Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama Against Fairness Doctrine: Conservatives Search For Something Else To Whine About, just because I like the asymmetry:

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told Wednesday. 

The statement

is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an
aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the
doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to
provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. 

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White
House spokesman Ben LaBolt told 

Time to go find something else to whine about, people. Remember, people still respond to the word "socialist". And it drips so sexily off Britt Hume's lips.


  1. Obama did not say he would veto such a law and he does not write them. Chairwoman Pelosi writes and has them approved. Welcome to the REAL world of politics. Try getting informed.
    One thing that should have become obvious long ago is that the President has only discrete power, like a flip-flop in in a computer. They can sign or veto a bill.

    You can blame the Banks, the Corporations and the Lawyers all you want, but then you are missing the point. The housing market failed in the last quarter of 2007, which was the first quarter of the first budget of Chairwoman Pelosi. Still, it took President Bush to cause the global stock markets to fall by announcing the problem at the beginning of 2008.

    Presidents, in the end, are partisan puppets of the Speaker of the House. Please read the Constitution.

    Why do you think Chairwoman Pelosi endorced Senator Obama. Was it for independent thinking or was it because he voted strictly a party line.

    For all the propaganda about Obama seeking bipartisan support, he did not vote bipartisan. He never, as a senator, was involved in compromise. In fairness, few junior senators are.

    The policy of the US belongs to the one who holds the purse strings. Only the House of Representatives can propose a spending bill. The Senate can modify and refer it back to the House, but it is still in the power of the House.

    If you just have to blame the Republican Party for the economics of 2001 to 2007, then you should be looking at what Speaker Dennis Hastert did.

    Budgets are passed 18 months before they are applied. That means the first budget of Chairwoman Pelosi began July 1, 2007. You could claim it began in the first 100 hours of 2006, though, because she changed the rules and excluded dialog with the Republicans. That allowed her to force through $700 billion in supplimental spending.

    People are quick to blame or credit Presidents, but that is obfustication. The one responsible for budget deficits or surpluses is the Speaker of the House. Do you really think there was a six year lag in the surpluses in the Clinton Administration or did it happen because of who was Speaker of the House?

    So, to blame the Presidents or claim that it has been the special interests' influence on them is ignorant simplistic thinking with regard to the Constitution or party politics.

    Personally, I expect the politics of Chairwoman Pelosi to come more from Walgreen's than her district. If Chairwoman Pelosi had represented her district, she would have followed through on her promise to impeach President Bush. Instead, she stopped Kucinich and others from that. The President is just a strawman for politicians to play against.

    Are the main players in the media really this ignorant?

  2. I've read the Constitution and I am informed. Thanks very much for the condescension however.

    Regardless of whatever other issues one can bring into the discussion, the point that shouldn't be lost is that the "Fear The Return of The Fairness Doctrine" meme was powered by Republicans and conservatives wanting to undermine Obama and the Democrats. Whatever comes after this, Obama's clear message of non-support for the return of the FD shuts the whole thing down.

    Never mind that, regardless of who wanted it or how the legislation would have originated, it would have had a rocky road and would not have, in my view, been likely approved.

    Regardless of what Pelosi wants, I don't see it as tenable given that the leader of her party (the President) is publicly against it.

    Above all, everything that is going to be done by a Republican on the Hill or in the Media is going to be to the end of undermining Obama and the Democratic Party, regardless of what the People want (we don't count because most of us don't agree with them) or what damage it does to the country. All they want is to get back in power again.

    The President being a partisan puppet of the Speaker of the House is not a view I share. It does not seem to be in the Constitution–at least not in those words.