Kerry Kerry Not Contrary

Drudge is red-inking a pre-transcript of a John Kerry interview with C-SPAN, where the Democrat nominee (in Drudge's paraphrase) "supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime." Some direct quotes:

"I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

There's nothing I've seen to indicate that a Democrat-run FCC would be a damned bit better than Michael Powell's boobs, and Kerry's comments about media consolidation in the same interview indicate a stronger willingness to regulate.

Comments

[Ken Layne]

Heh heh ... you said "Michael Powell's boobs."

[R C Dean]

Sounds like a typical Kerry straddle to me - I voted against regulation of speech before I voted for it.

[Mark S.]

Is this anything like how you voted for the Iraqi reconstruction spending before you voted against it, Kerry?

Geeze, a voter can't win for losing in American politics.

[Fred]

Tipper Gore and Al, Ed Markey, Michael Copps and hundreds of others. The Democrats have always been in the lead when it comes to using government to control our freedom of speech.

[Phil]

I am definitely naming my next band "Michael Powell's Boobs."

[Steve Smith]

"Decency" regs have always been an easy way for Democrats to gain crossover votes; I doubt Gore would have appointed better FCC commissioners, considering where his wife's head was at. And I'm glad you are now referring to Michael Powell's "boobs"; at the post-panel salon at your house Saturday night, you kept referring to "Powell's tits" and "Powell's rack", and it was really inappropriate.

[Matt]

I guess Stern is screwed no matter what. Looks like I'll be springing for sattelite radio.

[Mark Fox]

Last week I saw a taxpayer-funded ad encouraging parents to use their V-chip. It seems less objectionable to cajole people into using existing regulation rather than writing new rules that remove a choice. But since most parents are apparently not so concerned about restricting the kiddies access, we have candidates willing to sanitize TV at the source.

And I thought the Dems were the "socially liberal" group.

ps-- "Big Boobs" was the title of an article about the Meese Commission, from way back when.

[Ben]

Mark Fox--It is no less objectionable to me for the V chip to be encouraged by a tax payer funded ad. Let the makers of the V chip market their own product themselves. Keep my money out of it.

[Smarty Jones]

I think the FCC is way out of control, but I don't see anything wrong with what Kerry said. The first part of the statement shows he's clearly opposed to censorship. Its hard to tell what he means by the second part because its out-of-context. "...he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation", is the writer's interpretation. I would trust Kerry in this regard much more than Bush; its conservative groups, Bush's allies, that are behind the push to crackdown. I'd also prefer that Kerry choose the next justices, especially since there'll be a repub senate.

[Rick Barton]

(Kerry) supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

Kerry explains this obviously politically motivated hypocrisy by an "it's for the children" appeal but of course, broadcast TV is also viewed by individuals in what Kerry calls, ?their home, in their own space".

Kerry is a shameless obfuscator, but we can get an indication of how he would actually govern by his Senate voting record, which is clear; bigger government, and stronger government.

[Smarty Jones]

"Kerry) supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime."

I dont see any evidence of that from the quotes shown. Thats more interpretation as far as im concerned, until I see the interview myself. Again, I have no problem with what he actually said - it in no way suggests that he's for what the FCC is doing. Its a tough spot for a politician tho; I understand that.

I can't argue against the fact that he's for bigger govt. Thats unfortunate, but so is Bush. This is the lesser of two evils for me. Who ya gonna vote for, Badnarik? Heh

Oh, and re consolidation, Im not sure how I feel about that. I dont want to see the govt more involved, but yet monpolies are a bad thing. I'd probably be for keeping the govt out of it, but Im undecided.

[Dan]

I can't argue against the fact that he's for bigger govt. Thats unfortunate, but so is Bush.

Yes, but Kerry's also for bigger government than Bush is. The closest Kerry has come to arguing that one of Bush's programs is too big is that he voted against the Iraq funding (after, as he famously observed, he voted for it). In virtually every case, Kerry's argument is that Bush hasn't proposed *enough* new government spending, or *enough* regulation, or *enough* protectionist trade barriers.

In order for me to consider Kerry the lesser of two evils, he'd have to come out strongly in favor of something I approve of. On all the issues I care about, he's either refusing to take a coherent position at all (Iraq, censorship, Justice Department abuses, etc) or actively advocating a vastly worse position (most economic and spending issues, the environment, and the United Nations).

One of the many reasons I absolutely loathe the Democratic Party is that it's so completely out of touch with reality -- so completely incapable of doing the right thing -- that I find myself stuck in a situation where the "lesser of two evils" is a Saudi-affiliated Constitution-ignoring censorious Christian fundamentalist with poor communication skills who's rapidly bankrupting the country.

[Steve Smith]

I am an unqualified supporter of John Kerry, but to suggest that the Democrats have a better record on indecency-in-broadcasting regulation is absurd. Perhaps the most extreme FCC commissioner in this area was a Clinton appointee, and as we saw when Congress had its all-important hearings into the Janet Jackson Super Bowl performance, Democrats were just as loud (if not as embarrassing as Heather Wilson) in their denunciations as Republicans. The fact that there is a more tolerant party base within the Democratic Party is beside the point; "decency" is an easy issue to score crossover points, and so-called liberal politicians have always used the rationale that the airwaves are owned by the public as their excuse.

[Steve Smith]

I am an unqualified supporter of John Kerry, but to suggest that the Democrats have a better record on indecency-in-broadcasting regulation is absurd. Perhaps the most extreme FCC commissioner in this area was a Clinton appointee, and as we saw when Congress had its all-important hearings into the Janet Jackson Super Bowl performance, Democrats were just as loud (if not as embarrassing as Heather Wilson) in their denunciations as Republicans. The fact that there is a more tolerant party base within the Democratic Party is beside the point; "decency" is an easy issue to score crossover points, and so-called liberal politicians have always used the rationale that the airwaves are owned by the public as their excuse.

[Steve Smith]

Sorry about the double post; I guess some points are made so eloquently that they bear repeating.

[Mark Borok]

I'll give you that Dems are as controlling of the public airwaves as Repubs, but have to remind you that the Reno justice dept. wisely chose to scale back its prosecutions of indecency cases, whereas Ashcroft is going after porn-peddlers full-bore.

The only conclusion I can make is, the Dems want to get rid of indecency on non-cable TV, whereas the Repubs are coming after your porn stash as well.

[HH]

Democrats believe in this "public owns the airwaves" horseshit, so we'll see more of the same from them, just by definition.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I have been hearing an awful lot of chatter lately, to the effect that the FCC should, could, and most likely soon will start regulating cable programming. I specifically heard some pol on the radio say that this was inevitable, because the public didn't make a distinction between cablecasting and broadcasting. Say what?

Does anyone understand the basis for the FCC's participation in the cable space? Is it interstate commerce? Is it to regulate usage of some kind of "commons"? Do cable companies get any favors from the Federal government, in exchange for their submission to its authority?

It's been years since I studied the Communications Act of 1934, and I must confess that even when I did, I never paid much attention to any provisions that dealt with telephone or telegraph regulation. So I don't understand the nature of the federal power grab there. I am particularly curious about the basis for programming censorship in the face of the 1st Amendment. Can anyone help?

[Dean]

Someone pointed out Michael Copps in an earlier post, and I need to follow up on that. Michael Copps is the person behind this indecency push as of late. He's is a former Ernest Hollings staffer, and is a Democrat.

Why isn't this publicized? One reason: It ruins the argument that Republicans are behind all this.

Someone needs to follow up on this Copps guy, and let more people know about what's really going on. It should be no surprise that after Tipper Gore and now this guy, that the Democrats would have an even more iron fist about all this. If they do get into power, watch "Free Speech" go by the wayside as they try to do more of this; their first target will be to try and kill off Conservative talk show hosts.

[Webmaster]

"I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

Tell you what, you're either in favor of privacy rights and no censorship or you're against it.

There is no middle grounds for liberty.

http://www.alwayscute.com/disclaimer.htm

Looks like there is not a better voting choice for many us anymore.

[Phil]

Does anyone understand the basis for the FCC's participation in the cable space?

The reasoning I've seen is predicated on the ideas that very few people receive even their local channels via over-the-air broadcasting anymore, and that they cannot pick and choose their cable channels -- they have to take a "package" that includes their local channels plus a bunch of other basic cable stuff. Therefore, they are "forced" to view USA and TNT and whatnot. Dumb, but that's their reasoning.

Democrats believe in this "public owns the airwaves" horseshit, so we'll see more of the same from them, just by definition.

Rather than run with my instincts, which are to call you a fucking retard, I'll simply point out that the Powell FCC's fining of stations for indecency, and threats to crack down further, are entirely predicated on the concept of the public owning the airwaves. If they believed that broadcast frequencies, stations, and televisions were all private property, they would have no power to regulate anything at all.

Indeed, if one reads Brent Bozell's stuff either at WND or the Media Research Center, or listen Dobson or any of the other Christian right doomsayers, their arguments are mostly contingent on a "public airwaves" model as well. How you get from there to laying that concept at the feet of Democrats indicates that you might, in fact, just be a fucking retard.

[SamAm]

You all can blast Kerry on media consolidation, and you can blast Fritz Hollings too, because that man is a frickin joke, but you're nuts if you think a Kerry FCC would be worse than Michael Powell's FCC.

Only on the internet where "Republican" means "hawkish libertarian" could anyone imagine a possible reality in which all those Christian media groups, people like Heather Wilson, Sam Brownback and the very actions of the FCC in contrast to that of its previous Democratic incarnation don't exist or are only a pale substitute for the cultural schoolmarmery of the Big Bad Democrats and Holy Roller Speach Stomping Big John Kerry.

Which side would go apeshit if Kerry said "no, we don't need family hour regulation?"

I thought the Democrats were cultural elites, out of touch with American religious values and propriety? Wasn't that the entire point of the political indictment of Bill Clinton?

On the internet, though, they only serve to prevent the full flourishing of unregulated broadcasting, as approved by libertines like Dobson, Bozell, Kathleen Parker, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay.

On the internet, Spock has a beard, and Tipper Gore is the world's most powerful woman.

[Agammamon]

I'm thinking that Trudeau is going to have a bit of trouble if Kerry get's elected. He's already used the waffle icon to represent Clinton.