Hagel ,the Republicans, and the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

One thing I noticed this morning is that Hagel commented about the Republicans had taken control in the state of Nebraska and that only one national office is held by a Democrat. As a Nebraskan and a strong supporter of a new updated FAIRNESS DOCTRINE,it is obvious to me that there is a direct parallel between the the demise of the doctrine and a rise of the Right Wing in the state. Nebraska has absolutely no access to liberal radio over the airwaves. The Neocons own this state. And I'm certain that the same thing can be said for many other states. I'm disappointed that the dems have backed away from this issue. I feel like its a ball and chain around the neck of the party. They have very little interest in competing with Republicans over the airwaves.

because they have only one group in their legislature rather than a house/senate? Or has that changed since I was in school?

in the Unicameral. Democrats are an afterthought.

most notably Illinois, the power is often split between the houses, so that, eventually, one would come into power over the other. And thanks for using the term "unicameral" --I thought that was the right term, but wasn't positive.

What we've got to do is come up with a way to let more folks know about progressive streaming online. That is the only way I know to get the message out there to places like Nebraska--or my neck of the woods in Arkansas, for that matter.

reversed and a reinstituted Fairness Doctrine in place to insure a more diverse "free" media over the airwaves.

and Ernie Chambers on the other (he is still there, isn't he? Haven't lived there for 10 years.)

It doesn't seem there are many neocons around, never were. If they have taken over Nebraska I'm curious as to why. Any ideas? You talk about airwaves but I'm unaware of any neocon radio personality. I know they support Bush and probably would have had Bush been honest about why the neocons wanted war with Iraq but it is so anti-traditional conservative.

I fear that if we confuse neocons for real cons people like Hagel who is clearly NOT a neocon will start a movement to get rid of the neocons and bring back the real cons. Both are bad but not necessarily for the same reason.

they have a huge following throughout the state. As for Hagel he is not what I would consider a neocon. He has become quite unpopular among senior Republicans who quite regularly denounce him as an almost traitor to the cause. Many of the Republicans would like to see him replaced with someone more conservative. One note: Don't forget that Hagel has strong ties to ESS - the computerized vote machine company. It's a mixed bag. Nebraska is a much more conservative state than it was in the 1990's.

they just don't seem like the "spread democracy" types...I just don't see them as ever having been democrats.

I see them more as the "close the boarders, keep the wealth, never lift a finger to help anyone else" types...isolationists. I see them as supporting this war to kill "ragheads" not help other countries...which of course is where neocons are coming from (they just go about it the wrong way...imho)

Of course, I don't really listen to either of them so my opinion is based on clips and quotes.

To me neocons are extremely RW, pro- military, extremely nationalistic,very pro-globalistic under US control,very pro-corporate to the exclusion of social responsibility and "free marketers" within their defined limits. In essence, corporate-military-philosophical dominance of the world's economy.
Now I certainly will admit that there are variations within this description but that's my summation.

the neocons had their start in politics as democrats. Pearl Wolfowitz and Feith all worked for Scoop Jackson. They were, like Humphrey, Kennedy, Truman and Johnson, anti-Soviet liberals and in some cases socialists. (Wm Kristol's and Podhoretz's dads were both liberals, they are seen not has rebelling but carrying on the tradition.) I remember when Jeane Kirkpatrick was a dem!

Neocons are, by definition optimistic about rationally conceived, activist American foreign policy and the expanding reach of American-style capitalism. They believe in permanent revolution just like Trotsky.

Actually, I find that defintion difficult to disagree with. I believe in an activist foreign policy and capitalism and I'm much more a revolutionary than a reactionary.

Where the neocons went wrong was they decided "activist" foreign policy meant war...enforcing capitalism and liberal democracies on others at the point of a gun. It's actually exactly where some of the left was during Vietnam and where Johnson went wrong. The goal was lofty: to help the South Vietnamese overcome the bad effects of colonialism and become a free and prosperous people. People is, it led to a dreadful war just like Iraq did.

I find leading neocon intellectual Francis Fukuyama's position fascinating. He talked about it on the Daily Show. He talked about America's position when we are the only superpower and what should we do now. He said the neocons figured "great, let's use our army for good by bringing democracy and freedom to the rest of the world." Of course, he's smart enough to have left the neocon movement as soon as he realized it didn't work.

And the Fairness Doctrine has been gone since the late 80's I believe. The rise of Raygun and to a lesser extent Gingrich caused much more down ticket loyalty for the Repukes.

the full effects were not felt until the early 90's and were then hastened by the 1994 Telecom Act which allowed for much more media consolidation.

But I think most proponents of bringing back the fairness doctrine are overly concerned with talk radio. Honestly, I want to see some good demographic research on those who actually listen to political talk radio. I mean, usually between 10am-5pm on weekdays when most talk radio is on, people are working and don't listen to the radio. My theory is that RW talk radio's audience is mostly die hard Republicans and it does little to sway the opinions of swing voters.

many listen over their lunch periods and in the evening. Didn't Savage recently have 3 million hits on his website regarding his potential presidential bid?