Apparently (as WhatThe… notes) Debbie Stabenow doesn’t agree.
Also - where is the evidence that George Will believes this would not involve a battle?
Actually back in 2006, many Republicans insisted that the Democrats would restore the Fairness Doctrine as soon as they took over Congress. Needless to say, they were wrong.
IF I ran the Democratic party this would be exactly my strategy. Give the right wing a meaningless topic that I have absolutely no intention of acting on to froth and rant and scream over. Meanwhile I keep denying officially that I have any interest in doing what they claim. While they destroy their credibility in the wider public by crying wolf over things that are not happening, I can get the rest of my agenda through and their credibility crumbles. Then, every time the fervor starts to die down have a low level underling give a hint of a generic, deniable “maybe” on the subject to fan the fire all over again. That way, if they do try to call me on something I can say “You believe them? These are the people who have been telling you for XX years that we would bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Why would you trust them on this?”
One thing I like about this discussion is the assumption that there are only two sides to the debate and the Fairness Doctrine would allow both sides to be exposed. Isn’t that a bit simplistic?
Did I say that? I’d think as a moderator you’d be more precise with your comment no matter what mode you are in.
Did Obama say that he would veto that legislation? I don’t know? Did he?
What I’m suggesting is that what he says may not be exactly what he’d be happy to get.
PBS is always called a left wing station. But, every discussion on Lehrer has has an equal pro and con in the discussion. They do not have a weak or ex repub who has been coverted to dem as a spokesman. The other stations like CNBC and others do that. They actually had counterpoints to the Iraq War ,which was lacking on all other stations. That is how the news should be.
But at least with the fairness doctrine, we’d be given a one-and-a-half second shot of a covered nipple to make up for it.
No – you’d have to compensate for the view oif her right breast with a view of someone else’s left breast.
No, but you indicated you intend to disregard whatever Obama says even though he’d have to approve the bill. For whatever reason.
This is probably an unwelcome interjection, but the ACLU is not a pawn of or a front group for the Democrats, the Communists, Liberals (in the American sense of far left Democrats), trial lawyers, or the bicoastal elite. To imply they are is a gross mischaracterization.
In fact, the ACLU is generally well-regarded by many if not most Libertarians, who don’t overwhelmingly vote for either party.
That was pretty much the point I was making with the link to the description of the Nazi case in Skokie, IL.
If I weren’t already employed, I’d accept a job offer from the ACLU in a heartbeat, and I own way too many guns to be called a liberal.
How can “Judeo-Christian” be parsed to include Islam? “Abrahamic,” maybe, but certainly not Judeo-Chistian.
You’re confusing the news with the overall network. The news is well balanced as it is on FOX. Everything political after the news is highly polarized (Hannity, NOW, etc…)
Rush is in no way impotent. He’s a large reason for the obstruction we’ve been seeing the past two years: Congressional Repubs who don’t oppose everything Democrats do catch hell from him, and may be primaried out.
Ah, yes, the fair and balanced labeling of Mark Foley and Arlen Specter as Democrats was a shining moment in Fox history.
She’s going to try to hold hearings. OK.
Wake me up when she says she thinks she’s ready to fight for passage of a bill.
I wouldn’t expect there to be such evidence.
What I’d expect Will to believe, given the sentence in question, is either (a) it wouldn’t involve a battle (I pray that even Will isn’t that stupid), or (b) that it’s at or near the top of the lefty Dem priority list anyway.
Based on his columns in August and September, the latter is what Will purports to believe.
I haven’t seen FOX news invent a document about a candidtate 2 weeks before an election nor have I seen inter-office memo’s clearly indicating a candidate bias during an election. I would rank Jim Lehrer News Hour first, and Fox News second above all the other networks by a wide margin.
So, in contrast to your statement in post #37, you now agree that in fact attention is being paid to the subject of the Fairness Doctrine.
Huh? Post #37 doesn’t say that no attention is being paid to the subject of the Fairness Doctrine. It says that no attempts are being made by Democratic legislators to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
And yet clearly they are.
? What attempts? What bills have Democratic legislators introduced attempting to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?
AFAICT, the most that is happening is that a few Democratic legislators advocate holding congressional hearings to discuss whether reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing.
The attempts at actually legislating about the Fairness Doctrine, as I noted, are all coming from the other side. It’s Republicans who are proposing bills that would prohibit reinstatement.
And, of course, if Republican legislators think that’s an important legislative issue, they’re fully entitled to do so. I just think, along with most of the other non-Republican posters here, that they’re making mountains out of molehills.