Andrew at NPI live-blogged this evening’s FCC hearing on media consolidation, and he reports that Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen was the first to speak.
Blethen, who was politely welcomed, used most of his time to complain about consolidation and centralization of media in America, and grumble about “the powerful who co-opt the free press”. Indeed.
How about that. Frank and I agree on something.
All snarkiness aside, Frank and I do agree on this issue, which is rather ironic, because as passionate as Frank is in his opposition to loosening federal restrictions on media consolidation, that didn’t seem to stop him from directing his editorial board to endorse a slate of Republicans who uniformly support these new rules. (Or, in the case of Dave Reichert, had absolutely no idea what the phrase “media consolidation” meant.)
Okay… I guess I couldn’t quite put my snarkiness aside. But Frank and I do agree. In theory.
Anyway, Andrew has more on tonight’s hearing here, here, here, and here.
For a guy who’s worried about media consolidation, Frank’s sure in a hurry to get rid of the P-I.
If Frank Blethen buys HA, I won’t post here anymore.
That’s not a threat, it’s a promise!
Whatever Frank is offering, I will double it!
Provided his offer is less that $37.50. :o)
Dammit. ….less than….
Yep the Socialist Democrats did not have an early exit plan or a long term one on the horizon. Now we get to use the same old game plan that the Republicans had been using all along to win this war. Forget the draft that would mean the cowards would have to do something for their country. Socialist/Communist you don’t get to implement your cut and run politicizes. The Socialist is now in the new smoke and mirrors tricks to hide their short comings. What say you?
The Only Consensus on Iraq: Nobody’s Leaving Right Now
By DAVID E. SANGER
Despite the Democrats’ victory, the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12.....038;emc=th
Hey Klake:
Cutting and pasting as usual. How about an original thought, one not fraught with errors of spelling and grammar?
Fuck you!
MarktheRedDickedAsshole is a pussy. He got spanked and he vanished. How is it under momma’s skirt Mark?
Fuck you too!
Pitiful Democrats
For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that – now that it is upon us – it can do little or nothing but harass the administration.
There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels.
In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush’s administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen’s filibuster applies.
The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60.
In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority – 218 – to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.
Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army – disciplined, unified and determined – the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail – caucus by caucus.
First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus – hat in hand – to see if one’s bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one’s legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats – the out and out conservatives.
If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.
The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.
This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dejà vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the Democrats in the House.
Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, “I didn’t even recognize myself.”
Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival
So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don’t worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel’s, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It’s not going to happen.
What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only – to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can’t pass legislation. Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
So folks who is the author of the previous statements?
My Left Foot says:
Hey Klake:
Cutting and pasting as usual. How about an original thought, one not fraught with errors of spelling and grammar?
Mr. Left Foot did you go to sensitively training in your Seattle school? Not everyone can be as perfect as you are in your own mind. Love and Kisses.
Hey Klake, they letting you post from jail?
http://www.komotv.com/news/4795006.html
My Left Foot says:
Dear Dan @ 37:
Where is your proof of the military voting 80% Republican?
I spent a career in the military. I am unaware that the military votes out of proportion with the general public. In discussions with other officers and enlisted men I learned that we all voted our beliefs. I promise you that the military is made up of Americans, not Republicans.
If I had to bet my life on it, I would wager that there are more Democrats in the military. The overwhelming majority of soldiers come from middle and lower middle class backgrounds. The breeding ground for Democrats. So, unless you can cite a study that proves me wrong, I will accept my 22 years of experience as being far more credible than your out of hat comment.
11/30/2006 at 11:38 pm
Left Foot that might be true 30 years ago, how old are you today 80?
Klake:
It is not my habit to spread my military experience around, however, for you I will make an exception. I am 49 years old, 50 next month. My experience is relevant to todays military, asshole.
As for your cut and paste job, which very few read, it was written by a pundit who knows nothing about how congress works.
Dems do have a majority. Try getting further funding for the war. Try to fund any Republican pet project, it is just not going to happen without give and take. There was a threat during the beginning of this last congress to change the rules, the nuclear option as it was referred to, are you not glad that did not pass now?
Without negotiation, your beloved GWB will be frozen out. He can’t even get a hearing on his choice for some judges and UN Ambassador and you assholes are still the majority. There are middle of the road Republicans who will side with the Dems in order to keep their seats. They are mindful right now of the Big Blue Broom that cost them 39 seats while not even ONE Democrat held seat was lost. Do you understand this Klake? Self-preservation is paramount in the mind of a politician, party line comes in a distant second.
It does not take a 60 percent majority to pass legislation in the Senate. Only a simple majority. The 60 percent is needed to end a filibuster, a tactic only used sparingly. There is some honor left and senators, by and large, respect the unwritten rule of how and when to use it.
Now, Klake, go fuck yourself. You have never added anything to this blog. Give us an early Christmas present and vanish, just as JCH and MarkTheRedDickedAsshole have done.
Frank Blethen can always be counted upon to voice an opinion which is in his
nation’sfamiliy’s best interest.The Seattle Times has the most money/circulation under the Joint Publishing Agreement than their rival, the P.I. Blethen wants to put the P.I. out of business before he dies, leaving his sons owning a one-newspaper town, so he is trying to dismantle the P.I. (but keep the presses for Times use).
But the P.I. is owned by the Hearst Corporation, which presumably has more money at its collective disposal than the Times. What is to prevent the Hearst Corporation from using its collective mony to fight back, and put the Times out of business instead? My guess is that Blethen is relying upon the government to “protect” the Times from what it would then call “media consolidation” by the P.I.
Klake @ 18:
What does my post have to do with sensitivity? I would suggest putting down the crack pipe and the Olde English, that shit is rotting what is left of your 6 brain cells.
I did not attend Seattle schools. As for my sensitivity training, the military taught me all I need to know. I do not suffer fools or idiots. You belong to both groups. I only discriminate against these two groups,and never based on ethnicity, religion or sexual preference.
21
Excellent take on the newspaper situation. Nice bit of critical thinking.
re 7: Why are you griping about an “exit plan” when your Republican “entry plan” was a criminal lie. Go fuck yourself loser. We are going to investigate your criminal asses into obscurity.
You have no right to question our actions any more than any convicted felon does. You won’t even have the right to vote let alone gibber about exit plans.
I cannot stress this strongly enough: “Your ass is grass.”
IMPEACH BUSH
So, Klake claims the Democratic Congress can’t do anything, because it will be subject to fillibuster in the Senate or Presidential veto.
As My Left Foot pointed out, that also means that the Republicans can do even less. They can’t dismantle Social Security. They can’t reduce the minimum wage for food servers. No-bid contracts will get an immediate Congressional inquiry, and may be quickly retracted. Spending bills for Iraq will be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb, eliminating wasteful contracts and long-term military base construction in that country.
But in fact the Democrats can do something. One of the first things they will pass will be a new minimum wage bill, which (unlike the Republican attempt) will not be tied to other issues. So, how many Republicans will vote against the bill on a straight up/down vote? Do you really think they would dare to do that? In only two years one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election, along with a all of the House. Do you think the surviving Republicans will want to face campaign advertisements reminding voters that their Republican Congressman or Senator voted directly against a raise in the minimum wage?
Or how about the State Sales Tax Deduction. Republicans tried to tie it to an elimination of the federal estate tax, but it didn’t fly. What if the Democratic Congress puts it up for a straight up/down vote? Would Dave Reichart dare to vote against it, knowing it would be featured prominately in 2008 campaign ads, reminding voters that he voted to tax Washington taxpayers more than most other states in the union?
klake @ half the thread:
If I want to read Dick Morris’s thoughts on how the universe is put together, I’ll go over to vote.com and do that.
I’m frankly more curious as to your thoughts on how the universe is put together. First, do you just look for material that makes the Democratic party look bad and post that, or is there a more complicated cognitive process involved?
Second, have you considered the source of your material for any period of time? Mr. Morris was a Democratic insider for 20 years. He was caught sharing sensitive information about the White House with a prostitute. This pretty much guaranteed he couldn’t get a position as a precinct chief in the Idaho panhandle with the Dems.
Shortly after this all exploded on the pages of the tabloids, he reemerged as a Republican! Incredible. I want this woman’s phone number! I’ve had some really good blow jobs in my life, but none that caused me to change jobs and go work for the guys that we’d been trying to beat for 20 years.
In short, why do you give any credence whatsoever to a word that comes out of that man’s mouth?
Typical Klake, you give him a reasoned response and he suddenly becomes mute. Much nicer this way.
Can you imagine the Republican Congressmen pleading with Bush not to veto the minimum wage increase? Most of them have to come up for re-election in 2008, but Bush does not. I would love to be a fly on the wall in that exchange.
Hey Klake:
One other thing. Should another supreme court judge leave the bench in the next two years how will Bush get an appointment through?
You are right, the Dems won’t have any control over government doings. You fucking simpleton
JSA,
Second, have you considered the source of your material for any period of time? Mr. Morris was a Democratic insider for 20 years. He was caught sharing sensitive information about the White House with a prostitute. This pretty much guaranteed he couldn’t get a position as a precinct chief in the Idaho panhandle with the Dems.
Shortly after this all exploded on the pages of the tabloids, he reemerged as a Republican! Incredible. I want this woman’s phone number! I’ve had some really good blow jobs in my life, but none that caused me to change jobs and go work for the guys that we’d been trying to beat for 20 years.
In short, why do you give any credence whatsoever to a word that comes out of that man’s mouth?
There are two issues I want to address briefly. First, Morris had both Democrats and Republicans as clients for most of his career. Now he spends much of his time obsessing about Hillary Clinton. The rest of his time he spends saying truly stupid things on Fox News (sic).
Second, aside from his personal motives, he simply has a stunningly bad track-record. As an observer and analyst of American politics, he sucks. He simply doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. So the question of why anyone should listen to him begins with his idiocy and lack of professional judgment and credibility, not his lack of personal judgment and credibility. Perhaps one could make the argument that his personal failings lead to his professional bungling, but I don’t think that’s necessary to demonstrate just what a knucklehead Dick Morris is and why we should ignore him. We can simply point out that he’s not good at his job.
Klake ranted:
Amazing. The new Congress hasn’t even been sworn in yet, and the far-right fringies are already complaining that we haven’t managed to end the war, world hunger and poverty yet.
Even more amazing is that even though our people have yet to take office, for the first time since the beginning of this war, the people in charge are acknowledging that we will not simply accept an open-ended commitment to throw more lives and money into that pit.
The Republicans’s plan was to stay until Iraq was a US-modeled democracy. The election results have apparently freed those Republicans that were honest and able to think for themselves from the “Prussian Army” lock-step.
Withdrawl from Iraq is finally on the table. Yes, we’ll still have to work with a Republican President to make it happen, but we seem to be pulling back from the “stay the course” rhetoric and actually working towards giving the Iraqis back their country.
What they do with it after that is their business.
Just to add and echo to what many others here have said to klake.
You’re saying that the Democrats won’t be able to implement much of our agenda. Actually, you may be right.
Still, the first thing you do when you discover that you’ve been going the wrong way is to stop.
Charting a new path to your destination comes next, and there will be a lot of disagreement, even within the Democratic Party about where we should be going from here. We Democrats are a rather fractious bunch, as you correctly pointed out. We tend to vote our consciences and beliefs, rather than some arbitrary “party line”.
This makes for heated debate and occasionally, gridlock.
That’s ok with me. When there is no clear path, often the best answer is to just stand still. And, when you’re moving the wrong way, only an idiot thinks that “staying the course” will help matters.
22 The Hearst Corporation probably makes more profit from its cattle-ranching operation at San Simeon than it does from its newspapers.
Another TJ,
I was not aware of Mr. Morris’ bipartisan history. During the Clinton years, I remember him being the White House polltaker, and assumed he was a loyal Democrat.
I didn’t phrase it well in my first message, but the issue was not that he was seeing a prostitute. Seeing prostitutes is one of these things in the big world of “not my bag, but whatever floats your boat.” which encompasses about 95% of the activities in human existence, including, but not limited to golf, watching Monday Night Football, and drinking martinis. All good activities for somebody in the world, but not me.
The problem is that he talked about the inner workings of the White House with said prostitute, and the prostitute then went on to tell everyone who would listen about this.
Ergo, the problem with Morris is, as you said, not his personal failings (I’ll bet the heathen also likes his steaks well done!), but his professional failings.
I was going to say that I don’t know whether he’s bad at his job or not. Remember, his job is to get good news out, such as it exists. It’s not to set policy that could make good news. If you were a Republican in October, there wasn’t a lot of good news to be had. So he takes it where he can get it.
JSA, I didn’t mean it to sound like I was attacking you. Just trying to be clear, with not a lot of time to edit the post, so it sounded terse.
To me, even the blabbing to make himself look important isn’t the issue. He simply doesn’t know his head from a whole in the ground as an observer and analyst of American politics, so I’m not going to listen when klake cites him (without citing him).