you holding up this legislation that means so much to the future of our young people. We’re prepared to vote. We didn’t have amendments over here on our side. We want to get this legislation going ahead. We’re looking forward to the reauthorization debate for next week, and we’re looking forward to getting something worthy of this institution. We, in the 45 years I’ve been in the United States Senate, under the leadership of Stafford of Vermont, of Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, of the members that we have had here, we have had true...
The Senator’s time is expired.
Kennedy: Why are we disrupting…
Senator’s time is expired.
If anyone really believes Senator Kennedy hasn’t seen obstruction like this in his 45 years, then they haven’t met Judges Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Myers, William Pryor, Henry Saad, Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Miguel Estrada, Peter Keisler, Charles Pickering, or Leslie Southwick. While some of these judges eventually got onto the bench as part of the Gang of 14 deal, there are many who were scuttled as part of the deal, and Keisler and Southwick continue to languish at the hands of the Pat Leahy controlled Judiciary Committee, of which Kennedy is a member. Kennedy is no stranger to preventing votes from being taken.
Senator Kennedy isn’t angry at Republicans tonight anyway. Any conservative who watched the debate in the evening recognizes the frustration in him. It’s the same frustration conservatives had between 2005 and the beginning of this year when Bill Frist, the affable but ineffective Republican majority leader, consistently mismanaged the Senate. Ted Kennedy is angry at Harry Reid, because in seven short months, Mitch McConnell has run rings around him on issues from Iraq to immigration, and tonight, he just flat-out schooled Reid on how the Senate works, as if to say to Reid you messed with us two nights ago on a PR stunt for your fringe base, here’s how things like that can be answered.
And considering the fact that McConnell, Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl and other GOP Senators have been vocal about the growing frustration that the Democrats are not processing judicial nominees in good faith, and the coming slowdown showdown that really could grind things to a halt as a consequence of continued Democratic inaction on these nominees, if I were Kennedy, I’d be real nervous about who my leader was.
The political landscape in Washington, D.C. would be completely different if McConnell would have been running the Senate the last two years rather than Senator Frist. While Dr. Frist was and remains a good conservative, ideologically speaking, he simply could not deliver the fight in the Senate that the conservative base by and large wanted to see happen while they had the numbers in the majority they did.
Over the next 16 months, there are going to be many issues the Senate should be taking up but won’t, and many other issues it has no business debating but will. Obviously, nobody is pleased with the performance of the Republicans in the Senate overall in the last few years. Members who have strayed off the reservation on core conservative issues have been too numerous to count. But the fact of the matter is there was one amendment by Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman that failed on almost a purely party line vote that should make all conservatives pause before they wash their hands of the party November next. Senator Coleman tried to require as an amendment to this bill that the FCC not be allowed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and was defeated 49-48. All Republicans present voted yes, all Democrats present, including Hillary Clinton but excluding Indiana’s Evan Bayh, voted no.
Make no mistake about it, if the Democrats gain the White House next November, and Republicans get so lost in which Senator voted what way on this or that, causing the Democrats to pick up additional seats, the Fairness Doctrine might very well be in play, and could take years before the Court could rule it unconstitutional. Goodbye talk radio.
The Senate surely has made the base nervous at best and disgusted at worst in the seven months of the McConnell tenure. But if you look at the stats, when all is said and done, when the base needed him, he’s been there. He successfully kept the Republicans in line on multiple time certain withdrawal resolutions in the Senate, skillfully allowed the immigration bill to die while at least giving it a chance to be debated, and tonight showed the ability that he has no reservations about going toe to toe with Harry Reid and beating him repeatedly. It’s time conservatives use the old Reagan adage, trust but verify, and continue to support and encourage Mitch McConnell, and work to add to his numbers in the Senate next November.
|
|
|
"Mitchslapped"...Hugh, I love it. Thanks for the laugh; we all need it. It's about time the old bucket-headed Kennedy receive a taste of his own medicine. The Pelosi and Reid show is not the PR Edward hoped for. |
|
This is what the Republican base wants to see a whole lot more of in our Senators. No more wimps and pussywhipped cowed Senators. If you stand up to bullies, they will back down and leave you alone. Since it is the DUMocrats we are opposing, it shouldn't be very hard to outsmart them. If they had ANY brains, they wouldn't be DUMocrats, but they are DUMocrats which means they don't have ANY logic to what ever thinking ability that they still have left. Some people may have to change their name-calling from the "stupid party" to the smarter party, since the Republicans are obviously smarter than the DUMocrats. GO Mitch GO! Give'm heck and maybe some of them will blow a gasket and/or have an apopletic fit or start foaming at the mouth. I just love a GREAT slapdown and it's even better when it's a double slapdown in just one evening.
SENATE RAW smackdown! And the winner is Mighty Mitch McConnell. |
|
Would have if those two audio clips were available as supposedly advertised.
However, now at least the Reps have a leader. Good for Senator McConnell, may he lead us to victory in '08! |
|
|
You have to go to Hugh Hewitt's site first and then go down a little bit to the place where it says play or podcast. I just finished listening to it, but I want that waste of time back. Unless you just HAVE to hear the Swimmer speak, the complete text is written out above. I hope this might say you some wear and tear on your ears. |
|
And so Hugh is silent on why Mitch McConnell didn't do anything between 2000-2006 when Republicans were the majority.
Spare me.
|
|
|
Hugh comments that Bill Frist was the Senate Majority leader for at least part of the time frame you mentioned, but you didn't take time to read that for posting your "inciteful" comment. |
|
All republicans need to do is to endorse conservative values in a widfely conservative nation and they win all three houses. Unfortunatly, too many are beholding to all that money they raised for a job that pays around $200,000.
Steve
|
|
"...that the FCC not be allowed to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and was defeated 49-48. ALL Republicans present voted yes, all Democrats present, including Hillary Clinton...voted no."
Keep in mind on the way to the polls next year that YOUR Republican Sentor voted to protect the airwaves, free speech, the free market etc. ALL in that one vote!
And we already understand where the other guys would take us.
Especially the She-Beast!!
w/o=
|
|
|
'Um, Thank God! Now,please turn Feckless Harry's life into a roiling Hell. Make the fool gnaw his arms off at the sagging shoulders. YOWZAA ! |
|
right and now we should support them again? I am glad to see a show of spine, but how long will this last? Being happy about this is like being happy that your side stopped its full retreat away from a battle, but turned around to fire a couple of shots at the forces that were pursuing.
McConnell's stunt combined with McCain's recent rantings about the war make me wonder about the Republicans. Do they think that they can stand up for a week or two and gain back the good will they squandered in the last decade? Not likely.
Come back after you have 'Mitchslapped' the Democrats from now until next year AND lead the fight for commonsense legislation AND when the Republicans are as united as the Democrats. Otherwise I will suspect that the Repubs will cave, in the future, when it really matters, like they have in the past.
By the way, the Fairness Doctrine is inevitable. The Dems will push for it relentlessly and the Repubs, as they are wont, will surrender at some point in the future when they feel that they will pay the least for such surrender. |
|
|
Let's hope this is a sign of things to come. Poor leadership has cost the Republican party with the American people and at the polls from the Presidency on down the line. |
|
I'm with Vorpal on this one: McConnell has shown what the Senate Republicans *can* do if they pull together, but a single night's fortitude doesn't prove anything yet.
The DC Republicans, especially those in the Senate, have much humble pennance remaining before the base before they'll ever be completely forgiven for the way they not only blew a 55-45 majority, but did so in such a graceless fashion.
When "Mitchslapped" becomes a candidate for a new word in the dictionary, then I'll let myself believe that this episode has some long-term significance. Until then, the jury's still out.
That being said, I tip my hat to Senator McConnell and the Senate Republicans for last night. They did a masterful job of making Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy look like the doddering old fools that they are.
And as far as the DC donks in general are concerned, they are the ones who since 2000 have turned Congress in general, and the Senate in particular, into an arena in which parliamentary gamesmanship and 60-vote super-majorities have become SOP. That they, of all people, should start whining about "obstructionism" elicits the same degree of contempt in response as the Germans and Japanese whining about carpet-bombing in 1943-45: You started this nasty business, don't complain when it comes back to haunt you.
Or, to roughly quote "Bomber Harris" (minor modifications made to avoid invocation of Godwin's law):
"They began this war thinking that they were going to bomb everyone else, and that no one would bomb them. They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
Hey, donks: payback's a "Mitch," huh? |
|
Never realized how poetic his cadence, how rythmic his delivery, how melodic his message.
His use of the word "Barbaric" alone resonates with his deep experience, soul sanctifying involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Although bordering on being in a suspended state of catatonic bliss, he's, well, he's......I suppose you could say he's, still alive.
As for comments on Mitch McConnell, it is fascinating how far we've come from those early hours following the general election results in 2004. The euporia within the republican party was palpable. The term of the day was not just, "political capital", but how much of it actually was garnered on that day. The democrats were stupified as evidenced by the blank expressions of folks like Katie Couric (and her brethren) while addressing the nation from her morning show. It truly was a somber day. Some were caught speculating on whether the democrat party would ever recover from the message sent by the people.
How sad that even though the democrat party still languishes, rudderless in an ocean of confusion and internal discontent, it is the republican party which has not come to realize, not yet reconciled its squandering, all of that, "political capital" of just a couple of years ago.
What a difference a day makes. |
|
|
has some gameness in him, something missing from the GOP senators the past few years. The base gets fired up when our leaders fight for and defend conservative issues. When GOPers try to play nice with the Dems, and choose 'bi-partisan' solutions over conservative ideals, the base gets disillusioned & goes away, as it did in '06. It appears that McConnell gets this. Hopefully, he will truly lead the caucus & continue to get the rest of the GOP senators to follow suit. So far so good. |
|
|
Mitch McConnell votes against the flag amendment when it comes up. I can not support him. |
|
Kimberlicklicklick, the streaker, has run through another of these boards, gracing those who gather with her naked nonsense.
Excuse me, am I reading the word, "weightier"?
Help me, someone?
I mean, perhaps there is hidden within her message a potential morsel of value, as tiny as it may be, if only I could grasp the lexicon. Naw, better yet, I'll just have a V8.
What a maroon. |
|
|
I am surprised at Mr. Hewitt. He obviously does not understand how the Senate works. Mitch McConnell is no more the leader of his party than Harry Reid is of his, or that Bill Frist was. Frist was an excellent majority leader. The funny thing is he actually got legislation through. What has Harry Reid gotten through. Go check your facts Mr.Hewitt. Just because John McCain and some RINO's sandbagged Frist on the judicial nominees, that doesn't change the fact that he got a lot of legislation through. It is very clear that either party must have 60 Senators to accomplish much. What really needs to be done is to change that rule. Mitch McConnell is just a political hack, like Trent Lott is. If Congress doesn't change soon, maybe we should just send them all home. Mr. Hewitt, if you don't understand the workings of Congress any better than you evidently do, maybe it is time for you to retire. |
|
NICE slap on Kimberlick. LOL
But your so right, what a raving fool. |
|
|
McConnell is no hack. And knowing the Senate's crazy arcane rules matter. Ask Robert Byrd. Before he slipped into permenant dimensia, Byrd was known for using those rules to funnel massive amounts of payoffs. . . I mean pork. . . to his state. |
|
|
Who are we kidding here. Reid has 51 votes. One of them is in a hospital bed and the other is Joe Lieberman. Procedural rules, which btw we were ever so eager do do away with two years ago, prevent you from doing much if you invoke cloture. Those without incipient signs of Halfzeimers may also remember that at the time we were trying to dump cloture we were also screaming about "obstructionism." Implicit in too many of these comments, not to mention the original post, is an incredible contempt for the intelligence of the electorate. Sure they don't get all the details but they have a rough idea of what's going on. As every poll shows they broadly embrace the Democrat's stance on just about every issue out there from Iraq to stem cell research. How anyone believes what's going on "assists" our efforts to take back congress is a total mystery to me. Did anyone see that cbs/nyt poll showing that basically two thirds of the country expects Hillary to be the next president. Sure that doesn't mean they are all going to vote for her but it is a striking demo of the national mood. It also demolishes the she's unelectable nonsense. As for the McConnell as Kutuzov theory, grow up guys. Reid's forcing the GOP into a stack of votes they are going ot have to explain next year, not to mention providing the democrats with mountains of material for their commercials. |
|
To my mind Frist was not an excellent majority leader. He just could never quite muster enough guts to say or do what needed to be said or done. But the big cause he was willing to fight for was - embryonic stem cell research!
The real test for McConnell will be holding together on Iraq. He sounds wishy washy on it to me. |
|
Although I'm a typically impatient personality ("just the facts mame, just the facts"), I listened to every single word of the impassioned, 25 minute speech concluded by Senator Byrd re: dog fighting. As an "animal and all-living-creature advocate", I am outraged by the heinous practices and I say BRAVO to the Senator from West Virginia. Yes, his delivery was at times v-e-r-y tedious, however, the condescension vs. lack of compassion discerned here was an extreme surprise when considering considering the growing mental maladies of our beloved elderly population.
|
|
majorities that include people like Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Lugar, Specter, and several other near-traitors.
We don't need more "leaders" willing to compromise their integrity so they can get earmarks passed.
We don't need more Republican pedophiles like Mark Foley.
We need Conservative men and women of conscience who make the tough choices to do what is right, regardless of the cost--because the American People will remember that Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn and others defended us while McCain sided with Ted Kennedy...
DO NOT BE FOOLED BY PARTY LABELS. Many Republicans in office now side more often with the Democrats than they do with their own party.
They must be replaced with men and women of integrity.
When you vote, make certain the one for whom you vote is really worthy, or you are no better than the [insert low-brow phrase here] leftists and so-called liberals who seem bent on surrendering to Mexico, al Qaeda, and anyone else who complains (unless they're actually a tax-paying American Citizen).
Oh yeah, and congratulations to Senator McConnell... |
|
|
I think if you look behind the curtain you might find the deft hand of Trent Lott. If Trent had introduced anything the Democrats Radar would have been activated and they would have been suspicious. But as Minority Whip he could have easily made a suggestion or two, I have no evidence but the style is very much like the tactics he has used in the past. Why do you think he was smeared? It was because he was too effective, that was why. He is a sly ole gamemaster as are a few others in the Senate. It is the very rules that the Democrats hated so much when they were in the minority that has done them in while in the majority. If nothing else it proves the Democrats are incompetent at running anything. |
|
|
This is all good for Republicans but I believe that the next Senate will not be able to get the House to pass much of its preferred versions of legislation. The next House will be more conservative, either with more Repubs or Blue Dogs, and the next president may win with as little as 35% of the vote if no strong candidate emerges. If the GOP really wants to win big in 2008, they have to dump Giuliani and get a couple of true uncompromised conservatives in the race, like Duncan Hunter who is second tier only because the GOP establishment is not interested in conservatives. |
|
Guess who is backing away from KOS.
To much HOT E-mail I would guess. LOL |
|
..really loves the way Kimber & her buds foul up his talking points? If this ol' Evidence-History-
Critical Thinking-Junky were half as goofy as the
KLyric,they'd need to call Talk-him-off-the-roof Hotline on me. Hugh seems to have attracted a Swarm of the little roaches. I keep forgetting that KOS & Natasha-the-Huff allow No Freedom of Speech at their plantations. |
|
|
If you have less than 60 votes being Majority Leader is no fun. In addition to Hapless Harry and Bill Frist look at Daschle and Lott. All four of these guys recently had the ML job but the minority under the rules of the Senate ran the show. Lott was vulnerable to attack and replaced by Frist because R's saw him as a compromiser. Daschle outright lost his Senate seat because all he could do was obstruct Bush and talk about how "sad" he was at this and that. Frist exited without a trace and no tears from the R's. Reid is, by far, the worst of the group but if Mitch was Maj Ldr with a 51-49 Senate Republicans would be upset with him too. I believe the 60 vote rule was instituted while Bobby Byrd was ML. You can look that one up--- but it does bring the post full circle. Personally I love seeing the Senate grind to a halt under Dem rule. The stock market has liked it too. |
|
|
You mean the Trent Lott that thinks talk radio is running the country and wants to do something about it? Trent Lott embodies everything that is wrong with the GOP in the senate. I was sorry to see him get another position of power. |
|
|
You wrote that Mitch will "lose on Iraq and lose soon." Reid and the Dems don't want a vote to de-fund the war. They want the issue to use in the 2008 election. Their worst nightmare is that Mitch calls their bluff and they have to vote on war funding. Watch the game closely instead of following the ball back and forth across the net. Footwork is where the action is. Mitch will not lose an up or down vote on funding OIF and OEF. Even the slow-witted Reid knows that is a Kucinich/ Feingold death wish. If what you meant is a vote to withdraw--- it's meaningless as the Congress has no role in that regard. The CiC can just ignore it like a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. Funding is their only role. |
|
It has taken far too long for the Republicans to show their cojones. Hats off to McConnell.
This disaffected voter will wait and see if it is an example of lasting Republican courage, or just a premature political ejaculation.
If Bush and his supporters cannot even outfox the likes of Kennedy, Schumer, and Reid then why should anyone believe that this administration has the intelligence and skill to defeat Al-Quaeda?
|
|
Simply stated, you're being very kind in mentioning Senator Byrd's behavior as "v-e-r-y tedious". Very kind, indeed.
My issue with Byrd has nothing to do with his position on "dog fighting". Dog fighting is heinous and should be treated as such--if Vick is complicit---"fry" the criminal.
Forget the fact that Byrd has fallen asleep so many times, not always while standing, during congressional sessions.
His filibustering and stammering has not always been due to his age.
Forget the fact that he has NEVER been made to account for his participation in the KU KLUX KLAN. His stand on positions has always run counter to mine. That is why I take issue with Senator Robert Byrd.
You attempt to merely make this an issue of his age.
I find that very one dimensional.
|
|
If there had ever been one shred of productive commentary from your emotional and nonsensical diatribes (not to mention the repetitive inventing of words), I would, at the very least, feign embarrassment.
You, and maroons like Ellen Waldstein, offer nothing to advance dialogue. You, and some others here provide no alternatives to the shrill whine which is now your side's anthem.
You are a "streaking" flamer. You are not unlike those streakers from the 60's, 70's who entered a venue with a "look at me" exhibitionist attitude. You enter quickly, display your naked nonsense----and depart, satiated in some contorted, convoluted manner.
What a pathetic maroon. |
|
|
Licklick you could'nt stand on the same stage with her. She would wipe you out and send you crying to KOS |
|
himberlick mis-states the filibuster situation vis a vis "activist judges". Cloture had previously been invoked solely when dealing with legislation. Until Reid and the Dems invoked the 60-vote cloture rule for deciding whether to close off debate on judicial nominees, it had never been used before. Here, the GOP is saying" OK, we'll play by the new majority's new rules". The biter bit, IOW.
As for weepy theatrics, I take it that's a reference to that notorious ham and hack Byrd. Or to the mewling and puling Harry Reid emitted so piteously when complaining that he had essentially snookered himself.
Sorry, kimberlicklicklicklick , you oral talents don't amount to much here---but they might have been useful back in the 90's under the Oval Office desk. |
|
|
Another anti-war lefty with no fight in them. What I love about the anti-war crowd is they love the freedom we have here but would absolutly refuse to defend it for any reason. I also love Ann C because she gets under the leftists skin every time she writes. BTW we are not a pro-war crowd we just have some Heuvos and refuse to back down to thugs and terrorists. 1 Dead terrorist is 1 less that mean us harm. |
|
..has allowed Mitch into her chamber for an evening and he came out rejuvenated.
Would that this would become a regular occurrence.
I have always liked Mitch, but he has been on the wrong side as recently as last month during the Amnesty debacle.
He needs to show me more than one night of bravado....he needs to become a permanent nemesis for Harry and Nancy..... |
|
|
It really makes me laugh when the COWARDCRATS talk about how unfair it is for talk radio to be mainly conservative. Lets see Main STREAM MEDIA,MOVEON.ORG,ALMOST ALL OF THE TUBE NEWS,HOLLYWOOD AND OF COURSE WE CANNOT LEAVE OUT MIKEY(STEM CELL) FOX crying on National TV everyday before the 06 election, Hum wonder were he and ROSIE(FAT MAMA) ODONNELL are at now? If it were not for Talk Radio the AMNESTY BILL would have passed. So when the COWARDCRATS start spewing all this garbage again before the 08 elections I hope they Get a little bit more than they could ever imagine in their sad but lonely lifes. |
|
Hugh,
Thanks for your narrative of "The Republicans Strike Back". Finally. And Sen. McConnell did it with such finesse. It was also very funny -- unless you are a truly partisan Democrat. It made my "political news" day. |
|
|
I don't know about most of you (70%??) but the people "against" the war are mostly idiots who only read at maybe a 12 year old level. They parrot what the MSM puts in the head lines and then the talking heads repeat the same. Why would 70% know how to conduct a war? It's a darn good thing the population mix and the hearts and minds weren't like this during the Civil War or for that matter any past war; excluding of course Viet Nam and Korea. Why do supposedly intelligent reading people who answer this blog repeat that 70% line??? |
|
First off, broadcasters, radio hosts, and anyone else with very clear standing (direct and individualized economic injury that could be redressed by the courts) could quickly bring suit to enjoin enforcement of this prior restraint on their freedom of speech as soon as the law is passed. While a requested declaratory judgment on a yet unenforced law usually won't make it into court, there is a big exception for potentially vague or overbroad limitations on free speech.
It would go on appeal to a special three-judge federal appellate court (special appellate panels that hear appeals on cases of injunctive relief), after which it could be appealed to SCOTUS, which would mandatorily have to hear the appeal. This mandatory right of appeal before SCOTUS in three-judge panels is different from the more familiar, optional appeals based on certiorari.
Incidentally, I think that it would very likely be struck down, notwithstanding the Court's previous acceptance of the Fairness Doctrine and the more permissible free speech restrictions allowed in broadcast media.
First of all, Justice Kennedy would almost definitely be on board with the conservatives in this case regarding free speech, an area where he is (relatively, anyway) pretty good from a conservative point of view. Secondly, now that we have more evidence about the economic impact such a law would have -- compared to last time the issue came before the Court, when Rush was still more commonly known as fraternity jargon than as a radio icon -- it could be viewed as a significant Due Process violation: we now know that there is a very flourishing and viable market for conservative radio, and those employed in it have a right to not have their means of employment taken away so arbitrarily.
But an even stronger argument than arbitrary deprivation of property interests under Due Process involves the fundamental rights involved in speech. If you consider the airwaves aren't the unique medium in need of government control, as they were 20 years ago, then the government's compelling interest in regulating political speech over what has been traditionally viewed as a public venue, albeit a (formerly) unique one, then the government has a very high burden to show that there is a compelling interest in regulating content (and arguably viewpoint, too, a good case can be made) at all, let alone in such a vague and overbroad manner. Complimenting the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines, it must be regulated in a way that is narrowly tailored in such a way as to be the least restrictive method to achieving the compelling interest of public access to "both sides" (talk about vague, and potentially overbroad - and underinclusive!) of an issue.
Now, let's also consider it being an Equal Protection violation. It singles out talk radio, conservative talk radio, political discussion, among other distinct categories, for different treatment under the law. If it's an EPC violation of fundamental rights (important economic interest, speech) then it would be tough to uphold -- even though not targeting conservative talk radio on its face, its effects are quite clear and intent could be demonstrated easily with empirical, statistical data, among other evidence. If it's not an important economic interest, it would just be examined under a rational basis test, ie, does the government have a potentially legitimate rationale to the law -- usually (actually, almost always) that passes muster in favor of the government, as the burden is on the plaintiff, but in this case, even that standard might cause the Fairness Doctrine to be shot down.
Then there are also the listeners' rights, such as interest in receiving speech and access to the press, and a very strong freedom of association argument, particularly with regard to talk radio and its unique audience involvement format.
It could also be viewed as a Bill of Attainder if interpreted as intending to specifically hit conservative talk radio in a punitive manner. (Though it would have to be interpreted as pretty punitive, because usually Bill of Attainders apply to crimes.)
My $0.02 for what their worth. (Probably not much -- but I'll find out soon, as I take the bar next week. Incidentally, this comment of mine has either been a great review for me, or a tremendous waste of time that I could have spent better on studying more.) |
|
|
I enjoyed your analysis. Good luck on the bar exam. |
|
Thanks, Hugh, for sharing the snippet of Dead Kennedy. He is entitled to his time on the floor and his opinion. Many times in this snippet he is heard shouting, "SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN", while describing his opinion of fellow senator's in their treatment of issues on the floor.
Well, it has recently been made clear the democrats are, "SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN" on another recent issue, the building of a wall on our southern border which was decreed to be built by law over a year ago.
This is manifest in requirements set forth by democrats to have every step of the process methodically scrutinized and made subject to approval. It is not exactly clear how long each segment of the wall is before it has to be put through this repeat process (could be a foot, could be a mile). I am still attempting to determine the details.
But, be sure, the delays in building of a retention wall at our shared border with Mexico is heard in the shouts of Dead Kennedy, "SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN". However, it is clear the process, going forward, is going to be controlled by democrats, each segment of it. |
|
|
Hey D.Di isnt it funny that when they run around everyday stating that 70% of Americans want out of IRAQ and then show that only 800 were polled. Correct me if Im wrong but isnt there over 300m MILLION Americans in the country. |
|
|
Its at times like this that I wish I was back in Massachusetts, just so I could vote for Senator Kennedy again. |
|
What they DON'T ask anymore, do they want us to win.
Have you noticed that's missing from the polls. |
|
Reason I ask: Hugh was presiding over a wedding. Duane noted that Sen Kennedy, in ranting, was more upset with Sen Reid than with Sen McConnell. The whole flow of this post is consistent with the radio show last night, in which Generalissimo made that point at 54 minutes after the hour with Dean. Unless Hugh Just Happened to be listening to His show, I don't know that he would have thought about commenting on the scene.
Hmmmmm, do you think Hugh allows a ghost writer from time to time? |
|
Kudos to Sen. McConnell for becoming the kind of Senate Leader the GOP has sorely lacked since Howard Baker's retirement. I was sure he had it in him to do so. Keep the Dims in stitches all the time; they need the disciplinary treatment.
On another note, Hugh, I found your comment about the Mike Vick mess a tad dismissive. We live in Virginia across the river from Mike Vick's Surry County property where the alleged dog fighting operation was taking place. I say alleged because nothing has been proved as of yet. That said, the evidence continues to accumulate of an absolutely savage, bloodthirsty operation; a darkly amoral and immoral circus of sadistic cruelty and heartlessness. Watch as the investigation unfurls, for rumor has it the FBI itself is nauseated by what it has found on Vick's premises. The poor animals need our prayers. If he's guilty, Vick needs them too, prayers that he might be led to see the nature of his behavior and his very real need for forgiveness. |
|
|
he ghosted the article in the byline. Sorry, I shouldn't have attributed anything suspicious. |
|
|
not to worry. the damage you did in your original vote for him, back in 1906, is tantamount to the "gift that keeps on giving". |
|
This guy had me the day he came on your show and said he wasn't going to put up with any nonsense on judges!
And then he continued to elevate himself to great leader status buy his growing list of "Mitch-Slappings."
We haven't had this strong of a leader in the Senate in many years. And it goes to show what Frist and Lott could have done if they had a backbone and some guts.
What I especially appreciate about Mitch McConnell is how he's listening to conservatives nationwide and does not feed us Washington beltway BABBLE!!!!...while trying to force something incredibly stupid down our throats.
God bless him. |
|
|
or if he thinks his fawning on dhimmicrats gains him merit in the hereafter? |
|
Forget Kimberlick. She is obviously Kimberly reincarnated. You can tell by her ability to work Ann Coulter into ANY discussion, including how the Red Sox are doing, deforestation in the Amazon, and last night's weather.
