Obama's Full Anti-Nukes Speech: Blasts Beltway Establishment »
Udall Introduces Resolution Condemning Rush
Last Friday we reported that Dem Rep. Mark Udall was planning on introducing a resolution in the House this week condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" crack.
Late yesterday, Udall finally introduced the resolution. In a statement, Udall took care to emphasize that his measure shouldn't be seen as tit for tat retribution for the House reso condeming MoveOn:
Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.
It's unclear whether this will come to a vote; House sources, however, say there's growing interest in the measure and that things are trending towards the affirmative. Udall's full statement after the jump. We'll bring you the text of the reso as soon as we have it.
Statement of REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALLOn the Introduction of a Resolution Honoring Our Armed Forces and Condemning Rush Limbaugh's Attack on "Phony Soldiers"
October 1, 2007
Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution to affirm that our
soldiers have the freedom to speak about the war in Iraq. As a Member
of the House Armed Services Committee, I believe it is important to
express opposition to the view that American soldiers who do not
embrace the policies of the Bush Administration lack the skills to do
the job of protecting their country or lack the willingness to make
the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country.Madam Speaker, as a general principle it should not be the business of
Congress to condemn or applaud the publicly expressed views of private
citizens. If we took note of every stupid, ignorant or asinine
utterance in the public square we would have little time to focus on
the important issues facing this nation.Moreover, I believe firmly in the right of every American to speak his
or her mind freely. Even the most outrageous and offensive speech is,
and should be, protected by the first amendment of our constitution.
Our citizens should be free to express their political views without
expecting Congress to act as a kind of imperious censor or arbiter of
what is acceptable, intelligent or in good taste. Instead of passing
resolutions condemning the political views of others, I think the
preferred approach for Congress as an institution is to stay above the
partisan fray and let individual Members express their personal, as
opposed to institutional, views about the free speech of others.There are times, however, when I believe this body should speak
collectively -- and that is in those rare circumstances when the speech
of prominent Americans, media personalities or political organizations
is so outrageous and divisive that it commands the attention of every
Member. We can respect the first amendment rights of others without
giving up our own right to speak out freely and collectively in this
body.In this regard, I believe remarks by a prominent conservative talk-
show personality, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, deserve a rebuke from the
Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should find his attack on
our men and women in uniform both offensive and deplorable.Specifically, Mr. Limbaugh suggested that soldiers who oppose the Bush
Administration's policy in Iraq are "phony soldiers." The clear
implication of his remarks leaves no doubt. Mr. Limbaugh used his
syndicated radio program to impugn the character of those American
servicemen and women who have spoken out against the policies of the
Bush Administration.I believe that Congress should make clear that our soldiers, whatever
their rank and whatever their views, deserve to be honored for their
service. I believe Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use
of the term "phony soldiers" is beneath contempt. I believe Congress
should remind Mr. Limbaugh that the men and women who serve in our
military do so, not as Republicans, conservatives, Democrats or
liberals, but as Americans.Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message
with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time
and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal
may be.It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women
serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign
soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for
anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their
political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.To suggest that a soldier's sacrifice is somehow made less worthy by
expressing his or her opinion betrays a view of military service so
cramped as to be unrecognizable to most Americans - Republicans or
Democrats. I can say with full confidence that that is not the
opinion held by those of us who serve on the Armed Services
Committee. Congress should make clear that it rejects this narrow
view as well.That is the underlying purpose of this resolution, and I ask my
colleagues to join me in embracing the underlying message.
Keep an eye on how Udall uses this in his Senate race. The CO open seat is one of Democrats' top pick-up opportunities (check these Senate Rankings), and Udall will certainly use this to his advantage.
October 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares!!!!! This is getting really, really silly. Let's get on with investigations of the criminals and getting out of Iraq. Enough of these bogus resolutions that are meaningless.
October 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely why Congress continues to get lower ratings than the abyssmally performing president. This adolescent schoolyard back and forth is NOT why Congress gets those fat paychecks and free health care. The people's business has been laid out in detail yet there is no one in Congress with the spine to move that business forward. All real work is suspended for this strutting and fretting. Pathetic.
October 2, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
VoteVets.org is asking those who think Rush should apologize to call 1-800-282-2882 and tell him.
If you believe Rush should stop calling anti-Iraq War vets "phoney soldiers" give him a call.
(A donation towards more ads giving a voice to vets would be welcomed also, I'm sure.)
Thanks!
October 2, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most insane BS I have ever seen. Limbaugh is despicable; but it is not the job of the United States Congress to be determining what is and what is not acceptable free speech. Quite frankly, it is arguably an unconstitutional act for them to do so even though it is non-binding; it still serves to chill free speech. It was not appropriate on the Move-On ad and it is not appropriate here. Anybody who believes in the Constitution and First Amendment should be violently opposed to this.
October 2, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare these two statements:
"I believe remarks by a prominent conservative talk-show personality, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, deserve a rebuke from the Congress." -- AND --
"Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution."
-- How can it NOT be a partisan message when he labels Limbaugh "conservative" in the text of the resolution? Did he not use that label SPECIFICALLY because the MoveOn.org resolution used the label "liberal activist group"? In both cases the labels are accurate; but, if the only factor of importance (according to Mark Udall) is 'what was said' and NOT 'which side of the left-right divide the speaker occupies', why call him a conservative in the text? Is it simple truth-telling or is it tit-for-tat?
