Obama Hints at Fairness Doctrine on Sunday Shows

Brace yourselves, conservatives: While President Barack Obama used his appearances on the Sunday talk shows to push for government-run health care, he also fired what could be considered an Oval Office "missile" aimed squarely at conservative talk radio.

During a poignant segment of his interview the president that was broadcast on FACE the NATION this morning, CBS News veteran Bob Schieffer set up and asked a "softball" question as follows:

"Let me ask you a little bit about the tenor of this debate. It seems to me that there's a sort of meanness that has settled over our political dialogue. It started this summer at these town hall meetings. We saw the outbreak when you spoke to the joint session (of Congress). Some people, clearly, just don't agree with your policies, but there seems to be others that are just, just mad and angry. President Carter is now saying he thinks its racial. Nancy Pelosi says it could be dangerous. What do you think it's all about?"

Obama responded as if trying to be every-man's president:

"Well, what I think we have to remember is that, at various periods in American history, people get pretty rambunctious when it comes to our democratic debate. That's not new, and every president who's tried to bring about big changes, I think, elicits the most-passionate responses."

Sadly, he went on to offer a thinly-veiled comparison of himself to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan:

"I mean, if you hear what people have to say about Abraham Lincoln or what they had to say about FDR or what they had to say about Ronald Reagan when he first came in and was trying to change our approach to government -- that elicited huge responses."

Next, he tells Schieffer Big Lie #1:

"Now, I think that what's driving passions right now is that health care has become a proxy a broader set of issues about how much government should be involved in our economy, particularly coming off a huge economic crisis, and the only thing that I've been trying to say is, number one, I have no interest in increasing the size of government. I just want to make sure we have a smart government that is regulating, for example, the financial institutions smartly so I don't have to engage in any kind of bank bailouts" [Note: "Big Lie #1" is found in the fact that he already bailed out the banks!]

It's followed soon after by Big Lie #2:

"That's point number one, and, point number two, even though we're having a passionate disagreement here, we can be civil to each other, and we can try to express ourselves, acknowledging that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and not assume the absolute worst in people's motives. [Note: "Big Lie #2" is found in his contention that we're all patriots, we're all Americans and we're assuming the worst in people's (i.e., "his") motives. Truth is, we're not assuming; we're witnessing.]

Finally, he adds icing to the "cake" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi frosted yesterday by setting the stage for a push to enact the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," a measure they hope will muzzle conservative media, especially on talk radio and in the blogosphere:

"I do think part of what's different today is that the 24-hour news cycle -- and cable television and blogs and all this -- they focus on the most extreme elements on both sides. They can't get enough of conflict. It's catnip to the media right now. And, so, the easiest way to get 15 minutes of fame is to be rude to somebody. In that environment, I think it makes it more difficult for us to solve the problems that the American people want us to solve."

Brace yourselves conservatives: The (tea) party has only just begun.


NOTE: To watch the video of Obama's appearance on FACE the NATION, click here.

D.C.'S OBAMA 1260 AM CRASHES AND BURNS

From this article in the Washington Post:

If you're looking for a break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day you'll be able to do so.

As reported by The Post [Style, Feb. 2], Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting Co., owner of OBAMA 1260, has announced plans to jettison all progressive talk and replace it with pre-recorded financial advice programming....

The author of the above-cited article (Bill Press, mentioned in the above citation) whines as follows at the end of the article:

There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.

Liberal talk radio is a failure because THE PEOPLE don't want to hear the swill.

The only way to keep the left on the air waves is via the Fairness Doctrine.

How pathetic is THAT?

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) demands censorship of conservatives

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Gesundheit) wants to salvage and strengthen The Fairness Doctrine. And besides suppressing talk radio, she would also like to censor cable, satellite programming and broadcast television. Because there's nothing more important for Congress to work on, apparently. No high priority economic mess, for instance.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast...

Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

“It should and will affect everyone,” she said [calling] the present system “unfair,” and said "there should be equal time for the spoken word."

Broadcasting & Cable points to other ominous signs.

The [Fairness] doctrine, which only applied to broadcasting, was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987... The doctrine's demise is credited -- or blamed, depending on who is citing it -- for the rise in conservative talk radio. Hosts including Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have expressed concerns that the new Democratic regime in Congress will try to reinstate the doctrine as a way to silence their critics.

Contributing to that concern were recent comments by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York to Fox News last month.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, yet another California Democrat, has raised the specter of its return. More recently, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said in an interview on talk station KKOB-AM Albuquerque that he hoped there would be a push for the doctrine, saying that “all stations should have to represent a balanced perspective…instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum].”

Sounds like a solid idea to me.

That First Amendment thingie is such a nuisance. And if we can just silence our critics and utterly control media content, we'll achieve a Democrat Utopia, dontcha know?

As of this moment there are 61 radio stations in New York City. Stations broadcast everything from Air America to Reggae Hip Hop and everything in between.

