Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 18, 2009

OBAMA STILL OPPOSES FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.... One would like to think a development like this one would put the matter to rest.

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

Alex Koppelman asks the right question: "Can we stop talking about the Fairness Doctrine now?" The answer is, "I'm afraid not."

For one thing, the conservatives terrified of the non-existent campaign to bring the Fairness Doctrine back aren't persuaded by today's statement. Isn't it possible that Obama's consistent, principled opposition to the policy is really just an elaborate ruse, intended to obscure his secret support for the policy? The president might spring the policy on them when they least expect it.

For another, the embarrassing right-wing paranoia will just adapt and manufacture new angles to the old story. The American Spectator, for example, claims that it spoke to a staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who said Democrats not only want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but also want to extend it to the Internet.

"It's all about diversity in media," the Spectator quoted the committee staffer as saying. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? ... Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?"

Now, the notion that Democrats actually want to do this is obviously silly. The notion that a Democratic staffer who works with Henry Waxman would share an imaginary, nefarious scheme with the right-wing American Spectator is even sillier.

But it's a reminder that Fairness Doctrine hysteria isn't about what's real; it's about what keeps conservatives excited.

Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's fun to keep teasing them. I'm constantly telling my neighbors what we'll have in store for him at the reëducation camps.

Posted by: MikeJ on February 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

If they extend the Fairness Doctrine, does that mean you'll have to recruit more Mikes to comment here?

Posted by: Danp on February 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives are being misled. The real danger is flying monkees.

If we're going to fear something imaginary, it might as well be something we can visualize.

Posted by: CT on February 18, 2009 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

BTW - that wasn't directed at you, MikeJ. I just looked up as I clicked Post, or I would have clarified that.

Posted by: Danp on February 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

It sounds like someone on the Hill is purposefully mixing up the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Net Neutrality" -- that'd be my guess as to the source of this "extend it to the Internet" nonsense.

Posted by: Grant Woodward on February 18, 2009 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

But Obama doesn't oppose being played by the military/industrial complex.

Posted by: Obama -- Not as Tough as the Steelers on February 18, 2009 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

The notion that a Democratic staffer who works with Henry Waxman would share an imaginary, nefarious scheme with the right-wing American Spectator is even sillier.

No, it's brilliant. MikeJ understands. Keep pushing whatever buttons get them wild-eyed and foaming at the mouth over non-existent nonsense.

Back when they had the power, it was dangerous. But now that they're castrated, such teasing keeps them out of the way while the adults take care of things.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on February 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

grant,

my first impression after reading your post was can't be. nobody can be so stupid as to confuse the fairness doctrine with net neutrality. but then i remembered who we're dealing with.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever diverts them from talking about real issues is good with me. Fairness doctrine threat! Over there! There is no health care proposal in the corner....

Posted by: Rachel Q on February 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

So let them hyperventilate already!! Stop trying to calm them down. As long as they get all excited and invest a lot of their energy in imaginary stuff, they will be less obstructive in things that really matter.

But I wonder why they oppose it because you would think that they want the liberal press to be more nonpartisan, wouldn't you?

Posted by: Texas Aggie on February 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, MikeJ. I'm sure by Friday we'll be debunking rumors about reeducation camps for conservatives- and well be all your fault!

Posted by: Personal Failure on February 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I agree, Yellow Dog. Maybe next time, the staffer can hint about Obama is planning on assigning oversight responsibility for the Fairness Doctrine to the Trilateral Commission....

Posted by: DanB on February 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe next time, the staffer can hint about Obama is planning on assigning oversight responsibility for the Fairness Doctrine to the Trilateral Commission....

Posted by: DanB on February 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

LOL! Emailing this latest outrage to many right now ....

Posted by: Yellow Dog on February 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

I think this Fairness Doctrine stuff is so cute. It's like playing peek-a-boo with a three year old. Just mention it, and they squeal at the tops of their lungs.

Pssst... Fairness Doctrine!

Posted by: JoeW on February 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Bill Clinton and two Dem Congressional reps have made noises about the Fairness Doctrine in recent weeks. I think that's fine. Keep them whipped up in a lather about the Fairness Doctrine and before they know it, we will force them tohave gay abortions done by turban-wearing islamoliberalfacistcommie doctors.

Posted by: MNPundit on February 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the 'controversy' won't go away. First of all, it provides Republicans a vehicle (call it the whaaaambulance) to drive down Victim Street. "Look how oppressed we are."

