0 comment Friday, July 18, 2014 | admin
The Washington Times editorial writers give their post-mortem on the amnesty bill, and declare that it was killed by the American people.
The people killed amnesty
The justifiably furious reaction of the American public, which deluged senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes, forced the Senate to reverse itself yesterday and send the amnesty bill crashing to defeat � a potentially fatal blow. It was a devastating setback for the Bush administration and its Democratic Party allies, in particular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In addition to being an extraordinary substantive triumph for the American people, it was a huge victory for the conservative movement. Talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others played an indispensable role in making available the research by the Heritage Foundation and NumbersUSA and analysis from editorial pages such as this one to tens of millions of Americans in a very short period of time. But ironically, by demonstrating in a powerful way its ability to reach and educate the public about the specific problems with the bill, talk radio has also made liberal politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein even more determined to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine (the equal-time policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission until it was eliminated in 1987 at the urging of President Reagan) in an effort to take away the one part of the mass media that conservatives dominate.''
They are right about the people delivering the coup de grace to the bill, by means of their calls, e-mails, and faxes.
However does talk radio in general deserve as much credit as this op-ed piece gives them? I don't listen to most of the personalities mentioned. Rush Limbaugh, however, I know has been a Johnny-come-lately to the borders issue, having been conspicuous by his absence from the debate until very recently, when he finally deigned to address it. And from what I hear, he was glibly predicting the amnesty bill would 'sail through' the Senate. Rush obviously underestimated the American people. Hannity has covered the border issue on Fox News, but to my knowledge, he is one of those people who makes quite a show of saying that he opposes only illegal immigration. In fact, most of the talk show personalities fit that category. Still, credit should be given where due, even if these talk radio people often play it safe and allow only politically correct criticisms of immigration. For instance, it's pretty much a given that any criticism of legal immigration is not allowed; only illegal immigration is fair game for debate. That is a huge problem that must be dealt with; if the open borders fanatics (and that is what they are) decide to forget amnesty for the time being, and just work on expanding legal immigration, what response will the 'respectables' have to that, since they have committed themselves to opposing only illegal immigration?
Too much of the debate on immigration is confined within the politically correct bounds of what is allowed to be discussed. If talk radio is to be really useful the debate should be broadened to include the full range of conservative opinion. Those who criticize talk radio for being 'too conservative' are clueless; the majority of talk radio hosts personalities are moderate/right-liberal.
But as far as mobilizing people to oppose the amnesty, the blogosphere has been a real force, I think. The old media, including the Washington Times, seem to have a blind spot where the blogging world is concerned. Some are of the belief that only a relative few log onto the Internet for news and discussion. I believe that more people than ever are turning to the Internet for these things, having found the old media to be hopelessly biased when covering political matters, and too focused on junk news when they are not force-feeding us propaganda. The Internet has created a group of very well-informed people, and these people in turn are exerting an influence on their friends and family who may not be Internet-savvy themselves.
VDare, Michelle Malkin, FAIR, and others who focus on the immigration issue have played a big role. The Internet is the only news source where you can access a full range of opinions and commentary. I think for many of us, the Internet expanded our horizons beyond the limited world of spoon-fed politics in the old media, including cable news channels.
So now that the people have killed amnesty, or at least stopped it in its tracks, what next? This should be an occasion for the people to feel their oats, and realize the power that resides in acting as a united group. The American people, as I've said before, are like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. We have for too long relinquished our strength, and allowed ourselves to be rendered immobile. There is still considerable power in a united majority.
Historian Will Durant said
'The political machine works because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.''
If the majority in this country only realized the power that inheres in the majority when that majority acts as one, we might be able to rediscover our strength, and break the self-imposed bonds that restrain us.
The people killed amnesty
The justifiably furious reaction of the American public, which deluged senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes, forced the Senate to reverse itself yesterday and send the amnesty bill crashing to defeat � a potentially fatal blow. It was a devastating setback for the Bush administration and its Democratic Party allies, in particular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In addition to being an extraordinary substantive triumph for the American people, it was a huge victory for the conservative movement. Talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others played an indispensable role in making available the research by the Heritage Foundation and NumbersUSA and analysis from editorial pages such as this one to tens of millions of Americans in a very short period of time. But ironically, by demonstrating in a powerful way its ability to reach and educate the public about the specific problems with the bill, talk radio has also made liberal politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein even more determined to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine (the equal-time policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission until it was eliminated in 1987 at the urging of President Reagan) in an effort to take away the one part of the mass media that conservatives dominate.''
They are right about the people delivering the coup de grace to the bill, by means of their calls, e-mails, and faxes.
However does talk radio in general deserve as much credit as this op-ed piece gives them? I don't listen to most of the personalities mentioned. Rush Limbaugh, however, I know has been a Johnny-come-lately to the borders issue, having been conspicuous by his absence from the debate until very recently, when he finally deigned to address it. And from what I hear, he was glibly predicting the amnesty bill would 'sail through' the Senate. Rush obviously underestimated the American people. Hannity has covered the border issue on Fox News, but to my knowledge, he is one of those people who makes quite a show of saying that he opposes only illegal immigration. In fact, most of the talk show personalities fit that category. Still, credit should be given where due, even if these talk radio people often play it safe and allow only politically correct criticisms of immigration. For instance, it's pretty much a given that any criticism of legal immigration is not allowed; only illegal immigration is fair game for debate. That is a huge problem that must be dealt with; if the open borders fanatics (and that is what they are) decide to forget amnesty for the time being, and just work on expanding legal immigration, what response will the 'respectables' have to that, since they have committed themselves to opposing only illegal immigration?
Too much of the debate on immigration is confined within the politically correct bounds of what is allowed to be discussed. If talk radio is to be really useful the debate should be broadened to include the full range of conservative opinion. Those who criticize talk radio for being 'too conservative' are clueless; the majority of talk radio hosts personalities are moderate/right-liberal.
But as far as mobilizing people to oppose the amnesty, the blogosphere has been a real force, I think. The old media, including the Washington Times, seem to have a blind spot where the blogging world is concerned. Some are of the belief that only a relative few log onto the Internet for news and discussion. I believe that more people than ever are turning to the Internet for these things, having found the old media to be hopelessly biased when covering political matters, and too focused on junk news when they are not force-feeding us propaganda. The Internet has created a group of very well-informed people, and these people in turn are exerting an influence on their friends and family who may not be Internet-savvy themselves.
VDare, Michelle Malkin, FAIR, and others who focus on the immigration issue have played a big role. The Internet is the only news source where you can access a full range of opinions and commentary. I think for many of us, the Internet expanded our horizons beyond the limited world of spoon-fed politics in the old media, including cable news channels.
So now that the people have killed amnesty, or at least stopped it in its tracks, what next? This should be an occasion for the people to feel their oats, and realize the power that resides in acting as a united group. The American people, as I've said before, are like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. We have for too long relinquished our strength, and allowed ourselves to be rendered immobile. There is still considerable power in a united majority.
Historian Will Durant said
'The political machine works because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.''
If the majority in this country only realized the power that inheres in the majority when that majority acts as one, we might be able to rediscover our strength, and break the self-imposed bonds that restrain us.
Labels: Amnesty, Blogosphere, Majority, Media, Politics, Talk Radio