Jim Dyke Quotations

What has become clear is this really isn't about protecting kids. This is about changing television. A politically active, savvy group of Americans has figured out a way to make TV in their own image.

We'll see what everyone says, and if anything needs to be corrected or updated, we would put something out after the speeches.

she told Sen. Specter in her first meeting that she had a lot of information back in Texas based on her 30-year career and that she may have to sort of produce that on a rolling basis, so that continues to happen.

She's done about 25 visits so far, and she's got about a dozen next week. We get advice on a regular basis from outside groups. It doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Some activists will only see another opportunity to push government as parent, but parents make the best decisions about what is appropriate for their family to watch and have the tools to enforce those decisions.

She had meetings last week, this week and will have more next week.

For too long, activists have gone unchallenged as they pressure the government to control broadcast television content, even though their idea of control has very little public support.

Parents relying on ubiquitous and user-friendly technology, ratings information and their own good judgment to manage TV is (sic) the best approach, not increased government control, regardless of whether the program is Yosemite Sam, the Road Runner or a scene from a show clearly intended for adults.

When the TV comes back on, parents can control what their family sees before it hits the TV screen. Generations of parents relied on the off button or changed the channel when they saw programs that weren't right for their family. Now parents have even more options, like the v-chip, ratings, cable or satellite blocking programs, to limit what comes up on your TV.

We'd never hear the end of it, but that's basically the same as what happened

We need to remove the fog of misinformation, hyperbole and emotions that have been the calling card of a vocal minority pushing the government to become more involved in television regulation.

People see something on TV they don't like, and some activists yell from the rooftops calling for more government intervention, but that's not what people want,

People are still a little bit leery of programming their TV. They want to watch it. They don't want to build it.

People continue to express themselves. Again, as we move toward hearings, that's a sign of progress. And we continue to move toward hearings.

As far as this week is concerned, you've seen this process move forward and that's important, and you have learned more about her judicial philosophy and her qualifications and her experiences, all important considerations for senators.

You really have a substantive document that provides some insight into her legal career, and that's helpful.

This is someone who sees an appropriate role for the courts and an appropriate role for the legislature.

This group has a history of making sensational claims in order to push government control of content.

The more we get the message out, the more likely we think people will become excited.

Everybody should be frightened by the notion that this process could be hijacked by a very few people. They are trying to make decisions about what our children can see.

The vast majority of the people don't want the government making their programming decisions.

They want the government to enforce what they believe is quality television. Parents ought to make that decision.

If he loses, there's a bigger problem because he should win.

Comfortable is not a word we'd use to describe our relationship with the chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

The discussion had turned into a very one-sided debate. Our group was formed to balance out the debate and provide some reason.

The law says in order to be an independent expenditure, it can not be made in cooperation, consultation or coordination at the request or even at the suggestion of the candidate. Is someone suggesting she has no knowledge of her husband's campaign?