political and social commentary with a progressive slant
Friday, March 14, 2008
Republican Gag Rule
Republican gag rule. Read it, it'll make you wanna gag. This is why, even more than reclaiming the White House, we need Democrats to gain a filibuster proof, veto-proof majority in the next election cycles.
You mischaracterized what happend. There was no "gag" rule. These five people wanted to complain to congress about how they had been treated by credit card companies. Republicans said the companies should have the right of reply, and to be able to discuss the allegations. Seems fair to me.
You can disagree on the policy issues (and I probably agree with you on credit card business practices and the recent bankruptcy law), without shading the truth like this. This is just shabby.
Perhaps you mean the authors of the article I linked to mischaracterized what happened. In which case, you probably did not understand the article. Read it again, and take your time before you post another off-the-mark comment.
Once again, I reviewed my comment in light of the post. By repeating their tendentious headline, you mischaracterized what happend (espeically since not all the witnesses opted to gag themselves). Perhaps you can explain how my comment is "off-the-mark" except in the sense that you don't agree with it. Is that your standard?
The problem, Jeff, seems to be that the GOP wanted witnesses to sign a waver that would allow them (the companies) to "publicly discuss" the witnesses records with no restriction or concession to privacy. That seems like a subterfuge to me, designed to dissuade ordinary citizens from testifying in the first place, and that impression is reinforced by the fact that witnesseses received it one day before the hearing, leaving them, as one said, with not enough time to seek legal counsel on it. Quite intimidating for the common folk.
4 comments:
You mischaracterized what happend. There was no "gag" rule. These five people wanted to complain to congress about how they had been treated by credit card companies. Republicans said the companies should have the right of reply, and to be able to discuss the allegations. Seems fair to me.
You can disagree on the policy issues (and I probably agree with you on credit card business practices and the recent bankruptcy law), without shading the truth like this. This is just shabby.
Perhaps you mean the authors of the article I linked to mischaracterized what happened. In which case, you probably did not understand the article. Read it again, and take your time before you post another off-the-mark comment.
Once again, I reviewed my comment in light of the post. By repeating their tendentious headline, you mischaracterized what happend (espeically since not all the witnesses opted to gag themselves). Perhaps you can explain how my comment is "off-the-mark" except in the sense that you don't agree with it. Is that your standard?
The problem, Jeff, seems to be that the GOP wanted witnesses to sign a waver that would allow them (the companies) to "publicly discuss" the witnesses records with no restriction or concession to privacy. That seems like a subterfuge to me, designed to dissuade ordinary citizens from testifying in the first place, and that impression is reinforced by the fact that witnesseses received it one day before the hearing, leaving them, as one said, with not enough time to seek legal counsel on it. Quite intimidating for the common folk.
Post a Comment