National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez updated yesterday's story on Patrick Leahy pushing for a Justice Department probe of Laura Ingraham with MP-3 audio. (She joked, "Good luck with that, man. Oh, maybe this Democrat Congress thing could be a wee bit fun to watch.") Here's the transcript of Senator Leahy's inquiry to Wan J. Kim, the assistant attorney general for civil rights. Leahy's asking about a show he clearly hasn't listened to, since he couldn't accurately pronounce the host's name:
According to press accounts, right-wing radio host Laura Ingray-ham, or In-gramm, or Ingra-ham, had urged her listeners to jam a phone line set up by Democrats to investigate alleged voter irregularities. She said, uh, she told her listeners everybody call that voting line at the same time and basically, mark it inoperative. Is that something, that, um, that your division investigates?
Mr. Kim eagerly agreed with Leahy about the need for full and fair elections, but he politely explained that the Justice Department's civil-rights division investigates voter access problems, and the criminal division investigates voter-fraud schemes. Leahy wondered if "But, voter access, if you’re jamming the things that enable voter access, does that come into your [purview]?" Kim said no.
Somehow this exchange didn't make it into a tilted Boston Globe account of the hearing, which seems most devoted to following up how the Justice Department is responding to the entreaties of the Boston Globe.
Clintonistas put up the actual Ingraham transcript here.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is outrageous! The liber
November 17, 2006 - 08:24 ET by msh1973This is outrageous! The liberals think they are the only ones who have freedom of speech. Leaky Leahy up to some dirty tricks.
Somebody ought to probe Leahy
November 17, 2006 - 12:14 ET by mattmSomebody ought to probe Leahy...with a pitch fork.
I hear the aliens are quite f
November 17, 2006 - 12:16 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI hear the aliens are quite fond of using a particular type of probe that may be just as well suited for Leahy. Anyone know the number to call the folks in Roswell?
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Somebody ought to probe Lea
November 17, 2006 - 12:20 ET by Jack BauerSomebody ought to probe Leahy...with a pitch fork.
LOL -- Or maybe the pool cue used on Vito, the gay mafia captain in The Sopranos.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Ingraham believes in democrac
November 18, 2006 - 06:47 ET by joe conservativeIngraham believes in democracy in the same way that a good fascist does....which is not at all.
Leahy
November 17, 2006 - 08:24 ET by pocomocoPatrick (leaky) Leahy who, himself, should have been convicted for leaking security information years ago, appears to be leading the 'revenge department' for the Democrats.
Not being satisfied with pummeling big oil, telecommunications, and cable, he wants, now, to progress into talk radio. There is just something about their free speech he doesn't like. Can the blogs be far behind?
You know, I don't find this s
November 17, 2006 - 09:16 ET by Indiana JoeYou know, I don't find this surprising, or even "outrageous" at all. I find it amusing and laughable.
After all the talk of "impeachment," and "brown shirts," and "Nazis," and "Bush is destroying the Consitution," the best these guys can come up with is investigating Laura Ingraham? For basically stealing a page from the liberal playbook? I mean, who was it again that invented the term "Google bomb?"
These people don't have THE B*LLS to even begin to do the stuff they threatened during the campaign. They're "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight!"
Personally, I think the next couple years is going to be GREAT entertainment. I mean, really, you couldn't make this stuff up in a million years!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
IJ you're absolutely correct!
November 17, 2006 - 11:37 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIJ you're absolutely correct! This is no different than a Google Bomb (sorry it's Wikipedia, but it's the best definition I could find). Liberals getting a taste of their own medicine and they whine and cry like my two-year-old. "We need investigations!" they say. Have any of the Democrat's "investigations" ever solved anything? I think they mean "intimidation" every time they call for an investigation. They "investigate" a person or group to intimidate them into silence or other concessions the Democrats deem appropriate. Crybabies.
