Showdown On The Fairness Doctrine

With all of the attacks on conservative talk show hosts and in the aftermath of an Air America smear on the Right, it’s time to make sure that the Left cannot use the government to dictate political content on broadcast networks. A group of Republicans in the House have reached the same conclusion. They announced their intention to force a floor vote on a bill that will permanently bar any attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and make government the arbiter of political speech:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) filed a discharge petition Wednesday to force a vote on legislation to ban the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
“The time has come to do away with the Fairness Doctrine once and for all,” the lawmaker said on the House floor. Pence’s legislation would require an act of Congress before the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to give time to both sides on an issue, can be implemented.
A discharge petition allows a lawmaker to force an up-or-down vote in the House if it is signed by a majority of members.
“To my colleagues in Congress I respectfully say: If you oppose the Fairness Doctrine, sign the petition. If you cherish the dynamic national asset that is American talk radio, sign the petition. If you simply believe that broadcast freedom deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the people’s House, sign the petition,” Pence said.

Pence and his colleagues listed below understand what the Left’s hysterical attack on Rush Limbaugh meant. They deliberately took his remarks out of context in order to create the notion that something had to be done to correct irresponsible political speech on broadcast radio, and they targeted the biggest name in the business to do it. No one in their right mind would believe that Rush didn’t support the military or the right of troops to express their opinions on the war, but it certainly makes for a good dodge in order to panic people into giving up their right to free political speech.
We’ll see how many signatures they can gather. The bill makes the choice straighforward. Those who sign the petition believe that Americans can make up their own minds about which political talk shows they want to hear, and will let the market decide who gets air time. Those who refuse to sign it want to leave open the option for top-down government control of broadcaster schedules and limitations on how much conservative or liberal political speech a broadcaster can publish, with an eye to eliminating political talk radio altogether by creating such a heavy regulatory burden that it disappears altogether.
That’s the choice. Perhaps you can help your Representatives make it with a few calls to their offices.
Here’s a link to the audio from the press conference today, which featured the following Representatives. The speaking order is as follows:
Congressman Mike Pence
Republican Leader John Boehner
Republican Whip Roy Blunt
Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam
Republican Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor
Congressman Greg Walden
Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling
Rep. Blunt has guest blogged at Red State on this issue.

50 thoughts on “Showdown On The Fairness Doctrine”

  1. I don’t know what the fuss over talk radio is, anyway. Yes, yes, I know all the debates and articles about it but I haven’t seen or heard anybody argue about the flip side.
    The libs have the TV airwaves sewed up. Before the age of cable television most people got their television time through antennaes to catch the signals over… air waves. Exactly where do people think the cable companies get those signals to pipe into homes and businesses? Out of the ground?
    I guess maybe I’m getting too old.
    Never mind the fact that the market determines what people will listen to and advertisers buy air time on shows that people will listen to.

  2. More egg on the Democrats’ faces. Ain’t the First Amendment Great?
    Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have been given the Rush equivalent of “Up Yours!” by auctioning their letter to the head of Clear Channel on eBay. Soon, the MC-LEF will laugh all the way to the bank! ($103,600 as of right now, plus a matching contribution… and a challenge to Senate Dems to match the final amount!)
    If the word “genius” doesn’t describe this, what does?
    Heh, heh, heh…

  3. “If the word “genius” doesn’t describe this, what does?”
    Oh, two words: pompous idiocy.

  4. If the word “genius” doesn’t describe this, what does?

    True. Mostly, Rush’s preaching to the choir bores me but in this case he’s hit the exact combination of high class and low humor the situation calls for.

  5. No, “pompous idiocy” is a group of elected officials using the public’s time to compose and sign a letter demanding that an individual citizen be silenced because they don’t agree with what he’s saying.
    Goebbels would be proud of you folks on the Left circa 2007. You’ve all truly jumped the shark.

  6. “No, “pompous idiocy” is a group of elected officials using the public’s time to compose and sign a letter demanding that an individual citizen be silenced because they don’t agree with what he’s saying.”
    Umm, Del do you mean elected officials using public time to denounce a MoveOn.org ad?

  7. You know, dwightkschrute, that’s not a bad comeback.
    However, I do hope that you know the difference between a private citizen expressing his personal views, even on the radio, and a four-star general testifying before Congress.

  8. Agreed, ‘pompous idiocy’ describes precisly those Democrat Senators who believe they hold the power to shut down a private citizen’s right to speak, earn a living and share ideals obviously foreign to the pompous idiots who vowed to uphold the Constitution; it’s one thing when pompous preachers on TV do it quite another when it’s pompus elected offical in Congress.

  9. I know that free speech is free speech. And if you want to complain about public officials taking time to denounce Rush Limbaugh, then it’s absolute hypocrisy to not put public officials to task for taking time to denounce MoveOn.org.

  10. This is a good step – the Republicans haven’t been as strong as they should have been in countering Democrat censorship attempts – remember the threats made to Sinclair broadcasting for crossing John Kerry?
    The problem is that none of this will matter if Hillary gets elected – who is perhaps best known for trying to shut up her political and media opponents via raw governmental power. Remember the FBI files, politically motivated audits, and government investigation of the American Spectator?
    Of course, in one sense it would be entertaining to see Hillary face the blogosphere rather then the few isolated dissenting voices she did in the 90s.

  11. Probably the lamest set of comebacks I’ve ever seen.
    Isn’t it obvious that Rush attracts attention, not because of his politics, but because of the fact that he’s a despicable human being who doesn’t have a shred of decency?
    There are plenty of people on talk radio who say things as bad or worse on a daily basis; but none of them have that certain ‘eau de scumbag’ which we have come to know and loathe from Rush.

  12. Cycloptichorn: Probably the lamest set of comebacks I’ve ever seen.
    Isn’t it obvious that Rush attracts attention, not because of his politics, but because of the fact that he’s a despicable human being who doesn’t have a shred of decency?
    And calling Rush “a despicable human being who doesn’t have a shred of decency” qualifies as high rhetoric worthy of Cato, Webster, or Lincoln???

  13. Just trying to communicate in terms which Rush listeners can understand and relate to, Doc. Usage of big words usually leads to confusion amongst the target group, so it’s better to modify one’s speech accordingly.
    Also, I might add, it’s an entirely accurate description.

  14. Back to the subject at hand. The Fairness Doctrine.
    Cycloptichorn is just representatives of the Socialists. The Fairness Doctrine is simply a maneuver for complete control of information. This is necessary in the true development of a Socialist state.
    Many have said, “the MSM is controlled by the Liberals, why do they care about some Conservative talk radio shows?” Well, that question is usually spoken by one not familiar with Socialism. The kind of Socialistic state that folks like Cycoptichorn strive for DEMANDS total control of all information whether it be over cable medium, print medium or air waves. To put it simply, under a socialist state, there could be 100 television stations, 1000 radio stations and 200 newspapers that disseminate the Socialist/Liberal message and 1 radio station that disseminates an alternative view. That 1 radio station MUST be shut down under the socialist doctrine.
    Afterall, there IS a reason why it is called The Fairness “Doctrine” !
    Hopefully, the petition mentioned here will be signed and this evil doctrine will go away. Hopefully there are enough people left with a bit of guts left in them, unlike those like Cycloptichorn who have cashed in every ounce of their ambition, hope, drive and confidence in their own ability.

  15. Aw, Geez.
    Fight,
    1 – I’m not a socialist.
    2 – I don’t wish to see the Fairness Doctrine brought about again.
    3 – Independent of 1 and 2, Rush Limbaugh is still a despicable human being who doesn’t have a shred of decency.
    It was true back when I was a registered Republican and it’s true now that I’m a registered Dem. Unlike some of you folks, I don’t base my judgments of others on their political affiliation, but upon their actions; and in this case, Rush has proven himself time and time again to be an uncaring, unthinking bag of crap who will say whatever he thinks will make him more popular with the extreme right wing of the country.
    He could come on the air advocating for the immediate torture of everyone who isn’t a white landowner and you fellows would lap it up, or at least excuse it. Wake up! Not a nice person in the slightest.

  16. Hopefully, the petition mentioned here will be signed and this evil doctrine will go away. Hopefully there are enough people left with a bit of guts left in them,
    One of the big problems in America is that there are very few on the Left that believe in free speech across the gamut anymore. So when advancing Leftist policy would be helped by censoring dissenting voices the Left favors censorship.
    It is an interesting question whether the 60s radicals were really just Gramascians using free speech as tool, or if they have instead gotten fat and corrupt since co-opting the national bureacracy and the Democrat party.

