With a Democrat headed for the White House, conservative talk radio should have plenty of real issues to fret over. So why are the Limbaughs and Savages screeching about a phantom threat – the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Dianne Feinstein have expressed some nostalgia for the federal regulation, which from 1949 until 1987 attempted to mandate ideological balance on controversial issues on radio and television stations that use public airways. But “there’s no one in a position of authority pressing to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine,” said Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project. “It is much lower priority than dealing with consolidation of the media, network neutrality . . . and dealing with the digital television transition.” Besides, in today’s multimedia free-for-all, who really believes that a Fairness Doctrine is enforceable, even if it were desirable?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Death penalty review promised
- HLP on Open thread 11/8
- Hud on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Everything really should be on the budget table
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Death penalty review promised
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- Cynical on Death penalty review promised
110 Comments
The right wing noise machine needs a strawman to beat up on. Nothing more.
It’s not conservative view points that bother me, it’s the way the radio and TV political pundits misrepresent and twist facts to fit their views. I watched Fox News election night and you’d have thought McCain and Obama were neck to neck in their bid for the White House. Then the next day is was an all out assault on Palin for McCain’s loss. They are nothing but propaganda machines for the right wing. I know it goes both ways…but it’s much more prevelent on the right than the left. There needs to be a “truthfulness doctrine”…because so many gullible Americans take their twisted spin as gospel and can’t make informed choices in an election if it’s their only source of information.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
I’m sure Kommrade Obama will seize control of the airwaves and exercise his speech over all others.
“I’m sure Kommrade Obama will seize control of the airwaves and exercise his speech over all others.”
Maybe he can follow Limbaugh’s lead.
“Truthfulness doctrine,” interesting idea.
Republics have always viewed reality differently than Democrats, true. This approaches tautology though, since if they didn’t they’d have no reason to exist. Parties offer different ideologies and different solutions to problems, and the US gains by having the choice. And of course they even disagree on the definition of a “problem,” although it’s more likely they differ on its priority.
One thing that has really intensified since 1992, though, is that Democrats and Republics no longer agree on the facts. A fact is a fact, but since 1992 the two parties can’t get together and agree on even these, the atoms of policy.
Agreeing on facts is what’s really killing the US. It’s what led to the reelection of Augustus Stupidus in 2004, and of course it’s what ultimately led to the GOP’s implosion this year.
Seeing a party implode because it denies reality is never a good thing, especially when that party holds power over Americans. This is what’s killing the country right now, we can’t agree on what is and what is not factual.
Rather than a Truthfulness Doctrine (or whatever), I’d prefer to see everybody can the kind partisanship that attempts to alter facts and alter reality.
…the kind of partisanship that attempts to alter facts…
Hank’s link above is a good example of the right wing propaganda machine…and of course the fact that people only want to hear what validates their beliefs, they buy into this BS.
I’d love to stay and chat, but work beacons..see ya on the flip side!
Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine ‘fair and balanced’
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 11/04/08 11:30 AM [ET]
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”
Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.
They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.
In his Fox interview, Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also weighed in on the election, predicting that Democrats will end up with between 56 and 58 seats in the Senate.
He also defended “card check” legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers to cast a public ballot on whether they support the formation of a union.
Schumer said “there has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have, claiming “employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that’s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].”
Business groups adamantly oppose the card check bill, which passed the House and fell short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”
Get MORE Opinion From NYPost.com
Ralph Peters: America the Weak
Editorial: Get Well, Dick Cheney
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.
The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.
Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of “fairness” might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed.
Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.
Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn’t sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.
He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.
Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.
Regrettably, media freedom hasn’t been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real – and profoundly disturbing.
Hank,
Musta been that liberal media because it couldn’t possibly have been that the present administration has been so thoroughly inept, incompetent and corrupt that a ham sandwich would have gotten more votes!
Interesting how the republicans were slamming the “liberal” media all election long, and are now deathly afraid of a fairness doctrine. Being as the media is so liberal (in their minds), wouldn’t this fairness doctrine work to their advantage?
Personally, I think any fairness doctrine is a political POS, and totally unneeded by any standard.
The way the airwaves are now is just fine, it is ran by free enterprise.
The Fairness Doctrine represents government interference.
The reason the Libs can’t complete with the cons in the current market is that they might have to concentrate more than five minutes at a time listening to a program.
Libs are sound byte people, short attention spans.
Brian C Anderson is the author most recently of South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias. And he’s bitching about a fairness doctrine? Maybe he’s not really bitching, but hoping.
#
Regular
Posted November 22, 2008 at 7:54 am | Permalink
The way the airwaves are now is just fine, it is ran by free enterprise.
The Fairness Doctrine represents government interference.
The reason the Libs can’t complete with the cons in the current market is that they might have to concentrate more than five minutes at a time listening to a program.
Libs are sound byte people, short attention spans.
======================================================
The reason libs don’t do well on radio is because the repubs, such as rush, savage, etc., do political comedy so well. I know every time I’m feeling down, I listen to rush for five minutes (is that too long for a sound byte?), and start laughing my a&& off. Cheers me up every time. Libs do much better visual comedy, i.e., SNL.
Hate radio needs to create enemies to attract their audience. They continue to divide America in their search for listeners who will believe their spin. I want diverse voices but I dislike hearing that listeners should hate their fellow Americans and consider them traitors and terrorists.
In my opinion there is no fairness with the news media, I think many are biased and try to report on an outcome as per that person’s view. Maybe that is part of the reason Paper news media are going broke and laying off journalists.
You know how people have been complaining a long time now about how all they get is opinion and not real news? Well gee, perhaps this is why.
Those same people are the ones who cry about the fairness doctrine.
You won’t lose your precious Rush or your precious Hannity, as the fairness doctrine would not even apply to them. However I might be able to get a radio station without the two baffoons on it.
I am sick of all the stations in Kansas being ‘Faux News Radio”.
When will Americans, and Kansans in particular, quit buying into the conservative dogma?
I certainly don’t know.
You can send out some email saying that Obama wants to take your guns, marry gays, bring porno into kindergarten, sieze the gov’t as a dictator, etc, etc.
And people that you think are normally intelligent reasonable people go ballistic!
They keep you conservatives angry enough to vote against your own best interests, unless of course, you make tons of money. In that case you want to vote GOP every time.
Chuckle… Bring back the fairness doctrine? From the last election results, it sure looks like conservatives have an unfair advantage. Make that case if you can.
Have you noticed the similarity between politics and professional wrestling? The exaggerated villains, the heroes, the blind devotion of fans. In pro wrestling, you can easily tell the good guys from the bad guys. In politics, you decide who the villains and heroes are and then attribute to them the characteristics of one or the other. The political pundits are like the wrestling announcers, the ones who help shape your opinion.
Not to pick on Mary, but using her as an example, she is a black and white person. Mary is strongly pro life but hates everything else conservative. Everything that Rush Limbaugh utters is a lie to her. She has chosen her villains and her heroes, maybe a little differently than most because she doesn’t toe the line to one political philosophy.
In both, we always cheer our heroes, and boo our villains, even if the hero cheats a bit or does something unethical. After all, the bad guys did it first.
It is all perception, an opera, a play.
I worked in broadcasting under the Fairness Doctrine, and after it, and I can’t imagine an issue that’s more irrelevant to today’s media.
The Federal Communications Act of 1937 dealt with a logical realization that the broadcast spectrum is a limited resource. As conservators of that limited resource of the national population, broadcasters were compelled to represent those co-owners’ (the people) ownership of the nation’s shared resource.
Technologies such as satellite radio and the internet have pretty much negated the the concept of a limited media resource. Still, the public over-the-air broadcast stations do, in fact, occupy a limited spectrum.
So if that little slice of the media pie were to return to the policy that guaranteed the right to a Floyd R. Turbo-ish Editorial Reply, probably wouldn’t have that much impact one way or another.
I pitched a show to a major station a few years ago with the help of some incredibly intelligent kids. The concept was “After-Rush.” It would be based on the three hours of Limbaugh with the kids on the internet tracking down his spins and distortions and memes and, if not always discrediting him, put them in perspective.
The key quote from the pitch session was something along the lines of “If you came on after Limbaugh and discredited him, all our Limbaugh sponsors would pull their ads!”
For a while in 1996 I wrote a column for Ingram’s Magazine. For those of you who don’t know about Ingram’s, it’s a voice for economic conservatives in Kansas City. Every issue is 62 pages. They gave me one.
Ten or eleven months into that process Crosby Kemper and assorted advertisers threatened to pull all their advertising support for the magazine unless I was squelched.
Ah well. Bidness is bidness.
I, too, am amazed how the same people who rail about the “Liberal Media” have considered a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine as a threat to their ideology.
Not newspapers; if you’ve got the ink and the paper have at it! Not the internet: so far there’s no limits to bytes. But the broadcast spectrum? Even with digital technology there’s a limit. And we all own that spectrum same as we all own the Grand Canyon. Y’know… “socialism.”
Give me a fuc#ing break.
Mary is not pro-life. She absolutely sees a need for abortion services and believes they should stay legal. Anyone who is pro-choice also believes that.
No pro-choice person cheers when an abortion is necessary. Just like surgeons don’t cheer when someone is in a car accident and needs surgery. But the need is still there, regardless.
I defend your right to a surgeon when you crash your car, regardless of whether or not it was your fault. I also defend the right of a woman to have an abortion if she should so feel the need.
We absolutely MUST have a return to the Fairness doctrine.
Every time I hear a working person call up and agree ideologically with the multi millionaires Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. I die a little inside.
Equalize AM radio and you take away the ability of the right to lie, unopposed, to the good natured but stupid.
LOOK at that SOB in the picture.
THAT is the most evil man in America. He gets paid millions to lie people into voting to keep HIM rich.
Shove his “golden microphone” up his rear.
Well, there you have it. BlueJay wants the “Fairness Doctrine” enacted to restrict and control free speech.
Communistic thought.
Because ol’ rush wants to keep milking the hate talk radio.
Rush is the Opium for the mindless haters.
I didn’t call for Rush to be silenced outlander.
I just want him rebutted after every other lie.
Perhaps the silliest part of this hoked-up nonsense is that it mispresented the Doctrine itself. Talk-rather blather could not and would not be censored or constrained in any way. The same with Hannity and Token etc.
That’s simply a lie from serial liars trying to rev up the “troops.”
And it’s not going to happen anyway.
When Hannity played John Kerry over and over:
“I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it”?
I want another voice to say, “Now Sean, you are heavily editing that quote. Let’s play the entire quote.”
I just want him rebutted after every other lie.
Not even that would happen. Ask Monkeyhawk.
