Dustup at Hearing -- the rest of the story

[pat_k]

Some of you may be aware of the brief back and forth at the Conyers hearings between the committee and "that woman" who wanted to finish reading her question to all Congress members asking them to take a stand now by endorsing a "Declaration of Intent."

If you are not, they are replaying the hearings on C-SPAN right now. The public questions will be coming up soon.

If you are interested in "the rest of the story" visit http://www.dailykos.com/user/Dusty

[JunkYardDogg]

1. She seemed like a Pin in da a..

She got annoying real fast
and detracted from the intensity of the immediate problem
her crusade became more important than the immediate issue

[mattclearing]

2. That declaration of intent is great.

Check it out here:

http://www.thedeanpeople.com/

"I wish to recognize that efforts are ongoing in some states -- by candidates, election officials, the news media, and citizens groups, through recounts and other means -- to clarify and adjust the official results in order to increase the level of public confidence. These efforts are necessary, however, they cannot be sufficient."

"This is true because by far the most disturbing circumstances that have occurred in this election are the confirmed cases of disparate treatment being afforded to certain classes of voters. If systemic barriers to exercising the franchise existed that correlate to a citizen's age, race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, military status, partisan status, absentee status, immigration status, or other identifiable characteristic, the election was neither free and fair, nor lawful in the absence of any corrective remedy being applied."

"Therefore, in keeping with my oath of office, I publicly declare my intention to act on January 6th 2005 and object to any presidential electors that I believe to have been unlawfully appointed. To do less would make me complicit with a violation of our shared democratic principles."

[lonestarnot]

3. Who stated this intent? Nevermind...see it must be signed by those

intending.

[Stand and Fight]

4. That's great!

Nonetheless Ms. Tubbs-Jones should have gotten to that last paragraph during the forum and she would have been greatly applauded.

[nofurylike]

5. it was a Q n A period, with time running over. EVERY person there

had important and valid things to say. Rep Conyers was as patient and generous as humanly possible.

he is our champion, a great hero.

why did she deserve special privileges?

did she go to hearings people begged us to go to? does she work day and night getting that out there, as so many do?

wouldn't we all like a national forum handed to us?

was her statement more important, more valid than everyone whose speaking time she used up bickering with him?

there are appropriate places, that was not one of them. even she admitted on mike malloy's show that maybe that was not the time and place for it.


eat our own eat our own. it's what we do when we're feeling rage AND powerlessness.

i say, TAKE IT TO THE STREETS TOMORROW!!!!

see you all in the streets?


peace and resistance!!!

[nashville_brook]

21. yeah, damn good thing the LaRouche Youth got their time!

[AtLiberty]

6. While I believe this woman has a noble cause...

...that wasn't the time and place for her agenda. She should have boiled it down to a simple question instead of going on and on and on in a forum under clear guidelines and extremely tight time constraints.

There was a room full of experts and damning evidence and every long-winded, self-serving question robbed the public of critical and potential headline-making info. It robbed Will Pitt of asking, "Where are the Democrats?" It robbed someone from asking Cliff Arnebeck, "What is your most striking evidence of election fraud that you're willing to share right now?"

We were soooooooooo lucky to have the forum and C-SPAN coverage. I do understand the frustration of having a small window of opportunity with the media and the need to get out one's message. However, that woman took advantage of the situation.

[nofurylike]

7. "We were so... lucky to have the forum and C-SPAN coverage" yes! n/t

[ClassWarrior]

8. That's correct.

She had an excellent point to make, but it was the wrong time to make it. And as Will Pitt said on Malloy's show, get a bunch of Progressives into a room and expect them to be concise? Ha!

Seriously, we need to work on paring down our messages and being strategic with them. See the DU Frame The Debate forum for a start:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=252

[Senator]

9. Some INFO for the critics here...

Ms. Tubbs-Jones was not the speaker. Ms. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is a Cong Rep from Ohio. There seems to have been some cross-talk confusion surrounding statements submitted for the record.

The speaker's "cause" and "agenda" was to ask a simple question of our political leaders. The question the declaration poses, for those who may not have read it, is this:

Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you? Will you object to electors from states where this is the documented reality, or become complicit with the perpetrators of this condition?

As far as I know, there is no wrong "time and place" to speak truth to power. Your mileage may vary.

In my experience, asking/demanding that someone take action (even metaphorically via a public statement of the intent to do so) is a far more practical/substantive endeavor than simply publicly lamenting "Where are the Democrats?" Again, your mileage may vary.

The speaker was interupted at 75 seconds after being recognized (for "question or comment"). The questioner immediately preceeding her held the floor for 3 minutes, 45 seconds. Several subsequent questioners were afforded over 3 minutes each.

