Video: Kucinich on the Fairness Doctrine

posted at 4:37 pm on January 31, 2007 by Ian

Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-outer space) says since the broadcast airwaves are owned by the public they must be governed. But that’s not what he actually means–we do already have the FCC to regulate broadcasting. What he means is that the government should be able to mandate what kind of programming radio stations are allowed to offer. It’s a way to silence Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham et al by forcing stations to give no-name liberal hacks like the unpopular pool on Air America “equal time” on stations that air the conservative talkers. That will kill off the market for talkers generally, and return us to the insipid AM programming of the 1970s. It’s thuggery, basically, but that’s what the country gets for keeping the likes of Kucinich around and then putting his party in power. You didn’t vote for the unFairness Doctrine, America, but if Dennis the Menace gets his way, you’ll get the unFairness Doctrine.

If Kucinich gets his way on matters of national security, you’ll also get a Department of Peace to replace the Department of Defense. In the middle of a war. Empowering Democrats can have quite a few unintended consequences. But back to the broadcasting.

Now here’s the doozy: Alan Colmes does not support the Fairness Doctrine because … it would create another government bureaucracy. Actually it would probably just put some teeth back into the FCC, but I don’t want to disturb Colmes’ useful illusions on this. Even if Kucinich made sense, which he doesn’t and never has, does he not understand how popular conservative talk radio is over liberal talk radio? Someone needs to inform what happened the last time a liberal conglomerate was on the airwaves.

Kucinich obviously does understand that conservative talk radio blows liberal talk radio out of the water. He just doesn’t have any faith at all that Air America and other liberal talkers can compete on their own. The Fairness Doctrine is supposed to force America to tune in to liberal talk radio that it seldom chooses to listen to when given the choice. You can call that whatever you want, but “fairness” is about as far from accurate a description as you can get.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unfair

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 31, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Saw this last night. Barf.

RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 4:50 PM

“The Fairness Doctrine is supposed to force America to tune in to liberal talk radio that it seldom chooses to listen to when given the choice.”

Not exactly. As you observe elsewhere in the same post, the libs/lefties already know that in the marketplace of ideas they can’t compete; “Air America” is a daily, glaring reminder of that.

But just like they can’t stand competition in most any other aspect of life, they can’t tolerate it on the airwaves. And rather than taking a long, hard look at themselves and addressing the “root causes” of their intellectual bankruptcy (lib/lefties are no good at honest self-examination), they’ll always take the easy path of trying to silence the other side of the debate.

Spurius Ligustinus on January 31, 2007 at 4:51 PM

In responding to Hannity’s questions, Kucinich stated that the alphabet networks are biased towards conservatives, citing the fact that most Americans after 9/11 believed Iraq was involved as conclusive evidence. This illustrates the dangers of the “fariness doctrine.” To Kucinich, mainstream Republican views are extremist and should not even be tolerated. “Balance” would consist of equal time for the moderate left and for the loony far left with all other views excluded.

Were Kucinich administering the doctrine, Rush and Sean would be in jail for expousing extremist views on the public airwaves.

ptolemy on January 31, 2007 at 4:55 PM

The liberls know that liberal talk radio will fail.

The point, however, is forcing equal air time for radio programs that no one will listen too, and therefore sponsors won’t pay for. And a talk radio station can’t stay in business if half of it’s programming won’t retain sponsors.

The solution then, for talk radio, is to simply stop broadcasting pollitical commentary shows. Both conservative and liberal.

So even if liberal shows won’t make money, the so-called Fairness Doctrine still gives liberals the leverage to eliminate conservative talk radio. And eliminating conservative talk radio is a much bigger win for liberals that equal air time could ever be.

Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Kucinich makes Anna Nicole Smith look like she has a brain.

.

GT on January 31, 2007 at 4:59 PM

Does this doctrine mean that a conservative will be sitting next to Katie Couric?

Child In Time on January 31, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Rep Dennis Kucinich.(D-umbass)

Mazztek on January 31, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Whenever a lib is out talking about how conservatives said that Iraq was involved with 911, I want the host to force them info giving a quote; who said it and what did they say. I had that argument with a union steward when the 911 report came out. No one ever said that Iraq had anything to do with 911, just like the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with Fairness.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 31, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Does this Fairness Doctrine stand any real chance of being legislated??

laelaps on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Props to Skeletor for making the coherent free-market case against the Fairness Doctrine, whereas Hannity just wanted to crack on Kucinich.

I love how big-government types name their legislation; which is to call it the exact opposite of its actual purpose. Such hits as “Campaign Finance Reform” come to mind. Par for the course for Democrats that care nothing about democracy, and Republicans that aren’t interested in preserving our Republic.

Kid from Brooklyn on January 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM

Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-outer space)

ROFLMAO!!!!

Seriously though, what a load of crap this is! Can’t the Dhimmicrats be satisfied with having ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, LAT, blah, blah, blah?? If they can’t get their message out with that kind of oligopoly — yes for all you econ-types out there, I lumped all of the aforementioned together — maybe, just maybe, they should re-think the message?

Does this doctrine mean that a conservative will be sitting next to Katie Couric?

Child In Time on January 31, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Great question!!

lan astaslem on January 31, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Constitutional law scholars, help me out here. How would such a “fairness doctrine” fall be legal within the bounds of the first amendment? Wouldn’t it be limiting the freedom of speech?

Of course, such a defense would require a hack-liberal court to understand such a viewpoint.

flutejpl on January 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM

They can’t force me to keep my radio on, can they? Can they?

jman on January 31, 2007 at 5:09 PM

‘The human body has two ends on it: one to create with and one to sit on. Sometimes people get their ends reversed. When this happens they need a kick in the seat of the pants.’-Theodore Roosevelt

Kucinich….when you try to make someone flinch…you better be pretty damn sure you can take the punch.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Will the fairness doctrine extend into movies and television? If so, I’m all for it. Now for every piece of liberal/left sh*t that falls out of Hollywood’s a**crack, they’ll have to air a conservative piece as counterbalance.

Fire away anytime, Denny.

jaleach on January 31, 2007 at 5:22 PM

Well, if they implement a fairness doctrine, I expect them to force television programming to comply, too, in addition to news programming. Yes, all those shows during prime time and late night television (yes, not just the family hour, as adults who watch later are not all left wing degenerates). Half of this programming will need good moral values, honest un-bigoted people attending church, intact families, people who do not do drugs or have sex randomly, businesses who contribute to their communities, people who work their way to the top and rich people who are honest and good role models. Yeah, that would be fair!!

And maybe even radio music stations would have to have a 50/50 split – for every song about killing a cop, they would have to play one about the cop being your friend. For every song about smacking your b#@tch ho girlfriend, they would have to play one about treating her right. Like the media and/or Hollywood would go along with that….!

TwoCents on January 31, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I think we need to revisit the notion the airways belong to the public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.

JackM on January 31, 2007 at 5:39 PM

How could anyone take Kucinich seriously after he was tripping all over himself to shake President Bush’s hand at the SOTU address?

ctmom on January 31, 2007 at 5:44 PM

I wonder if this thing is getting any traction. I better check it out.

sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 5:45 PM

I think I’m mostly concerned with Kucinich’s assertion that a right to free speech is granted by the government through the licensing process. Pretty sure the constitution says that’s an inaliable right of man.

askheaves on January 31, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Flute, you might call me a “Constitutional law scholar”, so I’ll take a stab or two at your question.

Questions of constitutionality are almost laughable in today’s legal system. As many elected officials have said, the Constitution is little more than a piece of paper. The Constitution hasn’t been needed to do anything for at least the last 75 years.

You read the Constitution and tell me where it gives the national government (as opposed to federal government, which is an interesting discussion on its own) the power to, for example, establish Social Security or the EPA or any of the other hundreds of alphabet soup agencies. The only place that one might tease out such a power (and this is what has been done) is two small words: General Welfare. Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers granted to Congress. Skip paragraph 1, read the other 17 paragraphs and tell me where the power is to do 90% of what the national government does. It isn’t there.