Sean Hannity gave air to the “McCain supporter attacked and mutilated by Obama supporter!” story.
He never apologized. And there was no voice there to call him out on it and demand that he be held accountable for his giving legs to that incendiary lie.
So, you want to set somebody beside Limbaugh to refute his opinions. Of course this would mean that there would be another beside Olbermann to refute his drivel.
Sorry dude. Just plain silly. There are plenty of avenues these days for all ideas to get their airing.
“this would mean that there would be another beside Olbermann”
There is.
Three channels over on cable TV from Olberman is the super massive ego and lies of Bill O’Reilly.
But I cannot move my AM radio dial and hear right wing radio explained.
Why does this monopoly need defending?
So what. Libs dominate the internet. To take your ideas to and apply them, maybe we should limit the number of liberal posts on blogs. Or the money that could be raised over it.
If Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity bother you don’t listen. Just like I don’t read Democratic Underground.
Lots of lonely truckers out on the road there Outlander.
Lots of folks with a radio for company while they work.
(Here)
All I ask is that they hear balance to the lies that right wing radio spews.
I don’t want some poor trucker hearing Neal Boortz telling him HE can make it TOO if he just works 27 hours a day 9 days a week when Boortz never worked a day in his life.
Libs dominate the internet because it is a forum on which logical discussion and feedback can easily be presented.
Were it virtuallly a one way communication system, who knows, the cons might prevail.
#
Phantom
Posted November 22, 2008 at 10:54 am | Permalink
Libs dominate the internet because it is a forum on which logical discussion and feedback can easily be presented.
Were it virtuallly a one way communication system, who knows, the cons might prevail.
———————-
hahahaha!
logical?
hahahaha!
(typical Lib web site mantra)
christian bigot bushco thud whacking war mongering constitutional breaking rights violations marchers protest feed the whales (include rosie) faux news global warming scare #3332234232, support your local terrorist, love your nambla neighbor, free the axe murder
Yeah logical discussion and feedback (snarf, choke, spit)
No they are not getting the other side, especially older americans. I think Faux news actually went after them as well, because older people are more blind, so bright colors are important to them. They have more difficulty hearing, so the louder lower male voices are easier for them to understand.
The grands still a year ago didn’t know that Bush had any warning before and still believed that Iraq attacked us on 911.
It floors me when asked how little they know.
#
Jed
Posted November 22, 2008 at 7:41 am | Permalink
Hank,
Musta been that liberal media because it couldn’t possibly have been that the present administration has been so thoroughly inept, incompetent and corrupt that a ham sandwich would have gotten more votes!
_______________________________________________
We finally agree on something!
It was quaint working talk radio back under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine. We took every call. You called in, you expressed your opinion, you either appeared like a fool or made a point.
The most egregious phrase on anyone’s talk radio show is the phrase from a caller, “Thanks for accepting my call.”
It’s implicit understanding by the listener/caller that their opinion has been judged acceptable to the talk show’s agenda. “Mega-Dittos,” and all that.
I’ve mention this before but I’ll repeat it here. In 1954 Edward R. Murrow produced a half-hour analysis of the tactics and lies of Senator Joseph McCarthy. CBS was obligated by the Fairness Doctrine to let McCarthy respond.
It was McCarthy’s response, far more than Murrow’s broadcast, that led to “Tailgunner Joe’s” demise.
Right-wing talk radio thrives on preaching to the choir. Whatever his name (Snerdly?) carefully screens callers so they either fawn at Limbaugh or, occasionally, are inarticulate voices of opposition.
Limbaugh knows if he had to take calls from anyone who phoned in his house-of-cards right wing-nut propaganda would collapse under its own weight. Of course he objects to “fairness.”
When I was doing talk radio I insisted everyone who called into the station got on the air, except at the end of the show when the clock dictated it.
We got good ratings but I was fired by the producer because, “You’re making conservatives look bad.” Well, I had help. I let them air their opinions.
I gave them the rope that hanged themselves.
I let them expose themselves to issues they could not defend.
I was fired because the sponsors — bankers and real estate speculators and other Fat Cats — threatened to pull all their advertising budgets from the station because I “…made conservatives look bad.”
As I said, I had a lot of help.
From the CONs themselves.
It’s patently absurd Rush Limbaugh might be a victim of a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. If his political platform were defensible he’d have nothing to worry about.
But golly, he hates that prospect.
I wonder why.
I was fired because the sponsors — bankers and real estate speculators and other Fat Cats — threatened to pull all their advertising budgets from the station because I “…made conservatives look bad.”
===============================
MonkeyHock make anyone look bad – hedgehogs, dead mice, rabid skunks, raped wombats…
OOOOH Kay, “Regular” –
Responding to you, especially since I’m aware of your recent brain damage, seems too close to booing at the Special Olympics.
Carry on, “Regular.”
But… golly.
“Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.”
Talk about FALSE and UNBALANCED…. This statement is so False, it shouldnt even be in print…. At NO time did the Fairness Doctrine ever FORCE a station to allow “Equal” time for opposing views… At NO time did the Fairness Doctrine EVER demand that stations run an equal number of programs representing an opposing opinion…
Where do these Reich Wing Propagandists GET this BS??? Surely not from Fox… Ahem…. who claims to be “fair and balanced”….
Hey, I got it… Make FOX prove they are really “fair and balanced” — That ought to start a firestorm!! Wouldnt that come under the heading: “Truth in Advertising”??