It will be great entertainment that will hopefully inflict landslide defeats on the Left in 2008.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Doc,LOVE the tag line! I assu
November 17, 2006 - 11:43 ET by Indiana JoeDoc,
LOVE the tag line! I assume it's relatively new, I don't recall seeing it before. Has to have been in re: the MJF dust-up, no?
IJ
<edit> I just c&p'd it. Sorry, doc, now it belongs to the ages! ... ;^)
You are quite astute, sir. R
November 17, 2006 - 11:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou are quite astute, sir. Rush to MJF. I thought it was classic. I'm considering changing to the latest one I heard from Benjamin Netanyahu when he was on Hannity and Colmes a couple nights ago in relation to taking pre-emptive actions...if I can find the exact phrasing he used. I like to have current taglines if possible...glad you like it.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Doc,Since you're here and the
November 17, 2006 - 11:56 ET by Indiana JoeDoc,
Since you're here and the subject has come up, maybe you'd care to enlighten me?
I c&p a "tag-line" where appropriate, individually. Is there a way to make it automatic?
I've wondered, but can't seem to find a "sig" type button......
Go to My Account --> hit t
November 17, 2006 - 12:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveGo to My Account --> hit the Edit tab --> scroll down to the Comment Settings section and type away...once you are finished, scroll all the way down to the bottom and hit the Save Account button. Viola! Easy as pie.
'When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on'... --Rush Limbaugh
Aha!! Thanks much. Learning i
November 17, 2006 - 14:34 ET by Indiana JoeAha!! Thanks much. Learning is fun!
Although, since I tend to change tag lines based on relevance to a particular post, I may stay with my "dinosaur" method. ;^)
<edit> Wow, I never even LOOKED in there! Great stuff! I didn't know I could change my password and all that other stuff. Thanks even more, Doc!
Newbies, huh? LOL!
I'm still waiting for the Mo
November 18, 2006 - 06:50 ET by joe conservativeI'm still waiting for the Mouth to do a broadcast from Baghdad - outside of the Green Zone, with no US Forces around to protect her.
I'm against investigating h
November 17, 2006 - 09:29 ET by sarcasmoI'm against investigating her, needless to say, but a prank-call war between the 2 "major" parties next election might be quite amusing, for some of us anyway... I happen to find prank calls amusing, and whenever news media types have someone on the horn who is supposedly on a disaster-scene, I find myself chanting: "Please be Janks, PLEASE be Janks!" over & over because he's not only amusing, he spreads the unintentional truth about the news media. The funny part, of course, is when it occasionally IS Captain Janks -- I was listening when Janks told Dan Rather he'd found Stern Show producer Bababooie's teeth among the Columbia wreckage.
JMR
Wow, sarc. ......well..... hm
November 17, 2006 - 10:58 ET by Indiana JoeWow, sarc. ......well..... hmmm........read the "Wiki" entry......
Okay, I like a good prank call as much as the next guy. And poking holes in MSM types is not only good sport, it's good for the country, IMO. To demonstrate how easy it is to fool these "guardians of the truth" is a valuable weapon in the battle against MSM bias and spin.
However,......
The Columbine shootings? The Columbia disaster? Train wrecks?
I'll admit that the "Hurricane Charlie" story was funny, and really did no harm. And the last example, where the reporter probably STILL doesn't know he was "had" was priceless.
But I can't get the image out of my head that somewhere, there's someone who was listening to the coverage of that train wreck, was worried about someone they knew or thought might be on that train, and had to hear about "tea-bagging" right in the middle of it. We had a similar fatal train wreck near here once, so maybe I'm hyper-sensitive on that one.
But true national tragedies like Columbine or Columbia? Just not funny. At some point, this "Janks" guy crosses a line, IMO.
I mean, I think I have a GREAT sense of humor. And I'm not alone in that opinion, either.
I don't know, maybe I'm getting to be too much of an old softie to keep up the "evil, mean-spirited Republican" thing.....turning into an "old fuddy-duddy," maybe.
And, yes, I am aware that HS and his followers are NOT Republicans. This strikes me more as Howard being PO'd at the media over his "First Amendment rights," and they not leaping to his defense. So, to him, it's just "payback."
And that's not a good enough reason for some of this stuff, IMHO.
Is Janks tasteful when he's
November 17, 2006 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmoIs Janks tasteful when he's making his point about the news media? No. But some of us like him anyway. And because it appeared on a second page the other day, you probably didn't catch the little fact that Ken Mehlman (among many other Republicans, come to think of it!) is a huge fan of Howard's show. Howard Stern, as far as I know has 0 "followers" at all, but his audience is both large and diverse, which is why he commands a superior price in the media marketplace -- a fact that apparently gets-under a few skins around these parts, so I like to keep pointing it out for 'em in bold! :)
And yes, this gas station attendant (who has been making his points about the news media for far-longer than NewsBusters.org has existed!!!) has those evil "First Amendment rights" some conservatives seem to think require scare-quotes for some reason. They protect Janks & Ms. Laura equally in these situations, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "payback" -- from Howard or anyone else -- it has to do with the Bill of Rights. Janks does his own thing to the media, and Howard just plays the funny ones. Howard Stern has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of "payback" anyway, so he ignores idiots like Clear Channel & others in big media who shamefully kowtowed to a big government FCC which shouldn't exist IMO. Finally, if you don't like the Captain's somewhat crude stuff, which tends for obvious reasons to occur during the "droning on and on and trying to fill dead airtime" part of various disasters, may I suggest the cheap-for-taxpayers "off" button? It completely eliminates all traces of him or his crank calls. I happen to like Janks as much as Dan Rather et al hate him.
JMR
Well, I seem to be ruffling f
November 17, 2006 - 19:18 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I seem to be ruffling feathers all over the place today.
Sarc, listen to Janks all you want. Not my cup of tea, that's all. I never heard of the guy until I read the link you posted. I pointed out that some of what I read in that link struck me as funny. But not all of it did. Must it? I mean, really, must it?
I don't have "Sirius" or "Clear Channel" of any other of the satellite services. So I don't listen, nor do I have an "off" button. If I did, I really am quite aware of what it's purpose is. I believe you said you were a "logistics" guy in the service. I've mentioned before that I defer to superior knowledge. I happen to be an electronic technician. So, when it comes to "off" buttons, I do know whereof I speak. I even know how to change the channel on my radio. And I don't think I said Janks, or Howard, or anyone else shouldn't be allowed to broadcast. So, the "off buttton" remark kind of makes me go, "huh?"
As to the make-up of Howard Stern's audience, I neither know nor care. I merely made the comment that I didn't think many Republicans were members. Maybe I'm wrong, and he has a huge Republican following. Or, as you put it, "0 'followers' at all." Again, I'm not in a position to say.
Those quote marks around the phrase ....well, how do I put it without them now? The phrase <First Amendment rights> were merely to point out that, as I recall the news stories of the time, Howard was being ....pestered? .....hounded? ...by the FCC for using language they deemed inappropriate. My understanding is that was a big reason he made the move to sat-radio, to avoid that problem. I don't recall the media falling all over itself to defend his right to use such language on the airwaves. And, since he now seems to take delight in pointing out their stupidity, via Janks, I made the connection that there may be some,....well, connection.
I am of the opinion that the "First Amendment" (I'll use the quotes here, to make up for improperly using them before, apparently), while applying equally, I believe, to Howard Stern and to .... oh, I don't know, NB or Rush or Larry Flynt, or the NYT....take your pick or think of another one, ... was meant more to protect political discourse and dissent than it was to protect .... well, certain things that some people may find offensive. I'm not saying it DOESN'T protect them. Just that I don't think that was the main reason it was included in the Bill of Rights. In much the same way that I don't believe the purpose of the "Second Amendment" (note the quotes: fair is fair) was primarily to protect the rights of hunters. Anti-gunners like to pretend that's true, but I just don't buy it.
