Complete list of Bill Clinton's 396 pardons during his administration from the Department of Justice web site.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Clinton Slams Fred Thompson's Cuban Remark
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday criticized Fred Thompson for suggesting illegal Cuban immigrants pose a terrorist threat. "I was appalled when one of the people running for or about to run for the Republican nomination talked about Cuban refugees as potential terrorists," Clinton told Hispanic elected officials. "Apparently he doesn't have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn't know a lot of Cuban-Americans."
Thompson posted Thursday on his campaign blog saying he had been referring to Cuban spies, not immigrants. "Our national security is too important an issue to let folks twist words around for a one-day headline," Thompson said in his post. "Cuban-Americans are among the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, and especially so when it's sponsored by the Castro regime."
Fred Thompson was criticizing an immigration bill in the Senate, contending it would make the country more vulnerable to terrorism. Noting that the United States had apprehended 1,000 people from Cuba in 2005, Thompson said, "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb." Fidel Castro is Cuba's leader.
By BETH FOUHY (AP)
Monday, June 25, 2007
You’re Listening to Radio Free Congress
Fred Thompson discusses the Fairness Doctrine in light of Congressional efforts to revive and use it to diminish the impact of talk radio
I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
by Fred Dalton Thompson on 5/17/2007 5:12:34 PM
source: http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663
I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn't like the way his media is covering him, so he's doing away with the free press. He's established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don't play by government rules.
I can't criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they're pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.
The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area -- so equal time rules were put in place.
As television and radio stations increased, it became clear that the rule was a bust. Instead of protecting free speech, it imposed costs on broadcasters that killed political discussion entirely. Why run the risk of dealing with anything controversial and having the regulators and the lawyers come down on you? Instead of talking about issues, news directors used stopwatches to measure candidates' airtime.
Finally, in 1987, the Federal Communications Commission ended the antiquated policy. Today, with more cable and local access channels than anybody can keep track of -- the equal time rule makes even less sense. Throw in the Internet, and it's absurd.
The real issue here is not what you "can" see or hear -- which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It's what you're "choosing" to see or hear.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers.
The funny thing is that the success of the current crop of radio talk show hosts is due, in part, to a lot of people’s perception that broadcast television doesn’t give the views of their audience a fair shake. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, since I dabble in radio myself, but this media used to be viewed as a kind of broadcast ghetto. The bi-coastal elite had such a grip on the major newspapers and television networks; they pretty much ignored the hinterlands. It was media flyover country.
Now congressional leaders say they want to “level the playing field” there too – meaning they want to diminish the importance of conservative talk radio. In other words, they don’t trust the results of freedom and the marketplace. Why am I not surprised?
by Fred Dalton Thompson on 5/17/2007 5:12:34 PM
source: http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=408967&SPID=15663
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Democrat National Committee Closes Blog Comments After Discovering Members Agree With Thompson
Free speech is NOT alive and well within the Democrat Party. The DNC had to close the comment section on their blog post regarding Fred Thompson. In an attempt to bash Thompson, the DNC posted The Fred Thompson “Dummies Guide to Diplomacy”. Go here http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/dnc-closes-blog-comments-after-discovering-members-agree-with-thompson Check out some of these excerpts from comments from DNC blog visitors. Looks like the Reagan Democrats might feel right at home with Thompson –
Here are the quotes that the Democrats posted that they think is a Fred Thompson bash. I'll just change the title to "A Realistic View of International Hypocrites" Proud to post this on a pro-Fred blog. Comment how you like, I won't shut the comments down.
"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."
Here are the quotes that the Democrats posted that they think is a Fred Thompson bash. I'll just change the title to "A Realistic View of International Hypocrites" Proud to post this on a pro-Fred blog. Comment how you like, I won't shut the comments down.
"Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about US immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake. Here is a government apparently run by ex-KGB agents who have no problem blackmailing whole countries by turning the crank on their oil pipelines. They're not doing anything shady, they say. They can’t help it if their opponents are so notoriously accident-prone. Criticize these guys and you might accidentally drink a cup of tea laced with a few million dollars worth of deadly, and extremely rare, radioactive poison. Oppose the Russian leadership, and you could trip and fall off a tall building or stumble into the path of a bullet."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