Second, it gives them political cover and the righteousness of the 'oppressed' to speak ever more heinous diatribes, use more detestable invectives, and incite the lunatic fringe to action.


Posted by: JWK on February 18, 2009 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, he says he's against the FD, just like he says he's a Christian and says he doesn't care much for terrorism and says he doesn't dislike white people. But what do we really know about this guy? Who is he really?

Ooh, I can't do this any more. It makes my brain hurt these days. Where is IFP when I need her?

Posted by: shortstop on February 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen quoted:

"It's all about diversity in media," the Spectator quoted the committee staffer as saying. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? ... Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views?"

Well, there you have it -- exactly what I've been saying about this issue for months.

This has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

It has everything to do with the corporate aristocracy gearing up to fight any effort to roll back the Cheney-Bush policies of radical deregulation of media ownership, which have enabled the handful of giant corporations that own virtually all of the mass media in America to gobble up more and more of the last remaining independent TV and radio stations and networks and newspapers.

And with regard to the Internet, it has to do with the giant media corporations' war on net neutrality, and their goal of choking off Internet bandwidth for independent voices on the web, so that FoxNews.com can stream right-wing propaganda videos at gigabits per second while DemocracyNow.org will be slowed to an unusable crawl.

This is about giant corporations seeking to extend and entrench their near-totalitarian control of all information that reaches the American public.

And as usual, the so-called "conservatives" who are whining about the "Fairness Doctrine" are either deliberate liars, or they are weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dupes who are slavishly regurgitating the corporate-sponsored lies that Rush Limbaugh spoon-feeds to them.

So-called "conservatism" in America today is nothing but a fake, phony, trumped-up, scripted, focus-group-tested, pseudo-ideological cult, created and manipulated by the ultra-rich corporate aristocracy as a tool in their ruthless, relentless, rapacious class warfare against everyone else. "Conservatives" are saying what they've been told to say by their corporate programmers -- that's their function, and that's all they ever do.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Bill Clinton and two Dem Congressional reps have made noises about the Fairness Doctrine in recent weeks...

Bill Clinton as decoy. It has a certain symmetry...

Posted by: shortstop on February 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

I hope that you won't consider me a hysterical conservative if I offer a modest prediction: the Obama FCC will adopt rules giving "community representatives" a great deal of power over radio license renewals, and the "community representatives" appointed by the administration will use that power to, ahem, discipline radio stations that broadcast conservative talk radio. This will be a backdoor route to accomplishing the same thing as reimplementing the so-called "fairness doctrine."

I will further predict that no similar rule will be implemented for television station licenses.

There's no point in debating whether or not this will happen. I've made my prediction and we'll all just have to wait and see.

Posted by: DBL on February 18, 2009 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

There's no point in debating whether or not this will happen. I've made my prediction and we'll all just have to wait and see.

No, you've made your prediction and now you'll "just have to" deal with people choosing to debate it at length if they wish. I suspect some will.

Posted by: shortstop on February 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

we will hear about it in 2010

Posted by: Emmanuel on February 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK
the "community representatives" appointed by the administration will use that power to, ahem, discipline radio stations that broadcast conservative talk radio. This will be a backdoor route to accomplishing the same thing as reimplementing the so-called "fairness doctrine."


[...]

There's no point in debating whether or not this will happen.

That last bit is quite correct, because implementing the "fairness doctrine" would not punish stations that broadcast "conservative talk radio". Appointing one-sided government censors that manage political content would. Ergo, doing the latter would not acheive the same thing as doing the former, and the prediction is revealed to be necessarily false as it is self-contradictory. Therefore, there as little point in debating whether or not it will occur as it is debating whether or not a triangle in Euclidean space whose internal angles add up to 270 degrees will be found.

OTOH, its may be worth debating whether there is any rational basis to believe that Obama will either try to establish direct, one-sided censorship of the type you suggest in the one sentence, or try to acheive the kind of mandated equal time required by the "fairness doctrine", as you suggest in the next sentence. If you'd like a prediction of either of those to be taken seriously, you should provide some kind of reasoning of evidence to support it, otherwise you can predict whatever you want, but no one has any reason to pay any heed to it.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Every time I hear someone whining about the Fairness Doctrine, I think of Inigo from The Princess Bride telling Vizzini, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Of course, then my mind wanders and starts thinking about that lovely movie instead of whatever drivel the right winger is spewing.

Posted by: doubtful on February 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Townhall's Chris Field is already claiming that Obama doesn't really mean it and intends to impose the fairness doctrine by another name.

Keep 'em paranoid. That's all I say.

