The Fairness Doctrine is Finally Dead

Gotta give credit to the administration for this one:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the elimination of 83 outdated and obsolete agency rules on Monday, including the controversial Fairness Doctrine.

“The elimination of the obsolete Fairness Doctrine regulations will remove an unnecessary distraction. As I have said, striking this from our books ensures there can be no mistake that what has long been a dead letter remains dead,” Genachowski said in a statement.

“The Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free flow of ideas and was properly abandoned over two decades ago. I am pleased we are removing these and other obsolete rules from our books.”

The rule required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in a manner deemed fair and balanced by the FCC. The commission deemed it unconstitutional in 1987 and ceased enforcement.

I'm sure liberal Democrats are mourning this decision, and Rush Limbaugh is probably enjoying his vacation just a little more. There was nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine - all it would have done had it returned is kill conservative talk radio and the AM band in general, forcing broadcasters to carry programming that nobody wanted to listen to in order to "balance" the conservatives. Liberal talk radio has been an abject failure, and many broadcasters would have simply dumped their conservative shows rather than counter-program several hours of mind numbing liberal whining.

This is a positive step toward free expression.

Don Surber has a little more on the history of the Fairness Doctrine here.

America Has Stopped Listening

The One has become The Boring One and America is tuning out.  From James Taranto:

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post "listened intently" to President Obama's Monday press conference, but only "for 15 minutes or so." That's 15 minutes or so longer than the duration of our own intentness, but we did listen falteringly to the whole thing. By contrast, as the president "droned on," Goodwin reveals that he "did something I never did before during an Obama appearance: I turned off the TV."

"Enough," writes Goodwin. "He is the Man Who Won't Listen to Anybody, so why should anybody listen to him? . . . I will leave that unhappy duty to others. I am tired of Barack Obama. There's nothing new there. His speeches are like 'Groundhog Day.' "

Goodwin is dead wrong about that last point, and he owes Bill Murray an apology. "Groundhog Day" was a terrific movie. Apart from that quibble, though, we feel Goodwin's pain, and we suspect most Americans do. The World's Greatest Orator is almost always uninspiring, condescending, self-aggrandizing, peevish and grim.

He is also, as Goodwin notes, ideologically inflexible: "There is not a single example on domestic issues where he voluntarily staked out a spot in the American middle. . . . Obama's default statist position remains unmolested by facts or last year's landslide that was a rebuke to his first two years. He continues to push bigger and bigger government, higher and higher taxes and more and more welfare programs."

And we are stuck with him for another year and a half. Goodwin and this columnist are professionally obliged to pay a certain amount of attention, but the rest of America can tune him out.

If you read on in the piece you'll find that some of Obama's supporters and not blaming the president for America's lack of attention, but are blaming Reagan and the end of The Fairness Doctrine. After all, once the media was free express a diversity of opinions there no longer was a single media for the president to preach to and that would slavishly report his every word as gospel.

Of course, the media never did that for Reagan but the alphabet networks certainly gave Clinton and Obama their full fealty.

Obama's message long ago grew tiresome and with his insistence on hold to the far left, there's simply no reason for most of America to keep listening.  Being Scolder-in-Chief is not a path to success.

Groups Want Feds to Monitor "Hate" Speech on Radio/TV

Of course, hate speech is in the ear of the behearer (to coin a phrase):

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is being urged to monitor "hate speech" on talk radio and cable broadcast networks.

A coalition of more than 30 organizations argue in a letter to the FCC that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate the facts from bigotry masquerading as news.

The groups also charge that syndicated radio and cable television programs "masquerading as news" use hate as a profit model.

"As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve," the organizations wrote to the FCC. "In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television program masquerading as 'news.'"

The organizations, which include Free Press, the Center for Media Justice, the Benton Foundation and Media Alliance, also argue that the anonymity of the Web gives ammunition to those that would spread hate.

The groups did not mention any specific programming on the right or the left in their letter, which supports a petition filed by the National Hispanic Media Coalition last year requesting a probe of the relationship between hate speech and hate crimes.

I guarantee you there are no programs coming from the left that would meet these group's definitions of hate speech. This is basically just another push for a new Fairness Doctrine designed to stifle conservative speech.

