Consistent with GOP spin, media reports ignore Gregg's statement that census was "not a major issue"
SUMMARY: Several media reports have noted that Sen. Judd Gregg cited concerns about the census in a press release announcing that he was withdrawing his nomination for secretary of commerce. But those reports ignored Gregg's subsequent statement during a press conference that the census was "not a major issue" in his decision to withdraw.
Consistent with Republicans' framing of the issue, several media reports have noted that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) cited concerns about the census in a February 12 press release announcing that he was withdrawing his nomination for secretary of commerce, but ignored Gregg's subsequent statement during a February 12 press conference that the census was "not a major issue" in his decision to withdraw. For instance, a February 13 Washington Post article reported that Gregg "cited concerns about Obama's economic recovery plan and the administration's intent to have the next census director report to senior White House officials as well as the commerce secretary," but did not note Gregg's statement at the press conference.
A February 13 Politico article quoted Republican leaders in the House of Representatives touting the role the census played in Gregg's decision. National politics editor Charles Mahtesian reported that on Capitol Hill "Republicans applauded boisterously" and quoted Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) playing up the importance of the census. Mahtesian quoted Price saying: "The president's politically charged move to place the nonpartisan census process in the hands of his staff contradicts every pledge of openness he made on the campaign trail. While the White House continues to break promises for politics, I commend Sen. Gregg for acting with integrity. Sen. Gregg has shown the American people the type of selfless leadership they should only hope to see from the White House." Mahtesian also quoted House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) saying that "Sen. Gregg's decision reinforces suspicions about the stimulus bill and about moving the census from the Commerce Department to the White House." Additionally, Mahtesian reported that "by noting his differing view on the census, Gregg breathed life into Republican charges of a White House power grab over a critical Commerce Department function."
However, while Gregg stated in his February 12 press release that the census and the stimulus bill are "irresolvable conflicts for me," when asked during his February 12 press conference, "What role did issues with the census play?" Gregg responded: "The census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue." Subsequently, a reporter asked Gregg, "[C]an you just elaborate on the census as being an issue?" Gregg responded: "Well, I don't need to elaborate. I know it was a slight issue." A reporter then asked: "Well, what was the issue, from your perspective?" Gregg responded: "It wasn't a big enough issue for me to even discuss what the issue was."
Examples of media reporting that Gregg cited the census in withdrawing his bid for the commerce post without noting that Gregg said the census was "not a major issue" include the following:
- During the February 14 edition of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, host Scott Simon said of Gregg's withdrawal, "And what happened there? Stimulus package was involved, but -- ." NPR news analyst Juan Williams responded that "the stimulus package really was, I think, a backdrop because Judd Gregg initially recused himself from voting in the Senate as the nominee for that Cabinet post." Williams continued: "But then it came out that he not only was really concerned about the level of spending involved, but concerned about the fact that Commerce oversees the census, the census for 2010, and that the White House was saying, 'We're gonna oversee the census. Don't worry about Judd Gregg doing it.' Judd Gregg at one point had voted to do away with the Commerce Department position, has seen -- been seen as a critic of the census." Williams later added: "So, he felt, 'Look, if I'm not going to be a player in terms of the economic package,' because he doesn't fully believe it, and he's not going to be a player in terms of what's going on in the census, then why put on the uniform?"
- During the February 14 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Fredricka Whitfield said "In addition to the stimulus, Judd Gregg says, 'Wait a minute, I also have a problem with the issue of the Census Bureau going to the White House, as opposed to being under my authority in the Commerce Department if secretary.' " She then asked CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, "What's really at issue here? Why is that a big deal?" Schneider replied, in part: "Well, a lot of Republicans noticed that the White House had said that they wanted to have a connection, they wanted to at least supervise the census from 2010 or have some input in it. It comes under the Commerce Department. Judd Gregg in the past has been very critical of the census and, in fact, voted to cut its funding in the 1990s. Now, he would be in charge of it." He continued: "Republicans said if the White House exercises control of something like the census, which is supposed to be totally nonpartisan, they believe that puts -- makes bipartisanship look like a sham because if they want to control the census, they are politicizing it, and that means they want to kill us because these members of Congress live and die by what happens in the census."
- In a February 13 article, Washington Post staff writers Anne E. Kornblut and Michael D. Shear asserted that in withdrawing Gregg "cited concerns about Obama's economic recovery plan and the administration's intent to have the next census director report to senior White House officials as well as the commerce secretary." They also reported that "[i]n his statement, Gregg said that 'on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns.'"
- A February 13 Associated Press article, "Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee," reported that "Gregg cited 'irresolvable conflicts' with Obama's policies, specifically mentioning the $790 billion economic stimulus bill and 2010 census in a statement released without warning by his Senate office." The AP went on to note that "[i]n his statement, Gregg said his withdrawal had nothing to do with the vetting into his past that Cabinet officials routinely undergo. He told the AP he foresaw conflicts over health care, global warming and taxes. He also cited both the stimulus and the census as areas of disagreement with the administration."
As Media Matters for America documented, CNN national political correspondent Jessica Yellin previously described the census as one of "two big issues" leading to Gregg's withdrawal, ignoring Gregg's subsequent statement that it wasn't "a major issue" in his decision to withdraw.
From the February 14 edition of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday:
SIMON: Don't want to lose sight of the fact that President Obama lost another nominee for commerce secretary this week, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. And what happened there? Stimulus package was involved, but --
WILLIAMS: Well, the stimulus package really was, I think, a backdrop because Judd Gregg initially recused himself from voting in the Senate as the nominee for that Cabinet post. But then it came out that he not only was really concerned about the level of spending involved, but concerned about the fact that Commerce oversees the census, the census for 2010, and that the White House was saying, "We're gonna oversee the census. Don't worry about Judd Gregg doing it."
Judd Gregg at one point had voted to do away with the Commerce Department position, had seen -- been seen as a critic of the census. And the black caucus, Latino caucus in the Congress was very concerned about this caucus, having long feared that blacks and Latinos are undercounted. And they wanted to go to a system where you have more estimates taken of people in poor communities, disproportionately minority communities. And that's something that would not have happened under Judd Gregg.
So, he felt, "Look, if I'm not going to be a player in terms of the economic package," because he doesn't fully believe it, and he's not going to be a player in terms of what's going on in the census, then why put on the uniform?
From the February 14 edition of CNN Newsroom:
WHITFIELD: Well, how significant that at least there were three Republican senators, though, that did say, "You know what, we hear you, we agree with this plan, we do feel like it would work"?
SCHNEIDER: Well, that is an achievement. He had to have those three to overcome the threat or the reality of a filibuster in getting to 60 votes in the Senate. He got it, there was a lot of arm-twisting, and there were some accommodations that had to be made there. Susan Collins of Maine, her colleague Olympia -- Olivia Snowe of Maine, and her colleague Susan Collins of Maine both voted for the stimulus bill, as did Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. All three are moderate Republicans -- there are very few of those left. But by and large, the Republican Party held fast because they said, "Look, this bill is about how we define ourselves. It's a core principle," which happens to be exactly what Judd Gregg cited when he said he didn't think he could serve in President Obama's cabinet.
WHITFIELD: In fact, let's elaborate a little bit more on him. In addition to the stimulus, Judd Gregg says, "Wait a minute, I also have a problem with the issue of the Census Bureau going to the White House, as opposed to being under my authority in the Commerce Department if secretary." What's really at issue here? Why is that a big deal?
SCHNEIDER: Well, a lot of Republicans noticed that the White House had said that they wanted to have a connection, they wanted to at least supervise the census from 2010 or have some input in it. It comes under the Commerce Department. Judd Gregg in the past has been very critical of the census and, in fact, voted to cut its funding in the 1990s. Now, he would be in charge of it, and the White House was worried about that. A lot of minority groups, minority members of Congress were worried because they are concerned about undercounting of minorities. And Republicans said if the White House exercises control of something like the census, which is supposed to be totally nonpartisan, they believe that puts -- makes bipartisanship look like a sham because if they want to control the census, they are politicizing it, and that means they want to kill us because these members of Congress live and die by what happens in the census.
They are all MIND READERS! Regardless of what Greg said, they all know the "INSIDE STORY"! PLEASE!
They've taken leave of their census...
Thanx Mary for another gem that I will steal, I mean borrow.
I wonder if philib gets that one. He may decide that it is not the Democrats census but the census of all people in America. Can't wait for him/her to chime in.
It's only a con census they are looking for.
Har.
Great way to start the week! Thanks for the laughs Mary and Oscar!
and it is so tiring for me to read you plugging for Dick. probably the most obtuse man in human history. well maybe after Stalin and Ghengis Khan. i mean you want a guy to be president who says torture is ok and it produces good info. keep plugging away and keep parroting your neo con talking points, and let the rest of the world got to work cleaning the damage your man has caused
Tiresome, yet you return every day and drone on and on.
Are you really that desperate for companionship?
I think it feeds his masochism.
Actually, truth telling is not one of Republican's major values. I mean if one listens to someone like Rush, Hannity etc, it is obvious that that same person has little consideration for the facts. Gregg himself in his farewell remarks stated that "I shoulod never have accepted the job". I take him at his word and respect him that he decided to get out before the senate hearings or after confirmation. Gregg's big differences were in the approach to the stimulus package as he clearly stated. But never expect Republicans to look at facts and go with them. They are like q bunch of gossiping old women. BTW I am a woman and till now, was a registered Republican. Far too much hate filled Republican partisanship after their dismal record of being in charge of the government and getting us in this horrible mess in the first place. Soooo I just had to leave and becomde a Democrat. Considering the muck in the Republican Party these days, it was a very easy decision!!!!!
Gregg accepted the nomination AFTER the intial House vote on the stimulus and during Senate consderation. That was BEFORE the census deal. Put 2-and-2 together.
Obviously with that faulty logic you've been a Dem a long time.
I'm sure you listen to a lot of Rush and Hannity as that garbage about "I am a Republican, but" is known as a seminar call...i.e. LIAR
That would make you a "sunshine soldier" mari. No backbone or conviction. The democrat party if full of "loyal" individuals like yourself, that's what makes them what they are today. Liberal idealists who's values mar the surface of most critical issues, then, when public sentiment shifts, they marginalize their fluid position and make "necessary" changes, for the good of all.You made the right choice, mari. The Republican party doesn't need or want fairweather ner-do-wells.
And how many of your Republican pals even know what "ner-do wells" are?
To them fluid position is what they check with their dipsticks.
So sad, you attack people who out of their CONVICTIONS switch parties. Blind loyalty is what you seem to want.
By the way, here's a critical issue for you: I was the housemother for a women's homeless shelter for 9 months, as well as working with homeless and poor for many years. I do know about this population. Many of them are mentally ill and/or emotionally damaged from years of abuse in childhood. Yes, there are con artists and bums too. Most "liberals" want to look realistically at the problems of poverty instead of use the Ebenezer Scrooge method of not dealing with it. Then there are the working poor... We have homeless people who have worked all their lives, but lost everything because someone in their family got sick.
Mary,
Just what convictions is mari proclaiming that caused her to switch?
ps. I applaud your sense of caring for the homeless. You say there are those who are mentally ill, emotionally damaged, con artists and bums. With limited resources, how do you determine which are which?
Personally, I am all for homeless shelters. I read recently that here locally, (if I remember correctly,) the average stay is around four months.
ps. What do you think about the information that has come out regarding Henrietta Hughes and son who seemingly have been on various public assistance for years.
Maybe you should ask Mari but this is what she wrote:"... BTW I am a woman and till now, was a registered Republican. Far too much hate filled Republican partisanship after their dismal record of being in charge of the government and getting us in this horrible mess in the first place. Soooo I just had to leave and becomde a Democrat. Considering the muck in the Republican Party these days, it was a very easy decision!!!!!"
congero,
I did read that by mari... Of course anyone can switch parties at any time for any reason. So mari's reasons are good enough for her, that is fine with me. I am simply curious as to what principles Mary thinks are involved.
Of course if mari wants to chime in with what she feels are the principles involved, that would be fine too.
"ps. What do you think about the information that has come out regarding Henrietta Hughes and son who seemingly have been on various public assistance for years." - anotheramerican
I hope you're not going to try to put all people who receive government assistance in the same basket as a few who have been on "various public assistance for years." There is a difference. But if it were up to you Cons, you would cut government assistance to everyone who currently receives it, just to take it away from a few people who have taken advantage of the system.
You conservative idiots have no compassion for others. You're greedy, selfish and power-hungry.
Blind loyalty is what democrats are all about. Not one spineless democrat voted against the stimulus pork bill. Not one! Are you telling me every democrat in Washington is soooo pleased with how the bill is crafted that they were compelled to vote for it after not reading the bill in earnest? You have the gall to talk about blind loyalty after what happened this week in washington.
I, too, understand the plight of the homeless and mentaly ill. My son, 28, was a supervisor for opportunity village here in Las Vegas and had first hand knowledge he shared with me. The homeless population in Vegas is a complex issue but passing it off as an "Ebeneezer Scrooge" effort by republicans is callous and innacurate. You can have all of the best intentions in the world toward the homeless, as I am certain you do, but that will do little considering the scope and depth. Many are quite violent and the police have their hands full. Compassion is one thing but dealing with the homeless in Vegas is a dynamic problem few communities can appreciate. The families who have lost everything due to illness are few and far between and if they had "everything" as you said, they are likely to regain it if they have the fortitude that America provides. Whining, with your hand extended to Uncle Sam, never solves anything long term, just like trying to raise a spoiled child. Once pandora's box is open, it's hard to put that "stimulus" welfare check back in.
Um, actually, 7 Democrats in the House voted against it.
With the exception of 3 Republican senators, it seems to me that the GOP is all on an Oxy trip and is exercising blind loyalty to Rush Limbaugh.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041/page/2/
Page 2
The drug references to Limbaugh are tired and worn out. Get some new material. Did 7 democrats vote against the bill or just present and who were these 7 valiant souls?
look below and i just gave you one of them
The drug references are not tired and worn out. As long as your drugpig Limbaugh continues to abuse drugs but call for punishment for those (other than himself) who abuse drugs, he is fair game. He's a hypocrite, just like you.
ah there is where you are slightly wrong. no Senate Dems voted against. but there were about a dozen House Dems who did, including my own Rep Paul Kanjorski
Let's see, sigtek, your team(the repubs) have lost the last two rounds in elections. You people are listening to a RADIO ANNOUNCER FOR ADVICE! An UNEDUCATED COLLEGE DROP OUT with NO CREDIBILITY! I will admit, he is entertaining! You people condemn drug addicts and then you follow one's directions on how to be a Conservative.....then you tell a person "Good Riddence", our party does not need you!!! Are You Insane?
you people condemn drug addicts and then follow one's directions on how to be a conservative. coachslife3331. This is about the 10,000 reference to Limbaugh and how all of us republicans follow his marching orders. You and the other s repeating this mantra sound like pull string dolls. Talk about "marching orders" and talking points. And the drug references. Hmmmmmm, sounds like maybe George Soros is commanding and dictating talking points to MMFA's "loyal lemmings".
well there is a reason because it seems every neo con out there is saying the near same thing.
and as to the drug references well.....there is a point, Rush Limbaugh seems to be spearheading the neo con movement, and it seems the neo con house and senate members are parroting him.
and the reason i say neo con and not republican is because im a republican but do not in any way agree with what my "party" is doing so i dont refer to them as "republicans" but neo cons instead.
