Washington Prowler
Obama Bytes
The administration makes its move against Internet freedom. Plus: Hillary’s Albany shuttle.
SO LONG, FREEDOM
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius
Genachowski will announce today his intent to put in
place rules that would allow the federal government to regulate
the Internet. In a coordinated move to highlight the decision,
and to take credit with the left-wing supporters of the policy,
known as “net neutrality,” FCC sources say, President Obama will
make remarks after Genachowski’s remarks, endorsing the FCC
chairman’s decision.
“We couldn’t give them a Guantanamo shut down, or ending the Patriot Act, so this is the immediate payoff to MoveOn and Free Press and the those guys who worked so hard for us during the campaign,” says a White House source. “Getting ‘net neutrality’ codified and under out control was at the top of their list of things for us to do.”
Genachowski will outline the rules for net regulation at a speech at the Brookings Institution this morning. Not only will he announce that the federal government will regulate how citizens’ online activity is managed by Internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, he will also announce that for the first time the federal government will actively monitor how citizens’ wireless Internet access is managed.
“For them to say that this isn’t government regulation, that this is just about fairness and giving everyone the same thing, is just not true,” says a Republican Energy and Commerce staffer, who has been working on the issue of “net neutrality” for several years. “Someone has to be monitoring all those networks, all that activity to make sure the networks remain ‘neutral.’ Who is that going to be? Free Press? George Soros?”
In fact, a representative of the left-wing organization known as Free Press will be present at the Genachowski speech. Free Press, which continues to stand by former White House Obama adviser Van Jones, who served its board, shares its roots with the MoveOn organization, and has received funds from George Soros and funds from senior Google executives, actually wrote large portions of the Markey-Eshoo net neutrality bill, which was introduced in Congress just before the summer recess in August. “Free Press got caught red-handed, when they put the bill up on their website and time stamp on the copy indicated they’d received it long before most people knew the bill was being introduced,” says the House committee source.
While left-wing advocates claim that “net neutrality” is nothing more than a policy that ensures that broadband network operators can’t take advantage of the networks they operate by offering different services to their customers, like a special movie streaming service or a unique online video chat service, without providing the same deals to every other video streaming company or online chat company.
“It’s a difficult concept for regular folks to get because it’s a technical issue that sounds harmless,” says a Federal Communications Commissions staffer. “‘Neutrality’ sounds like something harmless, but what people need to understand is that if they are afraid of what would happen to their health care if Obamacare was passed, they should be downright horrified about what would happen to their Internet if Obama’s ‘net neutrality’ were passed. It will create traffic jams online, make it harder for folks to watch streaming videos without delays and glitches, and spam and online threats will be more common.”
White House sources say imposing the Internet regulations has been in the works for months, and a coordinated effort with Democrats on Capitol Hill and with the outside groups they have been holding discussions with, such as Free Press, MoveOn, scholars at the Center for American Progress, and corporate friends, such as Google.
“We let Markey introduce his Internet bill first, in part, because it was just so extreme that it made what Julius is proposing seem downright reasonable,” says a White House legislative aide. “But in the end, either approach gets us to where our friends wanted us to be, but we get to do it without a public or ugly fight. The hope is that the federal regulatory process isn’t going to engender the same kind of emotion that, say, a tax or health care debate might.”
ALBANY OR BUST
Some Democrats in New York and Washington are wondering, now that
the Obama Administration has gone public with its desire for New
York Gov. David Paterson not to seek a full
term, whether Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is
really the candidate Obama wants. This, even though polls show
that while prospective Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani
would trounce Paterson statewide, they have him losing
in a much closer race against Cuomo.
Meanwhile, these Democrats are also wondering if this distancing from Paterson creates an opening sufficient enough for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to walk away from Foggy Bottom to make a run at a position that would set her up for future national campaigns.
Clinton had not closed down either her Senate or Presidential campaign funds, and, according to sources, has kept upwards of eight full-time staffers on board, a high number of employees to continue Federal Election Commission filings for the 2008 primary cycle.
Clinton advisers have also made clear her unhappiness in her State role, where it appears she has been locked out of major international negotiations, and instead been made nothing more than a global ambassador without portfolio.
Some polling companies, such as Rasmussen, continue to poll Clinton’s national appeal, and those numbers have risen over the past six months.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by The Prowler
More Articles From Washington Prowler
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/21/obama-bytes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Consternated Conferences
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 6:35AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Obama Bytes [spectator.org] on Topsy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
old whiye guy| 9.21.09 @ 8:27AM
the level of corruptiom in the u.s. is becoming rampant. is there anything the government will not try and destroy.
Jim O'Brien| 9.21.09 @ 8:29AM
If the federal government can regulate the internet, what's next? How about regulating the size of newspapers to save the environment? How about a 3 day waiting period before an editorial or letter to the editor can be published, to allow a federal agency to review it's content? Perhaps journalists should be registered with and approved by an Obama Communications Czar. Has anyone in Congress read the Constitution?
bluecollarbytes| 9.21.09 @ 8:42AM
For many, 'net neutrality' is really about forcing private businesses into providing unlimited bandwidth at no extra charge over 'normal' usage. Many of them also clamor for "free internet", "free" wireless, "free" news, "free" downloads of copyrighted music&movies;.
Matt| 9.21.09 @ 4:40PM
WRONG. Here is one of the net neutrality rules waiting to be codified:
Internet users should be able to run any application they want as long as they don't exceed service plan limitations or harm the provider's network.
Seriously, why comment if you have no idea what net neutrality is?
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:16PM
Matt; Right on: and taxes won't be raised under Bush nor Obama, whatever you want will be free, and no matter what your mom & dad said SANTA is real, and they never didn't have sex just for you. Now, is everything perfectly crystal clear?
JP| 9.21.09 @ 8:59AM
The internet is nothing more than a group of very large telco backbones intereconnected through high speed carriers (usually optical carriers). A decade ago, the majority of internet content was static web pages. Very little of the content was streaming video and audio; a decade ago, the majority of the hosts connections (end users) were dial up or for businesses, ISDN.
The explosion of ADSL and Cable, cheap T-1s, and for large businesses, less expensive OC connections have put severe burdens on the ISPs. Add on the revolution that You Tube has wrought, and it is a wonder that we haven't seen more interruptions. However, content providers have even bigger plans. PDAs like the iPhone and Blackberry now offer streaming video and audio content. Firms like Netflix offer online movies, and coming soon will be other pay for view services like the Super Bowl and World Series (in High Def, commerical free). As a matter of fact, pay for fee content is exploding, and large content providers like Microsoft and Google will make a killing on it.
But all of this content needs not only stable high speed gigabit hosts connections, it also needs very expensive equipment running through the telco backbones. A village can have a huge resevior near it, but without a decent delivery system, the water stays put. The internet is no different. Without very expensive gigabit backplanes running in the AT&T, Time Warner, Sprint, and Verizon data centers, none of this multimedia content will get delivered error free (in the IT world this is known as QoS).
Large content firms like Google and Microsoft want to be able to charge for thier content, but they do not want to pay for the pipeline. Think of what a load it would be if 50 million users subscribed to the Super Bowl in High Def. The ISPs cannot provide this kind of pipeline now, and will need to recoup thier investment of tens of billions of dollars to make it happen.
The content providers have teamed up with Far Left activists and created to so-called net-neutrality idea. If it is successfull, it will only put a stop to increasing the efficiency and speed of the internet. A decade ago DSL packages for residential services averaged nearly $80 a month and were just above ISDN speeds. Now one can get the same services for less than $20. Even the poor can now afford cable and ADSL for half of what it was 8 years ago. All without net-neutrality. For those who can afford it, fiber to home services are being offered with bundeled voice, data, and cable tv. Again, fiber just 8 years ago could only have been afforded businesses.
If the ISP cannot charge for tiered services we will see an abrupt end to innovation at the physical layer of the internet. QoS (Quality of Service) will remain a pipe dream for homes and small businesses (Medium to large businesses already have QoS -they can afford it). In the end, niether Google or Microsoft will be able to offer high quality video/audio content to homes, and the US consumers will continue to fall behind the consumers in Asia and parts of Europe.
Matt| 9.21.09 @ 4:37PM
JP, you have no idea what you're talking about.
No website can simply use as much bandwidth as it wants. You have to PAY for the amount of bandwidth you use.
An ISP would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to serve 50,000 people with HD video. WHY? Because the server would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to offer that service!
There is such a thing as "unlimited" transfer, but there is an obvious catch: your RATE is limited. In that case you pay for as much as you could possibly transfer through your limited connection speed.
also, Net neutrality contains rules that specify that users are STILL BOUND BY BANDWIDTH LIMITS.
References:
Myself--I operate a small ISP and have several years' experience in the industry.
