What a crock. Right-wing paranoia on display. This person is 'scared' because of how Obama spent his youth? What does he even mean when he says Obama is 'culturally not an American'? Anyone who has not run a company is scary to this person, or not served in the military? What pathetic nonsense. This person is writing from a bunker next to the little old ladies in Iowa frightened by Cheney into thinking there were mushroom clouds coming from terrorists.

hi,guy this site dofus.us it is about online game's web,we offer the news and important cheats,The main we sell dofus kamas,if u want to buy dofus kamas,u need buy dofus kamas from this site,it is cheapest,right,u want buy dofus kamas,cheap dofus kamas,plz click here:dofus kamas,it is cool,isn't it?everyone who play dofus and want buy dofus kamas can get some help from our. We have mass available stock of dofus kamas on most of the servers, so that we can do a really instant way of dofus kamas delivery. We know what our buyers need so we offer an instant way of cheap dofus kamas,the cheap dofus kamas delivery.lol¡­

No, ren, he says "run a company, or met a payroll."

And we're not talking about the guy being scared of "anyone" who hasn't been in the service or had corporate experience anyways -- we're talking about the POTUS - quite different, if you ask me.

next to the little old ladies in Iowa frightened by Cheney into thinking there were mushroom clouds coming from terrorists.

right next to the guy in SoCal who thinks his exhaling of C02 is making the ice caps melt and polar bears drown.

What scares me is that most of his you want to's have already happended and he is so delusional that he can't except it. We have had Euro style socialism for years, just not with the perks of decent infastructure or public services. By Euro style, I think our leaders mean Orwellian.

I suspect that this "substantial person" (former VP of a mega-corp, therefore what? Wasn't crank Ross Perot a CEO, as well? To each his own on the definition of crank, I guess.) never had any intention of giving Obama a chance. And the fact that Obama has turned out to be a great deal more centrist than all the paranoid ranters during the campaign were fearmongering about - and continue to - hasn't changed his blind opposition to him one bit. Thus, my diagnosis of ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome. The best, and most honest, critiques of Obama are coming from liberals and leftists.

Pritchett's silliness:
"You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector."

"You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world."

Oh, brother. First, unless you're just going with GOP talking points, that "highest standard of living" presumption is just that any more - a presumption. Plenty of stats over the last 5-10 have been eroding that canard. Maybe the highest standard of living for guys like Pritchett, sure, and those with their bi-coastal housing arrangements, but for everyone else, well, it's debatable.

But as for his lame whine of "socialism!" I don't think it's so.

Actually, Palin has - in some sense - brought Alaska closer to socialism than Obama probably ever will for the entire country - which is not to say that's terribly close...

Considering your other post, above this one, how FoxNews is kicking heinie (doesn't that make Pritchett feel a little safer?), it's pretty funny to read this:

"You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do."

So, Pritchett hasn't mastered his TV clicker or his radio dial (to find the right-wingers dominating the airwaves)? Even the morning dorks at Fox & Friends are going with the apocalyptic, (former Ashbrook speaker) Beck-style rhetoric. Don't forget "Morning Joe" over at MSNBC. (etc., etc., etc.) Hardly a "free pass."

"You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view."

Oh, for god's sake, get a grip, man! On the one hand, Obama's a controlling Commie/socialist/fascist/evil-doer autocrat (yeah, haha) who has no restraint and doesn't take no for an answer but yet he merely "wants to silence" the right-wing bloviators. Why would a guy who rules with such an iron fist not just take them off the air, not take action to fulfill his desire? Or is he afraid of Limbaugh and Co.? He can't really be both at the same time. It's also silly and without basis. What has he said or done that remotely indicated he was going to try to silence them, or even "wants" to??? I'd like to know (for one thing, I'd be against that). He's uttered Limbaugh's name, what, once, twice?? He's allowed to return verbal fire when Limbaugh says something wrong/stupid/outrageous/silly, etc, is he not? Responding to criticism is not the same thing as "want[ing] to silence" the critic. That's an easy distinction to make, or at least I'd always thought it was.

There's too much silliness in Pritchett's reactionary ode to the straw man, but it did make me think of this, in conjunction with your other post about the dominance of FoxNews. Perhaps the American public on the whole (even O'Reilly's numbers are a small fraction of Americans) is tired of the endless cycling of conservative-GOP memes of fear and aggression. I'm afraid, I'm going to kick a**, I'm afraid, I'm going to kick a**, I'm afraid, etc. That gets old, it's tiring, and it's certainly not an edifying or deeply satisfying way to live.

(and do we really need to write it as "a**"?)

Fairness Doctrine

From the link Brutus provided:

"In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

'Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.'

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine."

and

"In the current Congress, some members have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34), to block reinstatement of the Doctrine. On February 26, 2009, by a vote of 87-11, the Senate added that act as an amendment to a bill to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House. [42] The Associated Press reported that the vote was:

'In part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.'

The AP report went on to say that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. Carolina) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed."

So, it looks like those few who are interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine have done next to nothing, and in any event they don't have the support of Pres. Obama, who is the person at issue here, the new guy that scares Pritchett so.

[All of that aside, however, I've yet to see a convincing case made that reinstatement of the doctrine would "silence" (to use Pritchett's term) anyone at all.]

His policies and personality scare me and his regular MSM-enabled fudging/lying offends me. I agree with 85-90% of what this ltr says, esp. on the personality issues. But there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Pritchett should fear writing this ltr 7 yrs from now, under an Obama administration. None. Our president may be deluded in all sorts of ways, but he does show evidence of an ability to learn on the job, and he is utterly committed to liberal democracy. Limiting the free speech of American citizens, whether of the executive class or not, is unthinkable to him.

To suggest otherwise is hateful and uncivil. It is to be like the Democrats were with Bush.

Craig, the argument used to say that the fairness doctrine would end conservative talk radio is that liberal talk radio does not sell as well. So stations would just drop rush and others in order to avoid the dead hours of liberal programing. All of this is troubling to me in the sense that it reinforces that their are only two valid points of view. I don't think Obama would ever want to silence limbaugh at this point because he is an asset in that he shapes the dissent as a sort of dumbed down rhetorical jumble. It is troubling that some of our elected leaders want to force programing in any way. That is state propoganda in a blatant way, less than the corporate/state stuff we get now. I think most can easily see the problem in doing this, I don't know how likely the threat is; could be the left playing off Rush and he playing of them like a game of rhetorical euchre.