Attention, wingnuts! Obama DOES NOT want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine
November 11th, 2008 at 11:14am Pat Cunningham
It seems that every right-wing loony in America is worried to death that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress are going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the abolition of which more than 20 years ago gave rise to the talk-radio boom.
Somebody ought to tell the Nervous Nellies that Obama has NO SUCH INTENTION.
Where do these people come up with such irrational fears? Oh, I forgot. They love to be afraid. Fear is their raison d’etre.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
13 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | November 11th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
So, some blog site named Yglesias says “… A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference. Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act.”
In 2005 Dems didn’t control Congress and in 2006 and beyond it would have been vetoed. The facts are different now.
Do I think the Dems would be foolish enough to try to push a Fairness Doctrine? Yes. Do I think obama would be stupid enough to sign it? No.
2. Pat Cunningham | November 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mike: I don’t want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. None of my liberal friends want it reinstated. Few, if any, of the liberal Web sites I regularly visit are pushing for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. So where does all this paranoia come from?
3. Mike Carroll | November 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Pat-I imagine it comes from Pelosi and others of her ilk in Congress and some of those liberal sites that you reference. Conservatives do not trust the MSM to present their point of view in a rational light and thus talk radio became and remains their outlet.
I think Obama is too smart to fall into this trap. It would give him a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” moment that he doesn’t need.
4. Optimistic1 | November 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I smell major hypocrisy. Pat and his fellow Dems just got done selling to America that McCain would’ve obviously been the next Bush in office because he voted along those lines 90% of the time. But in this case I am crazy for assuming that Prez Elect Obama wouldn’t be for the fairness doctrine when the speaker of the house and clan are on record recently as desiring such legislation and he has voted along with them 97% of the time? So which is it Pat? Were you full of it on McCain, or are you full of it on Obama? If the senate passes it Obama will veto? Can’t have it both ways. I am all for the Fariness Doctrine as long as it applies to Hollywood also and they have to start making right wing movies to level the playing field. J/K of course.
Pat says “The Weirdos” want it, does that include below? Pretty high level weirdos…
According ot Wikipedia:
On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents California’s 8th congressional district) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding “the interest in my caucus is the reverse.” When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’”, the Speaker replied “Yes.”[15] In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,”[16] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[17]
5. Juice | November 11th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
It doesn’t matter what Obama wants. The bill will come to him and he will sign it. Not his doing he will say. “the will of the Congress and the People”. Doesn’t anyone understand how this guy works?
6. Pat Cunningham | November 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Ah, yes, the pinheads who thought that Bill Ayers would be the undoing of Obama’s presidential campaign are now telling us they’re sure that Obama will go back on his promise regarding the Fairness Doctrine. And these geniuses perform these feats of fortune-telling while they have their heads planted firmly up their butts. Amazing. (This condemnation does not include Mike Carroll, who’s only semi-crazy. His malady is potentially curable. Dr. Cunningham is on the case.)
7. barryfan | November 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
only semi crazy,maybe, but totally hypocritical–is this the mike carroll that has drawn government paychecks for his entire adult life only to claim to be for “small government” as a conservative making joe the plumber money who believes mcsame’s tax plan was better?
8. Craig Knauss | November 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I don’t know why all the braindeads are always bitching about Pelosi. I don’t think she’s done that much, good or bad. Perhaps they have forgotten the adminstration of President Ginrich. While we all know he was only elected by a single district (down amongst the peanut ranches of Georgia), he still thought he was in charge of the whole country. He brought the government to its knees in an effort to stymie the man who was really elected president (by a considerable majority of the U.S. voters). Pelosi didn’t do that to George W. Bush. But why dwell on facts. Right guys?
9. Mike Carroll | November 12th, 2008 at 8:09 am
A response to barryfan-The only government check I have ever received is a tax refund check and those have been few and far between.I have worked my entire career in private industry and I can assure you that my income is nowhere near the 250k that I think you are referencing with Joe the Plumber.
Dr. Cunningham-I assume the meds are in the mail.
10. Milton Waddams | November 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Craig: While I completely agree with what you just said and generally do, I must correct your statement \"He brought the government to its knees in an effort to stymie the man who was really elected president (by a considerable majority of the U.S. voters).\" Clinton was elected by a plurality, not a majority. In 1992, Clinton had 43% to 37.4% for Bush & 18.9% for Perot. In 1996, he had 49.2% to 40.7% for Dole & 8.4% for Perot. That being said, he was still an IMMENSELY popular president, who enjoyed the highest approval rating (68%) when leaving office of any president in the history of the survey. His approval ratings were highest (73%) shortly AFTER the witch hunt, oops I mean impeachment proceedings. These 2 facts still stick in the craw of the GOP to this day. If it weren\’t for term limits, Clinton would have been President til he decided he didn\’t want it anymore, and the Repubs know it, even if they won\’t admit it.
11. barryfan | November 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Wrong mike carroll, sorry…but I was NOT referring to 250K…Joe never made 20% of that…that was my point, unless you make that amount of cash, you are voting against your own self interest….I think it is ironic that you confused Joe the plumber with someone making 250K…it was made clear after the fact, that he lied, was in no position to buy any business and even the busines did not NET $250,000 for its real owner…
12. Mike Carroll | November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“unless you make that amount of cash, you are voting against your own self interest….”.
If one assumes that Obama will fulfill his promise and only increase taxes on those making 250k or more and give “tax breaks” to the rest I suppose you have something of a point.
However, there is no way that he keeps that campaign promise if he ever intended to.
BTW-by your definition anyone who votes for a tax increase, property taxes to support the public schools for example, would be voting against their self interest. I must not be too bright as I’ve done that repeatedly. I think its called voting for the common good.
13. Craig Knauss | November 12th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Milton,
Thanks. I had forgotten all about H. Ross Perot. But then, a lot of people have. Anyway, the point was The Newt tried to gridlock the entire government to cater to the far right.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed