Watson Coleman: “Two observations. First, I am thrilled I am having this discussion with the Senator from Illinois. My concern is that I…”

“Two observations. First, I am thrilled I am having this discussion with the Senator from Illinois. My concern is that I just offered an amendment which was objected to. Had the amendment not been objected to, we would have time for a full debate on this amendment. The Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Dakota have a great interest in this issue. I presume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the junior Senator from Massachusetts has raised concerns that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine. He said that publicly. I would love to have this debate, and yet I stand here offering an amendment which is being objected to and so instead we are having this colloquy. I appreciate the question and will respond. But I am disappointed that the other side of the aisle will not give us an opportunity for a full debate on this issue. In fact, I want all sides to be heard. What I don't want, and the fundamental disagreement is, for the regulatory power of Government to sit in judgment as Big Brother, to oversee and take stock with pencil and pad and take notes: Well, we had Sean Hannity over here. Now we have to get somebody on the left over there. Balance should be heard, but we have a marketplace that provides that opportunity. We have folks who support the perspective of the Senator from Illinois, and we have folks who support my perspective. Sometimes we are the same. But for Government to dictate, that is the concern.…”