Dumbass, with the senate and a veto pen, you can "steer the agenda" and indicate your dissatisfaction with certain issues. Reagan's priority was defense spending, anything else he did not give a shit. Fairness doctrine is necessary because "the masses" have historically proven to be vulnerable to demagogues. So you need to balance controversial issues. N.B Go back to hiding.
The leftist argument is nothing if not predictable. I ask a simple question if they're willing to give a pass to all as they do to their own, and they answer with diatribes and rants. Unable to defend their hypocrisy and double standards they go to the tried and true attack mode. Business as usual.
One question: Do you think there is equivalency between Walter Cronkite/Edward R Murrow and Glenn Beck? Yes or No.
Sorry Cap'n, but yall ain't too bright... If "liberals" were willing to give a pass to any other "liberal" Hillary would have won the primary...simply because Ted Kennedy would have endorsed Hillary and not Obama. Turn off the right wing brain and think through the drink...
I've always been fascinated about the ability of this family to maintain wealth. They say Teddy hooked up Jackie and Onasis so she could get the jing. This article indicates the family works like a well oiled corporation (well - oiled may be a bad choice words to describe the Kennedys). "The late John F. Kennedy Jr. also joked about his family's real estate holdings when he visited Chicago in 1996 to mark the launch of George magazine. ''In the 1940s, my family bought the Merchandise Mart. In the 1970s, we bought the Apparel Center. And in the 1960 election, my family bought 20,000 votes,'' he said, referring to his father's narrow presidential victory. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/30/business/AP-US-Kennedy-Fortune.html
This one's a beauty: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/31/the-end-to-two-grim-fairy-tales/ Mary - Jo may have felt it was "worth it".