Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80

Thread: Chuck Shumer really really wants Fairness Doctrine (ie to restrict speech)

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,449
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843624]Look at the pure politics: Obama will be looking for ways to distinguish himself from Congress, which is much less popular than he is. Can you think of an easier way to score points with independent voters than vetoing nonsense like the Fairness Doctrine?

    It would be political gold for him.

    I think you would concede that the guy can read polls and is politically shrewd in general.[/QUOTE]

    And if he doesn't veto it, it would be a clear repudiation of his independent thought, no?

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843624]Look at the pure politics: Obama will be looking for ways to distinguish himself from Congress, which is much less popular than he is. Can you think of an easier way to score points with independent voters than vetoing nonsense like the Fairness Doctrine?

    It would be political gold for him.

    I think you would concede that the guy can read polls and is politically shrewd in general.[/QUOTE]

    Nuu, I agree with you and this is what I'm hoping for as well.

    I have to say that his first hire doesn't look to promising though in that regard

  3. #23
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,299
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843624]Look at the pure politics: Obama will be looking for ways to distinguish himself from Congress, which is much less popular than he is. Can you think of an easier way to score points with independent voters than vetoing nonsense like the Fairness Doctrine?

    It would be political gold for him.

    I think you would concede that the guy can read polls and is politically shrewd in general.[/QUOTE]

    Definitely agree with Nuu - although I doubt independant voters care much about this....it would be more of appeasing Conservatives, which is equally as important.

    My first thought though is why are Dems worrying about nonsense like this? They just won a landslide of an election, who cares about talk radio being balanced? Conservatives listen to radio more, while liberals focus more on blogs (or so it seems). Great....just let it be.

    Its nonsense like this that get them in trouble and make me (as a Dem) worry that they will fumble this rare opportunity.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Piper;2843627]And if he doesn't veto it, it would be a clear repudiation of his independent thought, no?[/QUOTE]

    I would be very disappointed if he didn't veto it.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,449
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843665]I would be very disappointed if he didn't veto it.[/QUOTE]

    While I agree with your views on how he could use it politically, it is a dangerous game to veto your own party, especially since everyone is always lookiong at the next (in this case mid-term) election.

    To me it will be a big test.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=CTM;2843628]Nuu, I agree with you and this is what I'm hoping for as well.

    I have to say that his first hire doesn't look to promising though in that regard[/QUOTE]

    Who, Rahm?

    Keep in mind the chief of staff is not a policy position so much as a procedural position. Bush's agenda wasn't shaped by Andy Card.

    Rahm is a guy who understands the process, who knows the ins and outs of Congress and the White House --and how they work together-- as well as anyone alive.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Piper;2843669]While I agree with your views on how he could use it politically, it is a dangerous game to veto your own party, especially since everyone is always lookiong at the next (in this case mid-term) election.

    To me it will be a big test.[/QUOTE]

    I think Obama [I]is [/I]the party at this point..

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843671]Who, Rahm?

    Keep in mind the chief of staff is not a policy position so much as a procedural position. Bush's agenda wasn't shaped by Andy Card.

    Rahm is a guy who understands the process, who knows the ins and outs of Congress and the White House --and how they work together-- as well as anyone alive.[/QUOTE]
    Yes, but he's also been described as a partisan pit bull and is an old buddy from Chicago..

    I'm not saying it in and of itself is terrible, but it's a bad sign imo..

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Piper;2843669]While I agree with your views on how he could use it politically, it is a dangerous game to veto your own party, especially since everyone is always lookiong at the next (in this case mid-term) election.

    To me it will be a big test.[/QUOTE]

    If Bush had vetoed some of the nutty spending by the GOP congress, do you think that would have helped or hurt them in the midterms?

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=CTM;2843674]Yes, but he's also been described as a partisan pit bull and is an old buddy from Chicago..

    I'm not saying it in and of itself is terrible, but it's a bad sign imo..[/QUOTE]

    The "old buddy" stuff is silly, because the guy is obviously qualified for the job. Obama ought to have somebody he's comfortable with in the position.

    He is a fierce partisan, no doubt, but the COS' job is to keep the White House staff in line with the president's agenda, not to war with the opposition, so the pit bull stuff isn't necessarily bad.

    If the cabinet is filled with similar partisan warriors, I'll share your concern. But signs point to several Republicans, and many moderate Clinton-admin economic types.

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,365
    [QUOTE=Jason423;2843509]If they actually pass that nonsense talk radio as we know it will be completely changed. You will see stations completely go off air if they cant simply stick someone like Hannity on the radio in prime time. These stations can not survive if they are forced to put a non money making no rating shows in these slots. The failure of Air American and almost every liberal talk show host that has been tried on major radio networks is well documented. It is absolutely ridiculous, going to cost us a fortune to have yet another watchgroup having to watch over radio programming and whatever other forms of media they claim this will affect.

    The whole idea behind the fairness doctrine is criminal and anti-American, IMO.[/QUOTE]

    Another example of "Big Brother" in America....You're not going to be able to take a piss without someone telling you how many drops you can shake off.

