Pelosi Supports Fairness Doctrine

Check out John Grizzi’s post at Human Events, Pelosi Supports ‘Fairness Doctrine’.  Ms Pelosi shows where she really stands:

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence’s proposed Broadcaster’s Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” — which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Now, Mr Pence’s effort is still working on getting his proposal to the floor, but here was Ms Pelosi response on its status:

“No,” the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that “the interest in my caucus is the reverse” and that New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”

Typical Democrat.  She won’t give it the time of day if Mr Pence succeeds, but if the other proposal materializes within the next month, it would be acted upon immediately. So, it should not be surprising by this follow up:

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

It’s sad to see that real political debate cannot happen if it not on Ms Pelosi’s terms.

Top 10 Reason Obama Shouldn’t Be President

I noticed yesterday at the American Thinker, Top 10 Reasons Obama Shouldn’t Be President, detailing a piece at National Review Online, 10 Concerns About Obama, written by William J. Bennett and Seth Leibsohn.  Check it out.

Now, without looking at the article, I already have problems with Mr Obama.  For instance, what does he mean by change?  How does he define it?  From what I have learned, Mr Obama wants to apply policies to our economy that were tired in 1930s and foreign policies that were used in 1970s.  This change sounds a lot like a re-run.  Pardon the TV jargon.  But, this brings me back to my original question, what does he mean by change?