Thread: RED ALERT! Free Speech Sneak Attack in DC! Call now!

Originally Posted by florgal

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

This is what FOX is saying now.

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/ind ... 2009-02-26

Demint bill "fairness doctrine" PASSES by a wide margin

87 YAY

11 NAY

Which is very misleading because the DeMint amdt PROHIBITS the FD from being re-instated

If the info Dixie just posted is correct, Demint's amendment was "tabled" which means defeated or killed.

It looks like Durbin got something passed by a wide margin but we do not know what yet.

We need the text of any amends Durbin got passed in the Senate (in the last hour) as soon as possible.

W

removed by poster

Vote 70 has posted. Still no text for Durbin's Amendment.

Amendments 573 to 590 were all introduced on 2/25/2009 to bill S160 are posted on Thomas with Text, Durbin's Amendment 591 is not.
Please confirm and post.

Was Durbin's Amendment introduced today at the last minute?

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 591 )
Vote Number: 70 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:04 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 591 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
Vote Counts: YEAs 57
NAYs 41
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---57
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
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)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

DeMint Amdt. No. 573; To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Agreed to

Vote 71 just posted.

Dixie

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 573 )
Vote Number: 71 Vote Date: February 26, 2009, 02:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 573 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)
Statement of Purpose: To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.
Vote Counts: YEAs 87
NAYs 11
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---87
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

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

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

I wanted to post something but I will pass in fear of saying some things that might get me in trouble for using foul language .I will say I am very pissed at the moment.We have to remember these fools when it comes time to vote in 2010.

I believe the phrase "diversity in communication media ownership...." in Durbin's amendment refers to the newer concept of "Localism", which has been supported by Obama and which now is being used by Liberals in place of the former "Fairness Doctrine" idea. The intent of "Localism" is to use government to instrument "diversity" by encouraging more ownership of local broadcast outlets by "minority groups and women". Evidently under this doctrine anyone would be able to file a complaint against a station and bring the federal government in as an investigative agency.

See "Acting FCC Chair Sees Government Role in Pushing 'Media Diversity'":
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-145967-localism.html

Originally Posted by Texas2step

I believe the phrase "diversity in communication media ownership...." in Durbin's amendment refers to the newer concept of "Localism", which has been supported by Obama and which now is being used by Liberals in place of the former "Fairness Doctrine" idea. The intent of "Localism" is to use government to instrument "diversity" by encouraging more ownership of local broadcast outlets by "minority groups and women". Evidently under this doctrine anyone would be able to file a complaint against a station and bring the federal government in as an investigative agency.

But remember this could work both ways and we should take full advantage of it if they want to use it this way.

You know what the Fairness Doctrine is all about? The Liberal Freaks can't keep even a radio station profitable so they want to push their junk logic off on thriving Conservative stations. They don't get it, we don't want to hear their crap and that's why they can't sell ads and keep the stations or newspapers running. That's why their media outlets are going broke and out of business. No one is stopping them from talking. What they are saying is crap that no one wants to hear it.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

You know what the Fairness Doctrine is all about? The Liberal Freaks can't keep even a radio station profitable so they want to push their junk logic off on thriving Conservative stations. They don't get it, we don't want to hear their crap and that's why they can't sell ads and keep the stations or newspapers running. That's why their media outlets are going broke and out of business. No one is stopping them from talking. What they are saying is crap that no one wants to hear it and businesses are too embarassed to advertise with them.

Dixie

Liberal freaks on steroids.

Here's the email alert from The Hill just now.

Senate tunes out Fairness Doctrine, 87-11
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 02/26/09 02:55 PM [ET]

The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio.

The Senate passed the measure 87-11.


Republicans have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act in the House as well, but Democrats are not expected to allow a vote on the bill.

Legislation would have to pass both chambers of Congress and receive President Obama’s signature.

The FCC first implemented the doctrine in the late 1940s to balance the political content of broadcasters, requiring them to give equal time to liberal and conservative viewpoints.

The agency scrapped the regulation in the mid-'80s after determining that it was no longer necessary because the public had a wide array of political news sources from which to choose.

Since then Congress has tried twice to re-implement the Fairness Doctrine but failed because of vetoes by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

The amendment, sponsored by Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.), would block the FCC from reviving equal-time requirements by enacting the Broadcaster Freedom Act.

Specifically, it would prohibit the agency from forcing broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on “controversial issues of public importance.â€