Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A question of "when", not "if"?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Another highlight, or lowlight, depending on your view, of an "all Democrats, all the time" government would most likely be some sort of legislative move to rein in the radio talk show media which is dominated by conservative talkers. It will most likely be updated to somehow put a crimp in cable news, specifically Fox and right leaning bloggers.

How they'd accomplish the last two is anyone's guess (hate speech laws?), and nothing may come of it, but there certainly is a history for going after talk radio.
Major Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the reinstitution of the outdated, pre-Internet "Fairness Doctrine." They want to counter the news revolution in which blogs and talk radio have taken on the Big Three TV networks.

The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn't think a President Obama would veto such a bill. Moreover, Obama and most Democrats want to impose more "local accountability" on broadcasters, "setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal," as Anderson notes.

This measure is "clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows," Anderson says. "It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge." Obama would pair that with relicensing stations every two years instead of the current eight.
A couple of examples of the Obama campaign urging its followers to flood WGN's telephone lines when a host was interviewing someone they felt shouldn't be heard are well known. So the propensity toward silencing critics is demonstrably evident. It is more of a question of what form the attack on critics will take rather than whether it will happen.

And, of course, there are other ways to keep the rest of the media in line as well:
We have already seen that Obama's forces have no scruples about punishing media organizations who do not act as disciples of "The One." Newswomen with both WFTV in Orlando, Fla., and the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia dared to ask running mate Joseph Biden about Obama's plans to "spread the wealth," as he infamously told Ohio's Joe the Plumber. The Obama campaign let the journalists know they were now personae non grata.
Access is life for the media. They'll either play the game or suffer the consequences.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And the message, as I said the other day, Bruce, is ’Silence the Opposition"

The two WGN incidents, the KYW/Biden thing, the WFTV/Biden thing, the responses to Joe the Plumber, Jerome Corsi, Stan Kurtz,David Fedrosso, and whoever else you’d care to name... anyone who dares question The One, gets the same treatment. I said:
Ya know, it seems like we’ve heard and seen this pattern before. Say, for example, Hugo Chavez and RCTV, or if you’d like a more historical point of view, Stalin’s use of the Cheka, to eliminate all opposition. There are others; Mao, Castro, Hitler are prominant among them. It’s no longer a matter of words, that David and Michelle and a host of others have correctly pointed up, but the actions as well.

‘But’, I hear you say, ‘Obama doesn’t have the power of government behind him, as these others did!’

That’s true.

So far.

But think for a moment; Obama and his people have already shown their hand. What will they do once they do actually have the power of government behind them? Do you really consider that the silencing of opposition by government is a thing so far out of reach for people who have done what they’re already on record as having done?
Of course my answer, for myself is ’No, I’d not put this, or much else, past them.’


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I think they don’t need to get specific to the right. They just have to shutdown those avenues that aren’t Left Dominated.

Basically they will shutdown all talk radio. They will impede blogs with internet taxes and fairness-doctrine-like legislation. Kos will either get a new job in the Obama Adminstration or take one for the team whether he knows it or not.

FoxNews unfortunately cast most of its programming as talk/pundits. CNN which does just about as much talk and punditry has maintained a superficial "Newsie" atmosphere. Now we know why.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
‘But’, I hear you say, ‘Obama doesn’t have the power of government behind him, as these others did!’
And THAT is what scares the crap out of me...

If they get away with this now, just imagine what they’ll get away with when they are actually in control.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
True to their word, Durbin, Kerry, Pelosi and all the other yutzy Democrats with their hands on the trigger will be firing away wildly at free speech with everything they’ve got come 2009. And no doubt that Obama, should he attain his prize, will play at perfecting his own repressive skills while fully supporting theirs.

But our outgunning those yahoos and defeating their efforts shouldn’t depend on having x-number of Republican representatives in Congress or some quasi-Republican in the White House. Americans through direct personal action and not mere political representation should flout any legislative shenanigans aimed at curtailing free speech and purposefully, flagrantly violate any such "laws" that those boobs have the temerity to foist upon us.

Congressional representative of any flavor should be scared to death to touch talk radio, blogs or any other venue for free speech in this country and Obama ought wake up and realize that blacklisting media is very bad for his business.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
pedro has never seen such a collection of whiners and crybabies since the carpetbaggerreport shutdown.

pedro has a little number of woobies to hand out. first come, first served.
 
