comMITTed to Romney!

6 Responses to “U.S. stock futures climb after Citi rescue”

1. 2thePoint Says:
   
   November 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am

   Beware of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’
   by William Rusher (Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of ‘How to Win Arguments.’)
   Monday, November 24, 2008

   http://townhall.com/Columnists/WilliamRusher/2008/11/24/beware_of_the_fairness_doctrine

   There are ominous signs that certain forces on the left are gearing up for a new attempt to impose a “fairness doctrine” on American television and radio commentary.

   Incredible as it may sound in retrospect, there actually was a so-called “Fairness Doctrine” in force in the United States from 1949 to 1987. Its ostensible purpose was to compel radio and TV stations to broadcast statements of opinion that “balanced” those being expressed voluntarily. Since a substantial majority of the statements being broadcast voluntarily were more or less conservative, the effect was to force broadcasters to air comparable programs expressing liberal sentiments.

   If that strikes you as a violation of the First Amendment, go to the head of the class. It is, of course, exactly that — as Congress recognized in 1987, when it eliminated it. At the time, even powerful liberal voices endorsed its demise. A Washington Post editorial of June 24, 1987, put it this way: “The truth is … that there is no ‘fairness’ whatever in the ‘fairness’ doctrine. On the contrary, it is a chilling federal attempt to compel some undefined ‘balance’ of what ideas radio and television new programs are to include. … The ‘fairness doctrine’ undercuts free, independent, sound and responsive journalism — substituting governmental dictates. That is deceptive, dangerous and, in a democracy, repulsive.”

   But not, in the opinion of some liberals, as repulsive as the relatively small number of liberal opinions being expressed. So now some of them seem to be getting ready to readjust the situation to make it more to their liking.

   Thus, last year Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, told Fox News Sunday that she was “looking at” a new Fairness Doctrine. Talk radio, she complained, “tends to be one-sided. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.” Apparently, she doesn’t want them to hold such views without first getting a heavy dose of what she regards as the correct information.

   And on Election Day this month, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argued that people who oppose the Fairness Doctrine “want the FCC to limit pornography on the air,” and are therefore inconsistent. “You can’t say ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.” To Schumer, if you are willing to limit pornography on the air, you must (to be consistent) be ready to demand the expression of liberal views on political topics.

   Whether Feinstein and Schumer will get their way is another matter. The “fairness doctrine” was abolished in 1987 amid a good deal of bipartisan self-congratulation, and it seems likely that it still retains most of its unpopularity. Logically, it simply cannot withstand analysis. It certainly doesn’t follow that every political viewpoint that manages to get expressed must be accompanied, or followed, by an equivalent expression of the opposite viewpoint. One can support laws against murder without necessarily insisting on equal time for the arguments in favor of it.

   What those who support the “fairness doctrine” are really saying is that they don’t enjoy the fact that their views have so little support. And while that’s perfectly understandable, it is no justification for the proposition that society must artificially create a situation in which unpopular views receive the same attention and respect as others that have more.

   
   
2. 2thePoint Says:
   
   November 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am

   O’Reilly references Romney.

   Just Say No
   by Bill O’Reilly
   Saturday, November 22, 2008
   http://townhall.com/Columnists/BillOReilly/2008/11/22/just_say_no

   You may remember that Nancy Reagan fought against drug consumption by urging Americans to “just say no.” Now we need Mrs. Reagan again because some poorly run corporations are asking for taxpayer bailouts and loans. They want charity from hardworking Americans who are getting pounded in a chaotic economy primarily caused by irresponsible businesspeople.

   The situation is totally out of control. Leaders of the three major American car companies showed up on Capitol Hill this week stating that if billions in government loans were not forthcoming, they would go bankrupt. And how did many of these executives get to Washington from Detroit? By private jet, of course.

   Paging Imelda Marcos.

   The reason the car companies are in such bad shape is that they cannot compete with Toyota and other foreign automakers. Gov. Mitt Romney, whose father ran American Motors Corp., says that union contractual obligations add about $2,000 to each American car above what a corresponding Toyota would cost. Romney says that if the unions don’t renegotiate, U.S. auto companies will never be able to compete in the global market no matter how much money they borrow.

   So, for our dazed senators and representatives the equation should be: If the unions won’t bend, we won’t lend.

   But the head of the House Financial Services Committee, the brilliant Barney Frank, disagrees with Romney and calls his analysis “union bashing.” Frank, who said last July that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “in good shape going forward,” submits that the autoworkers union should be applauded for promoting “income equality.”

   Swell, Barney, but here’s the rub: If the company goes out of business there will be no income at all. Am I getting through here, congressman? I often wish Barney Fife, not Barney Frank, headed the House Finance Committee.

   But back to we the people, who are far more sensible than the ideologues in Congress. There is no question that an apathetic federal government allowed risky mortgage lending and the subsequent irresponsible sales of bad paper to financial institutions like the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. The fed knew this was going on and did nothing.

   So the economy collapsed and people stopped buying stuff like cars. With little money in reserve because so much cash goes to union pensions and disabilities, the auto companies may collapse as well.

   Meanwhile, you and I, who work hard, pay our bills and had nothing to do with any of this, watch our investments get hammered and the job pool shrink.

   Both political parties are at fault, and we should tell them there will be no loans to private industry that uses private jets. The scam stops here.

   
   
3. Paulee Says:
   
   November 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

   It is time to get real, we must feel the pain, then Washington should as well and all the misuse and abuse needs to stop now. Cut the budgets, cut all spending like a household must. We have been lied to, and the ones off us that pay our bills, that don’t stand with a handout when tough times come, are not happy about paying for the ones that did not uphold their responsibilities. Clean up the corruption in Washington, do what is necessary to start our economy back toward some kind of sense. Mitt is absolutely right. Go back in history, seems the Dems are trying to repeat the same steps that put us into a depression in the 30’s. If anyone knows people in Georgia, we must push to get our republican elected there. We must, spread the word, we need to keep the Dem’s from having all the power in Congress!!!!!!!!!!

   
   
4. blue Says:
   
   November 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

   I think romney has a huge political problem, read this:

   “People are dismayed by his betrayal,” said Oakland County executive L. Brooks Patterson, a veteran Republican elected official from the Detroit suburbs who was a prominent Romney supporter in the primaries. “I just can’t believe that these words tumbled out of his mouth, given his background, given everything he said during the campaign.”

   he needs to get to michigan asap and try to help the big 3 come up with a plan…you can’t just give citi and others hundreds of billions of $’s and veto a 25 billion for the autos…if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work but politically speaking, you can’t say no after giving out some much $’s to others.

   
   
5. Chris A Says:
   
   November 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

   Romney has told the big 3 what they need to do. First, get rid of the Unions and start over. Mismangement is what got them there. Romney would become the scapegoat, no matter what he did.

   
   
6. Deg Says:
   
   November 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am

   blue,

   Romney didn’t hand out the $$$. He would have come out with a better plan had he needed to make the shots.

   
   

Leave a Reply