No; I do not think I would care to shake your hand. It might burst into flame immediately afterwards.

Adieu. I wish you health and long life — but not success.

Can we shake on that?

“Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, “Fairness Doctrine” that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is…”

You make a broad statement here that paints the old Fairness Doctrine with an extremely ugly brush: that whether or not it was designed to do so, it had the effect of unevenly censoring conservative opinion as opposed to providing equality of opinion.

I want some proof of that assertion, which all your fanboys seem to take as a given. It is a new concept to me, I admit; but you use it here without any backup, without even saying “as has been shown many times before” — and you use it to impute certain motives to Speaker Pelosi, again without documenting those motives.

If you do not care to provide any proof, I will continue to ignore that and the rest of your post as unsubstantiated craziness.

(My earlier comment contained an equally unsubstantiated assertion about the current administration’s tendency to censor scientific fact. I wish to withdraw that statement now, not because I do not believe it to be true, but because it does not factor in to the current conversation, and is off-topic.)

Nancy Pelosi vs the American People

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/CSpan_Dont_blame_us_for_not_showing_GOP_revolt.html#comments

C-SPAN: Don’t blame us for not airing GOP revolt

C-SPAN, the network of congressional coverage, wants everyone to know that the GOP revolt on the House floor — Republicans don’t want to go home until they are allowed a vote on offshore oil drilling, even though the House has adjourned — is not their fault.

C-SPAN has just issued this statement: “A number of media organizations have incorrectly referred to ‘C-SPAN cameras’ being turned off and not providing televised coverage of the GOP House members’ post-adjournment protest on energy policy being held on the House floor on Friday afternoon. Please note that cameras in the House chamber are under the control of the Speaker of the House and that all media organizations, including C-SPAN, wishing to cover events in the chamber must use the official House TV feed. No private media cameras are permitted in the House (or Senate) chambers.”

I see nor feal any hostility towards you. Looking backwards I fail to see it in my writting. Could you point it out?

“My assumption was correct.”

The wording of your initial accusation suggests that I had a partisan motive for complaining now and not then. That assumption is incorrect, as I explained in my previous post. One of your series of unwarranted assumptions — that I didn’t complain — is correct, but not for the reasons you connected to it. Your focus on that assumption’s correctness, without acknowledgment of the wrongness of the connected assumptions, stands in sharp contrast with your rhetoric. You complain that others’ attacks on Pelosi are unjustified, while defending your own unjustified attack on me based on the correctness of a small part of it.

“You … accused the House of being a “highly partisan body””

Which is not the same as attacking any particular member of the House or Senate… nor is it incorrect. The house IS highly partisan, and both sides are capable of abuse, which is why it’s so important for them to have appropriate rules. This should not be such a difficult concept to accept.

“Hostility? Vince implies…”

And what Vince says matters between you and me because… ? There’s no justification for the level of hostility you’ve displayed toward me. (I find irony in your hostility toward me contrasted with your comment that being “censored” would be “the ultimate ironic end of this discussion”.)

“there is a reason for the house rules.”

I agree — as I said before, I’d be all for a simple, straightforward, well-written limit… but this is not it. Maybe it will be once it’s been revised a few times; maybe it’s already made it to that stage while we’ve been blabbing. But until I see a better version, I’m going to continue to criticize this one.

So you didn’t complain when the Republicans were the majority. My assumption was correct.

You certainly have accused the House of being a “highly partisan body” My mistake I thought those words constitute an accusation (another word for attack).

Hostility? Vince implies that anybody who dares defend Nancy from any attack (justified or not) is a leftist.

By the way did you see the breaking news out of Pennsylvania today? About the accusations of Democratic members of the state legislature engaged in election campaigning during the work hours they were getting payed by the state.

Yes there is a reason for the house rules. It will be interesting to watch how the PA story turns out and what evidence is presented.

“Why didn’t you ask for this when the republicans were the majority?”

Because I didn’t have the text of this particular change in front of me, nor did I have any other indication that members of Congress who wanted to put their message out had to jump through hoops to do it. Now that I’m aware, I’ve put my 2 cents in. (Not that you actually know what I was or wasn’t complaining about when the Republicans were in charge, mind you. That was a careless attack on your part.)

“If you are going attack anybody on these flimsy type charges you deserve to be called out on the carpet for it.”

