Thursday, November 06, 2008

And A Shiny New Donkey . . .

Jack Tapper of ABC lists Obama's campaign promises from a single speech.1 Voters apparently believed in bread and circuses. Call it "new math"--or a test of the Meltzer-Richard hypothesis.
1 Title stolen from here.

(via Coyote Blog)


Assistant Village Idiot said...

I wonder whether the disillusionment will be fast or slow.

OBloodyHell said...

> And A Shiny New Donkey . . .

Right animal, wrong descriptor.

> I wonder whether the disillusionment will be fast or slow.

AVI, the media is going to paint EVERY problem onto the GOP and the Bush admin. The recession which comes, which will deepen to the point where it is worse than the 70s, will be entirely Bush's fault. This despite the fact that the depression which Bush inherited was also entirely Bush's fault. That's how it works. "< -- He did it!" is the mantra of Democrats and victims everywhere.

They aren't going to get disillusioned anytime in the first term.

Obama will still get tossed out at the end of the first term, since he just got barely elected (by vote totals in each state, not by electoral votes) by a lot of non-believers who will turn on him fast enough. But the loons at the core will just blame the GOP.

I would be more concerned with where you're going to get conservative voices, since the Fairness doctrine is going to shut down talk radio.


Hey, Carl. What are the chances the FD can be applied to satellite radio? Will Sirius stand up to mere threats to give them crap?

Also -- what's the balance of the SCotUS going to do when they attempt to re-instate the FD? Would it withstand challenge nowadays, with all the alternative media resources available? This ain't the days of 3 channels and a half-dozen radio stations.

This is your specialty area -- Turn into a thread, if you want, in lieu of a reply, as it looks moderately complex and relevant.

Stan said...

I really don't see how the Court, with such a rich history of super-extra-high hurdles for the regulation of political speech would not find it unconstitutional. Something leftists have consistently, and rightly championed. For them to make an about face when it targets their ideological opponents would be an irreversible damage to the integrity of the institution.

Carl said...

I have no idea whether the current court would find FD constitutional, which comes down to rehabilitating the Red Lion doctrine (allowing scarcity to be rationale for regulation). But the Mass Media bureau decided four years ago that indecency regulations didn't apply to satellite radio. Satellite radio is sufficiently distinct from terrestrial to suggest the different regulatory classification is warranted.

Geoffrey Britain said...

I too would like to see the FD discussed at length, especially some of the implications and possibilities.

Such as: since the MSM is demonstrably biased and an irrefutable case supporting that assertion can easily be made...would the reimposition of the FD ultimately 'boomerang' upon the dems pushing it?

If Limbaugh, Hannity, Prager, etc. must be 'counterbalanced' mustn't also MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, etc. etc?

PLUS NYT, LA Times, WaPo...

Ah, that pesky Law of Unintended Consequences...

Carl said...


One suggestion in response here.