Tuesday, July 08, 2008
|
|
Hey, You Can't Post There!
|
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
12:47 PM
|
A rule is making its way through Congress that will have a huge impact on our freedom of speech. This rule would prohibit Americans from getting information from their Members of Congress – about what they are doing in Washington, what they are saying, and what they are proposing – on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.
This rule affects all of us regardless of political affiliation.
What this essentially means is that sites like YouTube that Members use to communicate with constituents would have to make their way through a complicated, arcane, and restrictive set of House regulations before Members could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content to only those websites.
This proposed rule could mean the end of blogs like this one that have become a real forum for conversation.
The rule has been proposed by the Democrat Chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA).
Read Rep. Capuano's letter to Chairman Brady.
If this rule is adopted, the free flow of information from Members to constituents and vice versa would be significantly stunted. Essentially, a panel of federal employees that are not neutral or independent would say what messages and formats are fit and unfit for circulation.
This rule accomplishes nothing except increased censorship of free speech.
|
|
Good point. That is the point.
The libs argue they are only improving upon existing regulations of members' speech. No big deal. I read the letter. Sounds pretty innocuous. The devil is in the final details. Basically, Capuano is saying that members are chafing under the poor current system and the fix is to maintain the rigid rules and structure when members link to external sites. The key, of course, is maintaining that control. We absolutely cannot have members of the House of Representatives communicating willy nilly however they want with constituents or the general public. It increases Soros' labor costs to provide trolls to challenge everything everywhere.
I agree with you RStar23, I don't see the need for regulations governing this or about 95% of the other crap that is regulated to death. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like every liberal blog site I've tried to post a comment on. |
|
"This year, she was "fearmongering" about light bulbs, believe it or not. She told the press that if we went from incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent light bulbs, Minnesota school kids could be forced to stand outside in sub-zero weather while a broken lightbulb was cleaned up.
That one didn't work, either. (No, I'm not making this up, she really did this stuff.)"
I don't think you are. But I also don't consider this 'fear mongering.' Considering the toxicity of those lightbulb's contents, and the idiotic overreaction to a given situation from any govt. body, that sounds like a pretty likely outcome. |
|
|
Our government can read our e-mails and listen to our phone calls but Rep. Bachmann doesn't want anyone to look at her use of taxpayer funded communications. |
|
person as Monkeywrench, and no, we don't bowl together. The reason we have the same take on Rep. Bachmann is that she really is a fearmonger. That's how she got into politics, into Congress.
A few years ago, she was "fearmongering" homophobia to Minnesota voters. That worked for her, it helped to launch her congressional campaign. After she got into congress, she "fearmongered" terrorism--she announced the plan to form a new terrorist state inside occupied Iraq. That was quickly exposed as a fiction when it made national headlines, she had to back down on that particular attempt at "fearmongering."
This year, she was "fearmongering" about light bulbs, believe it or not. She told the press that if we went from incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent light bulbs, Minnesota school kids could be forced to stand outside in sub-zero weather while a broken lightbulb was cleaned up.
That one didn't work, either. (No, I'm not making this up, she really did this stuff.)
And here, she's "fearmongering" about loss of freedom of speech--because the government *already* regulates where congressmen post videos, on the public dime.
The reason we think she's a fearmonger is: she's a fearmonger; that is indeed her record. Start a panic, where there is no reason to panic--that's her strategy and tactics.
And since when is it "trolling" to point out that a politician is in the act of trying to deceive people? |
|
It seems Rep. Bachmann has certainly cultivated a devoted crop. Monkeywrench are you ever going to have something non-critical to say? You might actually reach some level of credibility if you knocked off the Kimberlyesque-teenager rebellion nonsense.
Btw, are you and BillP the same person, or just on the same bowling team? |
|
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that there are any limits, current or proposed, upon how a member of Congress is able communicate with the folks they represent?
