Several Democratic lawmakers suggested that Congress take another look at the doctrine after conservative radio talk show hosts aggressively attacked an immigration reform bill when it was on the Senate floor, contributing to its defeat.

Every effort to discount the “We the People” aspect is being made.

Talk show hosts (and bloggers) are talking just the same as always but the immigration issue is a high priority (perhaps the highest) with Americans regardless of media outlet, much to the chagrin of institutionalized politicians.

When issues arise, expect Americans to arise also.
Don’t blame the only media outlet available to many Americans for giving a voice to concerns that Politicians should have been listening to all along anyway.

Actually it would have been amazing if they had seen the need for it in the Clinton years, but as is typical of liberals/socialists and their social experimentation they never grasp the notion that that actions have consequences.

Somehow for example, they actually believed that paying poor families to break up would magically eliminate poverty and bring about a Utopian society. Instead the welfare program they created had almost the exact opposite affect as it was suppose to.

In fact just about ever single social program they have created has turned into a bloated monster that had unforeseen (to them)consequences for which (to them) there is no acceptable way of correcting.

Considering this myopic blindness on their part it is no wonder that they think that the Fairness Doctrine would be a desirable and beneficial program.

But then again I live in the 21st Century, so I should know better.

Back in my day (1961 – 1967) we had scum as well. Heck, we had (and still have) Kerry. How would you like to have something like that watching your back?

SORRY FOR THE OT BUT I HAD TO THANK STEVE.

Spc Steve on July 27, 2007 at 9:55 AM

That seems to be their philosophy. There’s evidence to prove that simply being married to someone who works for you, doesn’t make it true. Heck, you have to fact-check the very person that works for you. Look at Reutergate, Rathergate, etc.

So, his wife’s on their payroll, and that’s how they know he’s a credible writer, who wouldn’t dare stretch the truth to, say, help his wife move forward in their business or push their ideology.

All that’s left is to end that article with, “In accordance with the prophecy.” Talk about out to lunch. If being in the Army weren’t such a noble profession, I’d quit just to keep from being associated with the human fiasco that is Pvt. Beauchamp.

Right you are. Except what does fair have to do with power politics. If we all pooled our tax dollars we could keep Airhead America on the air. Ok, so that would not be fair, but it could affect power.

Duh.

That settled, I hereby demand that all sitcoms be 50 percent sit and 50 percent com.

The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.” Foer also said Beauchamp “has put himself in significant jeopardy” and “lost his lifeline to the rest of the world” because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.

As both the military and the magazine investigate Beauchamp’s allegations, a personal blog surfaced in which Beauchamp said last year that each morning he feels “retarded for joining the army,” “a little more liberal than the day before” and “a tool for global corporations.”

..
Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns. He is married to a reporter-researcher at the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve.

….

As conservative bloggers yesterday continued to challenge the veracity of Beauchamp’s accounts, Foer said: “It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard’s efforts to press an ideological agenda.”

It’s not about fairness, but control. Control over who can say what and when on public policy is what they want, and it’s what they should never have.

Control is what they had for 30 years, before the turn of the century. Now that they have competition in the marketplace of ideas they find they liked a monopoly a lot better. Do you remember when they talked about a “fairness doctorine” for the internet a few years ago?

The fairness doctrine (sic) is wanted, defeat in Iraq is wanted, and Nancy and Harry want political power.

Keep up the good fight.

Freedom speech shouldn’t come and go at the whims of the likes of Reid and Pelosi:

Well said.

Looks like Reagan won’t be turning over in his grave after all.

Freedom speech shouldn’t come and go at the whims of the likes of Reid and Pelosi:Well said.