Dear Hank,
Some great examples of what your liberal(sic) media has done.
http://dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
Also read the links at bottom of that page.
Well, Monkeyhawk,
You do make some very good points. It’s true that Rush carefully screens his calls. There are inarticulate nitwits on both sides and it would make for very boring radio if they all got put on the radio.
I listen to Rush (when I can) for his commentary. His first hour is almost always all Rush. Most I agree with, some I don’t. I don’t listen to Sean Hannity that much because I don’t like to listen to him or his callers. I agree with Hannity’s position on a lot of things, just not his approach.
I think it is a myth that the airwaves are ‘public’. It takes a lot of money to run a radio station. You have to sell a lot of advertising to make a profit. Freedom of speech ain’t free on the airwaves.
“Right-wing talk radio thrives on preaching to the choir. Whatever his name (Snerdly?) carefully screens callers so they either fawn at Limbaugh or, occasionally, are inarticulate voices of opposition.”
Yep, I agree! The choir has a choice! If I want apposing views I know where to find them. I listen a lot to Air America on XM Radio. It’s a welcome break. I agree with very little they say, but it challenges my intellect. I don’t need the government keeping things ‘fair’. Thankyou.
Liberals have public radio and Air America Radio what more do you want. If you want more get more sponsors. Do like some religious stations and public radio and if you feed so strong about it back it up with donations like the religious radio programs.
It’s patently absurd Rush Limbaugh might be a victim of a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. If his political platform were defensible he’d have nothing to worry about.
———–
That’s really funny. Here we have a far left winger criticizing a conservative’s political platform. Because it’s conservative.
It is opinion folks. Nothing more. If you don’t like Limbaugh’s opinion, don’t listen. But protection of political speech was the intent of the founding fathers of the free speech clause of the first amendment. Even if you think it’s stupid.
Political_mama
Posted November 22, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink
No they are not getting the other side, especially older americans. I think Faux news actually went after them as well, because older people are more blind, so bright colors are important to them. They have more difficulty hearing, so the louder lower male voices are easier for them to understand.
The grands still a year ago didn’t know that Bush had any warning before and still believed that Iraq attacked us on 911.
It floors me when asked how little they know.
==============================================
I agree on how little on both side knows. I use to think that J-Walking interviews were a put-on but check this out:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
I think the education system is broke.
I think it is a myth that the airwaves are ‘public’.
Oh, really, Hank? Maybe should auction off the visible spectrum while we’re at it?
“Next up, the color blue! Defined by an energy with a wavelength of roughly 440–490 nm, it is considered one the ‘primary colors’ in the artist and optical palette, and is pervasive throughout human culture. Indeed, many people consider ‘blue’ their favorite color!”
It does indeed take time and money to run a radio station, but that any of amount of money somehow magically tranforms a limited public resource into a private one is bizarre.
Hell, next thing you know, we’ll be privatizing water! (Oh wait. . . .)
Most of those who invest time and money into radio stations are for-profit businesses. They own the premises, and they have absolute control over the content. They are not doing anyone any favors. You seem to think their monetary investment gives them an exclusive franchise on the medium. Not so. That’s why stations have licenses.
And if they are given the use of this scarce resource, then they should make good-faith efforts to (as has it been mandated since the Radio Act of 1927) operate in the “public interest.”
outlander
Posted November 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
…protection of political speech was the intent of the founding fathers of the free speech clause of the first amendment. Even if you think it’s stupid.
—
Nobody is arguing that Limbaugh should be silenced. What’s disputed here is his ability to broadcast his opinion. It’s not thought that’s in dispute, it’s the means of distribution. Nobody disputes the “what,” but some dispute the justice of the “how.”
Limbaugh’s right to free speech is in no danger. None.
For example, he would be free as a lark to say whatever to whomever he likes. Or write whatever he wants to whomever he can get to read it. The USPS is available, or maybe he could get hired to write for NRO or the Weekly Standard. The question is strictly limited to radio and television communications.
Namely, should he have unfettered access to publicly owned air to communicate his viewpoint?
Further, is America served well if Limbaugh (or anybody else for that matter) uses his unfettered access to publicly owned air to lie in order to communicate his viewpoint?
Is that good for the US?
Hank,
“We finally agree on something!”
I don’t think so. I’m still very much impressed with Obama, and not at all with McCane, who never made it out of the 1950’s and wants to make the rest of the country to follow him back in time.
Outie,
The reason the libs dominate the cons on the internet is that the cons haven’t figured out how to use it yet- they’re still trying to figure out how to program their Betamaxes!
You can program a Betamax?
The real elephant in the room is concentration of media ownership, an issue which goes beyond the public airwaves, but, given spectrum scarcity, is particularly noticeable and appalling in that context.
Well, Rage,
You either missed the point or merely chose to ignore it. There was a point to my post. You can choose to pick one small part of it and respond with your rude ranting but that does not address the point.
Rush is a political commentator. If he is conservative and you don’t like it, fine. don’t listen.
CBS News with perky Katie is, well, suppose to be news and not biased. The first amendment protects free speech, in particular free political speech. It also gives a responsibility to report the news fairly and unbiased.
The air is free. It costs money to make the waves.
The other elephant in the room is this, we in the US tend to dodge the responsibility inherent in free speech whenever doing so will put a buck in our pockets.
Limbaugh is one side of the coin. Another side of the coin is Hollywood. For example, is the public served by movies like “Saw?”