The reason liberal ideas don't resonate with the general public is that they are forced to compete on the merits of the ideas alone.

And liberals don't like competition.

They would prefer that big government decide what you can listen to, how much fuel your car can consume, what workers' organizations you must join, how much carbon dioxide you can expel, what your retirement stipend must be, which benefits you should consume for your health-care needs... and so on, ad infinitum. They want government to control every aspect of your life.

Furthermore, competition exposes their ideas as intellectually bankrupt, morally reprehensible and ultimately at odds with the vision the Framers held for this country.

You may recognize the fairless doctrine from previous corrupt and failed socialist governments.

I say to Anna Eshoo: read your Constitution, if a liberal hack like you owns a Constitution, that is.

We will resist the Fairless Doctrine and fight your vision of a totalitarian regime that regulates and approves content. In fact, why not put (D-Venezuela) after your name, you pathetic goon?

Note to readers: was that too harsh? I'm in a bad mood tonight.

A MCCAIN NOMINATION GUARANTEES THE RETURN OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

If McCain wins the nomination, then I guarantee that the next president (either McCain, Obama, or Hillary) will bring back the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine."

McCain hates talks radio and would LOVE to kill it.

A vote for McCain is a vote for the Stalinist Fairness Doctrine.

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The Fairness Doctrine is affirmative action for liberalism.--Newt Gingrich

I haven't bothered to post on the weak attempt by liberals to revive the Fairness Doctrine up until now because I knew it didn't have a chance in he** of passing!! Yet the more it is brought up the more concerned I get about the future. Right now we have enough Republicans to stop it in its tracks and a President that would veto it. Yet, God forbid we end up with a Democrat president and enough Democrat congressmen this could actually become law sometime in the future if we don't speak up.

If you look at this rationally it is beyond absurd. The liberals control 95% of the Drive By Media outlets, they control all the cable news channels except for Fox, they control 95% of the print media but they have panic attacks about the fact that via capitalism Conservatives dominate talk radio.

The bottom line is NO ONE wants to listen to liberal talk radio. Liberals have tried repeatedly and failed. Dennis Miller gives an excellent reason on why liberal talk radio fails, go here to listen to him. He points out that it isn't Conservative vs. Liberal but optimism vs. pessimism and I couldn't agree more. Most liberals are glass half-empty people and the American people don't want to hear ranting from doom and gloomers. This is why I despise Michael Savage and he is in the minority of Conservative talk show hosts. He is extremely negative and offers no positive solutions, no one but angry people want to listen to that.

To read the rest of my thoughts on the subject, including how talk radio listeners are more informed, go here.

AMNESTY DEAD; NOW A PLAN OF ACTION FOR 2008

Well, that was quite a ride. It started with Ted Kennedy and President Bush and then got some help from the McCainiacs...McCain, Graham, Martinez and Kyl. They tried to push an amnesty bill through in the dead of night like the Baltimore Colts in a Mayflower truck. The Conservatives in America responded and responded with a vengeance. If you'd thrown in Harriet Myers, you might have had an all-out civil war.

But then it got weird. Conservatives jammed phone lines, talk radio covered the story and the blogs gave us second-by-second updates. That's not the weird part. What gave us all double-takes was the amount of vitriol aimed at the blogs, talk radio and the grassroots from Republicans. We saw Trent Lott, Trent Lott of all people bashing talk radio, the very talk radio hosts that were his only defenders during the Strom Thurmond fiasco. He says the likes of Rush and Hannity are running America and "we've gonna have to deal with that problem." He also accuses his constituents and other across the country who have been calling his offices of practicing "intimidation." George Voinovich of Ohio, no conservative I grant you, but still a Republican who admits he hasn't read the bill but accuses those who have (i.e. talk radio hosts) of being simplistic.

Does this mean there would be Republican support for the Fairness Doctrine? Maybe. I've always been doubtful that it could ever really come back due to the one ultimate factor in any legislation: money. The National Association of Broadcasters and other TV/Radio lobbying groups will fight the Fairness Doctrine tooth and nail. If it were actually made law, it would destroy AM radio, and money talks in D.C. However, while I still think it won't happen, I'm not as confident as I once was after what has transpired in this Amnesty debate. The Rockefeller Republicans are really turning on the conservative wing and making their displeasure with them known. It's time for action.

What should we do? I think in 2008, the Conservatives should follow this line of action: Get behind the best Republican candidate for President. Face up to the fact that there was only one Ronald Reagan and you're not going to find his clone in this race. Find the guy that comes the closest to Reagan in conservative principles and most importantly who is very hawkish on the War on Terror, whether it be Rudy, Fred or Mitt and do everything you can to get him elected.

As for the Congress, that's where the conservative base needs to take a different approach. It's time to weed out the dead wood. The half-a-loaf approach in the hopes of getting/keeping a majority in either House Chamber has come back to bite us in the ass. It's given us the likes of Lindsey Graham, Mel Martinez, Arlen Specter and the like. Yes, it would suck if the Dems increased their numbers in '08, but sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.

These are the guys that voted for Amnesty in the Senate: Bennett, Craig, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, Snowe, and Specter. You could probably also throw in a few others who would have voted for it, if they thought it was the winning side, the most notable being Senator Sam Switchback and Senator Mitch McConnell who changed their votes. I'm inclined to cut McConnell a little slack as he is the Majority Leader who is somewhat obligated to serve the President and was very much in a no-win situation here. Anyway, the guys on this list have to go. Find a conservative candidate and get them to run in the primary. If they lose, then don't vote for the incumbent in the general election...let him go. If we lose seats, then we regroup and get better candidates in 2010.

Why not send a message with the presidency? Because the president is still the one person that can do the most important job in government: protecting the people. While this Amnesty debate was going on, we might have been inclined to forget that we're also at war with Islamofascists. We need a strong man leading this fight, but what we don't need any longer are guys like Lindsey Graham (who should be target #1) taking us to the dance and then ditching us for the drunk party-girl (for lack of a better metaphor).

Weed out the dead wood.

CALL ME OLD FASHIONED: DICK DURBIN CALLS FOR FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Via Power Line:

"It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision."

John Kerry joined the mix as well with very much the same words. These people are just having us on right? They're not actually so demented as to truly believe that the liberal/socialist point of view is not being heard, are they? I'm not sure I know anymore.

CLINTON AND BOXER DENY INHOFE STORY

Well, of course they do. What the hell does anyone expect them to say, "Yes, it's true, we're neo-fascists with plans to crush free speech." It's just like Bill Clinton always said, "Deny, deny, deny." Of course, Oliver Willis says their denials are proof that Inhofe is a liar:

You mean the senate's leading global warming denier just pulled something out of his ass, sent it over talk radio and had it filtered throughout the blogs and Fox News? Simply astounding.

Kryptonite my ass! It's ironic that he would bring global warming into the argument. Global Warming is the issue that Ole's friends on the Left say is completely settled...NO DEBATE, DON'T QUESTION IT! Hell if you try and question it, you could go before a Nuremberg-Style court, if some folks had their way. Hmmm, silencing an opposing view on Global Warming...just like some want to silence the views of, wait for it....conservative talk radio!

Are you getting this?

UPDATE: Inhofe says the story is true but it's an old one, from three years back, when Hillary and Boxer were in the minority. That should be enough to convince everyone that these two have only the best intentions. I know I'm convinced. We were wrong to ever suspect them of anything untoward.

MORE: The Lefties are steamed at Inhofe for daring to tell such a story. Hillary and Boxer deny it, case closed. So, am I to take from this that these two ladies are against bringing back the Fairness Doctrine? If Inhofe did make it up (which is unlikely), he sure did hit a nerve.

UPDATE: Inhofe explains the timetable to Breitbart TV.

PELOSI & CO. SEEK TO LIMIT OUR FREE SPEECH

THE LEFT WANTS TO REVIVE THE "FAIRNESS" DOCTRINE; (VIA THE THONG):

Liberal Democrats are attempting to muzzle conservative talk radio: they are assaulting free speech.

Like the communists in the former Soviet Union, America’s liberals seek to crush dissent by consolidating control over the media—especially talk radio, which has emerged as the dominant medium for conservative opinion.

Allies close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are promoting legislation, which if passed, will take off the air prominent conservative radio hosts such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—along with thousands of smaller conservative broadcasters.

The bill, entitled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," is sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a leftist Democrat from New York.

The legislation aims to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” of the 1940’s: “all views” are to be given equal time on radio. In particular, the Federal Communications Commission would have the power to oversee and change radio and television content.

The goal is to tilt the ideological balance of power away from the right on the nation’s air waves.

RTWT - IT'S APTLY TITLED: "Liberal totalitarianism."

WHAT PELOSI AND HER COMRADES WANT TO DO IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT STALIN, CASTRO DID, MUGABE DID, AND WHAT CHAVEZ IS DOING: PREVENT THE OPPOSITION FROM AIRING THEIR VIEWS.

AIR AMERICA FAILED FOR ONE REASON: LEFTISTS HAD NO NEED FOR TALK-RADIO BECAUSE THEY ALREADY CONTROLLED TV AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES; AIR AMERICA WAS REDUNDANT.

THIS IS A BALD-FACED ATTEMPT BY THE LEFT TO SQUELCH DISSENT FROM THE RIGHT.


LET'S MAKE SURE THE BOLSHEVIKS, ER UM I MEAN THE DEMOCRATS FAIL!

MORE ON THE STALINIST "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" HERE.

MORE HERE, TOO!