Udall to introduce ‘Rush’ resolution on Monday.

[kpete]

Udall to introduce ‘Rush’ resolution on Monday.

On Monday, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh’s comments that troops who support withdrawal from Iraq are “phony soldiers.” In a dear colleague letter, Udall says the resolution will honor “all Americans serving in the Armed Forces” while “condemning” Limbaugh’s “unwarranted attack.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/28/udall-to-introduce-rush-resolution-on-monday/

[AspenRose]

1. Yay...good for him

They're good people (Tom's his cousin)

[msongs]

2. and DEMAND a vote of censure just like with moveon.org nt

[cali]

24. er, there was no censure of MoveOn. n/t

[L. Coyote]

3. Can we amend that to include withdrawing from Iraq?

[rodeodance]

13. 'to dream the impossible dream"

[City Lights]

4. Good for him!

:toast:

[Larkspur]

5. I oppose Congress censuring free speech, but after caving into Repuke faux outrage over MoveOn.org's

ad, I see this censure motion as a "makeup" resolution for the Dems; however, I expect most of the Repukes and Bush Dog Dems to vote against this resolution thus killing it.

[rodeodance]

16. Paybacks are SWEET

[tblue37]

34. No matter--the publicity will hurt the bad guys. (eom)

[DURHAM D]

6. First time in a long time -

that the Dems have managed the message well.

I wonder if the DNC is driving this. I am sure it isn't Reid. Probably not Pelosi.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Now your talking!

Note to Dems: There's a legitimate point to be made against regulating free speech (ala John Kerry) and those that took this path on the Betrayus vote will not get any criticism from me if you choose to be consistent on this vote. But you Dems who chose to side with the Republicans on the Betrayus ad better show equal willingness to condemn Rush for his comments.

And I will so look forward to the Republicans squirming and spinning as they are hoisted on their own legislative petard.

[gateley]

8. Maybe the Dems will vote the right way for THIS one. Sheesh. nt

[Snotcicles]

9. I heard McCain said something about it. I wonder if McCain will hold his guns or

get get sent to the corner to sit in a puddle of his own pee.

[IDemo]

10. Tuesday headline: "Republicans 'disappointed' at Udall's attack on free speech"

Bush: "Why does Democrat party hate the Constitution?"

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. YES!!

If they are going to waste their time condemning folks, they may as well put Rush on their agenda. Then they need to go after the Swift Boat guys and the guys who slammed Max Cleland too.

Since all they want to do is pass stupid legislation, they may as well go all the way with it.

[hvn_nbr_2]

19. Yes! Yes! Yes!

Let them eat blowback.

[blogslut]

12. Yay

I hope it gets a lot of attention. I hope for many things.

[Fridays Child]

14. Sauce for the goose, baby! Sauce for the goose.

:woohoo:

[in_cog_ni_to]

Should we take bets on how many repukes vote against it?

WTG, Mark!:thumbsup:

[rodeodance]

15. OH RUSh----better have lots of BP pills!

[Amy6627]

17. That's spectacular! n/t

[The Doctor.]

18. It's a win/win....

Either they have to vote the same way or make asses of themselves. That's great.

[mediaman007]

20. Still...the timing is brutal! Why not introduce it today, before Repub's

spend the weekend planning how to counter it, and then trashing it on the Sunday talk shows.

I hope we have plans to get some people on those shows to draw attention to the hypocrisy in the Republican ranks.

[rodeodance]

23. Udall is looking for Co=sponsers. (see post below)

[rodeodance]

21. Udall letter here:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/exclusive_dem_rep_to_introduce_house_resolution_condemning_rush_limbaugh_on_monday.php


......Either way, it's a key development, because it has the potential to move this from a rhetorical battle to a legislative one, which would keep the story going. Here's Rep. Udall's "dear colleague" letter, which was leaked to Election Central:

September 28, 2007

JOIN AS AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF A RESOLUTION

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES AND

CONDEMNING RUSH LIMBAUGH'S ATTACK

ON "PHONY SOLDIERS"

Dear Colleague:

On September 26, 2007 the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

On Monday I will introduce a resolution honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces and condemning this unwarranted attack on the integrity and professionalism of those in the Armed Forces who choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding U.S. military action in Iraq.

For more information or to cosponsor the resolution, please contact XXXXXXX in my office at xxxxx.

Sincerely,


Mark Udall

[cali]

22. To the next Senator from the great state of Colorado:

Go Mark, go!

[Pawel K]

25. Normally I would not suppor this, but what can I say, payback is a bitch. nt

[Bjorn Against]

26. I am against censuring the speech of any citizen on principle...

For that reason if I were in Congress I would vote no on this resolution just like I would have voted no on the MoveOn resolution. As a private citizen I condemn Rush's words, but I don't believe it is the government's role to condemn the speech of citizens.

At the same time however this resolution probably needs to be introduced so that the Republicans are forced to show their hypocrisy, and hopefully learn that this kind of resolution should never be introduced again.

Hopefully this resolution will be introduced, voted on, and then Congress can get out of the business of censuring the speech of Americans.

[Recursion]

28. I don't see how a condemnation by Congress is wrong (and I didn't in MoveOn's case, either)

I wasn't for the MoveOn resolution, obviously, but I don't see it as in any way overstepping Congress's authority. Congress can declare its sense on any subject it wants to, and there are situations where Congress saying it is very much against what person X said can be a very good thing.

This situation, for instance...

[Bjorn Against]

29. I don't think it is the government's role to tell us what is and is not acceptable political speech

I have no problem with resolutions criticizing the actions of certain people, but I do have a problem with them criticizing the words. The Constitution gives us the right to free speech, and the government has no place publicly scolding people for exercising that right.

[Recursion]

31. Certainly they have better things to do with their time

I don't think Congress' condemning someone matters that much, I guess. I mean, sure, this is a chamber known for its high standards of morality and personal conduct :sarcasm: but I just don't see it meaning much.

[spanone]

27. yes.

[liberalla]

30. It's only fair! I hope he gets many cosponsors.

[Jed Dilligan]

32. What's with all this symbolic politicking

Seems like an admission of impotence or incompetence to act, on both sides.

[Ino]

33. Good!

Maybe they'll see how silly, time-wasting & futile this empty posturing is, and that'll be the end of their railing against free speech.