Skip to comments.C-SPAN Battle: Historian Shouts Down Congressman At Hearing
Posted on 11/22/2011 7:00:57 PM PST by edpc
Televised congressional hearings often serve as a platform for members of Congress to berate, bloviate and showboat for the cameras, but at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Tuesday, historian Douglas Brinkley wouldn't stand for it.
The topic at hand was drilling in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The trouble began when Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young misstated Brinkley's name after referring to the hearing as "an exercise in futility." In a certain breach of protocol, Brinkley cut him off.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Video at source.
Essentially a liberal jerkoff.
Sure acted like one.
I remember Steve Malzberg of NYC was fooled by Brinkley, and he used to have Brinkley on his radio show.
Mr. Brinkley’s response not withstanding, I’ve always wondered about these hearings when the citizens are asked or required to testify, why are the “servants” of the public sitting high above on the dais looking down their noses, over their glasses with a grand sense of majesty? Seems to me that the inquisitors should be on the floor with the citizen on the dais.
When Congressmen are professional politicians government turns against the people. Yes, they simply use hearings as an opportunity to record sound bites and get quotes in the record that they can use to appeal to voting blocks, mostly their base (i.e., “see how I raked that evil businessman over the coals ?”).
If the Congressmen were citizen politicians, i.e., very well known AND respected in their home state, accomplished people widely acknowledged to be of excellent character (think in terms of the year 1790 or so), then their time in these hearings would serve a good purpose. Being of good character would mean, of course, they would take their fiduciary responsibility of overseeing the nation’s Treasury seriously, and - other than in time of war - there would always be a surplus at year’s end - NEVER a deficit. The government would accumulate a very large reserve of cash, then refund surplus to taxpayers every year after that, keeping just enough to add a bit to reserves.
When the morals of society at large go down the toilet, so go the morals of the leaders of society.
A liberal academic with an agenda -- and absolutely no expertise in the issue at hand.
What the hell was he doing there in the first place?
Rep. Young was a jerk.
The topic at hand was drilling in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The trouble began when Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young misstated Brinkley's name after referring to the hearing as "an exercise in futility." In a certain breach of protocol, Brinkley cut him off.Why would a third-rate historian be called to testify about the Arctic? Because it's not really testimony when Congressional Democrats are involved.
Having been to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel the same way. I wondered who the f**k they thought they were, looking down in us like that.
Brinkley may be a lefty lightweight. But in principle, I like it when these blowhard congresscritters get knocked off their high horses every now and again.
Mu thoughts, exactly.
mu = my
Off with his head!!!
He did a book on the Katrina disaster in New Orleans which was published about a year after the hurricane--a massive volume. I browsed through it briefly in a bookstore once--it wasn't a blatant hit job against Bush like many books by liberals are, but I might have found bias if I had spent more time looking through it.
I'm suspicious of people who publish academic books in rapid succession--it's hard to do original research so quickly. Maybe an older person can publish worthwhile books in quick succession if they represent a lot of research over the years, but Brinkley is still fairly young, and obviously the research on Katrina only began after the hurricane made landfall.
Having given 4 open congressional testimonies and one in Executive Session, the way you can get to testify is any one of the following:
1. You ask to testify based on information/experiences you have that are relevant to the subject of the hearing. (2 of my testimonies on Vietnam/Cambodia).
2. You are ordered to testify by the Hearing chairman because he thinks you have something worthwhile to say on the topic of the hearing (1 testimony on Vietnam and POWS).
3. You did something that caught the attention of a congressional committee and they asked you or ordered you to testify) (1 - asked based on my undercover work in the Left). In this case, maybe Brinkley wrote something that the committee was interested in, or he was nominated to testify by a member of the committee.
4. You can also submit a “statement” or paper to a hearing for inclusion in the Exhibits/Appendix that is relevant to the subject of the hearing (1 report submitted because we didn’t learn of the hearing’s date and deadline to apply to testify until it was too late to do so. (Report on Illegal Use of Tax Exemptions for Lobbying was published as a submitted document).
5. You are a recognized “expert” or “expert witness” on a subject, often something scientific or historical, and are asked to testify about a subject within your realm of experience/research. (Not yet, but I am classified as an “expert witness” in my professional work - mainly for court cases but could apply to congressional hearings).
Hope this answers your question.
You are being very charitable toward "Mr Brinkley."
Brinkley is a GASBAG FRAUD! Typical RUDE Democrat.
True, but this was far removed from an Oliver North or Howard Hughes performance.
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.