Now read the first paragraph and tell me how disturbing it is that the 90% that wasn’t found in the other 17 paragraphs isn’t even found in the first paragraph, except for those two little words. Eighteen paragraphs of description of what Congress can do and only two words are needed to do most everything. I don’t think that was what the Founding Fathers intended when they stuck those two words in there. Do you?

Decoy256 on January 31, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Yes, bring it on. Everything on the airwaves must be balanced. It’ll be sweet. Every cable news and evening news show will be just like Hannity and Colmes, a conservative and liberal. Right now the bastion of conservatives is talk radio and somewhat Foxnews. Just wait until conservatives are on every show! Soon the liberals will be seething and foaming as they attempt to counter the conservative viewpoint when they never had to in the past. America will finally get both sides. Bring it baby.

darwin on January 31, 2007 at 5:48 PM

I think we need to revisit the notion the airways belong to the public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.

JackM on January 31, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I also wanted to comment on Kucinich’s repeated use of the argument that the “airwaves belong to the people, not corporations” and that corporations are allowed to use the airwaves as long as they do so for “public benefit”. That isn’t what the requirement is at all… they are given use of the airwaves, with the requirement that they allot a certain amount of time to providing public service, which has been applied to mean providing for the Emergency Broadcast System, etc… NEVER has the requirement been that stations broadcast viewpoints that the government wants broadcast. That is completely asinine. The only reason they even require that much is because there is a limited supply of airwaves and registration is required to minimize noise and chatter from other stations to bleed all over the place.

Further proof that Democrats don’t know the meaning of Liberty.

Decoy256 on January 31, 2007 at 5:48 PM

While we watch what goes on in the televised political world, we can thank God that this man will never become president.

dingoatemebaby on January 31, 2007 at 5:52 PM

SC? UT? NC? VA? OK? AL? AK? GA? KY? TN? are you there? Texas calling….we are ready here. Just send up the signal.

Limerick on January 31, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Ahhh yes, Dennis Kucinch, the token little red commie in our government. Gotta blame the people from Ohio for voting and keeping this runt in. I just wish I didn’t have to help pay his wages!

Fairness doctrine = Socialism/Communism

byteshredder on January 31, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Forget about the right/left arguments, I would look for Al Qaeda to sue for equal time under the Fairness Doctrine. The next State of the Union address could be followed by the Dem response and then AQ’s response.

rw on January 31, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Forget about the right/left arguments, I would look for Al Qaeda to sue for equal time under the Fairness Doctrine. The next State of the Union address could be followed by the Dem response and then AQ’s response.

rw on January 31, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Do you really think there’d be that much difference between the two?

Calling this gag order the “Fairness Doctrine” is as classic an example of doublespeak as you could ever hope to find. But then that’s the liberal definition of “freedom of speech”–the freedom to agree with liberals, or else. Communist wannabees like Kucinich won’t rest until they control every aspect of our lives. For our own good, of course, because they know what’s best for us.

And for the record, I’m still pissed that they ever changed it from the frank and honest “Department of War” to the way more pussified “Department of Defense”.

ReubenJCogburn on January 31, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Fine Denny. Let’s bring it back and make sure it applies to networks, cable, radio and print media. Hell, if we’re gonna be fair, let’s be fair everywhere.

Can’t wait to see the other side of the story on the front page of the Gray Lady and the Washington post.

Make sure you all buy satellite radio stock. If they kill am radio with this Rush and all of the others will just migrate to XM and Sirius.

BacaDog on January 31, 2007 at 6:55 PM

The funny thing about this whole “fairness doctrine” is the “public interest” arguement. If anyone (in the public) really wanted to hear flaming left wingers on the radio, do you think they would have to be begging by trying to re-institute this absurd doctrine? The public decides these things in the radio marketplace with something called “ratings”.

They tried a very liberal host in Denver a while back (former Bronco Reggie Rivers). He was nice and articulate, but his views were so far out there, no would listen to him and he eventually got canned and hired someone else people would listen to without the radical left wing views.