A Diverse Group of Lefties

Here's the way the left will enact a Fairness Doctrine without actually calling it that:

A diversity committee at the Federal Communications Commission is raising the hackles of conservative watchdogs who say its ideological makeup is hardly diverse.

The FCC recently renewed the charter of its 31-member Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age, which is set to convene in Washington Thursday.

The committee's mission is to help "enhance the ability of minorities and women to participate in telecommunications and related industries," according to the FCC. In past years the committee has suggested remedies like changing the tax code to help minorities purchase radio and television stations.

But conservatives say the committee is one-sided and made up primarily of liberal activists who have something more than diversity in mind.

"The idea that we should have a diversity of ownership implies that we would have a diversity of people on the committee," said radio host Roger Hedgecock, founder of the Free Radio Coalition.

"The committee is a totally one-dimensional group of activists," said Hedgecock, who worries that the role of the committee will expand under President Obama, particularly when the president's appointments are confirmed and Democrats gain deeper control of the five-member commission that heads the agency.

This committee is not designed to encourage more ownership by minorities and women, but to require it. By forcing ownership by people who are more inclined statistically to liberal opinions it's hoped that more liberal opinion will get on the air and that conservative shows will be dropped. It's a backdoor way to get rid of conservative talk.

Of course, they also have to hope that these people are bad businesswomen (and minorities) and don't mind losing money by programming liberal talk. If there's one thing history has shown, liberal talk loses money.

Fairness Doctrine Vote Coming Next Week

Sen. Jim DeMint has decided to test the Democrats to see if just how badly they want to stifle free speech:

Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is cosponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

President Barack Obama is opposed to any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday.

But as Sen. DeMint notes in a statement, some Democrats in Congress have indicated that they would support a reinstatement.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, asked in a recent interview if she favored reinstatement, said: “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.”

Back in June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by John Gizzi of Human Events if she personally supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, and she declared: “Yes.”

As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in an interview: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Sen. DeMint stated: "I'm glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.

“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?"

That should be an interesting vote...assuming Harry Reid doesn't use some parlimentary procedure to keep the amendment from being considered.

Political Headline of the Day

From Drudge:

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival...

First of all, you have to remember that all of Obama's statements comes with an expiration date, so you can bet this isn't the final word.

Secondly, the Fairness Doctrine as it existed in the 1980's won't come back, but there will be an attempt to create something that has a similar effect. Rep. Henry Waxman is already working on something that would not only affect radio, but possibly the internet as well. It will likely involve ownership rules that would make it tough for big companies like Clear Channel to own lots of stations, and "advisory boards" that could create problems for stations if those boards don't like a station's programming.

Just wait...

Another Liberal Talk Network Collapses

This will probably provoke new calls for the Fairness Doctrine:

Libtalk network Nova M Radio has been shut down, according to the attorney for Randi Rhodes, Robert V Gaulin of New York. … Moments ago, Gaulin sent this letter to your Radio Equalizer:

Randi Rhodes’ on-air home for less than a year will shut its doors. In an email message of February 17th from counsel for Nova M Radio, Inc. to Randi’s entertainment attorney, Robert V. Gaulin, the company is said to have been advised to file for bankruptcy protection next week. All payroll deposits were reversed on Tuesday, leaving Nova’s employees unpaid for the past two weeks.

On Sunday, Nova received a letter from Mr. Gaulin asserting that the contract with Ms. Rhodes was terminated due to material breaches and other reasons. Ms. Rhodes had not broadcast for over a week prior to this time, a situation which was diplomatically referred to as a “problem” that was solely within Nova’s control to solve. A few days earlier, Sheldon Drobny, founder of Nova M, and a co-founder of Air America Radio, attempted suicide and is hospitalized in Chicago.

Liberal talk is just not a viable commercial format. If NPR wasn't publicly funded it would have died long ago.

Political Quote of the Day

From lefty talk show host Bill Press on why he supports the Fairness Doctrine:

I know why I’m interested in it because I get up every morning at 3:45, I do three hours of talk radio every day from six to nine, that’s my life, it’s my business, I want to make money at it, and I want to be heard.

