Fairness Doctrine Watch: Still “on track?”
Cliff Kincaid urges redoubled efforts to get Rep. Mike Pence’s Broadcaster Freedom Act passed:
Liberal efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine are “completely on track,” and Democrats intend to push for the measure by linking talk radio to “hate crimes,” according to a conservative media analyst.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has proposed an amendment to appropriations legislation to prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from spending any money in 2008 to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
The regulation that required broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue was enforced from 1949 to 1987, when the Reagan administration allowed it to lapse.
The House voted 309 to 115 to approve the Pence amendment, but Cliff Kincaid, editor of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, said even if the Senate passes the measure, “it would do absolutely nothing to stop a Democratic president and Congress from reinstating” the regulation.
Beyond that, he said in a release, the amendment has caused confusion and provided the opportunity for “several dozen liberals [in Congress] to claim they are not interested in re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine.”
Kincaid argued that if Democrats gain control of both the White House and Congress, those same liberals would simply let the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “This may be what is planned.”
Kincaid says a massive public outpouring on behalf of Pence’s Broadcaster Freedom Act–akin to the public opposition to shamnesty–is needed. In the meantime, he sees liberal activists moving forward with efforts to cast talk radio as a public safety hazard:
Kincaid asserted that the Democrats were in the meantime paving the way for the return of the Fairness Doctrine by requesting a federal study of how licensed broadcasting facilities have been used to “convey messages of bigotry or hatred, creating a climate of fear and inciting individuals to commit hate crimes.”
Rather than argue that conservative talk shows are one-sided, he said, Democrats in Congress will assert “that talk radio is hateful and causing injury and death to people.”
It’s a tactic resurrected from the Clinton era. They never go away.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Fairness Doctrine : The American Pundit
- The ‘Muslim Students Association’ [MSU, MSA] = Radical Islamic Hatred « Freedemocracy’s Weblog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Fairness Doctrine
Yourish.com
» Tom Friedman urges Bush policy on IsraelNewsBusters.org
» Fox the Only Cable Newser to Air Pelosi's House Speech LiveBetsys Page
» The fall of the Berlin WallCommentary
» ConcernedCommentary
» Who Will Have the Nerve?
When you have no good ideas, no true leadership, no values, no morals, no concience, you try to silence the people that do……
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
* John Morley
Oh….and this one, too:
If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
* Noam Chomsky
The one smart thing Noam Chomsky ever said..
This idea might be totally off the wall, but why don’t we start to get some lawyers together to go after some of the libs who back this in court? Are they not violating our civil rights by trying to stop our freedom of speach?
I know its alittle bit out there but the left never seems to fail to use the courts to try and push any silly idea that comes to thier deranged little minds. Why don’t we use the courts to mess up their plans as much as possible in advance.
As least as early as 2002, the DIMS were putting candidates on ballots in unconstitutional manner, saying that to have an election without a Dim was unconstitional BECAUSE OF THE BALANCE OF POWER – but our Constitution is based on balance of power flowing through the THREE BRANCHES of Fed Govt, the STATES, and the CITIZENS – with CITIZENS being the SOVEREIGNS in this case – NEVER A POLITICAL PARTY, so the DIMS used a false premise then – and they are NO MORE “ENTITLED” to a segment of legitimate govt power than a FLEA. They are not even “ENTITLED” to exist – their members are entitled to A voice, but NOT TO KIDNAP AN AUDIENCE.
They are certainly NOT entitled to be the ARBITORS of ACCEPTABLE speech.
I know I’m totally out of the loop on this one, but why are we against fairness?
Because, Derel, many things are named exactly the opposite of what they are. “The Fairness Doctrine” has little fairness in it. The return of it basically states that the Government will be in charge of what opinions we hear, and in what forums and formats. I quote the great Ronald Reagan “The nine scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.’”
I refer you to the 1st amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It was written specifically to address laws such as the “Fairness Doctrine”
I’d suggest “getting into the loop” or one day you’ll wake up and the Nike inspired “Hillary as Big Brother” commercial will indeed become reality.
We’re for fairness. It’s only fair that people get to say what they want to say. Hey, it’s not only fair, it’s their *right.*
But if you want to force 50/50 on the USA, write your congressman and tell them that Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Andrew Wilkow, and HotAir all need their own daily shows on NPR – totalling 12 hours a day, every day. Not want, need. Anything less is unfair, right?
I can live with radio/television stations being forced 50% liberal, as long as it applies to every one. Every NPR, NBC, CBS, TBS, ABC, and other liberal bastions have to go 50% conservative. That’s fair, right?
Bon Appetit.
The Fairness Doctrine only applies to the one media resource that liberals are shut out of, so they will use the power of the goverment to grant them that access. Liberals use the word “fair” in all sorts contexts because they simply can not come to grips with the fact that life isn’t fair. If it was fair for every calaminity that befell your family a similar one would then be required to be endured by everybody, and on the other hand if you benifitted from some sort of good fortune, well then everybody is entitled to that same good fortune.
If life were fair I could afford $1200 haircuts too.
Are the Dems taking pointers from Hugo Chavez? I smell sulfur. Maybe they can make Epsom salt to clean their aluminum hats.
You know what? Life’s not fair. Even my 11 year old knows that, and the sooner the dems and libs stop acting like babies and come to grips with the reality of it, the better off we’ll be.
Fairness my big butt, we give tax funding to liberals for PBS…we give money to liberals for “the arts” (a picture of someone pissing in a jar with the crucifix)…so is it that far off that we’ll be giving OUR TAX money to liberals so they can be on the radio equally as many hours as conservative radio? They can’t compete in an open market…so we’ll have to pay for it somehow….Just another power grab by these “progressives”.
That’s right . If Hugo can do it then why can’t we ? Men and women of Congress are you looking for a career change ?
You know if they get this that the blogosphere is next .
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/EDSAndy/2007-06-30FairnessDoctrine.jpg
HYPOCRITE ALERT !
No need. Most of the top visited sites are liberals ones, and for fun and games just go ahead and try to put something on Digg from a conservative blog. If isn’t blocked outright it will get buried faster then a victim of John Wayne Gacey. Liberals think they own the blogosphere and the internet, besides it was invented by Al Gore afterall. Google is about liberal leanning as you can get as well as Yahoo. Go check out who they have for news sources. Yahoo actually lists Huffin’N”Puffin as a news source.
Well, depending on what they dig up from Sharpton and those two freaks from Minnisota (i think it was, the father/son radio duo), they might actually have a point there…
A shame it’s their side of the scale that causes the problem though…
I disagree with several aspects of Malkin’s post. First, I don’t see a huge liberal drive on the fairness doctrine. Most of the noise on this issue seems to be coming from the right. That isn’t to say lefties would not favor it, only that it isn’t a big priority. This is overblown by the right.
Second, the fairness doctrine is not censorship. It is based on the premise that the radio spectrum is a shared resource and those who use it have a duty to the public to provide balanced views. With the internet and cable (never subject to the fairness doctrine), there is little chance that extreme views will be kept from the public.
Finally, I disagree that the main stream media is biased toward the left. Lefties like me think it’s biased the other way. The supposedly liberal Washington Post has supported the war in Iraq the whole time, for example.
Assuming the ‘fairness doctrine’ is resurrected and enforced . . .and I’m banking that it cannot/will not be -
wouldn’t that provide an opportunity to apply hate speech laws to the qutba (qur’anic sermons), as well as CAIR/ISNA/MSA sponsored hate fests such as this?
Communism is rampant in America. And for those of you who think otherwise and think that I’m exaggerating, you only have to go back and read more and learn about the kind of messages the Democratic party and its groups (MoveOn, Soros, etc.) are spreading and how diligently and forcefully -through their media outlets, Hollywood and bribery- they want to change America and turn it into a communist nation so they can ultimately have total control over the people, i.e. you and me.
If what I just wrote above doesn’t make sense to you, doesn’t make you think, or you think I’m daydreaming, well, you better wake up now, because the next thing you’ll know is that you will wake up one day when it’s too late and you will not be able to post a message on this website. It will be shut down by the Communists because Michelle Malkin will refuse to abide by the communist “fairness doctrine.”
In fact, you will not be able to surf the Internet as you do now, especially the political websites.
If China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran and other nations that are oppressing Freedom are not a good example to you, then I suggest you keep on hiding your head in the sand. Better say nothing than talking nonsense.
“We are the people…”
Are we?
If YES, then DO something about it. Work for change.
Liberals being Liberals… once again seeking a legislative solution to a what they percieve as a problem with the market. Typical anti-capitalist Libs!
The doctirne was written in a day when there very few radio stations and was intended to make sure that for those areas of the country that may have only been able to receive one or two stations that the people could get varying opinions or slants on items of interest. I don’t know if you have been in the military and deployed overseas, but AFN, (Armed Forces Network), is a prime example of the fairness doctrine in practice. They would play one hour of country music followed by one hour of rock and roll, and then an hour of soul and on and on. Granted the Fairness Doctrine does not apply to FM radio stations only AM. How is that for a targeted piece of legislation. Who owns the AM airwaves but talk radio most of which just happens to be conservative.
The more you look into this policy the more devious and despicable it becomes.
I am glad I have satelitte radio but I just wish more of the talk show hosts would move over to it. XM please. I know quite a few of them work for either Cox or Clear Channel and are prohibited from satelitte but I wish Salem Broadcasting would allow theirs to go on satellite.
IGM
For every conservative television show and/or news outlet you can name, I can name between 2 and 10 liberal counterpoints.
For every conservative newspaper you can name, we can name 20 liberal ones.
Air America had a fair shake, and it failed in the three most liberal areas of the USA: NYC, LA, and SFO.
Liberals dominate our Universities, our Airwaves (including cable/sat television), and our printed word.
You can try to legislate truth away, but you’ll fail.
If made law, it would play bloody heck with PBS and NPR. However, I’d like to take it a step further…would it then be my right to cry foul at every newspaper story I deem leaning in any direction and demand dual stories – one by the right and one next to it explaining the left view? What great fun that would be. On the positive side, it would require double the number of reporters, thus, an even earlier demise of America’s newspapers. This is a can I think needs the lid to remain firmly attached. It would not, could not, be simply for the airwaves.
What this legislation boils down to is liberals thinking that US citizens are too stupid to form their own opinion and decide what to listen too.
Glad you think so because if your comrades in the dummocratic party get this passed, we will go after “The Daily Show”, Olbermann, Matthews, The entire entertaiment industry and PBS with a vengeance. You will regret that your buddies ever brought it up.
LGM would have us wait until the issue is on the floor of the House or Senate before it wouldn’t be “overblown.”
Would it be okay with you, LGM, if we like, you know, decided for ourselves when to start fighting this monstrosity?
Secondly – of COURSE it’s not censorship. Silly, silly, righties. It’s just that radio stations would have to dump a whole bunch of conservative talkers who make oodles of money in favor of boring liberals who no one will listen to. Talk radio would begin to resemble Air America in no time.
The supposedly liberal Washington Post has supported the war in Iraq the whole time, for example.
Pretty good example – of liberal bias. The Post has been editorializing to get out of Iraq for about a year and a half.
And of course, endorsing John Kerry for President only shows how truly conservative the Post really is.
If you look at the Fairness Doctrine, it wasn’t a law passed by Congress. It was a policy of the FCC, an agency of the Executive Branch of our government. This is why when Reagan was President, he didn’t have to go to Congress to get rid of it. So it follows that a Democrat President could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine by Executive Order to the FCC.
I believe that Congress could pass an act that would have the same practical effect of the Fairness Doctrine through their Constitutional power of the purse. This would never get signed by the President, so they are trying to lay the groundwork through all these politically motivated attacks on Talk Radio.
Also, the original doctrine was before TV and cable-satellite, and the internet. So they can take advantage of the language to have it by default narrowed to AM Conservative talk, excluding newspapers, and TV news on cable and broadcast.
Because of course we all know that the MSM are totally objective and neutral journalists just reporting the facts, right? They don’t need regulating because they aren’t spewing hate speech everyday.
