5 ms·

Interestingly Congressman Chaffetz is a Republican, good to see him stand up for the Bill of Rights rather than give lip service to it.

thadd 11y ago
*Interesting that this seems to be an opposition party thing. I'd love to see Republicans still singing this tune if they get the Presidency back, but we'll see.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Sigh The sooner we stop thinking one party is looking out for us more than the other, the better off we _citizens_ will be.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I think his point is more opposition vs. incumbent than Democrat vs. Republican. Democrats were more against military action until it was their own candidate directing it, Republicans were more for it until it was no longer theirs. If you look at the commonalities between the two parties when they've each been in the same role, it supports your point.
- jonathanoliver 11y ago
  He represents the district I live in. This type of thing is very much him.
- disposition2 11y ago
  I wonder how much this has to do with him defending _freedom_ from the right to be spied on without a warrant vs him wanting the IRS to stop using Stingray's. There are still exemptions in the proposed bill...granted they are in the FISA court and related to perceived danger related to 'terrorism' or 'organized crime'.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    With him, its defending the Constitution. He has stated his motives clearly and often to many sources. He has a reason.tv interview that was pretty good.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Its not an opposition party thing. I have full faith this particular Congressman would introduce this bill regardless of party in the White House. Its more a libertarian leaning part of the party. Some Republicans will still sing this tune, some won't. There is a bit of a split at the moment.
acheron 11y ago
Obviously. If he were a Democrat, since this is something "good", the headline would have said "Democratic Congressman". Same as if something bad happens the headline will say "Republican Congressman" but leave out party affiliation the other way. Bias in journalism mostly isn't a matter of just making things up (Dan Rather aside) or injecting blatant opinions into news (though that happens sometimes too), but a matter of which stories get pushed and how they get framed.
- randomname2 11y ago
  The Guardian makes no secret of their bias so it's no surprise there's zero mention of the word "Republican", considering the source. Their right-wing equivalents (WSJ/Breitbart/Daily Mail) do the same thing to Democrats.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If he were a Democrat, since this is something "good", the headline would have said "Democratic Congressman". Not so sure that's true; every article except this one that I can find on the Guardian with the tag "US Congress", positive or negative, and whether it involves Democrats, Republicans, or both, seems to mention the party affiliation of the members referenced. While the Guardian is left-leaning, not mentioning Chaffetz's party seems to be an aberration for them, not part of a pattern.
- pstuart 11y ago
  Dan Rather was likely set up. The gist of his story was true: GWB went AWOL during his "service". Then the media focused on Rather instead of the Bush's behavior. Karl Rove was a genius manipulator.
  - pstuart 11y ago
    https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-but-whats-truth-got-to-do-with-it/ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-b...
- vectorpush 11y ago

thadd 11y ago

*Interesting that this seems to be an opposition party thing. I'd love to see Republicans still singing this tune if they get the Presidency back, but we'll see.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Sigh The sooner we stop thinking one party is looking out for us more than the other, the better off we _citizens_ will be.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I think his point is more opposition vs. incumbent than Democrat vs. Republican. Democrats were more against military action until it was their own candidate directing it, Republicans were more for it until it was no longer theirs. If you look at the commonalities between the two parties when they've each been in the same role, it supports your point.
jonathanoliver 11y ago
He represents the district I live in. This type of thing is very much him.
disposition2 11y ago
I wonder how much this has to do with him defending _freedom_ from the right to be spied on without a warrant vs him wanting the IRS to stop using Stingray's. There are still exemptions in the proposed bill...granted they are in the FISA court and related to perceived danger related to 'terrorism' or 'organized crime'.
- protomyth 11y ago
  With him, its defending the Constitution. He has stated his motives clearly and often to many sources. He has a reason.tv interview that was pretty good.
protomyth 11y ago
Its not an opposition party thing. I have full faith this particular Congressman would introduce this bill regardless of party in the White House. Its more a libertarian leaning part of the party. Some Republicans will still sing this tune, some won't. There is a bit of a split at the moment.

acheron 11y ago

Obviously. If he were a Democrat, since this is something "good", the headline would have said "Democratic Congressman". Same as if something bad happens the headline will say "Republican Congressman" but leave out party affiliation the other way. Bias in journalism mostly isn't a matter of just making things up (Dan Rather aside) or injecting blatant opinions into news (though that happens sometimes too), but a matter of which stories get pushed and how they get framed.

randomname2 11y ago
The Guardian makes no secret of their bias so it's no surprise there's zero mention of the word "Republican", considering the source. Their right-wing equivalents (WSJ/Breitbart/Daily Mail) do the same thing to Democrats.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If he were a Democrat, since this is something "good", the headline would have said "Democratic Congressman". Not so sure that's true; every article except this one that I can find on the Guardian with the tag "US Congress", positive or negative, and whether it involves Democrats, Republicans, or both, seems to mention the party affiliation of the members referenced. While the Guardian is left-leaning, not mentioning Chaffetz's party seems to be an aberration for them, not part of a pattern.
pstuart 11y ago
Dan Rather was likely set up. The gist of his story was true: GWB went AWOL during his "service". Then the media focused on Rather instead of the Bush's behavior. Karl Rove was a genius manipulator.
- pstuart 11y ago
  https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-but-whats-truth-got-to-do-with-it/ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-b...
vectorpush 11y ago