Did Kerry flip flop on media ownership?

[sfecap]

Then:

Telecommunications Bill - Conference Report

Bill Number: S 652
Issue: Telecommunications
Date: 02/01/1996
Sponsor:


Roll Call Number: 0008
Conference report adopted
Full Member List


Senator John Forbes Kerry voted YES.

Pass telecommunications bill to decrease regulations and increase competition

S 652: The Telecommunications Act of 1996

Vote to adopt the conference report of a bill to promote competition and reduce regulation of the telecommunications industry. The bill eliminates many restrictions on cable rates, allows long distance and cable companies into the local phone service market, and increases the number of stations that individual media companies can own. It also requires television sets to include a device that can be used to block out material rated as offensively sexual or violent in nature, and institutes a fine and/or imprisonment for people who knowingly use telecommunications devices to harass or make obscene communications towards others, or to make obscene or indecent communications to minors, among other provisions.

(Conference report adopted 91-5 on 2/1/96)

Bill Status:
Bill Number: S 652 - 104th Congress (1995-96)
House Passage Vote: 10/12/95 - Outcome: Passed by Voice Vote
Senate Passage Vote: 06/15/95 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 02/01/96 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 02/01/96 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 02/08/96
Public Law Number: 104-104 110 Stat. 56

http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=789&can_id=S0421103

And now:

Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)

Title: Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 09/16/2003
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S11501
Sept. 16, 2003

Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition and localism. Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this standard.

The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a national network, independent voices are lost in the media.

So what is it John? Are you for media consolidation and deregulation or not?

Have a waffle...

[La_Serpiente]

1. Didn't we already have a post about this?

[blm]

2. Increasing by some back in 1996 and increasing by alot in 2003

are very different. Wasn't that the point of the fight against the FCC last summer?

And Kerry acknowledged in 2000 that some of the promises made back in 96 were skirted by some media companies. He's correcting course as a lawmaker does, not changing on a campaign trail.

He's not changing his core principles.

And if this is upsetting to you, then you must be beside yourself over the changes in Dean's core principles from governor to campaigner. My gosh, how do you keep up with the changes? A scorecard? You poor thing, you must be frantic.

[sfecap]

3. Please post more than one example of Dean's "affinity"

for deregulation. You claim that deregulation is a "core" value of Dean's. If that is true, you must have dozens of examples!

Post them. Let's see some examples!

Kerry's "core principal" seems to be enriching himself through the legislative process.

If he had any integrity, he would have recused himself from the vote because of his vast financial interest in the outcome.

Of course, he's now "disappointd" in the TC industry...how convenient...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. If you want a candidate who has only simple answers to complex questions

Kerry is definitely not for you.

If you're level of understanding is simply:

Deregulation: Bad.
Regulation: Good.

Kerry's positions might not make sense to you.

And if you can't read the original post and understand that there are two entirely seperate issues, involved.... just re-read it.

[mitchum]

5. No

since you like simple answers

[sfecap]

6. Maybe you should nuance it for me.

That's what St. John likes to do. (When he's not whining about people not being truthful with him...)

[mitchum]

10. Howie can't walk on water...

nor can he raise the dead. Nuanced enough for you?

[killbotfactory]

7. It's just part of the nuance, you see.

He supported deregulation but really didn't.

I wouldn't expect you deanieboppers to understand.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Actually anyone can understand it.

It's not beyond you. And it's not "He supported deregulation but really didn't."

[sfecap]

9. Kerry is far to nuancepheletic for me.

I'm just a silly Deaniebopper.

I just understand straight talk.

:-)

[sandnsea]

11. He still supports deregulation, if it works

The media ownership portion of this bill isn't working so he says so. And wants to change it. It's not nuanced. It's thunk in your head simple.

Howard? Well he doesn't admit what his position really was 5 years ago or 5 days ago, so how can somebody know if he means what he said then or now. He doesn't admit one of his ideas didn't work and needs to be done differently. He tries to pretend his words didn't mean anything when he said them. That's not even nuanced, that's neurotic.

[sfecap]

12. Uh Huh...

Anything you say.

One more time...

St. John changes, it's perfectly OK.

Dean changes...it's, well, neurotic? LOL.

G'nite!

[sandnsea]

13. Why'd he change on electricity deregulation?

Explain it to me. What was his position and when and why did he change. And what was his position on NAFTA and when and why did he change on that. And what about the regulations of corporate farms in Vermont and IBM and their environmental regulations. A host of things. Why did Howard change his position on all of this deregulation?

Kerry hasn't changed on deregulation. He's changed on the media ownership part of this because it affects the people's ability to get fair and accurate news reporting. That's not actually a deregulation issue at all, it might be better addressed through reinstating the Media Fairness Act which is what Wes Clark recommends.

[mitchum]

14. If you're boy is so far ahead of Kerry...

why do you spend your precious time posting anti-Kerry flamebait?
Maybe Howie isn't the neurotic one..

[Upfront]

15. Kind Of Agree

Kerry seems to be dead in the water. It may have something to do with the unending attacks on Dean by Kerry people. Sad, but tit for tat rules around here it seems. Maybe someday we will realize who is screwing us and decide to fight the real bad guys.

[mitchum]

16. And Dean people have never resorted to shrill, unsubstantiated

attacks on Kerry (a man with a solid liberal not centrist, record?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. The original post is 100% substantiated.

It quotes the text of a bill and the text of a joint resolution that Kerry supports. The fact that they are the complete opposite in philosophy is the catch.

The main point being made here is that Dean is a waffler. Dean changes his principles. Dean is bad.
But Kerry is a waffler. Kerry changes his principles. Kerry is good.

Both of these are BS. Kerry signed onto something that didn't work. Either through it being bad in the first place, or by it being undermined by the FCC. He understood what was happening, why it was wrong, and added his voice to the joint resolution. Good move, imo. Same for any politician worth his salt.

If you're going to give your guy the benefit of the doubt, you better give the other guy the benefit too. And that's not happening around here (From a small contingent of folks).

That's the point of this post.

[sandnsea]

18. YOUR post

But not the original post. The original poster can't seem to make the kind of intelligent distinction you have. Thank you so much for it, I must say I'm shocked.

I have no problem giving a candidate the benefit of the doubt on changing a position. Kucinich and abortion for example. Thoroughly explained what his original position was and how he came to change his mind. I completely understand it.

Dean denies what his orginal positions were and says he never changed his mind at all. That's the difference.