Posted on 03/28/2008 8:58:17 AM PDT by MitchellC
NEWS RELEASE
Heath Shuler Shows Why He Doesn't Belong in Congress
BlueRidgeNow, the website of the Hendersonville Times-News, reported on March 26 on an appearance by Rep. Heath Shuler at a Rotary Club meeting in that city, but missed the deeper story that was present.
According to the story, Heath Shuler blamed Senator John McCain, a Republican who is not serving in the House, as "blocking" Shuler's SAVE Act which would impose tighter controls on illegal immigration from getting a vote in the House. The Times-News had noted in an editorial on 20 March that "48 Democrats had co-sponsored the bill." So, if all those Democrats had signed the Discharge Petition, Shuler's SAVE Act would have reached the floor, and would have gotten a vote.
A Discharge Petition means that 218 Members of the House sign a document requiring a bill to come to the floor, regardless of the actions of any Committee, and regardless of the position of House leadership, especially the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The article does note that Speaker Pelosi does not want this bill voted on. However, it does not note that Speaker Pelosi, a liberal, San Francisco Democrat, only became Speaker with the votes of Heath Shuler and about 20 other freshman Democrats who advertised themselves as conservative" when they ran for office in 2006.
Those reluctant Democrats who co-sponsored the bill but haven't signed the Discharge Petition have no reason to listen to any requests from Senator John McCain a Republican. They have every incentive to listen to demands from Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.
In short, the facts of this matter lead to the conclusion that it was Heath Shuler, and no one else, who blocked Shuler's bill from the floor. He did so with the first vote he ever cast in Congress, to choose Pelosi as Speaker.
John Armor, constitutional lawyer from Macon County, and a candidate for Congress in the 11th District, said, "All the facts would have allowed readers to conclude that Shuler never expected his SAVE Act to get a vote in Congress. He knew it would fail. He just wanted to pretend, one more time, that he was a 'conservative' with 'mountain values.'" Mr. Armor pointed out that Shuler admitted at the Christmas party for the Macon County Sheriff that because of Speaker Pelosi, "my bill will never get out of committee."
John Armor
Highlands, NC
www.ArmorforCongress.com
And why would that be a bad thing? All kinds of articles get posted on FR, always have been.
You seem to have very little faith in the ability of Freepers to grasp and critically analyze what they read.
Just like he didn’t belong in the NFL.
I started reading this without looking at the byline. I though, “This sounds just like John Armor.”
Bingo.
I guessed at about half the answers.
Cut the grass too much, and the grass dies, roots and all.
Nonsense, this is a good place for Conservative Republicans to show their views. Because this one is running for Congress against a Liberal Dem doesn't meen it should be deleted.
wow, just wow-I’m starting to think he might have had someone take the wonderlich test-because a 16 might be a little out of his reach
I was setting where I am currently setting. I don’t object to campaign announcements concerning rallies or speeches, but this is candidate comparison, or attack or distortion of facts, which ever fits.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Fairness Doctrine - which Reagan Deep Sixed a generation ago, and which in any case applied only to broadcasting - applies or might apply to FreeRepublic.com. In a world where McConnell v. FEC can uphold the McCain-Feingold law, you could in fact be right. However, McConnell v. FEC was a 5-4 decision, and one justice on each side (O'Connell pro, Rhenquist con) have been replaced by Justices Roberts and Alito. The present court's usual swing vote is Kennedy, and he voted con McConnell .So there is significant reason to hope that any future First Amendment case before the present court will actually enforce the First Amendment. And the very last thing you would be able to prove about the First Amendment before an honest court is that it requires speech or publication to be "objective" or "fair" or "balanced." The plain language of the restriction - and the historically well-documented practice of founders Jefferson and Hamilton - are directly to the contrary. The conceit of journalistic "objectivity" traces back only to the advent of the Associated Press in the middle of the Nineteenth Century.
No such delusion exists. However, I do understand the libeal mind. Right and wrong mean nothing, The Constitution is an impedment in their desire to reach their aims.
Regulation of political expression, at least on the internet, in the United States is well within their orbit of response.
Thanks for the ping. Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.