June 26, 2008
Geez, Barry, You ARE Trying to Lose the G.E., Aren’t You?
I’ll resist the strong temptation to hit the bruised and bleeding Obama supporters with another “I told you so,” and just wish them a speedy recovery as they come to grips to what the rest of us have been saying all along:
Barack Obama is not a liberal. Barack Obama has never been a liberal.
It’s been a tough week for the Obama faithful, as The Anointed One continues to expose his own right-of-center positions (which, somehow, curiously, his most dedicated followers missed the first time around).
Before we hit anybody square between the eyes with Obama’s latest decidedly un-liberal position, let’s review where Obama stands on some make-or-break, litmus-test issues:
Pro-NAFTA
If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter… Part 2
February 24, 2008
Anti-Impeachment
If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter… Part 2
February 24, 2008
Pro-Death Penalty
Death Penalty for Child Rape: Between Barack and a Hard Place
June 26, 2008
Anti-Marriage Equality
Obama Won’t Budge on Marriage Equality
October 31, 2007
Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT community
March 1, 2008
Meanwhile, Barack Obama Reiterates Opposition to Gay Equality, Sputters Meaningless Gobbledygook in Pennsylvania
April 21, 2008
My Questions for Barack Obama’s Conference Call
June 6, 2008
Anti-Church-State Separation
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
Obama and Reagan, Sitting in a Tree… (Obama Supporters: Had Enough Yet?)
January 18, 2008
Pro-FISA
Dear Obama Supporters: We told you so.
June 21, 2008
Anti-Public Campaigning Financing (for himself, anyway)
It Must Be Easter…
June 19, 2008
Pro-War Posturing Against Pakistan
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
All Over the Map on Iran
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
Barack Obama’s Foreign and Domestic Policies Demystified: Homophobes Are Iran, and Homos Are Hamas
April 17, 2008
Anti-Marijuana Decriminalization
Barack Obama’s Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop on Marijuana: Multiple Brain Farts, or Just Lying?
February 3, 2008
Barack Obama’s Marijuana-Go-Round Explained: He Didn’t Know What “Decriminalization” Meant
March 17, 2008
Anti-Single-Payer Healthcare— Er, Maybe Pro…
Barack Obama Short-Term Memory Theatre (P3WNED on Single-Payer Healthcare)
January 23, 2008
Reagan Democrat?
Obama and Reagan, Sitting in a Tree… (Obama Supporters: Had Enough Yet?)
January 18, 2008
No Position At All
Obama: The No-Show Candidate
November 3, 2007
Old-School, Chicago-Style Politics As Usual
Pork-Barrel Spending, Billjacking, and Strong-Arm Tactics: How Barack Obama Got Where He Is Today
March 5, 2008
Charles Lipson on Obama’s “Four Stumps in the Water”
March 31, 2008
Obama supporters, how do you justify Barry’s Blackwell-EKI-Killerspin wheeling and dealing?
April 27, 2008
OK, so what did Obama do now?
He came out against the Fairness Doctrine, that’s what.
I’m going to assume that real progressives know what the Fairness Doctrine is was, why it was A Very Good Thing Indeed, and why we need it back so badly — but for anyone coming late to the game, here’s a brief rundown from Wikipedia:
The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts. …The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. …
In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). The Court’s majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was “chilling speech,” and added that the Supreme Court would be “forced” to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have “the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech.”
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment. …
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
In June 1987, Congress had attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine (S. 742, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987)), but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.
Two corollary rules of the doctrine, i.e., the “personal attack” rule and the “political editorial” rule, remained in practice until 2000. The “personal attack” rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The “political editorial” rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000. …
Some legislators have been vocal in their support of a reinstated Fairness Doctrine.
• Democratic Senator Richard Durbin has said “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.”
• Democratic Senator John Kerry has said, “Well, I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there…”
• Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also supports a renewal of the Fairness Doctrine, citing she will not let Rep. Mike Pence’s Broadcaster Freedom Act”, which prohibits the Fairness Doctrine, see the floor of the 2008 Congress. …
The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominent conservatives such as Laura Ingraham who view it as an attempt to regulate free speech on the airwaves. …
In the 109th Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced legislation “to restore the Fairness Doctrine”. H.R. 3302, also known as the “Media Ownership Reform Act” or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.
In the 110th Congress, no legislation to restore the Fairness Doctrine has been introduced. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) proposed an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that forbade the FCC from “using any funds to adopt a fairness rule.” It was blocked, in part on grounds that “the amendment belonged in the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction”.
With that:
Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.
“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.
“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.” …
One year ago… Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was — no Democrats stood to oppose it — to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and “yap yap TV,” who had ginned up the issue. …
But other Democrats suggested that the sticking point was the current administration, and some big names, including Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), talked about the possibility of bringing it back. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) went so far as to say he would make the doctrine part of his media agenda.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. …
It is a sensitive topic with Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try and rein in conservative talk radio, the rise of which followed the scrapping of the doctrine. …
…Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), a longtime foe of the doctrine, said its return would be “nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves.” …
Geez, Barry. Just… Geez!
Filed under: Barack Obama, Election 2008, Media, Republicans
