Today the Senate voted to prevent the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine 87-11, 1NV. So you would think that is great, right? Here are the votes:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 573 )
Vote Number: 71 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 573 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Vote Counts: YEAs 87
NAYs 11
Not Voting 1
NAYs ---11
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
But watch what the Democrats in the senate do. They turn around and pass the DURBIN amendment which "promotes diversity" in other words they just voted FOR the exact same legislation they had previously voted against. (57-41, right down party lines) Why? So when election time rolls around they can thump their chest and say "I voted AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine...before I voted FOR the Fairness Doctrine" This goes to the House next.
I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, left or right wing or square in the middle, please understand how dangerous this is to our right to speak out without fear of retribution from the government. What will happen if the voices of talk radio are silenced? What will happen if the pundits on TV are silenced? This will apply to everything, not just political programs. What about religious broadcasting networks? Will they be forced to give equal time to atheists or other opposing points of view? Are we in danger of having federally controlled television, newspapers and radio?
Narrow it down to right here in our blogging community, what will happen if we are silenced and blogging sites are monitored for any activity that might be considered by the government to not promote diversity. What if the federal gov't comes shuts any of us down because in their judgement we aren't using the public airwaves for the public interest. Well, who determines the public interest? The people of the United States...or will it be the federal government?
I know we disagree on very many things, but surely we can all agree that anytime the gov't gets in the business of telling people what they can write, or read, or say then that has to become our line in the sand, the point beyond they must not advance.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 591 )
Vote Number: 70 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:04 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 591 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
Vote Counts: YEAs 57
NAYs 41
Not Voting 1
YEAs ---57
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00071
Showing posts with label fairness doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness doctrine. Show all posts
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Sit Down and Shut Up and Stop Asking Questions
For years conservatives have been warning against the return of the Fairness Doctrine and for years those same conservatives have been called paranoid. Now, the liberals make no pretense of hiding their true intent to bring back the Fairness Doctrine cleverly disguised as something less "hot-button"ish, no doubt.
This time they want to include the internet. That means bloggers. So, whenever I post a story, I will have to give equal coverage of the opposing side. Forget about expecting the readers to do their own research, let us just spoon feed them so they don't have to do anything, except sit there. That sounds alot like the current administrations policies on just about everything else, doesn't it?
"Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
The last time I checked, radio stations are not publicly owned. Don't private owners still have a right to broadcast anything they think will make money? The abject failure of liberal talk radio is a perfect example of why we do not need any doctrine mandating "fairness" That is the beauty of a free market system. People will listen to what they want to hear and quickly reject that which they do not wish to hear.
I don't listen to liberal talk radio because I do not like liberal talk radio. I think the question for Waxman needs to be "fair for who"? Is it "fair" to handcuff sucessful radio formats with a proven recipe for failure i.e. liberal talking points? Is it "fair" to force millions of private citizens to present both sides of an issue, when for every conservative blogger there is a liberal blogger.
Trust me, it isn't hard to find liberal talking points, just pick up almost any newspaper and see for yourself.
"But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Right, the Fairness Doctrine isn't a fairness doctrine and the stimulus bill isn't a trojan horse for socialism either, right Senator Waxman?
This time they want to include the internet. That means bloggers. So, whenever I post a story, I will have to give equal coverage of the opposing side. Forget about expecting the readers to do their own research, let us just spoon feed them so they don't have to do anything, except sit there. That sounds alot like the current administrations policies on just about everything else, doesn't it?
"Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.
Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."
The last time I checked, radio stations are not publicly owned. Don't private owners still have a right to broadcast anything they think will make money? The abject failure of liberal talk radio is a perfect example of why we do not need any doctrine mandating "fairness" That is the beauty of a free market system. People will listen to what they want to hear and quickly reject that which they do not wish to hear.
I don't listen to liberal talk radio because I do not like liberal talk radio. I think the question for Waxman needs to be "fair for who"? Is it "fair" to handcuff sucessful radio formats with a proven recipe for failure i.e. liberal talking points? Is it "fair" to force millions of private citizens to present both sides of an issue, when for every conservative blogger there is a liberal blogger.
Trust me, it isn't hard to find liberal talking points, just pick up almost any newspaper and see for yourself.
"But Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing "Fairness Doctrine" type policies without actually using the hot-button term "Fairness Doctrine."
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Right, the Fairness Doctrine isn't a fairness doctrine and the stimulus bill isn't a trojan horse for socialism either, right Senator Waxman?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Talk Radio "Accountability"
Oh Hurray!
Now the socialist are going to make talk radio accountable. There is already a plan in place. Is anyone shocked? Surprised? Those of us who actually pay attention to this stuff tried to warn America about it...its been a cry in the darkness now for several years and every time we get dismissed as "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"
Do you realize what this means? It means the grip of the tyrant is slowly closing around America's freedom. OUR FREEDOM . YOUR FREEDOM. IF the liberals suceed in taking away this freedom, do you really believe they will stop there?
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you aren't paranoid then you just aren't paying attention. Get your head out of the sand America, before it is too late.
"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."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/sen_stabenow_threatens_talk_ra.html
Now the socialist are going to make talk radio accountable. There is already a plan in place. Is anyone shocked? Surprised? Those of us who actually pay attention to this stuff tried to warn America about it...its been a cry in the darkness now for several years and every time we get dismissed as "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"
Do you realize what this means? It means the grip of the tyrant is slowly closing around America's freedom. OUR FREEDOM . YOUR FREEDOM. IF the liberals suceed in taking away this freedom, do you really believe they will stop there?
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you aren't paranoid then you just aren't paying attention. Get your head out of the sand America, before it is too late.
"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."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/sen_stabenow_threatens_talk_ra.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)