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:19PM
Credentials aside Matt, why the heck do we need this?
Ray| 9.21.09 @ 9:03AM
Net Neutrality is legalized theft. In this case, the theft of bandwidth. It means that people who don't build, pay for, a network will be allowed to use that network at will, for little cost to themselves and absolutely no investment requirements for the very network they will access. It means that the age of innovation in high speed internet access is just about over, for who's going to invest billions of dollars creating something like a high speed network just so others, who who didn't invest those billions, can take advantage of someone else's hard work, someone else's labor? Typical of the democrats, equality (equal access to someone else's property) is more important than innovation (the creation of that property) and image ( the image of 'equality") is more important than substance (the substance of technological advance).
Jim O'Brien| 9.21.09 @ 2:22PM
RAY: Great summary. It's something like the medical care debate. Democrats count on it being confusing enough that they can confuse the public. Democrats want to take property from some and give it to others. The more government is involved with the internet, or with medicine, the more innovation will be killed and quality will decline.
Matt| 9.21.09 @ 4:46PM
Ray, why don't you explain (in terms of the proposed rules) how net neutrality will allow freeloaders to abuse high speed networks.
The last time I checked, it costs serious money to lease high speed lines.
Northern Rebel| 9.21.09 @ 9:54AM
It is just a matter of time, before we must have the mark of Obama on our skin, in order to be able to enter into commerce, and purchase food and clothing.
Haven't we read about this coming evil, in a very old book?
Will I get in trouble for saying this out loud?
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 10:34AM
Northern Rebel
Well, all I can say to your thought above is that all the pieces are in place.
...and yes you are probably in trouble already.
You visit The Spectator.
You know, folks, Team America is truly about leaping forward in time beyond the conversations of "today" and preparing for the seeming "mid term and long range goals" of our present government.
SO
AS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANOUNCEMENT...
I have pasted here below, just one article from TEAM AMERICA:
Last Things.....First!
We are T.E.A.M. AMERICA. Let's keep that analogy going for this article.
Today, we are going to talk about "last ditches". Some very bright guy in the mists of history stated "You must not be thinking about what your "opposition" might do, but what they can do"! Well, our opposing team is equal to the best Super-bowl football team ever. We on the other hand are a small town high-school team. (Gulp). Further, we are in "sudden death" overtime. The ball is on the fifty yard line.....and we are on defense.
What to do?
First of all, we take a quick glance at the bleachers. On the opposition side, 50,000 people are screaming to our opponents to finish us off. When we look to our side of the stadium, 50,000 people are pretty quiet and very still. Then a remarkable thing occurs. The Referee blows his whistle, and his helpers gather around for a conference.
None of us will ever know what was said in that referee conference, but we shall all remember that head official walk over to our high-school coach and whisper in his ear.
When the conversation was over, our coach called an immediate time-out, called the starters off the field, and the reserves, (second and third stringers), off the bench. After a short speech.......................................the entire team trotted onto the field and took positions. No positions any football fan ever saw before. Forty four committed teenagers, against eleven super-stars.
Ladies and gentlemen we are in that moment.
(The super stars of course are our current President and Congress and Senate. Right now though, we still have a Supreme Court that honors the rule of law and our Constitution. Should one more "Constitutionalist Supreme Judge" retire or die, we no longer have a "Referee".)
You know, I think I may have a sense of what that high-school coach would tell his kids...
"Young men, you know and I know that these guys we are facing have been goofing around with us the whole game. They have been loafing and laughing at us. Nevertheless, the game is tied, and you guys have played so far above your heads, (choked tears), I am so proud of you.....
"Well, I want the reserves to hit that line with all your strength...right at their feet! You are going to get a lot of cleat marks on your backs, but your buddies behind you will knock those guys' blocks off while they are stumbling around on you. You defensive backs.....I want five of you on every one of their receivers...You linebackers...pick a slot and go for their quarterback, and hit him with everything you've got."
The opposing bleachers of course are filled with the "News" networks, the smart-aleck ivy leaguers, and of course, the announcers in the broadcast booth.
In any event, the home high-school crowd begins to move around, then stand, then begin cheering their lungs out for their kids..............
The end
Okay, so what can our opposition do???
They can pass asinine laws. They can hire millions of "regulators". They can force us to do hugundous amounts to paper-work. They can steal our sweat to "spread the wealth around". They can cut off our fuel. They can force us to let grandma die. (They already own Medicare.) They can kick in our doors with a federal warrant any night they choose. They can silence dissent in the media. They think they can build an "internal security force" to force us to disarm......they are talking about silencing the internet as I write.
They can order the U.S. military to kill or imprison us, but I shall go to my own personal grave believing that our military will not kill or imprison fellow Americans standing on our constitutional guarantees decreed by our Constitution....under God!
So, last things first.
What do we do if the opposition turns off the internet? What do we do if they turn off our cell phones? What do we do if spokesmen among us are "disappeared"?
What do we do if they do create an "internal security force" out of inner city gangs and ACORN?
Well, there are lots of canaries in our coal mine aren't there? If Rush is taken off the air, (or changes his tune at the point of a gun), what do each of us do?
It truly is time to begin thinking about "last things" instead of the gossip of today.
www.myteamusa.org
cdc| 9.21.09 @ 11:15AM
Who deserves the profit, the content makers or the content delivery system.
The telcoms are a small group that sit at the choke point of the internet (frequently not indirect competition) and are therefore in the position to take the largest profit.
As an analogy consider that one buisness built and controls the road down main street. In this position it can best maximize profit by charging the buisnesses according to how many customers go in. So if one buisness comes up with a great plan its incentive will be markedly diminished by the profit taking of the intermediary, the result is less incentive to come with great buisnesses and more incentive to quash any competition for the natural monopoly of road building.
Free markets work great, monopolies suck for everyone but the monopolist.
Doctor Right| 9.21.09 @ 11:19AM
The Hard Left will learn a hard lesson in 2010 and 2012:
Payback's a bitch.
When the Lefty-Dems are thrown out of office (and they will be, which is why Obama and his cronies are pushing for everything to be done "in a hurry"), the new Republican Congress and President should immediately push for the following:
1. Full investigation of ACORN, including a full IRS audit of all branches, and a Justice Department investigation.
2. Full and thorough investigation of former President Obama's relationship to ACORN since his ealrly days in Chicago, including, if the investigation merits it, an indictment. You m-effers want to investigate former Presidents? Bring it on, scum-bags!
3. Full and thorough Congressional inquiry into who caused the housing market to collapse. Appoint a Blue-Ribbon Commission (stacked with hardcore Conservatives to investigate), and if the Dems cry "foul" (and they will, tell them "The time for bickering is over.") The ultimate objective is a front-page worthy photo of Barney Frank being frog-marched off to a holding cell (Barney will like prison, though...Lot's of homosexual activity)
4. Full and thorough investigation of the infiltration of Union $$ into the Democrat Party.
5. Excecutive orders reinstating the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, re-opening Guantanamo Bay, increased procurement of more F-22 Raptors, and allowing for interogations "By any means necessary" to extract information from terrorist Muslim swine.
6. TOTAL enforcement of "The Fairness Doctrine". ALL networks will be required to carry taped editorials by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc, after their evening news broadcasts. Failure to comply will reuslt in stiff fines, and possible loss of broadcast license. Each netweok will be required to have at least one (1) Republican news anchor.
7. IMMEDIATE cessation (by Congressional Vote) to Obama's 2009 Stimulus Package, Cap-n-Trade, and whatever monstrosity of a healthcare bill they try and foist upon us. In fact, all Republican Congressional candidates in 2010 and 2012 should run on the following: "Don't worry: We'll Fix It!"
8. The DHS should revoke George Soro's VISA.
9. Just for fun...A complete and thorough IRS anal-exam of Moveon.org, The Huffington Post, and The DailyKOS.com. Let's see what we can dig up!
10. A COMPLETE and thorough investigation of Nancy Pelosi's involvement in the CIA-interogation program. ALL Republican candidates in 2010 and 2012 need tro say: "What did the Speaker know, and when did she know it??"
11. Also just for fun...ALL Republican initiatives on the floor of the House will be voted on by using the "Nuclear Option". All we need is 51 votes. Don't like it?? Tough shit.
And that's just for starters. So bring it on you left-wing pussies. We'll beat you into the ground.
JP| 9.21.09 @ 12:13PM
Doctor Right,
I like your proposed agenda, but I don't think the GOP will "take back" Congress in 2010. The GOP may gain as many as 20-25 seats (30 is a stretch), and if they are lucky they might pick up a net total of 2 in the Senate. While this may give them a little more clout, it will not be enough to do anything near what you are proposing. Remember, in the Senate the GOP (because of retirements in TX and NH) will be defending almost as many as the Dems. I don't think many Blue Dog Senators are up for re-election. And if the GOP does keep NH and wins in say New York and New Jersey they will be adding "Moderates" not conservative lawmakers.
