Lamb Amidst the Feral Hogs

Brian Lamb continues in a tradition of respect for Everyman and for history. Some trading and lobbying may well be part of any but the most unimportant of legislation. Still we should know what is in a bill with the potential of this one. Few bills have the means to change, limit, even shorten our lives than has this one. Sure, many a legislator’s career will be affected if we know – but isn’t that the point? Aren’t they supposed to be willing to stand, publically, by their votes? And a shortened career is not, of course, a shortened or damaged or stunted life.

Lamb’s long and old argument to open up such discussions has seldom seemed more important than it does here. (Note earlier requests.)
Side note: Feral Hogs. Hat tip – Fox News, Instapundit, and (surprise) the Mother Jones article Reynolds linked.

4 thoughts on “Lamb Amidst the Feral Hogs”

  1. I used to love to listen to Lamb’s author interviews. I suspected that he was not a garden variety media sycophant by the respectful way he treated conservative guests like Harvey Mansfield. This move will seriously mess up his ability to attend Georgetown dinner parties. I’ll bet Ploufe and Podesta were seriously honked by it.

  2. C-SPAN rocks. Listening to C-SPAN audio from the website has made many a late office paperwork session bearable.

    Oh No: such a nerd.

    He won’t televise it, no one knows what is in it, it’s the natural result of more and more money and power being concentrated in one place. Who cares about the people? Once you are voted in, the self-serving oligarchy behavior starts applying, you make your contacts, you get out, you make money. Ultimate goal achieved.

  3. Mickey Kaus has pointed out that televising Congressional negotiations on legislation is “one of the most immature goo-goo liberal fantasies” but Obama did promise this would be done so it is fair to hold him to it. The most honest approach to something that is as important as health reform would be open hearings and the traditional conference committee. The problem with this was seen by the Clintons as an opportunity for lobbyists to push their various interests and press hot buttons. Hillary chose to use a closed commission to write her bill but excluded all health care providers who had real experience in retail health care provision. She also chose Ira Magaziner whose record of success was mixed, shall we say. Even with all the fuss, the Clinton approach was cleaner and, had they dropped a few of the most offensive provisions, might have passed. For example, they made it a felony to provide medical care outside one of the cooperatives that were to control utilization.

    CSPAN is a respected and neutral party here and the fact that Lamb has chosen to make an issue of their exclusion is not a good sign. I don’t think this bill is a done deal.

Comments are closed.