HR1 House Republican "No" Vote: Principled Opposition or Negotiating Tactic?

I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that ALL of the House Republicans voted "NO" on the "Stimulus" Package and I'm working on thanking them via email and fax. But.....please pardon my suspicious nature. Along with many others, I've seen this movie before and sequels are rarely an improvement upon the original.

The original? First round vote on TARP. Those of us who were opposed from the start knew that all it would leave behind was scorched earth. Set in flames in its path were Constitutional principles, Capitalism, and the few remaining shreds of a decent legacy for Pres. Bush. Attached to his reputation was the future credibility of Republicans who would attempt to engage in defending free market principles.

Many of us who shut down the Capitol switchboard and website in unprecedented numbers to inform Congress of our opposition to the bill's passage were very heartened when the House voted the bill down. Just following the vote, House Republican leadership stepped in front of the cameras. It would seem reasonable and common sense to expect a shot across the bow of both George Bush and Congressional Democrats; a definitive statement, a line in the sand. These naive hopes soon evaporated like mist. Actually, we were all slapped in the face. And our faces are pretty swollen and sore after the last eight years.

Minority Leader Boehner and Congressman Cantor explained the reason for the bill's failure. Was it principled opposition to a damaging, massive spending bill? No! It pains me beyond imagining, but I actually, for once, found myself agreeing with Barney Frank. Apparently, Republican feelings were hurt. If only Nancy Pelosi had been nice. Her highly partisan speech given on the House floor moments before the vote was given the reason for the bill's failure. Pelosi's scary little show would have righteously diminished her if left alone. Cited as a rationale for voting against a damaging bill, I was left disgusted and disillusioned.

Unfortunately, lack of conviction by many politicians does NOT surprise me, but it was not unreasonable, under those very particular circumstances, to expect something different and something better. Literally everyone in front of a microphone and TV camera said the situation was unprecedented. The word "crisis" and phrase "Great Depression" were being used every few minutes at this point, but Nancy Pelosi and the Republican leadership's behavior was absolutely politics as usual.

For people who had just started paying attention or those not fully informed, it would have only been right to question whether or not the "crisis" was as serious as portrayed if Congress was behaving in the same manner as has become the custom.

Trouble is, the crisis was and is unprecedented. Anyone capable of doing a minimal amount of research can discover that the United States of America is in big trouble financially. That makes the infantile rantings of Pelosi and the impotent whining of Republican leadership even more despicable. It is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.

Knowing at the first round of votes on TARP that a real crisis did loom, the common sense, logical thinker must ask the following question: Was Republican leadership completely so totallyl ignorant of the facts or did they simply really care so little about the outcome that they were only out to play politics? Or, far worse, were they aware of the true circumstances and happy to engage in consolidating even more power into the Federal government? In other words, it was either incompetence, negligence, or a power grab.

Whatever the reasons, these maneuverings were used as a marginal negotiating tactic. But once the bill failed, the public had to be convinced. The media was only too happy to help. Coverage, including Fox News, became palpably and suddenly Orwellian. Everyone from Shepard Smith to Bill O'Reilly lectured viewers on how they just didn't "get it". Even Sean Hannity seemed muffled. The only person appearing clearly skeptical about TARP on the whole network was Neil Cavuto.

A few prominent voices on Conservative talk radio, namely Rush, Glenn Beck, and Mike Gallagher were unambiguously opposed. Outside of that venue, the message was clear: "Main Street doesn't want to bail out Wall Street" and the average citizen just "didn't get it".

Many Republicans and a few skittish Democrats, used their "no" votes, as noted, as a minimal negotiating tactic. Little changed in the bill (it only went up to $850 billion, that's all) and of course, it passed. (I'm still wondering how the manner in which the vote took place was constitutional, by the way. As a spending bill, it should have originated in the House. Since it failed in the House, how could it be moved on to the Senate?)

In any case, any Republican who voted for TARP, in either house of Congress, helped Barack Obama win the presidency, and castrated all Republicans for a long time to come. It is my concerted opinion that John McCain nailed his campaign's coffin shut, permanently, when he voted for that bill.

I realize that statement is virtually impossible to prove. But, let's look at it logically. Anyone in doubt that Republicans have been castrated need only watch a little TV. You don't need to go to MSNBC or any other left leaning network. Go to Fox News and watch a discussion as to what should be done about the current "stimulus" package. Anytime a Republican or Conservative mentions free market alternatives, uses the word Socialism to accurately describe what the "stimulus" package encompasses, and note the Leftist response.

Bob "the Heckler" Beckel throws out the name "George W. Bush" every time he's involved in a discussion of the subject. Nina Easton blurted out the same message with decent clarity the other evening on Hannity's show. Michael Steele tried to correct her, acknowledging that Republicans on Capitol Hill might have a difficult time making a free market argument, but grassroots Conservatives were always opposed. Such a statement only confirms the point. Republicans on the Hill, by participating in drafting the bill, rather than out and out opposing it, castrated themselves and seriously damaged the Republican brand.

To further make the point, all you have to do is look at voter turn out on election day. The word "apathetic" doesn't begin to cover it. Prior to the "bail out" any principled Conservative was going to have a difficult time, as McCain's mother put it, "holding their noses and voting for him."

Republicans, had a golden opportunity to turn the rapidly deteriorating situation around. Imagine if McCain and the vast majority of Republicans had stood together against George Bush and TARP. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of the public was opposed. It would have been Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, almost the entire Democratic Congress, and by default, even if he wouldn't commit, Barack Obama siding with George Bush. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Congressional Republicans would have been on the other side.

From a purely political perspective, I still scratch my head wondering what on earth Republicans thought they had to gain in aligning themselves with George Bush on the whole issue. Could there have been a lamer duck? His approval ratings were in the 20 percents.

Pelosi and Reid had handed Congressional Republicans a golden gift when they shut Republicans out of the negotiating process. Republicans could have stayed ten miles away from the infectious plague of a bill and claim no hand in it. John McCain was the Typhoid Mary of the day.

There is no proving, as I acknowledged, that I am right about how much the handling of TARP by Republicans damaged the party and its candidates. Of course no exit pollster asked anyone about the issue. One can, however, draw some logical conclusions by putting together the unprecedented number of phone calls and emails in opposition to TARP with the outcome of the overwhelming majority of votes on social issues in various states, answers to some actually pertinent questions from exit polls, studies of demographics of voter turnout, and the immutable fact that a large chunk of the electorate was woefully under-informed due to the "slobbering love affair" (hat tip to Bernie Goldberg) coverage of the media throughout the election cycle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the following conclusions from the above information: America is still a traditional, "center-right" country. Typically conservative voters largely stayed home. People, regardless of party voted by in support of traditional values, even if they had to "split their ticket" to do so. Those questioned about the RNC clearly sent the message that the Republican party is not too conservative and the party had lost its way. Only a small percentage of people describe themselves as "liberal". Finally, can anyone actually doubt that the electorate was woefully mis or under informed?

I wish I could pick the brains of large numbers of Conservatives. How many of them actually voted for Barack Obama because they wanted to send a message to the Republican party and in the hopes he would be Jimmy Carter 2.0, thereby bringing forth the next Ronald Reagan? I actually seriously considered doing so myself. The prospect of voting for John McCain made me want to hurl. It was only when I spent hours reading about Obama's background, including the topic of Black Liberation Theology and Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals that I firmly decided that I really had to vote for John McCain. I know I am not so unique that I could be the only Conservative who considered giving the Republican party a clear message and force it to reset.

Despite what I and the others in the 46% decided, there's no getting around that all of the above adds up to a clear message for the Republican party: You've screwed up.

Knowing these facts it would seem that the concept of common sense began to be violated about a nano second after the election. What were the obvious moves that should have been made by the party? Every last member of leadership should have resigned. It would have been a clear sign that the party as a whole understood they no longer had credibility.

But what actually happened? The only change I noted was Roy Blunt resigned and John Boehner did a very serious tap dance. It didn't impress me. I honestly don't give a flying fig how wonderful John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are as men. After TARP, they don't have a shred of credibility. Sen. McConnell, in particular, is just pathetic, as evidenced by his recent behavior and statements. If the party is to have any hopes of surviving, McConnell should be replaced, right now.