I haven’t attacked anybody in particular — not Pelosi, nor anyone else. I’ve only pointed out the possible avenues for abuse, and why I don’t like this particular change in the hands of a highly partisan body. It may turn out to be a non-issue, but I don’t trust any party to rule fairly given the text I’ve seen so far. (Again, this is a careless attack on your part. You might find it easier to get your point across with less unnecessary hostility.)

One last thought then I am out of here.

You said “A word of advice: the people who run this blog dont take it so kindly when commenterers get all high and mighty and start dictating what they choose to write about.”

Are you threatening that I am going to be censored by the people who run this blog? That would be the ultimate ironic end of this discussion.

Thank you, for that funny idea. You just made my day.

Rudeness? Hmm putting a label on some one you don’t know. That is rudeness!

LotharBot,

Good idea. Why didn’t you ask for this when the republicans were the majority? Also, this whole conversation is about an argument that has no basis in fact. Yet you don’t mind arguing about. As I have suggested a few times this is a non issue. If you want to attack Nancy there are a large number of real issues. If you are going attack anybody on these flimsy type charges you deserve to be called out on the carpet for it.

I’m all for the government saying “we won’t pay for Congress members’ bulk mailings, ads, and so on.” I’d be all for a simple, straightforward, well-written limit on that. This is not it. And therein lies the problem.

Of particular concern is the statement that official content should not be posted where it may appear with commercial or political information. This could disqualify sites like youtube, and would almost certainly disqualify political blogs based around a politician’s local area — exactly the sites politicians should be producing content for. And, as I said above, there’s great danger of selective enforcement, of sites friendly to party X being approved while sites friendly to party Y get the runaround. There has to be a better way to create reasonable limits without such avenues for abuse.

(As a courtesy, would you please refrain from going off about Iraq, telecos, deficits, etc. “for illustrative purposes”? It’s an age-old internet trick to introduce an argument nobody can take the time to respond to.)

Why aren’t we seriously discussing referenda on term-limits? We need referenda since the political class will never agree to them voluntarily.

“The government is squandering trillions of dollars.” Well on behalf of my libertarian friends we would like to thank the republican party and the president who is of the republican party for running up the largest deficit in history. Not Nancy, Not Al, Not Bill but George W Bush.

If being against warrentless government spying, against Congressional miss use of house funds, against the war of occupation based on flat out lies, in favor of reduced government size and spending, makes me a lefty, in your eyes, you seriously need to take your blinders off.

Attacking Nancy over this is a clear clear example of your desperation. Can’t you find something real to attack her on?

I believe you are to my left. And you are the one attacking Nancy for any reason real or imaginary. And if you are a Republican you are of the party of charge and spend having run up the highest deficits in History. Having sent armies of occupation to the far corners of the earth for flat out lies. I also have issues with Nancy. I believe the American voters spoke loud and clear about ending the occupation of Iraq. She hasn’t followed her instructions. She also passed a bill forgiving the telcos and their violation of our Civil Liberties. And was joined with both McCain and Obama in doing so. But these are off topic for this discussion and I only present them here to demonstrate REAL ISSUES.

I just have to roll my eyes at that one.

Yeah, I’m going to care about 4,000 dollars.

I’m laughing right now . The government is squandering trillians of dollars but now we’re hyprocites because the govt might have to pay someone’s 20 dollar service fee and we’re not up in arms about it.

That just tells you how desperate these Lefties are to attack… from any angle possible..

Nothing prevents any member of Congress from putting information on any blog. The only restriction is the use of tax payer payed for equipment. A congressman is completely free to have staff from his election campaign not housed in a federal building not using government equipment publish just about anything they want to any site they want. This really is an extension of the Franking privileges and limits imposed when using franking privileges.

For example, should a congressman be able to send out a fund raising letter and have the house pick up the mail costs? I don’t think so. Talk about giving an incumbent office holder an even more unfair advantage. How about if a congressman sends out a mailing with a commercial message? Should we the taxpayers have to pay for that?

Spending taxpayer money to produce a video to convince voters one way or another is an abuse of government resources. Political content of that nature should be produced and distributed with non-government funds.

Now for the internet. Should official committee documents be published on a web site that include advertisements. Such that for a member of the public to get at the official document they would have be exposed to those advertisements? I think I would have an issue with. I would like advertisement free access to official documents.

I really think you all need to relax and think through this whole process. Yes it can be abused and maybe has been. If one side starts abusing a well established set of guidelines then you have something worth Complaining about. But this isn’t it.

I also find it amusing that this is supposed to be a conservative blog site and yet I hear people arguing for allowing members of congress to use tax’s to fund more government.