WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told political journalists on Wednesday that Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, was one of the political powers in the House that wants to restore the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to broadcast news and discussion.
Slaughter, the chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, has been active in the attempt to revive the doctrine "for a while now," Pelosi told reporters at a breakfast.
Republicans view attempts to pass a law embodying this doctrine as an attempt to silence, censor, conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, to name a few. Pelosi said there is growing interest among her Democratic majority to pass such a law.
A product of the New Deal, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to faithfully report both sides of all important issues, or risk fines, and possible loss of license. To stay out of trouble, most just stations stayed close to the middle.
The Federal Communications Commission, which issues and monitors all radio and TV licensees, declared the rule unconstitutional in 1987, and President Reagan, who named the FCC commissioners, vetoed a Democratic bill to restore the rule.
Pushed by Limbaugh & Co., Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., got a bill through the Democratic-controlled House that would prohibit reestablishment of the rule. It died in the Senate. Pence, a former broadcaster, moved to pass a one-year moratorium on revival of the doctrine. Blocked by Speaker Pelosi, Pence then filed what is called a motion to discharge that would force a floor vote on the moratorium.
It needs 218 signatures, but so far only 196 have signed. The number includes Reps. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, and John R. "Randy" Kuhl Jr, R-Hammondsport. But unlike the bill that Pence got approved last year, the discharge petition has no Democratic support. Pence charged Thursday that Pelosi is personally blocking the legislation. Pelosi said Wednesday there would be no floor vote on Pence's moratorium.
One leading Democrat who is not supporting the fairness doctrine is Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the probable Democratic presidential nominee. He calls the dispute "a distraction."
Slaughter had no immediate comment on Pelosi's remarks about her, but in a 2004 interview on PBS with Bill Moyers, Slaughter said that in the 1980s even then Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., supported the fairness doctrine. (Helms is 86 and living in North Carolina. My original post mistakenly referred to him as deceased.)
Slaughter told Moyers "when we tried to reinstate [the fairness doctrine] again in '93, one of the reasons we couldn't was that Rush Limbaugh had organized this massive uprising against it, calling it "The Hush Rush Law." Which again said that while Rush can speak and anybody that he wants to can speak on those stations, the rest of us can't. But he aroused his listeners so that they contacted their members of Congress and killed the bill, and that's not the first time we've seen that."
In the wake of Pelosi's comments , Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who opposes the fairness doctrine, said its revival would be "nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves."
President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, and even it passed the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is unlikely to uphold such a law that brushes up against the free speech amendment to the Constitution.
But it is strong ideological meat for the presidential and House and Senate elections. What do you think of the fairness doctrine? Is it fair or is it censorship?
---Douglas Turner
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went back to work in the Senate Tuesday after missing 97 of the Senate's 155 votes this year in her quest for the presidency.
Meawhile, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, missed 95 votes -- and the Republican choice for president, Sen. John McCain, missed 121.
Now this is nothing unusual for senators running for president -- but it is unusual for New York state, which has not had a senator running for president in 40 years.
And it does pose an interesting question: What do you think would happen if you went off on, well, an extracurricular activity for nearly 63 percent of your work time this year?
-- Jerry Zremski
If Western New Yorkers were hoping for some top tier representation in Albany after hearing that Joe Bruno was stepping down as Senate Majority Leader, they found out this morning they were out of luck.
Sen. Dean Skalos Skelos of Nassau County, the deputy majority leader, was quickly chosen to move into the top spot.
Skalos Skelos becomes much more than the next-in-line for the governor's seat (since we have no lieutenant at this time). He also gets a much bigger say in distributing state money and patronage positions. After seeing what Bruno did for Albany, we can only guess that the residents of Nassau County are tipping a toast today.
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack H. Obama of Illinois, the probable Democratic presidential nominee, today was accused by reform groups and his presumptive Republican opponent of breaking a "pledge" to accept public financing in the general election campaign.
The Obama campaign told supporters overnight by e-mail that he would be the first presidential nominee to raise all his campaign money from private sources since the public financing system began in 1976.
But did Obama actually make a promise to accept funds from the Internal Revenue System checkoff? The reform group Democracy21 said it hoped he "would stick with the public pledge" they said he made. A spokesman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Obama "broke his word" to abide by the campaign spending limits under the public financing rules.
But what did Obama actually say about it?
All that exists is his complicated, highly qualified response to a questionnaire he filled out a year ago.
Here is the question and Obama's answer:
"If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in presidential public financing system?"
"OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-Wisc.) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
In a briefing Thursday, Obama's campaign lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, told reporters there is not enough time left in the campaign to seek and secure a truce on financing, particularly with outside groups making independent expenditures to influence the campaign.
These groups, Bauer said, including lobbyists, political action committees, and others receiving almost unlimited donations through Internal Revenue Service rule 527, have resulted in "a broken system" of public financing. "This system is not viable," Bauer said.
Robert L. Gibbs, Obama's communications director, said Obama is fearful of being "Swiftboated" by outside groups, as the Democrats' unsuccessful 2004 nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was.
If Obama didn't make an outright pledge to adhere to public financing rules, Bauer was asked, shouldn't he at least make the good faith effort to secure an agreement with McCain that he promised?
"We're running out of time here," Bauer replied. 'It wasn't clear what we had to talk about (with McCain.)"
Gibbs noted that Obama is a cosponsor of legislation to "fix" the system by placing limits on expenditures of outside groups such as 527s. Gibbs and Bauer said Obama will work to repair the system after he is elected president.
However, any new limits placed on campaign spending would be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1976 the court, in the case Buckley v. Veleo, equated campaign spending with free speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The court is now more reluctant than ever to tamper with Buckley v. Veleo.
With the court's rulings in support of Buckley in mind, why is Obama now promising to enact laws limiting campaign spending if he becomes president? Bauer was asked. "I haven't discussed this with Sen. Obama," Bauer insisted.
Under public financing a candidate would get $84.1 million from the federal treasury for the general campaign in exchange for promises not to accept any private financing or spend more than $84.1 million on the campaign.
-- Douglas Turner
WASHINGTON … There are now, in Hillary Clinton's words, "18 million cracks" in the glass ceiling that separates women from their dreams.
That's the number of votes she got in her razor-close battle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, and to Clinton, it's all proof that it will be easier the next time a woman runs for president.
Speaking to a huge crowd of teary-eyed supporters, she said: "You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United
States. And that is truly remarkable."
Think back a few years, and it seems pretty clear that Clinton is right. Never has a woman come so close to the presidency.
But for many in the crowd, one thing hurts, one thing lingers: the sexism they perceive to be just below the surface of so much of the television media coverage of the race.
Do you see it too?
And if so, will that be there again the next time a woman comes so close to the White House?
… Jerry Zremski
She touted her experience when voters wanted change.
She overspent on campaign frills and then nearly ran out of money.
And she couldn't control a bitterly divided campaign staff or a husband prone to red-faced rants on the campaign trail.
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. When Hillary Clinton bows out of the presidential race today, she'll have more than enough mistakes to ponder.
And Linda Fowler, a political scientist at Dartmouth College, gives us a question to ponder as well:
"What did it say about her management ability when she couldn't keep her staff in order?"
… Jerry Zremski
WASHINGTON -- Imagine it: Barack Obama at home in the White House, Hillary Clinton across the way in the vice president's office and Bill Clinton -- well, not baking cookies.
"It could be like a reality show," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland/Baltimore County. "Ryan Seacrest might want to option the rights to it. I think it's a one-for-the-price-of-two situation."
That's just one reason there's not a unanimous call for a "dream ticket" between Obama and Clinton.
Supporters of the idea see it unifying the Democratic Party like nothing else, but opponents say Obama has plenty of choices for vice president that would come without the drama that seems to follow the Clintons around.
Is that so? Then who do you think is a better pick?
-- Jerry Zremski
WASHINGTON -- Nearly 17 months after she declared she was "in it to win it," Hillary Clinton is about to get out of it.
Finally, after nearly four months in second place, she plans to throw her support to Barack Obama here on Saturday.
Now I know this is going to be a hard, sad day for many people. One of the little-noticed secrets of this campaign is that Clinton's supporters are just as passionate as Obama's, and now, finally and officially, their passion will turn to disappointment.
But one thing is for sure. We have not heard the last from Hillary Clinton, not by a long shot.
She could be Obama's vice president, or a great Senate icon, or a cabinet
secretary, or ... the Democratic nominee in 2012.
Which will it be?
-- Jerry Zremski
NEW YORK - Usually when a candidate loses, the rally that night is filled with the tired, teary faces of people who worked too hard for a lost cause.
Not so with Hillary Clinton's rally at Baruch College here last night. No, it seemed a bit like a victory rally, with adoring cheers and smiles greeting a candidate who looked as happy as the guy who celebrated clinching the Democratic presidential nomination in St. Paul, Minn.
It was Barack Obama's big night, but Clinton yet again claimed a win in the popular vote and acted as if she wants to stay in the race - even if she has to stay in second place for the next four or eight years.
Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton. Get used to the sound of that phrase, because it just might happen.
No doubt some of her people are pushing the idea, and Clinton seems pretty keen on the notion herself. In Hillaryland, she's seen as the perfect remedy for Obama's much-discussed troubles among blue-collar voters.
So the answer to Obama's problem is - a vice president with negative ratings ranging anywhere from 40 to 50 percent?
-Jerry Zremski
If you believe Hillary Clinton, she's winning the popular vote in her marathon race against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
But if you believe Obama, he's winning.
So it depends on how you read the numbers.
Clinton wins the popular vote in three of the six ways it's counted by RealClearPolitics.com. She leads:
- In a tally that includes the unsanctioned Michigan primary exactly as the voters voted and excludes the caucus states where there is no precise vote count.
- In a count that includes Michigan exactly as the voters voted and includes estimates from those caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state.
- If you include Michigan, assign the "uncommitted" vote there to Obama and exclude the caucus states.
But Obama leads the popular vote:
- If you exclude Michigan and the caucus estimates.
- If you exclude Michigan and include the caucus estimates.
- If you assign the Michigan uncommitted vote to Obama and include the caucuses.
That's a series of "ifs" that even leaves the objective experts on opposite sides of the debate.
Curtis Gans, who heads the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said he would exclude the caucuses from any overall vote count because there's no reliable figures on how many people actually caucused in those states.
But he also contends that Michigan and Florida should be excluded because they were unsanctioned rogue primaries where there was no campaigning and where, in the case of Michigan, Obama's name was not even on the ballot.
"I don't see how she can claim a popular vote lead without Michigan and Florida and I just don't believe you do that," Gans said. "She has every right to claim this is almost a tie."
But Thomas Patterson, a Harvard University political scientist whose most recent book is called "The Vanishing Voter," argues for excluding the caucuses while including Florida and Michigan. After all, the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee last week agreed to seat the states' delegates with a half-vote each
on the basis of those primaries.
"I think you have to count them because their vote was used in distributing the delegates," Patterson said. "It looks like she has the bragging rights on this."
Does she … or does he? What do you think?
- Jerry Zremski