I truly appreciate that all of the Republicans in the House voted "NO" on HR1, what Rush so aptly calls "Porkulus". But, again, going back to where this started, what reason on earth do any of us have to believe its not just another negotiating ploy?

Republicans have literally, nothing to gain from "negotiating" with the Democrats on this bill. Let Democrats pass it on their own. Let them take the responsibility for fulling campaign promises and saddling generations to come with unfathomable debt.

To stand against the bill is not obstructionist. It's not saying "no"'; it's saying "YES" to the free market, "yes" to sound budgetary practices, and "yes" our children can have future. It's the only right thing to do.

Unless that bill contains genuine tax cuts for actual taxpayers, a reduction in the corporate rates, unless it has spending cuts, and government hiring freezes, it's going to hurt the country, not help it.

We will all be watching to see whether the Republican party decides to commit suicide. Let's help them all stay alive and develop spines by thanking the House members for voting "No" and writing and phoning Senators to tell them to do the same.

Read More......

Fox's O'Reilly Can't Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer "Doesn't Care" About the "Fairness Doctrine"?

Fox's Griff Jenkin's played "chase the politicians" on Capitol Hill Thursday for Bill O'Reilly. As much fun as it was to watch Chuck Schumer speedwalking down a Washington corridor, there was more information available. Why does O'Reilly tell only part of the story? Are we too dense to pay attention long enough?

On Thursday's O'Reilly Factor, the "No-Spin master" did another half story on an issue. I'm becoming more convinced than ever, that either Bill thinks his viewers have the attention spans of gnats, or he has one of the worst research teams in the media business, who don't even seem to know how to use the internet.

In any case, the half story this evening regarded the Conservative Speech Suppression (aka "Fairness") Doctrine. He sent reporter Griff Jenkins, to Capitol Hill to do one of those amusing deer-caught-in-the-headlights segments where a reporter chases politicians or other miscreants with a bright light and tries to stick a microphone in their faces whilst they proceed to look like the speedwalker in the banned Mr. T Snickers commercial.

Griff's mission was to question lawmakers about their position on the Doctrine. During Mr. Bill's "Talking Points Memo" the audience was treated to the surgically frozen smile of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The second lawmaker to be questioned, and to his credit, the only one of the three who actually stood still, was New Mexico Senator Ted Bingham.

Sen. Schumer of New York, was the third "contestant" and the one which most reminded me of the speedwalker. It's just too bad Griff hadn't brought along the tank, the Snickers, or, Mr. T.

Ok, let's just pause a second an enjoy the visual on that one. [Pausing....visualizing....] Who among us wouldn't love to watch Mr. T machine gun Chuckie Schumer with Snickers bars?

I can't embed the O'Reilly video here, but "Talking Points" is the default listing that comes up on the O'Reilly portion of the Fox site. Click the title for the November 20 "Talking Points Memo" 'Will Fairness Doctrine be reimposed?'

Of course the "Fairness" Doctrine is an important issue and the comments and reaction to reporters' questions on the issue are interesting and informative viewing.

But, as has become obvious to me, and perhaps I'm just slow-witted or too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it seems that Bill O'Reilly only tells part of most important stories.

Towards the end of his "Memo" O'Reilly commented that he spoke with Schumer sometime after Grif attempted to speak with him on Thursday afternoon, and Schumer said he "didn't care about the issue, nor should he". O'Reilly labeled this response as "a ruse".

According to Merriam-Webster online:
ruse (noun): a wily subterfuge

Is anyone else tired of tap-dancing? Mr. Schumer's statements to Bill were neither a "subterfuge" nor "wily".

Let us call things what they actually are. When a feathered, beaked creature quacks, we call it a duck. When someone says something that is not true, we call it a lie.

And Chuckie Schumer did lie. On November 4, Election Day, on Foxs News Channel, Schumer equated talk radio with pornography. Perhaps after the imbecility of those comments, the estimable Mr. Schumer decided he'd better stop "caring" about the Fairness Doctrine, really quickly. He is right about one thing (kind of like a broken clock, it is accidentally right twice day) he shouldn't care.

As if the pornography analogy were not enough, Chuckie has additional reason to continue to distance himself from the issue. Apparently he's taking heat from people. I mean real people, not just people with pointy heads and huge egos.

