Monday, April 13, 2009

Moran: Limbaugh Would Call Jake Tapper a Traitor if He Hit Bush

Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran appeared on the Media Bistro's "Morning Media Menu" podcast on Friday and simultaneously defended an ABC colleague and attacked Rush Limbaugh.

While telling host Steve Krakauer that White House correspondent Jake Tapper has been unfairly criticized by liberals for being tough on the Obama administration, he noted conservative praise for the journalist. Moran complained: "If Tapper was covering Bush, Limbaugh would call him a traitor. And that's just the way it is."

See "Media Morning Menu" for audio:

Moran did add: "And it's not just Limbaugh, it's the other side too." But that is still a rather harsh charge to level against the radio talk show host. He also trotted out the standard journalist talking point that "no matter what you do, one side or the other is going to detest you." It's hard to imagine many liberals being too upset with Moran, however. He has developed quite a habit of fawning over Barack Obama. In another Media Bistro podcast, on February 20, he compared the President to George Washington and said that the White House was a "step down" for the new Commander in Chief.

"I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office," the Nightline co-anchor gushed. See a February 23, 2009 CyberAlert posting for more:

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog,]

[Special thanks to MRC intern Mike Sargent for transcribing the exchange.]

A partial transcript of the April 10 podcast follows:

STEVE KRAKAUER: You know, the last time we talked, in February, got a little pick-up over at the Rush Limbaugh show. You never really know what does it, as far as why things get picked up or by who, and what aspects of things they pull out. But what was your reaction to what the focus of what Rush Limbaugh had there?

MORAN: Well, you know, I was a White House correspondent for five and a half years at the end of Bill Clinton's White House, and through the first term and more of George W. Bush's, and one thing you learn very quickly is, you have to develop a very thick hide. Because no matter what you do, one side or the other is going to detest you. I mean look at the way, right now, some of the liberal commentators are going after Jake Tapper. Tapper is an outstanding, outstanding White House correspondent. The only reason that Limbaugh is praising him is because, you know, he's giving it pretty good to the White House, when appropriate, and it's a Democratic White House. If Tapper was covering Bush, Limbaugh would call him a traitor. And that's just the way it is. And it's not just Limbaugh, it's the other side too. I mean, whenever you challenge a White House, as you should, the other side, the supporters of that White House will assume that you're wrongly motivated. And that just- that just comes with the territory, and I think no matter what you say about any major political figure, one side or the other is not going to be happy.

GLYNNIS MACNICOL: You know, we didn't mind getting picked up by Rush Limbaugh. So feel free [laughing] to say something that lands us there again.

MORAN: You know, I have a tendency, I'm afraid, sometimes to speak in ways that provoke, and I guess I â€" that's something I have to work on, the Lord isn't finished with me yet.

MACNICOL: Well we appreciated it. We're fans of thought-provoking Menu podcasts.

From: A usually-daily report, edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert is distributed by the Media Research Center, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

Love CyberAlert, the Media Research Center, News Busters...

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Anti-Limbaugh billboard rolls into WPB

Anti-Limbaugh billboard rolls into WPB
WFLX Fox 29 - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
Rush Limbaugh had said on his radio program he hoped President Barack Obama's financial fixes failed. Democrats responded with a contest to come up with an ...


They can say it as many times as they want, it still doesn't make it accurate. Geez. The only people who haven't heard the correct statements, in context, are a small group of liberals who don't care one way or the other, they just like the idea of spewing hate and trying to fire up people. Get a life. Do something constructive. Ya know, positive, helpful. What a waste of time and money.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

AIM: Speaker Pelosi’s Latest Move to Regulate the News

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder announcing her intentions to hold a hearing on the issue of newspaper consolidation in the San Francisco Bay area, citing anti-trust laws as a potential avenue to do something about this. The hearing would be by the Courts & Competition Policy Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, according to Pelosi’s letter.

While clearly there are serious issues engulfing the newspaper industry, in San Francisco and elsewhere, the problem isn’t one of anti-trust violations. Pelosi has made her feelings known. She would like a return to the Fairness Doctrine. This is a nose under the tent.

The above is an excellent article and well-worth a read. Trying to keep up with who's attacking free speech these days could become a full-time job!

Monday, March 16, 2009

Free Speech Assault Alert

The Durbin Doctrine’s Assault on Free Speech

Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now, Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate.

During the debate over the unconstitutional bill that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment. DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech.

However, Durbin’s amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin’s amendment do? It forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nation’s airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: “The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners.”

The true intention of the Durbin Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin told The Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin Doctrine.

From the Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation:

Sunday, March 8, 2009

How the Left Twists...

I get a daily listing of news stories that refer to Rush Limbaugh (Google Alerts). It's interesting just to scan the headlines. After a bit the Left leaning newspapers stand out like the proverbial sore thumb. The Right leaning usually don't stand out quite as easily, simply because they try for a little balance. They usually, but not always, toss in some middle of the road or fully opposing pieces.

I also get to watch the story turn from what it may have originally been, to what the Left wants it to be. You get to see the subtle twists in the story titles and subjects.

Another thing I get to see if how so many of them walk in lock-step.

Here's one that I got a kick out of in today's batch:

Rush Limbaugh the Rev Wright of the GOP
TPMCafé - New York, NY,USA
Everyone in the GOP is still all a twitter about the latest WH attacks on Limbaugh. It is not a new strategy though, it is exactly the game that the GOP attempted to play during the campaign with their endless Rev Wright and Ward Churchill fantasies. The difference is that Democrats really don't have a problem criticizing Wright, or Churchill or even Michael Moore while the Republicans dare not speak against Rush. By some measures of power, that makes Rush their leader.

It's not much of a story, it's actually more of an opinion. Short, sweet and stupid.

There's a little bit more than I printed here, so feel free to click the link above and go comment if you'd like.

The flawed logic in this idiotic piece are so obvious I really don't have to explain it to you do I?

Tell you what, if you're a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive, let me know and I'll explain it to you. The rest of you, I know I don't have to bother going further.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Adding a comment on Michael Reagan's piece on Rush Limbaugh

It's great.

Michael Reagan: This Tiger Is Not Dead

There's an old adage that explains that one does not shoot arrows at dead tigers. If there is a fusillade of arrows flying in the direction of a tiger you can be sure of two things: the beast is very much alive and is seen as a dangerous threat to the people manning the bows.

We are now watching this played out in the current scandal of a White House expending energy -- better spent on reviving the economy -- on an all-out and not-so-covert attack on a single talk-show radio host, Rush Limbaugh.

This should come as no surprise. President Obama opened the campaign against Rush by advising Republicans to pay no heed to anything Limbaugh tells them. Earlier, there were those veiled threats to silence Rush and all conservatives talk show hosts by reviving not the economy, but the so-called fairness doctrine that would effectively silence conservative voice heard on the airwaves.