Finally, I don't care how much money Howard Stern makes, one way or the other, or how successful he is or isn't. He's found his niche (not to imply it's a small one, you understand) and he's very successful at what he does. More power to him. I've heard the man, when he was on regular radio. I've seen his TV show. He can be funny, witty, vulgar, and interesting. I don't recall ever actually slamming the guy. He's just not really on my radar at all. In short, nothing about Howard Stern gets "under my skin" at all.
Sorry if my opinion of Janks offended you. Or Howard, or those quote marks or anything else.
I have no ruffled feathers
November 19, 2006 - 05:17 ET by sarcasmoI have no ruffled feathers (I still think Howard's paycheck does that to others, here, if not you) over this, but I'm always protective of a single standard for the first amendment, because I have to be, frankly. There's no "main reason it was included" clause, for one thing, so your point about that is irrelevant, and I totally agree about the Second amendment having no explanatory clauses, too. And no electronic device I've ever bought has been without an "off" button, but if yours don't have 'em, try pulling the plug! Unless they're magical, that should have the desired effect. ANYthing but using more of my-taxes for a bloated, incompetent FCC which should not exist, whether you like/dislike Howard, Janks, or anyone else on the radio. The fact that an FCC still exists is as much of a disgrace as the fact that a Department of Education exists -- they're both useless. Finally, isn't respect for elders a conservative principle? Let's face it, Janks is our elder when it comes to the news media, and even if you don't like his blast of wind from Howard's ass jokes, that's due a bit of respect, IMO. I'm going back away 'till Monday AM now.
JMR
Sarc, I'm going to try to com
November 20, 2006 - 01:06 ET by Indiana JoeSarc, I'm going to try to compromise here. Not with you, but with myself. See, this is the third time I'm trying to write a response to this last one of yours. The first one was, once again, conciliatory, trying to smooth the waters and get past this. You and I have often been in agreement. I don't think we have to ALWAYS agree, but I'd rather get along with folks in general.
Then, I re-read your post, and I kind of saw red. Wrote another one that was pretty PO'd. Very, VERY "over the top." Some of the things you say here, I must say I find very insulting to me personally. And I started ranting. But I've calmed down, so I'm trying to strike a balance here. Let's see how well I can do it. I don't even want to debate Janks or HS anymore, except to maybe clarify my thoughts where I feel it's needed. You like them both. I have no real opinion on HS, he's okay I guess. But I think, from what I read at that "Wiki" page you linked to, way back when, that Janks sometimes crosses a line in re when and how he makes his points about the MSM. He does make his points, I will grant that, and proves their gullibility. No question.
What bothers me the most, I guess, is your continual referral to the "off" button. I believe I already said I don't own a satellite radio receiver. I don't listen to satellite radio. Therefore, I have no "on" button, no "off" button, no "plug," no RECEIVER. I hope I'm making myself clear here. And I really am a certified, Purdue University-diploma-ed (?) electronic technician. Have been for sixteen years, in an industrial setting. Some very "cutting edge" stuff. Now, you've mentioned experience with "logistics" in the past, and I would defer to you in that area. I wish you'd grant me the same courtesy, and take for granted the fact that I understand how to turn off the type of equipment that I make my living repairing. I understand the argument about the "off" button for those who advocate censorship. But I don't believe I made any such advocation in either of my posts. In any event, I simply ask for the same respect of professionalism I extend to you.
And I understand that you have a "single-standard" as you put it. I take that to mean that it applies to everyone, or to no one. Not sure of the terminology in this case. And I don't disagree with that. I made a point regarding the original intent of the First Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. I didn't mean to imply that affected the meaning of the amendment. And made the same point (I thought) regarding the Second Amendment. I must admit to a certain level of confusion when you state that the reference to the First Amendment was "irrelevant," yet you "agree" with the same point about the Second Amendment.
But, regardless of the reason either was included, I think we can agree that the application of them is absolute: either they apply to all or to none. Have I got that part right? Either way, I don't believe I called for anyone to be censored. If I did, please show me where. Maybe you thought I implied that, but I assure you, that was not my intent.
As to the FCC and the DOE: well, I definitely agree that the DOE is not within the legitimate purview of the federal government. AND, it does more harm than good anyway, IMO. My comment on the FCC was solely mentioned in conjuction with Stern's decision to move to sat-radio. It was a passing reference, not meant to defend or decry the FCC itself. Like any federal bureaucracy, it is a bloated, inefficient dinosaur. Whether there is any need or justification for it is an issue apart, to me. Maybe some others are interested in engaging in that debate, but I'm not, in this context. If you have problems with "others here," please don't project that onto me. I get the feeling that may have happened here. Reading what "others" have said into my words, I mean.
Finally, I give respect where, in my opinion, it is due. Not based on age alone, it's not automatic. I don't believe that's a "conservative principle," and if it IS, it's one I don't agree with. That's just MY opinion. I do give people the benefit of the doubt, unless and until they prove to not deserve it. As far as Janks goes, there are some aspects of his methodology I disagree with, as I mentioned. I merely expressed that, and I don't believe I at all "disrespected" the man. Nor do I believe that merely disagreeing with someone shows a lack of "respect." It just shows a lack of "agreement."
That's all. I hope I've made myself clear, because I think I've done the best I can in that regard. I'd like to move on, as this has about been beaten to death, IMHO.
Sarc - This Janks guy demonst
November 17, 2006 - 11:12 ET by Free StinkerSarc - This Janks guy demonstrates how poorly the MSM verifies their information.
I recall a blizzard some 13-14 years ago in New York, and this Janks guy calls WCBS-TV posing as someone from the mayor's "Emergency Storm Council" That name should have given it away right there.
The MSM is so lazy.
Imbroglio
November 17, 2006 - 10:29 ET by allanfBush is like "Hitler". Bush tramples on civil rights. But if a radio personality who Leahy disagrees with tries to use a little humor, thats a "civil rights" violation.
It is amazing that the left eschews religion. They seem to believe that they are endowed with absolute truth, an absolute truth which must be defended at any cost by almost any governmental means.
They don't eschew religion.
November 18, 2006 - 00:10 ET by annoyedmanThey don't eschew religion. They're just not intellectually honest enough to admit the religion they DO have, which they partake of at the altar of self. And the reason they threaten and bluster those who critically examine their dogma is that they know down in their baggy black hearts that their dogma will not stand critical examination.
Darkness hates the light.
I never gave anybody hell. I just told them the truth and they thought it was hell. - Harry Truman
Leahy
November 17, 2006 - 20:45 ET by pbthinkerWelcome to the new legislature, with the Democrats in charge.
I hope that she will be inves
November 18, 2006 - 06:45 ET by joe conservativeI hope that she will be investigated by the fed's. This is akin to the NH phone jamming operation where those people were convicted with jailtime. This type of offense is a felony with a 10 year sentance attached. Lets see her try to squirm out of that one. Maybe her buddy Clarence Thomas can help her out.
Typical Democratic leftist
November 18, 2006 - 06:56 ET by Jack BauerTypical Democratic leftist terror enabling Leahy. What a scary shill he is.
Wants the "feds" to stop the Terrorsist Surveillance Programme to concentrate on a female Talk Show host, and political commentator.
Sort of like the Clintons who used to FBI to illegally spy on their political opponents. Or Schumer's staffers who illegally obtained private credit information of Michael Steel
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
If the Clintons actually use
November 18, 2006 - 07:10 ET by joe conservativeIf the Clintons actually used the FBI to illegally spy on their political opponents, wouldn't Dan Burtin have investigated?
Leahy/Ingraham
November 18, 2006 - 14:58 ET by BA in LAWhat she did could be bad taste or vandalism. I don't see it as anything illegal or worthy of investgation by the Federal Justice Department, The american people have not anointed the Democrat Party to investigate voter fraud. That is the government's responsibility. If she interfered with anything it was the overstepping of the DNC.