Countdown To The Obamanschluss

If a DC liberal pundit tells you you’re paranoid for worrying about your house being robbed, aim your gun at your door; there will be an armed burglar bursting in shortly.

Anytime a liberal pundit, politician, apologist or powerbroker “guarantees” to keep hands off a liberty that might undercut the left in any way, they are lying.  Every time.  There are no exceptions. To the left, civil liberties are not “rights endowed to us by our creator”; they are tools in the political toolbox, to be manipulated to the left’s singular advantage.
For the past year, as conservatives warned that Obama (and/or his followers, and/or his masters in Congress) were aiming towardreimposing the “Fairness” Doctrine, the lefty peanut gallery tittered and tut-tutted; “you’re being paranoid!”, we were assured – ignorant, of course, of the fact that we conservatives have in our institutional memory many examples of the left’s casual outlook on civil liberties issues.

We are right, of course:

[Chris] Wallace asked [Obama minion David Axelrod] about an issue making the rounds on both conservative and liberal radio shows, where Democratic Congressional leaders (and even Bill Clinton) have recently weighed in.”Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?” asked Wallace.

Now, remember; Obama was putatively “crystal-clear” on the subject last summer, when his press flak Michael Ortiz said “Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters.”

Why would there be any need to fudge what was once – as the lefty peanut gallery has pointed out – a clear, definitive statement?

Because Obama is no more about “clearness and definition”, to say nothing of honesty, than he is about “depth”:

“I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss,” Axelrod said. “So I don’t have an answer for you now.”

Um – why not?

The One’s position seemed (we have been assured!) pretty clear before the election.  Why not now?

Lester Kinsolving, the conservative radio host, has twice asked Robert Gibbs about it in the briefing room, and each time, the press secretary didn’t reveal the administration’s position.Last week, I reached out to press office staffers in order to find out if the administration’s position is the same as in June, and have not yet received a response.

This is, unlike many political questions, an utterly black and white issue; “Do you support free speech?”  You do, or you don’t.  Last year – when Obama was trying to suck in reach out to “moderates” –  he saw it as such, as well.  No “Fairness” Doctrine.


If Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine is the same as during the campaign — and I have no reason to believe it isn’t — stating that clearly would quickly silence a lot of conservative critics who assume the Democratic president is going to push to reinstate the defunct policy. Otherwise, the Fairness Doctrine chatter on the airwaves isn’t likely to die down.

I won’t rule out the idea that Obama wants to leave the question open.  Knowing as he does that conservative talk radio is the most focused, effective opposition to his rule right now, and knowing that actually acting to shut it down would tie his Administration downin endless litigation and justifiable accusations of overreach, it might be in The One’s interest to leave this issue out there, to serve as a stalking horse to occupy peoples’ attention.

It’s equally likely that Nancy Pelosi has told The One “jump”, and Obama is still just wondering “off what?”

15 thoughts on “Countdown To The Obamanschluss

  1. President Obama is simply stating his position, which gives a number of his supporters time to say, “But, we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine.”

    If enough of them support it, speak publicly in favor of it, and enough Soros-minded folks back it they will just build up enough momentum until the point when President Obama can say, “I have listened to you, and I have reconsidered.”

  2. Badda

    is right on point and that’s exactly the same thing that will happen with gun control. Pelosi & “CleanFace” Reid believe the stimulus is the test case – if there is no significant backlash among their centrist supporters expect them to muscle thru everything else the left wants and soon.

  3. I would support, actively in the total sense of the word, any radio station the tells the Feds
    “F*** OFF! We will not, repeat NOT comply with the “Censorship Doctrine” in any form.”

  4. Don’t forget, you have mangy clown on the record as saying he’s on your side in regards to this issue.

    That and $1.25 will get you a Diet Pepsi. . . or a BJ from AngryClown.

  5. Totally understandable. Dissent is a real pain in the ass when you have a world to remake. All this carping makes it hard to bring Hope and Change. And who really cares what a bunch of wingnuts think, anyway?

  6. Y’know something? It’s really quiet around here today. None of our instructors are here to tell us how wrong we are. I haven’t heard a damned thing about neocon perfidy or off-color snark regarding our paranoia about the Fairness Doctrine. Are the trolls government employees or something?

  7. Are the trolls government employees or something?

    You read my mind, Mark. Guys like Peev, mangy clown, PrickDFL and TimStP seem like the types to lie sideways at the public trough.

  8. That and $1.25 will get you a Diet Pepsi.

    True, but mangy clown was talking from the standpoint of how there is no serious dialogue about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. I’m just wondering where the snarky putz is now, given that Obama is hedging on his campaign rhetoric.

  9. The Fairness Doctrine should not be introduced.

    In fact, I’d suggest the FCC be left out of commercial broadcast altogether. Unless it interferes with emergency channels (police, fire, military), there should be no regulation of airwaves whatsoever.

  10. Allright, DiscoStooj! I’m going to build me a five hundred thousand watt AM band transmitter that will swamp the airwaves during the commercial breaks so I can broadcast my own commercials to the their audience!

  11. Why the reluctance to interfere with emergency channels, DiscordianStooj?

    You want waste commercial broadcast space in service of your argument, so why not the emergency space too?

  12. Because in case of an attack on the U.S., I’d like the military, police, fire and EMS services to coordinate their response without interference from The Phlegm and Lungbutter In The Morning Show.

    I’m not kidding when I say I’m against the Fairness Doctrine. Forcing people to air equal viewpoints is both stupid and impossible. I happen to think free speech also extends to words that some people don’t like hear, and grind my teeth whenever the Family Council starts making phone calls because some guy swore during a football game, or and almost bare breast appears on TV.

    As for broadcasting, how can you claim to be for free market when you wouldn’t allow the guy with the biggest antenna to broadcast what he wants?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.