I don't agree with everything the republicans do or say either and there is the difference between me and the lemming liberals who devoutly mimic Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Reid and their hand puppet Obamanocchio.
You lost the election. Get over it.
It all boils down to you crybabies losing the election. WAAAAAHHHHH!!!
Too f**kin' bad for you, isn't it?
Better use "The Google" again and bone up on your "neo-con" definition. Rush may agree with some of the dogma, but a NC he isn't.
In fact if you listen he's been at odd's with the real neocons for many years now.
Yeah! And the Republican Party will keep getting rid of those fairweather ner-do-wells until there aren't any left! Have fun winning Utah sigtek!
"Actually, truth telling is not one of Republican's major values"
And this is coming from someone who supports people who don't pay their taxes and cites Turbo Tax screwed it up
Huh? How do you know who mari2jj2970 supports? When Dems make mistakes like those you've mentioned above, members of the democratic party, for the most part, like to see justice done. Dems don't let our representatives off the hook when they're caught doing drugs, selling drugs, molesting children, and flubbing their taxes. Cons do that.
If all you have are 'tax issues' which have been properly paid (albeit late and with penalty), then you really don't have much, especially when the criminal Bush administration gave tons of our tax money to those who already have plenty.
Nice try, though.
considering you don't even realize it was a democrat controlled congress that finally fired the sinking shot onto the banking industry something that a democrat president began a.k.a Bill Clinton and then looking at your spelling I seriously doubt you have ever voted for a Republican candidate before.
the sinking shot would imply that it was the final round....and how many rounds before were fired by a neo con controlled congress and president. what just because democrats fired the last round they are responsible for the sinking?
Actually, it took a democratIC controlled congress to figure out what the hell was going on because of Republicans' lack of oversight and restraint. Lack of regulation is the problem here - and Republicans have their names written all over this mess.
I guess Barney, Chris and Franklin didn't have a THING to do with it did they? They were busy doing the lords work out there:
Dems complicit in the mess
I'd say Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest contributers to this mess, dating all the way back to Reagan's terms. He's a fraud, blinded by ideology. The biggest fraud of all is deregulation of markets and regressive taxation, which has brought stagflation and debt for the past 25 plus years.
Point on with Greenspan. I disagree with your stagflation (the latest "scare" word, as in 70's style is coming back...it is not) quote. Inflation decreased over the 80's, 90's and even in the early 2000's and didn't rise until '05.
You can't have the Stag without high inflation.
Commrades... Census, schensus... We'll make up numbers anyway.
Besides commrades, look to our glorious future here in the USSA!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_referendum_28
PC, what on earth does that have to do with the USA? Who is talking about overturning Presidential term limits?
Just conservative humor...It takes a special understanding of the world to understand the humor of a proudconservative. Besides, the Unrepentent Sexual Harrasser Quinn and the phony Christian Radio Rose probably taked about this today. PC, go Pens and their new head coach.
I'm not sure if it's humor, or just another example of how that wingnut rudimentary brain stem works.
Rush & Hannity & the other GOP infomercial spokeszombies shriek "Socialism!" all day, every day, for a few months.
The slack-jawed dittoheads find the word "socialism" in an article about Hugo Chavez (ok, they probably don't "find" it, they're directed there).
The handful of remaining brain cells sparkle and fizz to predict a dictatorship in the U.S. based entirely on the faulty info. they've taken in.
Maybe extreme conservative thinking is all humor, it's just unique in that those making the jokes aren't in on the jokes.
It's just more bang for the buck, Col. The language used and the sentiments presented are hyped because thats what we conservatives and all Americans are used to. The day I picked up my first U.S.A. today, some twenty years ago, I thought to myself, this is the end to meaningful news and a new era of soundbites as real news. This is the world we live in now, "you bad me good" kinda nonsense. Barbs are thrown, recieved and thrown back. I do it, you do it, we all do it. It's pathetic and pointless but makes for good posting. When we get back to basic who what when where and why and responsible for what we say and print, then, maybe, this trading of insults, disguised as dialogue, will stop. Until then, it is do as the Romans do.
Did my last remaining handful of brain cells fail me or did I see demorats put up the first brick in the wall?
Brick #1 = Silence the opposition: Demorats call for "Fairness Doctrine"
Another demorat screeching for the FD
Now I find it interesting that they are only calling for the FD as it would apply to talk radio (where conservatives have a huge advantage) and not to newsprint, tv or god forbid the internets.
Bring it on dims. This one will bite you in the keester!
Commrade,
The extra 'S' is the S-word, the one of which we dare not speak. It's about that and more of the triumphant people's revolution.
