Free market principles are the greatest except when they are applied to certain people. Take Michele Bachmann - she is polling at four percent but when it came time for the most recent debate and an email sent by CBS' political director John Dickerson leaked out saying Bachmann wasn't going to be asked as many questions as the other candidates and that she was "nearly off the charts," Bachmann's campaign replied calling for the firing of the "piece of shit" Dickerson and cried that she would not receive fair treatment.
Imagine that - a candidate polling in the single digits wants fair treatment from the majority, to be given equal air time to express her views.
Out of curiosity, what has Michele Bachmann had to say about Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine?
Bachmann claimed Net Neutrality was the administration wanting "to silence the voices that are opposing them."
According to Bachmann, the Fairness Doctrine would inject an opposing viewpoint into a broadcast when someone who does not like what they are hearing could simply change the station.
In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.Doesn't this sound like Bachmann's argument regarding the debates? She wants to be given fair treatment and equal time with the candidates in the lead? She wants to be able to express her viewpoints to the same population as Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Herman Cain.
Doesn't that sound a bit hypocritical?
If Bachmann didn't like the treatment (or lack thereof) she perceived she was receiving at CBS, why didn't she go somewhere else?
Bachmann also felt slighted because of the memorable debate moments involving her. Her political handler Keith Nahigian claimed she was treated unfairly because of the things she supported, like her enthusiasm for waterboarding.
“While Michele has been onstage at tonight’s debate demonstrating strong leadership on foreign policy and national security, we received concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows – the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele’s questions,” he said. “[W]e need to show the liberal media elite that we won’t stand for this outrageous manipulation. Help us fight this affront by sharing this with your friends.”
“[W]e will NOT stand for this pathetic attempt by the liberal media to manipulate the Republican primary process by limiting Michele’s conservative message for Republican primary voters,” he continued in an email to supporters. “ALL AMERICANS should be offended by this blatant attempt to manipulate the nominating process. Primaries are about voters, NOT the media elites. This is OUR primary and we will fight this blatant attempt to suppress Michele’s conservative message.”
Again, back to Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine. By rejecting those to things would essentially be for manipulating the average American voter. Hypocrisy?
I also found it interesting that Nahigian was upset that Bachmann's conservative message was allegedly being hushed, but then what was up with the several other conservatives on stage? Did anyone hear John Huntsman complain about his moderate message being hushed in the primary process?
Also, is it the Christian thing to do to call someone a "piece of shit?" I thought Bachmann was running a pious campaign...