Category — Fairness Doctrine

I know it’s early, but President-elect Obama didn’t have a lot to say in today’s economic press conference.  In fact, he was almost the anti-Truman by insinuating that the buck stopped with President Bush until 20 Jan 09.  Other than that, he enumerated policies we’d heard before–bailouts, a new stimulus package, and in general a lot more spending.  There wasn’t a lot of talk about new revenue sources AKA taxes and an odd hedge on his promise to raise taxes on the “wealthy” by stating he’d have to wait and see.

My early take–they have no idea what to do, which leads me right back to the strategy I espoused yesterday.  Republicans just need to sit on their hands and wait.  That’s what Obama is doing.  Why do you think he’s so careful to insist that we have only one president at a time?  He’s not going to step up and put his neck on the chopping block and support President Bush.  That would be risky, bi-partisan, and might get him in trouble if a major mistake gets made.  Better to let President Bush sink on his own, so I say follow his lead.

The people gave Democrats power; now force them to lead.  The last thing Republicans should do is provide cover for tax increases, the Fairness Doctrine, or any other liberal programs.  When they appear, provide the conservative alternative, and vote against them.  Sure, the media will howl about partisanship, but so what?  Republicans won’t get credit for being bi-partisan, and they sure as hell won’t get an ounce of credit if the program is successful.  So, when faced with a zero-sum game, the best option is not playing.

Note to the President-elect:  The dig at Nancy Reagan was not presidential and rather mystifying given she’s not a public figure anymore.

I have a sinking feeling that NYC Mayor Bloomberg and President-elect Obama will be sharing similar tax plans this year:

To illustrate the problem, the mayor said a 7.5 percent increase in income taxes for a family of four earning $50,000 to $70,000 annually would mean they would pay an extra $116 a year.

That “does put in perspective what might have to change,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg defines the “rich” as a family of 4 making $70K a year in the world’s most expensive city.  You have got to be kidding me.  But that’s not all by a long shot.  Mayor Mike wants to eliminate property tax rebates, hike property taxes, fire 1,000 cops, raise sundry fees, and hire more meter maids to, as liberals would quaintly put it, raise more revenue.

I’m so glad the Republican Party supported the liberal Bloomberg.  He not only embarrassed the party by turning independent, but he continues to damage the Republican brand with liberal policies.  It would have been better to have a Democrat in office to push these liberal policies and let them own them.

That’s right.  If Republicans are going to rise from the ashes, they have to let liberals own their policies.  This will be especially important for Congressional Republicans.  If they follow the moderate “reach across the aisle” meme and provide a fig leaf for the failed Democratic policies soon to be pushed by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, they’ll be slitting their own throats.

There’s nothing in Obama’s priorities that Republicans should support.  Are Republicans going to “compromise” on higher taxes?  Is muzzling talk radio via the Fairness Doctrine a good idea after the media just kicked the “moderate” McCain in the teeth?  How about adding 10s of millions to Democratic coffers by supporting card check for the unions?  Will the GOP add 20 million new Hispanic voters after they just broke 2 to 1 for Obama even though John McCain has been front and center on all their issues?

There’s nothing to do now but let the Democrats kill themselves.  They’ll overreach.  They’ll kill an already bad economy with higher taxes.  Be disciplined, take some media flack, get out of their way, and get ready to run against them when even a blind monkey could tell their policies have failed.

A bite from the reality dragon is lethal

Stephen Bainbridge believes John McCain will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court if elected. He pledged to do so at CPAC last week, and presidents are easier to pressure these days. Remember Harriet Miers?

McCain pledged to uphold the Constitution too. How did that turn out?

[snip]
To be sure, Presidents all too often break campaign promises. Remember George Bush 41’s “read my lips” pledge on taxes?

In the new media environment, however, it’s getting easier to hold a President’s feet to the fire. Remember George Bush 43’s aborted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?

Those of us who waged war against Miers succeeded in part because in the 2000 campaign Bush had explicitly promised to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We demanded that Bush keep that promise and, as it became clear that Miers was made from a different mold, we kept up a stead drum beat of criticism. In the end, we won. Miers was forced to withdraw and Samuel Alito became the newest member of the Supreme Court.

If a President McCain were to nominate a David Souter clone, the right’s netroots would have a collective conniption fit that would make the Miers fight look like pattycake. We might not win, but we’d at least bleed McCain of enough political capital to give even Warren Rudman second thoughts.

Remember McCain-Feingold? What was that bit of cheese for the conservative voices. Do you think he’ll flip-flop on that posture. At the first agitation from talk radio and the blogs, he’ll reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine to stifle any enmity. He may even do that beforehand to steal a march on the conservatives. Smart aggressive move, isn’t it?

How about the McCain-Kennedy fiasco, a highly destructive multicultural program packaged in a “We’re so diverse” wrapper. Call it another Mariel boatlift sans boats! It achieves the goal as well as the diversity agenda in the Balkan States, which has become a PC word for ethnic cleansing.

Who can overlook the McCain-Lieberman bill, the “Climate Stewardship Act of 2004” which was the most regressive tax on energy. All promoted by a person who never held a real job in business.

If you are buying McCain’s rhetoric, you’ll conclude Obama will join the Marines to get Osama.

An interesting exchange here between Chris Wallace and Senator Diane Feinstein. It seems that Diane isn’t real pleased about talk radio’s take on the amnesty bill:

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This bill was negotiated in secret and ¾ of the US Senate didn’t know what was in it. Then they tried to pass it in less than a week. And Feinstein can say with a straight face that talk radio didn’t have a lot of information? Comical.

This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

“Complicated” is code for “not easily understood by the little people”. What about free speech, Diane? If some people want to call it amnesty, isn’t that their right? It’s way to dangerous to let people have their opinion though.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

It might be time to switch to satellite and Internet radio. I get enough liberal pabulum from the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, et al.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

I love how she completely skips the free market question by stating “there have been problems”. Yeah, like nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio. And we know how liberals fix “problems”—more government regulation. Apply a fairness doctrine if you like, but include the NY Times, CBS News, and the nightly news casts while you are at it.