  12. #32
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,449
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843676]If Bush had vetoed some of the nutty spending by the GOP congress, do you think that would have helped or hurt them in the midterms?[/QUOTE]

    That isn't a fair comparison. Most republicans agree that the government spends too much. And at that point Bush had been written off by fiscal conservatives like me.

    In this case, Obama ran on 'changing the way Washington works and would be calling out Reid and Pelosi as being same ol' same ol' politicians by trying to pass a restriction on free speech in a time when all of congress is at least as unpopular as Bush..

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843683]The "old buddy" stuff is silly, because the guy is obviously qualified for the job. Obama ought to have somebody he's comfortable with in the position.

    He is a fierce partisan, no doubt, but the COS' job is to keep the White House staff in line with the president's agenda, not to war with the opposition, so the pit bull stuff isn't necessarily bad.

    If the cabinet is filled with similar partisan warriors, I'll share your concern. But signs point to several Republicans, and many moderate Clinton-admin economic types.[/QUOTE]
    Well again, I don't think this in and of itself is a problem, but as someone who is leary of his rhetoric, this was a mildly worrisome sign..

    A lot of conservitves feel the guy is full of hot air with his one America stuff, given his very liberal voting history. I'm trying to be optimistic that he's going to follow through but it's tough, particularly when reading some of these other folks predicting him to be Pelosi's lap dog ;)

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843683]The "old buddy" stuff is silly, because the guy is obviously qualified for the job. Obama ought to have somebody he's comfortable with in the position.

    He is a fierce partisan, no doubt, but the COS' job is to keep the White House staff in line with the president's agenda, not to war with the opposition, so the pit bull stuff isn't necessarily bad.

    If the cabinet is filled with similar partisan warriors, I'll share your concern. But signs point to several Republicans, and many moderate Clinton-admin economic types.[/QUOTE]

    Oftentimes the CoS has the President's ear on a lot of issues, and if it's a guy who the President likes and trusts (like Emanuel), then this will be even more so.

    Don't underestimate the influence of the CoS.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Piper;2843688]That isn't a fair comparison. Most republicans agree that the government spends too much. And at that point Bush had been written off by fiscal conservatives like me.

    In this case, Obama ran on 'changing the way Washington works and would be calling out Reid and Pelosi as being same ol' same ol' politicians by trying to pass a restriction on free speech in a time when all of congress is at least as unpopular as Bush..[/QUOTE]

    My only point is that Bush didn't veto a single bill while the GOP was in control of congress. And look where it got them.

    I think, if I'm Obama, there's a lot of upside in shooting down something as stupid and trivial as the fairness doctrine and imploring congress to work on more important stuff.

    Pelosi is not popular. Obama will realize that its politically important for him to demonstrate independence, and on this issue the disagreement is already on the record.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2843727]My only point is that Bush didn't veto a single bill while the GOP was in control of congress. And look where it got them.

    I think, if I'm Obama, there's a lot of upside in shooting down something as stupid and trivial as the fairness doctrine and imploring congress to work on more important stuff.

    Pelosi is not popular. Obama will realize that its politically important for him to demonstrate independence, and on this issue the disagreement is already on the record.[/QUOTE]

    I thik you are right about this and I think he will get some support from the newer democrats that made it into COngress as well. Congress as a whole is incredibly unpopular in America, Dems and Reps alike. It is just that in this election Bush was that much more unpopular and the republicans ran a person married into the senate while Obama was basically there for 2 years before he went into election mode.

    As President and the leader of his party Obama can reshape the Dems to gain more political benefits for himself and his party in the future. Knocking down things like the Fairness doctrine is a start. Getting certain fringe groups to knock off all of the investigations and hearings certain people want into George Bush and putting him and Cheney into jail even after they are out of office is a waste of resources at this point. I think if he comes in with a message to put the past behind and move towards the future it will help him a great deal.

  17. #37
    I frankly don't care about this issue much -- radio is a wasteland since consolidation and everybody knows it. Listeners vanishing every year. Why bother with fairness doctrine? Schumer, Emanuel & Obama just proved yesterday how weak and ineffectual the talk radio crowd really is.

  18. #38
    [quote=Warfish;2843479]It's done. The Fairness Doctrine will be Law within one year.

    Better get used to the idea now. Because it is what it is.[/quote]

    And will be struck down as unconstitutional within 6 months of its passage

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2843843]And will be struck down as unconstitutional within 6 months of its passage[/QUOTE]

    Completely agree. In the event that this passes, (which I don't think it will), the first host that takes it to court is going to win easily.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=fukushimajin;2843834]I frankly don't care about this issue much -- radio is a wasteland since consolidation and everybody knows it. Listeners vanishing every year. Why bother with fairness doctrine? Schumer, Emanuel & Obama just proved yesterday how weak and ineffectual the talk radio crowd really is.[/QUOTE]

    How could you not care about a law that restricts free speech? That's a dangerous precedent to set and not something we should take lightly at all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us