The Case for Barack Obama

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate. Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness." Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful. The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV. Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage? For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed. Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive. Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. .

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate. Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness." Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful. The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV. Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones. Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage? For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed. Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive. Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome. He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. .

No Shock Fareed wants Obama. Hamas and Hezzbollah want Obama. Al Qaida and the Taliban want Obama. After this election I am no longer supporting Israel. Why should I when Jews votes against themselves anyway

I thought that modern-day economic evidence is that raising taxes DECREASES revenue for the federal beast. The author is using out-of-date thinking on taxes if he wants to pay-as-he-goes for bigger government. By the way, I already voted for Obama (early, not often, this is Iowa) because he is more likely to protect American jobs and industries from globalist schemes like the North American Union (www.spp.gov), and less likely to go into a rage and get us all killed misusing the nuke. Isn't self-preservation old fashioned?

The Case for Barack Obama has become stronger as the campaign has progressed, McCain has clearly now shown he is stuck in the politics of The Past and yesterday, that is why The US is so badly perceived at times. The three debates have again demonstrated that McCain is out of touch and comes across as an angry old man, his judgement has to be seriously questioned with the choice of Palin as VP, yes it gave him a very short bounce in the polls, but like McCain himself as voters have got to know more about Palin their is serious doubts. Meanwhile the stature of Barack Obama has grown all the time, it is apparent we need change, now is the time to back Barack Obama, it can't be as bad as 8 years of Bush and the Republicans in The White House.

The contributor, "TimeForARevolution," obviously wants to go back in time. Maybe that Obama fellow has GOT something! Men of the stature of Colin Powell, Paul Volker, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, are not easily impressed by the charisma of any individual. These are formidable characters themselves. They have been surrounded by and contended with brilliant, charismatic men and women all their working lives. Speaking as one who has been surrounded by that type of intellect if not charisma all my own life, it is easy for me to tell when an individual doesn't rise to the intellectual level of others I have known. I could NEVER feel comfortable voting for a leader who does not more appear to be more competent, fearless, knowledgeable and principled than I am. Neither of the two GOP candidates rise to that meagre level of assurance I am sorry to say.

Personally, I'd rather be uplifted to thinking of the highest common factor in an electorate, than to be pulled down to its lowest common denominator. "Some leaders appeal to an electorate's highest aspirations, other's to its basest instincts."

Is it me or have we already heard about a trillion "case[s] for Obama" from Newsweek and other "objective" (ahem, excuse me while I puke) publications? Do we truly need another from Comrade Zakaria? We've listened to the cacophony of voices from virtually every major media outlet that has spent the past year raising Obama to the level of Messiah. If you have any doubts, I would encourage you to listen to Obama's own comments at the Alfred Smith dinner about his not being born in a manger. Chris Matthews becomes sexually aroused at his speeches, Olbermann can't help himself and gets demoted, and the New York Times refuses to publish an op-ed from McCain, but gives all the time in the world to The Chosen One. (Incidentally, does anyone else think it a little more than coincidence that an MSNBC tab is directly embedded into this website?) These are just a few examples and it took me less than three seconds to recount them. And now we have to hear, ad nauseum, the chorus of liberals insisting that this race is in the bag for the freshman Senator from Illinois who rose to power by knocking his opponents off the ballot. I have never, in my life, seen the press as in-the-tank for a candidate as I have in 2008. They are actively and shamelessly seeking to suppress voter turnout on November 4 because they know that once people get to the booth, they will think twice about electing a man who cavorts with domestic terrorists, has personal and monetary ties to a group under FBI investigation for voter registration fraud, has served less than one term as a US Senator, and openly states that he would meet with megalomaniacs without preconditions. The very reason he has been able to skate around all of this damning evidence is that the media is absolutely complicit in under- or simply not reporting the facts. They want the focus to be on the economy, ironic when one considers that congressional Democrats and Clinton-era feel-good policy are to blame for the entire mortgage crisis. I would humbly posit that if we don't have strong national security and foreign policy in line with the threats of a post-9/11 world, all the wealth redistribution in the world wouldn't make a darn bit of difference because we wouldn't have a COUNTRY left. My cynical, bitter side tells me "let him have his victory. The Democrats have certainly made a large pledge to ???change??? things, so let's see how well they do the next two years in actually DELIVERING on their campaign promises to save Americans from themselves.??? The other side fears for the very existence of our nation and everything she represents: individual opportunity and responsibility, the free market, military superiority in the world that ensures peace and security, the right to defend ourselves, freedom from tyranny, and the right to live. The latter is the side that is going to show up at the polls on November 4th.

Colin Powell summed it up beautifully in seven minutes on "Meet The Press" when he calmly outlined for us his reasons for supporting Obama. He did it without smirks, winks, and talking points, speaking in complete sentences, not talking down to us, but as adults. It was refreshing and convincing.

Obama appears like a gliding glacier of temperament because he's been bought and sold by special interests. He flipflops on issues that give him electoral trouble generally. But on issues where he's been bought off, as in the case of Big Labor and its roadblock to Colombia Free Trade, a pact that ally earned, jumping through every hoop Congress threw at them, Obama refuses to flipflop. Instead he repeats old lies and slanders from the radical left, still desperate to think Colombia is Allende's Chile and they are the heroic resistance. Colombia is a very different place. But Obama goes right along with it and threatens to dismantle all trade treaties to his diktat. That's not presidential temperament, that's Chavista caprice. Fareed, how do you explain the outrageous slam at free trade that Obama represents? He's threatening to send Colombia to the devil and mark my words, there will be a Chavista Colombia if that nation is humiliated and shut out of free trade after all it's done to show good faith. How, Fareed, how?

Call him a "fraud" today....call him President Barack Hussein Obama tomorrow!!! Ummm, you might want to get used to it.

Corporate Welfare Versus Social Welfare
by David Wildman

As the U.S. Congress debated welfare policy, the media spotlight focused on the need to cut spending to the poorest people in the nation. At the same time, there was no or minimal coverage of policies that send billions of government dollars to corporate interests from oil companies to agribusiness to firms producing arms.
Looking across the breadth of the U.S. budget and policies, a key question arises: Whose welfare is the government serving -- the people???s or corporations????
It???s not a new question. Upon leaving the U.S. presidency in the late 1800s, Rutherford B. Hayes wrote in his diary:
"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."
U.S. presidents since have shared Mr. Hayes??? concern. For example, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangerous power of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address. In his last weeks in office, President Bill Clinton stopped further subsidies to logging, mining and oil companies by preserving millions of acres of public lands.
Too often those in power only find courage and wisdom to address injustice of the powerful as they themselves leave power.
Today a rising number of voices -- environmentalists, workers, faith communities, family farmers, indigenous peoples and some public officials -- are calling for an end to corporate subsidies and privilege they label corporate welfare. Like forces that called for an end to social welfare "as we know it" in the early 1990s, these forces are calling for an end to corporate welfare "as we know it."
These groups refuse to be silent in the face of corporate efforts to transform government into a shareholders??? meeting where only those with money vote and earn dividends.
Full article: http://gbgm-umc.org/Response/articles/corporate_welfare.html

his is a an excellent argument for the Obama candidacy, Mr. Zakaria if evidenced by nothing more than the fact that the only ones who have found fault with it read like nutjobs. Your points are all carefully thought out and well presented. I am constantly amazed by how those who support McCain can only resort to the most irrational arguments and shameless muckraking to advocate for him. I am no McCain supporter, but I could do a much better job advocating for him than that. I have begun to feel sorry for McCain that his candidacy has attracted so many fringe conservatives and his name will be irrevocably tied to that type of hate-mongering. They think they are helping him, but they are turning off moderates and independents who don't want to be allied with that type of thinking. He should own some of the blame, however. By choosing the drastically under-qualified and overwhelmed Gov. Palin as his running mate, he poured gasoline on the smoldering coals of the radical right. Now, the flames of hate and fear that have resulted are poised to burn down his campaign and the Republican party as we know it.

This is a an excellent argument for the Obama candidacy, Mr. Zakaria if evidenced by nothing more than the fact that the only ones who have found fault with it read like nutjobs. Your points are all carefully thought out and well presented. I am constantly amazed by how those who support McCain can only resort to the most irrational arguments and shameless muckraking to advocate for him. I am no McCain supporter, but I could do a much better job advocating for him than that. I have begun to feel sorry for McCain that his candidacy has attracted so many fringe conservatives and his name will be irrevocably tied to that type of hate-mongering. They think they are helping him, but they are turning off moderates and independents who don't want to be allied with that type of thinking. He should own some of the blame, however. By choosing the drastically under-qualified and overwhelmed Gov. Palin as his running mate, he poured gasoline on the smoldering coals of the radical right. Now, the flames of hate and fear that have resulted are poised to burn down his campaign and the Republican party as we know it.

Superb piece! This is why I read Fareed's work. Cases can be made for either side in an election, but Fareed has definitively put his mark on this one. I was on the fence regarding Obama, but for me the choice is now clear. McCain is an honorable, decent man who seems to have let the far right elements of his party rule the day. An unfortunate turn for him and the country, but thankfully rational thought seems to have ruled the day so far.

Great assessment there. Sometimes I get sick when I read the juvenile opinions of otherwise rational individuals who, being Americans, should be more knowledgeable than they turn out to be. By opting for a leadership role in the world, America is supposed to be void of clichés and really lead in all progressive aspects of human endeavour. Unfortunately some Americans still have the Jim Crow mentality and want to lead the world while still conserving their isolationist ideas. They should know that today's is a world of the global village, and its inhabitants are supposed to be open to all ideas that promote world peace and harmoney. Obama is the right man for that new world order.

Comment: from tiny ACORNS grow huge FRAUDS....

By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net

Why is Barack Obama giving ACORN $832,000 when it is a tax dead beat? (Hat tip to an intrepid NoQuarter reader.) Before Obama and Biden cast any more stones at poor Joe the Plumber for a $1200 tax lien, they might want to insist that their buddies at ACORN pony up the HALF-MILLION DOLLARS they owe the Federal Government. That???s right boys and girls, according to Louisiana State financial records, ACORN is a mega deadbeat:

INITIAL AMOUNT: $547,312
INITIAL DOCKET #: 424212708
AMOUNT: $547,312
FILING DATE: 03/10/2008
INITIAL DATE: 03/10/2008
UPDATE DATE: 05/07/2008
Name SSN/EIN Address
IRS
PLAINTIFF
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW
DEBTOR
1024 ELYSIAN FIELDS AVE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70117

Of course, this raises some even more interesting questions.......

Read rest @ NoQuarterUSA.net

Allah Akbar Ya'll

NOBAMA!!!

This discourse should not result in poisonous comments and slanderous statements. that is the last resort of an ignorant mind. Couch your comments in an intellectual manner please.
As Voltaire said in the french parliament "whiist I may not agree with what you say I will defend until death your right to say it". We all may not agree with what a candidate or a reporter or fellow commenter say, so lets agree to disagree in a respectful and disciplined manner. Thanks

Everyone of voting age should read these two books written by Obama, 'Dreams of My Father' and 'Audacity of Hope'. Don't buy them, get them from the library before they are removed from the shelves.

From 'Dreams of My Father', "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From 'Dreams of My Father', "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!

From 'Audacity of Hope', "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."