Written By: pedro the illegal alien
URL: http://
I hope they takedown freerepublic. Too many dangerous wackos over there.
 
Written By: TomD
URL: http://
TomD,

As it’s so hard to tell parody from serious comment from the left these days, I’ll assume you’re joking.

If you’re not, I’ll see your Free Republic and raise you Daily Kos & Dumocratic Underground.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Frankly, I’m more concerned with those dangerous nut-jobs over at QandO...

Oh, wait...

:)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
hpb6na ohcdeahnrwli, [url=http://vheplvlhxxge.com/]vheplvlhxxge[/url], [link=http://qbmqhikwwyai.com/]qbmqhikwwyai[/link], http://krgrzcfcggcp.com/
 
Written By: pajcjghgiox
URL: http://blwgbkbkapuv.com/
Oqog8v jzoglbundpen, [url=http://wdxddgzqalhg.com/]wdxddgzqalhg[/url], [link=http://nhtujatmfjgc.com/]nhtujatmfjgc[/link], http://cjxfbvdyteff.com/
 
Written By: htpplkjyp
URL: http://arupwajzhftr.com/
Frankly, I’m more concerned with those dangerous nut-jobs over at QandO...
with guns!!

:)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Watch for Rush to move to Satellite radio if this happens. Might be a good time to pick up some stock in XM.
 
Written By: Darby Shaw
URL: http://dndnl.com/WordPress/
Pfft…

The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn’t think a President Obama would veto such a bill.
What a joke. Oh, just because Obama claims he would oppose a new Fairness Doctrine isn’t reason enough to disbelieve whats-his-face Brian Anderson – senior editor of a magazine published by a conservative “think” tank.

And what’s your “demonstrable evidence”? The fact that Obama urged his supporters to voice their opinion to a media organization. This is not “evidence” that Obama would enact into law a new Fairness Doctrine. People do this stuff all of the time. They urge others to call in, write to the editor, ect.
In fact, one might argue that because Obama and his supporters are good at voicing their discontent at discontent, Obama has no need for a new Fairness Doctrine.
We have already seen that Obama’s forces have no scruples about punishing media organizations who do not act as disciples of "The One." Newswomen with both WFTV in Orlando, Fla., and the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia dared to ask running mate Joseph Biden about Obama’s plans to "spread the wealth," as he infamously told Ohio’s Joe the Plumber. The Obama campaign let the journalists know they were now personae non grata.
Using this logic, one must also assume that a McCain administration would also enact a new Fairness Doctrine.
– Last month, the McCain campaign barred New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd from flying on both the McCain and Palin press planes.
– Time Magazine’s Joe Klein revealed last week that he too had been barred from traveling with the McCain campaign, telling Politico’s Michael Calderone that the campaign began freezing him out after he asked McCain an uncomfortable question about foreign policy.
– During the Republican National Convention, McCain canceled an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live after CNN’s Campbell Brown persistently asked flustered McCain flack Tucker Bounds about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s foreign policy experience and qualifications.
– When Newsweek wrote a cover story in May examining the hardball tactics conservatives might use in the general election, the McCain campaign “threatened to throw the magazine’s reporters off the campaign bus and airplane.”
Of course for you not to mention that wouldn’t be… oh, what’s the word… fair.

I wouldn’t worry about it McQ. You will be able to continue being unfair to Obama for years to come.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
It sounds like we are about to elect Adolf Obama to the presidency.

First they came for those who spoke out against the Reich. They detained them, imprisoned them, then killed them.

Kristallnacht cannot be too far behind that.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Heh....we can always broadcast from Mexico or Canada...maybe Cuba will let someone set up a station.
Radio Free America.

Seriously though.
I never thought I’d see people get more uptight than we did over Bill and Hillary, but we’re reaching new levels of wrapped tight lately.

Once they’re in control, they’ve demonstrated that all the talk radio shows, blogs and what not in the world have failed to make the necessary difference.

I understand a majority control, but let’s not assume from the get go that every elected representative of the majority party is going to start acting like they just got off the plane from Boston or San Francisco. A lot of this suppression of free speech crap is not going to fly in fly-over country as represented by Democrats.
Just recently the house failed to pass the first go round on the bail out bill.
There were people who have (D) after their names who voted against it.
They’re not all insane.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Radio Free America.
My plans for 2009 include recreating the movie "Pump Up the Volume"... :)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Here, here looker.

Pelosi and others are just pandering to their constituencies. There is no reason to believe that just because the Dem’s are in a majority, they will all be in agreement over a new Fairness Doctrine.

Besides, why would they need to?
It’s been told over and over again about the “liberal MSM” being in the tank for the Democrats. So why would they mess with an equation that is apparently working for them.

I would think that Republicans would wish for the Dem’s to push through a new Fairness Doctrine. It would be received poorly by most Americans.
In general, Americans hold the right to free speech as sacred. Any law that would deny the market of free speech would be seen by most reasonable people as an attack on the first amendment, and that would prove to be fatal.

This is why most sane analysts conclude that a new Fairness Doctrine is highly unlikely.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Heh....we can always broadcast from Mexico or Canada...maybe Cuba will let someone set up a station.
Radio Free America.

Seriously though.
I never thought I’d see people get more uptight than we did over Bill and Hillary, but we’re reaching new levels of wrapped tight lately.

Once they’re in control, they’ve demonstrated that all the talk radio shows, blogs and what not in the world have failed to make the necessary difference.

I understand a majority control, but let’s not assume from the get go that every elected representative of the majority party is going to start acting like they just got off the plane from Boston or San Francisco. A lot of this suppression of free speech crap is not going to fly in fly-over country as represented by Democrats.
Just recently the house failed to pass the first go round on the bail out bill.
There were people who have (D) after their names who voted against it.
They’re not all insane.
An uptight public is the only reason why it was voted down and why Amnesty was defeated.

But we are getting too up tight too soon, lower (raising?) expectations so that small measures that should be opposed, get ignored.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Never bank on the kindness of your enemies.
 
Written By: Doug
URL: http://
Kristallnacht cannot be too far behind that.


Wow! It took only 12 comments until Godwin’s law was violated.

Is that a record here?

Prolly not. But it’s gotta be close.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pelosi and others are just pandering to their constituencies.


Funny, but where is the anti free speech constituency on the right? The fact that San Fran has an anti free speech voting bloc is unsurprising, but nonetheless scary. Bush’s fault somehow?

Oh, as for the argument that flyover country Dems will be against the Fairness Doctrine...

>>>New Mexico Democrat Supports Revival of Fairness Doctrine

www.breitbart.tv — Sen. Jeff Bingaman: "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view." (Political News)



<<<
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
link: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/203333.html
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Pelosi and others are just pandering to their constituencies.
How exactly do you determine when Democrats are accurately expressing their policy preferences versus when they are "just pandering"?
 
Written By: huh
URL: http://
Hmmmm... PogueMahone sounds familiar. Where have I heard that? Could it be "Póg mo thóin"?
 
Written By: jjmurphy
URL: http://www.allthatisnecessary.com
Wow! It took only 12 comments until Godwin’s law was violated.
We’re living in a Post-Godwin Era.

You read it here first.
 
Written By: Doug
URL: http://
How exactly do you determine when Democrats are accurately expressing their policy preferences versus when they are "just pandering"?
And what difference does it make?

If they pass a bad law due to "pandering" or because they believe it doesn’t matter. It is still a bad law . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Oh, just because Obama claims he would oppose a new Fairness Doctrine isn’t reason enough to disbelieve whats-his-face Brian Anderson – senior editor of a magazine published by a conservative “think” tank.
Mr "wealth redistribution/the Constitution should contain positive rights" isn’t a Marxist, either, according to himself.

Pouge seems to think that Obama should be able to define himself. By his own words, that is, the ones he intientially uses to describe himself, not the ones that show a glimmer of what he really believes . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Funny, but where is the anti free speech constituency on the right?
Dunno, dude. Maybe McCain’s “straight talk express”? I DON’T THINK SO.* And I don’t think Obama is/will either. After all, if we’re using the same criteria as McQ and whats-his-face Brian Anderson, then one must assume that McCain would be equally open to stifling free speech. We already know that through McCain/Feingold, he is.

Cheers.

* Sorry for the bold ALL CAPS, but it seems that recently a lot of commenters here seem to skip over such caveats.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Where have I heard that? Could it be "Póg mo thóin"?
Nailed it.



Sláinte
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
How exactly do you determine when Democrats are accurately expressing their policy preferences versus when they are "just pandering"?
How exactly do you determine when Republicans are accurately expressing their policy preferences versus when they are "just pandering"?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Pouge seems to think that Obama should be able to define himself.
Versus what? McQ and whats-his-face Brian Anderson!?
As if they’re coming at this with a fair and balanced perspective.

Please.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Look, if Obama is elected, and if Obama and his fellow Dem’s in congress do enact some kind of new Fairness Doctrine, I’m sure we’ll be reading plenty of “I told you so’s” from McQ and others. But rest assured, if he doesn’t enact some kind of new Fairness Doctrine, you’ll read plenty of “I told you so’s” from me.

I’ve read here that if Obama is elected, and along with a sizable majority of Dems in congress, that the next four years will provide plenty of blogging fodder.
I believe that’s true. And for every promise that the Obama administration would fail to meet, there will be an equal amount of doom and gloom promises – from “It’s not If, but When” to “Kristallnacht” – from here and elsewhere that will easily provide sacrifice to the cannon.

Keep it up, fellas’… It’s gunna be fun for me too.

Cheers.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
The trend in Europe and Canada is toward both official and unofficial intimidation and sanctions against free speech. U.S. Democrats are positively in love with European-style social democracy and its cultural habits of mind.

The recent "human rights" inquisitions against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada are good examples of how things are going up north. Both have been successful in defending themselves, but it took a long time and the charges were entirely bogus to begin with.

In the U.S., the model to watch is how university speech codes are used to silence dissent from political correctness, not to mention how students are indoctrinated as if in re-education camps. That kind of thing also happens in corporate environments.

In certain areas of professional training, like social work, you are essentially required to accept the whole "diversity" program, which is anything but diverse.

But, of course, it won’t happen here in the United States.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Nailed it.
Sláinte
Jimminy Christmas I hope he’s not the only one to see that...heh.....
(PS Pogue, my spell checker says you don’t know diddly about spelling ’slant’)

Meanwhile somewhere outside the fence of the Bar-buzzybee-ranch.
I understand being ready to take some sort of action about dangerous clowns narrowing rights of free speech, but it’s a bit early to start waving the torches on this. There’s a whole lot of "what-if" flowing over the dam right now.

I’m not saying it can’t happen.
But at the moment...it hasn’t happened, and getting exercised as if it’s going to be taking effect sometime just before 17:00 EST doesn’t strike me as productive.

If all this stuff were to be implemented over-night, under cover of darkness, everyone who’s got arms and ammo stockpiled will probably be justified in saying "I told you so", but until that happens we’re still living in the same United States we were living in last week.

Same laws, same legislative procedures, same courts.

So we all learn to do SAMIZDAT, are we saying a bunch of durn foreigner Russians are better at spreading the suppressed word than WE could be?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker - I understand a majority control, but let’s not assume from the get go that every elected representative of the majority party is going to start acting like they just got off the plane from Boston or San Francisco. A lot of this suppression of free speech crap is not going to fly in fly-over country as represented by Democrats.

1. It’s not "suppression of free speech". It’s "ensuring fairness" and "not tolerating hate speech". Now, who could possibly be against those things? / sarc

2. It boils down to who an elected democrat (spit) thinks he needs more: the support of his voters (who will reelect him 95% of the time even if he’s dead or in prison) or the Speaker of the House / Senate Majority Leader who control what bills get to the floor and what earmarks he can get. Hmmm... I’m betting that staying on SanFran Nan’s good side is a bit more important than what the hoi poloi back home think.

3. I haven’t seen a whole lot of defections from the much-ballyhooed "blue dog democrats" (spit) in the past couple of years. The dems haven’t got too many "bipartisan" members of Congress: they tend to vote straight party line, all the time. Who is the dem (spit) equivalent of Lindsay Graham or the Maine Girls or even John McCain?

Bottom line: the dems want the Fairness Doctrine, and without a solid GOP fillibuster in the Senate or a Republican president in the White House, they will get it.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
(PS Pogue, my spell checker says you don’t know diddly about spelling ’slant’)
Heh... That’s funny, my spell checker doesn’t know "diddly".
No results were found.

Try one of these alternatives or see Help for hints on refining your search.

Fiddly

Daddy

Idly

Deadly

Dudley

Ditty
;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Okay, so...count me as skeptical that it’s all going to go straight to hell.
I’ve seen too much to believe that.

And I don’t have a use for a swamp fevered right that sounds like the radical swamp fevered left did over the last 8 years.

We’re going to HAVE to work with these people, it’s that simple.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, looker, just as an example, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo managed to intimidate some of the big-time internet providers, like Time-Warner Roadrunner, to jettison Usenet newsgroups.

How did Cuomo do that?

There were a number of groups where child pornography was being posted. That was enough of an excuse for Time-Warner to dump all of Usenet. So, those 50,000 or so newsgroups that covered everything from brewing coffee to intense political discussions to philosophy to gardening got thrown out with the bathwater. No apparent effort was made to ice the few dozen (or however many) child pornography groups there were.

Usenet was the original internet Samizdat. It roared into operation during the Clinton years. It’s still out there, but big internet carries in New York were intimidated into not carrying it. Just like that.

There’s the added advantage that people begin to associate Usenet with child pornography and the 99.99% of it that has nothing to do with child pornography gets tarred with that brush. At least that’s what Cuomo was able to do to it in New York.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Looker-

Why exactly are we going to have to "work" with them? More to the point, they’re in a position where they don’t need us to work with anyway.

Look at the past 8 years.

Nobody "worked with us" when the tables were reversed. And it worked for them.

"Fever swamp right"??? Nope. I say just the "turnabout is fair play" right.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
We’re going to HAVE to work with these people, it’s that simple.
Careful, dude. You’re sounding awfully reasonable.
But of course, you often do. But that won’t fly in some circles.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Well, looker, just as an example, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo managed to intimidate some of the big-time internet providers, like Time-Warner Roadrunner, to jettison Usenet newsgroups.
Free market, baby. That’s what they’re free to do. Succomb to intimidation tactics or no. Seems to me, they made a business decision.

There were a number of groups where child pornography was being posted. That was enough of an excuse for Time-Warner to dump all of Usenet.
By which you are suggesting that Time-Warner wanted to dump all of Usenet, but they just needed an excuse?

Usenet was the original internet Samizdat. It roared into operation during the Clinton years. It’s still out there, but big internet carries in New York were intimidated into not carrying it. Just like that.
And how does any of this relate to a new Fairness Doctrine that Obama is, despite his words to the contrary, for?
Are you suggesting that an Obama administration will shut down the internet?

Lemme guess… You’ve bought an excess of ammunition over the last week or so.
McPhillips… You’re beautiful, baby… You’re the gift that keeps on giving.

Don’t go nowhere, lest I miss you.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
If absolute partisinship has actually helped us nationally over the last 6 years, let me know.
I ain’t seeing it.

"work with" means go on with life with ’them’ in charge of things.
I will not become Kos.
And it’s not as if the Republicans have done us a lot of favors in the last 6 years in a lot of ways, or do we need to list them to get a sense of perspective here?

I’m voting my LAST choices for President as it is.
I’m having to hold my nose to vote for a Senator who voted FOR the godd@mned
bailout ONLY because I’m aware of the dangers of a super majority in the Senate.

McCain is a lousy pick, and the only thing that makes him good is he’s NOT Obama.
There is hardly an up-side to this at all even if McCain wins.
I feel like I’m trying to save myself from Dracula so I can let Frankenstein throw me off when the fight’s over.



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Free market, baby. That’s what they’re free to do. Succomb to intimidation tactics or no.
Intimidation by government agents = free market?

I can’t believe anyone would be so totally devoid of circumspection to actually write something like that. Has to be a joke.
 
Written By: Doug
URL: http://
Hey Póg mo thóin, with all that water you are carrying for Obama, you are definitely going to get a hernia. Be careful.
Intimidation by government agents = free market?
He’s a leftist. That is how they define it.


 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
And how does any of this relate to a new Fairness Doctrine that Obama is, despite his words to the contrary, for?
Well, he says a lot of things that he always seems to do the opposite of later. Maybe that is just that dem nuance (i.e. horsesh$t) we hear so much of.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Intimidation by government agents = free market?
I worded that badly. Perhaps I should have wrote that intimidation or no, it seems to me that they made a business decision.
My apologies for any confusion.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
If absolute partisinship has actually helped us nationally over the last 6 years, let me know.
I ain’t seeing it.
Nope, it sure hasn’t.
On the other hand, anytime we’ve seen examples of bipartisianship, it’s also worked out lousy for us also.
"work with" means go on with life with ’them’ in charge of things.
Maybe to you.
I will not become Kos.


That’s your choice. I won’t become Kos either. I’m not an amoral scu*bag so I can’t become him. But I will enjoy turnabout being fair play. I consider it a teachable moment.
And it’s not as if the Republicans have done us a lot of favors in the last 6 years in a lot of ways, or do we need to list them to get a sense of perspective here?
Wait till national healthcare and other things are rammed through. Then compare them to how the GOP f**ked up. Then you’ll have perspective. But at any rate the real fight post-election will be in the GOP, and how to rebuild it the way it should be.
I’m voting my LAST choices for President as it is.
I’m having to hold my nose to vote for a Senator who voted FOR the godd@mned
bailout ONLY because I’m aware of the dangers of a super majority in the Senate
.

Agreed.
McCain is a lousy pick, and the only thing that makes him good is he’s NOT Obama.
Agreed.
There is hardly an up-side to this at all even if McCain wins.
There is considerably more down-side if an Obama wins though
I feel like I’m trying to save myself from Dracula so I can let Frankenstein throw me off when the fight’s over.
"Allow me to introduce myself. I’m the invisible man!"

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
LOL, this is just too funny. Off topic, I know... But you know I love you guys too much to let you guys miss out on this one.

"The Left doesn’t know what to do about" Palin on woe-is-me-all-this-media-attention Joe the plumber.
Gov. Sarah Palin apparently got so excited that she momentarily granted him the honored double status of veteran and Frontier State native: “He’s a fellow Alaska[n], and he’s a fellow military man who has served our country proudly. I’d like you to meet him.”
Damn, I should have gone into plumbing. Not only would I receive a Permanent Dividend check from the state of Alaska, I would also receive veterans benefits.

This is the best election season, evah!

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
On the other hand, anytime we’ve seen examples of bipartisianship, it’s also worked out lousy for us also.
The problem being that Congress is always somehow involved... If only we could just cut them outta the mix... :)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Mahone:
And how does any of this relate to a new Fairness Doctrine that Obama is, despite his words to the contrary, for?
Are you suggesting that an Obama administration will shut down the internet?
A "Fairness Doctrine" is easy. It already has precedent: it was once federal policy. It would probably sail through the House. It might be stopped in the Senate by filibuster, but that’s a rather close shave. But why would you think that Obama would refuse to sign the bill if it passed? His "words" don’t mean anything. Or have I been misled, and he actually is taking public financing for his campaign.

My comments, despite your incontinent induction, were directed at a potential environment in U.S. public discourse that might resemble that of Europe, Canada, and American universities. Democrats are very fond of how things are done in Europe, Canada, and American universities.

Slobs like you will do okay, because you don’t really have anything to say, and you don’t say it well enough to attract attention in any case.

If you don’t get the part where internet providers stop carrying Usenet because the Attorney General of New York held the stigma of child pornography in their face, I guess you don’t get how government intimidation works.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Versus what? McQ and whats-his-face Brian Anderson!?
As if they’re coming at this with a fair and balanced perspective.
Excuse me, but why should we believe Obama?

I’ll form my view of Obama on the real stuff: redistribution of wealth, the Constitution is flawed, Black Liberation Theology, Marxist terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, proud of my country for the first time, and so on.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This is the best election season, evah!
Yes, a slimy pseudo criminal who has never told the truth in his life, a doddering old fool who seems to have everyone’s foot in his mouth, a cranky old war vet and a woman that scares the girly men of the left.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Slobs like you will do okay, because you don’t really have anything to say, and you don’t say it well enough to attract attention in any case.
Well I would never say something like "McCain wins by 10".

So maybe I will be okay. Thanks, McPhillips... I feel reassured.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
looker - If absolute partisinship has actually helped us nationally over the last 6 years, let me know.
I ain’t seeing it.


If there’s been absolute partisanship from the GOP in the past six years, let me know. I didn’t see it. What I DID see was a "compassionate conservative" president grow the government in ways that would have made LBJ cry "Whoa, boy!" and a pack of RINO’s (including McVain) side with the dems (spit) to help undercut conservative policies. Perhaps if we’d had a bit MORE partisanship, the president’s plan to reform Freddy / Fanny would have gone through in ’03 and we wouldn’t have had the meltdown.

I would also like to ask why you seem to think that partisanship is such a bad thing. I suspect that it’s programming: the MSM and their political masters have spent a lot time over the past several years railing against "partisanship" (i.e. Republicans trying to have things their way) and talking up "bipartisanship" (i.e. Republicans doing what the filthy dems want). But why should partisanship be intrinsically undesirable? First of all, it is the basis of party politics, which is to say, ALL politics. People seldom all hold the same opinion, and it is natural that they should ally themselves with like-minded fellows and work together to implement the policies that seem to accord best with their ideals. Now, nothing is wrong with compromise per se, but the idea that one must and should always be prepared to give in in the interests of "bipartisanship" is ludicrous. If you want to paint your house, and the other fellow wants to burn it to the ground, should you compromise, be bipartisan, and agree to give it a mediocre coat of paint before torching half of it?

In my view cooperating with the dems on many issues is just that: they are actively destructive to our country. Bipartisanship be damned: they should be opposed, not cooperated with.

looker - "work with" means go on with life with ’them’ in charge of things.

That’s true: life goes on. Um... You don’t have any razor blades, do you, comrade? And would you mind stepping over to try to get my sink unclogged again?

What some of us on the right fear is that having ’them’ in charge of things will be little less than a catastrophe. You don’t believe that ’they’ will bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I hope you are right, but I disagree: I think that they will do so at the first convenient opportunity. I also think that they will do other things to fundamentally change our country for the worse, including seeing us humiliated on the international scene (remember: Plugs has warned us that it WILL happen), destroying what’s left of the free market, nationalizing key industries, and bringing about financial ruin the likes of which we haven’t seen since the ’30s.

Life will go on... badly.

I agree in the main with the rest of what you wrote. The GOP has been (to put it mildly) a major disappointment over the past several years: timid, corrupt, ineffective. The sad thing is that the posterboy for the RINO’s is now our nominee, and the only thing he’s got to recommend him over the dem (spit) nominee is that he’s not a closet commie.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Yes, a slimy pseudo criminal
Uhh... What’s a "pseudo criminal"?

He’s a fake criminal?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Uhh... What’s a "pseudo criminal"?

He’s a fake criminal?
Take an English instead of Gaelic. It will be more useful.

from here:
pseu⋅do   [soo-doh] Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective

1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
2. almost, approaching, or trying to be.

Origin:
1940–45; independent use of pseudo-
Therefore someone having the appearance or approaching criminal behavior

Oh, and Póg mo thóin
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I am always amazed at the liberal defense of stupid Democrat policy proposals by saying that they don’t really mean it or that they really won’t use their very possible veto proof majority to pass legislation like the fairness doctrine. Sens. Bingaman, Reid and Durbin along with Pelosi have all said that they favor re-implementing the doctrine.

I am not sure why Pogue thinks that Democrats will be chaste if they win big majorities in Congress especially if that is combined with an Obama presidency (I will always remember Democrats talking about Clinton’s mandate in 1993 after he won 43% of the popular vote and denying that Bush had one in 2004 after he won approx. 52% of the vote and the Republicans held both houses of Congress). The Democrats have made public pronouncements regarding their support for the fairness doctrine and if they increase their Congressional majorities they can reasonably claim that they have a mandate for its re-implementation (although I think the non-Daily Kos public is generally ignorant about the true effect of the FD given its euphemistic name). Furthermore, David Freddosso has set out a detailed history of Obama going along with the Democrat powers that be in Illinois and he has already lied about taking public financing. It seems to me that counting on Obama to keep his word in light of pressure from Pelosi et al. is a pretty bad bet given his track record. After all, Obama told Ohio voters that he was willing to re-negotiate NAFTA while Goolsbee was telling the Canadians that it was just primary campaign rhetoric and, despite his vascillations, he has promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq in 16 months while his foreign policy advisor, Colin Kahl, recommended keeping at least 60,000 troops there until 2010. Also, didn’t Samantha Power say that he didn’t really intend to keep his 16 month promise?
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Take an English instead of Gaelic. It will be more useful.
I’m to "take an English"?

Okay, Beavis.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Let’s not get overly excited. The election is not even over.

Also, Obama may surprise people - first black president may not want to govern as a partisan radical or liberal.

I’m offering benefit of the doubt, because I did not like how Bush was treated. Do unto others...
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Okay, Beavis.
Sure thing Butthead
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You can hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Well, McQ, you struck a nerve with his one.

Goes to show that you only draw flak when you are over the target.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider