... aka, the "Fairness Doctrine." And since the sole purpose of reviving this deservedly moribund government policy would be to silence conservative voices on radio, I avoid its Orwellian title.
On the same day President Obama signed his budget-busting health bill into law, Ed Schultz seized on the next opportunity for government control, one without a remote connection to reforming health care.
As described by Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer --
Feeling emboldened by the Democratic Party's success in imposing ObamaCare on the American public, lefties are already looking for the next hot issue to shove down our throats. For MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, it's the airwaves that should be subjected to a socialist government takeover.
Here's what envious class warrior Schultz told his equally resentful radio audience on Tuesday (click here for YouTube audio clip) --
SCHULTZ (initially responding to caller claiming "virtual war" between Democrats and Republicans): It is a cultural war that's taking place in America, you're exactly right. And it's being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine. It's time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you've got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it's, we've got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he's electioneering.
Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I'll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever. The fact is, look, it's not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the Drugster wouldn't be on any of 'em. And that's just where it's at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.
So much for the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity. An impatient Schultz prefers the unconstitutional imposition of equality of outcome.
A few minutes later, Schultz made this pious observation (second part of audio clip, starting at 1:27) --
SCHULTZ: Just keep in mind, there aren't any poor people with microphones.
Followed by the atypically honest coup de grace (third part of audio, 1:34) --
SCHULTZ: And so, I think that, you know, hell, if we're going to be socialist, let's be socialist all across the board.
Give the man credit where credit is due. Two years after a campaign in which Obama was described by critics as a socialist in moderate garb, at least one of Obama's disciples is finally conceding the point. Which begs the question -- why so defensive in the past about the political ideology that dare not speak its name? But not so anymore -- bravo for your belated candor!
One of the things I find laughable about Schultz's screed is how it is clearly motivated by Schultz's resentment of Limbaugh's greater success. Since Schultz can't compete with Limbaugh in the "audio culture of the country," he wants like-minded censors in the Obama administration to rig the game in the guise of creating a "level playing field."
Yet given an opportunity to own 500 stations, Schultz admits, Limbaugh "wouldn't be on any of 'em." See how it works? "Fairness" for thee, not for me.
I have an expression for this type of liberal, one emboldened by rigged success and singular in his focus on controlling the lives of others. His is the voice of the guard in the gulag.