On Monday, November 17, Mark Levin received a call to his radio show from a woman named Carla, from Brooklyn, New York.

[You can listen to the Monday Mark Levin show by clicking HERE. The conversation with Carla occurs about 48 minutes into the broadcast (as long as that version doesn't contain commercials, like the Podcast).]

Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Carla: Hi. I am so glad to talk to you and I'm also kind of nervous because I don't want to end up like Joe the Plumber. Um, I had, an, let's just say, an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport, at La Guardia, on Saturday night, that was pretty extensive and kind of -

Mark: Well, wait a minute, by "altercation" you mean a discussion.

Carla: Well, yeah, a heated discussion, about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning, he was ahead of me, there was a fawning Democrat chick, who came over to him, and was like all over him and I had heard what he had said on, I think it was Fox News, on Election Day, I had heard his comments, about uh, about talk radio, and about the Fairness Doctrine which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there and he had this big smile on his face.

And I just said to him, "Don't you dare try to take my talk radio away from me."

And he said to me, "I'm not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can't allow people to be nasty and rude and, and say things that aren't true."

And I said, "Are you kidding me? That's what our democracy is about. Our democracy is messy." I said, "Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic, and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That's what makes us different than Europe."

And he, he just started lashing out at me. He told me how ignorant I was. And that they were not going to permit -

Mark: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So in other words, so in other words, he was shrill, and rude, and vile.

Carla: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill, and it was attacking my intelligence and uh, and my I.Q., [Mark: Gee whiz.] and I was dumb. And I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy and it was called Red China and it sounded like he was talking right out of, uh, Mao's Red Book, and that that was not what our country was about and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy. And that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it's wrong. And that's the nature of democracy.

Mark: Well, let me tell you something. You're a patriot, uh, I wish more people would engage like you; politely but firmly, confronting the Left. Uh, and you're not stupid, he's a moron. And let me tell you Carla, what, what's really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Carla?

Carla: No. I didn't notice anything upsetting him, he looked pretty smug.

Mark: It's me. Because he doesn't like me, my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he's greater and better than the rest of us. That's why I mock all of them, to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says, "shrill" and all of that, he's talking about me. Because he doesn't like me 'cause I'm in his face, because I've challenged him, because I've urged him to come on this show, because I know he's coward. But he's a menace, he's a menace to this country, he's a menace to this society, he's a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others, we'll come up there, and I'd be more than happy to testify under oath, assuming of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. I'd be more than happy to do that, Schmuckie. I'd be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don't like it, it's none of your damn business. I'd be happy to educate you, Schmuckie. What do you think of that, you dope?

And Carla, you're I.Q. is twice of his. So you're I.Q.'s about 140.

Carla: Yeah, well, I told him. I said I will fight to the death, for my, for my talk radio, for anyone else, to be obnoxious, to be as loud and as nasty as they want. Because -

Mark: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

Carla: Of course, of course he is. But I said the point of our democracy is that we don't censor our tones, we don't control our tones.

Mark: Well, of course, of course, you're right. And you're extremely intelligent. But he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn't allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer; they'd dealt with people who would punish people dared to say things they didn't believe in. They tried to squelch dissent, they tried to squelch free speech and that's why, when they, when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech, uh, and they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer. But Chuck Schumer doesn't give a damn. He's a power hungry menace. Thank you, Carla, God Bless You, and good job. You take care.

So, Bill O'Reilly devotes a "Talking Points Memo" to the topic, featuring Sen. Schumer, who had very recently (Nov. 4) made an ass out of himself on the issue. O'Reilly who works for the same network on which Schumer made his ridiculous statements, doesn't play the tape. That's getting your point across effectively, that's following up. It's about as effective coverage of the issue as O'Reilly's was of Obama.

But there was additional information available regarding New Mexico's Sen. Bingham. Although he was polite and forthright enough to stand still, to not play duck and cover, he is on record elsewhere, letting everyone know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, with more detail and more in-depth information than the twenty seconds Griff spent with him.

In late October, Bingham was interviewed on New Mexico radio station, KKOB, on this issue. You can read more about this HERE and listen to an audio clip of it.

Read More......