Howl of Powell, take 2
Oh, am I feeling like a dope. I completely misunderstood the news story referred to yesterday. Bush is not going to get with the massive public opinion and get rid of the proposed FCC tomfoolery (Michaelfoolery?). Nope, instead he is being advised to use the veto to overturn any act(s) that might prevent Powellís bill from being passed, as is, sans change.
[Macro error: Can't include picture "Egg on Face" because Can't include picture "Egg on Face" because the image tag in the shortcuts table is not well-formed.]
So forget what I wrote yesterday. Egg on my face. Mea culpa. Oops. Glad to have gotten the right story after misunderstanding the facts. 'Nuff said. But now that I have the facts straight, themood goes more toward outrage than embarrassment. This appointed-not-elected president appears to be ignoring what is best for the country, and granting economic goodies to those pals of his, the ones with the deepest pockets.
Dubya is in fact, once again treating a huge outpouring of political statement and opinion by millions like a worthless focus group [1], and going the way of ìwhatís good for the rich is good for me to support.î Apparently, Bushthink goes like this:
If the rich get richer, then damn those little guys! Let ëem complain, who cares? Isnít this the basis of what was written and intended by our founding fathers?
And look at all that oil we grabbed when we rolled over that Saddam guy. We even killed his two kids! Arenít we wonderful!? Yeah, buddy, we give speeches about how strong and mighty we are, how we stopped the Weapons Of Mass Destruction campaign, and how the people of that country welcome our troops and advisors with open arms! We even prevented that Saddam guy from giving any further help to Al Queda.
And Dick Cheneyís company got those rebuild projects, yessirree! No bidding process, hell no! We did it Texas-style!
No-one messes with my Daddy! We Bushes have a long memory. And now we have more oil in the right hands. Yee Hah!
William Safire's essay [2] in today's New York Times [3], Bush's Four Horsemen, urges the President to ignore his advisors, and to turn the tide on what Safire properly refers to as Media Gigantism. Here's a quote:
The sleeper issue is media giantism. People are beginning to grasp and resent the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to allow the Four Horsemen of Big Media ó Viacom (CBS, UPN), Disney (ABC), Murdoch's News Corporation (Fox) and G.E. (NBC) ó to gobble up every independent station in sight.
Couch potatoes throughout the land see plenty wrong in concentrating the power to produce the content we see and hear in the same hands that transmit those broadcasts. This is especially true when the same Four Horsemen own many satellite and cable providers and already influence key sites on the Internet.
Reflecting that widespread worry, the Senate Commerce Committee voted last month to send to the floor Ted Stevens's bill rolling back the F.C.C.'s anything-goes ruling. It would reinstate current limits and also deny newspaper chains the domination of local TV and radio.
The Four Horsemen were confident they could get Bush to suppress a similar revolt in the House, where G.O.P. discipline is stricter. When liberals and conservatives of both parties in the House surprised them by passing a rollback amendment to an Appropriations Committee bill, the Bush administration issued what bureaucrats call a SAP ó a written Statement of Administration Policy.
It was the sappiest SAP of the Bush era. "If this amendment were contained in the final legislation presented to the President," warned the administration letter, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."
To read the entire essay, either click on the essay Times link [2], or, just in case you are reading this after the date that the Times chooses to reclassify this item as "fishwrapper you should pay for," feel free to click here [4] and see it as saved by yours truly.
Take heed! The House passed the bill to overturn Powell's media giveaway by a vote of 400 to 21. This is incredible bipartisanship. Could it be much clearer that in our democratic republic, the majority of the public's sentiment --as evidenced by the voting of their representatives in Congress-- is AGAINST MICHAEL POWELL'S PROPOSED CHANGES?
And Bush would veto this?
As my son likes to say, and as the T-Shirt slogan goes, "He's not MY president."