Once again a lefty confuses the right to speak with a non-existent right to be heard. Lefty talk radio has been a financial disaster, not because of some evil conservative cabal determined to keep it off the air, but because a format which consists largely of whining, complaining and denigrating America is not entertaining or something that large numbers of people want to listen to. It has very limited commercial appeal. Even in liberal Washington D.C. the local Obama 1260 talker that Press was on had to switch formats when its ratings dropped to sub-atomic levels.

The Fairness Doctrine will not guarantee that Press will be heard. It may, however, guarantee that people in other markets will have the privilege of turning him off.

Political Quote of the Day

From former Gov. and wannbe future Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, when asked about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine:

"A little state control wouldn't hurt anybody."

I'll make you a deal, Moonbeam - whatever you do to radio you have to do to TV and newspapers too.

"It's Not Fair That Nobody Wants to Listen to Me"

I reported recently on the demise of Obama 1260, a radio station in Washington D.C. which decided to switch formats from liberal talk after their ratings dropped so low they could no longer be measured. Bill Press, wacky left liberal and morning drive host, thinks it quite unfair that nobody wants to listen to him and he thinks the government is obligated to do something about it:

If you're looking for a break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day you'll be able to do so.

As reported by The Post [Style, Feb. 2], Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting Co., owner of OBAMA 1260, has announced plans to jettison all progressive talk and replace it with pre-recorded financial advice programming.

The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that's not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 -- even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington -- was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.

Or maybe one.

To mollify critics, Red Zebra has said it will add Ed Schultz to its conservative lineup on 570 AM.

Let me pause here for just a moment. 570 AM has decided that there's at least a couple of hours every day when they don't need listeners, because their ratings during the Ed Schultz Show will surely crater and they'll be lucky to find advertisers. We'll see how long that lasts.

Returning to Press further into his diatribe:

In fact, the only reason there's not more competition on American airwaves is that the handful of companies that own most radio stations do everything they can to block it. In many markets -- witness Philadelphia, Boston, Providence and Houston -- they join in providing no outlet for progressive talk. In others, as in Washington, they limit it to a weak signal, spend zero dollars on promotion and soon pull the plug.

Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves -- free! -- in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.

For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.

That experiment has failed. There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.

Free markets are the libs worst nightmare. You'd think that if there was any town in the world willing to listen to hours of whining and complaining, D.C. would be it. However, platitudes about "fairness" don't pay the bills. Listeners and advertisers do, and liberal talk radio has been an absolute disaster in both areas. Forcing stations to carry the unlistenable will not cause more people to hear a range of opinions because most people will tune out when the libs are on.

They're not entertaining and they are selling a product no one wants to buy.

We've already heard from one senator lately that hearings on talk radio are likely to take place, and I fully expect some sort of action designed not to increase the range of options on radio, but to muzzle conservatives. It will ultimately, however, be a failure. The market will decide what it wants to hear, not Congress.

And I don't think the courts will look kindly on the restrictions to the First Amendment that a new "Fairness" Doctrine would bring.

Dem Senator Wants to End Free Speech on the Radio

Politico has the transcript of a conversation between liberal talk show host Bill Press and Michigan Dem Senator Debbie Stabenow (pictured in a moment of self reflection below):

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): 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. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, 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.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

I guarantee you more people will read the transcript of this conversion than probably heard it live on liberal talk radio.

The Dems have long been irritated at the success of conservative talk radio as their liberal counterparts have failed miserably. So, rather than come up with a format that is competitive in the market, they'll just take the market away.

I don't think they'll be successful in the long run

Liberal Northern California Congressdummy Will Push to Reimpose "Fairness" Doctrine

A classic example of lefty blathering:

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (pictured), D-Palo Alto, said Monday she will work to restore the Fairness Doctrine and have it apply to cable and satellite programming as well as radio and TV.

“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it,” Eshoo told the Daily Post in Palo Alto.

The Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to balance opposing points of view. It meant that those who disagreed with the political slant of a commentator were entitled to free air time to give contrasting points of view, usually in the same time slot as the original broadcast.

The doctrine was repealed by the Reagan administration's Federal Communications Commission in 1987, and a year later, Rush Limbaugh's show went national, ushering in a new form of AM radio.

Conservative talk show hosts fear the doctrine will result in their programs being canceled because stations don't want to offer large amounts of air time to opponents whose response programs probably wouldn't get good ratings.

Eshoo said she would recommend the doctrine be applied not only to radio and TV broadcasts, but also to cable and satellite services.

“It should and will affect everyone,” she said.

She called the present system “unfair,” and said "there should be equal time for the spoken word."

This simple-minded effort by Eschoo (Gesuhndheit!) just proves that liberals have absolutely no knowledge of how broadcasting works. They think that because NPR is still on the radio there's a market for liberal nonsense. In fact, the only reason NPR is still on the air is because the government subsidizes it. Without that, it would fail as quickly as Airhead America did.

The reason that conservative talk radio because such a force is not because there was a evil cabal of conservatives who forced it onto the airwaves, but because there were millions of people who wanted to hear it. And where there are millions of listeners, there are big-money advertisers willing to pay large dollars for ad time. Advertisers will not pay for ads on shows nobody is listening to, and if there's on thing that Airhead America proved it's that there is a very limited audience for whining and complaining.

I doubt if the Fairness Doctrine will be reinstated, and it certainly won't be applied to all the various areas Eschoo (Gesuhnheit!) wants to apply it. She simply doesn't understand that the opportunities for opinion are much greater than they were in the 80's and it will be impossible to stop conservatives from getting their message out.

Localism Could Do What the Fairness Doctrine Won't Do

There doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for the Fairness Doctrine right now, even with Dems set to take over overthing in D.C. However, the Dems won't have to reenact the Fairness Doctrine in order to destroy conservative talk radio:

Despite concerns on the right about the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine to stifle talk radio — there seems to be little appetite for such a move. However, there is alarm over something called "localism." The Federal Communications Commission Web site says, "Promoting localism is a key goal of the commission's media ownership rules."

But the Canada Free Press, for example, calls it "the emerging threat to conservative talk radio."

The FCC requires stations to serve the interests of their local communities in order to keep their broadcast licenses. Some view that as a threat to nationally syndicated talk shows.

In September of 2007 — then-senator Barack Obama wrote a letter to the FCC promoting localism and media diversity. Jim Boulet Jr., on the conservative American thinker Web site says: "Obama needs only three votes from the five-member FCC to define localism in such a way that no radio station would dare air any syndicated conservative programming."

Nothing would surprise me with the new administration. I would have to think that even the Dems would be a little hesitant to do anything that would cause the kind of outcry that killing conservative talk radio would cause.

Today's Quick Headlines

Some quick hits on today's headlines:

'White Granular Substance' Found in NY TIMES Building; 41st Street Side of Lobby Closed...
At the Times building? It's cocaine. What else could it be?

New Mexico Democrat Senator Supports Revival Of Fairness Doctrine...
New Mexico Democrat Senator Supports the End of Free Speech

Study: McCain coverage mostly negative...
No kidding.

Code Pink Activist Tries To 'Arrest' Rove During Speech...
Can we have a three strikes law for Code Pink? Either that or a "shoot on sight" order?

DANIEL CRAIG: OBAMA WOULD MAKE A BETTER JAMES BOND...
He's already the Messiah, why would he want to take a demotion?

PAPER: 'Socialist' label called 'old code word for black'...
Before too long "white" will be a code word for black.

Scientists: Do five simple things a day to stay sane...
1. Turn off the TV. 2. Turn off the radio. 3. Turn off the computer. 4. Don't read a newspaper. 5. Don't leave your house.

Big price drops hit heating oil market...
Democrats hardest hit.

No brain scans in Biden's released medical records...
You can't scan it if it isn't there.

The Risks Facing Obama On Election Day

With only two weeks remaining in the race and months of campaigns behind us, I've been thinking about some of the things that may change this race to Obama's disadvantage on Election Day. This post will be lengthy, and I doubt I'll cover all the bases, but I'll try to get a lot of them.