I'm not sure when the last time the GOP had a real conservative (like a Jesse Helms Conservative) in the Senate that made the Left cringe with fear.
The more things change.....
Doctor Right| 9.21.09 @ 12:47PM
JP:
I firmly believe that the Republicans can and will reclaim the House in 2010 and 2012, and possibly the Senate) in 2012, especially if Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, keep pushing the hard-left agenda.
I was in D.C. last week, with 2 million other Patriots who want the Dems and Obama consigned to the dustb in of history. For every person who came to D.C., there were probably 50 who wanted to, but couldn't. We are on the rise, and coming back - and the Left is scared.
The more that the Dems, any Dems, are associated with the radical left agenda of Obama, the worse it will be for them in '10 and '12. I don't see any groundswell of support for Dems. Quite the contrary, they are holding on solely by relying on their hard-left base. Independents are already swinging right; many of them who voted for Obama in '08 already regret it.
Harry Reid will likely lose next year, and he's the Senate Majority Leader! John Corzine will likley be thrown out of the Governor's mansion in NJ in less than 2 months.
I also predict that some Blue-Dog Dems may swith to "Independent" before 2010, using the legitimate rationale that they can no longer serve their constituents' interests as part of a Democrat Party that continues to pursue an agenda that the citizenry does NOT want.
In short, I'm extremely optimistic about the future, even though today looks grim.
Big J| 9.21.09 @ 2:53PM
Doctor Right:
I love it when you post here! You're right on, Doc, but don't hold your breath on the "investigation" portion of your vision (above post). Conservatives play by the rules, and they too are drinking the water in D.C., making them just as susceptible to the lure of power that seems to exist there.
Based on my limited research, I think we have a chance (a chance, mind you) to pick up 30 to 40 seats in the house and maybe 1/2 dozen in the senate. Not majorities, but not chump change either (RINO Hutchison is running against RINO-Lite Perry down here in Texas, but I don't see losing the seat to a Dem - hopefully we are trading a semi-Repub for a Republicon). Conservative Republicans have a chance to save the country and their faltering party. I hope they don't blow it (like they did for the first 6 years of this century.
Anyway, enjoy your posts. Hang tough and keep your powder dry.
You never know.
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:27PM
Dear Doctor; I'm damaged, so am I to assume things will get better if your predictions come true? Or should I believe what I see, that is, choosing between Demecrats & Republicans is choosing between the lesser of two evils? If so, isn't this choice still evil? Thanks Doctor, I 'm damaged, thanks to my wife and corporate America I have decent insurance and should be able to get the meds the Dr. says I NEED!
Hymie| 9.21.09 @ 12:22PM
America...It was fun while it lasted.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 12:32PM
JP
I don't think you have caught up yet.
If defeatists like you and Hymie don't get off your fat hineys and go to work, you will have no part in our victory.
We at Team America have identified a whole bunch of "takeable seats" in both houses. We are quietly helping the tea parties groups identify hard core conservatives for those seats...and win them.
Whine and die...........or stand and work. Your choice of course.
Tim| 9.21.09 @ 2:49PM
"Your choice of course. "
America loves choice! And we like our whine chilled.
macdaddy| 9.21.09 @ 2:16PM
Obama cannot let Hillary out of State. If she runs and gets elected Governor of NY, she will have a tremendous bully-pulpit from which to exact some revenge on Obama. She will even have a platform from which to challenge Obama in 2012 for the Democrat nomination. No way Obama lets her go.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 2:20PM
Macdaddy
Hillary is just as communist as Obama. Please do not forget that. Thank you.
JP| 9.21.09 @ 2:20PM
Ken,
Do you really believe that you and your group are the only ones who do political research? It takes more than identifying conservative candidates. If you would have read what I posted, I spent most of my time writing about the Senate. I'm not even sure that you know which Dems are up for re-election in the Senate and which are not.
Look at the potential races and then do the math. It is not a matter of being defeatist. It's called reality. The mechanics of the 1994 campaign were totally different than today or 2010. Yes, Sen Reid is very vulnerable, as is Arlen Specter. But the GOP will not have the benefit of incumbency in Texas or New Hampshire. Senator Crist's entry into the Fl Senate race will probably make that race a toss-up. For the GOP to win in either NH, NJ, or Ct they will need to run very liberal candidates. Those states constituents are not conservative, and for the GOP to win they will have to field Pro Abortion, Pro Gay candidates.
