Friday, December 9, 2016
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts





November 17th, 2008 by Celeste Fremon


I’m holed up at an intriguing conference on health care reform….(more on that later), so I’ll make this fairly quick:

Here are THREE Must Reads and ONE Must Watch:


Last night when I had dinner with a hoard of very smart health care reform policy wonksters, one of the first-broached topics of conversation around the various tables was the Obama 60 Minutes interview, the universal opinion being that it was an gargantuan relief to have someone elected to high office in the U.S. who displayed a strong preference for, as one person put it, “evidence-based” ideas.

Here’s a link (to the Swamp’s link) to the interview.



A lot of people believe that the key to the gay marriage issue is eventually going to be found in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In this morning’s LA Times UC Hastings law professor Brian Gray explains that there is already a successful precedent for such a challenge when, twelve years ago, the US Supremes struck down a law in Colorado based on equal protection when the Colorado voters attempted to restrict gay rights.

In that decision (Romer v. Evans ) Justice Kennedy wrote: “If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

Hastings makes sure to say that such a case would be no slam dunk as Prop. 8 is not the same as Colorado’s Prop 2. Yet, he says, there is an essential similarity….

Anyway, read it.



On Sunday, Maureen Dowd had a pretty savvy take on the question of whether asking Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State is really good idea or a really bad idea.

Good or bad, the key in contemplating the Hillary question is to look past the immediate move and see the whole chess board. Dowd does just that.

Here’s a clip:

On the down side, Hillary would be taking over a big and demoralized government bureaucracy, after proving with her campaign that she does not know how to run a big and demoralized group of people.

On the up side, she would never have to exaggerate her foreign policy résumé again; this time, she really would be brokering peace and flying into places where they’d try to fire at her.

And if she worked hard enough — and she would — she could restore clarity to Foggy Bottom, the striped-pants center of diplomacy so maligned and misused by W. and Dick Cheney on their Sherman’s march to war in Iraq and in their overwrought bid to become the only hyperpower.

If Barry chooses Hillary as secretary of state, a woman who clearly intimidated him and taught him to be a better pol in the primaries, it doesn’t signal the return of the Clinton era. It says the opposite: If you have a president who’s willing to open up his universe to other smart, strong people, if you have a big dog who shares his food dish, the Bill Clinton era is truly over.

Appointing a Clinton in the cabinet would be so un-Clintonian.



This morning’s NY Times has an interesting article speculating about how if GM and/or Ford and Chrysler are allowed to go belly-up, that while it will be “painful,” for a while, it won’t be the catastrophe that some predict because, in time, the foreign car makers will step in to fill the breach and a “new equilibrium” will eventually result, jobs will be rescued, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay, well, maybe. And then again maybe not.

So, before we encourage our elected representatives to go all Lehman Bros. on the American auto industry, I strongly recommend reading Friday’s article by The New Republic’s senior editor, Jonathan Cohn, about why we likely need to rescue the automakers (but with some new and strict rules imposed as part of the bailout).

Here’s the story’s opening:

General Motors has come to Washington, begging for a $25 billion bailout to keep it and its ailing Detroit counterparts going next year. But nobody seems too thrilled about the prospect. Liberals dwell on the companies’ gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles. Conservatives obsess over all the well-paid union members with gold-plated benefits. And people of all ideological backgrounds remember how they used to buy domestic cars, years ago, but stopped because the cars were so damn lousy. “The downfall of the American auto industry is indeed a tragedy,” the Washington Post editorial board sermonized recently, “but the automakers and the United Auto Workers have only themselves to blame for much of it.” And, if they have only themselves to blame, the argument goes, why do they deserve taxpayer help? Let them fail and file for bankruptcy. In the long run, the economy will be stronger and the workers better off. It’d be worth?the short-term pain, which might not even be so severe.

In normal times, with another company, that might be correct. But these are not normal times….

No kidding. Read the rest.


UPDATE: This morning’s WaPo has an OpEd by economist Jeffrey Sachs that complements what Jonathan Cohn says above. Read it! Here’s the opening:

A government-supported restructuring of the auto industry is urgently needed for our economic and energy security. If the Bush administration allows the auto industry to collapse, it will compound the panic that started with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. Washington should seize the opportunity to begin a new era of U.S. technological leadership in the global auto industry, starting with an immediate loan.

Posted in health care, journalism, Obama | 57 Comments »

57 Responses

  1. Woody Says:

    1. Celeste: hoard of very smart health care reform policy wonksters

    Smart health care worksters and socialized medicine supporters are two mutually exclusive terms.

    - – -

    2. Justice Kennedy wrote: “If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

    Like Islamic terrorists? Like the Weathermen? Like Illinois Nazis?

    - – -

    3. You could count on Hillary Clinton firing a lot more than seven U.S. Attorneys…maybe all of them like her husband did, which drew no outrage from the press.

    It’s a joke to read Dowd. No matter who Obama appoints to what, it’s good. It’s like Al Gore explaining climate cooling being caused by global warming. You can’t lose!

    - – -

    4. It’s the unions calling for the bailout of U.S. auto manufacturers. For instance, if G.M. declared bankruptcy, then all existing contracts are voided–including union contracts! (Ya-hoo!) I can’t think of a better way to deal with bloated payments to union blackmailers.

  2. Woody Says:

    I want a “do-over” on my response to No. 3. I wasn’t thinking.

    Hillary would be SoS instead of AG, so that analogy isn’t right. Instead, Obama should appoint Hillary Clinton as a Deputy White House Counsel. That will keep her busy for years watching her back.

  3. Woody Says:

    My contribution to the Obama orgy: If Michelle Obama’s such a great dresser, what was she doing in this red butcher’s apron?

  4. don quixote Says:

    A million (millions?), jobs lost if the bailout of the auto industry has the kibosh put on it?
    Can we as a country, that’s already reeling from the economic meltdown caused by the Robber Barons of Wall St. and the subsequent massive job loss’s in the financial and retail sector, afford not to keep one of the bulwarks of the economy, the auto industry, in the ICU on life support for a while?
    Do we just pull the plug and start making funeral arrangements?
    If the Bernanke’s and Paulson’s were so willing to give a carte blanche check of a trillion or so bucks to failed and possibly criminal laissez faire Capitalists at AIG, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and the other banking and financial welfare queens with a two page application in hand, then why not bail out an industry that actually produces a tangible product and supports millions of people through employment?

    And why not twist an arm or two and strongly suggest that Oil Companies like Exxon, Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, put something in the kiddy to help the cause? After all with their record setting profits of late and the price for gas all us ordinary people have payed through the nose for, one would think the Oil Barons would have a selfish interest in keeping another symbiotic USA industry afloat.

    And if we the people, through govt, bail out the auto industry then we as shareholders should insist that only vehicles that get more than 25 or 30 miles a gallon get produced,no more giant Humvees and huge trophy SUVs need apply. The pay and bonus’s for executive’s and CEOs should not exceed more than 25 or 30 times the rate paid to the ordinary auto worker, this is in line with all other foreign executive pay. And No more millions in bonus’s and Golden Parachutes for producing failure.
    Let’s re-install high tariffs and tax’s on imported foreign vehicles, parts and supplies including steel. We need to start producing our own materials from our own industry and natural resources.
    And let’s finally get with the rest of the civilized world and have Universal Medical Care for everyone! Then all USA based industry would be relieved of the expensive “for profit” health care and insurance costs and would put them on an even keel as far as overhead costs with foreign based manufacturing and industry.

    In my life I have owned Japanese, European, and American vehicles and some were good and some not so good. In my business I have always had Ford trucks,and I have nothing but good things to say about these trucks, in fact I am still driving my 2000 Ford V6 Ranger that has over 250,000 miles on it and continues running strong.

  5. don derelict Says:

    I am still driving my 2000 Ford V6 Ranger that has over 250,000 miles on it and continues running strong.It has twice pipes, fender skirts and fuzzy dice too. The horn plays La Cucaracha clear as the day I had it installed in Tijuana.

  6. kevin Says:

    Woody is correct; the auto bailout is about unions not manufacturing capability

  7. reg Says:

    Woody’s gone from posting pix of Obama shining Sarah Who’s shoes to citing Germaine Greer on Michelle’s dress. Gotta love the depth of desperation to insult the Obamas. He’s gonna have a hellish 8 years.

  8. Woody Says:

    Kevin: Woody is correct….

    Thank you, Kevin, as many people here don’t recognize my qualities or admit to my correct positions.

    - – -

    On the contrary, reg, I’ll enjoy poking fun at the Obama’s until The Chosen One ruins our country and turns it into something that our founders never would recognize. Until Obama puts through the Fairness Doctrine, for which no one but Democratic leaders see a need, Obama will supply endless material for talk radio.

    - – -

    More on the fires, including a space image: Scenes of devastation as wildfires threaten to plunge LA into darkness

  9. reg Says:

    Woody – could you cite something where Obama says he wants to revert to the Fairness Doctrine ? No? Okay, go back digging in the sewers of the rightblogosphere for something else. You’re a raving lunatic – and I love watching the disintegration.

  10. Woody Says:

    reg, when questioned, an Obama spokesmen said that Obama “does not support” the Fairness Doctrine. That really is not the same as saying he opposes it, which he doesn’t. His only purpose in denying support was to try to keep the discussion of it out of the campaign.

    But, if the Democratic Congress passes the bill, Obama will sign it. Further evidence of his unstated intentions was his appointment of Henry Rivera, a Fairness Doctrine proponent and talk radio opponent, to his transition team and to help select the next FCC chairman. Obama’s ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Czar Chosen

    Adding to the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine under Obama in the White House, the FCC will shift to a 3-2 margin of Democrats over Republicans.

    Obama uses words to misdirect people as skillfully as Bill Clinton. He will flip his positions when the time is right. And, your own wife said that black people don’t tell the truth to white people, so Obama must mean something other than what he says.

    With conservatives, you can trust what they say. With liberals you have to figure out how they feel.

    Is that citing enough for you?

  11. WBC Says:

    Wow, Maureen Down tortures a spin that appointing Hillary to Sec of State because she’s smart, savvy, respected to be tough when it counts and can get things done, would be “so unClintonian,” because Clinton had only wimpy dishrags around him, not being as secure enough in himself as (the egomaniacal and nnointed One) Barry Obama.

    Note the use of the Americanized version of his name to add a folksy, “he’s just like us” tinge, to go along with that folksy inflection he picked up somewhere between Indonesia, Hawaii, Columbia/ westside of New York – Harlem adjacent, East L A, and the South Side of Chicago. (Where DID it come from, anyway?) Note how no one else calls him that, and in fact, Americanizing his name to garner national approval would have been considered un-P.C.

    Note how Down frames this so that if Clinton is selected and chooses to accept, this isn’t being done because she’s exceptionally qualified and to try to put a powerful party rival out of the way to where he can control her via hierarchy, but because the Clintons themselves are such wimps. And you buy this hogwash, like the other Faithful.

    Actually, some smart people think Hillary should accept, since Teddy Kennedy is intent on keeping control of the healthcare agenda and she’s too junior a Senator to have as much impact as she could on the world stage. Where she’d be forced to toe the Obama Admin. line, while bringing along the Clinton legacy of successful (at least mutually trusted) Middle Eastern diplomacy and general respect around the globe.

  12. Woody Says:

    In response to your update regarding G.M., here’s another position:

    Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM
    Chapter 11 would better preserve the valuable parts of the company than an ad hoc bailout.

    Federal law provides a way out of the web: reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. If GM were told that no assistance would be available without a bankruptcy filing, all options would be put on the table. The web could be cut wherever it needed to be. State protection for dealers would disappear. Labor contracts could be renegotiated. Pension plans could be terminated, with existing pensions turned over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC). Health benefits could be renegotiated. Mortgaged assets could be abandoned, so plants could be closed without being supported as idle hindrances on GM’s viability. GM could be rebuilt as a company that had a chance to make vehicles people want and support itself on revenue. It wouldn’t be easy but, unlike trying to bail out GM as it is, it wouldn’t be impossible.

  13. don quixote Says:

    WBC with his foot in his “All American” mouth;

    “Note the use of the Americanized version of his name to add a folksy, “he’s just like us” tinge, to go along with that folksy inflection he picked up somewhere between Indonesia, Hawaii, Columbia/ westside of New York – Harlem adjacent, East L A, and the South Side of Chicago. (Where DID it come from, anyway?) Note how no one else calls him that, and in fact, Americanizing his name to garner national approval would have been considered un-P.C”

    WBC, what’s constitutes an American name nowadays? What’s a proper American inflection or accent supposed to sound like?
    How do you define “just like us” ?
    I know plenty of Americans with names like Jose, Luigi, Rahm, Ahmed,Wong,Keo,Vahac,Kimo,Vladimir,and even Barak. And some of these “Americans” speak with an accent due to their native birth language and or regional location.
    Maybe if you got your head out of your ass once in a while and looked around you might notice that “America” consists of and is populated by citizens and people of many ethnicity’s and races.
    Or perhaps you still think “real” Americans are only named Dubya or Dick and speak in platitudes and doublespeak?

  14. WBC Says:

    Don Q/ multiple personality disorder blog destroyer, read. Carefully. Slowly. Who. Is “Americanizing” Barack Obama. Then read the whole thing again. Maybe one of your other personalities can name for us all the Senators and Congress members named Vahac and Ahmed? Even Kimo and Vladimir or Bong? Or have they “Americanized” their names which is why we can’t recognize them?

    Can one of your multiple personalities and IP’s at conflict with yourselves explain why Down decided to call him “Barry” after he made being elected by his very Muslim-African given name a matter of principle? Maybe Don Culo or Tio Wong can tell us? I can’t believe Celeste hasn’t figured you out like every other blog has — guess you give Woody someone completely idiotic to spar with.

  15. don's lost apostrophe Says:

    Si se puede. WE can hardly make a contest out of woody’s right-leaning politics versus don’s incoherent blather, but we try. Why? Because this is America and si se puede.

  16. don quixote Says:

    Oh wonder of wonders, the WBC xenophobe, multi personalty, anonymous blog stalker, raises it’s ugly racist head out of the muck. The hydra breathes a little fire, it feels cornered by the changes taking place in once lily white right wing controlled America, it lashes out incoherently at what it thinks is not the America of it’s fantasy land of US history.
    Barry or Barack or Obama, why should anyone care? Should there be a name litmus test for anyone interested in holding public office?
    And by the way, whoever you are today, you might want to check the rolls of the US Congress yourself since the issue of “American” names seems so important to you. No there isn’t an Ahmed or Vahac there yet although I hope they will be there one day soon, but there is a
    Xavier, Silvio, Eni Faleomavaega, Chaka Fattah, Albio Sires, and a Luis, Raul, Vito, Ruben, Silvestre, Ciro, Jose, Edolphus, Nydia, Wu, and a Solomon.
    All good “American” names to ease your vitriol.

  17. "reg" Says:

    I’m forced by your contortions to repeat – you’re a fucking idiot, Woody. You’re also incredibly boring with this trash.

  18. Woody Says:

    Hey, reg. You asked for a citation on Obama’s position on the Fairness Doctrine. I provided it. It’s hard to pin down someone like Obama who changes positions, parses words, and votes present, but I’m on target.

    Why can’t you admit that you were wrong and that I am right, which I am.

    Half of your posts are to call me names. They hardly qualify as posts of interest, so you have less room to talk than do I.

    Am I to presume that Obama will stick by every position that he claimed in the election? If you believe that, then you’re more dishonest or dumber than I imagined, which was already bad.