The accepted meme is "Obama is running away with this thing and will win big". Okay, you could look at things that way if you take the most charitable view of the polls, but ignore recent trends. However, the way is still strewn with landmines that come back to hurt Obama when the voters actually pull the lever. So without further ado, here we go:

1. Bradley Effect

I've dealt with this issue on numerous occasions. You can look here, here and here. I don't think most voters have high regard for pollsters, and nobody wants to be called a racist. Although some pundits are pooh-poohing the notion that the Bradley Effect could still be a factor, I think there's still going to be a certain number of Democrats who will not vote for Obama because he's black.

What's really interesting is the possibility that some black voters may be lying to pollsters too, as suggested by a reader at The Corner:

Think about this - in 2000, GWB garnered 9% of the African American vote. In 2004, his percentage grew to 11%. Currently, all the polls show McCain winning only 3% to 5% of the AA vote. Is it not possible that many African Americans are engaging in the Bradley Effect, too? That is, they're afraid to tell pollsters that they are AA and voting against the first AA nominee for president? What if, on Nov. 4, McCain actually claims 6,7,8 or 9 percent of the AA vote? Will those voters be cast as sell-outs or Uncle Toms?

I think Obama will win a higher percentage of AA voters than GWB did in 2000 or 2004 for the simple fact that he'll probably draw more AA voters to the polls. But to think he'll cut GOP AA votes by 50% or more, I think, is probably wishful thinking on the MSM and Obama's part.

The only thing worse than being called a racist might be getting called an Uncle Tom.

And what about this version of the Bradley Effect, from another Corner reader:

Y'all have written clearly about the oft-confused Bradley Effect in the Corner today, but you have failed to mention the newest Silent Majority - those who are going to vote for McCain/Palin because of Sarah Palin, but are too embarrassed to admidt it to a pollster. It's huge, man.

As for me, as I tell everyone - I'm voting for Sarah Palin and that while-haired dude she's running with. Trust me, I get lots of knowing nods.

I'm not sure the numbers are statistically significant, but no doubt there are some people like that out there.

There's another element to the Bradley Effect and that's inexperience. I'm guessing there will be a great many voters who may have told pollsters they support Obama, but once they walk into that booth won't be able to pull the lever for him because of his inexperience.

All in all, I think any state that Obama leads by less than 5% is a risk for him.

2. Inevitability Breeds Complacency

I'll never forget the story from 2000 when actor Ben Affleck traveled all over the place imploring voters to get out and vote for Al Gore, and then didn't vote himself. He thought it was in the bag. Obama faces a similar problem this year. With the media and even politicians like Nancy Pelosi guaranteeing a win, some voters will believe it doesn't really matter if they vote and they won't show up. That complacency could cost a state in a close race.

Remember Hillary Clinton? She was inevitable too.

3. The Benefits of Divided Government

In 1996 political pundits suddenly found that divided government was something that voters should love. Of course, their new found love of divided government came only after the GOP swept the Dems from power in both houses in 1994. Funny thing, none of the punditry is pushing divided government this year as the Dems are sure to remain in power in both houses of Congress. However, there are a significant number of voters who will gladly vote for McCain to help ensure a divided government. They aren't necessarily Republicans - just people who don't want to hand the keys for the entire government to one party.

4. Joe the Plumber

The single most devastating question asked of Barack Obama this entire campaign was asked by Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber in Ohio (Rick Warren's question about when a fetus gets human rights was a close second). Obama's answer to Joe the Plumber gave voice to his socialist redistributionist views and gave McCain talking points for days. The attempt by Obama surrogates and the media to destroy Joe's life because he dared to "speak truth to power" has had repercussions for the Obama campaign. There are lots of "Joes" out there who are deeply offended by the heavy-handed way Joe the Plumber was attacked in the effort to divert attention from Obama's answer. Those voters will be looking for revenge.

5. Anger versus Optimism

Which candidate is optimistic about America's future? Which candidate often sounds angry? Whose supporters are happy and chanting "USA! USA! USA!"? Whose supporters tear up campaign signs, vandalize cars with McCain stickers on them, and direct profanity-laced tirades at McCain supporters? Optimism is a lot more attractive than anger.

6. Arrogance versus Confidence

Greek temples? Custom-designed presidential seals? Berlin speeches to thousands of Germans who can't vote in America? A spouse who wasn't proud of her country until her husband ran for president? Lobsters, Iranian caviar, $435 dollars for snacks? Arrogance is a very unattractive quality, while confidence is attractive. Obama has arrogance, McCain confidence.