Of course, the economy will probably be the biggest issue, but if you think a B-1 Bob Dornan type GOP can win in either of those states you are wrong.
My prediction is the GOP will pick up 26 House seats and have a + 2 pick up in the Senate. The real test will come in 2012. IMHO 2010 is looking alot like 1978.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.22.09 @ 10:48AM
Hi JP
Our research :
Senate
1. 36 seats to be voted on in 2010
2. The best we can determine 9 to 12 are now a tossup.
3. two or 3 "lean" Demo that can be put in play.
Your point is well taken that some of those REPubs will neccessarily be pretty moderate "on some issues"
Our research on House seats is still pretty sketchy. We are gradually contacting tea-parties across the country to ask their help in identifying conservative candidates and getting THEM nominated and elected.
Having said all of that, our premises are much different from yours.
Our picture of what this country will look like 12 months from now is very disheartening, but sadly we believe things will get much much worse before the next elections.
We see The locusts feeding high on the hog, millions of "small" businesses going bankrupt, the dollar getting dangerously weak, if not broken entirely, and LOTS of taken for granted freedoms being curtailed.
We truly do.
We think the stage will be set for a literal political revolution to take place.
We think even a lot of self styled "liberals" will not like what is happening to them personally.
You are correct though; the House is our most fertile field for a near sweep if we can get the right candidates and work our butts off.
We have the strategy mapped out pretty well, but would certainly appreciate any insights and or options you could contribute. www.myteamusa.org
dcd| 9.21.09 @ 2:59PM
I do believe that the republicans are due for win soon, a solid take over of house and senate and likely the presidency. At which time they will do everything in their power to build up as much resentment among the citezenry as possible, in the belief that this time they have a "permanent majority."
They will jam through every pet scheme they have, larded with enough pork to fill Boston, and trample genuine concerns such as health, enviroment, and science (the democrats may be wrong about the solutions but they know that the voters are very worried).
History repeats, and everyone will feign surprise
hardius| 9.21.09 @ 6:49PM
I thought I was the only one out there who held to this view.
Pingback| 9.21.09 @ 3:29PM
Shopfloor » Blog Archive » Reaction to ‘Net Neutrality’ Speech by FCC Chairman links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JP| 9.21.09 @ 3:58PM
DCD,
I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think that will happen -at least anytime soon. When 2013 comes around the dollar will be a shell of its former self; infaltion will have returned, and we will still be talking about getting unemployment below 10%. By 2013, the federal government's budget will be over $6 trillion and former President Obama will be leaving this nation for friendlier climes.
Matt| 9.21.09 @ 4:31PM
None of the spectator's base seems to understand the concept of net neutrality. It has nothing to do with allowing people to run rampant and use up as much bandwidth as they want. It's about disallowing ISPs from blocking websites they don't want people visiting.
It boils down to protecting small business and free speech. It will be illegal for Comcast, for instance, to give their users faster access to humanevents.com and degrade service to spectator.org.
Do yo WANT your ISP to control the LEGAL sites you can see on YOUR OWN computer? If so, move to China.
1. Accessing content. The first rule states that consumers should not be limited in the content they choose to view online, as long as it's legal.
2. Using applications. Internet users should be able to run any application they want as long as they don't exceed service plan limitations or harm the provider's network.
3. Attaching personal devices. Consumers should be permitted to connect products they buy to their Internet connection, as long as the devices operate within the service plan and do not harm the network or enable theft of service.
4. Obtaining service plan information. Customers should be able to easily review their options when buying Internet service plans and learn about how those plans protect against spyware and other invasions of privacy.
5. New rule: Non-discrimination. Internet providers would be prohibited from selectively blocking or slowing Web content or applications.
6. New rule: Transparency. Providers would be required to make their network management practices clear and available to consumers
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:31PM
Matt; Sounds good, now give me (us) the unintended consequences. Thank you.
Marcell| 9.21.09 @ 4:38PM
The Return of McCarthyism
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=1P8u4fZTPUQ
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 5:21PM
Marcell...go back to France....looser.
Hurt'em Bad| 9.21.09 @ 4:51PM
Tea Party
On September 20th, 2009 BLACK CELL said:
This next election is more important than the last because defeating the radical Right-wing of the Republican Party will break their backs by demoralizing their radical base & force many to reject the theory that moving hard right is how elections are won for Republicans
.