"I believe it is important to
express opposition to the view that American soldiers who do not
embrace the policies of the Bush Administration lack the skills to do
the job of protecting their country or lack the willingness to make
the ultimate sacrifice in service of their country."
-- This shows that Udall ALMOST gets the thrust of Limbaugh's comments; insert the words "as presented to them in the form of direct orders from their superiors" between the words "Administration" and "lack" and you've just about got it. Just as in the case of these resolutions -- and the speech they condemn -- the idea of "You have the right to speak but be prepared to have what you say reflect badly on you" applies. The right of military personnel to speak doesn't remove the right of anyone to criticize them, up to and including the opinion that they should have kept their mouths shut.
"[I]t is not acceptable for
anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their
political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief."
-- Questioning someone's commitment to their job and accusing someone of not loving their country are two different things. Rush did the former; he DID NOT do the latter. And yet, in the above sentence Udall basically equates the two, leaving the impression that Rush's intention was to label these people as "unpatriotic". This he did not do. He MIGHT feel that way (I am neither a dittohead nor a Limbaugh apologist) but in the matter at hand he said no such thing.
Emphasis added by me:
"We CAN respect the first amendment rights of others without giving up our own right to speak out freely and collectively in this body."
-- Again, just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD do it.
October 2, 2007 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we also CAN spend our time debating who said what nasty about whom and why but it serves no substantive purpose. None. Congress needs to be doing the people's business not posturing to their base.
October 2, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
bmaz wrote:
"it is arguably an unconstitutional act for them to do so even though it is non-binding; it still serves to chill free speech."
-- Does the Congress have the power to intimidate the free exercise of speech? I doubt that either MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh feels intimidated in the slightest right now; enraged, and more determined to speak out than ever before maybe, but not intimidated. There was no threat, real or implied, of punitive action against -- or withholding of funds from -- anything or anyone; no call for legislation of any kind. If legislation is subsequently introduced, such as a call for the return of the Fairness Doctrine, that cites "facts" from this resolution, THEN there will be something to talk about regarding intimidation ... in that legislation, not in this resolution.
-- These resolutions do not violate the First Amendment SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE they are non-binding. "Congress shall make no LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech." The difference between binding and non-binding IS the difference between a law and a resolution. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 reads: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings". That the Congress has adopted the policy of wasting countless hours of time and countless dollars from the public treasury (and countless trees in printing this speechifying in the Congressional Record) is regrettable and sad ... but they have the right to do it.
October 2, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
phil james wrote:
"And we also CAN spend our time debating who said what nasty about whom and why but it serves no substantive purpose. None. Congress needs to be doing the people's business not posturing to their base."
-- At the risk of sounding like a Limbaugh fan ... Ditto. That's why I said "just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean you SHOULD do it."
October 2, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the concern trolls saying that congress SHOULDN'T condemn one of the highest paid entertainers (and a draft dodger to boot) are probably fans of the synthetic heroin addict. Congress should stick it in his implanted ear and then go about dismantling the failed philosophies he embraces. If Drug Limbaugh doesn't like it, he can just sign up to fight in Iraq himself. He's not fit to the lick the boots of people he calls "phony," and yet he profits off of the bloodlust that causes us to keep pursuing Bush's failed policies.
October 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Captain Oblivious - I am no concern troll; I simply care about the spirit and letter of the Constitution. If you had any real understanding of the document or it's underpinnings, you would understand. Clearly, you have no such knowledge.
Gopher Idiot - You are indeed a rodent without a clue. You either did not read or did not understand what I wrote; else you would not have made such an unresponsive reply. Perhaps you might want to do a little research on the concept of "chilling free speech". The information is out there if you are capable of understanding it.
October 2, 2007 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What lovely sentiments; name-calling, disparaging attacks on intelligence ... actually discussing and debating the issues, as opposed to launching personal attacks against the anonymous persons who disagree with something you wrote, might be a better way to get your point across.
So anyway, I researched "chilling free speech" and came across this, written by a First Amendment lawyer:
"We should worry greatly about chilling effects that inhibit free speech. ... When speech is silenced, not only the speakers, but the potential listeners -- and society as a whole -- lose out. Fewer messages are sent; the diversity of views is lessened; and our communications media ... are impoverished."
I can agree with that sentiment. I also see that with respect to radio the term is often used in cases where FCC fines have been imposed, something that doesn't apply here since Rush didn't swear or use graphic sexual language, and because there was no discussion within the legislature of any punitive action being taken against him. My opinion is that there is no substantive chilling effect, because the resolution is nothing more than highly visible but ultimately empty posturing that won't inhibit Rush, or his network, or his fellow talk radio commentators the slightest bit.
October 3, 2007 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
UPDATE: On his show today, Rush Limbaugh spoke of "chilling free speech". In line with the last paragraph of my previous post, he described the congressional resolutions against him as attempts to chill free speech (he did not use the "chill" terminology); he was also emphatic in his steadfastness to not be intimidated in the least by these actions.
So, was I wrong when I said it was no big deal? No. Rush rightly recognizes it as an attempt that will fail miserably because, unlike the other cases of "chilling free speech" that I found, in this case there is no teeth to the gov't entity's proclamation (which didn't even pass by the way). No threat of a stiff FCC fine; no imposition of college newspaper editorializing by the faculty.
Maybe the S-CHIP flap will knock this story (finally!) put of the spotlight.
October 3, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink