Comments on: President Bush’s Big News On Fairness Doctrine Opposition

by: Don Cook

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:02:18 +0000

I don’t think that, when it comes to a vote, it will ever pass as the first victims of such legislation would be NPR and the National Broadcasting Corp. as well as MSNBC. The Democrats can not afford to lose either of their major support mechanisms.

by: Carolyn

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:33:25 +0000

Princetrumpet…

Taft was appointed (didn’t run for election) to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after his presidency. So I guess CWB could run for something…

A shame they can’t tell the truth without a re-election campaign hanging over their heads. Still think we should elect a President to a 6 year term, no re-election. Then we wouldn’t have to wait for their second term before they do something. Might promote more honesty in politics….Nah!

by: greghh

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:10:13 +0000

McCain will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine as fast as Bush signed McCain-Feingold. And look forward to seeing McCain tighten the screws on political discourse, using all the coercive power of the Federal gov, every time public pressure sinks one of his proposed new laws. If too much letter writing and calls to Congress stop his next amnesty attempt, look to see bans on listing phone numbers and addresses of Senators (to stop corruption, of course).

by: David Rogers

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:52:42 +0000

princetrumpet said,
March 11, 2008 @ 10:47 pm

What office do you run for after being president?

—————

Well, if you are John Quincy Adams, you run for the U.S. House. If you are a Democrat, you run for moral arbiter of the world, and if you are a Republican not named Reagan, you run for dozens of corporate boards.

by: C Smith

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:01:55 +0000

Is it a two-way street? Would a Fairness Doctrine force the MSM to recognize when politicians of the Democratic persuasion are amidst scandal? If it actually did so, then the Fairness Doctrine would be only 90% suck.

by: Randy

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:56:56 +0000

“Was, and have been uptight about this bill getting passed for well-over a year now, until a good point was made to me about a month ago…all these anti-American liberals will also have to adhere to any and all forms of The Fairness Doctrine also, with any bildge they are trying to shove-down our throats. ;o)”

Depends on who runs whatever commision oversees compliance, and how the bill would be worded. Liberals are very good at infiltrating institutions like that and pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with fairness.

by: Cake

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:31:40 +0000

Sure, but its the dems who will be deciding the parameters of the FD if they continue to hold most of the power in the houses. Their idea of fairness is having one guy saying, “Bush is Satan” while the other guy says, “No, Bush is just a standard demon”.

They could care less about having opposing airtime because their muscle doesn’t come from radio. The dems just want to shut down Rush and others, they don’t care about the demise of their own paltry radio programs.

by: moptop

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:13:15 +0000

If the fairness doctrine ever came back, would that mean that when travelling through ariports, I would no longer be subject to non-stop Democrat talking points disguiesed as news at airports with no choice in the matter? Uh, no, because that actually would be fairness. Don’t get your hopes up that this will apply to liberals. It simply will not. That is why they have no problem pushing it.

by: Kurt

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:03:56 +0000

Bush, McCain and congress took a big, steamy, fly infested dump on the First Amendment when they passed McCain-Feingold.

by: andrew

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:43:05 +0000

Was, and have been uptight about this bill getting passed for well-over a year now, until a good point was made to me about a month ago…all these anti-American liberals will also have to adhere to any and all forms of The Fairness Doctrine also, with any bildge they are trying to shove-down our throats. ;o)

by: Buddynoel

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:08:46 +0000

I’m sorry, but the comments in this blog do not reflect a balance of mostly liberal thought. Unless you post more people speaking out againt the president and blaming jews and christians for everything evil, I’ll have to ask the government to shut you down. It’s the only fair to shut everyone up in order to make the conversation a level playing field.

by: Brett Bellmore

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:57:45 +0000

“Don’t get me wrong… I’m happy he’ll veto that bit of legislative stupidity.”

He SAID he’d veto McCain/Feingold, if you remember. Then signed the blasted bill. Then complained when it turned out to be not *quite* as onerous as some had expected.

This President’s veto threats are worthless. Until the veto is actually accomplished, I’m assuming he’ll sign it.

by: JohnnyT

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:44:34 +0000

Puh-leeze, give credit where credit is due. I’ve had issues with President Bush but this isn’t one of them. And he did it knowing full well it was this very same free speech mechanism that sank his amnesty bill, which is perhaps even more impressive than his speech here on the subject.

We need Thought Police politicians determining what is fair and free speech like we need bullets in the brain. Remember also that every intrusive government bill is but a foot in a much larger door, and that door, once opened, rarely ever closes. I hope the other 24 signatures are acquired. Let the politicians themselves inform us what they think when the elections aren’t so far away we’ll forget how they voted.

by: Thomass

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:54:14 +0000

Even if W’s time is over, by talking about this he is trying to help shape the debate. Instead of dem nonsense about CEO’s big salaries resulting in poor healthcare, we can spend some time talking about Democrats trying to pull a Hugo Chavez and use government licensing to silence other opinions on the airwaves…

by: edward cropper

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:29:21 +0000

It’s a little late for GWB to star threatening to veto anything. The horses are gone and the oats have been stolen so let’s lock the barn door.
For all his good intentions GWB is a RINO and doesn’t have a clue about what a conservative realy is. His dad was clueless and like father like son,

by: Nathan

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:58:47 +0000

I’m happy to hear the President talk like this. Though he’s certainly made mistakes, I hold him in higher esteem than most people seem to, and the occasional speech like this is part of why. However, at this juncture, the views of the oval office’s current occupant are a good deal less important than those of the next. Are Clinton, Obama, or McCain on record concerning the hilariously-named Fairness Doctrine?

by: bill-tb

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:48:12 +0000

Next we will hear McCain talk about it …

———————————————————–
Socialism is communism sold by the drink.

by: princetrumpet

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:47:11 +0000

What office do you run for after being president?

by: princetrumpet

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:45:30 +0000

Don’t get me wrong… I’m happy he’ll veto that bit of legislative stupidity. I just wish he’d gotten out that pen more often the first 4 years. But fine, veto away Mr. President.

by: Wildmonk

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:44:01 +0000

About the only way that Bush will gain any kind of final-year traction will be to give a series of such speeches in which he simply tells the truth about crap like this. An apology for signing McCain-Feingold, a blast against earmarks as corrupting influence, an observation of the endemic corruption inherent in much regulation (largely meant to either raise revenue or protect big players against smaller competitors), etc. Given that his reputation is so low and he’ll not likely run for office ever again, he might as well tell the truth about the nature of town that Washington has become.