Our next electoral victory will force the Republican Party to move hard left, as well as, keep their Party in turmoil for a few elections; there is also a great chance that we can use the radical right to force the Republican Party into the same dilemma that European conservatives are in..."Permanent minority!!"
I believe that we have forced the right to do what Hillary Clinton's campaign was forced to do, & that was to move hard right or politically die. That was because our side controlled all sides of the debate so they needed the white wing (Identity Poli-tricks) to keep the race close enough to give the impression that they are really putting up a good fight.
With that said, don't be afraid to use the race card to force the Wrong (Right) into political correctness.... Conservative racism can easily be defined in what I call, “An Archie Bunker Style Bigotry Strategy.”
Why do most minorities NOT vote for Republicans?
Define Today's Conservatives: “Uncle Tom" phrase in Nixon Era
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USHhAF-nKpU
If a person says Mexican to a conservative, he or she would think illegal alien. If a person says Muslim, the conservative think terrorist, Arab, or use an ad-hominem attack like rag head. The term hyphenated American means African American to a Repug.
Right now Faux news & the Right desperately needs white American to feel that their lives aren't going to be the same if they don't vote Republican to stop the British/socialist liberals who are coming to raise their taxes & blindly spend their money out of more control than Bu$h.
All we have to do is continue taking away the right's ability to use certain strategies by forcing the officials in D.C. who support the Right's think tank propaganda to defend their own spending records, & the fact that they failed our economy & created one of the worse recessions in the history of America.
We know that their philosophies come from the old treasure fields of failed policies like lower taxes for the rich or the funny questions about the constitutionality of the Federal government paying for health care. So, let's use it all to our advantage by confronting more of the radical conservatives views back in D.C..
The Tea bag movement rhetoric can be undermined in a few ways; here are my suggestions.
We can continue forcing conservatives to continue playing defense on the issue of race by spending the early parts of next week analyzing Nancy Pelosi's fears in ways that point out the dangers that the radical Right are making can be a threat to the Speakers life.
Force the Tea bagers to defend the fact that the Republican officials who voted with Bu$h up around 90% of the time are now trying to peddle for their support.
Connect the elected conservative officials to former President Bu$h big spending by speaking out about the conservatives officials voting records.
Counter the fear mongering tactics used by the right by defining the mongers as people who should be enjoying the day like most Americans & not trying to re-live the battle of Bunker Hill.Turn the radicals fears in into a hate pointed at the wrong people, being that was Wall Street that created this problem.
Exploit the fact that many of their supporters are recipients of the big government programs like Social Security & Medicare & force their supporters to defend those facts.
Market the fact that poor Republican leadership helped create the worse financial crisis in the history of America.
Finally, force internal squabbles by vigorously questioning if the Tea party movement is a way for Republicans to continue tricking true conservative thinkers into voting for Republicans who exploit their beliefs for election reasons only. We need the Tea Party movement to purge the left leaning Republicans from their movement.
The most valuable commodity I know of is information, wouldn't you agree?
Michael Douglas
Fionnagh| 9.21.09 @ 6:06PM
And your point in posting this was....?
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:38PM
Mr. Michael Douglas; and this is going to help you and who how?
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:38PM
Mr. Michael Douglas; and this is going to help you and who how?
Hurt'emBad| 9.21.09 @ 5:29PM
I LIED.
I am a communist and I want to sit on my arse and take half of what you produce....stupid!!!
Sit behind your computer and whine all you want!
I will take your harvest! Kiss my butt.
Shao Lynne O'Brien| 9.22.09 @ 12:03PM
Amen, brother. Their kung fu is weak. We will drink their milkshakes.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.21.09 @ 5:33PM
See
How easy it is to steal user names here?
Ken
Jim O'Brien| 9.21.09 @ 6:12PM
Federal regulation of the internet is unnecessary and unwanted.
"Net neutrality" is a euphemism for socialist regulation which will dictate the way private companies do business and price bandwidth use. It will stop broadband firms from offering ultra-fast delivery for sites or users willing to pay extra, just as FedX, UPS, or the USPS accelerate deliveries for an extra fee.
"Net neutrality" is legalized theft. In this case, the theft of bandwidth. It will mean that the age of innovation in high speed internet access is just about over. What company is going to invest billions of dollars creating something like a high speed network just so others, who didn't invest those billions, can take advantage of it without paying?
For the Demo-Socialists, equal access to someone else's property is more important than innovation and a free market economy. Has anyone in Congress read the Constitution?
Kurt| 9.21.09 @ 10:43PM
Oh yeah Jim, most have read it and understand much better than the average US citizen. It is their quest to protect their comfort, aspire to be amoung the global elite, and basic arrogance that keeps them doing what they do. I guess we could re-elect nobody.
Nobama| 9.21.09 @ 7:11PM
Liberals lie: 'Net neutrality' is pro neutrality about as much as Card Check (Employee Free Choice Act) is pro freedom.
Fascist liberals hate freedom for the masses; their goals are power and control.
Obie Wan| 9.21.09 @ 7:51PM
"But in the end, either approach gets us to where our friends wanted us to be, but we get to do it without a public or ugly fight.
Yeah,this is just about bandwidth...........horseshiite !!!
Pavlinich | 9.22.09 @ 2:55AM
Obama is a good man!!!!
Nobama| 9.22.09 @ 3:28AM
That's what the German people said about Hitler!
American Superhero| 9.23.09 @ 2:04AM
And? You're not too smart, are you.
Randy| 9.23.09 @ 2:05AM
No, I'd say he's dumber than a sack of shit.
Pavlinich| 9.23.09 @ 3:39AM
That's what the American people say about Obama!!
Pingback| 9.22.09 @ 9:42AM
Right Sightings: Obama Dictatorship Edition | Right Soup links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Steve Schaper| 9.22.09 @ 11:49AM
This is the analogy as I understand it: A company owns main street. It also owns some stores along main street. Other people open stores along main street which compete with the street-owners stores.
Net neutrality means that the owner of main street has to charge the same toll to everyone traveling on it.
No net neutrality means that the owner of main street can charge higher fees for travel to shoppers who go into stores owned by competitors of its own store.
Is this incorrect?
The concerning part is that the government will be noting who goes into which store and buys what.
The Batman Knows| 9.23.09 @ 2:07AM
The Prowler? Is he some kinda criminal? Or does he prowl after...
cock!!!!
The Prowler| 9.23.09 @ 2:12AM
Darn you batman! How did you expose me!!??
Commisioner Gordon| 9.23.09 @ 2:14AM
Batman, leave the fag political commentators alone. We talked about this. Let them be gay if they want. This is your last warning.
The Prowler| 9.23.09 @ 2:15AM
Thank you. I may be afraid to use my real name but that doesn't mean I don't have feelings. Let me marry, goddammit.
The Prowleredez| 9.23.09 @ 2:17AM
I herd you liek Mudkipz! Congradulationions!@
Nobama| 9.23.09 @ 3:32AM
Miserable liberal turd.
The Other Shoe Dropping| 9.23.09 @ 3:12PM
We already know Obama's minions have been out scouring the net for negative comments as revealed by the Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...../?cpage=17
For the obvious purpose of assembling an "enemies list" and has commissioned a PRIVATE DATA MINING FIRM TO ARCHIVE THEM.
Are you starting to get it America?
Homeland Security has already identified anyone with a third party canidate, or (even named in the report) Ron Paul bumper sticker as a potential "domestic terrorist".
I would venture a guess that most of the commenters here have already been "archived for future use (or action)".
This is not funny anymore gang. Can we have a do over?
Debra| 9.25.09 @ 1:04AM
H.R.3458 - Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 Sponsor Rep Edward Markey D-MA
Why is it when a Liberal says "Freedom" it means something entirely different???
They manage to take something that's working and break it, tax it or raise the cost to the consumer. More than likely they found a way to make money off of it or control our freedom.
Here's the link to the amendment- contact congress both the ones supporting it and the ones opposing it. Tell them you don't support this "Internet Freedom Act"!!!
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show
p| 9.25.09 @ 10:11PM
Welcome to 1984, only 25 years late. How much more evidence do we need that total tyranny is here. I guess we are waiting f0r the knock on the door to go get on the train that will take us to the ovens. WAKE UP your friends and family. The enemies of America are in control and putting the finishing touches on their 40 year masterpiece. Denial is no longer an option.
Pingback| 1.20.10 @ 11:11PM
OpinionEditorial — Blog — Laughing at the Constitution: Giggler Pelosi and Her Merry links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ink free shipping | 3.23.10 @ 1:18AM
Good article:)
top web hosting plans | 3.23.10 @ 1:19AM
It is useful to me!
jonny | 4.7.10 @ 9:44PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica