The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

His Royal Fairness

By on 2.24.09 @ 6:07AM

What exactly is Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine?

The White House announced last week that the President “does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.” The Fairness Doctrine, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — acting under Ronald Reagan — repealed in 1987, would dictate that broadcasters cover issues of public importance and devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues.

On its face, the administration’s recent comments seem to deflate hopes of the expanding roster of groups and politicians calling for revival of the Doctrine. The American Spectator reported recently that Henry Waxman (D-CA) already met with the FCC staff to discuss ways to bring back the Doctrine. Waxman is also apparently interested in applying the same standards to the Internet, which would effectively sanitize content and force the government to monitor and regulate the web like the Chinese government does. Other proponents of the Fairness Doctrine include MoveOn.org, ACORN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, former President Bill Clinton, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who said, “For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.”

Leave it to politicians to decide what constitutes intelligent discussion and America should be intellectually and fiscally bankrupt in no time. However, despite attempts by the left wing to censor conservative opinion through the Fairness Doctrine — which would prove particularly devastating to conservative talk radio, a medium in which liberal programs have not fared well — people may be under the impression that at least our President is sensible enough to scuttle the idea. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their millions of presumably idiotic listeners can breathe easier, right? Well, not so fast. When one reads between the lines a bit, it suddenly becomes unclear whether President Obama really opposes these censorship policies as much as he would like people to believe. On Whitehouse.gov, here is what the administration says about the President’s technology agenda:

• Protect the Openness of the Internet:
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership:

Those statements may sound somewhat benign, certainly more so than “Fairness Doctrine,” which at this point, most people realize entirely contradicts our First Amendment principles. However, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has observed, people should be wary of the Fairness Doctrine under a different name, because “If your brand is controversial, create a new brand.” These news brands include buzzwords like “diversity of ownership,” “diversity of viewpoint,” “openness,” or “public obligations,” all of which translate into increased government regulation, mandates, and control over content.

Promoting diversity of ownership is one way in which the government could control content by allocating licenses on the basis of politics. And who will decide what constitutes “diversity of viewpoint” or “public interest obligations”? Federal regulators, of course.

Jordan Sekulow, who is the Deputy Director of Government Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit group that promotes religious freedom and freedom of speech, said: “While we [ACLJ] view the recent remarks by President Obama’s spokesperson with cautious optimism, rejection of the Fairness Doctrine is rejection of a polarizing term and not of the underlying principles behind it. For President Obama to silence the drumbeat of opposition against the Fairness Doctrine, he must personally denounce not only the words ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ but also the policies mirroring it. He could end the outcry simply by publicly instructing the new FCC Chairman not to take any steps towards the reimplementation of any form of the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of name, and telling Congress that if legislation with similar intentions crosses his desk in the future, he will veto it.”

This week, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) plans to offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The amendment would prohibit the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. It is a wise move to put Democratic lawmakers, and potentially the President, on record about how they truly feel about government censorship. However, even if the amendment passes, policies under different names that would censor the media and the Internet justify careful scrutiny. The President, of course, wants us to belief there is nothing to worry about. We should not be so sure. 

About the Author

Brett Joshpe is an attorney and entrepreneur in New York City. He is Of Counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice and co-authored the book Why You’re Wrong About the Right (Simon & Schuster, 2008).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (59) |

stu.b.con| 2.24.09 @ 7:56AM

The obama is a snake oil salesman interested only in vesting his power by telling everyone what they want to hear and then when push comes to shove reverts to form. He is the new king of the "big lie", saying one thing and then always, always doing otherwise; from lobbyists in his cabinet to ending(not) the rendition policy established by the Bush...I mean Clinton admnistration.
Trust me, he will make a concerted effort to control the free speech of those who disagree with him and the so called "progressive" movement by any means necessary.

Alan Brooks| 2.24.09 @ 9:20AM

Obama might find a way to triangulate on this, don't know how, but he might.
naturally, we all know the subtext of Fairness:
"we don't like Rush"

Pingback| 2.24.09 @ 9:21AM

His Royal Fairness: What Exactly is Obama’s Position on the Fairness Doctrine? | links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Articles Joshpe Real Estate Photo Gallery Contact His Royal Fairness: What Exactly is Obama’s Position on the Fairness Doctrine? By brett | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) Check out my new article in American Spectator on the stealth game that Barack Obama might be playing with the Fairness Doctrine.  Yes, he says he opposes its reenactment, but he also advocates things like “diversity of…

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 9:42AM

"Diversity of ownership" is a traditionally held principle when it comes to PUBLIC airways.

That said, the only people talking about anything resembling the Fairness Doctrine these days are Limbaugh and Hannity, who harp on it constantly. No Democrats have proposed any measures like it.

The fact is, since the beginning of the Iraq War, the total share of the talk market held by Hannity, Limbaugh, and Oreilly has actually fallen. This is in part due to an increase in the number of other successful talk shows. (Contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity tell you, there are some massively and increasingly successful liberal radio talk programs, including Schultz's and Maddow's.) It's also due to the shrinking or division of conservatives over issues like the war.

Hannity and the others would much rather have you thinking Big Brother is decreasing his market share, but in reality, although these shows are still massively dominant, they're audiences have in fact shrunk.

Sons Of Sam | 2.24.09 @ 9:55AM

This foreign demagogue masquerading as an American President is an utter fraud. He claims to not favor the "fairness" doctrine? So what? He lies every time he opens his mouth! Just yesterday he proclaimed that he will make American government "fiscally responsible", after he and his cronies have just spent 4 trillion dollars of the peoples money. He has touched off an inflation that will KILL the middle class, all in the name of "saving Main street".

I wouldn't believe an ObamaNazi if they told me that water is wet and the sun is hot.

http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/
S.O.S.

ArmyCONSERVeteran| 2.24.09 @ 9:59AM

Jeremiah are you kidding me? Conservative talk shows are doing phenomenal and I have at the expense of a headache listened to Schultz and Maddow's idiotic "shows" and was not impressed to say the very least. Numbers don't lie when it comes to who is doing better and you figure since most Democrats and Libs don't work you would think they have nothing but time to devote to listening to the Lib/Left Wing talk media but they don't. Why? Because the shows are horrible, most of them are profanity ridden bashing of anything Conservative and American!

Also think about this, bring back the Fairness Doctrine force the conservative shows to bring on likes of Maddow and Schultz and that idiot on Sirius Left Jackson something...bring them on a Hannity show or Mike Church or the Big Dog, Rush and see how they fair. It will only further the conservative side when these idiots have to actually debate their points and are slammed down. So bring it on at the expense of the first amendment, why not just go up to Washington and piss on the Constitution and stop BSing.

Gill O'Teen| 2.24.09 @ 10:16AM

Everything Obumah knows about "fairness" and The First Amendment, he learned from studying Marx, Lenin, Mao and Jeremiah. His own history is replete with such examples; for instance, the Obama Truth Squad which exposed its ugliness last year.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.24.09 @ 10:35AM

Is it possible Obama and ACORN are sitting on a huge scandal. According to this well documented article a Baltimore, Md. ACORN employee purchased this home then refinanced it taking out over $170,000 in cash. Would this explain Obama's interest in changing bankruptcy laws to simply steal property at taxpayer's expense? Does ACORN get the funds? Fairly fascinating article if you connect the dots.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/document-drop-the-truth-about-acorns-foreclosure-poster-child/

Document drop: The truth about ACORN’s foreclosure poster child
By Michelle Malkin • February 23, 2009 10:10 AM

On Feb. 18, I warned about the ACORN civil disobedience mob working in ideological tandem with Barack Obama to bully Washington into passing a massive new foreclosure prevention/mortgage entitlement scheme. On Feb. 20, I noted that ACORN garnered nationwide media attention for breaking and entering into a foreclosed home in Baltimore at 315 South Ellwood Ave. ACORN vows to use “any means necessary” to stop foreclosures. Baltimore police have taken fingerprints at the break-in site and the current owner, William Lane, says he will sue ACORN. The home was sold in June 2008 for $192,000. This morning, ACORN official Louis Beverly will face a burglary charge. Look for the Left to turn him into a martyr.

It is not your home, ACORN.

Here is what the MSM won’t be telling you about the so-called “victim” in that case, ACORN worker Donna Hanks — all based on public records and court documents.

According to real property data search information, Hanks bought the two-story home in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point in the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000.

Question: Where did all that money go?

The house initially went into foreclosure proceedings in the spring of 2006. In July 2006, Hanks filed for bankruptcy and agreed to a Chapter 13 plan which was served to the following creditors: Americas Servicing Co, Bank Of America, Chase, Covahey, Boozer, Devan & Dore, and Discover. She agreed to repay $10,500 in arrears, which resulted in a halt to the 2006 foreclosure.

In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks’ employer to deduct $340/month from her salary as a bartender to pay down the debt (total net monthly take home pay of $1,228):

Hanks’ Schedule I showed additional monthly income of $1,625 for a second and third claimed jobs, plus pro-rated tax refund income.

Hanks did not comply with the plan. In December 2007, the servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due.

In February 2008, Baltimore City Circuit Court records show a second foreclosure action was filed.

She had two years to pay what she owed. She failed to comply.

When she told local TV station WJZ that her evil bank raised her mortgage by $300 (”The mortgage went up $300 in one month”), she’s talking about the amount in arrears that she agreed to pay back.

While she was reneging on her mortgage IOUS, she managed to collect rent on her basement (for which she was taken to court) and rack up a criminal record on charges of theft and second degree assault:

In the Huffington Post, ACORN’s Bertha Lewis crowed about the nationwide MSM attention their Baltimore break-in received:

In Baltimore, ACORN member Donna Hanks re-took her home. Foreclosed on last fall, the house has stood empty since then, a stark reminder of the failure of the system. But Donna joined with 30 ACORN Home Defenders to liberate her home from the bank. Her act of civil disobedience was covered by 2 radio stations, 2 TV stations, the Baltimore Sun, and the Huffington Post.

Donna used bolt cutters to break the lock to the door and re-enter the home. Unfortunately, in the six short months since the home was seized, it has been extensively damaged, essentially partially gutted. The toilets are missing, and the upstairs ceiling is badly damaged. The greatest tragedy here is that Donna worked for months with ACORN sister organization ACORN Housing Corporation to try to get the bank to modify the loan so it could be affordable, but they refused, taking the home and now allowing it to be a haven for squatters and a target of looters.

Bullcrap. The house was sold seven months ago after two years of court-negotiated attempts to allow Hanks to dig herself out of her debt hole. The only squatter here is Donna Hanks. The only looters here are the ACORN racketeers. The foreclosure is not the criminal act. This is:

And now you know…the rest of the story.

***

Now, look at this puff piece featuring Hanks in the Washington Post from October 2008. Will the reporter follow up or let the propaganda lie?

Update: Stuart Varney takes on ACORN instigator Bertha Lewis.

Tommy Flanagan | 2.24.09 @ 10:47AM

Intelligent discussion helps foster critical thought. I don't agree with 90% of what The American Spectator puts out, but I still read it because the writers are intelligent and the viewpoints help me think critically. Sites like www.procon.org are like the Fairness Doctrine realized because they always give equal weight to the different views. Check it out. You will either become more sure of your own perspectives or you might learn something.

Tim| 2.24.09 @ 11:16AM

You may recall that a then candidate Obama threw three news people off his plane because in part they were asking probing questions that he was very uncomfortable with.

There is your answer to how Obama really feels about freedom of speech. end of story.

Bilwick| 2.24.09 @ 12:05PM

I don't think you have anything to worry about. Lifelong commitment to liberty has been a hallmark of Obama's life and career, from his red-diaper baby youth, on to his apprenticeship with Frank the Red (no doubt victim of a witch-hunt) in Hawaii and later Saul Alinsky, his association with Bill Ayers, his spiritual studies with Rev. Wright, his "spread the wealth" economics . . . you'd have to be paranoid to think this guy would in any way seek to diminish your liberty.

stmichrick| 2.24.09 @ 12:07PM

One of the failings of those who raise the spectre of the return of controlled-content radio is not explaining how this works.

The casual listener hears 'fairness' and 'something other than Rush and Hannity' only to conclude that a change is reasonable. This is how the administration will get away with this. 'Inside baseball' is known only to the enthusiasts.

At minimum, the change would force station owners to include programming that is not profitable. At worst, it means no programming with political opinion will be heard over the airwaves for fear of license denial or litigation.

Also, imagine how NPR will manage to escape having fair and balanced content. They'll occasionally feature a Kevin Philips or a Susan Collins and beat the rap.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 12:14PM

Sons of Sam --

Your post is particularly repellent, even for this thread.

You really should find your local library and check out a few books about the Nazis before making moronic comparisons.

Do you have any evidence that Obama has lied about anything or that he favors a return to the fairness doctrine.

Army --

Your post doesn't dispute my claims about the numbers. It just says that you prefer Hannity to Maddow. That's fine, but it doesn't dispute the facts.

By the way, Rush Limbaugh does NOT invite guests with opposing views onto his show. I'm sure if he did, there'd be plenty of takers. In terms of monologue, he's second to none, but I doubt he'd make a very good debater. This is why he's so popular among the authoritarian fringes of American political discourse.

stmichrick| 2.24.09 @ 12:20PM

Jeremiah; Rush gives confidence to millions by shining the light on lots of facts to support what these people know instinctively.

'Authoritarian fringe' better describes those who advocate controlled-content legislation.

Winkle Bean| 2.24.09 @ 12:43PM

What a load of crap this discussion is. As is true of most anonymous web chat. Name calling, "gotcha phrases," and half truths. Quite wasting your time, people! I'm sorry I read through this.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 12:46PM

st mich

Supporting what people "know instinctively" is hardly the program for enlightened discourse, which depends upon marshalling reasonable claims and supporting those claims with evidence.

It also -- and more crucially -- depends upon an acknowledgement of doubt and the possibility of other, conflicting but reasonable responses to a topic or problem.

Rush is a great entertainer. You'll never get me to say otherwise. But I hardly think he engages in the kind of reasoned political discourse I was referring to.

The emotionalism and sentimentality ofter undergirding Rush's rhetoric, in addition to its appeal (sometimes joking) to a single, all knowing dispenser of wisdom, is as close to authoritarian as you can get in radio.

That's not to say that some of that isn't meant ironically, but there's a reason this kind of joking is more often used than other kinds.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 12:50PM

There's room for all kinds of debate, of course, and conservative media often creates a healthy atmosphere for lively discussion of the issues. (It's one of the reasons I like Am Spec and other forums like it.)

But there's a heavy difference between st mich comments above, and my buddy Nick's warlike debating style, and the utter ignorance of people who write in to say that Obama is a "nazi" or such like foolishness.

In the end, I think Rush encourages ad hominem attack and the view that the "other side" is not only wrong but wicked. This gives permission to his more weak minded listeners to follow up with an analogy of -- say -- liberal = bad = wicked = evil = nazis that is entirely characteristic of lame, shallow, terribly boring posts here and elsewhere.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 1:08PM

And so now seems just as opportune a moment as any to share my overall opinion of posts and pieces here at Am Spec.

Many are really very persuasive or at least interesting, and they are what keep me coming back.

"Conservative" arguments, however, are not privileged or special, and they must conform to the same rules of argumentation that everyone else must abide by. This seems to escape some people, who believe that the inherent virtue of conservative "principles" will do their work for them.

Thus I urge the following (with characteristic irony):

1. Emotionalism never works for you. Attempting to frighten or outrage people by calling your opponents "nazis," for example, is so lame it is almost embarrassing to read. Those kinds of intellectual squalors ought ot have been left behind long ago.

2. Ad hominem attack NEVER works for you. You almost always sound crotchety and ignorant. A great satirist, like Rush Limbaugh, can get away with it, and make it funny and in the end, fairly humane. Limbaugh's satire almost always seeks to puncture the presumptions of power, which is a healthy and eminently American thing to do. However, like any surgeon's lance, it is difficult to weild. Unless you are REALLY good at it (and if you have to wonder, you're not) you'll end up looking foolish when you try.

3. Complaining about the press or about ACORN has become merely tiresome, and it sounds much more like sore-losing than any reasonable critique might. The fact is, the press IS biased, and strong, reasonable critiques are possible, but they have to be sober and clear-eyed, not fist-pounding and outraged. The next time you're tempted to squeal about "the media," think of the more than 100 journalists who have died in Iraq bravely trying to bring us back stories of what's going on there.

Here endeth the sermon, comrades.

Nick| 2.24.09 @ 1:42PM

Jeremiah,

My socialist friend. Never been described as "warlike" before, I like it! Flattery will get you nowhere. I treat people with the same respect I receive.

I don't know how long you've listened to Rush, I have since '93. And although he doesn't do it as often in the past few years, Rush takes on liberal callers all the time. His most classic calls have been the ones with stinking libs. Or doesn't that count?

Do you really listen to Wesley Crusher- I mean Madcow? And Schultz? Not while driving I hope.

And last time I checked, Feinstein, Harkin, and Stabenow were all democrats. All three have talked about reinstating the "Gestapo doctrine" recently. Couldn't resist the nazi reference.

Marc Jeric| 2.24.09 @ 1:58PM

Renaming the things has been the normal political arm of communists everywhere. Thus instead of the true name of a mass-murderous, tyrannical, poverty-producing eternal regime the communists called themselves " People's Democratic Republic". Any day now the Fairness Doctrine will be called something else - be sure of that!

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 2:26PM

Nick --

I was responding to the person above who claimed that Rachel Maddow or some other liberals would be afraid to be "guests" on Limbaugh's program.

Limbaugh does take callers who are liberal of course, but they're not really "guests," whom you cannot simply hang up on or shout down. Limbaugh's program (he says this all the time) deliberately excludes the "guest" format (with a few exceptions).

If Rachel Maddow thought she would be a guest on his program, that Limbaugh would have to live by the rules of guest / host relations, I'm sure she'd do it. But of course we don't know, because Rush chooses not to have a program like that. Which is fine by me, but I just wanted it to be clear that it's not as though there are no liberal "guests" because liberals are too chicken to go on. You actually make my point for me by pointing out that liberals call in frequently to debate with Rush -- again belying the idea that we're somehow afraid of him.

I actually like Rachel Maddow. I think it's refreshing that she does NOT engage in the sort of shouting of insults and all that usually goes on in talk radio. She doesn't call names, or pound her fist. She seems like a smart, decent person to me, and frankly I don't know what there is not to like about her, even if you don't agree with her.

The idea that we must hate our opponents is just so sordid, stupid, ill-willed, shallow, perverse, and unnecessary. There's just no reason to believe that liberals are the horrible enemies of all that is good and holy -- or, for us, that conservatives are. It's just boring and narcissistic and masturbative to think that way. I should think grown men could grow out of it.

Jason | 2.24.09 @ 2:35PM

Obama is determined to silence the critics, including Rush. He won, after all! Obama will use every lever of power to get his way. This will be a long and ugly fight.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 2:37PM

Correction: "difficult to WIELD," not weild.

And to answer your question, Nick, I listen to Limbaugh fairly frequently.

I believe that Limbaugh's Glory Days will always have been the Clinton years.

As I said above, he is a masterful satirist, and as such takes the presumptions of power as his target. Clinton was terribly arrogant, as any intellectually honest person would admit. Limbaugh captured him perfectly, and, as I will go on insisting, he seemed to have a special ability to grasp Clinton's nature based on what ultimately are their similarities. Both men are intellectually gifted, both have personal flaws related to appetites, neither have been terribly successful at marriage, both are skillful orators and rhetoricians capable of lapsing into demogoguery.

Limbaugh grew less interesting during the Bush years simply because his side was winning. Satirists never flourish when their side is on top.

Limbaugh doesn't seem to have Obama's number the way he had Clinton. Consider his uncanny impersonations of Clinton: they were perfect. He just doesn't seem to get Obama, and he doesn't seem as sure of himself. I'm not talking about his political point of view, now: obviously Limbaugh is a political opponent of Obama. But he never really gets at something in Obama that I as a liberal think to myself, "I have to admit it, the guy is right." I had to do that all the time back in the Clinton days.

djaymick| 2.24.09 @ 2:39PM

Say the Fairness Doctrine passes. What TV or cable station does Rush Limbaugh want to set up shop? With CNBC promoting Olbermann or HBO promoting Bill Maher (even 60 Minutes on CBS), Rush can solicit a spot on any TV station he wants. The heck with radio. He can have both a daily show and a weekly show on TV.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 3:52PM

Jason --

It's almost lunatic to claim that Obama is trying to "silence" his critics.

