Even with a majority in both houses, the Democrats had a hard time forcing bribing passing Obamacare. Part of that is due to the availability of alternative news and information sources other than the heavily left-leaning mainstream media. In the past sources like talk radio were kept in check through the Censorship Fairness Doctrine, and Democrats, who hail themselves as champions of free speech, have been trying to figure out how to re-institute this doctrine and shut down talk radio and other conservative media.
Since the Democrats regained the majority in 2006, there has been much talk about re-implementing this policy. Since Obama’s election, that talk has grown. And Democrats have denied it, because to openly admit support of the Fairness Doctrine is to in effect openly support censorship.
Seton Motley at NewsBusters recounts an incident in 2008 in which he encountered liberal talk show host Ed Schultz. Schultz vehemently denied that anyone was talking about or supporting the Fairness Doctrine’s return. In particular, he claimed he had personally spoken with Nancy Pelosi, who was not in support of reviving the doctrine. Just three weeks later, Pelosi made a statement that she did, in fact, support the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Well, irony of ironies, now Ed Schultz himself is behind her. Jack Coleman at NewsBuster reports:
Here’s what envious class warrior Schultz told his equally resentful radio audience on Tuesday (click here for YouTube audio clip) —
SCHULTZ (initially responding to caller claiming “virtual war” between Democrats and Republicans): It is a cultural war that’s taking place in America, you’re exactly right. And it’s being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine. It’s time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you’ve got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it’s, we’ve got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he’s electioneering.
Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I’ll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever. The fact is, look, it’s not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the Drugster wouldn’t be on any of ’em. And that’s just where it’s at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.
So much for the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity. An impatient Schultz prefers the unconstitutional imposition of equality of outcome.
One of the things I find laughable about Schultz’s screed is how it is clearly motivated by Schultz’s resentment of Limbaugh’s greater success. Since Schultz can’t compete with Limbaugh in the “audio culture of the country,” he wants like-minded censors in the Obama administration to rig the game in the guise of creating a “level playing field.”
Yet given an opportunity to own 500 stations, Schultz admits, Limbaugh “wouldn’t be on any of ’em.” See how it works? “Fairness” for thee, not for me.
I have an expression for this type of liberal, one emboldened by rigged success and singular in his focus on controlling the lives of others. His is the voice of the guard in the gulag.
Video of the audio:
It only gets worse from here. The progressive liberals have been emboldened by the passage of Obamacare, and I can easily see additional massive power grabs in the future.