Yet again, the ebb-and-flow of free people proves that the Fairness Doctrine and localism regulations are not necessary. Savage is the third-most popular talk show host in the country, with over eight million viewers – and he is still vulnerable to it. I’m certain he will find another station to host him, and he won’t do it by crying to the government, as liberals have done over newspapers (a traditional liberal bastion) and their own radio stations. Say what you want about Savage – maybe he’ll be off the air for good. Or maybe not. Either way, this is not a game the government has a need or right to get involved in, because of a little thing called the First Amendment. As George Will said on Sunday regarding McCain-Feingold regulations: “For James Madison, 10 words sufficed: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” It’s that simple.

This is of great concern to many around this country- fortunately, freedom-loving private citizens are not alone. Mike Pence (R-IN) has been taking on localism and the Fairness Doctrine over the last few years- some, including myself, thought he was overreacting to the doctrine and not paying enough attention to the localism part, but either way Pence has been a tireless supporter of the right to free speech. He gave a very good speech about the Broadcaster Freedom Amendment he sponsored about a month ago (and in 2007), and in it he described the negative effect the Fairness Doctrine had on talk radio on all sides of the political spectrum. As a former radio man himself, Pence understands freedom of speech and how it should be allowed, even if you disagree with what is said.

Last fall, I conducted a partial case study on proposed FCC localism regulations and their probable effect on small, local markets (which they are supposed to help). In interviewing a number of media people in the Littleton, New Hampshire area, I found only one supporter of any kind of regulations -a well-established author and former newspaper reporter in Littleton – but no other local media owners in favor of the regulations. The cost of business, the owners felt, would be prohibitive and encourage further conglomeration strangleholds, which the regulations were also alleged to prevent (according to the regulation supporters). Again, freedom of speech is too important to be left to government intervention.

In recent years, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has shut down free radio stations- this month alone, he shut down 12 of the 34 stations told to go off the air. Chavez, of course, has said he is “democratizing” radio- a number of civil rights groups, however, disagree, including several in the United States. Ironically, our media hammers Chavez – but praises and supports government regulation in this country because it doesn’t like talk radio. I wonder what would happen if localism regulations and radio conglomeration rules were applied to newspapers, magazines, television news and Hollywood, where liberals dominate, and not just to conservative talk radio, where the much-ridiculed Rush Limbaugh is king.

This is a program that is great for the students, their families, their neighborhoods, etc. Both parents and students are happier, and the students are a full third of a grade ahead of their D.C. public school counterparts in math after only three years, as well as ahead in reading. The program costs between one-fourth and half of the normal cost of publicly-funded education in D.C. (depending on whether you believe CATO’s numbers or the Heritage Foundation). In return, the nation receives better-educated students who will help create a larger tax base in the future while diminishing their own odds of delinquency.

This program, however, was killed by teacher’s unions, who support Democratic candidates for congressional office and our current president. These same elected officials often talk about the big money special interests hurting Americans through Washington… Officials such as President Obama, whose children go to private schools. Such a shame the same opportunity doesn’t apply to poor minorities.

In short, the program is wildly successful and popular. If we want to help future generations be safer, more economically successful and help lead this country in the 21st-century, we would be wise to follow Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman on this issue.

At the very least, we would be holding the Democrats responsible for their claims of attempted fiscal responsibility- saving between $7,500 and $20,000 per student for 1,700 students (plus future participants in the program) saves at least $12,750,000 for the taxpaying citizens of this country. And all it would take is a simple vote. Easiest $12.75 million ever saved in Washington.

As a conservative who believes this issue was blown out of all proportion, I am grateful for your secondary comments regarding the arrest of Professor Gates. I must admit, I was hoping for a full apology and retraction, but as Pat Buchanan put it, “It was a goodly slice of humble pie the president ate there, but it was a class act. To ask more would be churlish.”

For those conservatives who continue to attack the president’s comments, and Professor Gates, remember that we have health care, cap-and-tax (I mean, trade), illegal immigration, the Honduran crisis and the Iranian protests, among other issues, with which to attack the president and create our own effective policies. The Gates debacle is over – the police officer (Crowley) has won in both the public eye and legally, and this particular distraction from the major issues is over with. While the issue won’t die as long as a tiny minority of Republicans give the race-baiting Democrats the opportunity to make headlines (or as long as Democrats create such headlines without Republican provocation), let’s handle each issue as it arises (after all, as George Will might say, we DO live in an entitlement society, so these situations will arise again).

For those liberals who blame Crowley, let’s agree he almost certainly overstepped his boundary, assuming Gates identified himself. If Gates didn’t, well, that’s a different issue. The facts are, however, that police everywhere (especially on the Cambridge force, black, white and otherwise) are defending Crowley, and the man’s record shows no racial prejudices to speak of, and in fact show a police officer who is vastly in favor of racial blindness. Instead, can you please support the D.C. school voucher system, where Democrats are trying to prevent 1,700 poor students – most of them minorities – from receiving a quality, low-cost education because the unions don’t like the program’s success?

On both sides, let’s not let this distraction keep us from the issues. President Obama has realized his mistake, as has Professor Gates, and even many of Crowley’s defenders admit he stepped over the line, perhaps because of ego. Either way, the evidence increasingly shows it was likely a case of both parties overstepping certain professional and personal boundaries. Let bygones be bygones, shall we?

1. It’s the Democrats who are trying to shut down the D.C. school voucher program, a program that is helping 1,700 poor minority students in the worst district in the nation and is likely to end now that House Democrats have not included extending funding for the program in their mark-up bill. Yet, it is Republicans and Libertarians who support the program and its non-white students.

Pawlenty was under great pressure a couple months ago to make a decision regarding Franken- however, the risks involved were tremendous. On the one hand, if he ran for governor again, he risked losing if he supported his fellow Republican, Coleman. On the other hand, if he supported Franken, he risked losing a lot of support with the Republican Party on the national scale in the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, as that would have given the Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. By holding back the way he did, he let the legal system work, and showed an ability to appear above partisan politics. Politically, it was brilliant.

Emblematic of the ethical and political risk Pawlenty overcame was his statement Sunday, where he said it “…would be a dereliction of my duty” to not sign Franken’s certificate if the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of Franken. Fortunately, Norm Coleman has taken this decision out of Pawlenty’s hands by conceding, but to me the important thing in the governor’s consistent position on this election was that of a legal one for the state of Minnesota. Beyond the political game he masterfully played, his consistent message was one of legality and his duty to his constitutents, something that is rare on both sides of the aisle.

Pawlenty is not the ardent conservative many Republicans would prefer, but he is young, charismatic, articulate and talks of the future of the Republican Party with great hope. In short, he’s the Republican Party’s version of President Obama, except with a legitimate resume (among other things, he went eight years as governor without raising taxes) and clear electability in a state Republicans will need in 2012.

Dinesh D’Souza put it in Letters to a Young Conservative- to paraphrase- Republicans accept that people aren’t perfect, and that even those who proclaim family values will fail (the reference, written in 2002, compares former President Clinton to then- Majority Leader Gingrich), but that the movement should not follow the failures of the imperfect beings who are family values proponents.

Instead, the fight must continue through its supporters’ failures. And yet when supporters of an issue keep failing and failing and then fail again, after a time one begins to wonder: maybe there’s a deeper problem here?

Yet I think there are three reasons rank-and-file Republicans should not give up the fight.

First: it really is true that strengthening families is vital to national economic prosperity. Stronger families enjoy higher incomes and depend less on government aid. Their children achieve more, are less likely to get into trouble with the law, and more likely to pass success onto children of their own.

Second: hypocrisy is by no means a Republican monopoly. Look at Democrats who send their children to private schools while opposing vouchers (one now resides in the Whte House) or who defend the earth while using megawatts of electricity to cool their mansions (one nearly made it to the White House in 2000).