If anything, he might be criticized for giving his critics too much attention.

His speeches lately have been lengthy responses to criticism of his policy proposals, which in effect call attention to those criticisms.

And in what way, might I be permitted to ask, is he attempting to "silence" his critics?

At some point you have to take responsibility for the language you use. In a world where governments routinely silence dissent, it seems disgusting and ungrateful for Americans to whine.

If you don't have evidence or any good reason to believe such a claim, why not try to fashion an argument that might be credible, interesting, and sound? Why waste your time making such outlandish accusations?

Nick| 2.24.09 @ 4:11PM

Jeremiah,

Again, what about the lefty senators pushing the Un-fairness doctrine?

And Mr. Crusher rips conservatives in the same way Rush & Ingraham & Hannity do to libs.

Louis Jenkins| 2.24.09 @ 4:22PM

The Fairness Doctrine, or any other title, is an absolutely great idea! Provided it is enforced equally across the board, which will not happen. Look at all facets of the news media and it doesn’t take long to understand that conservative talk radio is the only presenter of opposing views, what is often the TRUTH, and as Paul Harvey said, “The rest of the story.” Call it opposing, alternative, or whatever news, it does not fit well with the new political environment. The 6 pm cuties, or the standard cable news networks gloss over, refrain from broadcasting the full story, or ignore much of what Limbaugh and Co. address. So why are the Democrats focusing on Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, et al? I have to believe, and cannot otherwise be convinced, that talk news media remains outside the Obama/Pelosi/Reid fold, and there is a burning desire to put it in their liberal back pocket, afterall, they won. It is obvious that the mainstream media is already self sensoring to meet the standard party line, and has been for sometime. If conservative talk news cannot be legally sensored, then it will be heavily regulated to water down an otherwise honest, but threatening counter message.

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 4:39PM

I personally have not seen any reports that senators are pushing for a Fairness Doctrine or anything like it.

I know that Hannity claims daily that there's some kind of secret conspiracy to get him off the air, but I think it's fair to say (a fairness doctrine indeed!) the he overestimates his importance.

Even if it could be shown that a handful of senators wanted such a thing, I'd have to remind you that a law has to pass the House and the Senate (60 votes, often are needed) and be signed by the president, who has explicitly stated he is not interested in such action.

Again, too, you have to remember that right wing radio is not the political force it was even four years ago. I just don't think Democrats would court these very kinds of complaints -- particularly when they've got a president with approval ratings nearing 70% and when Congress's overall approval ratings are the highest they've been in decades.

If anything, Obama seems to see the hyperbolic excesses of Hannity and Limbaugh as a rhetorical advantage for him.

Even if you grant Limbaugh his "20 million" listeners, that's a very, very small percentange of the overall electorate, even though it is astonishingly large in comparison to what other talk show hosts get. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans are not Limbaugh-style conservatives, even if they are "center-right," as people keep claiming. Limbaugh and his friends in the end just aren't that big of a deal.

Nick| 2.24.09 @ 5:20PM

Jeremiah,

Hannity doesn't CLAIM any secret conspiracy, he plays the actual sound-bites of Harkin, Stabenow, and Feinstein saying they want to look into bringing back the Gestapo doctrine. You would know this if you actually listened, like you CLAIM you do.

Stop getting your news from Media Matters and NPR. You CLAIM to be informed, yet you haven't "seen any reports"? Ever heard of Google?

Ever heard of the FCC, for that matter? They don't have to pass a statute. And why would you believe B.O.? He lies. They won't call it the fairness doctrine either, they'll call it localism or some other form of newspeak.

Ken| 2.24.09 @ 5:56PM

Would the Fairness Doctrine also apply to NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS as well as PBS?

Steve| 2.24.09 @ 6:07PM

KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY.

Tim| 2.24.09 @ 7:16PM

Steve that is just it.

Once they have effectively controlled all media outlets the next step will be for them to take everyone's guns away.

If people have no honest speech and can't fight back because they have no weapons they are screwed. Just ask the Russian Citizens from 1925-1981 or modern China, Venezuela or Cuba.

The only break we have is that the army is still on the side of the free minded people but if that changes we will have to resort to guerrilla malitias
type of freedom fighters to take back our country.

I see our military or the secret service restoring order if we begin to slide in a Socialist/Dictatorship rule

Ted| 2.24.09 @ 7:19PM

LOCALISM is SOCIALISM!

Jeremiah| 2.24.09 @ 7:47PM

I see lots of lines from last night's Hannity show - which I did in fact endure while driving -- being rehashed. God it's boring.

Basically, Nick, I do in fact believe Obama when he says he's not interested in the fairness doctrine.

I don't really see what he's lied about so far, and I think if he WERE going to lie, he'd go about it differently than this.

Anyway, what would be the point?

Like I said, the total share of the market held by Limbaugh and Hannity has declined steadily since 03.

Partly this is simply the result of multiplying media sources. Partly Limbaugh at least is the victim of his own success: he created a taste for talk radio that has sponsored the creation of hundreds of shows like his -- and yes, most of them are LOCAL. (Ted, does that mean they're socialist?)

I guess this has been a good thread, but really fellas, you need to get some new material.

As for calling anything the "Gestapo Doctrine," you should remember that gratitude is holy. And part of being grateful you never have and never will suffer the insane evils the Gestapo inflicted upon their victims is not to imply that things you simply would prefer not to happen are anything like those evils.

It's a matter of taste, really, but as Ruskin (a REAL conservative) said, taste is morality.

Nick| 2.24.09 @ 7:54PM

That's "Gestapo" in the "Hogan's Heroes" sense.

Geez, lighten up a little Jeremiah.

Anthony| 2.24.09 @ 8:49PM

Nick is correct, Jeremiah, as usual, clueless, but loquacious in his profound ignorance. Arrogant and ignorant is no way to go through life, Jeremiah, but you appear to be hell bent on trying. You enjoy seeing your many posts in writing, I guess it gives you some form of validation. Yet sadly, no argument to date on this site has disabused you of any of your naive theories, yet many have tried with some very thoughtful posts. You are immune because of your rigid ideology. Learn something for once, Obama will use the FCC, with his appointments, to impose community standard boards and other layers of oversight that will make the talk radio format radioactive to current ownership. Business owners are fearful of running afoul of government, or other groups with an agenda. Activist community boards, modeled after ACORN, will insure that owners will feel their hot breath on their necks. The risks will not be worth it, they are in the business of making money, not making political enemies in the government. Leftists count on this to bully the results they desire. Neither Obama nor Congress will have to get their hands dirty with a bill that can be used against leftist pols in future elections. The faceless, nameless and un-elected bureaucracy will do all the dirty work. You can't really be this clueless, can you?

Tim| 2.24.09 @ 11:45PM

The thing that is really ridiculous is this constant talk that just because some of us can see things very clearly and love our freedoms and our free speech and are naturally just as our founding fathers were, really suspicious of unchecked government we get lumped by some in this .........

they are Rush people or they are Hannity people or this or that or the other.

I don't need Rush or Hannity to tell me to be suspicious of a bloated Federal Goverment who's goal is to control our lives by taking power away from us and giving it to themselves the movers and shakers in DC.

Believe it or not...... folks in the USA have been thinking like that since a small band of patriots kicked the British out of our Country.

So the left should just give us a break. We know what the score is and what the Obama types are trying to achieve long term. To Lord of the masses......period.

Individual Freedom and Individual Liberty is not what "Collective" thinkers want to hear period.

Obama believes in the Collective and has done so from his youth, and throughout his formative years which included a deep devotion to a "Collective" icon Saul Alinsky.

Star Trek had the the Borg and their counterpart were Captain Kirk and his crew.....

This is not rocket science people.....

1. Why no time to read the stimulous package before a vote was taken? What's the big secret they don't want you to know?

2. Why the dirty looks to a reporter that asks hard probing questions or kicking them off a campaign plane for daring to ask probing questions?

If you go around the country side running for President saying how you want to include everyone in the process and have transparency and honesty etc. etc. etc........

and then five weeks into the new administration we get scandle after scandel involving Cabnet picks and the pulling the wool over people's eyes about ear marks and pork etc. etc. you start to wonder what the heck is going on here.

Now, I suppose to just sit hear and believe that these guys are going to just allow Rush and Hannity to keep talking trash about them on the airwaves?

Please don't insult our intelligence.

Acorn is a proven corrupt organization fully funded with our tax dollars. Their reach goes farther then anything the Right currently has to offer.

Will Obama allow the Federal Funding of a "Right Wing" organization to help organize the masses for the 2010 mid term election? In your dreams!

There is a real old saying that seems to fit hear.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

The left is entitled to their opinion and I will be the first to make sure your voice is never silenced.
In fact many have died to make sure you can have your freedom of speech.

I just ask that the Left return the favor in kind.

Unless of course you don't really believe in individual freedom of speech. If so, then just be man or women enough to just say so. And that goes for Mr. Obama as well.

Jeremiah| 2.25.09 @ 11:23AM

Nick --

The "gestapo" joke "in the Hogan's heroes" sense might actually be funny, if the Nazi accuasations weren't so predictably continual on this site.

Absolutely anything and everything that is not orthodox reactionary dogma is considered "nazi."

If Nancy Pelosi is a Nazi, and Jeremiah Wrigtht, and Barack Obama, and ME, of all people, what use is the word?

The definition of "nazi" becomes: anything Nick doesn't like.

Ken| 2.25.09 @ 1:49PM

The use of the word Nazi is simply a carryover from the Bush administration. For 8 years all we heard from the left was how Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, or anyone associated with the right, was a Nazi. Payback is a bitch, ain't it?

Nick| 2.25.09 @ 2:42PM

Ken,

I would say it has been 40+ years that the left has been invoking the "nazi" slur.

Jeremiah,

I give you one example from several years ago: Dick "Turbin" Durbin, democrat Ill., on the floor of the U.S. Senate said FBI interrorgators at Gitmo who deprived detainees of sleep and made them sit in cold rooms were comparable to "NAZI's", Soviets and their gulags, and Pol Pot's madmen.

It is you lefties whose definition of "nazi" becomes: anything the LEFTIST doesn't like. They've been doing over 40 years now. Care to condemn them, Jeremiah?

Ken| 2.25.09 @ 3:45PM

Nick, you know as well as I do that when they use the term "nazi" it's satire. When we use it, it's hate speech.

Letters From A Tennessee Farme| 2.25.09 @ 5:27PM

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.

Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico [1]

At pages 439 and439
Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of ourPage 439 own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

Jeremiah| 2.25.09 @ 5:42PM

Nick --

Funny your example has to be a particularly famous one taken from "several years ago."

And yet here, especially recently, it seems nearly every thread is filled with references to fascism and nazis.

Conservatives will never recover if they don't learn to articulate their ideas again, I'll tell you that.

After 8 years of a president who was tongue-tied and almost astonishingly inarticulate, you all will want to brush up a little on your rhetorical skills.

I'll tell you what many philosophy professors tell their students: if you're reduced to calling your opponent a Nazi, you've already lost the debate.

Nick| 2.25.09 @ 11:52PM

Jeremiah,

Have you ever read any comments on huffpo or koskids or any other lib site?

Ken| 2.26.09 @ 12:51PM

Jeremiah, how many times do we have to hear The Messiah say umm, uh, umm, er, umm, uh when he speaks? Talk about inarticulate.

Pingback| 2.28.09 @ 6:14AM

Mesothelioma News - Ellwood City, Pennsylvania Asbestos Cleanup Halted for Winter Sea links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…related to Mesothelioma News - Ellwood City, Pennsylvania Asbestos Cleanup Halted for Winter Season Valentine’s Day at Ellwood « NO WILDERNESS WALMART Wirearchy · “Now That’s A Good Idea” The American Spectator : His Royal Fairness More Online Casinos » Arguments also touched on marketing online ... BizzyBlog » What Will CNBC’s Smug Journalists Say About ACORN’s ... Top Mesothelioma News for Saturday 28th of February…

ytuy| 11.25.09 @ 8:56PM

MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac

More Articles by Brett Joshpe

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

May 23, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

May 22, 2013 | George Neumayr

Anyone Still Believe Me?

May 21, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Obama’s Far Left Hand

May 15, 2013 | George Neumayr

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/24/his-royal-fairness

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.