This idea of indirectly legislating speech, by legislatively condemning or praising this or that expression, is pretty darn chilling, and more evidence of the state of things (the frog slowly gets warmer...).
But, the question no one seems to ask is; "What is our role?"
From the great science fiction Movie "I Robot":
In order to get the right answers, you must first ask the right questions.
"What is our role?" is one of the right questions.
A very highly recommended comment to the brief diary breaking the rather bizarre news that a Congressman is now going to introduce Legislation to praise Rush Limbaugh, reads in full:
You gotta admit, THEY know how to play the game. In fact, they know how to make it THEIR game we're playing
EXACTLY.
We don't play it well, and we do play into their game.
Yet attempts to look at the underlying reasons why, that require a candid look at democrats (and not just "other democrats"), tend to be quickly dismissed, or badly misconstrued; as if democrats couldn't play a role in a way that we are not aware of in how the right and far right is able to constantly use rhetoric to be able to successfully mislead, and frame the debate. (Aside from the fact that if we were aware of it, it would have been at least partially corrected.)
This last linked piece, which was dismissed and misconstrued, is NOT about the Move on Ad itself. It is about the collective response to it from the far right, from the democratic base to it, and to the response from the right, and how the tendency that it illustrates might play a role in allowing the right and far right to repeatedly shape the debate and define the issues.
The first main piece linked above (as "exactly"), went largely unheeded (except by President Clinton, not that he read it). Along with painting the anti democracy, free speech, and negative political implications of the Senate Vote on the Move On General Petraeus ad, it suggested that with respect to the ad's framing, the underlying substantive points be focused on, along with the fact that the right had changed the story to avoid this. It also suggested, and then emphasized towards the conclusion, to turn what the right had done into the story. And it implicitly suggested that the picture of hypocrisy (the most compelling aspect of what the right had done) of it be painted, and that the story of the Petraeus ad phrasing, and framing, be turned into the story of what the right has done in direct contrast to now what it is suddenly condemning in outraged terms.
The also Diary noted (emphasis added):
Turn the mistake itself into the bigger story (just like the right did with the Petreus ad [which it viewed as a "mistake," and framed it as such to that part of the nation that did not already view the skewed report as "more of the same"], and it not only effectively corrects the mistake, but it correctly defines the debate, and correctly defines ones opponents.
The democratic party has got to realize that it simply has to stop allowing the right wing of the republican party to set and define the terms of the debate; and has to start using the far right‘s own mistakes to characterize and define them. Not by concluding this, or stating to America what is, but by constant; suggestion, showing, leading us, there.
The "mistake" was the right's mischaracterizations of the ad, the anti American and bizarre attempt, to indirectly legislate to people what words and views are patriotic, or what patriotism is supposed to mean, and the excessive hypocrisy on the part of the far right wing given their prior attacks on Prominent Veteran Figures like Kerry and Cleeland.
The piece asked, in response to the Democratic Senators (and now Congressmen) who instead actually voted for this legislation (once again trying to appear strong by being weak) was;
Have you no idea of why in fact your own opponents, rather than you, are the ones that constantly are able to successfully define you, define themselves, define the issues, and define the terms of the debate?
The answer is, so far, apparently not.
This idea by Rep. Kingston to use the legislature process to praise the highly controversial, inflammatory, often misleading Rush Limbaugh, who called Senator Hagel "Senator Betrayus," and seems to only support the troops who he agrees with, is outrageous in a democracy. But then again, I thought the Cornyn proposal was pretty out there and anti American.
But it wasn't addressed. It wasn't used to paint the increasingly anti democratic, nationally chauvinistic, and misleading rhetoric led tendencies of the far right. It was played into. Then the right was allowed to frame the debate over the Move On ad. Then we saw it it the way we wanted. The suggestion was made that perhaps other people were hearing exactly what was said when it was attacked, and not what we were hearing -- and that the tendency to presume otherwise was causing us to allow the right to repeatedly frame and define these debates and issues. And the idea was largely ignored; and to the extent not, derided, and excessively misconstrued.
Cornyn's proposal was extreme. Kingston's proposal is even more extreme, and this (the last sentence therein should read, "under the excessive influence of"), is where we are.
The question that is LONG past time to consider, is, again what is our role in all of this? Seemingly the most difficult thing for the democratic party, to do.
And ideas regarding why our opponents, rather than us, are the ones that constantly are able to successfully define democrats, define themselves, define the issues, and define the terms of the debate -- when in fact, that is also the right question -- are far too quickly dismissed.