Fairness According to Dianne Feinstein

The libs' war on conservative talk radio is heating up.

Yesterday morning on FOX News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Republican Sen. Trent Lott and Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Transcript

He began the interview with the talk radio controversy topic.

When Wallace confronted Lott with his infamous remarks, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem," Lott squirmed. He backpedaled big time. His efforts were ineffective.

LOTT: Dianne and I were just talking about that. One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it's introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor. We never bother to explain what we're trying to do and what is in it.

I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration. Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and the good things that were in it.

So the onus is not on them, it's on us to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do.

And I just want to make — you know, look, I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don't think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.

WALLACE: But, Senator, I'm not going to let you off the hook quite that easily. Take a look at this. You said this also last week. "I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

Now, I talked to some of the talk radio people, and they say you make it sound like they're leading around their listeners like a bunch of sheep. They say look, they know what's in the bill, their listeners know what's in the bill, and they don't like it.

LOTT: Well, let me tell you why I said that. As a matter of fact, I do talk radio in my own state in particular, but others, and I'm sure Dianne does, too.

I was doing one interview, and the talk radio host said, to his credit, "What are you trying to do here?" And I explained that we were trying to improve a bad situation. And that's a summation of it.

Then he said, "Well, tell me four things in this bill that you think are significantly better than the current law." So I ticked them off. He said, "That's in there?" I said, "Yeah."

See, that's the point. It's not that they're maliciously trying to, you know, distort it. And this is a complicated bill with a lot of moving parts. Some of it I don't like.

Translation: Talk radio personalities and their listeners aren't acting with malice; they're acting in ignorance.

Lott wants to make amends with the massive conservative talk radio audience. Insulting the audience's intelligence isn't the way to do it.

Who's acting maliciously in this case?

Clue: It's not the voters and it's not radio hosts.

Wallace then brings Feinstein into the conversation.

She puts her giant foot in her giant mouth, and argues against free speech rights and the free market.

Wasn't John Ashcroft supposed to be the enemy of civil liberties?

Didn't past and present members of the Bush administration supposedly strip Americans of their rights? Bush the dictator. Bush the oppressor.

All the libs whined about losing their rights. Boo Hoo.

What Dianne Feinstein had to say yesterday morning sounds like more of a REAL threat to our civil liberties than what the Bush Administration has done to combat terror.

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened.

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Feinstein reveals the Dems' true colors.

Last week, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer tried to dismiss suggestions that they were plotting to silence the voices of Americans and take down conservative talk radio.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Well, that was a load!

Feinstein clarified the Democrats' agenda regarding the fairness doctrine very nicely.

Fairness according to Feinstein is some sort of contrived limits on what the people will be allowed to say and hear.

Is that what the Democrats stand for?

Do they really want to be seen as the party that restrains free speech?

Do they want to regulate the free market and prevent the people from choosing what they want on radio?

Is that what Feinstein wants to be "looking at"?

She danced around the issue a bit, but the heart of the matter was crystal clear.

Feinstein and her fellow Dems would love to tread on us.

This push to shut up conservatives under the guise of fairness, an obviously advantageous goal for the Dems, reveals something else.

This is yet another example of the radical Left pulling the strings of the Dems.

Feinstein and her cohorts are in the uncomfortable position of having to appease the very vocal extremist libs wanting to shut down the talk radio behemoth while not alienating the majority of freedom-loving Americans that rightfully see the injustice of such a move.

Feinstein needs to be careful, as do the other Dems on board with this assault on free speech.

They seem to be going down the path that Hugo Chavez chose.

No doubt that makes extremists like Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover happy.

But I don't think it plays well outside of socialist circles.