I guess we cannot get help from this Senate that they try to make the media fairer

[Mass]

This is the vote on an amendment by Ensign preventing the FCC to reinstantiate the Fairness Doctrine (which obviously they wanted to restore :sarcasm:)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00071

Talk about a waste of time and courage.

And yes, of course, Kerry is one of those refusing to take part in such a masquerade (attached to the DC voting rights, nothing else).

NAYs ---11
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reed (D-RI)

At least, they have been united in promoting diversity in the media ownership (Democrats only).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00070

[karynnj]

1. You missed a column with the other three No voters

Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

It is interesting that Rockefeller heads Commerce and Kerry heads the sub-committee that oversees Communications.

I wonder if the Democrats think that the Durbin amendment, which passed before the Demint amendment on a party line vote could accomplish some of what the Fairness Doctrine would without giving the Republicans an issue. (Earlier today before the votes, Limbaugh was attacking Durbin in his usual obnoxious way - which might mean his amendment has some teeth.)

Here is the statement of purpose for that amendment - To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest. Thomas does not seem to have the text or any back up information.

On edit, here is a link to today's Senate floor speeches - Durbin's amendment, which DeMint opposed. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77539&hors=s# Durbin explains that he is not for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because he says there are now many possible channels. (My opinion - this assumes everyone has cable and though there are 200+ channels, there are NOT 200+ channels that have news content - it is MUCH lower. There really are not substantially more than in the 1970s - in Chicago we had 5 channels and they all had news - now in Chicago there are those 5 channels plus CNN, MSNBC, and FOX - that is not that many.) Durbin says no one is even trying to reinstate the fairness doctrine. He then speaks of things in DeMint's bill that he thinks would cripple the FCC in insuring the public interest - because it is poorly written. (I wonder if it changed because Durbin voted for DeMint's amendment.

Demint followed him and he is seriously scary and a demagogue - saying that across America people can here on Rush's and other shows what is really in these 2 amendments.

Durbin has a good speech explaining his bill at 12:15. (I'm listening now) Durbin speaks again at 14:00 before the vote. He restates the same argument in favor of his amendment - later Demint speaks in favor of his amendment and NO DEMOCRAT opts to speak against it - DeMint pretty much says Obama and Durbin are against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. (You are right - the leadership - Reid/Durbin and Leiberman who was the sponsor of the bill that these amendments were on and who ceded his time without speaking - did little to stop it.)

[TayTay]

2. This was an instance of the Democrats calling the Repubs on their BS

This amendment and the way, way, way scary Ensign Amendment passed. The Repubs got what they wanted, they got their ideals inserted into a bill. The got a prohibition against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (which was not on the docket or endorsed by either the President or Dem Legislators) and they got EVERY Wingnut 2nd Amendment wet-dream wish they could think of inserted in the bill. (Hello, they repealed the ban against assault weapons in this POS amendment.)

BTW, Sen. Kerry wisely voted against this insane piece of legislation.

So what happened? The very Repubs who proposed this amendment voted against the underlying bill. Can you say hypocrisy?

Sponsors of wingnut gun rights bill: SA 575. Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Burr, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Thune, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Risch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Corker, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Roberts) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 160,

Voted against the DC Voting Rights bill:

NAYs ---37
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

If you go to http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00072">this page and click on the Amendment number, S.Amdt. 575, you can then click on a link to the insane gun bill.

The Repub opposition to Democratic legislation is only about objecting and obstructing. These jerks have been whining about not being included in legislation. Well, they got two pieces of wingnut legislation included in a bill and then they VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. This proves that Repubs live to say No. They have no principles and no desire to cooperate for the good of the country. Plain and simple.

[karynnj]

3. I don't see this as calling them on their BS

They won 2 victories - on things that are pretty important. (I hadn't known the assault gun part) The fact that they look like hypocrites is not worth the fact that they won these victories.

What bothers me is that it looks like they caved on this because the RW made it such an issue. I am very glad that Kerry voted against that bill. What I don't get is that people like Boxer and Feingold voted for it. (Feingold !!! has voted as part of a small minority in the past.)

[TayTay]

4. The gun one will come out in conference

I bet you dollars to donuts on that. I don't know if the other one will as it is a nonissue.

[karynnj]

5. That's good -

[MH1]

6. How is the fairness doctrine a non-issue?

It looks like the amendment is to prevent the FCC from re-instating the fairness doctrine. I don't see how a vote for this amendment is not a vote against the fairness doctrine. I am glad Kerry voted on the right side of this issue. Now time to go to GD and see if anyone is complaining about Feingold or Boxer. (You know if the votes had been opposite there'd be plenty of whining about Kerry.)

It's true that they can claim that Congress should (or maybe must) vote on re-instating the fairness doctrine rather than allow the FCC to do it. But hell, when it was Bush's FCC it was just fine and dandy to encourage media consolidation. Yet to do something progressive to reverse that trend - now that a Democrat sits in the White House - requires an act of Congress?? :grr:

I'm still saying all the 'yea' votes on this nonsense amendment that has ZERO to do with the bill it was attached to, were dead wrong, and I am disappointed in all of the 'Democrats' who voted yea. Of course I am used to being disappointed by most of them.

[TayTay]

7. Durbin pointed out today that the Fairness Doctrine wasn't in the bill

And there is no pending legislation to put it in. In addition, Pres Obama has not endorsed a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

I agree with Durbin that diversity of ownership would be a bigger deal. But, opinions do vary and I understand the disappointment on this.

[MH1]

11. Text of the DeMint amendment (NOT just the Fairness Doctrine - do these @#$%^@ Senators READ?)

Can't give a direct link - you have to wade through thomas.loc.gov. Start here: <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP573:> , then click on S2516, then scroll down to actually find that page.


Bold added.

SEC. 9. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

(a) Limitation on General Powers: Fairness Doctrine.--Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)--

``(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or

``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.''.

(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.

I think section 2 is the real kicker. (Remember this is barring the FCC from action.)

But anyway, if it had nothing to do with the original bill (and it doesn't) then it should have been voted against on those grounds alone - non-germane.

[Blaukraut]

12. Whoa! Good work on ferreting that out!

This amendment should have been voted down. While one can conceivably argue that the Fairness Doctrine is flawed and should not be reinstated in its current form,
``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.''.
broadens this prohibition to pretty much rule out any effort to ensure fairness in reporting.

[Inuca]

15. The part you bolded is the part

that Durbin kept coming back to when discussing the amendment. Why he ended up voting for it, together with most of the dems... difficult to comprehend.

[Inuca]

9. I hope you are right about the gun one

that was VERY infuriating. Maybe the fact that I am not american born has something to so with it, but I lived here for more than 30 years, and I still cannot understand this country's obsession with guns.

[TayTay]

10. I honestly don't think this will survive the conference committee

The bill passed by the Senate and the one passed by the House differ, so this bill would have to go to a reconciliation conference committee to have the differences fixed. Nancy Pelosi would not allow the gun provision put in by the Senate to remain in the bill. The Democrats in the Senate are not really vested in this Amendment. The Republicans have proven that they have zero interest in being bipartisan and coming to any agreement with the Democrats on this. Also, there is no loss to the Dems on this. NO Republicans votes will be lost if this amendment goes away. (The very Repubs who sponsored this amendment voted against the underlying bill.)

The Democrats would be "poking the dragon" so to speak on this if they kept the gun amendment. It would provoke a huge backlash among the Democratic base. There is zero reason to do this and a lot of reasons not to do this.

[Inuca]

8. Can somebody please explain

what the republican's REAL beef with giving DC voting rights is? It can't be just one practically guaranteed D vote not completely balanced by a not so much guaranteed (since it can move away from Utah) R vote, can it?

In any case, seems that on important votes Snow, Collins, and Specter (was Hatch's vote Utah related? I wonder, since the other Rs were obviously less than impressed by that R seat, but Hatch is a strange one...) will be worth their weight in gold. Fortunately none of them weight too much. Or roses for the ladies and I am not sure what they are offering Arlen but he looks incredibly good given what he went through recently, not to mention his age.

[dwahzon]

13. My understanding

of the Republican opposition to DC voting rights is that they're afraid that after they grant them voting rights in the House, that they will then want 2 senators in the Senate. And that those two senators would be defacto 2 Democratic senators; in essence, putting the Dems up 2 in the Senatorial count.

[Inuca]

14. Some (limited) logic to that, I guess

Your interpretation or did you see it somewhere?

By the way, long time no read, very nice to see you again around here :hi:!