She is best ignoerd. |
|
You needn't worry about voting for Ted. His old man ensured that he got the job, and there are still plenty of tools left in Taxachusetts who are buying what he's selling.
The only way he'll lose his job is by dying. Though, he is 75 and an alcoholic, so who knows?
But there are two silver linings for you: 1) John "Frankenstein" Kerry is even more liberal, and 2) If Ted dies in 2009, he will have lived 40 years longer than Mary Jo Kopechne did. |
|
|
Three silver linings: I forgot that the "Camelot" crowd each had about 50 kids, so there are plenty of Kennedys younger than 50 for you. |
|
|
normally the leader of the party determines the direction the party takes on legislation. The President has shown himself incapable of leading on too many issues. His betrayal to the country over the immigration fiasco demonstrated his disconnect with the electorate, and even after we made our voices heard the p[resident still maintains his refusal to deal with this important issue. The repubs in the congress have two choices. They can blindly follow the president who lacks the courage to lead the country or they can work to form a coillition that can lead them back to the majority. Perhaps mitch and opther repubs decided that unlike President Bush they will not surrender to reid and kennedy have taken the lead to show the party repubs can still fight and lead |
|
"If this is the Dem's worst nightmare and if McConnell is as good as everyone here says, then why don't we have an up or down vote. "
The reason they don't is this. Even if the chances are negligible (which I think they are) that enough of the Democrats would actually go ahead and vote to cut off funding for the war, our country cannot afford the outcome of precipitous withdrawal, regardless of likelihood. This stakes are way too high here to bank on the rationality of the democrats. You don't make political gambles with issues such as war. You don't play chicken with lives at stake. You don't even allow such an outcome become even a possibility. |
|
|
loud and clear over the past 6 weeks. Several times from me along. He actually listened and came around eventually. Being a minority leader must make you prone to capitulating your heartfelt views. The let's make a deal approach to lawmaking has its limits. McConnell finally saw where the limit was. |
|
|
count robt jr out. He was an environmental icon until his hypocrisy over his suppport of global warming and by joining his alchoholic uncle in shutting down the proposed wind farms miles off the kennedy compound.His message reverberates with the daily kos and move on crowd but away from them he is just another lib nutcase |
|
|
one moment he's great, the next he's MIA |
|
|
and his "great accomplishment" that Hugh says makes him the leader of the party is just a conniving weasel tactic. I remember when Republican leaders had strong principles, clear vision and articulate passion. If a google-eyed, conniving weasel like McConnell is the new face of the Republican party, that speaks volumes. |
|
|
|
This is a good posting.
And for the record, I'm a fan of McConnell, even prior to this.
BUT, your incinuation that we should turn a blind eye to Coleman's anti-conservatism simply because he tries, once, to introduce an amendment in the senate about the fairness doctrine is ridiculous.
You need to harken to the idea that many of us are content to lose talk radio--knowing full well that every one of you could be supported in the manner to which you've become accustomed (and maybe even better) being web or satellite based. I realize the effect this would have on some of the listeners who couldn't afford, but that's not worth turning a blind eye to elected legislators who persist in poking us in the eye with a stick.
I don't think I speak for just me: MANY OF US will not change our minds about who needs to go simply over their stances on the fairness doctrine. They cannot ingratiate themselves.
|
|
For a guy that's encouraging others to just ignore me, I am flattered that you wrote me three consecutive posts. Good to know I am getting through to you! :)
Maybe each one was written by a different voice in your head? |
|
Mitchslapped! Fabulous.
While I have always admired Mitch McConell, and wished he had succeeded in his near heroic effort to defeat McCain-Feingold, republicans must not lose perspective.
It is easier to be in the minority and stop legislation than it is to be in the majority and advance an agenda.
Democrats got elected in an off year without an agenda, but republican leaders would be wise to start crafting a new contract, aka 1994 Part II, as soon as we have an inkling of who our presidential nominee will be.
We lost in 2006 because we became what democrats usually are...rudderless.
Let's enjoy this win, but we have much work to do to maintain the White House and retake Congress.
Well done Senator McConnell. With all respect to Bill Monroe, you are the blue moon of Kentucky. Keep, on shining sir!
eric |
|
|
Mitch McConnell's job in the Senate is to represent the current Republican administration, led by George W. Bush. He has done so in the Iraq debate, and in the immigration debate. For Republican conservatives, these are totally contradictory positions. He is doing his best to stand up for one of the most despised administrations in our country's history. Listen to the sound of one hand clapping. |
|
Given your mention of Camelot, please consider this book i am presently reading----recommended for the literate crowd. Just released, May 2007.
http://www.amazon.com/Camelot-Cultural-Revolution-Assassination-Liberalism/dp/1594031886
AZ Phil, this will provide you with some interesting insights into the Kennedy family. Here's just one; that Jackie "O" was so pissed off to think her husband was killed by a communist. She did her best to rewrite history so as to paint the picture that her husband died for "civil right's" causes and consequences.
Yeah, right! states the author of this book. You will no doubt be given one more example of the Kennedy family scam on the American public. Click the link and consider reading the one review.
Have a great day. |
|
The whole political process is disgusting to more and more Americans, and I suggest it should be disgusting to anyone watching it. We have come to accept such behavior as normal, but we should really demand that our representatives stop representing their party or campaign financiers, and instead represent their constituents.
Should I be impressed that one senator tricked others into voting differently than they believed they were voting? Perhaps if it were a game show, but this is deadly serious to us citizens. I am not the least impressed with political posturing, deal making and money raising. I want to see real progress on real issues, like a way out of a war that is bleeding us dry, or a way of dealing with an impossible health care system. When I see a senator who can get other senators to vote the way that their constituents would want them to, then I will be impressed. |
|
IMO, you don't really want to see them do anything but when they "do something," it never benefits anybody except the welfare state & the elected--regardless of party.
The more time they spend on foolishness, the better. Let the private sector work out this health care business. |
|
For a brief moment, please accept my understanding of your position. Politics. It seems petty. It appears ugly. It acts unresponsive. I'm with you.
Okay, the moment is over. Hey Bill, you go to college? Yeah, I know, me too. A lot of wasted time and money for me too? Learned more afterwards than during. Too many narcissistic agenda-driven professors for my liking. Okay, now Bill, listen very carefully. There is not much new to politics in these times vis a vis at most times in our history. I would love to share some anecdotes. But----then that would do all of the work for you. Bill-----you gotta do some reading of the shenanigans which took place in plitics all through our history---some really ugly stuff----nasty----even criminal, yep!
Bottom Line: Get to know a bit more of our political history. If only so it placates your anxiety of the present, to some degree. You'll become soemwhat enlightened that it is the way things are. What is one of the correcting factors?
That's right----You, Bill. You getting involved and not taking any crap. If you believe in health care to the degree that government should be running it----then BY GOD MOVE TO CANADA WHERE GOVERNMENT RUNS IT---Er, NO BILL, I did not mean to say that---BY GOD GET INVOLVED AND BEHIND THOSE FORCES THAT BUILD UPON THAT IDEA.
That's what this country is about, Bill.
Not the whiny part where you talk like----well like that damnable Rodney King criminal-guy who quipped, "Can't we all just get along?"
You know he got arrested multiple times after he made that famous appeal to whoever it was he was appealing to---yeah, if he was so hell bent on everyone just "getting along", why the hell did he keep going out in public and committing crimes, agitating police, and basically acting like a Big 'ol immature thug---there, I said it, and I am not taking it back. The point, Bill?
Whining aint gonna get you nowhere. Well, except depressed. And a sore uvula--that's the little hangy thing in the back of your throat. When you whine, it vibrates faster and gets puffy and red and sore. You know from where I speak on that, Bill
Okay, now get out there and read---about our political history---its ugly, very nasty nature in campaigns, elections, and general posturing.
Then---and only then---you'll be more energized to get involved in the here and now. And knwo that I am with you---well, except for the part on government handling all of our woes---health care, and welfare and all of that needless sharing stuff---oh yeah---and also, I don't agree with you about merely stopping the war. No, No, No. You'll be staring at me from the other side of the table on that one, Bill.
Otherwise, have at it, and good luck. WE'll both need it. One last thing, Bill
Don't you ever, ever, ever, ever forget this one very important thing.
Freedom is not FREE. You gotta work at it. You gotta be creative sometimes too. and there are a lot of people "out there" who want to , well, let's just say, they want to, "eat your lunch". Some even want to take a very long knife and pull it ever so slowly across your soft fleshy parts of your neck--yeah, I know, that's a funny feeling. But, believe me, I have seen all of those propaganda tapes where the head comes clean off the victim's body and I don't care how good Hollywood is getting at special effects---they convinced me.
Go get em, Bill.
|
|
Hugh:
Uh....I guess I am confused. Isn't this the very same Mitch McConnell who worked with GWB and the Democrats to orchestrate the Grand Bargain amnesty bill through the Senate a month ago?
You've got to be kidding. Do you really think the anger with these out of touch RINOs has dissipated?
BTW, I just received a a two page puff response from my squish senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson explaining her opposition to illegal immigration. I sent her a note asking her why she voted against Tom Coburn's amendment requiring enforcement of current immigration laws. RINO.
You may have a short memory, Hugh. Some of us will not forget.
Ken
Dallas |
|
|
|
|
|