Planet Boulder

Planet Boulder on January 31, 2007 at 7:03 PM

I’m against any sort of government regulation of communication. The FCC is a joke and I’m sure this would be the same if it ever got passed.

JaHerer22 on January 31, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Fairness Doctrine = Government Control
Free Market = Survival of the fittest

Tin Foil = Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-outer space) half baked ideas.

Nothing against tim foil, I put it over any turkey before placing in the oven.

Kini on January 31, 2007 at 7:47 PM

And for the record, I’m still pissed that they ever changed it from the frank and honest “Department of War” to the way more pussified “Department of Defense”. [ReubenJCogburn]

And don’t forget, it was Kucinich who wanted to change it to the “Department of Peace” when he ran in the primaries in 04. If Bush is a chimpmonkey, according to the left, Kucinich is a chimpmonkey’s exit ramp.

fogw on January 31, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Forget about the right/left arguments, I would look for Al Qaeda to sue for equal time under the Fairness Doctrine.

Why would al Qaeda do that? It would be a waste of time, democrats already spout the terrorist line. I’ve always though of the democrats as al Qaeda’s political wing.

Capitalist Infidel on January 31, 2007 at 8:04 PM

This stuff should not surprise us, my fellow and sister commenters.

The purpose is quite clear…since institutions like FOUL AIR AMERICA cannot succeed to counter FNC, WABC-Radio, Michelle, Ann, Laura, and Monica, then create legislation to control and, if need be, destroy FNC, WABC-Radio, and Michelle, Ann, Laura, and Monica.

It is just like when the hardcore libs cannot convince the American people to accept their ideas, and cannot pass whatever through legislation, then go around the normal process and go to activist judges to get their way.

THIS FAIRNESS DOCTRINE IS THE FIRST WAVE OF AN ATTACK ON CONSERVATIVISM, HOT AIR, FNC, WABC, ETC.

The False Dervish on January 31, 2007 at 8:26 PM

I think we need to revisit the notion the airways belong to the public, and therefore can be regulated by the government.

JackM on January 31, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Um… Public property is where our freedom is defended. You can ban me from speaking into your own telephone, but not from speaking in a public park. I may not be free to wear sneakers in an upscale restaurant that has a dress code, but I can wear sandals as I walk down the street.

If by “public” we mean “government controlled”, then we have handed our common property over to a tyrant. But, if by “regulated” we mean “protected”, then we’re good to go.

Regulation is for effective monopolies, like the local electric company, not for radio stations’ programming.

Kucinich wants to force people to listen to voices that they have chosen not to listen to. I’ve chosen Pepsi and so he wants to force feed me Coke to make sure I get a “balanced diet”.

Not on my street.

Tuning Spork on January 31, 2007 at 8:32 PM

When we last had a “fairness doctrine” the radio waves were ruled by lefties. The most listened to was Michael Jackson (not the weirdo, the lefty (redundant?). And AM was king. The right was beginning to make its voice known on the radio waves, and that worried the left. The left always new that there were more in the right and center than the left and the FD guaranteed them a large listening audience. FM begin to expand its coverage and number of stations so the argument that the airwaves are restrictive is much less of an argument than now.
Another election is coming and they know if they get the white house, there won’t be a veto like the last bills that were passed faced.
Goodbye Rush, goodbye Hannity (they have to replace him to put just as big of fool as Colmes), but NPR?…never had to abide by the FD rules. What we would now call the “Star-Kist” rule.

right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 8:35 PM


Constitutional law scholars, help me out here. How would such a “fairness doctrine” fall be legal within the bounds of the first amendment? Wouldn’t it be limiting the freedom of speech?

flutejpl on January 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM

You have to remember that McCain-Feingold blatantly stifles free political speech and SCOTUS upheld it. As was stated above, the Constitution really counts for little these days. It’s opinion polls that matter the most….please shoot me now.

And if you think conservatives will get a fair shake with the MSM, please have someone slap you back to reality. Katie ain’t about to cohost with Hannity.

