Posted on 07/02/2007 1:05:16 PM PDT by hardback
On the morning the immigration bill died — again — the ideological Washington Times exposed a supposed plot on Page One: A photo of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the liberal Democrat from New York, conspiring with a Republican “traitor” from South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to put something over on the American people.
In reality, they could have been checking a takeout menu. That Thursday morning, however, Schumer and Graham were in agreement that the Senate should keep talking and voting on revising laws on illegal immigration.
To the conservative media, Schumer and Graham symbolized the enemy. Hours later, the senators’ cause was lost. And the new
media — websites, e-mails, conservative talk radio and television — scored their most clearcut victory since the reelection of President George W. Bush in 2004.
This time the new media did it without strings being pulled by Karl Rove, President Bush’s top advisor. Rove deployed these same forces under the mainstream radar in the election. This time Rove, and his president, were on other side, trying to move legislation they hoped would build an Hispanic Republican voting bloc and give Bush a shining legacy.
The dividing line in the aftermath between the new conservative media and the traditional mainstream outlets couldn’t have been sharper. National Public Radio dolefully headlined Friday morning that Congress was under attack for failing to pass the immigration bill.
Right wing radio talk show hosts couldn’t have been happier. Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were exultant. Michael Savage told listeners on 400 stations that the defeat of the bill was the greatest moment of his life.
A CBS poll showed only 13 percent of those surveyed supported the effort that Bush, Schumer, Graham and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., were making.
If the poll is representative, then where were the other 87 percent getting their information, true or false, about the bill?
The pillars of the mainstream press, the New York Times and the Washington Post, covered the debate like a horse race, offering few details. Same for the networks. Cable news continued its obsession with murders and Paris Hilton.
The details were offered up daily by hundreds of cottage websites and conservative radio, talking to the heartland over the heads of insider mainstream reporters here and in Manhattan.
They were fed by analyses published by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and facts served up by Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. The result jammed the Senate’s switchboards and fax machines. It clearly alarmed Establishment senators who supported the bill.
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., mocked the notion that a government that could not process passports for its citizens could investigate and document more than 12 million illegal immigrants, and secure the Southern border.
The “Terrorism Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007,” is what Sessions called it, pointing to holes in border enforcement the bill didn’t plug.
Sessions and the new media were aided by a number of elements: 1) Bush wasted six years of Republican congresses and tried passing it with the help of Democrats who had no interest in giving him a legacy; 2) It was a deeply flawed bill; 3) There had been no hearings on the measure.
The stunning victory scored by new media in this episode raises a big question for the power structure: The lobbyists, the political Establishment and their friends in the mainstream press.
How are they going to manage the message in the presidential election, when more and more people out there are looking elsewhere for details?
Talk about your pipe dreams.
Pundits need to stop repeating this erroneous Rove hope as fact. Polls show most illegals are voting 70-30/80-20 Democratic
We all need to hound our local pols to enforce the laws also. We need to attend their meetings and voice our opinions. Report zoning, employment, traffic. loitering, noise violations every time we see one. Call the cops and ice on suspected illegals and their employers. Let the mayors and councilman know that their jobs are on the line if they offer any type of excuses or sanctuary for illegals.
Build that fence, Mr. Bush!
What an awful problem!!! (/s)
What a shock.
If the readers of the New York Times were interested in interested in a critical, unflinching analysis of any actual issues, they wouldn't be reading the New York Times.
“the ideological Washington Times...” As if the Buffalo News isn’t an ideological, agenda-driven rag, and as if this writer was an empty slate with no opinions. What a load.
Why does no one seem particularly concerned that illegals are voting at all? Every time an illegal vote is cast, some legal voter is disenfranchised.
Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com
I find it amusing that MSM pollers know where to find the illegals. Shouldn’t they report them in?
Ideological, indeed. If one does not agree with any of the empty suits in D.C. or the MSM "pretty boys and girls," one is "ideological" in their haughty eyes.
Thank God for "ideological" types in the Washington Times, talk radio and bloggesphere, lest that vermin would have pulled off one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American citizens, while referring to the great unwashed among us as "racists, bigots, anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant, nativitists!"
The true test of all the Senate is this. If parts of the failed immigration amnesty bill were so important, they will be introduced as separate items. Like “border security”, which in reality is like “social security”, a farce. “Guest” worker program. Guests are invited and know when to leave. Work place enforcement of existing laws. Enforce them like you implied you would the new laws you proposed.
Ummm, nope. Most clearcut victory since the defeat of Harriet Myers...
Well said.
I’ll be willing to call the Washington Times ‘conservative media’ if you are willing to call yourselves ‘liberal media.’
They need and fear at the same time these venues, and if they (serious candidates such as Obama and Clinton are going to have to show that there is something inside the suit or pantsuit, and be on the record for a change.
Same thing goes for the right or alleged to be right candidates.
Issues such as Immigration, Border Security Defense, Abortion, and fiscal policy, those same issues that is needed to be addressed by the left, NEEDS to be addressed and the position anchors need to be manacled to the legs of Romney, of Giuiliani and of Thompson; the only viable right side candidates.
On five or six consecutive Monday nights in prime time Brit Hume needs to sit with a candidate (drawn by lots) for one hour at a table and discusse in-depth, the positions and beliefs of a particular candidate. No handlers. No prompters. No bullshit! No spin!!! The interview becomes the touchstone and benchmark of the particular candidate and all else is spin.
No Chris Mathews spitballs. No Larry King Softballs, a la favorites color or what do you like on a hot dog. Just as Sgt.Joe Friday would say,.."Just the facts Mam. Just the facts!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.