I must confess to wondering if some on the panel may not have known exactly what was coming, as I do know that they all had access to the Declaration prior to the question period. Though I have no knowledge of whether or not it had been read.

Some had even been given it the previous day at the Common Cause forum at which the speaker was the final questioner for the Voter Suppression forum (also taped and later aired on C-SPAN). At that forum she did not mention the Declaration, but made a brief (highly applauded) statement of the moral principle, and call for action, underlying it (prior to asking a question about allocation of election resources).

I also wondered if (perhaps because of the dustup) a copy made its way to Keith Olberman, after reading his bloggerman entry for that evening.

There is no question it would be a short-term political liability - even a fatality - to the Representative and Senator who signed it. But, especially with that realization, it would not be an act of partisanship, but of patriotism.

Just some FYI.

.

[nashville_brook]

22. my thoughts exactly... speaking truth to power

Mme Green Dress was censored b/c she was getting ready to put something into the record that the panel was uncomfortable with.

her question was simple, if these voting conditions are not tolerable, what can we do about it? the form of a declaration is the language of congress. i was appalled at how she was treated. the LaRouche Youth were given full respect and more time. she was singled out -- i'm just calling as i see it.

[ccarter84]

10. I'm sorry I think they handled this lady well

She did the exact same thing at the non-partisan forum the day before (I was there and witnessed it) and I found her to be almost arrogant and extremely self-righteous, yes its true that sometimes people speaking to power get brushed off, but I don't think she realized what immense time constraints there were. She had a good point to make, but I think she could have, and should have, handled it better.

[teddyk23]

11. just to correct the record

The members of congress did not have the statement ahead of time. Mr. Conyers certainly did not. Nobody should agree to sign something they did not have time to carefully read. That's why I don't really get the whole exercise of asking them to.

The statement was entered into the record and is now posted, like every other statement that was not fully delivered (including those by members and witnesses -- who also cut their presentations short or had it cut short). We had the room for a short period of time and did the best we could.

At the same time, I don't want to belittle the point the audience member was making. Many of the memberss of congress and witnesses were there because they agree with that point.

It was just that the purpose of that time period was to give as many people as possible the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses.

It really bums me out that some have allowed that to taint what I thought was a very important step forward.

[jdog]

12. I don't think it tainted anything.

Democracy isn't always pretty and organized. I think it was handled well. Sometimes the debate is bound to get a wee bit unruly, that's the way it goes. Ain't it nice there was open communication though?

[ccarter84]

14. very nice, and refreshing...god bless C-SPAN

:bounce:

[Senator]

15. No...

...as I said in my earlier post, she did a quite different thing the day before. And what you found to be arrogance and self-righteousness was found to be worthy of applause by many at that venue. As you must have also witnessed.

Incidently, there was a good deal of support for her in the Conyers hearing room as well. It simply didn't get picked up by the sound system as well as it did in the earlier forum.

And as I also said in my previous post, since questioner that preceeded her (and several that followed her) were afforded much more time than she, I don't understand by what guage she could have limited her time further than the 2 minutes and 6 seconds she had "planned."

.

[nashville_brook]

23. by sitting down and shutting up?

is that how we speak truth to power?

she had obviously prepared and worked with her organizations and was there to represent a question and put some teeth into the record.

i don't know if she's a freak or otherwise to be dismissed (she looked pretty normal to me), but the way she was treated by the panel reflected badly on the panel. it made them seem like they were threatened by her and it really didn''t seem to me, in teeveeland, that her intent was to threaten. she seemed genuinely shocked that she was being cut off.

i just felt bad for her and it gave me a bad feeling for the process going forward.

[WilliamPitt]

13. I was 12 inches away from her

The problem was not what she had to say, but the format and the time limit. There was a small amount of time left for questions, and Conyers et al. made it clear they wanted questions, and a lot of people were lined up to ask questions. If every person in the line was allowed to read their little manifestos to their heart's content, five people would have gotten mike time and 30 people would have gotten shafted.

It's pretty much that simple. I'm kind of surprised that so intelligent a person is having such a hard time grasping this.

[Senator]

16. It was a question.

And if the "problem was not what she had to say," then why denigrate it with the epithet "little manifesto"?

As for the time limits, I thought I made that clear in my previous posts. To summarize: 13 people got "mike time" -- 7 held the floor longer that she did and 5 held the floor the same or shorter.

I agree that it's pretty simple. What is it you think is not being grasped?

.

[WilliamPitt]

17. The epithet refers

to the general phenomenon, and not to her specifically. She certainly was not the only one hogging the mike, nor was she the only one scolded by Conyers et al., but she is apparently the only one carrying her beef about it to Malloy's show, to Kos, and for a week.

[Senator]

19. No

As written, the epithet refers to her specifically and each person in line specifically. What it does not refer to is a phenomenon, but rather your presumption.

That may not have been what you meant, but it is what you said.

As for "hogging the mike," you continue to fail to explain how holding the floor for less time than the majority of the other questioners can be accurately characterized in this way.

And the "beef" was not hers, nor was it carried by her anywhere. Her call to Malloy was in response to his comments. As were any continued postings responses to others.

In the same way I continue to respond to your beef here.

[WilliamPitt]

20. Well, Malloy was wrong, too

and admitted as much after I talked to him.

[Senator]

25. I didn't hear that...

...on the show. Can you quote him? (But please don't go to any trouble to do so - Malloy is not really of consequence.)

[WilliamPitt]

27. You missed my conversation with him?

It was the central fact of the conversation.

[Senator]

39. I heard it.

I also heard him defending himself against emails attacking him for his opinion.

I agree that he softened his rhetoric, but he had done that during the interview with the questioner. As she was not displaying any animosity about the episode and had just called in to offer the essence of her (unasked) question for those who were interested.

Malloy certainly stopped attacking the committee after that. I just don't recall him saying he was wrong to have done it.

But as I said, it's not particularly germane to what we were discussing.

[bunny planet]

33. Malloy is not really of consequence?????????? He is a true patriot and

one of the bravest broadcasters out there in a time when we sorely need brave broadcasters.:wtf:

[Senator]

40. Not of consequence...

...to the discussion we were engaged in.

[bunny planet]

34. Oh, how my ignore list is growing.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. not one of those people asked a question

They all probably knew more about the issue at that point than Conyers or Jackson etc... so why should anyone have asked them questions? The panel should have listened to the people. Unfortunately their egos got in the way.

[WilliamPitt]

31. I can't remember you ever approving of anyone doing anything

Maybe that's just my memory, but I am loath to recall a single time when you have had anything but criticism for any person you choose to speak of.

The open forum was for questions, as was clearly stated, and there was limited time, as was clearly stated. The inability for people to wrap their minds around this is Exhibit #1 for why open mike free-for-alls under time pressure is a bad idea. Some folks are just mulishly stubborn.

[Vinnie From Indy]

18. Microphonitis

In my experience, whenever a microphone, a crowd and an open forum are together in one spot, there are always a few people that cannot resist the urge to hear themselves speak at length regardless of the stated format, time restrictions or topic . For some, it is a condition that they cannot control.

[nashville_brook]

24. how do you tell the difference

between someone with a mic-fetish and a citizen speaking truth to power?

just asking.

[nashville_brook]

26. i think the reason the television audience didn't like

her was because she's one of those short-haired peace womyn who don't sit down when they are told to.

if she were a man (or better yet, a VET or a clergyman) in flat-front khakis, a good haircut and an easy smile, she would have been treated differently.

[Vinnie From Indy]

28. Experience

Aaaaah, nothing like a good sweeping generalization to start the morning!

[Cheswick2.0]

30. You are probably right and I Conyers had shut up and let her speak

she would have been finished sooner.

[WilliamPitt]

32. Oh for the luvva crumbcake

:eyes:

[ebayfool]

36. Thumb lightly touching middle finger, eyes closed, Ommmmm!

Sometimes you can't win, so you ommmmm! (or eat crumbcake!)

I got what you were saying, settle for a crowd of one?

[nashville_brook]

37. mmm... cake... you know -- it's like merv the perv

and steve the skeeve if you watched SNL this weekend...

i'm a chic, and I (little ole me) reacted to her marmish appearance. she reminded me of how i pitured my elders when i was in high school. my know-it-all aunt. my righteous writing teacher. sorry judy, sorry bobby. my boyfriends' freaky mothers. i'm not sorry for that. she simply had that annoying motherly i'm-going-to-assert-myself-here and i've crossed ALL my t's and dotted ALL my i's... hey hello, what's this? you want me to leave? but i wrote this whole thing. and i represent all these people. inside she was shocked that conyers was dismissing her b/c she believes it is the wrong thing to do -- she wanted him so very badly, to do the right thing. like when m moore goes to kmart headquarters in bowling For columbine. his annoying pleading isn't so much drama as it is his genuine desire to see people SEIZE the opportunity to do the right thing.

[Darknyte7]

35. You're kidding right? n/t

[nomatrix]

38. She was asking them to sign this declaration

"reading her question to all Congress members asking them to take a stand now by endorsing a "Declaration of Intent."

Excuse me, ask any lawyer, lawmaker to agree to sign (on tape) a declaration?


There is no arguement here.

You want to put your John Hancock on anything that could get you removed from office?

I wish more people knew how Congress worked.