Posted by: Elf Sternberg on February 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

DBL wrote: "I hope that you won't consider me a hysterical conservative ..."

I don't. I consider you a weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dupe of corporate-sponsored propaganda.

So-called "conservative" talk radio is nothing but a script written by corporate fat cats, recited by millionaire paid liars, for consumption by fools.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 18, 2009 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sure, he says he's against the FD, just like he says he's a Christian and says he doesn't care much for terrorism and says he doesn't dislike white people -- shortstop, @16:47

You forgot one other deception he's been perpetrating and that's saying he's been born in Hawaii, 47yrs ago...

While everyone knows that he was born in Indonesia, 42 yrs ago and that his name is Barry Soetoro; it's his older half sister, Maya Obama, who was born in the Kenyan hut to her father's fifth wife.

Posted by: exlibra on February 18, 2009 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Paranoid as all get-out - but then, they have reason to be. All the stuff they accuse the Dems of doing or planning to do is stuff they did themselves - lying, cheating, plotting in secret. They just assume everybody is as morally bankrupt as they are.

Posted by: mcmama on February 18, 2009 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Townhall's Chris Field is already claiming that Obama doesn't really mean it and intends to impose the fairness doctrine by another name. -- Elf Sternberg, @17:35

Um... And, by any chance... would those who administer this sneakily renamed version of FD be called "community representatives"? Just as DBL, @16:53, is "predicting"? Be nice to know just where DBL -- not a hysterical conservative, he -- gets his predictions from.

Posted by: exlibra on February 18, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Shouldn't the patent absurdity of trying to apply the old fairness doctrine to the internet clue people in that they're being punk'd?

Well, it would if they had any critical reasoning skills....

Posted by: short fuse on February 18, 2009 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

I'm in favor of the fairness doctrine or something like it - perhaps not for every media outlet that has political talk, but for the media that are using the public airwaves. I don't think a democracy can allow one political point of view to lie with impunity to the public. Just look at Alexandra Pelosi's documentary the American Right Feeling Wronged, and you can see how this vicious web of lies is spread by the right-wing echo chamber.That they are so paranoid should tell you something. Honest debate is one thing- spreading lies is another.

Posted by: James G on February 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

I have to vote for SecularAnimist's explanation. Any attempt by the FCC to actually enforce present media regulations or decrease the media monopolies we now have will be met with screams of "See, he's trying to shut us down with a stealth FD!".
Hopefully the rightwing will have blown what little credibility they have left by then and noone will listen to them (well, I can dream, can't I?).

Posted by: Doug on February 18, 2009 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine-- what we need instead is some sort of Truth Doctrine. If a news outlet is presenting themselves as a professional news service they must be held responsible for being TRUTHFUL. Willfully misleading the public or twisted opinions masquerading as "news" must be held accountable for breaking the contract that they have with the public. They need to be encouraged to actually help educate the public, not just entertain with superficial coverage of complicated issues. (Yeah, I know I'm dreaming.)

I'm truly sick of seeing people from any side, dem or gop, on tv presented as "analysts" without full disclosure about their backgrounds. In other words, get Joe Scarborough off of MSNBC-- he's full of shit on a good day. I'm tired of his opinion being presented as "news" as though he understands anything he's talking about.

Posted by: zoe kentucky on February 18, 2009 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

It seems to me that despite their constant ranting about the "liberal media", conservatives know that they really have had a great media deal going for since the early 1990s and are desperately afraid that they'll lose their big advantage.

Let's face it, if you live in rural America today you have to go out of your way to get any news that is not conservative-based. In most of rural America your radio station choices are limited to a choice between secular conservatives like Rush, religious conservatives, and country-music conservatives. Today the people in those areas reliably vote Republican every two years because they really believe that liberals will kill their babies, take their guns, and make everyone practice sodomy. Give them some alternate viewpoints and you might actually see the Republican base start to erode.

It also seems to me the the reasons Republicans are so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine is that they know if the situation were reversed they would have reinstituted it by Executive Order on January 21st.

Posted by: Cool on February 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

They're talking about "localism" as a proxy for fairness doctrine, as from Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160141/posts

On September 20, 2007, Obama submitted a pro-localism written statement to an FCC hearing held at the Chicago headquarters of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.’s Operation Push.

There's also supposed to be some speech or something Obama made in 2007, about liking the FD.

Posted by: Neil B ☺ on February 18, 2009 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Executives never use hatchet women to promote an agenda in order to stay above the fray and retain popularity. No.

If Obama wants to clear the air, he could state he would veto any Fairness Doctrine bill or any of the three proposed sneaky versions, such as "localism," and produce his birth certificate.

Obama's been pretty consistent in leaving backdoors to weasel out of or reneging on campaign pledges(Iraq withdrawal, Gitmo, illegal wiretapping, state secrets, hiring lobbyists). Shouldn't underestimate his Machiavellian thinking.

Posted by: Luther on February 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

More, Mr. Benen - It's about constructing an almost wholly false perception of 'reality.' It's about clearing ground for hollow earth narratives, ridiculous at the moment and on the face of it, yet which themselves clear the ground, create the space if you will, for slightly less ridiculous narratives in the future. It's their long game, a game dependent on myth and legend, on distraction and redirection in order to set up the next big con. Their whole game depends on keeping open the space for cheap, Vegas level, venal fantasy. I say: perfect. Let 'em have it. Reinforce it. Keep those who need to 'believe' in third grade fabrication exactly where they deserve to be. We owe them NOTHING. I mean, fairness doctrine? Haven't you heard? George Soros is funding a stealth reinstatement of it, with Jimmy Carter's help. The fact that the socialist, traitorous liberal media has said nothing about this says volumes, yes? Yessssss, we have them right where we want them. Ssssoooon the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine will complete our fiendish plan!!! All hail the prince of darkness, our Maestro Mephistopheles, our dark souled bringer of socialist hell and hellfire!!!!

Posted by: Conrads Ghost on February 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I support the fairness doctrine, or something like it (or something with the same effect), and I find it just a tad disingenuous for Steve to be so vociferously against the very idea that some on the left support it. This does not mean, I hasten to add, that any of the nonsense coming from the wingers has merit.

If they are going to engage in fear mongering about a policy that in truth a minority of Democrats support with any enthusiasm, they might at least correctly describe what that policy is. So far the entire kerfuffle has been a disingenuous warning of an exaggerated description unfairly ascribed to people who don't even subscribe to the actual doctrine. We might do better to describe what the fairness doctrine was instead of so conspicuously running away from the right's bête noire.

q.v. http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/17/support-wanes-for-caricature-of-fairness-doctrine/

Posted by: jhm on February 19, 2009 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

DBL wrote: I hope that you won't consider me a hysterical conservative if I offer a modest prediction

Well, we won't stop considering you a hysterical conservative.

Posted by: Gregory on February 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

@ Cool: It seems to me that despite their constant ranting about the "liberal media", conservatives know that they really have had a great media deal going for since the early 1990s and are desperately afraid that they'll lose their big advantage.

Bingo.

Following on to DBL: First, thanks as always for your admission that conservative talk radio can't stand up to fact-checking. Now, why should the media corporations be allowed to use the public airwaves to disseminate political propaganda for only one side of the spectrum -- and an increasingly radicalized and dangerous one, at that?

Posted by: Gregory on February 19, 2009 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

While I'm with Doug and SecularA about what the Democrats might be doing, I think the Republicans (as opposed to conservatives) actually want a Fairness Doctrine passed so they can rein in that hated 'liberal media'. While Gregory is right that in fact it is 'corporate owned media' and anything but liberal (even the GD'd Washington Post) they still would like to have it swing further to the right. After all to a Republican anything can be called liberal, even the hunting and killing of Mountain Gorillias.

Posted by: Lance on February 19, 2009 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

Unless The Spectator cites a source, the "staffer" on the House Energy and Commerce Committee could be a Republican.

Posted by: Bob Johnson on February 19, 2009 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Reading the comments here, it seems that there is a certain enthusiasm for the fairness doctrine or something like it. It's a bit disingenous, though, to insist that you want that to insure that both sides are ventilated. If that were the case, you would also be urging that the fairness doctrine be applied to broadcast television and NPR, rather than just to talk radio. Forgive me if I conclude that your purpose is to shut conservative talk radio up. I think SA is pretty up front about that, but the rest of you are singing and dancing about the point.

Posted by: DBL on February 19, 2009 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

One more comment. The reason that the Obama Administration will not seek to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine in its old form, even though the Administration is surely filled with liberals who agree with you that conservative talk radio is heinous hate speech, is that the courts would certainly strike that down as as violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment puts a heavy burden on the Government if it wants to regulate political speech, and the proliferation of electronic media outlets today (besides broadcast radio and TV, we have cable, the internet, satellite, HD, etc.) surely renders obsolete the old justifications for the Fairness Doctrine, which relied on the scarcity of spectrum.