  19. reg Says:

    It’s a shame that there’s apparently no medication for your condition.

  20. Woody Says:

    It’s okay, reg. There are a lot of other liberals like you who won’t admit when they are wrong or beaten. Your pride exceeds your intelligence.

  21. Randy Paul Says:

    Why can’t you admit that you were wrong and that I am right, which I am.

    Pleased cite where Obama explicitly supported reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.

  22. Woody Says:

    reg didn’t ask for “explicit” support. Plus, you can’t expect Obama to be specific about much of anything–especially topics that he didn’t want mentioned during the campaign. You can’t go by what Obama says as much as what he does. Actions speak louder than words. His appointment of Henry Rivera,speaks loudly.

    Anyway, that wasn’t even the point of my comment.

  23. Randy Paul Says:

    Keep backpedaling.

  24. Woody Says:

    No, it’s you who tried to move the goal posts further away. Give it a rest, Randy.

  25. Randy Paul Says:

    Poppycock. You make a baseless smear of Henry Rivera, a partner at the leading communications law firm in the country, groundlessly contradict Obama’s public pronouncement on the subject based on nothing more than your fever-swamped ravings and we’re supposed to take you seriously.

    Spare me your style of argumentation that has all the intellectual rigor of a third grader.

  26. Woody Says:

    Still moving the goal posts, huh, Randy. First it was give support, then explicit support, and now defend a “smear” of Henry Rivera. Maybe you need to re-read this about him – Obama’s ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Czar Chosen. Before you post again, could you move the uprights back into the stadium?

  27. Woody Says:

    Randy, you were caught on film! How Obama Got Elected

  28. Woody Says:

    Another feature of Michelle Obama:

    Barack’s better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and — drumroll, please — a butt. …”Obama’s baby (mama) got back,” wrote one feminist blogger. “OMG, her butt is humongous!” went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn’t humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay.

    There’s nothing like raising the level of discourse here.

  29. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Woody, about that last (the Erin Kaplan article about Michelle at Salon), it’ll go up with commentary tonight. Erin’s a good friend and I LOVE what she wrote.

    Now that I can sit up without feeling woozy, once I finish correcting 4678 student papers (approximately, that’s a rough estimate) and writing an equal number of graduate school recommendations (all well deserved), I’ll post.

  30. "reg" Says:

    You’re just a fucking idiot, Woody. Dishonest as hell. Racist to the core. It can’t be said too often.

  31. "reg" Says:

    I was thinking of posting a photoshopped picture of Woody shining Barack Obama’s shoes – but I realized he’s not qualified.

  32. Woody Says:

    reg, is it only okay to write about white people’s rear ends? We can’t say anything about what a black person does and says or how a black person looks? So, they’re pretty much innoculated from any evaluation. How convenient. If Sarah Palin had been black, you couldn’t have gotten away with criticism of her.

    Anyway, it wasn’t my article, and it was published by Salon. But, you’re right about me not being qualified to shine Obama’s shoes, although I’m sure you are with your experience.

  33. Woody Says:

    Celeste, the responses in the comment section of that article are amusing:

  34. Dr. Forrester Says:

    Booze is the answer.

  35. helena montana Says:

    Woody comments, is it only okay ta write about whitey people’s rear ends? We can’t say anyfin’ about what uh black person do an’ says or how uh black person looks? So, they’re fine ass much innoculated from any evaluation. How convenient. If Sarah Palin had been black, ya couldn’t gots gotten away wiff criticism o’ her.

    Woody, why don’ ya put yo’ giant branez ta werk fo’ da world? You could offer advise ta Obama, da Pope, Hasbro, Ginsu, Hoover. Your thinkin’ would make dis here world bettah. slap mah fro! Nyuck, nyuck …

  36. Dr. Forrester Says:

    Booze is the answer. Does anyone remember the question?

  37. Santa Monica Sally Says:

    Woody…the voice of married first-cousins,
    Epitome of verbal flatulence,
    Commanding General of the Army of Truth,
    Radio’s answer to Professional Wrestling,
    A loose chip on the microprocessor board.

    Set phasers on puree!!!

  38. Dr. Forrester Says:

    In any case booze still heals!

  39. WBC Says:

    Barack Obama’s chief choice for Attorney General is a D. C. insider who was the No. 2 man in Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept.

    By your and Dowd’s tortured Clinton-hate “logic” that means he’s automatically DISqualified, right? Since Clinton never chose anyone remotely bright who could remotely outshine him to be around him. OR is the fact that this dude is black and was selected by the All-Knowing One give him a second chance?

    Meanwhile, Teddy Kennedy’s offered Hillary a “senior advisory” role on his healthcare initiative — which would defang/ neutralize her more, I wonder, that or SOS, to the Obama faction?

  40. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Yeah. I don’t know what I think about Holder. The LA Times is not pleased. On first bounce, I have some reservations of my own having to do with sentencing policy. But am still gathering information.

    Woody, I wrote up a post about Erin’s Salon piece, but I haven’t put it up for a variety of reasons. May still.

  41. Woody Says:

    Don’t chicken out to political correctness, Celeste.

  42. reg Says:

    Holder was an early supporter of Obama, so he’s not just a Clintonite retread. He has recently made some speeches condemning the judicial apologetics around BushCo’s torture decisions, so the significance of his appointment is probably linked to Obama’s commitment to cleaning up the judicial mess around torture, Guantanamo, etc. He also knows the justice department from the inside on day one, which is key since there’s hardly a department more in need of housecleaning after the Bushies crapped all over it.

    The anti-Obama snark is so tired. It’s already months past it’s shelf-life and he’s not even President yet. I was wrong in doubting the Hillary appointment – my son made a very smart comment about this. Putting someone with Hillary’s “wattage” at State is a signal of the importance of the State Department in driving foreign policy, over Defense. Total reversal of most of the Bush years, when State was undermined by the Vulcan Veep and the Crazy Old Man at the Pentagon. Very bold move and an important statement about the central role of diplomacy in an Obama administration. Sour sisters like WBC aside, Obama is totally self-confident AND has his own ego in check. He’s looking like he has the makings of a master strategist running an ultra-competent administration. The HHS Daschle pick is also terrific – a clear signal that health care reform is at the top of his legislative agenda.

  43. reg Says:

    Woody – my estimation of your racism has nothing to do with Michelle Obama’s butt, which I happen to appreciate. It’s about the consistent tone and obsessive attempt to drag any discourse about the Obama’s down to the lowest level possible. You’re a sick little prick. Which probably explains more than we want to get into…

  44. Woody Says:

    Finally, a book about Michelle Obama that reg can actually read – Michelle Obama to be featured in comic book

    Next on his list, the Michelle Obama coloring book.

  45. Woody Says:

    Talk about racists…how is reg going to side with these people now?

    Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.

    The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

    In al-Qaida’s first response to Obama’s victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—”house negroes.”

  46. reg Says:

    “how is reg going to side with these people now”

    You’re a piece of garbage, Woody.

  47. Ahmed Says:

    “I wrote up a post about Erin’s Salon piece, but I haven’t put it up for a variety of reasons. May still”

    Oh come on Celeste, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Let us have some fun

  48. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Okay. Fair enough. It’s a deal. I’ll put it up late tonight no matter what. (Still correcting my five gazillion student papers until then. This is my most hard core teaching week at UCI.)

  49. Ahmed Says:

    Much appreaciated Celeste

  50. Randy Paul Says:

    Maybe you need to re-read this about him – Obama’s ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Czar Chosen

    The day I take a wingnut screed as gospel will be proof o dementia.

    As usual you fail to distinguish between opinion and fact. You’re not a serious man, Woody.

  51. Woody Says:

    Randy, you’re nuts.

  52. reg Says:

    Woody – you failed to substantiate your wingnut conspiracy claims. Even a littl ebit. It’s that simple. Your problem isn’t just that you’re ignorant and obnoxious, but that you never know when to shut up because you’ve come up empty and look like an idiot. Do yourself a favor…

  53. Randy Paul Says:


    I’m sane. You, however are full of shit:

    To figure out who was causing such agitation, I went searching for the proponents of the fairness doctrine. I looked at Obama’s position–and it turns out that he doesn’t want the policy reinstated. Then I called the array of Democratic congressmen who had been tagged by conservatives as doctrine proponents. But they all denied any intention to push for its reinstatement. As some of the world’s great egotists, it’s not surprising that Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly believe they would be the first political prisoners interred in an Obama administration. But, the more I searched for actual evidence of the doctrine’s return, the more I had to conclude that Schumer was just messing with their heads.


    Responses from the offices of most of the Democrats who have been pegged as fairness-doctrine proponents–Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and others–have ranged from a firm denial that the issue is a priority at all to disbelief at finding themselves at the center of a manufactured controversy. “Somebody plucked this out of the clear blue sky,” says the press secretary for New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who was questioned about the issue by a conservative radio-show host a few weeks ago. “This is a completely made- up issue.” Senator Durbin’s press secretary says that Durbin has “no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view”–that the American people were served well under the doctrine–”and it’s all been blown out of proportion.” In fact, as recently as last year, the House voted by an overwhelming three-to-one margin to temporarily prohibit the FCC from imposing the dead policy; 113 Democrats voted to support the move.

    Meanwhile, the president-elect himself has said in no uncertain terms that he does “not support reimposing the fairness doctrine on broadcasters.” Republican paranoia is nothing more than that.

    God only knows what, if anything goes on in the fever swamp of your brain, but all you have demonstrated yet again is that you continue to bloviate about something you know nothing about and when proven to be absolutely clueless about the subject at hand, your only response is insults.

    Being called “nuts” by you is about as credible as being called a liar by Richard Nixon.

  54. Woody Says:

    Then I called the array of Democratic congressmen who had been tagged by conservatives as doctrine proponents. But they all denied any intention to push for its reinstatement.

    Well, there you have it! Thanks, Randy & reg…proof that Obama and the Democrats aren’t considering passing the Fairness Doctrine because that was reported by a liberal reporter who claimed to talk to some unidentified Democrats who denied it. Just how stupid can you get?!

    Responses from the offices of most of the Democrats who have been pegged as fairness-doctrine proponents–Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and others–have ranged from a firm denial that the issue is a priority at all to disbelief at finding themselves at the center of a manufactured controversy.

    Let’s see if their words back up their denials.

    “The Hill” 11/04/08 – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)…defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

    Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

    “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography…. (Yeah, right. Talk radio and pornography are no different.)

    In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

    Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

    Also, from Broadcasting & Cable 09/18/08:

    Obama, via his press secretary, told B&C in June that the candidate does not support reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine and sees the issue as “a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

    But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine. In addition, a source in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told B&C in July that he could not rule out a push from House Democrats to bring it back, either in this Congress or the next.

    Obama’s lack of active support does not necessarily equate to a veto if the bill were pushed by his Democratic friends in the Senate.

    The problem is, we have a failure to communicate. I provide the proof but you clasp your hands over your ears and shout, “la, la, la, I’m not listeing.” Either that or you’re just plain stupid, which is an equal possibility.

  55. Randy Paul Says:


    You provide quotes from Feinstein and Durbin from last year as your proof and ignore their press secretaries (who were specifically indentified as such contrary to your lying claims) who specifically say that is not the case positions this year and claim I’m ignoring your “proof.”

    Sometimes I think at birth your mother threw you out and raised the afterbirth instead.

  56. Woody Says:

    Randy, you’re so pathetic. So, conveniently for the election they push their true feelings to the side? How could they be so right then and so wrong now? You’re a joke. Their views never changed.

  57. Woody Says:

    Randy, the more I think about it, the more that I’m convinced that you really do have a low IQ. It’s not an attack, but an honest attempt to understand how you miss the truth so easily.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.