Dems seek end of free speech?!?

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42616

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
[/URL]By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)

(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/) an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "[URL="http://www.dccc.org/page/petition/rush";]
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.

DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."

According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.

"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”

As CNSNews.com has reported, someDemocrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.

Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42616

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
[/URL]By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)

(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/) an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "[URL="http://www.dccc.org/page/petition/rush";]
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.

DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."

According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.

"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”

As CNSNews.com has reported, someDemocrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.

Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.



If they are going to do that then have instate the same thing for television as the vast majority of television news is liberal.

If they are going to do that then have instate the same thing for television as the vast majority of television news is liberal.
BUT.... the liberals run TV and radio. They will NOT hold themselves to the same level of scrutiny as Rush Limbaugh.

Granted, Rush is way too abrasive for most folks to stomach, but he DOES have the right to say what he wants. They (the libs) have wanted to shut down conservative talk radio for some time now. I much prefer Hannity and O'Reilly over Rush. But aside from his over-the-top abrasiveness I generally agree with Rush.

I liked Rush back in the early 90's when he was more of an entertainer but when he became a winey water boy for the radical right wing I stopped listening. He has the right to say what he wants and I have the right to change channels.

I don't particularly care for Limbaugh and I don't listen to him. :grinno:

But he is a grown boy and can deal with this. This issue with the DCCC which is a Political Committee for the House Demos is nothing but a publicity campaign and a veiled effort to get contributions since they are millions of dollars in the red. Also, to appease their messiah, Obama who just happened to give them at least 3.5 million dollars of left over campaign money and doesn't appear to like Limbaugh. :lol:


Source: Politico.com

Obama boosts DCCC with extra funds

Link to Article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17144.html)

As a journalist, I respect Limbaugh's right to an opinion and would be firmly against any action that might be taken to punish him for exercising that.

However, as a person, I will admit that I was a bit put off by the comments, if only because of the statement itself.

Still, I don't put too much stock in Rush or the results of his comments, mainly because he knows exactly what he's doing when he says things like that: Getting reactions from the opposition claiming that he's "way off base" or whatever. He's selling his opinion on his show, so he might as well make it worth his employer's while.

As a journalist, I respect Limbaugh's right to an opinion and would be firmly against any action that might be taken to punish him for exercising that.

However, as a person, I will admit that I was a bit put off by the comments, if only because of the statement itself.

Then as a journalist are you for or against the "Fairness Doctrine" which of course never made it into law but there is a high probability it could be revived.

It makes sense to use an attack dog surrogate organization like the DCCC because it is not an actionable "freedom of speech" issue since they are not a governmental entity.

It is all about money and I seriously doubt Limbaugh works for free either.

What did Limbaugh say that was so bad? You can't tell by a 9 second snippet on YouTube. Most likely taken out of context as usual. Obviously he is anti socialism.

This is the context of it, but he did say it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

.........................
Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing. ...........

I'm not a dittohead, but I know where he's coming from on that comment at least.

The left is riding high on their recent victories and I think we'll see some heavy handedness from them toward opinions they don't like. It would not surprise me to see them enact curbs and restrictions on alternative points of view on the airwaves.

We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."
Can't say I disagree with that.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/fairness_doctrine_radio/2009/02/06/179067.html

Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio

Friday, February 6, 2009 10:36 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow says she wants hearings on “accountability” in radio, suggesting Democrats are eying a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

During an interview with Stabenow, syndicated radio host Bill Press said conservatives should not be the only voices heard on talk radio and asked the Michigan lawmaker: “So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?”

Stabenow responded: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.

“Our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Press — former chairman of the California Democratic Party — asked: “Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?”

.....................................
Hold them accountable for what? Airing popular radio shows and making money from advertising?

Why is it the station owner's responsibility to go out and find some liberal shills for counterpoint to conservative shills? If those shows weren't so popular, they'd be pulled for lack of advertiser sponsorship and they'd be off the air the old fashioned way, for lack of support.

People should be taking a good hard look at this issue and ask: Why are the Democrats so opposed to free speech on the airwaves? How is this hurting them, and what's to stop liberal commentators from hosting their own talk shows and espousing their points of view? Look to the underlying sentiment that drives such attitudes.

If the Democrats are so bothered by all of this, then they should host their own stinkin' radio talk shows.

If people don't like the message, they should turn off the program. I rarely listen to those shows, but I don't have a problem with somebody else listening to them. :dunno:

If you think this won't extend to a ban on Sunday morning church service broadcasts, think again.

I don’t know about anyone else, but it seems like we have a double standard here. It is okay to want Bush to fail, but a terrible sin to want socialism to fail. Liberals always get a free pass. Conservatives have to put up with crap.
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/

What is the point of that article?
First case; crisis occurs and person shows support for the President because of the crisis despite his own personal beliefs.
Second case; crisis occurs and person continues to demonstrate his desire for the President to fail in spite of the crisis.
Am I missing something here?

As for the general topic of free speech/censorship I'm a firm believer that freedom of speech is one of the key principles of our respective nations, especially when it is regarding the politics of a country.

Regarding what he actually said though, I have one question; what if Obama's plans actually go a long way to helping the country pull out of the economic crisis? Why is it automatically and unequivically bad for the country as he is proclaiming?

The gist is that Carville always wanted Bush to fail. LOTS of liberals wanted failure for Bush. Republicans said nothing about these anal pores. Then Rush gets skewered. Double standard? I think so.

There is no double standard! Since so few liberals have any standards, they can't very well be held to them.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I still don't get it.
As far as I can see, that article points to where Carville censored himself and made the media follow suit for what appears to be the good of the nation at a time of crisis whereas currently, Limbaugh doesn't.

Where's the double standard?

This whole issue is petty and nonsense anyways. :shakehead

You can clearly see how dumb the liberals/demos are they actually believe Limbaugh is the face of or represents the Republican Party and its beliefs. :screwy: Far from the truth. Just a stupid childish game of cat & mouse.

It's all about deflection and distraction. While they've got people focused on Rush, they'll do some end runs around other things they don't want people to notice.

Both sides do it. :dunno:

This whole issue is petty and nonsense anyways. :shakehead

You can clearly see how dumb the liberals/demos are they actually believe Limbaugh is the face of or represents the Republican Party and its beliefs. :screwy: Far from the truth. Just a stupid childish game of cat & mouse.

Perhaps it is more indicative of what those individuals in question think of the general public.
Incidentally, what are (the general) views on Limbaugh?

Incidentally, what are (the general) views on Limbaugh?

Personally I can't stand the guy and definitely do not listen to him. IMO he gives Conservatives/Republicans a bad name. And in the process he is probably laughing all the way to the bank. He is more like an entertainer. :lol:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Limbaugh says ANYTHING the liberals don't like they get their panties in a wad.

BUT.... the liberals run TV and radio. What would give you that idea? :dunno:

2-WZ9BHaW68

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Limbaugh says ANYTHING the liberals don't like they get their panties in a wad.

But what was said was then withheld by the person who said it, who also convinced those reporters to not publish it.
You are using that as an example of double standard but you seem to fail to notice that in that example, Carville censored himself.

The idea being that NO ONE should EVER wish for the failure of the president. (so says the liberals) Yet MANY hoped for Bush's failure openly.

why would you want your President to fail?

Personally I have no desire to see Obama the man himself fail. The fact that he got elected is a benchmark in history. Just his liberal agenda. :eek: There is a difference you know. :lol:

That's kinda what I'm getting at.

If BHO continues to push his marxist agenda....I hope he fails miserably!

what's wrong with Marxism?

why would you want your President to fail?
Well, I don't know how well it comes across on BBC, but America is really divided. There are several parts. The 2 most popular are the liberals and conservatives. 3 and way down the list are people that are in the middle and not crazy like the other two. There are several other as well. Liberals want to be fuck ups and have the government take care of them in every way possible. Conservatives believe in an invisible man in the clouds and want to make everyone follow what they think he wants, except love thy neighbor because they don't want to help anyone. Then the 3rd are those that believe in intelligence, personal freedom, along with personal responsibility... those that don't want to be controlled by the religious/moral beliefs of others, or want to have to support those that refuse to contribute to society or take responsibility for themselves.

A president gets elected by catering to the sheep of one of the two main divisions of America. Because of that, there are a lot of people that don't agree with him or his policies. If someone was in control of the U.K. that wished to take everything that you worked for away and give it to someone else, or to spend the future earnings of your children/grandchildren before they were even old enough to work... would you want them to succeed or would you want their BS to fail and reality to win out?

Then the 3rd are those that believe in intelligence, personal freedom, along with personal responsibility... those that don't want to be controlled by the religious/moral beliefs of others,
Most human beings are intelligent creatures who tend to have some spiritual inclinations that cannot be determined by material means alone. Marxism is simply a system of socialism, with which the overriding feature is public (government) ownership as the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Communism evolves from socialism as a result of this so-called progression: the socialist slogan is; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies slightly and with; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” So, as a prerequisite to achieve either of the aforementioned radical agendas, you must first have a "redistribution of wealth."

Carville censored himself.

Did he really? :dunno:

DM, Carville probably did this because his old lady was beating down on him or threatening to kick his rear end. In case you did not know Carville is married to Republican pundit and staunch conservative Mary Matalin. From what I've seen she probably wears the pants in the family. :lol:

Just another entertainer like Limbaugh.

Whether he sensored himself or not...the sentiment was there. He did NOT want GWB to succeed. He was not alone. Liberals were on GWB's ass for 8 years. They nearly wet themselves every time there was a hiccup. How were they any different than Rush? The difference is that the Dems want to deflect attention away from anything negative about their messiah, BHO. Who, BTW, has an approval rating LOWER than GWB's was at this point in his administration.

As we all know you have to take polls with a grain of salt. :uhoh:.....:lol: However, this is interesting based on a wide variety of polls past and recent with Obama in office. According to the polls the country was headed in the wrong direction under Bush and now even under Obama. :runaround:


http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

As we all know you have to take polls with a grain of salt. :uhoh:.....:lol: However, this is interesting based on a wide variety of polls past and recent with Obama in office. According to the polls the country was headed in the wrong direction under Bush and now even under Obama. :runaround:


http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm



Seems that the number trends are pretty much the same regardless of the time they were taken, unless you take into account something significant happening.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-119/1237082998241560.xml&storylist=topstories


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509258,00.html



School: Student Can't Wear Obama Mask at Talent Show

Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. — An elementary school principal is barring a fifth-grader from wearing a Barack Obama mask in the school's talent show because parents have complained it's inappropriate.

Dru Lechert-Kelly, 11, hoped to dress presidentially and dance to a YouTube parody that features an Obama look-alike and a rap called "I Can Do Whatever I Like."

The skit features him in a navy blue suit, white shirt, red tie, black shoes and an Obama mask purchased at a costume shop — one like Obama himself once donned for a Saturday Night Live sketch. The choreographed routine rehearsed Thursday ends with Dru on the floor in the splits and was met with applause from students and teachers.

But some parents objected.

"I talked to the parents who are coordinating the talent show, and they feel it's inappropriate and potentially offensive," said Steve Powell, principal of Llewellyn Elementary School in Portland.

He declined to say specifically why it might be offensive. Dru's parents, Scott Lechert and Paul Kelly, suggest it's race.

"There was obviously no intent to harm here or really any possibility of offending anyone," Kelly said.

Dru said he didn't think performing without the mask was an option.

"If I don't have the mask," he said, "it's just some kid up there dancing around."

Discuss.

According to the polls the country was headed in the wrong direction under Bush and now even under Obama. :runaround:
The major difference being that the liberal media has more difficulty spinning in the other direction. When GWB was in the Whitehouse the spin was all negative. Now it's much more "wait and see".

"There was obviously no intent to harm here or really any possibility of offending anyone," Kelly said.

Dru said he didn't think performing without the mask was an option.

"If I don't have the mask," he said, "it's just some kid up there dancing around."
With the election to the highest position in the world of a black man....the race card should be moot. The liberal PC crap is nuts.

I recall kids getting sent home from school during the election for where anti-BHO tshirts to school. Schools are so afraid of offending people it just isn't believable anymore.

you don't think there is a difference in the situations of your country and the world when GWB first took office and when BHO took office? Or perhaps you are conveniently ignoring that one of them took your country down a questionable path and the other is having to deal with being is a questionable position.
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.3; U; Series60/3.2 NokiaN96-1/1.10; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1;) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413

FWIW, we'd probably have less of a problem with BO and his gang if they weren't quite so hypocritical. BO has done some things to place himself and his administration in a questionable position.

He took office with the promise of "change" and transparency. How many of his nominees for cabinet and high gov't. office have been found to be tax cheats? He criticized McCain for numerous positions during the campaign, and he now backs or supports some of the very same things he criticized McCain for.

His Speaker of the House thinks she's the Queen of the Universe and their concept of bipartisanship is that you have to agree with the Democratic line. His administration criticizes corporate execs for pay raises and bonuses while congress still gets pay raises and generous increases in their petty cash fund while spending money like a bunch of stoned out crackheads.

His administration wants to rein in free speech (topic of this thread) and that seems to be the only way they can dialogue. You don't like Rush and what he says? Fine, then meet him head-on and talk it out. Don't carry on like a little butt-hurt biatch every time he says something you don't like. They're in the hot seat now; criticism goes with the job. Don't sling it if you can't handle it.

Change? The only change I see in DC is the faces. Obama is a charlatan, like many before him. I don't see a lot of difference.

BTW, I am not a registered Republican and I disagreed with quite a few things the Bush administration did. One does not have to be a GWB fanboy to see how lame this "new" administration is.

Or perhaps you are conveniently ignoring that one of them took your country down a questionable path and the other is having to deal with being is a questionable position.
We were taken down that path by a Congress that was out of control and a House under Princess Pelosi and those of her ilk.

FWIW, ... ...is.

Well put!

We were taken down that path by a Congress that was out of control and a House under Princess Pelosi and those of her ilk.

So you're saying GWB was just merely a puppet?

So you're saying GWB was just merely a puppet?
No. What I'm saying is that a lot of the blame goes elsewhere. Pelosi, Frank, and others were saying Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack were just fine. McCain and Bush were saying otherwise. Look what happened. The Democrats were in control....disaster resulted. Now there are NO checks and balances at all. We are in for a really bumpy ride.

my point is, the reasons for people being anti bush back then and reasons why people are anti obama now are different and you can't compare the two and claim it to be a double standard.

to do so is quite simply, being ignorant and short sighted.

Saying that the Democrats want end of free speech is also pointless ever since good old Republican Presidential candidate McCain and his buddy came up with the McCain/Feingold/Cochran bill that imposes a limit on certain (political) advertising.

I found an interesting perspective on the merits (or lack thereof) of the "fairness" doctrine.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/the_fairness_doctrine_at_work.html


............................................

Liberals often seemed perplexed by the success of conservatives in talk radio and the abject failure of liberal talk radio (see Air America, Jim Hightower, Ed Schultz, etc.), another example of how their belief in government regulation blinds them to the way the free market operates. It's the law of supply and demand. Liberals have long had multiple media outlets to turn to: government-supported PBS and NPR, the broadcast networks, the newsweeklies, the Times and the Post, and the rest of the legacy media.

Conservative talk radio has been successful, i.e. profitable--and liberal talk radio has not--because of the most basic of reasons: it supplied a market demand that was otherwise unmet. Listeners turn to conservative talk shows to meet that need. Listeners mean ratings. Ratings mean advertising revenues.

The success of Rush and other conservative talk radio hosts, and the failure of liberals to achieve similar success, is the underlying motivation behind Democrats' efforts to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. Among those who have spoken up for the position are Senators John Kerry and Dick Durbin and Representatives John Dingell, Dennis Kucinich, and Louise Slaughter.

According to Accuracy In Media Editor Cliff Kincaid, with Democrats in control of both the White House and Congress, a Democratic-appointed F.C.C. could easily re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. "This may be what is planned," he told the Cybercast News Service .

.................................................. .....


Forced to provide equal time to liberal hosts -- an enterprise that has proved financially inviable time after time -- broadcasters would soon have to increase the advertising rates for conservative programs to compensate for the liberal shows drain in ratings and advertising or to pull the plug on both, silencing some of the most prominent and influential voices on the right.

But then, maybe that's what the Democrats supporting the Fairness Doctrine are really after.

I still submit it's just a thinly veiled way to silence conservative talk radio. They know liberal talk shows can't compete on equal footing, because listeners don't support them.