it seems to me that since Obama is covering something up he has become indebted to people (such as Bill Ayers) who are abetting that cover-up. What favors are acruing here, and how deeply does the Chicago machine have their hooks into Obama? I don't think we will find out by ignoring this.Now I see that Mark Steyn refers to a Michelle Malkin post to suggest that the debt may be in the opposite direction:
The reason the press are going to such shameless lengths to drag Obama across the finish line is because he's their last best hope at restoring the old media environment, including a new Unfairness Doctrine for radio, and regulation of the Internet.Brian C. Anderson writes in The New York Post:
Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."Read the whole thing.
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.
It's an idea--though the beneficiaries would be, as Steyn himself points out, the radio and the Internet and not the press per se.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad