But a majority expects Congress to try to pass it anyway:
Just 38% of U.S. voters think that the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary.
Forty-seven percent (47%) oppose government-imposed political balance on radio stations, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure which course is better.
These findings are a dramatic nine-point drop-off in support for the Fairness Doctrine from a survey last August when 47% said the government should require all radio and television stations to offer balanced political commentary.
Hot Air this morning linked to an interview with David Axelrod where he declined to make talk of suppressing free speech via "the Fairness Doctrine" an instant non-story. On the one hand, I would like to think that the current administration is not so foolish as to think that trying to institute a program that will instantly galvanize every Red-represented-by-Blue district in the country (it'll galvanize the regular Red districts, too, but that's another issue) is a good idea, but apparently just over half of the country disagrees with me on that. On the other hand, they probably have a point. On the gripping hand, it's entirely likely that the President will have effectively no say in the deliberations: the last three weeks have demonstrated that Obama has no meaningful control over Congress at all. Speaker Pelosi probably needs to have this fight in order to throw her liberal base a bone, and carrying a President who doesn't bring anything to the table will be a burden she'll be unwilling to bear...
PS: "What about Obama's personal charisma and ability to move a crowd?" I hear you ask. Well, I don't know: why don't you go call Rep. Aaron Schock (R, IL-18) and ask him about how scared we should be about that?
PPS: In fact, keep an eye on this guy.
Crossposted at Moe Lane.