I wish we Americans, all of us, would do a better job of standing up and owning the very real products of our “free speech.”
And just because there’s a buck or three at the end of some expression of “free speech” does not, or should not, in any way justify all free speech.
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO CONTROL THE PRESS!
We cannot allow the 1st Amendment Rights of Americans to continue!
Who knows what people will say if they are kept FREE!!!
And listen to the Leftists here call the Fairness Doctrine a strawman.
The Leftists ignore the attack on the 1st Amendment as well as the attack on the 2nd Amendment, because they want Free Cheese from Government.
And FREEDOM is worthy of Sacrificing, as long as everyone gets FREE STUFF from Government.
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one a press, have the knowledge to keep it running and the business sense to keep the operation viable.”
Regular, Blog Writer, Wichita Kansas
“The Liberal Press can be interpreted as leaning on the crutches of government for revenue and sponsorship, while spitting in the eye of same all the while complimenting itself for doing so.”
Regular, Blog Writer, Wichita Kansas
JimJohnson reflects the total ignorance of what seems to be a growing segment of the GOP who are destroying the party and who are easily manipulated by the Drug Addict, Sex Pervert & The Idiot. They try to broad brush everyone as being unpatriotic, dependent on the government, etc. who doesn’t agree with their narrow view of conservatism.
These people strike me as being too stupid to know when they’ve been bent over and hammered. It is the Republicans that are restricting rights. They are the Communist witch hunters of the past and the phone tappers of today.
Nobody is silencing talk radio, you’ll be able to be misled and manipulated forever. Unless of course you start to use the 98% of your brain that actually can use logic and reason and realize that cutting taxes without cutting expenses has sent us into a depression. It benefited the super wealthy, for the short term, and trashed the economy for everyone in the long term.
We’ve had these shifts in wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest one tenth of one percent before, namely during the 1920s.
So, listen all you want to your talk radio buddies, but realize that sore feeling in your rear end is because you are in lock step with people whose interests aren’t YOURS.
Well said, Neocon…it’s pretty obvious that they are sheep being lead and manipulated by those who misrepresent and misinform. How can they be so guillible…I guess it’s easy when you only listen to what you want to hear.
I see JimJohnson came out from under the bed long enough to produce another terrified missive.
Jim or whatever your name is, old buddy, if you’ve got decent health insurance, you might go see a doc about your paranoia issues.
And by the way, I’ve seen the Super Secret Socialist Revolutionary Ledger, and they’re not coming for you for months. So chill out already!
“because they want Free Cheese from Government.”
I don’t think the government has given away free cheese since the 70s! Anyone can qualify for a Vision Card if their income is low enough. The way food prices are skyrocketing, I imagine more Americans will try to qualify. But I understand how frustrating that might be to some who think the money is better spent “spreading Democracy” in the Middle East, reforming Iraq, and supporting Israel’s military.
Uhm, actually it was under Reagan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKJP2i5AAmU
Reminds me of another Walkenhorst tune
Government Cheese Lyrics
by Rainmakers
Give a man a free house and he’ll bust out the windows
Put his family on food stamps, now he’s a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain’t paid
‘Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please
They’re feeding our people that Government Cheese
Give a man a free lunch and he’ll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat ’cause he doesn’t have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you’ll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It’s the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don’t believe in anything, nothing is free
They’re feeding our people the Government Cheese
Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall
Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he’ll climb in the back even though nobody’s driving
Too g*ddam lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he’ll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can’t you see
I ain’t gonna eat no Government Cheese
Hank,
“You can program a Betamax?”
It’s been over a quarter-century, but yes, I think I can still do it.
“Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.”
Talk about FALSE and UNBALANCED…. This statement is so False, it shouldnt even be in print…. At NO time did the Fairness Doctrine ever FORCE a station to allow “Equal” time for opposing views… At NO time did the Fairness Doctrine EVER demand that stations run an equal number of programs representing an opposing opinion…
Where do these Reich Wing Propagandists GET this BS??? Surely not from Fox… Ahem…. who claims to be “fair and balanced”….
Hey, I got it… Make FOX prove they are really “fair and balanced” — That ought to start a firestorm!! Wouldnt that come under the heading: “Truth in Advertising”??
“Mary_Caruso
Posted November 22, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
I don’t think the government has given away free cheese since the 70s!”
And you would be wrong again:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgtable.HTM
And you would be wrong again:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgtable.HTM — [AmWay]
AmWay… That chart is NOT for FREE food… It is for WIC recommended diets for families…
Dont you remember “Free Cheese” and other commodoties?? Lines of people waiting for their little boxes of “velveeta like” cheese product?? Mary would be partially correct… I havent participated in that sort of give-away since the late ’80’s….
WIC is bought at the Grocery Store… either with or without food stamps…
Catch up, eh??
WIC Serves Kansas residents ……..
Who are:
Pregnant
Breastfeeding, up to baby’s first birthday
Non-breastfeeding mothers, up to six months after baby’s birth
Children under five years old
And who meet WIC income guidelines:
Household income at or below 185% of the poverty level (a household of two can earn $25,900 and become eligiblie; a household of four can earn up to $39,220 per year).
Automatic income eligibility for participants in the Food Stamp Program, Temporary Assistance for Families, and Medicaid Program.
And who have a medical or nutritional need:
WIC staff use a wide range of nutritional risk factors to determine eligibility. Examples include:
A high or low weight for height/length
A diet inappropriate for age
A reduced amount of iron in the blood (hemoglobin)
Medical conditions that jeopardize nutritional status
So long as we’re plugging KC music:
http://kkfi.org/
Get your free cheese food package:
http://www.kdheks.gov/nws-wic/Food_Check_Issuance/FCI_02_00_00_Food_Packages.pdf
WIC achieves positive health outcomes through…….
Nutrition counseling and education
Breastfeeding promotion and support
Nutritious foods – at no cost to participant – worth at a minimum of $54 per month (see Foods Provided by WIC)
Immunization screening and referrals
Health and social service referrals
That’s nice, AmWay… but still isnt the Free Cheese program referenced earlier by Mary…
And again… the WIC program as you have now twice linked to, serves Women, Infants, and Children…. and is a safe diet program for such persons….
Apparently you are totally unaware of the old Commodoties distribution programs of past decades, which were open to almost anybody who came looking…. and they werent distributed at grocery stores… try churches, and community centers, and senior citizen centers… staffed by strictly volunteers… not social workers, nurses, or other health professionals — like WIC…
BTW, has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine either… LOL
About CSFP
CSFP is administered at the Federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Here you will find a summary of the benefits and services available to those who are eligible to participate in this program. To view a copy of the CSFP Program Description Fact Sheet, click here.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/foods/fy09-csfpfoods.pdf
Introduction
USDA purchases food and makes it available to CSFP State agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), along with funds for administrative costs. State agencies that administer CSFP are typically departments of health, social services, education, or agriculture. State agencies store the food and distribute it to public and non-profit private local agencies.
USDA Foods Available. CSFP food packages do not provide a complete diet, but rather are good sources of the nutrients typically lacking in the diets of the target population. For a list of the foods available for CSFP.
The pricing information is used by processors participating in the Food Distribution National and State Processing Programs.
School Year (SY) 2010 Commodity Pricing Information
Average Cheese Prices for SY2010
November 15, 2008 Commodity File Report for SY2010 Prices (.pdf version)
November 15, 2008 Commodity File Report for SY2010 Prices (.csv version)
Prior Year’s Commodity Pricing Information for 2009
Average Cheese & Nonfat Dry Milk Prices for SY2009 Prices
November 15, 2007 Commodity File Report for SY2009 Prices (.pdf version)
November 15, 2007 Commodity File Report for SY2009 Prices (.csv version)
Prior Year’s Commodity Pricing Information for 2008
Average Cheese & Nonfat Dry Milk Prices for SY2008 Prices
November 15, 2006 Commodity File Report for SY2008 Prices (.pdf version)
November 15, 2006 Commodity File Report for SY2008 Prices (.csv version)
Average pricing for free cheese 2009:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/pcims/pricing/sy09_cheese-nfdmpricing.pdf
There are several food distribution programs in Kansas that provide free food to low income households who qualify. The food is shipped to food banks and helping agencies throughout the state at various times during the year.
Where do I get the food?
The food is available at certain community organizations in most counties. A complete list of community organizations is available at: http://www.srskansas.org/ISD/ees/TEFAPcontacts.pdf
Each community organization determines its own distribution dates. For more information, contact the participating organization nearest you.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) serves persons over the age of 60 with income less than 130% of federal poverty and women, infants and children up to age six with income less than 185% of federal poverty that are not receiving WIC vouchers.
Eligible persons receive a monthly food package which contains 10 food groups; cheese, evaporated milk, nonfat dry milk (every other month), peanut butter or dry beans, cereal, meat, vegetables, fruits, juice, and instant potatoes, rice or pasta.
CSFP is currently administered through three Local Agencies in the following 21 counties:
Cross Lines Cooperative Council
Kansas City, KS
for Wyandotte, Johnson, and Leavenworth counties
Harvesters
Kansas City, MO
for Douglas, Shawnee, Jefferson, Osage, Pottawatomie, Jackson, Riley, Franklin and Wabaunsee counties
United Methodist Open Door
Wichita, KS
for Butler, Chautauqua, Cowley, Harper, Harvey, Kingman, Pratt, Reno, Sedgwick, and Sumner counties
(You are cautioned not to provide peanut butter to children under the age of two. It sticks to the roof of their mouths and makes em talk funny. Substitute cheese for the peanut butter to families with children age two and below.)
The old Commodoties distribution programs of past decades are still out there – and giving away free cheese.
Made from happy California cows.
With a hundred thousand dollars or so I could build a transmitter and tower that would blow every other AM radio station away.
It happened in the 1920s when Doc Brinkley broadcast, from Kansas, his cure for impotence with his goat gland surgery. (That station eventually became KFDI, btw.)
That’s what led to the Federal Communications Act of 1936. Government recognized the broadcast spectrum is a limited resource and subject to oversight.
Look:
If I were a billionaire and could buy up all the real estate adjacent to the Mississippi River, I could control virtually all commerce that flows from the Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Guess why that hasn’t happened.
Okay, for starters, I’m not a billionaire.
But the bigger issue is somewhere along the line the people have recognized the Mississippi River is a resource no one “owns.”
Same thing with over-the-air broadcasting.
Especially in this era of multi-media options, the issue is moving toward irrelevance.
You Marxist MFs can bend over and kiss my backside. The Unfairness Doctrine is designed to punish success, just like Komrade Obama wants to punish success by raising taxes through the roof. I get sick I want to puke. Why did Scare America Radio go bankrupt? Because NOBODY listened. Why do Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck and the other conservatives do so well? People want to listen to them. Not like the liberal pukes.
Hey Monkeyhawk, I want to kick your pansy rear end. Now. You make me puke. You are disgusting.
Do you see now why we must have a return to the Fairness Doctrine.
Look at poor “ICT.
Obviously this is no man of great means or letters. Yet he is quite clearly a con.
THIS is the damage that unopposed right wing radio does. It convinces people to vote and act, even violently against their own best interest. So sad.
We MUST help people like “ICT”. We must have fair and balance airwaves.
This sounds like a communist plot to undermine the youth of America, and secretly wrestle control of the airwaves from Let Freedom Ring rightwingers.
Irrelevant huh?
Just this last year…..
For the last year, Democrats like Representatives Louise Slaughter and Dennis Kucinich have been trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine. They are not alone. They have the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with Sens. Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein, all of whom have come out in support of reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
In the summer of 2007, Rep. Mike Pence introduced H.R. 2905, the Broadcaster Freedom Act. H.R. 2905, if passed, would forever end the threat of the Fairness Doctrine.
Congress voted to send H.R. 2905 to committee, and since then, Speaker Pelosi has already stated that she will not allow the bill to come to a vote.”
(now if it’s irrelevant, why not let Pence’s bill come up for a vote, heh?)
“John F. Kennedy said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” “
“We must have fair and balance airwaves.”
And who will be the judge?
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
Why are cons afraid of balanced radio? Is it because they KNOW that many people are convinced by it to vote Republican?
neocon
Posted November 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
JimJohnson reflects the total ignorance of what seems to be a growing segment of the GOP who are destroying the party and who are easily manipulated by the Drug Addict, Sex Pervert & The Idiot. They try to broad brush everyone as being unpatriotic, dependent on the government, etc. who doesn’t agree with their narrow view of conservatism.
———————————————–
Neocon obviously is not a conservative. But at least IT knows what it means to be American.
Americans love FREEDOM and the right to one’s life, liberty, and property.
Now, when you Leftists Libs advocate taking other peoples income and property and Redistributing to others through your Obama Socialist programs, YOU KNOW DA*N WELL THAT IS UNAMERICAN!
You will not find ONE post where I called someone UnAmerican.
Neocon is bright enough to know that what he and his Lib Leftist Socialist buddies are planning to do – Redistribute Wealth through Socialism IS Anti-American.
Good job Neocon. You know at least that you are wrong – oh, and Anti-American.
BlueJay
Posted November 22, 2008 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
Do you see now why we must have a return to the Fairness Doctrine.
Look at poor “ICT.
Obviously this is no man of great means or letters. Yet he is quite clearly a con.
THIS is the damage that unopposed right wing radio does. It convinces people to vote and act, even violently against their own best interest. So sad.
We MUST help people like “ICT”. We must have fair and balance airwaves.
————————————————-
Yup, the facist BJ/JR says we must eliminate Freedom of Speech, in order to save us from opposing points of view.
ONE MUST ONLY SPEAK OF THE PARTY LINE!
HEIL you FACIST SOB JR!
“we must eliminate Freedom of Speech”
Rush Limbaugh frequently describes himself as a “benevolent dictator”
It is those who want to protect the right wing radio monopoly who are silencing free speech.
Only in your twisted lil brain BJ would you see that protecting the right of someone to continue the most popular radio show in America is silencing free speech.
I also support the right of Air America to broadcast on the radio. Oh, that’s right, they went bankrupt because there weren’t enough listeners who wanted to hear their Lib Bullsiht.
BJ, to save the world, by ending Freedom of Speech.
What’s that make BJ?
(besides an a-hole)
I don’t think Rush could hold his own in a debate. The same is true of the rest of winger radio. THAT is why their callers are carefully choreographed.
Hannity demonstrates this. O”Reilly too.
On their TV shows, they are frequently reduced to loud, simple bluster when presented with an opposing voice.
You can tell Hannity is on the ropes when he pulls out “You’re like a broken record” or “You’re giving us your liberal talking points.”
With Billo, he just starts shouting and telling his opponent to “Shut up!”
The rest of rant radio hosts? They avoid direct confrontation completely except for the handpicked calls.
Just can’t stand people who are successful, can you BJ?
JJ don’t waste your time posting back to JR. No one else does. Even his own.
He was going to save the world, remember?
Him and his hand-me-down free computer.
Engage discussions with substantial posters. JR is not one of them.
I have to remind myself frequently on same.
And along comes JimJohnson, stinking up the thread, as usual.
Thanks. Makes it quicker to read by scrolling over anything with your name on it.
Dennis
Wanna bag on my kid some more “American way”?
At least I only need one nic.
Ya poser you!
Watch out J.J., BlueJay will challenge you to go meet him in a parking lot somewhere, out in the cold, so he can set you straight….oh shiver and shake!!!
He did me. I don’t know what he thought he was going to do, I just let him stand there, ha.
Rant radio is a lot like Bawks. (The poster formerly known as Boxlock)
All blow, and no show.
I wonder which one of them would like to be next to “prank” me?
Oh, and I already know who “JimJohnson” is.
We need a fairness doctrine as to the dying print media to overcome the obvious bias of the Kansas newspapers, some of which is documented under the media misdeeds section of my blog.
By way of example, remember that KU prof who alleged he was slapped around but fell silent once he was investigated for potentially filing a false police report? What, have not heard anymore on that subject? Not from the “in the tank for the LEft” Kansas media you have not. But imagine if he had been a conservative. THe REd Star and Beagle would still have his skinned hide as a lampshade in their editorial offices.
Right next to mine.
BlueJay
Posted November 22, 2008 at 9:22 pm | Permalink
Wanna bag on my kid some more “American way”?
________________________________________________
LOL
A few points need to be made here, just to illustrate how incredibly screwed up you are, BlueJay.
I know that you are so hung up on me that it is down right creepy at times but I think all in all you’re really too lazy to be much of a danger to anyone. I am not American_Way. I only post using HLP.
That being said observing that your boy is a bastard is dumping on you. He had no choice in the sorry parents he ended up with. Also, have you ever done a DNA test? You always know who the mother is!
Furthermore, see if you can wrap your twisted little mind around this fact; I didn’t call your son a bastard. Someone jumped my nic the other day. I didn’t say nothing then because I was trying to figure out who it might be. I haven’t a clue, but it wasn’t me.
Something more to feed your paranoia! The nics that aren’t mine that you think are mine aren’t mine and sometimes even my nic isn’t me!
Damn I love this BLOG!
Why are you answering for “American way” Hank?
“That being said observing that your boy is a bastard is dumping on you. He had no choice in the sorry parents he ended up with. Also, have you ever done a DNA test? You always know who the mother is!
Furthermore, see if you can wrap your twisted little mind around this fact; I didn’t call your son a bastard. Someone jumped my nic the other day. I didn’t say nothing then because I was trying to figure out who it might be. I haven’t a clue, but it wasn’t me.”
So, you called my son a bastard to hit at me and not him….
but it was not YOU who did it because your nic was jacked?
Hank? I think you just joined Bawks and Regular as to credibility.
UNLESS of course, your last post was jacked as well. In which case you have issues with those on your side stealing your nic.
If not? You just Bugs Bunnied yourself.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-1120/#comments
When you get there, do a text search on the word “bastard”. Go from there.
IS it Hank? Is his nic being “jumped”?
I met the guy. He has a spongy handshake and can’t look you in the eye.
BJ — How MANY of those posts on the “bastard child” page were Hank’s nic being stolen(or jumped)??? That was quite a long section, and no comment from HLP on having his nic jumped…. Was it back to the REAL Hank by the time he starts talking duck eggs, and noodles and macaroni??? Or was he back before that??? Or was it after that??? Just wondering…..
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine… WE NEED IT!!
If there were only one outlet than by all means yes make it fair and balanced but that is not the case.
And yes in many cases I found the likes of O’Reilly and Rush to be no better then the guy who points and make a rude comment about someone that is handicapped. But the market is the market and they are not alone in their mindless views. You can still find on the radio White supremacy stations and every time I come across one. I think where do they find the funds to continue to be on the air? But they do and it goes to show that no matter how offensive an ideology becomes it is the market and not person opinion of the ideology that dictates whether it is aired or not.
What liberals afraid of? Why can’t they just have their own radio talk shows to express their opinions? Is it because they can’t compete in the free market? Pendant and other liberals should not confuse FACTS with OPINIONS. Just because you have an opinion doesn’t make it a fact. I though it was a liberal concept to believe that there are no absolutes which is an oxymoron. Of course you must think the only absolute being that liberal thinking is always right taking hypocrisy to a New Age psycho-babble higher form of consciousness.
Here is fact for you all to digest. According to most polls 80-90% of journalists are liberal or registered Democrats. If you think there ideology doesn’t affect their writing then you must think they have evolved into some kind of supreme form of being. Conservatives are not ashamed to admit who they are unlike their adversaries. The so called “Fairness Doctrine” is targeted at talk radio which is the only media they don’t dominate. If it were to be truly fair then it should be enforced on network TV and academia but I doubt that will happen. This is no surprise because history past and recent shows us the Socialists don’t tolerate dissent. One only needs to look at China, Cuba or the former Soviet Union to know what the facts are.
O’Reilly, O’Limbaugh, O’Ingram, O’Shaunessey and O’Ailes have nothing to fear from a re-run of the Fairness Doctrine — they’re already “fair and balanced,” right?
The suggestion that a new version of the Fairness Doctrine won’t work and can’t be successfully enforced, baloney! It worked fine for the better part of 40 years.
If Rupert Murdoch doesn’t like it, let him start his own cable or satellite channel. The terrestial airwaves and frequencies are a public asset and should be used for the public good. Bloviating idiots and the exclusion of fairness and balance fail to meet that test.
“Give me a fuc#ing break.”- Monkeyhawk
I can’t believe that neolibs like BJ, Rage, Chas and Monkey can talk trash and still get posted. I was recently banned from Huffpost for expressing my conservative views. This was after I complained to Arianna herself that I was frustrated for not seeing half my comments posted. I never used implied expletives or made personal attacks on other blogers. The neo-lib posters are free to go on all kinds of rants with no substantive thoughts or ideas.
It seemed Huff didn’t want my views or reference links to be heard or seen by their viewers. Huffpost is a typical liberal media that as far from ‘fair and balanced” as it can be. I’ve heard nothing but direct blatant and vicious attacks on Rush and other Conservatives nothing near what you accuse Rush and the others of doing.
You libs seem to have become what you hate whether it’s real or imagined.
Awwww, poor dd. Well, you got posted here.