Third: it is appallingly unjust to allow the sins of politicians to be used as a weapon against the beliefs of their voters.

For those who really believe in the family values movement, we must convince the rest of America through constant, unceasing examples of upstanding moral behavior, forgiveness for those who fall short, and ready reminders that it IS the conservative social movement that will help keep America great, not the low moral standards of the Democratic Party. A failed high standard is certainly better than a successful low moral standard.

This incident, combined with various other incidents over the last six years, prove that the Fairness Doctrine and localism regulations are not necessary to combat “inappropriate” content on TV, radio, etc. For example, in 2003, ESPN commentator Rush Limbaugh tendered his resignation in the wake of controversial remarks on Donovan McNabb. There was no government regulation for him to do so – however, there were grassroots protests and outcries from presidential candidates, sports figures and civil rights organizations.

In 2007, Don Imus was embroiled in a controversy over comments regarding the Rutgers University basketball team. Again, the government did not step in and take him off the air- however, CBS wasted no time in releasing him from his contract, and his morning show on MSNBC was immediately canceled. Imus eventually made it back onto the air (he is on 105.9 in the D.C. area), but the outcry from sports figures, politicians, average citizens and advertisers forced CBS to fire him.

Finally, more recently, Jay Severin in Boston was suspended from Boston’s WTKK-FM for very insensitive remarks about Mexican immigrants and his thinking that they brought the swine flu to America (he returned to the air just a few days ago). Having listened to Severin a few times, I found him a bit aggressive, though possessing an overall accuracy when discussing a political situation or viewpoint, but never too over-the-top. It appears, however, that this particular set of comments created such an outcry that he was suspended for a full month. Once again, the government was not involved.

In all of the above circumstances, politically incorrect, insensitive or hurtful comments were made. From a partisan angle, they make Republicans look terrible (as James Kirchick pointed out on this site about Severin). However, free speech is not limited to which political party or special interest group is mildly or otherwise offended by various private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights (otherwise Democrats could have prevented Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martha Burke and Code Pink from speaking out over the last few years). It is, and always should be, limited by what people want to listen to. If Rob, Arnie and Dawn make sexually explicit comments about transgender children and incestual relationships, I do not want to hear them complaining when liberals, conservatives and moderates alike abandon them. Free speech cuts both ways, fellas – the listeners have the final say.

As a former New Hampshire resident, I find myself torn on this news- on the one hand, I am against gay marriage, and Governor Lynch has shown yet again that he has no backbone (he has declared numerous times his opposition to same-sex marriage, and a willingness to veto it). Lastly, according to this blog and a June 3 editorial in the New Hampshire Union Leader, the New Hampshire legislature has violated the rules of both chambers to pass the bill. This latter point, especially, is galling to me.

However, my chagrin is balanced by pride in the state and our governor — New Hampshire has attacked this issue as it should be handled — on a state level, through elected representatives (I would prefer a direct vote, but this one works just as legally and ethically). Unlike Iowa and many other states, we legalized gay marriage through our elected representatives and their respective beliefs on both the issue itself and what their constituents would want. Regarding Governor Lynch, he refused to sign the original bill that passed a few weeks ago until VERY specific language was put in protecting religious freedom and independence.

Overall, the people’s representatives have spoken — gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire. We will see if this has the negative effect most conservatives believe it will over the long run, but for now I am pleased that the religious freedoms we hold dear across the country and New Hampshire (“Live Free or Die,” remember) will be protected, as they should be.

The First Amendment dictates that we have freedom of speech. This means the government cannot step in when it feels appropriate and tell us what we can and cannot say, as long as we are not having a direct negative effect on other people (yelling “fire” in a theater, threatening someone, etc.). The aforementioned representatives have essentially said that some speech is more important than others, which is not something the government should be doing. Freedom of speech is not dictated by race, sex, height, weight etc. To try and make it as such is to step well over the boundaries of government.