TugboatPhil on January 31, 2007 at 8:59 PM

Constitutional law scholars, help me out here. How would such a “fairness doctrine” fall be legal within the bounds of the first amendment? Wouldn’t it be limiting the freedom of speech?

Of course, such a defense would require a hack-liberal court to understand such a viewpoint.

flutejpl on January 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Ok, it is very simple. It is right there in the Constitution next to the Amendment about the “Right to Privacy” and the “General Welfare” clause explanation that allows for Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, corporate welfare, government funded non-military science, public education etc. etc.

Tim Burton on January 31, 2007 at 10:23 PM

This is on the same scale of the Boston Tea Party…we need to revolt…it’s about time we have a revolution!

lsutiger on January 31, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Thanks, Decoy256, TugboatPhil, and Tim Burton for your insights. I now see where the left gets its justification. In case anyone doubts my position on the matter… what a weak argument the left has! I’m well aware of the reality of the situation, though… the courts lean way left. Sarcastically, I suggest further clarification on this matter will be found in the Constitution right next to the words detailing that wall of separation between church and state.

To all: which carries more weight with this issue…
1) Two words in the Preamble, “general Welfare,” taken out of context to justify expanding the government’s reach.
2) The first five words of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law,” clearly telling Congress to keep its paws off of the following areas listed.

I would say that, at the time of the Bill of Rights, the people understood the dangerous nature of governments to claim as much power as they could. As a result, rather restrictive amendments on the power of Congress came into being. If I remember my history well, some states wouldn’t even ratify the Constitution itself without such restrictions… without those states, we might not cherish a piece of paper from 1787 nearly as much today.

Alas, were those holdout states ever right. Abuses like the unfairness doctrine happen in spite of such clear wording at the start of such restrictive amendments.

flutejpl on January 31, 2007 at 11:31 PM

Does this “fairness doctrine” nonsense also mean that lib/lefty spit-coms and dramas on broadcast TV would necessarily have to be “balanced’ by some mythical Right=Wing programming?

How is this idea of mandated programming differ from the force-fed propaganda that existed in the U.S.S.R.? Do we really want to go down THAT road? Of course some of these closet Socialists would privately say yes.

According to the backers of this proposal, we are unfit to decide what we want to watch and listen to. THEY know what’s best for us if only they can MAKE us listen.

They lost and are still losing in the marketplace of ideas; therefore, they want to do away with the marketplace. Naturally, they will try to find a way to stop any conservative thought to be transmitted via internet also.

These jerks spout off about freedom of speech until they’re blue in the face. When that speech doesn’t align itself with their philosophy, however, it is deemed unfair, and subject to strangulation through regulation.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM

I’m with you Isutiger. There would have to be nothing short of a revolt. I do not consider the constitution passe. Freedom of speech applies especially to political speech. If it protects strippers it should at least apply to (your favorite host’s name here). If they get away with it, it will only apply to broadcast radio. We will all move to satellite radio together in the greatest mass migration in history, and have no illusions we live in a free country. I do a lot of driving daily for work. Since I work alone I can listen regularly. Much of it is the same stories featured here and elsewhere. A little truth goes a long way nowadays. I won’t go back to sports-talk. It doesn’t matter anymore.

Buck Turgidson on January 31, 2007 at 11:58 PM

You read the Constitution and tell me where it gives the national government (as opposed to federal government, which is an interesting discussion on its own) the power to, for example, establish Social Security or the EPA or any of the other hundreds of alphabet soup agencies. The only place that one might tease out such a power (and this is what has been done) is two small words: General Welfare. Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers granted to Congress. Skip paragraph 1, read the other 17 paragraphs and tell me where the power is to do 90% of what the national government does. It isn’t there.

Uh, there is no National Government in the Constitution. According to the Federalist Papers #39 the Constitution sets up a Federal System (and therefore is one of the major reason secession was legal).

