Net neutrality and party lines

[bascule]

Looking at this:

 

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatetally

 

An interesting pattern emerges.

 

One Republican is for net neutrality. Every other Republican that has declared a position is against net neutrality.

 

All Democrats who have declared a position are for net neutrality.

 

I never realized this was an issue that would divide itself so evenly across party lines...

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, almost makes me think I'm missing something. I wonder if looking at campaign contributions would shed any light on the matter...

[KLB]

I think your statement is a little misleading. Not every Senator has announced a position on the matter. In fact a quick count I did indicated that there are 64 senators who have not announced a position on this matter. One Republican that hasn't announced a position but I suspect supports network neutrality is Susan Collins of Maine. This is because the other Maine senator Olympia Snow who is also a Republican cosponsored network neutrality legislation and the two senators tend to work very closely together. It is not uncommon for Senator Susan Collins to not annouce any position on votes until the very last moment as it tends to give her maximum leverage as she is known as part of the group of 14 moderate/swing Senators. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow frequently buck party lines and vote against the Republican leadership.

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting point, bascule. It's not hard to see the appeal to Democrats -- it entails government regulation of the internet. The ideological fit there is obvious. I guess with Republicans they're a bit torn between SIG influence and, as with Democrats, the budgetary appeal of government regulation (not so much an ideological fit as a denial of ideology, I suppose).

 

Of course the Net Neutrality issue should really be decided on a dispassionate, practical basis. But that's just not how things work in D.C.

[KLB]

Trying to define an issue as devisive down party lines when almost 2/3 of the senators have not yet publically stated a position is very premature.

 

I think what we are seeing are a lot of Senators not staking out a position until they are forced to (e.g. time to vote on an issue). The only ones staking out a position early in this matter are those who see a political advantage in doing so. For instance it could please their base or it could be a political favor (e.g. to lobbiests or other senators for other considerations).

 

An example would be Senator Stevens (R - Alaska). All he really cares about is getting ANWAR opened to oil exploration all other issues are negotiable to him and he will support any cause that he thinks will gain later poltical favors for his pet cause.

 

Once we start to see half of the Senate start to stake out a position on this matter then we can start to look for trends in regards to party lines. But right now it is too early to draw conclusions.

[Pangloss]

Sure, and you're making an important point, but I think his observation is valid when taken in that context. It's not unusual to see politicians somewhat reserved in declaring their stance with new issues. I think it was not so much an observation about what vote we're going to see as it was about the general politics of the issue. I would have thought that it would be a more mixed situation than what we've seen so far.

 

I wonder if this is somewhat indicative of ideological corporate preferences. Republicans seem more ideologically at home with infrastructure, Democrats with content providers. Can't be a coincidence.

 

Of course that would not bode well for NN, since Republicans are in the majority. But as you say, most of them haven't taken a stance yet.

 

This seems like a good moment to remind folks (at least our American readers) that they can write their senators and tell them how they would like for them to vote. Here's a link to the site where people can do that:

 

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Kylonicus]

This makes sense,

 

The Republicans are for the Patriot Act(the enslavement anti-freedom act)

 

and the Democrats are against it.

 

The Republicans are against Net Neutrality(the First Amendment of the Internet),

 

And the Democrats are for it.

 

 

Hmmmm, This makes me glad I'm a Democrat! ANYBODY BUT BUSH!

[Dak]

This makes sense' date='

 

The Republicans are for the Patriot Act(the enslavement anti-freedom act)

 

and the Democrats are against it.

[/quote']

 

Isn't it the other way around?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party#Recent_issue_stances

[Pangloss]

Yeah that's a very unilateral view. That's his opinion and he's welcome to it, of course, but it just goes to show you how limited the ABB mantra is. The Patriot Act did (and still does) enjoy broad, bipartisan support. And more importantly to this thread (hint hint), both sides of the Net Neutrality have valid points of view and arguments that are worth consideration. Yelling "anybody but Bush" is no better than yelling "anybody but Clinton" or anything else along those lines.

 

For that matter, I've never really understood people who faithfully adhere to the doctrines of a specific political party, but then I've never understood any kind of organized religion, which is certainly what that is. But 80% of my country does exactly that, so I guess I'm the odd one.