That’s another angle that the libtards will try to exploit, Hate Crime laws. They will try to use Clinton’s old assertion that Rush Limbaugh incited Timothy McViegh to violence aganist the Federal Government, as Michelle hinted in the story(Clinton link is broken, by the way). Talk about exploiting tragedy for political gain!
The people of this country will not put up with this Stalinist nonsense. I don’t think all Democrats will get on board, because they see the vulnerability it creates for them, being for speech-squashing by the Government. Only the most cynical leftist tools in the Democrat Party will try this, and it will fail in the end in Congress. But a President Hillary could do by executive order what Congress politically can’t do.
That’s the danger here, in my opinion. With her, I’m convinced it’s very personal. Revenge is best served cold. Nobody colder than Her Thighness:)
There was a great article about this Fairness Doctrine revival last year at the City Journal by Brian C. Anderson that explains all this in depth. The history and possible future of this policy is all there in a good package. Educate yourselves and read it all.
One word: Chavez
One word: Castro
One word: Hitler
Need I say more?
This isn’t about fairness, libs and some Republicans could care less about equality.
Talk radio (and blogs) have been identified as a ’specific threat’ to the stranglehold American politicians have on our governance and anything that might dilute that power and give it back to us where it belongs will come under attack.
Unless “We the People” make certain those who we elect to ’serve us’ know that we are the parents and they are to be the obedient children, they will take from the cookie jar and usurp our directions just like any adolescent will.
Like most legislation that carries a noble name, this too is about power, control and convenience…for them, not us.
It’s just time for a gentle walk out behind the woodshed, for an attitude adjustment.
Hi Just a Grunt. I agree with you that more top talk show hosts on XM/Sirius would be positive. I’m glad Howard Stern’s move to Sirius got the FCC off his back and I’d like to hear Rush or Hannity without the marathon commercial interruptions that cause me to flip the dial while driving.
The government should let the marketplace decide what it wants to listen to. I’ve heard Ted Stevens make noise about extending government oversite to cable content. That would be a step even further in the wrong direction.
leepro says it all … and concisely! My opinion has appeared in local NYT branch letter to editor. It’s not too soon to let everyone know our freedom of speech will not be threated by our government…not when my brother was killed in WWII and my grandson is in Iraq again…that’s NOT going to happen.
You all are thinking about right/left dynamics and missing some delicious possibilities, such as HRC reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine, causing her FCC to be forced by AQ lawyers to mandate that Adam Gadahn be given his own daily drive time radio show. The big winners in a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, will probably be truthers.
The people of this country will not put up with this Stalinist nonsense. I don’t think all Democrats will get on board, because they see the vulnerability it creates for them, being for speech-squashing by the Government. Only the most cynical leftist tools in the Democrat Party will try this, and it will fail in the end in Congress. But a President Hillary could do by executive order what Congress politically can’t do.
I believe you are right about how the FD can be ordered into existence. Except that bill recently passed by the House that prevents the FCC from spending any money on enforcing the FD could very well make the question moot (if the Senate takes it up before this session ends).
I think you underestimate Democratic support for the FD. I have yet to see any Democrat come out in opposition to the reimposition of FD although several have made the point that this is all a smokescreen thrown up by conservatives. And several, of course, have come right out and said it should be reimposed while others have embraced the so-called “study” by that liberal think tank on media ownership.
I think there’s plenty to fear if a Democrat wins in 2008 which is why passing Representative Pence’s bill in the Senate is very important.
If I understand it correctly, Rep. Pence’s bill is only effective for one year, and he has a more robust law still to be proposed and debated that would be of a more permanent nature. I hope they both pass, to get the Stalinist Democrats to “come out of the shadows”:)
We really need transparency in reporting. I am for news anchors and commentators voluntarily disclosing their politics. Why are they afraid to let us know where they are coming from? So they can present bias as news, of course.
Then we can have a fairness doctrine, which might just greatly expand conservative talk. Katie Couric followed by the Michael Savage TV show?
For LGM:
There is a study from UCLA at the website http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm that outlines the left/right leanings of the MSM. An excerpt from the summary: “Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC’s Good Morning America. Fox News’ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks’ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.”
There’s a well-known doctrine that free speech doen’t protect efforts to harm people, like incitement to riot, yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, etc.
If liberals say they can show illegal “hate speech” that harms individuals, they should be required to specifically identify it and prosecute it on a case-by-case basis.
The “fairness doctrine” was instituted before television existed, before cable and satellite communications existed, before the internet existed: – there were only a couple of radio stations in each city. The government had an interest to ensure that seditious elements of society did not control the public airwaves, so they instituted the fairness doctrine.
The current attempt to bring back the fairness doctrine is an effort by liberals to force their political speech into areas where there is no market for it.
At first glace, this is not a problem for me because I can just turn the dial when a liberal program comes on. However, it will force Station Owners to make a choice between two options, neither of which are good for the U.S.
1.) put a money-losing liberal program on the air to balance out a profitable conservative program.
2.) take the conservative program off the air so they don’t have to put on the money-losing liberal program.
The result of 1.) is to require station owners to financially subsidize liberal speech with the profits from conservative speech. The result of 2.) is to supress conservative speech.
I can see how liberals would benefit from the fairness doctrine, but free speech would be suppressed – especially conservative speech.
A way around the problem would be for conservatives to complain to the FCC every time they didn’t think the reporting on broadcast TV was balanced. If the FCC failed to act they, and the TV station/network, could be sued. Eventually, the doctrine would be declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. In the mean time, radio stations could flout the law just like the TV networks did when the fainess doctrine was in effect.
The reason liberals are trying to suppress conservative speech is that they know they cannot win in the marketplace of ideas. Liberalism is the “buggy-whips” of ideas that cannot survive without government protection from the free market.
Can’t stifle speech? Label it “racist”. Standard liberal operating procedure.
See… LGM is a perfect example of the problem… as far as he is concerned the media is not liberal.
And frankly that’s the part that really scares me.
Who will decide what is fair? Someone like LGM who doesn’t believe the MSM is liberal therefore see’s no need to counter it… only to punish those horrible concervatives.
The Fairness Doctrine is anything but. And it is censorship. Period.
Well, yes, the liberals are trying to shut all conservative voices forever – that’s what they call “having a debate”.
If they want fairness, let’s go back 20 years and give them talk radio and we’ll take everything else for 20 years and then we can talk about splitting everything down the middle.
Seriously, though, there’s an opportunity in this, much like shamnesty. The liberals, by being greedy, are opening a can of worms they may well regret they ever even played with: by calling attention to the imbalance of political POV in one media, they call attention to it in all media. As a media guy,I’d say the responses on this board amount to a perfect example of the game plan for conservatives. Indeed, no one should let this go away! – they should keep bringing it up, framing it as a response to an idea brought up by left-leaning Democrats. Everyone in advertising knows – as do democrats – that the key to an effective message is repetition. We couldn’t do that before, because it just sounded like whining. However, now that we, as underdogs, have the role of respondant, we can make all the noise we want about it as long as it is framed as a response. Forget if no one brings it up for 10 months, pretend they did.
This is important, because as is stated above, the dems might just lie low and wait for Hillery the President, and then you know they’ll use this to shut conservative voices down, and they’ll be able to so in terms of ethics because they can just play dumb and chuckle and shrug off citings of the liberal bias of the NY Times and NBC and the rest being liberal, and with no media available anymore to challenge them, they’ll win that debate and have only their views to influence the masses. Once they get that and let 12 million illegal Hispanics vote for them, that will, essentially, be the end of free democracy as we know it. Sounds hysterical? Uh-uh. Much worse things have happened in history with much less technology available.
So, the next time any liberal anywhere says anything about anything – Libby, Iraq, anything – find a way to work the conservative response about current liberal bias via the Fairness Doctorine into the conversation. This is a serious, dangerous situation which, as the report says, needs another public outcry – and a resolution! Because, God help us, if Hillary becomes leader of the free world with a democratic congress, that will literally be the end of free speech if this issue is allowed to dangle unresolved until that time.
Read every comment on the Fairness Doctrine issue. Espcially enjoyed the back and forth between lgm and the nonlibs. This will not be an issue unless Hilary is elected. Legal challenges would be interesting excercises and could open up more opportunities to convince thinkers like lgm that there really is a media bias.
