Presumptive president-elect Barack Obama (the polls may differ in their closeness, but all of them - even without counting the younger, cell-phone-only generation -  show him ahead, so I'm not harboring any delusions) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," according to his press secretary. On this, it seems that he would disagree with quite a few of his powerful supporters in Congress (and the UCC, of which Obama's home church is a part).

Many on the right (and in the libertarian camp) fear such a reinstatement because one of its targets would more than likely be conservative talk radio. Under the doctrine, views expressed in such an outlet would have to be balanced by "progressive" views.

But many congressional Democrats, as well as members of the "mainstream" media, seem to have very little interest in "balancing" other outlets. In Arianna Huffington's book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, she writes:

"A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how these ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media - not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards - but the respectable, supposedly liberal media. Without the enabling of the traditional media - with their obsession with 'balance' and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle - the radical Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, movement conservatism would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago."

It is hard for me to take someone seriously who does not acknowledge that there is plenty of "public opinion" out there - including a number of oft-shunned Democrats - that favor a pro-life position. That Huffington feels it is the media's duty to silence a view that she believes is so obviously wrong (and therefore must be) is very telling, but it's not like she can make it so - she's "only" a journalist and not a member of Congress, right?

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech, given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention. I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric. All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.