So you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not particularly reassured by Barack Obama’s claim that he’s not going to try to impose the Fairness Doctrine. Based on his history, that’s a pretty strong indication that he will.

I don’t have any desire to refight the last war. So I’m just tossing this out with an eye to the future. Since you and I, Patterico, see the same guy who can’t be trusted, I am intensely curious to know why you stubbornly insisted on attaching the appellation “good and decent” to that man.

I don’t know if Obama is greatly different from any other politician. Maybe he’s not the doctrinaire marxist I believe him to be. Maybe he just drifted, going along to get along. I’m open minded to that degree.

But I still can’t quite comprehend how a man who’s word can’t be trusted falls into the category of “good and decent.” That’s something I can’t quite wrap my mind around.

Is it unfair of me to juxtapose your verdict that Obama is “good and decent” with your conclusion that nothing that passes from his lips can be trusted?

There is also a relatively new, low-powered license for commercial/public-access use that enables almost anyone to set up a small, neighborhood type of station – much more efficient than CB.

I also endorse fully researching names and principles to see what scary figures may have used them before using them as a handle.

Comment by imdw

It is all about power. You can broadcast to your neighborhood on low power frequencies called “citizens band.” I am all for regulation of the spectrum for high power broadcast. Satellite should be exempt since it is not the public airwaves. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to try to shut down any public speech that isn’t to their liking. Satellite radio’s day is coming, I suspect.

And I notice you have no response to the fact that you endorse the abandonment of a Democratic principle. You notice no one is surprised by your lack of principle.