Monday, January 22, 2007

New Cog In The Democrat Smear Machine

Apparently, smears are going to be the primary stock in trade of Virginia's Democrat lawmakers as they seek a majority in this year's legislative races.

The tag line is "Paid for and authorized by the Virginia Joint Democratic Caucus."

9 comments:

Charles said...

This is what makes C-span so good, and unique. Despite the obvious left leaning nature of their choice of extracurricular coverage, when they cover the house and senate they just put up the camera and film whatever happens.

How anybody would trust one party controlling the camera to show us anything nice about republicans or bad about democrats is beyond me.

I wonder if this is the new thing that Shaun was so excited about -- I thought it was supposed to be non-partisan.

Craig said...

James, I am confused. Did you or did you not watch the footage? I don't think that the video footage itself has a slant to the left or the right. It is simply video footage of what happened during the committee meeting.

As I commented on my blog, I don't know that the footage is 100% conclusive evidence that Frederick acted inappropriately but it does not look very good either. It certainly does appear that he directed to individuals to block the video camera. He then sits there at the committee table looking very smug and pleased with himself.

I think that most people would think that he was attempting to block the videographer from recording the session for one reason or another.

So the question is, why? What is Frederick's problem with people recording a committee meeting? Does he have something to hide? Or is he just being petulant?

There is nothing there that "smears" Frederick. I believe that you live in his district. Why don't you ask him for his take on the event?

James Young said...

Craig, have you even READ the commentary?

Craig said...

James, yes I read it. To quote directly it says:

"Del. Jeff Frederick, on the other hand, decided he’d rather play with our camera than participate in the debate."

I was not there but from the video tape of the incident the one sentence appears to be an accurate reflection of what transpired. How is that one sentence a smear James?

After watching the video would you say the Del. Frederick was behaving in a manner suggestive of interest in the topics of discussion before the committee or, rather was he more interested in the video camera that was taping the meeting?

Waldo Jaquith said...

How anybody would trust one party controlling the camera to show us anything nice about republicans or bad about democrats is beyond me.

Which is precisely why House Republicans should stop blocking bills that would have them broadcast their proceedings. If they don't do it themselves, partisan organizations will do it for them, and they'll pick and choose what bits that they want to show.

James Young said...

I don't know, Waldo; maybe it's the free market at work. While I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to block those bills, I really don't feel strongly about it one way or another. I find C-SPAN mainly to be a bore (and I have been on occasionally and had friends or colleagues on frequently). Perhaps this behavior by the Democrat Caucus will provoke a response in kind by Republicans, and we can see a competition for the most peurile use of such footage by each Party, thus hastening the descent into the gutter by both parties. But I'm not sure that a single monopoly is such a good idea, either.

Waldo Jaquith said...

I think it'd be great to see Republicans recording meetings and rebroadcasting the video. But, really, I think it'd be just easier to use the existing video feed. After all, floor meetings are already videotaped -- I've spent many hours sitting in the GAB watching the video of the session over in the Patrick Henry Building. It'd be a snap to convert that video to Quicktime and stick in on the GA's website.

Given that Republicans control the General Assembly, I imagine it'd be easier for them to simply start broadcasting that video than go to the trouble of toting around video cameras.

Charles said...

I'd love to hear the reason why they think public hearings can't be broadcast. I suppose there might be an expense, but is it that costly? I don't know, I guess I should ask someone who is opposed to it why they oppose it before casting judgment, because I can't think of a good reason for either democrats OR republicans to object to public broadcast.

Of course, two republicans and two democrats in PWC just voted to prevent public broadcast of hearings that were to be paid for from already-appropriated funds, so there certainly ARE people opposed to free public access of public proceedings.

As to Jeff and "camera blocking", I'd be pretty nervous about a partisan operative with a camera. It is quite natural in the course of a day to nod off or do other "inappropriate" acts that have no bearing on anything, but would be embarassing to broadcast.

Next time you scratch your butt, stop and think about how it would be if that image showed up in a YouTube video.

I can't imagine living life constantly having to think about what I'm doing to ensure I don't do something "embarrasing".

Waldo Jaquith said...

I'd love to hear the reason why they think public hearings can't be broadcast. I suppose there might be an expense, but is it that costly?

I'm not sure that there'd be much of a cost, since videotaping is already taking place.

As to Jeff and "camera blocking", I'd be pretty nervous about a partisan operative with a camera. It is quite natural in the course of a day to nod off or do other "inappropriate" acts that have no bearing on anything, but would be embarassing to broadcast.

Del. Frederick has chosen to live a public life, by virtue of running for and being elected to a public office. He has surrendered some of his privacy in exchange for that privilege. In the time that he is participating in public events at the state legislator, he's got no business kvetching about being watched. That's his job.