Fair Is Foul

The liberal blog The Cucking Stool provides an example of the kind of irresponsible speech he hears on conservative talk radio that demands a return of the Fairness Doctrine:

I turned the dial back to AM1280 just in time to catch a Hugh Hewitt interview with Victor Davis Hanson where the two discussed what cave-dwelling terrorists and Iranians might think of an Obama presidency. Hanson wondered out loud how hard it would be for a messianic egotist like Obama to give up the office of the president should he tragically make his way to 1600 PA.

That does sound bad. A respected thought leader on the Right like Victor Davis Hanson speculating that Obama would not be willing to give up the White House if he's elected. That Obama would stage a coup in order to hold on to power.

Outrageous rhetoric. Anyone engaging in such speculation on the radio should be silenced by the federal government. (I'm sure these other examples are next on the Stool's hit list.)

However, VDH and Hewitt will have to be spared the regulator's axe, at least for now. Since they said nothing of the sort. Here is the transcript of the conversation in question. The relevant excerpt follows. For context purposes, it is long, reflecting the in-depth and thought provoking nature of most of the conversation you hear on the Patriot.

HH: There's a choice in front of the United States, and it's McCain-Obama. And they will then direct the foreign policy of the United States. And people in Israel are watching this choice, and people in Iran are watching this choice, and our enemies in caves in Waziristan are watching. What do you see is those two paths? How will be different if we select McCain than if we select Obama vis-a-vis Iran and Israel? Will the path of history be different, Victor Hanson, in your assessment depending on the outcome of this? Or is the confrontation coming regardless of who we send in?

VDH: Well, the difference is it's easy to voice cheap rhetoric, as we saw in the debate last night. It's easy to say, as Obama says, it's a game-changer if Iran were to get a nuclear device. What does that mean, a game-changer? That's intolerable. What he's not telling you is that if I choose to make sure that they don’t have a nuclear device, then that means that basically the United States is going to have to impose an embargo or a Naval blockade because the Europeans will still try to profit to the 11th hour, or even a military strike. I, Barack Obama, must be hated by people in Berlin. There’s no more Victory Column great extravaganzas for me. There's no more fawning interviews with Der Spiegel. It's going to be hatred from those people. I'm going to be a unilateralist pre-empter, and I'm going to do that, and all the people in the Muslim world and the Arab world that love me and fawn over me are going to hate me as worse than you know what. Okay, I'm willing to do that for a principle. Do you think he's going to be willing to do that, or John McCain? I'm sorry, but I don’t think that all of that cheap rhetoric about invading Pakistan and a game-changer in Iran is anything other than rhetoric, because I think the problem with Obama is he's bought into the idea of Vero Possumus, the new presidential seal that he's promulgating, that the seas are going to cease to rise, that the planet won't heat up, this is the change that we've been waiting for. And he really believe in this Messianic sense that people love him for himself. And he's not going to be willing to give up that easily.

So, Obama's willingness to give up the office of President was never discussed, as Sponge stated as a reason for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.

Instead, Hewitt and Hanson speculated on Obama's willingness to give up the adoration of the masses and positive world opinion in order to do what is right for the country (and to match up with his stated rhetoric). An excellent question. Maybe Bob Schieffer will ask it at the debate on Wednesday? (If so, it will more likely come out as "Senator Obama, why does the world love you so much?")

Looks like they're going to have to come up with another reason to shut down Conservative talk radio.

Speaking of fairness, I can only hope if Obama does institute a Fairness Doctrine, to punish certain kinds of political speech, there is a provision to shut down any web sites found to be promulgating disinformation and falsehoods to the American people on matters of public policy. It would only be fair.