I don't think that's going to go over well with the family values set.
Next, the mailing quotes the Esquire endorsement:
When, someday in the future, you are protected from online skulduggery by an Internet Bill of Rights, you'll have Cliff Stearns to thank. He's the leader in Congress--frankly in the entire federal government--on privacy protection in the digital age.Yeah, Cliff's really on top of that privacy thing. Let's think back to earlier this year. On March 14, the House voted on HR 3773, an amendment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that provided the updates that the Bush Administration had been requesting. This bill, however, did not confer retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry. Like the good Republican he is, Cliff voted against this bill, along with every Republican who voted that day in the House. Later, on June 20, the House voted on HR 6304, a very similar bill that now did confer retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry. Again, Cliff joined the herd of Republicans who voted in favor of conferring legal immunity on the telecommunications firms that illegally spied on the communications of every citizen of the United States. [One lone Republican, Timothy Johnson of Illinois, had the courage to vote against this bill.]
When it comes to "online skulduggery", Cliff has already demonstrated by his votes that he comes down squarely on the side of the skulduggery, especially when the skulduggery comes from an industry that has given him $35,000 since the last election.
If Cliff is so in favor of an Internet Bill of Rights, why hasn't he introduced such a bill?
Why hasn't he introduced any legislation he can point to that justifies his continued presence in the House?