That is why I expect the Administration to move towards "community" control of radio licenses, which might be a way indirectly to censor conservative talk radio without necessarily violating the First Amendment.

In a year or two we'll see if my predictions are accurate.

Posted by: DBL on February 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK
Reading the comments here, it seems that there is a certain enthusiasm for the fairness doctrine or something like it.

As I count, 2 out of 44 comments have endorsed the fairness doctrine or something like it.

If that were the case, you would also be urging that the fairness doctrine be applied to broadcast television and NPR, rather than just to talk radio.

Neither of the posts endorsing anything like the Fairness Doctrine has suggested it should be limited to talk radio (which, btw, includes NPR) instead of extending to broadcast licenses (including television) generally. The only limitation suggested has been "to those broadcasters that use the public airwaves", which would include broadcast TV and all radio, including NPR.

So, nice job beating that strawman.


Forgive me if I conclude that your purpose is to shut conservative talk radio up.

I haven't seen any evidence that you think at all, and I won't forgive you for making up outright lies as the basis of your arguments.

I think SA is pretty up front about that

SA has been pretty up front about his distate for the corporate media in general (including, but not limited to, conservative talk radio) and most institutions he (?) sees associated with America's ultra-rich corporate capitalist ruling class, but has not here endorsed any policy (much less one in any regard similar to the Fairness Doctrine) as a means of shutting them down, or even expressed an interest in using the power of government to do that.

So, again, you seem to be making up lies.

That is why I expect the Administration to move towards "community" control of radio licenses, which might be a way indirectly to censor conservative talk radio without necessarily violating the First Amendment.

You have yet to provide any reason for believing this to be true, only an explanation for your belief that Obama would not pursue the Fairness Doctrine given your (unsupported) assumption that he secretly wants to impose it in his heart of hearts.

Given your demonstrated lack of either the ability or the inclination to recognize and acknowledge facts that are sitting in front of you, preferring instead self-serving partisan fantasies, I'm hardly going to give much thought to your unsupported prognostications.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely wrote: I'm hardly going to give much thought to [DBL's] unsupported prognostications.

Oh, I will, because demonstrating the intellectual dishoensty of conservatards like DBL is fun.

First, what cmdicely said.

Reading the comments here, it seems that there is a certain enthusiasm for the fairness doctrine or something like it.

You wouldn't have reached this conclusion from reading this thread, but if by "something like it" you mean, rather than the Fairness Doctrine, undoing the Reagan-era deregulation that led to media consolidation, yes, I'm all for it.

If that were the case, you would also be urging that the fairness doctrine be applied to broadcast television and NPR, rather than just to talk radio.

DBL presumes that NPR is liberal. That isn't true. It may be less conservative than, say, Fox News, but it's hardly liberal. In any case, NPR already airs conservative points of view -- if anything, it gives short shrift to the liberal side (for example, it ran several stories on the stimulus package devoted entirely to Republican complaints).

Forgive me if I conclude that your purpose is to shut conservative talk radio up.

Forgive you? I thank you, once again, for admitting that conservative talk radio can't survive having opposing points of view aired.

the courts would certainly strike that down as as violation of the First Amendment.

The courts didn't strike down the original Fairness Doctrine -- which, again, required only the airing of alternative points of view without restricting content in any way -- on First Amendment grounds, so your analysis is faulty. You even recognize why soon after, without realizing how you're undercutting your own argument:

the old justifications for the Fairness Doctrine, which relied on the scarcity of spectrum

But the spectrum is still scarce. Since when should conservatives have the right to monopolize the public airwaves exclusively for their own propaganda, when they admit it can't withstand the challenge of opposing views?

Posted by: Gregory on February 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

I thought we had moved past making ad hominem arguments. Oh well.

The nice thing about making predictions is that I'm now on the record and we can see what happens. I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything at all at the moment. I don't think there's any urgent need for defenders of the First Amendment to start collecting monies for legal defense, and I think it's foolish for people to be crying wolf about what the Administration might do in the future. I'm just testing my predictive abilities. If I'm wrong, you can remind me in a couple of years and say "I told you so."

Posted by: DBL on February 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

DBL, pointing out the falsehood of your claims is not an ad hominem argument, and when you make false claims deliberately, neither is pointing out you're a liar. It's rich that you're whining about being treated with the disrespect your conduct deserves when you persistently refuse to engage in good-faith debate.

If I'm wrong, you can remind me in a couple of years and say "I told you so."

No need -- cmdicely pointed out the many ways you're wrong right now.

Jackass.

Posted by: Gregory on February 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly