Democrats Defend the Goebbels Doctrine

That's my new nickname for the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. Seems to convey the true intentions and motivations of its advocates a lot more honestly, I think. So much so that I don't give a rat's ass if it runs afoul of Godwin's Law.

Remember the Mike Pence-sponsored amendment in the House last month prohibiting the FCC from re-imposing the Goebbels Doctrine? It passed overwhelmingly - one might even say in bipartisan fashion - by a 309-115 margin. Which made sense because the last thing all 235 Democrats, who all have to face the voters again next year, wanted was to have to explain their fingerprints on another combusting of the First Amendment, to say nothing of why Limbaugh and Hannity and Hewitt and the rest are no longer on their radios.

Probably one of the reasons the Pence amendment passed overwhelmingly in the House is that House Donks knew their Senate counterparts would take the handoff and run to daylight. And yesterday that's exactly what they did:

Senate Democrats last night beat back a Republican attempt to attach an anti-Fairness Doctrine bill as an amendment to education legislation.

The doctrine, a former requirement that broadcasters present opposing points of view on political issues, was scrapped in 1987 by the Federal Communications Commission, which said the policy restricted journalistic freedom. The bill by Senator Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican, would prevent the FCC from reinstating the doctrine.

"We live in an age of satellite radio, of broadband, of blogs, of Internet, of cable TV, of broadcast TV. There is no limitation on the ability of anyone from any political persuasion to get their ideas set forth," Mr. Coleman argued in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. "The public in the end will choose what to listen to."

By a vote of 49-48, senators voted not to consider Mr. Coleman's amendment after Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, raised a point of order. Senate rules require sixty votes to waive a point of order.

This appears to have been a part of the Dems' "Mitch-slapping" that Generalissimo Duane (to the uninitiated, Hugh Hewitt's radio show producer) left out. And it is an absolute Godsend to the Republican minority, which can use this, as well as the Democrats' refusal to allow legal protection for vigiliant patriotic citizens who report suspicious activity that could be part of a potential Islamist terrorist attack against being sued into submission by jihadi-symp organizations like CAIR, to paint a devastatingly accurate picture of how the Democrats are the American branch of the Fidel Castro-Hugo Chavez axis and will drag our country down the Stalinist Venezuelan road if Hillary Clinton is given the keys to the proverbial kingdom with a Donk Congress as her rubber stamp.

David Frum calls this "midnight basketball, Dukakis in the tank, and Willie Horton all rolled into one." Andy McCarthy explains why:

What possible good reason is there to silence people who want to tell the police they saw suspicious behavior? Under circumstances where we are under threat from covert terror networks which secretly embed themselves in our society to prepare and carry out WMD attacks? Planet earth to the Democrats: To execute such attacks, terrorists have to act suspiciously at some point. There are only a few thousand federal agents in the country. There are many more local police, but even they are relatively sparse in a country of 300 million. If we are going to stop the people trying to kill us, we need ordinary citizens on their toes. Again, this is just common sense.

Profiling? Our war is against ISLAMIC radicals. They think the KORAN is commanding them to murder us. The guy who tried to bomb the airport in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago was yelling ALLAH! as he fought with the police. We're supposed to ignore that?

Democrats killed the amendment in a very sneaky, technical, under-the-radar way in the House — so they can tell their insane fringe backers they pulled it off, yet no one's fingerprints are on it. As far as I'm concerned, that just means we should blame "THE DEMOCRATS." Period. If they don't want personal accountability, we should see it this way: When it comes to national security, this is who they are.

I would have thought that was obvious from the past six years. That's why I couldn't really believe that American voters would ever put the Democrats back in charge until they had purged themselves of the Treason Lobby. But they did, and they didn't, and they haven't, and as such I can't really say for sure that this is the "mistake" that Frum believes it to be. At least until we get hit again and then find out that local citizens noticed something going on but were afraid to say anything. But that, too, will be blamed on Bush and the GOP. Will We, The People, buy this BS as well?

Hmmm; citizens "afraid to say anything". For fear of dire consequences. Talk radio banned, for all intents and purposes, for radio stations'....fear of dire consequences.

Still doubt my calling it the Goebbels Doctrine?