But all of the possible legal fun and games could become moot if the world does not wake up to the fact that the world-wide war we are engaged in is real, and that Sharia eventually could replace all concept of free speech. Might take a century or two though, depending on how hard we are willing to persevere against the global onset of the evil so invisible to so many.
Msg to lgm:
You wrote: “Finally, I disagree that the main stream media is biased toward the left. Lefties like me think it’s biased the other way.”
Based upon the ample evidence provided in this thread you are either (1) a liar or (2) a moron.
Which is it?
Brace yourselves, this won’t be pretty.
I am actually going to offer a dissenting view.
No, not in suppport of the Fairness Doctrine, far from it. I’m going to present the argument that Michelle and the rest of the gang had their chance, and totally muffed it. And with possibly disasterous consequences on an unprecedented scale.
If the Fairness Doctrine passes now, it won’t surprise me in the least.
If you acolytes wish to shut your eyes and rage against my article with each other, fine. But please don’t address me directly as I won’t be reading them. This is merely to demonstrate that not every conservative out there has been blind to the problem over this past year. You people really should have been paying more attention to Neal Boortz, someone actually in talk radio, not people on the outside looking in.
Michelle, if you’re reading this, I have read every word you’ve written over the past two years, and agree with everything you say 99% of the time. You have been a strong voice when one was needed.
Unfortunately, nobody’s perfect.
I suppose Olberdouch is not hate speech? If the Fairness Doctrine becomes law maybe the Conservatives will have a chance to reclaim some of the video media airwaves? I’m not all that hopefull because the lefties will be judging “fairness”. But it is a thought to bear in mind.
Expanding on what ‘Independent Conservative’ said: Read the “Communist Manifesto” and you’ll realize just how many of their goals have been accomplished!
No, Keith the Olberdork won’t be considered, the libs want to focus on talk radio only. Their excuse is the broadcast airwaves “belong to everyone”.
Translated from that Orwellian newspeak, The airwaves belong to liberals. The underlying point to all of this is to insinuate constantly that conservative ideas are themselves hate speech. After all, remember that there is no debate to them. Whatever stands in the way of their socialist utopia is not legitimate, but evil. There is no debate, there is just “the public good”.
In the name of the public interest all sorts of things will be tried. Nannystate knows best, right?
As an afterthought, Rupert Murdoch better watchout. The libtards will try to block him from acquiring the Wall Street Journal, and then they will try to find a way to kneecap Fox News Channel.
That crazy rightwing self-hater Michelle Malkin gets airtime on Fox, and we all know her point of view is just hateful, and something must be done about this. /sarc off
Maybe NBC’s version of armor are men are wearing is what Diane Feinstein is trying to create with the ‘Fairness Doctrine.” Other views needed, even if we have to make them up. Thanks NBC.
The “Fairness Doctrine” should serve as a litmus test for Presidential aspirants:
“Do you swear that you completely disavow and oppose the idea that the government should require the media to distribute equal amounts of information and opinion on all sides of all issues?”
Any candidate that cannot answer that question with a flat “I do.” is not fit for public office. And if they answer “I do, but…” it is prima facie evidence that they are a liar, and really meant “No”!
Nothing is more important to Leftists than control of thought. Watching Shrillary, talk about Libby after her sworn testimony about the Travel Office, the FBI and IRS files on thousands of Republicans, and the Rose firm billing records is a lesson in the subservience of the press to Liberals. This creepy, common, tax cheat and perjurer is poised to become the next President.
And can anyone explain the delusional, left wing bias of NBC? No wonder people are walking away from these loons.
Incredible! Comments 47 and 48 NAILED IT!!
The 47th and 48th commenters nailed it. I opine: Why oh why, can’t the “progressives” see the world as it is, instead of what they imagine they could create if they had all the power of say Nazi Germany or Stalin in his day. Hilary is scaring me more each day. Obama is looking more like Tiger Woods or a babe in the woods. Please, Fred Thompson come out and declare.
This came up an Illinois Congress person, it was set for 7-11 it has been postponed. I don’t understand this why would they need to have a meeting? Is this not the FCC job?
http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0102/t.7036.html