7. Suppression of Dissent

I've already dealt with the attacks on Joe the Plumber, but there are plenty of other examples of Chicago machine politics in this race. Sarah Palin was savaged when she became a threat to Obama's ascendancy. TV stations in PA had their licenses threatened if they ran NRA ads critical of Obama. Truth squads in Missouri consisting of law enforcement officials threatened to prosecute anyone caught "lying" about Obama. The Fairness Doctrine could be revived to shut down conservative talk radio.

Is this the kind of America we want to live in?

8. Hillary Factor

The disgruntled Hillary voters (known as PUMAs) have not been placated by the Obamessiah. They're still out there and many will vote for McCain-Palin, not because they agree with anything the candidate believes, but because they want to punish the Dems for the way Hillary was treated in the primaries. Secondarily, there are PUMAs who are hoping for a McCain victory to pave the way for Hillary in 2012.

9. Ghosts

The ghosts I'm referring to aren't mystical spirits, but living, breathing fossils of 60's radicals that Obama has palled around with, such as William Ayers and his radical wife. And how about Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Or Tony Rezko? Or Father Michael Pfleger? Or Louis Farrakahn? And how about all those voter fraud experts at ACORN?

We might need to add this category to the "Bradley Effect" stuff.

10. The Jewish Vote

When your middle name is Hussein, you're already working at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the Jewish vote. And when a prominent supporter like Jesse Jackson states that your election will mean that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will lose influence, the Jewish vote goes bye-bye. That could be big in Florida.

I personally don't believe Obama is a Muslim at heart, but that story is still circulating out there and for some it will be a dealbreaker.

11. Familiarity Breed Contempt

Although nobody really knows what Obama believes or who he really is, we are all becoming far more familiar with him than we really want thanks to the blitz of TV advertising. With virtually unlimited resources, the Obama campaign is buying up every available TV spot on every available network. Every show I TiVO has ads from Obama that I can thankfully zip through (I don't watch much stuff live). Voters around the country will see an endless supply of Obama ads in the next two weeks, and I have to wonder how many voters will be turned off by that. Do they really want to see this guy every day for the next 4-8 years?

12. Joe the Biden

McCain's secret weapon is Joe Biden. He now promises an international crisis within 6 months of Obama taking office to "test his mettle", tells us the polls will drop because of racism, and talks about how Obama understands that three letter word, J-O-B-S. He's a godsend.

His warnings about an international crisis didn't include McCain. His mettle has already been tested.

13. Israel versus Iran

I talked about the Jewish vote a moment ago, but this time we need to discuss the likelihood of war between Israel and Iran. Back in July I had an item about the rumors that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the November election because it would create the best possible political outcome for them in the US. I've also heard that should Obama be elected, Israel will have to attack Iran before Obama takes office lest they find themselves faced with a hostile White House that might hamper their ability to defend themselves. How would you like to see Obama taking office with THREE wars going on?

There are probably other issues that come to your mind, and you're welcome to add them in the comments section.

John McCain certainly has issues of his own that will come into play on election day - namely age, health and temperament, in that order. Along with age and health you have the issue of Sarah Palin who was so savaged during the time McCain had her in hiding that a lot of fantasies about her have become lasting images. If you don't believe she's qualified to be VP, the age and health issues for McCain may be significant.

Early voting is underway in many places and so far Democrats are coming out in larger numbers than Republicans. That really doesn't mean anything because points aren't awarded for early voting, but it could indicate a stronger get-out-the-vote campaign on the part of Obama. Personally, I think he's going to need them. He hasn't won this thing yet.

Enjoy Conservative Talk Radio...While You Still Can

Brian C. Anderson, writng in the New York Post, tells us that a new "Fairness" Doctrine is right around the corner should Obama win:

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful. ...

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

If the Democrats make a serious run at the Fairness Doctrine, they'll face a fight unlike anything they've ever seen. Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million weekly listeners, not to mention millions more for Hannity, Medved, Hewitt, and others represent a powerful voting bloc, and unless the Dems want to experience another 1994 in 2010, this is an area they don't want to touch. Even Americans who don't regularly listen to conservative talk radio will not be impressed with a party that chooses to use the heavy hand of government to stifle political dissent.

Stupid Lawsuit of the Day

From right here in Los Angeles, the home of a hundred different radio stations, comes this:

GLENDALE — A Los Angeles man has filed a lawsuit against a conservative talk radio station — which broadcasts from the city — claiming the station and its media company misrepresented their federal license agreement by serving the interest of the Republican Party rather than the public.

David Birke and his attorney Johnny Birke filed a complaint Aug. 27 against seven talk show hosts of KRLA-AM (870), Salem Communications Corporation and its owner Edward Atsinger III, alleging that they use the public airwaves to push Republican beliefs. David and Johnny Birke would not say whether they were related, citing attorney-client privilege.

KRLA’s broadcast studio is at 701 N. Brand Blvd. in Glendale.

David Birke contends the radio station, its show hosts and the company have defrauded the public by using their radio license to discuss only Republican issues, Johnny Birke said Monday.

David Birke also alleges that they misrepresented their promise to the Federal Communication Commission to serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”

The station and its media company serve only “that particular political segment of the public,” Johnny Birke said.

“This a legal attack about the facts and law about what these defendants did and what they are doing on the airwaves,” he said.

Radio hosts Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Miller, Mike Gallagher and Kevin James are named as defendants in the suit.

“My client saw a need to address something that has gone unquestioned for so many years,” Johnny Birke said. “He lost his interest in the public radio airwaves.”

David Birke is a longtime registered Democrat, according to the complaint.

Imagine my surprise at that last sentence.

This lawsuit hasn't got a prayer. Number one, radio stations can pretty much broadcast whatever they want. There is no "Fairness Doctrine" that requires balance or opposing views.

Number two, as mentioned in the opening, there are probably 100 AM and FM radio stations in L.A., not to mention the HD stations and satellite. You can find any kind of programming you want around here, including Airhead America and NPR. If Mr. Birke doesn't like what he's hearing, he can change the channel

Of course, a Democrat might require some lessons on just how to do that.

Too Many Voters Confused About Free Speech

What does free speech mean to you? Does it mean that you have the right to express your political views without fear of government sanction, or does it mean that once you express your views you have to give a platform to the opposition to express their views so things will be "balanced"? Too many voters think the latter:

Just under half of Americans believe the government should mandate that all radio and television stations offer equal amounts of "conservative" and "liberal" political commentary, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

Rasmussen noted Republicans have expressed alarm in recent months over congressional Democratic efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine. The law was abolished in 1987, during the Reagan administration, opening the door to development of a flourishing talk-radio market led by Rush Limbaugh.

But the poll found 47 percent believe the government should require stations to "balance" the political viewpoint expressed over the airwaves.

Rasmussen found, however, 71 percent say it is already possible for just about any political view to be heard in today's media. Some 20 percent did not agree.

The poll also touched on regulation of the Internet, revealing 31 percent believe websites should be forced to balance their commentary.

This week, Rasmussen noted, Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, suggested restoration of the Fairness Doctrine could lead to government regulation of content on the Internet.

Ramussen's new survey found Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. The poll showed 54 percent of Democrats in favor and just 26 percent opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.

Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, arguing the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine has "opened the public airwaves to free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues by individuals of all political stripes."

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves," Pence said. "It is a dangerous proposal to suggest the government should be in the business of rationing free speech," he said.

A new Fairness Doctrine would effectively destroy talk radio. Radio station owners aren't going to program shows to "balance" Rush, Sean and other popular conservatives because nobody will listen to the liberal hosts. That's been proven every time liberals try and start their own talk radio network. Station owners would be forced to drop their wildly popular conservative programs because they couldn't afford to carry the libs.

As far as blogs go, anyone wishing to express their opinion which differs from mine can do so through the comment section. As long as the comments are appropriate to the issue at hand (and free of profanity or personal attacks on yours truly), I have no problem posting them. However, as I said in the comment policy for this blog, there is no First Amendment here, and should the government ever mandate that blogs give equal time to other opinions, millions of blogs will simply shut down...including this one.