Would the fairness act ensure the republicans are held accountable for doing the same as Pelosi did?

Question

It seams they have a selective memory.

Answer 1

No the fairness doctrine has to do with media balance.
Has nothing to do with politicians.
So am I to take it you are saying Pelosi did somethig wrong?

Answer 2

Wrong.

It is one thing for a Congressional delegation to visit a foreign nation, even one that supports terrorists, if it is sanctioned as a fact finding commission. It is yet another thing for the Speaker of the House to conduct one on her own with the stated purpose that the Democrats have an "alternative foreign policy". This is a clear usurpation of the President's legal authority and a blatant violation of the separation of power that the Democrats were bleating about before the election.

The selective memory belongs entirely to the Democrat Party, which should be ashamed of themselves for being gross hypocrites.

Answer 3

Remember the wire tapping issue by Bush.
Look here Clinton did it/

Warrant-less Wiretapping

The Supreme Court has recognized that electronic surveillance, such as wiretapping and eavesdropping, impinges on the privacy rights of individuals and organizations and is therefore subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. [65] President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. [66] The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." [67]

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps. [70] The cost of that makeover is expected to be several billion dollars. Any communications carrier that fails to meet the technology standards of the attorney general can be fined up to $10,000 per day. The passage of that law prompted Attorney General Reno to marvel at her newly acquired power: "I don't think J. Edgar Hoover would contemplate what we can do today." [71] That is unfortunately true. In the past, law enforcement had to rely on the goodwill and voluntary cooperation of the American people for investigative assistance. That tradition is giving way to a regime of coercive mandates. [72]

Answer 4

Accountablility? For Repubicans? Why should they be treated like the peasants and commoners? And then the next thing you know, people would be expecting them to obey the law and tell the truth!