Fiorina: Government has to regulate “wild west” Internet
posted at 2:45 pm on October 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
It’s bad enough that the Left wants to regulate the Internet through “net neutrality” interventions. Now we have Republicans talking about regulating the Internet in order to protect “women and children.” Carly Fiorina told an audience in San Francisco that the “duality” would have to end:
She mentioned that politicians should be held accountable just the way that business managers and board members are, and that the U.S. government cannot continue to spend money without dealing with entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Fiorina criticized Boxer for successfully sponsoring only three relatively insignificant bills in her 18 years in the Senate.
“I don’t think that’s good enough,” she said.
Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it. Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.
What protections do women need on the Internet that they have off of it? After all, the Internet can’t mug you, or worse. It’s a forum for free speech and commerce, which makes it no different than the shopping mall in most respects, except that the parking situation doesn’t stink. There is nothing on the Internet from which women need protecting that they don’t access on their own, and no threat different from those facing men on the Internet.
As for children, everyone understands that children’s access to the Internet should be supervised — by parents. That’s just as true for the Internet as it is for the television, or for reading material, or for that matter, the aforementioned shopping mall. We don’t regulate bookstores on the basis that children might enter it and shouldn’t see The Joy of Sex or Valley of the Dolls. Parents should parent their children; governments should not parent anyone.
It’s almost as if Fiorina is equating “women” and “children” in terms of their ability to navigate the world, and especially in terms of potential victimhood. Obviously, I don’t speak for women, but I would not be surprised if women found that kind of construct offensive, especially these days.
We have enough Democrats pushing a nanny state on us, especially in this Congress. The last thing we need is a Republican candidate for the Senate running on the promise to make the Intertubes safe for the wimminfolk.
Update: Should have been, “I would not be surprised …” I fixed it above.










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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Somehow, I doubt that.
Crawford on October 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I think you meant surprised if women didn’t find that construst offensive, or maybe I’m lacking coffee. Anyway, yes it is offensive.
I agreed with one thing my lefty con law professor used to say: “Think long and hard before you agree to let someone curtail your rights for your supposed protection.”
Fiorina is probably thinking Craig’s list, but honestly all that is needed is public education and common sense . . . she’s a conservative or libertarian my BUTT after saying something stupid like this.
Firefly_76 on October 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Private Pyle, you have got to be sh**ting me!!
JohnGalt23 on October 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Why do only the liberals raise the racist remarks…we go for days without any racism…then some liberal comes along and throws that card out…amazing how obsessed they are with race.
On the post that you remarked on, I never once thought of race as being a determining factor, but rather number of kids, age like adult only, pets, etc.
You have a very obsessed mind…here’s a tip, let it go, racism is basically dead except in the minds of liberals.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
FREE
TIBETTHE INTERNET!!!Seven Percent Solution on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Keep yr grimey hands off our internets!
Spathi on October 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Can I not rent my apartment to a guy because i think he smells bad?
WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I am a woman and I need the government to take care of me. Please, please, please help me Mr. Government. I’s stuupid.
txag92 on October 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM
GEEEEZ, just another Republican Statist (RINO~ALERT)
Time to get rid of these jerks at the ballot box and start again!
GO HOFFMAN. A REAL CONSERVATIVE.
Sandybourne on October 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM
OMG! Where are they finding these people?
This is another one to watch and fight hard against.
ORconservative on October 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM
See, there it is again…only from a leftist…weird.
right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM
You mean we should ignore the way the interstate commerce clause has been used to regulate someone growing wheat in their back yard?
How about you just DON’T REGULATE. Then there’s no slope to slip down!
Crawford on October 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM
People are free to think whatever they want to think. It is not to you to TELL people how to think. Even though you are are absolutely despicable, you have the freedom to be so. But, you’re not satisfied with your own freedom. People like you need to take freedom away from others. Utterly despicable and 100% un-American. Don’t worry, after this nation dissolves, the contributions of you and your ilk won’t be forgotten.
progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:22 PM
This is the lady who said she hasn’t voted in her entire 55 year old life yet now she’s impassioned to regulate the internet?
Spathi on October 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Why so insulting?
ladyingray on October 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I get the imperssion that liberals equate freedom of choice as racism. It’s fricken disgusting. This mindset to equate my freedom to choose implying that I or another wants to discriminate based on race is very damaging to this country.
WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Leftists have succeeded in brainwashing minorities that unless big daddy government is protecting them they will automatically be discriminated against.
darwin on October 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Exactly. Ernesto’s rationalization for government intervention at all levels is disturbing.
Ernesto simply has no regard or respect for the individual.
True_King on October 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Why not?
Jim Treacher on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Or we’re sick and tired of people who think they’re better than us trying to run our lives.
Crawford on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Yeah, just what we need–more government intrusion into our lives for the sake of the women and children. Please. Enough of this victimhood mentality. If a woman cannot protect herself on the internet, she shouldn’t be using it. As for protecting the children, let’s let the parents do that. Most of them do a pretty good job. Those that don’t, usually have their children removed from the home by the government anyway.
Redneck Woman on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
No, most conservatives, unlike liberals, believe in a higher power known as God. This belief in God allows us to understand that even if we discriminated against or wronged for a petty reason like the color of our skin, our beliefs, or anything else besides our character, that the person that wronged us will have to face judgment in due time.
We also believe that God gave us free will. This is why not everyone believes in God. However, you don’t see God just randomly forcing people to believe in Him. We believe that He realizes that everyone will face Him in the end and know that he exists.
Most of the time it’s people that don’t believe in God that make these type of laws because since they don’t believe in God they know that they would be likely to discriminate or whatever if there was no “oversight” or “regulation.”
MobileVideoEngineer on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Is it genetic that those disposed towards politics can’t help but think more government is ALWAYS the answer? To quote the old saying: When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
We need some innovative thinkers to reform Congress. After that is done, then they can decide if the rest of the country needs reforming.
In the meantime, Leave our interwebs alone!
Mallard T. Drake on October 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM
wait!
If you’re in San Francisco and you refer to women and children, who exaclty are you referring to?
ORconservative on October 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Since they duplicate already existing laws applying to venues other than the internet… YES!
Crawford on October 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Center right today was center left when I politically came of age in 1970. Hegelian philosophy at its best.
chemman on October 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Who knew that I needed someone to protect me from this interweb thing?
I blame Al Gore.
LASue on October 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
It’s “Republicans” like this that convince me that there is no way to save this republic.
myrenovations on October 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Thate WAS a perfectly good sip of whiskey that I blew all over my monitor…..
lovingmyUSA on October 21, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I don’t want government regulation of the internet… but things need to change to promote healthy discourse…
Then treat it as a technical solution and solve it.
Or STFU and stop telling people who object to government attempting to do something that’s NONE OF ITS BUSINESS they’re overreacting.
Crawford on October 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Shut-up and get out of our lives!Leave us alone.The majority of this country is not stupid,we have common sense unlike the other half that has to be burped every hour.
ohiobabe on October 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM
One final comment… the sentiment she expressed about the “wild west” internet is absolutely right… I don’t want government regulation, but there needs to be some non-government entity with muscle like the W3 that can tackle problems like discourse on the internet, pornography, etc…
ninjapirate on October 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I feel better now,after seeing on Redastate that WE defeated the whole doc fix H/reid wanted.Now he is whining.Yayyyyyyy,we did it,let’s keep fighting peeps.
ohiobabe on October 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Chuck Devore in 2012!!!
liquidflorian on October 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
How dare she, when the Wild Wild West 40th anniversary box set just came out.
reaganaut on October 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Yep- this is my state party that sees fit to push this utter failure at HP for national office.
Boxer or Boxer lite- nice going guys.
jjshaka on October 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM
No, you’re wrong. In fact, there have been cases where the uncertainty over whether or not particular laws covering the use of the mail, telephone, or the airwaves could apply to the internet have impaired investigation and prosecution. Whether ISPs were obligated to divulge proprietary information (identity information on users) has also impaired investigations.
These and numerous other criminal issues involving uses of the internet that will, as Fiorina points out, inevitably be regulated in one way or another – and most of the people here engaging in a game of “dogpile on the suspected RINO” will be in favor of legal and regulatory measures, and outraged over whatever failures of law and regulation.
Whatever happened to conservatives being in favor of law and order?
CK MacLeod on October 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I don’t approve of controlling or regulating the Internet – it is our last beacon of hope for free speech and for our nation to get back on track. But – I believe that Ms. Fiorina was trying to say that women are exploited on the internet by all the porn. She just made a poorly worded statement, in my opinion.
Children are targeted by predators on the Internet. Porn is rampant and readily available. That can’t be denied. However, educating our kids and helping men to see that women are human beings, not sex objects, are the solution. Regulating the Internet is NOT. That will only lead to closing off free speech, which we need now more than ever.
DINORight on October 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Let’s dumb down speech so that all of it’s appropriate for “women and children”.
And let’s let Carly run the internet. She did such an awesomely awesome job with HP. And Lucent. One company she left in bankruptcy, the other kicked her out just in time to avoid it. Oh, and regained it’s status as the #1 PC maker after getting rid of her.
Carly=RINO
She’d be another Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
wildcat84 on October 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Not in CA. Article 51 of the State Constitution has been interpreted to bar any refusal of service unless it is based on sound business reasons, which means, as many landlords have smelly tenants, you cannot claim to be acting as a smart landlord by turning away the stinkers.
Chris_Balsz on October 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM
LOL!! He invented it, after all!! Hehe. :)
DINORight on October 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM
The W3C is hardly non-government. They may not be a “government entity, but they are pushing Internet 2 which basically allows for complete governmental control.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM
That’s true, but the fed is simply incapable of just dealing with that problem. The “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water” saying may pre-date the founding of our country by centuries, but it applies to DC perfectly.
My children will never be targetted by predators, because I read them the riot act concerning the net, and I don’t let them do whatever they want. Parents are a bigger part of the soultion.
reaganaut on October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Oh and btw: DeVore, DeMint, Palin, Sessions, Fred Thompson, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and virtually any other true conservative hero will probably even Ron Paul will end up answering the same question in roughly the same way as Fiorina. Just about any of them who give the subject more thought than Ed apparently did will, too.
CK MacLeod on October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
On the other hand, we do have zoning regulations that controls where certain businesses can be located. For example, you may have a right to build an Adult Bookstore, but don’t expect to be able to build it next to an elementary school.
Can the equivalent of Internet “zoning” work? I see a lot of challenges in making that work. For example one could argue that all porno sites must belong to the “xxx” domain to make it easier to filter out those sites but how do you handle links to those sites and who decides what constitutes xxx and who is in charge of enforcement? What penalty to do you apply to a site that is in violation of the xxx zoning rule? Do you revoke their domain name status?
So, while the Internet zoning idea has some initial appeal, when you really analyze what you be involved in making it work, it becomes a lot less appealing.
PackerBronco on October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
R I N O…
phreshone on October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Actualy? Yes.
Racism may be wrong, in YOUR worldview, but Freedom of conscience also allows for people to believe in things which YOU think are wrong.
Freedom of Speech MUST include people saying things YOU don’t like… or there is no Freedom of Speech at all.
I looked… carefully… and I see Freedom of Speech in the Constitution… but NOWHERE do I see you have to Right to either be Free from being Offended, OR, the Right to tell people what they must believe.
Comdemn that view all you wish, but when the Government starts to Limit Speech on that view, its against the Constitution, and basic Freedom.
Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM
The only thing I can think of is that we poor defenseless innocent womenfolk need the government to protect tus from all the beta males living in their momma’s basement who pretend to be strong handsome wealthy manly men who can provide us with the lifestyle of the rich and famous. /s
And/or making mean fat jokes about us.
katiejane on October 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I heard Fiorina was a disaster as CEO of Hewlett-Packard but had no other impression of her. Now I know she speaks without thinking, or if she did think, her thought processes are defective.
Cicero43 on October 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM
My children will never be targetted by predators, because I read them the riot act concerning the net, and I don’t let them do whatever they want. Parents are a bigger part of the soultion.
reaganaut on October 21, 2009 at 3:45 PM
///
Exactly,look at the parents or parent who say,have at it,get out of my hair for awhile.
ohiobabe on October 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I actualy did some work awhile back for an online Porno company… and they would LOVE the XXX zone idea. They would place themselves in it voluntarily as long as it gave them some legal protection so they could put up what they wanted…
Then a very simple zone blockout in your web browser so parents could control the zones???? Very doable, and would, IMO, take no one to really enforce.
The XXX zone idea has been out there for years… and its been the Government who has not wanted it… for some reason…
Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Oh please, she just cooked her goose.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
*facepalm* If I lived in California, I’d be giving Carly’s campaign a call.
Sorta o.t., but if ATT is your internet/wireless/land line/long distance provider (or anyone who’s reading Hot Air) you may want to call customer service. I called to expand the texting minutes for my teeny bobber kid and they voluntarily made huge reductions to the rest of my bill. Free market competition is a wonderful thing.
Alas, I fear this will only be temporary, until Obama steps in and “adjusts” my bill upwards for the “greater good” of redistributing “access” to make the Ernestos of the world happy.
Buy Danish on October 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Would that include protection against rape-rape?
rjoco1 on October 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
You would be surprised how many people are talking about the internet needing some kind of control. They are not all liberals by any means.
Someone I know was telling me that there is a talk of another internet being created that will not allow for some of the stuff on the present system. Has anyone heard of anything like that?
Terrye on October 21, 2009 at 3:53 PM
You mean the kind of racism displayed by the senator she would be running against – Boxer?
That kind of racism?
Or the other kind?
connertown on October 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Yes, but not against “surfing-surfing”.
connertown on October 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Look at my post above, it’s called Internet 2. Isn’t that clever?
MobileVideoEngineer on October 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM
The only regulation I feel the internet needs is when it comes to porn. It is ridiculously easy for a kid to watch free hardcore porn in video form and parents can’t be around all the time to stop this.
Otherwise I have no idea what Fiorina is talking about.
Daemonocracy on October 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Law and order has become an excuse for micromanaging our lives. As Milton Friedman recorded (“Freedom’s Friend”) at least 80,000 pages of new regulation are added printed in the Federal Register EVERY YEAR.
They may acknowledge that regulation is likely to increase, but I’m not sure they’d all support it. As Jefferson said: As government expands, liberty contracts.
Firefly_76 on October 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM
There is software.
There are also other things you can do (settings for younger kids, changing DNS settings for older kids who can work around normal stuff), or if you set up your home computers as a network (assuming you have more than one).
reaganaut on October 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM
I found this idea utterly repulsive and contrary to conservativism. I would enthuastically vote for a Senator whose sole purpose was just to obstruct. We have too many laws and obstruction for its own stake would be a good first step. Obviously, it would be better for an generally obstruction -minded Senator to occassionally try to do something to improve things, since some things could be improved. For instance, Sarbannes Oxley could be overturned or the Department of Education defunded.
If I weren’t an environmentalist and if Ron Paul’s ideas about foreign policy weren’t insane, Ron Paul would be quite ok in my book.
thuja on October 21, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Leave out the environmentalist part and I’m with you on this.
progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM
They have to keep then women and children away from Hot Air. It’s dangerous…
chicagojedi on October 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM
This ties into Karl’s post on this. The Republicans need to get their acts together. What part of Populist Uprising don’t they get? Fiscal Conservatives and LESS government involvement in our lives not more. If I want to vote Democrat. I don’t need to go looking for a Liberal Republican. What is wrong with these people? They think this is appealing to the most people? In this political climate? The only thing that will get a Republican voted in is to office is be the anti PROGRESSIVE not share their social philosophy.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/21/2010-will-dems-be-saved-by-those-awful-awful-awful-republicans/
Dr Evil on October 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
The patients have taken over the asylum. This woman is a dangerous moron.
dogsoldier on October 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Totally with wildcat84: It’s good to see she’s showing the same leadership skills she put to such fine use at Lucent and HP. It’s especially good that she’s doing it early enough in the campaign to marginalize herself before she’s a real threat.
calbear on October 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Probably more becoming if she were simply performing lap dances for political contributions.
R Square on October 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM
C-ya Carly, you just blew your chance of becoming a senator.
EasyEight on October 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I don’t really understand what they are wanting to do. The protection thing is probably about porn. And I think the markets are coming up with filters and such…
I don’t get what is wrong with the Internet and why they want to mess with it.
Unless they just can’t stand people actually speaking their minds.
petunia on October 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Then we need to start regulating babies and bathwater. Let’s hear it for the Hydro-Tot protection Act…and now for funding…
Laura in Maryland on October 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Really, such talk on the internets! You’ve given me the vapors…quick…get my fainting couch! *swoons*
Laura in Maryland on October 21, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Its like whack a mole. Every 10 minutes another braindead RINO pops up wanting a whack.
Bet you anything Fiorina is the next recipient of the largesse of America’s Dumbest Political Organization, the GOP/Whigs. And which self-appointed “conservative” leader will be first to step up and tell us we have to support this boob if we want a “conservative” to win in CA?
james23 on October 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Fiorina wants to silence any dissent about Democrats and Obama like they are doing with the main stream media; EVERYBODY IS SUPPOSED SUPPORT THE INCOMPETENT IN CHIEF!
This is the new look of 21st century communism.
Cybergeezer on October 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Here is a link to the text of an e-mail that I wrote to my congressman (Rep. Frank Wolf) urging legislation to rein in the insanely abusive posting practices permitted (and even encouraged) today on the internet (often by companies that promise to protect us from these practices in their own site rules):
http://www.passionsaving.com/internet-harassment.html
Woman (and men) are protected from defamation in shopping malls. There often is no effective protection against defamation on the internet. Women (and men) are protected from threats of physical violence in shopping malls. There often is no effective protection against threats of physical violence on the internet. Women (and men) are protected from long-running smear campaigns aimed at destroying their businesses in shopping malls. There often is no effective protection against long-running smear campaigns aimed at destroying businesses on the internet.
The internet is where normal people conduct their business today. The laws of the United States need to be made applicable to activities conducted there.
There are some who believe that the internet will remain unregulated if only we continue to ignore the problems. I don’t buy it. If those who have influence on the internet today continue to ignore the problems, the problems will get worse and there will be regulation, perhaps unwise regulation adopted out of an emotional reaction to a worst-case scenario. Those who want the regulation to come to be done in a sensible way should be working today to bring about reasonable changes in the law.
Rob
Rob Bennett on October 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
You are such a delicate lady…
ladyingray on October 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
True speech on the internet should be as protected as speech anywhere else (especially vis-a-vis Congress).* However, the notion that States cannot regulate internet activity which impacts public health, welfare, etc. is ridiculous, as is the notion that pornography is worth protecting (or that it’s “speech”).
Too many on the Right nowadays are out there screaming “Liberty!” when what they really mean is “License!” The Western concept of liberty was never rooted in the desire to be left completely to one’s own devices. It was always coupled with a more traditional (and community-oriented) morality–which has only recently been discarded.
Does this mean the government should regulate everything? No, but there’s a big difference between pornography (quite immoral with adverse psychological effects) and soda pop. It is not unreasonable to answer these questions democratically at the State level. Let’s keep Congress and the federal judiciary out of the people’s business.
