Dem Rep To Introduce House Resolution Condemning Rush

[Joanne98]

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/exclusive_dem_rep_to_introduce_house_resolution_condemning_rush_limbaugh_on_monday.php
Exclusive: Dem Rep To Introduce House Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh On Monday
By Greg Sargent - September 28, 2007, 5:59PM
I've just learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark.

This is significant because it has the potential to dramatically up the stakes in this fight. If the Democratic leadership allows it to go for a vote, it will force all the Republicans in the House to either vote for it, against it, or skip the vote -- and to pass judgment on the powerful conservative talk show host's contention that troops who don't support President Bush's war policies are "phony soldiers."

It will also potentially present the Dem leadership with a not-so-easy choice. Many people will naturally call on the leadership to allow the resolution to come to a vote, which is not necessarily something the leadership might want, since it could look like a tit-for-tat reso in retaliation for the measure condemning MoveOn. It also is potentially problematic for some in the leadership because there is an internal sentiment that it's not Congress' job to go around denouncing the remarks, however reprehensible, of private citizens.

Sources tell us that there's a lot of interest in this resolution among rank and file Dem House members, and that it may come up for a vote soon. There's no guarantee by any means that this will end up happening, though it's likely that there will be some pressure on the leadership make it happen. Udall, whose office confirmed to me that he'd introduce the reso on Monday, has powerful incentive to drum up attention for it as a Senate candidate in Colorado.

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


Things could get very interesting next week. More on the media dynamic at play on this story right here at The Horse's Mouth.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/exclusive_dem_rep_to_introduce_house_resolution_condemning_rush_limbaugh_on_monday.php

[Joanne98]

1. Unlike MoveOn, Limbaugh Directly Impugned Antiwar Soldiers' Service

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/unlike_moveon_l.php

Unlike MoveOn, Limbaugh Directly Impugned Antiwar Soldiers' Service
September 28, 2007 -- 2:28 PM EST // //
John Aravosis:
When MoveOn legitimately called into question General Petraeus' honesty (he's lied before), the mainstream media dutifully covered the Republicans' crocodile tears. But when Rush Limbaugh -- Dick Cheney's favorite interviewer -- attacks the integrity of American troops dying in Iraq for our country, the most the media can muster is coverage in their "blogs." Whether it's CBS blog, the Baltimore Sun blog, or the Chicago Tribune blog, there isn't a lot of coverage of this issue in the real CBS News, the real Baltimore Sun, or the real Chicago Tribune, or anywhere else. Why the double standard? Senior Democrats have called out Limbaugh for his venom, which is usually what's needed to make a story "real" in the eyes of the MSM. So why the double standard -- when Dems are accused of dissing the troops, it's a front page story for weeks. When Republicans actually diss the troops, it's no big deal.
This is key. MoveOn's ad on Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus questioned his credibility, not his service. Republicans successfully sprinkled their Deception Dust all over the story and turned it into an attack on the troops. And the media bit -- hard. As usual, the justification for covering and punditizing about the story was that Dems are vulnerable to charges that they are anti-military; therefore, the GOP's demand that they condemn MoveOn was scoring political points; and perversely, this is what made the GOP assault news.

By contrast, Rush Limbaugh actually did impugn the service of soldiers who favor withdrawal from Iraq. But because Republicans aren't vulnerable to charges that they're anti-military, this doesn't give Dems as clear an opportunity to score political points by demanding that Repubs condemn him. Therefore, it isn't as newsworthy. Yes, the Limbaugh story is getting some traction today. But it will get nowhere near the attention that the GOP attack on Dems over the MoveOn ad got.


And it's all because one party is presumed by many in the media to be vulnerable to charges of being anti-military, and the other isn't. There are plenty of people at the big news orgs who don't play along with this, of course. But in general, this presumption -- rather than the actual substantive content of the remarks themselves -- is what colors decisions about what's news and what isn't in situations like this.


The final insult is that this is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. The constant imbalance in coverage in situations like this means Dems continue to be slimed in the media as anti-military, which reinforces the presumption of Dem vulnerability on stories like these, which leads to more unbalanced coverage, and so on.


That's how this works. Sorry.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/unlike_moveon_l.php