Why is is acceptable to feed the people a series of sound bites and political ads on TV, radio and cable but not acceptable for our representatives - the people we elected to do a job for us - to seek out every possible channel for communicating directly with us? |
|
|
BillP is absolutely right. There is nothing in the proposal Bachmann is fear-mongering on that would change anything in the current rules. What it does say is that if something is posted on an external site, it still must comply with the normal rules that already apply to any official communications paid for by the House. Nothing more. And nothing to be concerned about--unless, of course, Bachmann is posting crap on youtube that IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE with existing House rules. Maybe someone should look into that. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Michele Bachmann broke the rules to promote herself. |
|
Another pathetic attempt by Bachmann to claim she is having a "conversation" with constituents. Hey congresswoman, here's a clue: You want a conversation with constituents? Have a real town hall meeting with the PUBLIC invited. No staged events. No invitation-only admission. No screened questions. Plenty of advance PUBLIC notice. And YOU in person to answer to your constituents--remember, the ones you supposedly represent in Congress?
But you haven't had a single meeing like that since beign elected have you? What are you afraid of? Do you think you can get re-elected without debates with your DEMOCRATIC (for your illiterate use of the word Democrat) opponent? Or your Republican opponent?
We'll be waiting for that town hall meeting, congresswoman. With pitchforks. That's the only conversation we're interested in. |
|
|
This sound likes something I'd hear coming out of Communist China. |
|
Phil now has a "personal troll",....LMAO!
Man, you're coming up in the world, Phil! Hahaha.
Can't you just "feel the love"? |
|
...their approval rating sank into the single digits.....
Shall we try for decimal point levels?
|
|
This is clearly unconstitutional. I don't see how the Congress has the power to pass unconstitutional restrictions on their members.
A private club could restrict things as a condition of membership, but the Congress isn't a private club and membership is up to the voters.
Is there something I don't understand about this? Why obey such a rule?
|
|
|
Nothing new here - when is the last time you tried to seriously communicate with your Senator/Representative on a substantive issue? Most have set up their websites to ensure that they will only respond to folks who reside in a District they represent, even though they represent all U.S. citizens, and their votes impact all of us. If you do get an e-mail through, invariably you get a non-responsive form letter back that was drafted by a low level staffer and approved by some higher up staffer. The Capitol switchboard is a joke and the phones are staffed by the lowest of the low staffers. Most Members do not want to be bothered to hear from or respond to constituents or other citizens - they form their positions based on money that finds it way to their campaigns and the positions of the national party. Simply one other reason to throw all the rascals out and start over. |
|
if by troll you mean someone who opposes your attempts to defeat JSM and have Obama win in November, the answer is yes. |
|
politician to try to create a panic where no panic is called for.
If you look at the link Bachmann directs you to in her post, you will find that the law *already* regulates where members of Congress can post their videos. That's *already* the law, for Congressmen of all parties. It's not some * new* designed to limit Congress' freedom to distribute video.
Congressman Capuano, the author of the letter, is trying to figure out ways to *improve* the distribution of Congressmen's video, via legal house channels--he's not trying to suppress the distribution or regulate the content of the those videos, as Bachmann suggests.
This is too typical of Bachmann, if you're the kind of person who likes to "panic for no reason," you should always check in here first. |
|
The "fine folks" across the aisle can't handle the free flow of information.
I'll wager that Democratic Underground, Daily Kos and myDD will be on the approved list. |
|
|
Are you my new personal troll? I must be pretty dangerous to you RINOs to have my own trolls attacking me personally everywhere I go. If you want to persuade people you disagree with, try using facts and logic. I am flattered that I attract so many trolls. |
|
|
|
|
More opportunities to stifle free speech, of course John McCain will sign on. |
|
Obama will help pass it. Is not that why you want him to win the election in November. |
|
|
They are expensive, very divisive and they never deliver mandates anymore. Combining both major parties into one hasn't helped either. What do voters want anyway? There is just no making them happy no matter how much you ignore them. |
|
|
Too bad walls don't work because that would keep us peasants out of our politicians' hair. Peasants shouldn't be seen NOR heard. It is hard enough to run such a big government without having to hear from us whiners all the time. Why can't we just defer to our betters? |
|
.. the Dems are really pushing this Communism fad.
|
|
|
will be for it? The McCain-Reid bill? |
|
|
|