  17. While we’re on the subject of foreign affairs, does anyone think the reason President, (soon to be Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin is paying a visit to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to apologize for the Russian’s failed defense missle and air attack system that Iran bought and deployed in Syria? Many would love to be that “fly on the wall” and listen to that converstation.
    Does anyone know that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer thinks Steven Cobert’s announcement to run for the POTUS deserves serious consideration? Should Ellen DeGeneres get her abandoned dog back? Was Chris Matthews serious when he attempted to get Barbara Boxer to say President Bush is “unstable”? Could anyone possibly find out that Ed Morrissey and Mohammad Ali are distant cousins? Somebody stop me!!!!
    Sorry, I was attempting to do verbal calestetics for my Cycloptichorn “target group communications” interview.

  18. “Just trying to communicate in terms which Rush listeners can understand and relate to, Doc. Usage of big words usually leads to confusion amongst the target group, so it’s better to modify one’s speech accordingly.
    Also, I might add, it’s an entirely accurate description.”
    “in terms which Rush listeners can understand and relate to..” Well, here’s a few words this old G.I. picked up that you probably understand; elitist, sanctimonious, self-righteous blowhard..
    Refresh my memory please. Who, exactly, on the left has tried to set up scholarship funds for the children of our fallen servicemen and women?
    And don’t give me that crap about this “illegal war.” The money raised for the scholarships have also been for the children of fallen servicemen and women from Korea and Vietnam, both wars started by Democrats and ended by Republicans.
    Please tell me one Lefty organization that helps those children? Or does anything other than recite the death tolls to score — in their twisted minds, anyway — points?
    I’m a retired E-9 who served in combat in Gulf War I and three trips to Somalia; I don’t remember anyone other than the Rush Limbaughs and the Sean Hannitys and others like them that put their money where their mouths are when it came to contributing to the welfare of my fallen comrades.
    If you can’t walk the talk Bubba, then you contribute nothing but hot air.

  19. Cycloptichorn
    Thanks for opining about Rush’s level of decency. You have probably unwittingly been the first here to cast this public debate in its proper light. What you, and Hillary and the rest of the left are really trying to do is institute a qualification or filter on free speech based on values that you approve. And it is your values that make this issue so detestable to the rest of us. If you succeed the ability to speak on politic subjects will be limited to speech that you find to be “decent” and not coming from someone you think is a “despicable” human being. But to you Rush is despicable and indecent, although he almost never uses words commonly accepted in our culture as vulgar; and uses “please” and “thank you” on a regular basis. He gives a countdown warning when he is preparing to speak about adult subject matter on the air, and even after that says very little that could not be discussed around the average family dinner table without causing a lady to faint. But your side gives a pass to such vulgarity-prone personalities as Howard Stern, Whoopie Goldburg, etc. etc., and would have the proverbial conniption fit if someone on the right side of the aisle in Congress suggested that they should be silenced.
    I think Rush is a little over the top at times with his radio persona, with the “hand tied my back” thing and more; but that is the act and that is making him a ton of money. What you hate is the persona. I dare say you do not know Rush other than that.

  20. Mike,
    You will note that earlier, I wrote:
    “2 – I don’t wish to see the Fairness Doctrine brought about again.”
    So, when you wrote,
    “What you, and Hillary and the rest of the left are really trying to do is institute a qualification or filter on free speech based on values that you approve.”
    You were inaccurate. I am not attempting to do anything of the sort.
    Also, I think that you are mistaking vulgarity and indecency; the two aren’t related in the slightest. Rush manages to make a complete ass out of himself without cursing, but I’d prefer someone who curses and was a better person.
    E9,
    As I said earlier – he’ll do or say whatever it takes to get the far right wing to like him more. I am unconvinced that he has any other motive for any of his actions.
    The Person IS the Persona. It would be like claiming that Howard Stern is a nice and polite guy – he’s only a foul-mouthed jerk on the radio each and every day. Doesn’t wash.