* Naturally, there is an “interstate commerce” aspect to the internet.
cackcon on October 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Carly is being touted by the California GOP as the glamor candidate for Senator to unseat Babs Boxer. The candidate preferred by most conservatives I talk to is Chuck DeVore.
Mutnodjmet on October 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“20 Worst CEO’s of All Time”
Carly sucks. Lousy businesswoman. No conservative.
riverrat10k on October 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM
CAGOP = Joke
The Ugly American on October 21, 2009 at 4:56 PM
gee, what a way to start off her political career, with a gigantic bad idea. and I was all prepared to support her and she starts off with the same old nonsense that we have seen for decades.
NEXT!
exceller on October 21, 2009 at 5:00 PM
She is a complete idiot.
GTFO you RINO!
WisCon on October 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM
sorry if i’m reposting someone, didn’t bother to go through 180 comments…
Reagan once said “big gov’t believes that if it moves, tax it. if it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it”
viviliberoomuori on October 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM
From my cold dead mouse finger!
ronsfi on October 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I tried to post a comment earlier that did not appear. This is my first post here and it could be that there is some sort of special moderation that applies on the first post. I thought that in case I messed up the post, I should try again to post the link that I provided, which goes to the text of an e-mail that I sent to my congressman (Rep. Frank Wolf) urging legislation to rein in the most abusive posting practices permitted (and in some case encouraged) on the internet today.
http://www.passionsaving.com/internet-harassment.html
Rob
Rob Bennett on October 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Protection of women on the internet? WTF? I can certainly see protecting children, but why do we need extra regulation to protect women?
Women already have the majority of college attendance. They already have pay parity (adjusted for context and circumstances) and more.
Can someone tell me why women can’t protect themselves On the INTERNET?
Good grief.
pabarge on October 21, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Nice post, Ed. I don’t know much about Fiorina, so is this claptrap par for the course with her or did she catch the stupid virus now that she’s become a politician?
Dusty on October 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I imagine she is referring to FCC regulation or the airwaves, CATV, and satellite as a model for regulation of the internet. Some people (libertarians and maybe small \’R\’ republicans) would prefer to not see that happen, but others would agree that such regulation is inevitable.
stvnscott on October 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Err, ‘…regulation OF the airwaves…’
stvnscott on October 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I’m too confused. I thought she wanted my vote in the primary. After Arnold we don’t need another Democrat Lite.
hestrold on October 21, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Bandwidth wouldn’t be a problem if ISPs could actually keep up with demand. Also, switching high speed internet providers simply isn’t possible in a lot of areas, there just isn’t any competition.
And suppose you’re the provider of the video phone app you mentioned? What rights do you have?
Ortzinator on October 21, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Seriously, she was iffy anyway. This nonsense kicks her off my list of potentials.
Which seat is she running for? Dianne’s?
No way. DF gets my revote.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Dianne is a solid moderate, people.
Her seat isn’t really even up for grabs.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM
WTF, this is just getting pathetic. It’s getting where you can barely tell the Republicans from the communists. No wonder the communists keep winning. I mean if you’re gonna get screwed, it might as well be by a professional!
Idiots!
gary4205 on October 21, 2009 at 6:06 PM
You know, I really criticized McCain over cutting her off over one remark. I thought that was harsh.
I actually agreed with her. Being a CEO is a very specific skill set. Politicians don’t have it, actually.
But this remark sort of validates McCain.
What a STUPID move on her part.
AnninCA on October 21, 2009 at 6:13 PM
The world has gone stark, raving mad! There is no other reasonable explanation!
PrincipledPilgrim on October 21, 2009 at 6:14 PM
No, Boxer, and DF ain’t no moderate.
Firefly_76 on October 21, 2009 at 6:21 PM
She’s just upset that her foray into her first website for her campaign was greeted with laughs and snickers…from both parties.
JetBoy on October 21, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Is that thing even still up?
misslizzi on October 21, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »