He’s worn out his welcome in his party.
As I’ve shown you before, he’s broken with his party the same number of times that Pelosi did. Once more, if the vote next week occurs as it seems to be shaping up.
Looks like there is a deal to keep the government open for another ten weeks:
As a Dem, I’m all for kicking this can down the road a couple of months. Yeah, GOP, shut the government down over Christmas! Give the news boys those nice visuals of the Christmas lights on the Ellipse turned off. And of course, the closer a potential shutdown is to election season, the more it’ll still be in people’s minds in 2016.
And without Boehner in the way, the Teahadists are going to be spoiling for a fight more than ever. I think Jonathan Chait’s analysis here is pretty good:
Inmates, asylum, etc.
And I’m gonna say it again (and thanks, D’Anconia, for reminding me): this is the result of getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine. That was what unleashed right-wing talk radio (as well as ultimately Fox News of course), and the angry voices of talk radio are beyond anyone’s control right now. Rupert Murdoch may be able to turn up and down the volume of the crazy on Fox News, but who tells T-Bone on Star 98.3, or a thousand others like him across the country, to tone it down?
They created this monster, and it’s coming for them.
I’m not sure whether you were saying this or not, but just for the sake of clarity, I don’t think that the Fairness Doctrine ever applied to cable news stations like the Fox News Channel.
At the time, it was a moot point: cable TV didn’t really generate any content of its own back in the mid-1980s.
Do you really think that the Fairness Doctrine was compatible with the First Amendment?
Heh. 
The trouble is, it has to ferment. I wanted to drink it that day, but it was just fetus juice.
Yes. Next question?
Only as long as broadcast space is limited. That is no longer the case, thus it would not be constitutional today since no compelling government interest is at stake.
Broadcast space still is and always will be limited, as a result of the fundamental laws of physics and of information science.
Limited to the point where viewpoints won’t be heard? On 250 channels? The other problem is that the Fairness Doctrine could not possibly be enforced reasonably. While the government was trying to make sure all voices got heard, Walter Cronkite was declaring the Vietnam war lost and no one heard any rebuttal on that show. Network news hosts like Cronkite had tremendous power back then, nothing like today.
_- I don’t know that alone that is the basis, for this decision, ( for all congressman willing to defund)
– Hmm Yes, sorta… I am saying there have been many people against PP before the video, and if the money can be moved else where, to provide health services, that is the right of the majority n the house… that is why we had 435 elections for the House… so they can appropriate funds…
Nope… never said anything remotely close to that. Why on earth would we assume something that everyone knows isn’t true? They are not providing these services, they refer women to another provider.
My point was instead of giving money to PP to tell a woman, hmm you may need a mammogram, we do not provide those, but the clinic three blocks down ( or wherever the one they are referring people to is located) does. and here are some forms that mayhelp with the cost if you need help… Just let the clinic down the street have to money… they can provide mammograms, and use the money that was previously going to PP to help off set the costs/
So you are saying it’s all based on a lie… so until last month there was no politicians wanting to defund PP??
And if one party locks its feet in because some funds are being diverted away from a non profit charity…and are will to not allow any budget to be passed unless there charity is funded… the they should not be free and clear of blame for Gov SD.
And I will be happy to sell you a subscription to a my newsletter if you can afford it.
Cronkite said that in 1968, by which time a bare majority of Americans had turned against the war. And it rolled along for years yet to come. What am I missing here, about Cronkite’s awesome power to affect events? If he hadn’t said anything, we might still be there?
Sure. I have plenty of viewpoints that aren’t represented either on the airwaves or on cable channels.
FWIW, the number of cable channels is meaningless. First of all, most of the cable channels are stuff like ESPN or Nickelodeon or the Cooking Channel or stuff like that. You can toss those out right away. Second, the real question is, who decides what’s on those channels? And the answer is, a relative handful of people astride the commanding heights of our economy. When the “liberal” MSNBC devotes four hours a day to Joe Scarborough’s morning show despite its absolutely sucky ratings, something’s happening here that results in a more conservative set of views being aired than can be explained even by market forces.
You’re saying the Johnson Administration wasn’t able to get its rebuttal heard? I lived through that time; I can testify to the contrary.
At any rate, the question here is one of the First Amendment. The airwaves (and the cables, for that matter) are a scarce resource that we, the people, hold in common, and are to be used for our benefit. As the owners, we should get to decide how they’re used, the same way an owner of a newspaper gets to decide what content is in his newspaper.
Someday, I hope, all ‘push’ media - those media that push a signal over the airwaves, or push a specific set of channels down a TV cable - will be abandoned in favor of the ‘pull’ model of the Web, where everyone’s competing on an equal footing, and nobody has a privileged perch anymore. Gotta admit, progress towards that end is much slower than I’d have expected. But when that time arrives, there will be no need for a Fairness Doctrine; it’ll be built in.
Maybe in theory, but under law, the radio broadcast spectrum is, but the cables are not.
We largely have that already, with our near-total shift to cable and the Web, and the result is that we no longer share a common understanding of what the facts even are. Nobody is exposed to different viewpoints from what they already hold, if they don’t want to be. That is not good.
I’d just like to point out that, barring some huge surprise, adaher has nailed his prediction.
The day is still young.
And, btw, even if this latest can-kick passes, it’s still only until December. Of 2015. With whothehellknows as Speaker then, and no other substantive change in the situation that would make a shutdown less likely. True?
No, I think a shutdown in December is becoming more likely. Be that as it may, adaher’s prediction is still looking pretty good with the Senate voting 77-19 last night to keep the government running. The bill should reach the House by tonight or tomorrow morning.
Yes, but consider his reasoning:
True, but will that be less true in December, so much closer to the primaries? Will they, can they, ever “win” a shutdown tantrum anyway?