  21. Cycloptichorn
    “Also, I think that you are mistaking vulgarity and indecency; the two aren’t related in the slightest. Rush manages to make a complete ass out of himself without cursing, but I’d prefer someone who curses and was a better person.”
    My point exactly. You think free speach should be about what you prefer. And you prefer things differnt than what I prefer. So what makes what you prefer something that should trump what I prefer?
    And if Rush is making such an ass of himself, would it not follow that he would lose audience numbers and eventually goout of business without government action?
    What Rush says or does not say on his radio show, is not something that is or should be of concern to you. You say you are not interested in silencing him, so what’s your beef? What DO you want as a result of your spouting your leftist views here. If it is to influence others of us to share your hate of Rush Limbaugh, you stand almost no chance. Rush doing what Rush does has made him a very wealthy man who many here would love to emulate. You, well you are a creaton that lurks on internet message boards to try to get somene to follow you into oblivion. You are not even a real person, much less a really nice person.

  22. I guess if one thinks telling the truth about the dhimmicrats is ‘despicable’ behavior, then they are going to see Rush in that light. I call a person being able to predict what the dhimmicrats are going to do- and getting it RIGHT the vast majority of the time- pretty amazing. (I do give Rush a D on a few things).
    But when I can stomach Err America long enough to hear what the talk show host is saying, all I hear is despicable language. I have never heard so much hate coming off the airwaves since they used to give airtime to racists and white supremacists (or the likes of farakhan).
    Never mind this inane comment:
    ‘Never mind the fact that the market determines what people will listen to and advertisers buy air time on shows that people will listen to. ‘
    What a Joke! If one listens to Rush and then listens to Err America, they hear the SAME commercials!

  23. Ooops, missed my last point: seeing that the commercials are pretty much the same on both networks, it seems clear that the PERSON is who they come to listen to- and that is NOT determined by the ‘market.’

  24. Mike,
    I congratulate you – you’re the first one here to realize the truth: that I’m not an actual person, but an extremely complex piece of software, created by the DNC in the year 2073; sent back in time in order to sow discord amongst the Republican party. Now, all my plans are foiled!
    I’m going to continue as if nobody had noticed I’m a fake person, however, because it’s not worth my hide to have to go back and report that my cover was blown by an amateur detective on a website. Luckily, I don’t think anyone else has noticed yet.
    You state,

    And if Rush is making such an ass of himself, would it not follow that he would lose audience numbers and eventually goout of business without government action? ”
    You fail to realize the truth of the situation: he finds an audience amongst those who share many of the same despicable qualities as himself. The more he makes an ass out of himself, the more his listeners like him; because it normalizes their feelings. It gives them an outlet to feel okay about their inner disdain for anyone else’s problems.
    It’s much in the same vein as Bush’s speaking skills. When educated people hear Bush stumble and stutter through simple sentences, they feel embarrassed for him and for America, for having such a dunce as a president. When uneducated people hear Bush stumble and stutter, it makes them feel BETTER about things – because, hey, someone like them could become president!
    “Rush doing what Rush does has made him a very wealthy man who many here would love to emulate.”
    I’m sure they would. Me, I’d rather be only moderately well off and a good person, then a complete ass and rich, like Rush. I can understand why those who already have those qualities, however, wish they had the financial element thrown in to their life as well.

  25. The unicorn has landed and he makes attack after attack. No facts, no sites cited, just useless attacks of the type he claims that Rush makes. Go debate those articulate guys at DU-they’ll give you a good well spoken factual debate to your liking-one that’ll make you proud to be one of them, snicker,snicker choke.
    In April of 1993, I visited my elderly Mother in Tempe, Az. She kept talking about Rush Limbaugh and also a “Rush” bar. Since she was too frail to go to see it for herself, she talked me into going (first time she ever encouraged me to go to a bar) It was a bar across the road from the old Arizona Republic building which was frequented by employees and reporters from the newspaper (the Arizona Republic was a great conservative paper at the time-super editorials) which had a large screen TV which was turned on to Rush’s TV program
    (like sports bars are now tuned to sports) and everyone watched it as they ate (or drank) their lunch. My sister-in-law and I had just ordered our creme brule (which the bar was also known for) and the TV was tuned to Rush when it suddenly switched to a huge fire-it was the incinerating of the women and children of the Banch Davidians and everyone at the bar watched in horror and silence as that horrible scene unfolded. I will never forget it. No, I never watched Rush at a Rush bar but I saw a scene that will live in infamy in the history of the US.

  26. And if you want to complain about public officials taking time to denounce Rush Limbaugh, then it’s absolute hypocrisy to not put public officials to task for taking time to denounce MoveOn.org.
    Rush is a private citizen and taxpayer. MoveOn is a not-for-profit and allegedly “non-partisan” group.
    If MoveOn starts paying taxes I’ll acknowledge their right to free speech. Until then they should refrain from calling our General in Iraq “Betrayus”.
    Of course, having a right to free speech does not mean that people cannot criticise you for saying outrageous things.

  27. Cycloptichorn,
    The Chinese have a saying: Hatred is a curse as you will invariably become that which you hate the most.
    By insulting and demeaning those who disagree with your opinion of a popular radio host and by claiming that Rush’s audience, and those who post here (other then yourself, of course), is comprised of simpletons and idiots, you have become the pompous ass you claim Rush to be. Your statements here have more in common with pomposity and elitism than any statement Rush has ever made. In a battle of the asses, you win hands down.

  28. Ray,
    I don’t believe the Chinese are any more correct in their sayings then the Africans that Hillary likes to quote.
    Besides, it’s immaterial; I neither hate nor wish to restrict Rush in any way. I merely pity him.
    I assure you that your opinion of me will be filed for due reference; but I cannot assure you that it will be given any particular relevance.
    I suspect that you and others are stung by my comments, leading to your angry prose; when someone suggests something truly ridiculous, it generally does not evoke an angry response. It’s the truth that really makes people mad when they hear it.
    I don’t think that Rush’s audience is necessarily full of ‘simpletons and idiots’; there are quite a few people who are intelligent, yet support his continuing hateful speech and hypocrisy. They are worse then the first bunch, naturally, for they should know better and have no excuse – other then the fact that something deep insides them resonates when he speaks hateful words towards others.

  29. cycploptichorn,
    “You fail to realize the truth of the situation: he finds an audience amongst those who share many of the same despicable qualities as himself. The more he makes an ass out of himself, the more his listeners like him; because it normalizes their feelings. It gives them an outlet to feel okay about their inner disdain for anyone else’s problems.”
    In a way I sort of agree with that theory. That process is called Politics and is the fundamental basis for the whole field of POLITICAL SPEECH. It is also what your freinds at MoveOn, Kos and the DNC want to control. And note I don’t think for a moment they want to stop it. They just want to control the process.
    As for Bush, I do wish he were able to speak better at times, but speaking well is not or great import when one has nothing to say, ala Kerry, Dean, etc.

  30. Kos Kid Cyclops opined:
    “There are plenty of people on talk radio who say things as bad or worse on a daily basis; but none of them have that certain ‘eau de scumbag’ which we have come to know and loathe from Rush.”
    Do give us some verifiable examples to back up your allegation-not cherry picked or edited quotes.

  31. Cyclops
    I neither hate nor wish to restrict Rush in any way. I merely pity him.
    Your remarks on this thread suggest otherwise. You may be fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling anyone else.
    I’d rather be only moderately well off and a good person, then a complete ass and rich, like Rush …. his continuing hateful speech and hypocrisy …. he finds an audience amongst those who share many of the same despicable qualities as himself …. I’d prefer someone who curses and was a better person …. Rush has proven himself time and time again to be an uncaring, unthinking bag of crap who will say whatever he thinks will make him more popular with the extreme right wing of the country …. he’s a despicable human being who doesn’t have a shred of decency …. that certain ‘eau de scumbag’ which we have come to know and loathe from Rush.
    “Loath” pretty much sums up your attitude to Rush. At least have the guts to stick up for your own words and don’t do this absurd walk-back about how you “pity” him. If you can’t be honest with us, at least be honest with yourself.

  32. Do give us some verifiable examples to back up your al”legation-not cherry picked or edited quotes.”
    uhh, you know that if the one eyed wonder kid gives you those examples, if would reveal that he/she/it actually listens to Rush. Of course, it also means that if he/she/it does not have the examples, it means all this is based on talking points fed from elsewhere. You don’t suppose cy forces itself to listen to Rush just t make sure he is still being dispicable?

  33. PS, to Cyclops:
    I find this reply of yours to another poster absolutely scary:
    “I assure you that your opinion of me will be filed for due reference”
    LOL! Keeping files on people who disagree with you is so…NIXONIAN.

  34. The idea of talking points rasied a question for me, so I did a little search. If you Google “Rush Limbaugh” “despicable human being”, using the quotes and the space between phrases, you should get 720 hits. Many use the same or similar language to slam Rush. The first two are from the website of Media Matters. So it seems it is not really hard to find out the source of the talking point list.

  35. Flenser,
    You mistake me, sir; I do pity him.
    I normally reserve ‘hate’ for people who have done something personally to me. Rush Limbaugh has never attacked me personally. So I don’t hate him. It would be a waste of a strong emotion.
    I don’t listen to Rush on a regular basis, though I used to when I was younger. Believe me when I say that I know where you fellows are coming from; there was a time when I would have vociferously attacked any criticism of him in the fashion that many here are currently doing so.
    But, you see, I grew out of that period in my life. I pity those, like Rush and many who follow him, who never did.
    I will say this, in reference to recent actions that Rush has been involved in; I never heard a word of remorse for all the harsh things that he had to say about drug addicts over the years, after he was caught. He apologized to his listeners and promised to do better; there’s every evidence that his rehab was effective and that he’s living a better life. No remorse for the harsh words he said in the past, though. No understanding for others was gained from the experience. It’s sad to see that someone who is obviously intelligent cannot learn compassion from mistakes they’ve made in life.
    Oh, and making fun of Fox’s Parkinson’s. Stuff like that. Class-act stuff.

  36. cy, when you say you grew out of that period of your life, I do understand. I used to be more of a liberal, and then I began having ot actually earn a living. I find that most on the left measure their compasion for the plight of others in terms of how much of my money they can require me to give up for the causes they beleive in. Is that the side you have moved to?

  37. I’ve listened to Rush since he was first syndicated nationally and I don’t recall him saying much of anything about drug addicts, although I wouldn’t imagine he either ignored them or treated them with sympathy if he ever did mention them. If he did, his beef would’ve probably been with those hooked on recreational drugs much more than with those who end up addicted to prescribed pain killers.
    As to the Michael J. Fox episode, Rush never made fun of him at all. That was a total mischaracterization of his statements about Fox which was spread by the left in order to discredit him. Rush merely pointed out that Fox had gone off his meds in order to be more symptomatic and thus more sympathetic a figure while being filmed for his political spot.

  38. The fairness doctrine doesn’t dictate what people can say, and when I say “people,” I mean wingnut billionares. Fox news can say patriotic Americans should club toddlers like baby seals, and Rush is also free to say that baby pandas should be deep fried alive, and they are free to say that nonstop 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. Then they need to hand the mike over to someone else. But rest assured, you can still get 4380 hours of baby clubbing, panda frying rhetoric a year.

  39. What I find somewhat bizare here is your total failure to see the paralles between this event and the Patreaus affair a few weeks earlier.
    It is of course ridiculous for the Congress to spend its time debating the actions of private persons or organizations as one poster in this thread puts it. But that is precisely what the GOP demanded only a few days earlier. I thought at the time that it would not be very long before the GOP would regret that particular move.
    The right has far more than their fair share of blowhards courting publicity with statements chosen for shock value: Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Riley, Malkin. The Democrats knew that it would not be very long before they could hold the Republican’s feet to the fire. Unlike the Democrats however the GOP has to circle the waggons to protect their lunatic fringe lest they offend their base.
    I blogged a somewhat long critique of this article. My interest here is not the specifics of the political debate but the dynamics of debate that the Web is creating.
    http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/10/blogosphere-takes-on-rush-limbaugh.html
    Incidentally, I think that you folk also miss the point of the MoveOn advertisement and the attack on it. Politics 101 would be to ignore the advertisement. You do not call attention to an attack, it only causes it to gain more currency.
    MoveOn placed the ad for the express purpose of ensuring that the hearings would become a partisan affair. The Republicans helped them suceed in that goal. In doing so they made sure that they reminded the general public repeatedly that Petraeus was being called a liar. The only reason for a Republican wanting the public to remember that Petraeus had been called a liar that I can think of is if they thought they might need that as an alibi at some point in the future, next November for example.

  40. BufordHolly, Yup. That is the way freedom works. Anyone is free to say anything they wish to say, short of inciting a riot. But I seem to miss the part of the first amendment that says If I want to say pandas should be deep fried, that I am only allowed to do so for 12 hours per day, or that I then have to provide someone else a mike to say what they want to say. If this fairness doctrine is implemented, and if it is in fact “fair” does that mean that MoveOn.org will only be allowed to speak out about their causes for half a day and then will be required to provide time for whoever thier oposite may be? Or does this only work to limit conservitive speach?

  41. The fairness doctrine doesn’t dictate what people can say, and when I say “people,” I mean wingnut billionares.
    Nice try Pinocchio. But go tell the rest of the Soviet Central Committee members that if they want the fascist dictatorship they crave they are going to have to do lots better than that.
    It’s not the fact that “Cycloptichorn” and “BurfordHolly” lie that bothers me – that is natural for them. It’s the fact that they lie so stupidly and clumsily that bothers me. The Kool Aid Krowd ain’t what it used to be.
    Come on, fellas – with professionals like Murtha, Pelosi and Hilly the Hun on your team, surely you can cook up some better whoppers than censorship-is-really-not-censorship and Rush-hates-Michael-J-Fox. Show some pride in your work!

  42. “The right has far more than their fair share of blowhards courting publicity with statements chosen for shock value: Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Riley, Malkin.”
    You make an interesting point, Phill. How many blowhards, or anything else, IS the Repblicans “fair share”? And who is in control of such things?

  43. Mike, the public airwaves are a limited public resource. In droughts we don’t give all water to golf courses. And the arguments that fairness doctrine opponents that Rush will be banned are themselves stupid and dishonest. Basically, that arguement is a HOAX, like the Protocols of Zion was a hoax. So why give people a public resource to promote hoaxes like “Rush would be banned?”
    A less dishonest but still ridiculous answer is when Republicans say “Well we own hundreds of television and radio stations, but liberals are free to invent entirely new technologies.” That’s sort of like letting foreign companies make interstates of the interstates (a growing trend) and the deciding that people can’t drive private cars on them but it’s OK because “drivers are free to invent entirely new technologies.”

  44. There’s a lot of evasion of the main point in previous comments (you know who you are), so let’s remind ourselves of what’s at stake.
    The US Government has no business trying to apply “fairness” (whatever that means) to broadcast media. Doing so would be about as big a violation of the First Amendment as can be imagined.
    The current situation has many ironies:
    – the comparisons by some posters of complaints about MoveOn.org’s ad and Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasts are ludicrous: MoveOn.org impugned an American general, suggesting he was lying – but as it turns out, the facts on the ground support him. Limbaugh was clearly discussing real “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth – and the notorious Senate letter condemning him was built on a lie – again.
    – Of all the congressman in either house, Mike Pence understands the consequences of the “Fairness Doctrine” the best. As a long-time talk show host in Indiana, he knows that any attempt to restore it would shut down the most successful part of the AM radio business today: talk radio. Given the preponderance of conservative voices of various flavors on talk radio, versus the domination of other types of broadcasting and media by liberal voices (FM radio, broadcast TV, much of cable TV, and newspapers), the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would have a disproportionate effect on conservatives.
    Some might wonder if liberal-leaning radio, TV, and newspapers would become more even-handed if the “Fairness Doctrine” was revived. I spent a lot of time watching and listening to TV and radio before the “Fairness Doctrine” was abolished, and such hopes are unfounded.
    In those days, very often, the least reasonable “opposing viewpoint” was allowed airtime, similar to the way today’s newspapers are more likely to print poorly-constructed rants that oppose their viewpoints (and thus make it appear that there is no reasonable opposition) rather than well-reasoned letters. This website has often chronicled such mischief on the part of the New York Times and others. Whether you love or hate Limbaugh to the right, Randi Rhodes to the left (if you can find her on the radio dial), or whoever, we the people don’t need the “Fairness Doctrine”. Instead, we need unfettered access to news, analysis – and, yes, folks, even outright rants.

  45. I know that free speech is free speech. And if you want to complain about public officials taking time to denounce Rush Limbaugh, then it’s absolute hypocrisy to not put public officials to task for taking time to denounce MoveOn.org.
    I dunno. One was talking about “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth, the other was talking about “phony soldiers” like David Petraus.

  46. You make an interesting point, Phill. How many blowhards, or anything else, IS the Repblicans “fair share”? And who is in control of such things?
    Well the difference here is that the reception tends to be rather different on the left. Michael Moore is pretty flaky, he uses contentious, poorly supported and occasionaly flat out wrong ‘facts’ to support his case. Randi Rhodes has the irritating habbit of using sloppy claims that turn out not to be true, whenever she mentions Bin Laden she claims that he was paid by the CIA which is utterly untrue. Bin Laden was the Saudi money man bringing the matching contributions the Saudis ad pledged to the mujahadein. He established an entirely separate clientelle.
    Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox News &ct. have a central position in the Republican party. They have been allowed to take over as the public face of the party in many respects. Much as the right would like to pretend that it is, this is simply not the case with MoveOn or Michael Moore or Media Matters or even George Soros.
    One reason the reception is so different on the left is that we remember what happened in the 70s and 80s when a bunch of screaming ideologues made a serious attempt to take over many leftwing parties in Europe. Groups like Militant Tendency, a Trotskyite group which attempted to take over the British Labour party.
    Militant’s tactics are not so different from the ones used by the ‘Moral Majority’: sign up a group of highly motivated supporters, target morribund party machines in safe districts, push out the old guard by being as obnoxious as possible, push through a platform so crazy that only your committed ideological supporters can be bothered to stay.
    This happened to a certain extent during the 60s in the Democratic party. The issue then however was race and the entryists were committed to purging supporters of seggregation such as Jessie Helms, Strom Thurmond and their ilk.
    Ideological warfare can be successful in moving the center of gravity of a political debate. The right has been very successful in persuading pundits that supply side econnomics is a sensible moderate position rather than an utterly crazy self delusion.
    The problem with ideological warfare is that it can smash up the party something terrible. It took the Labour party 17 years to get back into power after the winter of discontent. And they only managed to do so after publicly purging the Trotskyites. The British Conservative party is still in recovery from its own ideological excesses and despite the fact that it has been out of power for over a decade now looks considerably less likely to form the next government than Labour ever did during Thatcher’s third term in office.
    At this point the GOP has already lost the 2008 money race. It does not expect to take control of either house and is unlikely to win the Whitehouse. The only achievement that is currently within reach for the GOP is denying Democrats a filibuster proof majority and persuading the Dobson crowd not to run a third party spoiler.

  47. Buford, yours is an interesting take. The public airwaves are indeed a limited public resource, but the infrastructure and human resources that create content on those airwaves are not generally publicly owned. Radio broadcast companies are private enterprises, except for a few like PBS. Those businesses exist because of hard work and investments by their owners; either individuals or stockholders. They are no more a public resource than are steel mills, farms or computer software firms. The comparisom to the selling of interstates to foreign companies is not valid, as the interstates were first public owned and then sold. Radio companies were never public owned.
    I have no problem with the government mandating that some bandwidth or portion of the air waves must be available to certain types of uses, which the government decides are in the public interest. The government would be within bounds to set aside frequency ranges for certain uses that prevent monopolization of the airwaves. But I have a serious problem with the government declaring that private industry, corporate stockholders, etc, are also required to make some use of their privately owned facilities and systems for those government uses. Again, the airwaves and the infrastructure are not the same thing. Your argument is similar to arguing that since the interstates are public roads, the government should require you to let me use your car because I don’t have one. What you seem to promote is nationalization of the broadcast industry.

  48. Cycloptichorn puked: “I don’t think that Rush’s audience is necessarily full of ‘simpletons and idiots’; there are quite a few people who are intelligent, yet support his continuing hateful speech and hypocrisy.”
    Can you cite some examples, or do you typically just pull parroted points out of your ass?
    Oh, and the “parrot” part is dead-on!
    Here’s a dollar – buy a clue!

  49. IRADA stated: “I dunno. One was talking about “phony soldiers” like Jesse MacBeth, the other was talking about “phony soldiers” like David Petraus.”
    Forget it, such differentiation is beyond the pale of the post-modernist left.
    Every time they open their mouths they show what a bunch of overgrown four year-olds they really are. No small wonder they are always “For the children” – it’s coverage for their overwhelming shortcomings.

  50. In all the arguments back and forth about the equivalence of condemning Rush versus MoveOn.org, one fact keeps getting danced around. MoveOn.org is a Political Action Committee. Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen who is paid to do what he does by a corporation, not a Political Action Committee.
    As for the one who called me an idiot… I doubt Air America makes near the amount of money off their best talk show as Clear Communications make from Rush’s show. If you’re going to argue facts, then you need to use all the facts, not just the ones that support your view as if the others don’t exist.

Comments are closed.