Look at how Venezuela, guided by the gentle hand of its cherished leader, was able to nationalize the media and make certain that messages resisting his wisdom were silenced. He had to win to keep the people's revolution protected from the villianous bourgeoise! May it gloriously arrive fully at our shores, here in the USSA quickly!
...was able to nationalize the media and make certain that messages resisting his wisdom were silenced. - proudcon
You can of course cite something to back this up? I mean, I do think the prez. of Venezuela suspended the license of a private broadcaster that participated in an attempted coup of a democratically elected government. Is that what you are referring to?
I'm waiting with you, OB, for a response from proudidiot.
Somehow, I don't think we'll get an answer (well, I don't think we'll get an honest answer, anyway).
I'll help him out.
Chavez shuts down opposition media
As for the attempted coup, there were several media outlets that supported it, not just this one. They happened to be one of the largest though.
Now OB, can cite something to back up that this was anything other than a marxist power grab?
Danny Glover's hero, Hugo, just achieved it in Venezuela. The Hollywood liberals will be clamoring for the same in America in a matter of days or weeks. Mark my word. Michael Moore's next movie is likely to be entitled, "Bowling for Obama in 2016- a Rock Opera".
Yes, and we all know Danny Glover is the puppetmaster behind American politics. Whatever he wants, America gets.
First we would actually have to see some support for unlimited terms of office. Then we would have to see there actually be some consideration of the idea. Otherwise you and PC are just wetting your beds over nothing.
Patience, grasshopper.
Remember, you guys were pushing for it for Reagan, and that didn't go anywhere. I doubt anyone within the system is going to seriously give it the time of day, because overturning that amendment would be virtually impossible. So if it's just some Hollywood liberals talking about it, then how does that lead to "our glorious future" in this country?
Because stretch Pelosi is a Hollywood liberal and she's running the show right now.
Hollywood is in Los Angeles. Pelosi's district is in San Francisco.
Normally "Hollywood liberal" refers to people who actually work in the film industry, actors, directors, etc.
The Hollywood liberals
LOL!
......circa 1965! How 'bout a photo of bondaged slaves with a caption, "Today's struggling middle class"---that would make as much sense.
I know you don't like it, but Hollywood is a mix of liberal/conservative, just like anywhere else. Pearlene, love this pic. He did some of his best acting as president.
"The extra 'S' is the S-word, the one of which we dare not speak. It's about that and more of the triumphant people's revolution."
I know what the extra "S" stood for. I refer to the United States of America, because that's what it is.
"Look at how Venezuela, guided by the gentle hand of its cherished leader, was able to nationalize the media and make certain that messages resisting his wisdom were silenced. He had to win to keep the people's revolution protected from the villianous bourgeoise! May it gloriously arrive fully at our shores, here in the USSA quickly!"
Right, because there hasn't been any questioning of Obama in the media. Nobody's talking about nationalizing the media, or creating a dictator, or anything of the like. If you have a concern rooted in reality, by all means share it.
Fellow proletarians old ben and brabann,
Understand that the politburo is working right now to allow for the rise of pravda-like carriers of truth to take back our airwaves and the need for the masses to struggle with the conventions of an unseemly message. Commrade Chavez has shown us the way!
The bourgeoise tyrannts hide behind freedom of the press but wait until we restore our beloved 'fairness doctrine' to make certain that only our truth is put before the masses. No longer will we have to accept their putrid attempts to bring debate into an arena where ideas have already 'settled'.
Life to the Revolution!
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."
Quote by: Norman Thomas Six time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America and a founding member of the aclu.
And who's talking about the Fairness Doctrine, besides paranoid right-wingers? You can fantasize about socialism all you like, but you should realize that nobody's espousing that, nothing that's being done is leading up to that, and by fixating on it you look like an ass. Please make an effort to talk about what's actually going on like a rational adult.
Never heard "brabann" before. Is that how you read my name?
Fellow Comrade Brabantio,
Those capitalist dogs! They misused my keyboard and caused me to commit a Sandy Berger-like technical oversight while I stuffed the proper spelling of your name in my socks and pants. Viva la Revolucion!
As far as the fairness doctrine resurfacing, several of our fellow revolutionary brothers and sisters are taking the fight to the pigs who spew counter-revolutionary venom while claiming their right to freedom of speech. The first amendment is nothing more than a bourgoise plot to inflame the masses with unnecessary and distracting information that will only serve their decadent ends of disrupting the progress of our people's revolution!
Here are several examples of how Party members are striking back at those who would deter us with useless public debate:
Comrade in arms Bill Clinton:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Clinton_wants_more_balance_on_the_airwaves.html
Sister in our struggle Senator Deb Stabenow (Don't worry that her husband was CEO of air america)
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2448
And, leader of the proletariat from Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html
Fight the good fight comrades!
Three people! That's simply overwhelming. So nobody's brought this to the table, but if two Senators and a former President think it's a good idea, then it's practically law already.
Incidentally, it doesn't violate the First Amendment. Rebuttals don't take away anyone's right to speak, and anything that goes out over public airwaves can be moderated by government anyway.
Brother in Our People's Struggle,
Counter revolutionaries would rather not have it brought to the masses' attention at all. Imagine the chaos if our comrades had to constantly hear about the minor mistakes of our glorious leaders, their oversight in paying taxes, disregarding their own CO2 increasing behavior as they struggle to inform the oppressed underclass of global warming while they tirelesly travel the world in their private jets and SUV's, or in giving false testimony before the Illinois state legislature. Holding esteemed members of our revolution personally accoutable for their actions and words is beneath them and only serves to hinder our goal of destroying the capitalistic pigs. Remember, we are the Party of 'the ends justify the means, comrade'.
Comrade you unfortunately maybe correct about so few placing the politburo's 'Fairness Doctrine Surge' in the war against the souless bourgoise-remmants. We remember what happened when just a few puppets of ruling class attempted to undermine our efforts to protect and enlarge our stake in fannie mae and freddie mac. Our standard bearers of socialism stood against individual accoutablity and would not be detered by so few attempting to stop the power of our revolution's ability to move our glorious ideals forward and without proper oversight and regulation! The people and our struggle were victorious in preventing any unnecessary intrusion into those financial instituitions and its assistance to the masses. We must, however, give our glorious leaders of the struggle, more opportunities to seek support for the Party's 'Fairness Doctrine Surge'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Regarding the improper use of this perverted notion of the first amendment, our struggle and comrades in arms must make the masses understand the danger in believing that having the right to speak has nothing to do with a 'right to be heard'. We will say we believe in fair speech but must remove free choice of listening to 'unsavory' messages by demanding that our less appealing and truthful messages be presented and heard because it is in the best interest of our struggle to ease the beleaguered classes confusion of what information they might believe. The power of free speech for us is demanding the listening ear of the masses. It is only through our compassion that masses can see how taking choice away from what they hear, by making counter-revolutionary sentiments inaccessible, is truly making their class struggle disappear!
But, remember not to accept what we, the Party, told those religious zealots when they complained about language and content of TV programs. We told them to choose to watch something else if they didn't like it. Free choice of listening to counter-revolutionary ideas wiii harm our struggle and must be stopped!
Power to Our Cause!
Nobody's advocating that people shouldn't be held accountable, either. Burris should be removed, if things stand as they appear, for instance.
The fairness doctrine does not prevent anything from being heard. You can say what you want, it just allows for correction. Why someone who seems to believe that the media is full of biased liberals wouldn't want such a measure is hard to fathom.
Again, there is no first amendment issue here. If you want to claim otherwise, make a serious argument instead of acting like a child.
Comrade,
Why stop the Fairness Doctrine Surge?
Anti-revolutionaries seem to think that liberal and progressive talk should not be inhibited, just competed against in the arena of ideas. However, those who complain loudest are the voices that speak against the vile Fox news and hated talk radio, because the proletariat is deceived by their lies and hate. Now a state bailed-out NBC is a different matter and certainly would not be beholding to government censureship, would it?
Let's agree that the free talk and thinking of the imperialists on talk radio and Fox TV should be stopped because they are insurgents against the people's revolution! Let us set up a 'committee of the people' to say what is fair and balanced! Agreed? Let's take away the option of freedom to listen as an individual decision! Correct? Let's limit the power of individual liberty because as a tool of the failed capitalist system, the Party knows was is best for the individual.
Does it really need to determined that FOX is not "fair and balanced"? If members of your party can't sustain their own belief system without a continuous stream of misinformation supporting it, then why should it survive? The purpose of news is to inform, not propagate, and not to serve as an ideological babysitter for immature points of view. Surely you don't believe your party really needs such a crutch, as proud as you are of your ideology.
People should be accurately informed. It's really just that simple. If that concept worries you, then that says more about you than the people who want the accuracy.
Fellow fighter against imperialism,
I stated, Anti-revolutionaries seem to think that liberal and progressive talk should not be inhibited, just competed against in the arena of ideas.
I do not recall any of the right-winged tyrannts asking to limit the people's access to the airwaves, do you comrade?
But if we follow their decadent logic, then fair and balanced is fully unnecessary and then beyond the bounds of the state's ability to properly manage free speech or rather freedom to choose to listen or not! It is up to the party committee to determine accuracy.
Nobody's talking about limited access to airwaves. If you think accuracy inhibits your abilities to get your message across, then your message is dishonest.
Combatant in the people's struggle,
If accuracy is the issue that the slave-owning framers of the descredited constitution wanted to make, then why is nothing about that in the document? Possibly, they didn't want a third party deciding what appropriate speech was? Maybe they wanted 'the press' to be unencumbered by the government nor the people be allowed to only listen to 'acceptable' speech, ie, something the state would determine?
Nyet, I say!
If only those tyrannts had seen the wisdom of keeping that out of the individual's hands and protect them from unseemly debate and free expression of ideas in both the speaking and listening of speech. The failure of liberty to free the people by believing that individuals were best suited to make their own decisions! Our revolution lifts that burden from the people!
Do you even know what you're babbling about? I didn't say anything about "accuracy" being in the Constitution, and I don't see the relevance there. I'm not sure where you got "acceptable" from. You still have your First Amendment rights, you still have free expression of ideas. And it works both ways. If you think the media is liberal, then you can keep them honest, right?
So what's the problem? Even if there were more than three people talking about this, no honest media member would have anything to worry about.
Keep up with the communist nonsense, it reveals how desperate and unhinged you've become with your party lost in the wilderness.
Can you explain how wanting more balance and a fair hearing of views is against the 1st admendment?
Comrade!
Remember, the constitution presently allows for the capitalist dogs to spew their hatred for the People's Revolution. And since we are not interested in competing for the minds and hearts of the masses on ideas alone, our Glorious Struggle must make certain that our revolutionary message is heard equally to the decadent musings of the puppets of western thought, even though the proletariat has chosen to listen to their lies instead of our own.
Our revolution must fight the notion that freedom of speech means freedom to choose what you hear!
Viva la 'Fairness Doctrine Surge'
I repeat my question: Can you explain how wanting more balance and a fair hearing of views is against the 1st admendment? I"ll ad one: Who is advocating limiting free speech? I'll take your constant rantings of "socialism" as weak attempts at humor.
Oh contrarie my partner in the people's struggle,
The important thing is to make certain that the state determines, via the Fairness Doctrine Surge, what is the fair hearing of views. The first amendment is about freedom of speech which is fine as long as the beneficent leaders of our cause are able to help with the choosing of that speech; its form, methods of dispersment, amount permitted as well as the content.
Why should we force the masses to make individual choices on what they say or what they choose to listen to? With the Fairness Doctrine Surge, no longer will the people struggle with confusing concepts of accuracy, balance, fairness, openness and freedom, rather we, the state, will compassionately make those choices for them.
If comrade you are finding the socialism as weak attempts at humor, that is fine. Understand that the steps being taken now in this country as I have outlined here, only bring it closer to utopia, the USSA!
You crack me up with your foolishness:http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/republican-meeting-open/1018742/
Hey, I found another one of your comrades:
In a gloomy segment about the financial sector on ABC'S This Week, two self-avowed fiscal conservatives said that the U.S. Government should at least consider nationalizing the country's banking system as a means of moving beyond the current lending crisis.
"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks." How does this fit into Obama's a socialist BS?!?!?
Of course when socialism is of benefit, conservatives flock to it like pigeons on bread crumbs.
Otherwise, socialism is (to the conservatives) the slippery slope to totalitarian communism.
Whatever wingnuts. You cons should crawl back under your rocks until the next election. Maybe you can run someone electable next time.
Look at my links about 15 posts above this. That's who's talking bout the FD...If my eyes aren't failing me they have a (D) after their names.
Nationalizing the banks is just one example. How far with Barry go with it?
You're late to the conversation. I already know about Harkin and Stabenow. With your other link, that's three or four (I don't open video unless necessary). Is that supposed to be a movement, or something? Does it indicate that Congress is poised to act on this?
Notice the quote above. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, is calling for the nationalization of banks. Again, when socialism suits conservatives, it's just fine. Otherwise, it's the bogey-man.
Conservatives like to use the big bad scary 'S' word when it suits them, when it gins up support within their party, when they can use it to be devisive. But when it suits them, especially the rich, socialism is the way to go.
You cons are hypocrites, pure and simple.
So you lied about Chavez nationalizing the media just to make a silly non-point? Doesn't seem very productive. Your corporate overlords will not be pleased.
Young Leader of the Opressed,
Look at the misuse of events in the lies written by this reckless anti-revolutionary propaganda tool, YAHOO. How dare they diminish the victory of our esteemed colleague in the People's struggle?
By even stating that he forced state run media outlets to print or broadcast his speeches shows the decadence as puppets of the free market. And why shouldn't workers for the state be strongly and vociferously encouraged to get the vote out for Brother Chavez and his socialist love for the people? And do not question his compassionate desire to remove voices fighting against our revolution by speaking for the people and possible securing the enemies in facilities where they can be rehabilitated?
From the article @ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/56907.html
Chavez has called for an investigation of Globovision, a cable television station that highlights his government's shortcomings. A government prosecutor has accused the newly elected opposition mayor of Maracaibo of corruption. The government has taken control of dozens of public schools and hospitals away from newly elected opposition mayors and governors.
On Monday, the National Guard prevented the Caracas City Council from meeting under its new opposition mayor.
And from the article above @ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_referendum_28
CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez says a referendum victory that removed limits on his re-election is a mandate to intensify his socialist agenda for decades to come. Opponents warn of an impending dictatorship.
At their campaign headquarters, Chavez opponents hugged one another, and some cried. They said the results were skewed by Chavez's broad use of state resources to get out the vote, through a battery of state-run news media, pressure on 2 million public employees and frequent presidential speeches which all television stations were required to air.
With the courts, the legislature and the election council all under his influence, and now with no limits on his re-election, officials say Chavez is virtually unstoppable.
"Effectively this will become a dictatorship," opposition leader Omar Barboza told The Associated Press. "It's control of all the powers, lack of separation of powers, unscrupulous use of state resources, persecution of adversaries."
Comrade, Continue to Fight the Imperialist Machine!
Your childish, stop playing with yourself. TOOO funny!
Got it. You lied about Chavez nationalizing the Venuzualan media, carry on.
Of course, the imperialist dogs cannot say that we in anyway influenced the election. Our cause is too just and pure to say anything else.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/14/venezuela.chavez.expelled.dictator/index.html#cnnSTCText
Conservatives are becoming more and more irrational because they know that their failed message isn't converting anyone anymore. They realize that no matter what they do, the next election or two will belong to the democrats.
Cons make a habit of lying about anything that they think will help them gain control again. And once they get control again, they'll f**k up the U.S. again...all in the name of Cons in control.
YEP I agree. They have thrown any facade of rationality out the window and have sucumbed totally to anger and lies. Their acting like a angry rejected lover,spitting venom that only makes them more unattractive. Their seeing red and stooping so low a worm couldn't crawl under them.
peace,
Rather than no proof, perhaps you should investigate a bit more before engaging in conspiracy theories. I posted last week that the NYT reported that Harry Reid suggested Gregg for the post.
"Reportedly, it was Harry Reid, a friend of Gregg's from their service in the Senate, who first proposed Gregg's name to Obama. Reid no doubt expected to gain a 60th Democratic Senate seat from New Hampshire's governor, apparently unaware that that governor, Democrat John Lynch, is not exactly known for excessive partisanship."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/3/9132/72686/218/692369
ps. In your view, how did the Republican Party abandon you?
ps. In your view, how did the Republican Party abandon you?
by deciding that they wanted to rule the world by going to war for no good reason
Just as I thought.
I find your reasoning for abandoning the Republican Party based on emotion and not really a serious examination of Republican Party positions.
So with reasons such as you posted, there is no doubt in my mind you will fit in very nicely with the Democrats.
first off, you know nothing about me or my politics. i gave alot of thought before i left the republican party. the arguement for empire from the cons is based on lies. maybe you should go back and check the history of the republican party. they were supposed to be the party that opposed empire. turns out thats not the case.
as for the 2nd part of your post. what proof can you offer to show that the admisistration is not being honest about the gregg appointment?.
if you believe that it is spin just because it's the obama administration then your mind is completely closed and no further discussion is required
I find your reasoning to be based on an emotional connection to your ideology.
Who the hell do you think you are to judge anyone? Your party made a disastrous decision with Bush, not just nominating him in the first place but by defending him every step of the way. Now you get to live with the results. Quit crying about the fact that some people think for themselves instead of swallowing the garbage their party tried to shove down their throats for eight long years.
well the going to war for no good reason i thought was a pretty damn good one. i mean we got lied into fighting in iraq......no one can dispute that, despite what Dick is now saying.
your right, i did do some research and it turns out gregg approached the administration. at least accoring to the white house
http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblog/2009/02/12/6661/breaking_judd_gregg_withdraws_from_commerce_nomination
Peace,
It seems to me that the White House is spinning because of the embarrassment caused by Gregg backing out of the job. Your blog link does not include anything about Harry Reid. I find that rather telling.
Got some proof of that? Just because 'it seems to you...' doesn't make it true.
All reports state that Gregg approached the administration for a cabinet position. Being true to his promise to work in a bi-partisan manner, Obama nominated Gregg.
Later, Gregg pulls out of the nomination.
Too bad your father didn't pull out.
AA, I thought that Gregg had a deal with the Governor who would appoint a Republican if Gregg accepted the position. Seems reasonable based on a governor who is"not exactly known for excessive paritsanship".
The Republican Party didn't abandon anyone...It was hijacked by the Cons because the Cons don't have the balls to start their own party.
pow,
I don't doubt that your first sentence is correct. I never argued otherwise.
With regards to your second sentence. High on snarkiness, low on facts. You and peace should get along swimmingly. :-) Thanks for the laugh.
It wasn't a "major" issue, MMFA but it was an issue nonetheless, no matter how you spin it.
Presenting facts is not spinning. MMFA presented what Gregg himself said, you and other conservatives here seem to know more than the man himself, speculating but not presenting facts to back it up. What is your point anyway? GHW Bush nominated the head of his presidential campaign to run the Commerce Dept., as did Bill Clinton as I recall. So what is your point? Like I posted earlier you cons are sounding more and more irrational and childish in your attempt to trash this president, and now your trying to peddle this line that somehow Greggs is hiding his "real" reason for withdrawing his name for consideration is because he wants to what?...save the president embarassment or what???
Don't let facts get in your way chucko:"...UpdateGregg tells Politico: "I couldn’t be Judd Gregg and serve in the Cabinet. I should have faced up to the reality of that earlier." Gregg also said that "the Census was not a major factor in his decision – that the bigger factors were his background as a fiscal conservative and independence." Those are his words but i guess you conservatives have added mind reading to your skills....
Yeah, and he also said that he respected Obama.
All these politicians do the same thing, don't they?
NO!NO!NO! The evil liberal media is just downplaying his words, like always! The right wing knows everything, especially what other people are thinking.