It says:

`But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

Federalist 39

Tim Burton on February 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Alfalfa Kucinich is right. Dwarfs demand equal time.

oakpack on February 1, 2007 at 12:26 AM

See, this is the difference between conservatives and liberals… a conservative might virulently disagree with what’s out there in the culture right now, be it in film, television, music, or what have you… but they oppose these things on the basis of ideas… if you wanna get on board, great! if you don’t, well we’re still gonna try and sell you on it. Liberals take the FIRST opportunity to circumvent the free market to try and find loopholes so that they can put forth their argument regardless of how many people actually agree with them.

el75 on February 1, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Uh, there is no National Government in the Constitution.

You are right and I did not mean to make it sound like the Constitution set up a National government. That is not what I meant at all. But we do have a national government now, and that was my point.

I’m glad you referenced Federalist 39, it makes the point clear that we were supposed to have a federal system. However, the 14th amendment (along with the Supreme Court cases interpreting it), while good at protecting individual freedoms, destroyed the federal system and replaced it with a national one.

Jefferson said:
“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The government is no longer bound down by the Constitution. It serves only as a paper chain to those who would usurp power from the people and supplant the divinely inspired Constitution with their unfettered socialist utopia.

Decoy256 on February 1, 2007 at 12:58 AM

again, people are dumb enough to vote clowns like this in office…

retired on February 1, 2007 at 7:15 AM

It’s not just crazy Dennis. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Senators’ Maurice Hinchey and Louise Slaughter of New York also are pushing reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

We all think that it’s a crazy idea, but it’s a little dangerous to just chalk Denny and his friends up as harmless loons.

Write your legislator and let them know how you feel. This wouldn’t be the first instance of nutty legislation getting passed.

BacaDog on February 1, 2007 at 7:43 AM

“Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-outer space) says since the broadcast airwaves are owned by the public they must be governed.”

Why stop there? The photons bouncing off of a printed page are owned by the public. The sounds coming out of a speaker’s mouth travel through the air, which is owned by the public. Why not regulate those, too?

Oh, wait…

JohnW on February 1, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Why are vegans idiots? Kucinich proves it again!

Black Adam on February 1, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Maybe we’re looking at this all wrong. Tweak the legislation a little to force every leftwing news organization to fire half of their DNC-supplied staff and hire conservatives.

Give Rush a nightly seat next to Couric, correcting her idiotic gossip as it comes out of her mouth. Ditto Brian Williams and whomever is on NBC that night. (I swear I don’t even know.) PBS, etc., etc.

That’ll get it tabled, quick.

Jaibones on February 1, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Does this Fairness Doctrine stand any real chance of being legislated??

laelaps on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Do the Democracts control of both the House and Senate?

Does Ted Kennedy drive off bridges?

How is this idea of mandated programming differ from the force-fed propaganda that existed in the U.S.S.R.? Do we really want to go down THAT road? Of course some of these closet Socialists would privately say yes.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM

This will fit nicely with the socialist Hillary health plan.

I heard Sean interview this guy a couple weeks ago on his radio show. This idea sounded dumb then and it hasn’t improved any since. From what I was hearing (I haven’t researched it yet) the “Fairness” doctrine would apply only to radio.

Should I buy Sirus stock for when Sean & Rush go Sirus?

I guess it would be good in one way. Now everytime a talking head rambles on about how great the Packers are I should get equal time for describing how lousy they are!

VikingGoneWild on February 1, 2007 at 10:32 AM

….Give Rush a nightly seat next to Couric, correcting her idiotic gossip as it comes out of her mouth. Ditto Brian Williams …

But, the networks aren’t biased, Jailbones. I mean, after all, Andrea Mitchell said so.

BacaDog on February 1, 2007 at 11:34 AM

We all think that it’s a crazy idea, but it’s a little dangerous to just chalk Denny and his friends up as harmless loons.

BacaDog on February 1, 2007 at 7:43 AM

Loons? Yes. Harmless loons? No.

ReubenJCogburn on February 1, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Waiting for my taxpayer-funder, conservative equivalent to NPR.

….foot tapping….arms crossed…..

And now for All Things Really Considered

ej_pez on February 1, 2007 at 3:57 PM

I find Kookcinich’s logic doesn’t make it to the level of stupid.

Wil on February 1, 2007 at 5:18 PM