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: www.mediabistro.com
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: www.mrc.org
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: www.newsbusters.org]
[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...
Monday, April 13, 2009
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.
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.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/speaker-pelosis-latest-move-to-regulate-the-news/
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!
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.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/speaker-pelosis-latest-move-to-regulate-the-news/
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: www.heritage.org
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: www.heritage.org
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.
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
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.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mreagan/2009/mr_03071.shtml
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.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mreagan/2009/mr_03071.shtml
Friday, March 6, 2009
GOP Fights Back Over Criticism of Limbaugh
Gee, doesn't it seem that the media is paying quite a bit of attention to this? It's a distraction in some ways. However, as you may have noticed in an earlier post, the Dems are still pursuing some form of the fairness doctrine.
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
By one measure, Rush Limbaugh is a clear winner this week: His ratings have nearly doubled since his feud with the White House burst into the media limelight.
But the Obama administration's strategy of trying to elevate the conservative radio commentator to leader of the opposition has prompted a vigorous counterattack, with a key Republican senator saying the move is an "outrage" that "reeks of hypocrisy coming from a president who campaigned against these very cynical political tactics last fall."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503770.html?wpisrc=newsletter
White House Is Accused Of Cynicism, Hypocrisy
By one measure, Rush Limbaugh is a clear winner this week: His ratings have nearly doubled since his feud with the White House burst into the media limelight.
But the Obama administration's strategy of trying to elevate the conservative radio commentator to leader of the opposition has prompted a vigorous counterattack, with a key Republican senator saying the move is an "outrage" that "reeks of hypocrisy coming from a president who campaigned against these very cynical political tactics last fall."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030503770.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Shuster: GOP Members Who Don't Slam Rush 'Appear Unpatriotic'
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue host David Shuster on Wednesday stepped up his attacks on Rush Limbaugh and suggested that if congressional Republicans "align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic." For the second day in a row, Shuster berated a conservative guest about the radio talk show host. He repeatedly encouraged former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer to disagree with Limbaugh and complained: "And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right?"
At one point, Shuster wondered why Republicans couldn't just denounce the "childish" comments by the radio host. He then seriously suggested that GOP members should say: "And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about." Later in the segment, the MSNBC anchor reiterated his assertion that Republicans might be unpatriotic.
He challenged: "Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?" After interrupting a responding Fleischer, he continued, "...Is it unpatriotic -- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it -- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?"
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
A calm Fleischer retorted: "David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that."
On Tuesday's program, Shuster talked with Republican Congressman Ron Paul and repeatedly asked the same question: "How can we have that argument [about other issues], when even you, Ron Paul, are not willing to take this opportunity to say when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, Rush Limbaugh is wrong?" See a March 5 CyberAlert posting for more: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2009/cyb20090305.asp#3
A transcript of the March 4 segment, which aired at 6:05pm EST, follows:
DAVID SHUSTER: As Jonathan pointed out, the White House and its allies have been happy to crown the controversial Limbaugh as king of the Republican Party and quick to call attention to the GOP leaders who kowtow to him. Clearly, many congressional Republicans are now in a tough spot. If they align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic. But, if they criticize Limbaugh, they may face the wrath of the conservative base that listens to Rush. Joining us now to talk about this is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary to President Bush. And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right?
ARI FLEISCHER: Well, David, I think this entire issue is nothing but ridiculous. You know, I'm reminded of a president who at his inaugural address said the follow: "We have come to proclaim an end to the recriminations that have strangled our politics." He cited scripture and he said the time has come to set aside childish things. Well, Barack Obama's chief of staff is acting childish and so is everybody else in the Democrat Party who is picking this ridiculous fight at a time when they should be worried about fixing the economy.
SHUSTER: What about Rush Limbaugh, Ari? I mean, But, isn't the easiest way for Republicans to move beyond this is to say-
FLEISCHER: Rush Limbaugh was not elected- Rush Limbaugh was not elected to anything. The President was. And it was the very President who said put aside the childishness. What I think is happening here-
SHUSTER: Then, why are so many Republicans already kowtowing to him? Why did the Republican Party chair feel the need to apologize after first criticizing- why do so many Republicans this week- they have not been able to bring themselves to say, of course, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says they want the President to fail. What is it so difficult?
FLEISCHER: It's not the issue and I don't think Republicans should take the bait and talk about whatever Rush Limbaugh has said. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio host, a very popular one and I like him. But the issue is the behavior of the President of the United States and his staff. Which Barack Obama is it? Is it the post-partisan Obama? Or the Obama who sends his chief of staff out to act childish? This is the problem Barack Obama has. And he is acting more as a petty partisan instead of a president. This is the issue. These are our leaders. The economy is melting. It's been two weeks and we haven't even gotten the specifics of his banking proposal. Instead, he's reliving the moments, the worst moments of the campaign when we dealt with lipstick on a pig. Is this what Barack Obama wants his presidency to be about?
SHUSTER: Ari, you know politics- Ari, you know politics. You- I mean, wouldn't you acknowledge from a pure political play, that this is the wise White House strategy because you're marginalizing Republicans, you're painting the entire Republican Party, your opposition, painting them as being like Rush limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: This is just as foolish as it was when everybody got into a fuss about lipstick on a pig during the campaign. America is sick of this type of petty politics, and it was started by Barack Obama That's what I cannot get over. He is so different now than the Barack Obama he promised in the inaugural.
SHUSTER: Wait a second, Ari- Ari, wasn't it started by the Bush administration? I mean, I seem to recall during the Bush administration when Republicans had legitimate concerns and complaints about the direction of the war, there was a straw man set up involving General Petraeus. And that straw man was MoveOn.org and you played a pretty crucial role about trying to portray all Democrats as being unpatriotic and against General Petraeus as opposed to being against the strategy.
FLEISCHER: Well, my point was it was the Barack Obama administration that began this whole nonsense about Rush Limbaugh, which is what I thought you wanted to talk about. But, there's always room for differ [sic] with people involved in politics. But, coming from the President? The President's chief of staff to allege a radio host is the leader of the Republican Party? This is the petty nonsense that I don't think anybody expected from a Barack Obama. This is childish.
SHUSTER: Fair point. But, Ari, if it's nonsense and if it's childish, wasn't it nonsense and childish started by Rush Limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: Well, Rush Limbaugh didn't give an inaugural address promising to be somebody different. Rush Limbaugh, like the liberal hosts-
SHUSTER: Aww, come on, Ari! He's got 20 million listeners a day. He's got more power of the conservative listeners than anybody in this country.
FLEISCHER: David- The wings of both parties are entirely entitled to have vociferous voices represent each. That's why they're called wings. And Rush does a great job at it. The President of the United States, though? He's the one in 2004 who said there's not a red America or a blue America, there's one America. But then he doesn't act like it. He is trying to stir up-
SHUSTER: Then, why can't Republicans, Ari, say the same thing? Why can't Republicans say, "You know what, this is childish, ridiculous, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says Republicans want the president to fail. And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about?"
FLEISCHER: Because, then, they would be chasing the same childish game that Rahm Emanuel started. And I think it's to Republicans' credit if they have the discipline not to take the question and not to chase the issue. This is about Barack Obama and the manner and style, the tactics he's choosing to govern. Because, he held himself out as something very different and he's being just like all the rest of the politicians in Washington of both parties who came before him. But, that's not what people expected. How can you give an inaugural address saying to move beyond the childish things and let his chief of staff engage in the very childish things?
SHUSTER: Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: Patriotic? You know, I think-
SHUSTER: Is it unpatriotic if they say- is it unpatriotic- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that.
SHUSTER: Right, but they can also believe whether it's patriotic or unpatriotic.
FLEISCHER: It doesn't have anything to do with patriotism to say that. I don't think raising taxes and going on a spending spree is going to help the economy.
SHUSTER: But, it was unpatriotic, therefore, to criticize the surge in Iraq and to somehow issue some criticism with the surge and take issue with General Petraeus. That was unpatriotic, but it's not unpatriotic for Rush Limbaugh to say that it's okay for the President to fail.
FLEISCHER: No, what I think you're confusing here is MoveOn.org- What I think you're trying to throw into a Rush Limbaugh/Barack Obama conversation is an ad that Moveon put on that called General Petraeus General Betray Us. Now, they took their lumps for that as they should have taken their lumps for that.
SHUSTER: Right. An ad that Democrats- Here's the difference, Ari. Democrats roundly criticized MoveOn for that ad. I don't think you can find more than one or two Republicans this week who have criticized Rush Limbaugh. I hope the Republicans hope President Obama fails. That's the difference.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think what you're misleading in the statement, Republicans in philosophy believe the president's policies are not going to succeed. But, I can tell you, I want my 201K to be a 401K again. I want the economy to get going.
SHUSTER: It's fine to argue, it's fine to argue- It's fine to argue you think the President's policies are going to fail. It's a different matter when you say you hope the President fails. In any case, Ari, always great sparring with you.
At one point, Shuster wondered why Republicans couldn't just denounce the "childish" comments by the radio host. He then seriously suggested that GOP members should say: "And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about." Later in the segment, the MSNBC anchor reiterated his assertion that Republicans might be unpatriotic.
He challenged: "Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?" After interrupting a responding Fleischer, he continued, "...Is it unpatriotic -- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it -- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?"
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
A calm Fleischer retorted: "David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that."
On Tuesday's program, Shuster talked with Republican Congressman Ron Paul and repeatedly asked the same question: "How can we have that argument [about other issues], when even you, Ron Paul, are not willing to take this opportunity to say when Rush Limbaugh says that every Republican wants President Obama to fail, Rush Limbaugh is wrong?" See a March 5 CyberAlert posting for more: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2009/cyb20090305.asp#3
A transcript of the March 4 segment, which aired at 6:05pm EST, follows:
DAVID SHUSTER: As Jonathan pointed out, the White House and its allies have been happy to crown the controversial Limbaugh as king of the Republican Party and quick to call attention to the GOP leaders who kowtow to him. Clearly, many congressional Republicans are now in a tough spot. If they align themselves with Rush's statements about wanting the President to fail, they appear unpatriotic. But, if they criticize Limbaugh, they may face the wrath of the conservative base that listens to Rush. Joining us now to talk about this is Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary to President Bush. And, Ari, first of all, when Rush says that all Republicans want the President to fail, Limbaugh's wrong, right?
ARI FLEISCHER: Well, David, I think this entire issue is nothing but ridiculous. You know, I'm reminded of a president who at his inaugural address said the follow: "We have come to proclaim an end to the recriminations that have strangled our politics." He cited scripture and he said the time has come to set aside childish things. Well, Barack Obama's chief of staff is acting childish and so is everybody else in the Democrat Party who is picking this ridiculous fight at a time when they should be worried about fixing the economy.
SHUSTER: What about Rush Limbaugh, Ari? I mean, But, isn't the easiest way for Republicans to move beyond this is to say-
FLEISCHER: Rush Limbaugh was not elected- Rush Limbaugh was not elected to anything. The President was. And it was the very President who said put aside the childishness. What I think is happening here-
SHUSTER: Then, why are so many Republicans already kowtowing to him? Why did the Republican Party chair feel the need to apologize after first criticizing- why do so many Republicans this week- they have not been able to bring themselves to say, of course, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says they want the President to fail. What is it so difficult?
FLEISCHER: It's not the issue and I don't think Republicans should take the bait and talk about whatever Rush Limbaugh has said. Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio host, a very popular one and I like him. But the issue is the behavior of the President of the United States and his staff. Which Barack Obama is it? Is it the post-partisan Obama? Or the Obama who sends his chief of staff out to act childish? This is the problem Barack Obama has. And he is acting more as a petty partisan instead of a president. This is the issue. These are our leaders. The economy is melting. It's been two weeks and we haven't even gotten the specifics of his banking proposal. Instead, he's reliving the moments, the worst moments of the campaign when we dealt with lipstick on a pig. Is this what Barack Obama wants his presidency to be about?
SHUSTER: Ari, you know politics- Ari, you know politics. You- I mean, wouldn't you acknowledge from a pure political play, that this is the wise White House strategy because you're marginalizing Republicans, you're painting the entire Republican Party, your opposition, painting them as being like Rush limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: This is just as foolish as it was when everybody got into a fuss about lipstick on a pig during the campaign. America is sick of this type of petty politics, and it was started by Barack Obama That's what I cannot get over. He is so different now than the Barack Obama he promised in the inaugural.
SHUSTER: Wait a second, Ari- Ari, wasn't it started by the Bush administration? I mean, I seem to recall during the Bush administration when Republicans had legitimate concerns and complaints about the direction of the war, there was a straw man set up involving General Petraeus. And that straw man was MoveOn.org and you played a pretty crucial role about trying to portray all Democrats as being unpatriotic and against General Petraeus as opposed to being against the strategy.
FLEISCHER: Well, my point was it was the Barack Obama administration that began this whole nonsense about Rush Limbaugh, which is what I thought you wanted to talk about. But, there's always room for differ [sic] with people involved in politics. But, coming from the President? The President's chief of staff to allege a radio host is the leader of the Republican Party? This is the petty nonsense that I don't think anybody expected from a Barack Obama. This is childish.
SHUSTER: Fair point. But, Ari, if it's nonsense and if it's childish, wasn't it nonsense and childish started by Rush Limbaugh?
FLEISCHER: Well, Rush Limbaugh didn't give an inaugural address promising to be somebody different. Rush Limbaugh, like the liberal hosts-
SHUSTER: Aww, come on, Ari! He's got 20 million listeners a day. He's got more power of the conservative listeners than anybody in this country.
FLEISCHER: David- The wings of both parties are entirely entitled to have vociferous voices represent each. That's why they're called wings. And Rush does a great job at it. The President of the United States, though? He's the one in 2004 who said there's not a red America or a blue America, there's one America. But then he doesn't act like it. He is trying to stir up-
SHUSTER: Then, why can't Republicans, Ari, say the same thing? Why can't Republicans say, "You know what, this is childish, ridiculous, Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says Republicans want the president to fail. And we need to isolate Rush Limbaugh because we do have important issues to talk about?"
FLEISCHER: Because, then, they would be chasing the same childish game that Rahm Emanuel started. And I think it's to Republicans' credit if they have the discipline not to take the question and not to chase the issue. This is about Barack Obama and the manner and style, the tactics he's choosing to govern. Because, he held himself out as something very different and he's being just like all the rest of the politicians in Washington of both parties who came before him. But, that's not what people expected. How can you give an inaugural address saying to move beyond the childish things and let his chief of staff engage in the very childish things?
SHUSTER: Ari, is it unpatriotic for somebody to say they hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: Patriotic? You know, I think-
SHUSTER: Is it unpatriotic if they say- is it unpatriotic- since patriotism was such a crucial theme in the run-up to the Iraq war in the way the Bush White House defended it- is it unpatriotic to say that you hope the President fails?
FLEISCHER: David, I think it's the very nature of our system that people can believe that policies are not going to work. And you should stand on principles if you don't think the policies will work, you should say that.
SHUSTER: Right, but they can also believe whether it's patriotic or unpatriotic.
FLEISCHER: It doesn't have anything to do with patriotism to say that. I don't think raising taxes and going on a spending spree is going to help the economy.
SHUSTER: But, it was unpatriotic, therefore, to criticize the surge in Iraq and to somehow issue some criticism with the surge and take issue with General Petraeus. That was unpatriotic, but it's not unpatriotic for Rush Limbaugh to say that it's okay for the President to fail.
FLEISCHER: No, what I think you're confusing here is MoveOn.org- What I think you're trying to throw into a Rush Limbaugh/Barack Obama conversation is an ad that Moveon put on that called General Petraeus General Betray Us. Now, they took their lumps for that as they should have taken their lumps for that.
SHUSTER: Right. An ad that Democrats- Here's the difference, Ari. Democrats roundly criticized MoveOn for that ad. I don't think you can find more than one or two Republicans this week who have criticized Rush Limbaugh. I hope the Republicans hope President Obama fails. That's the difference.
FLEISCHER: Well, I think what you're misleading in the statement, Republicans in philosophy believe the president's policies are not going to succeed. But, I can tell you, I want my 201K to be a 401K again. I want the economy to get going.
SHUSTER: It's fine to argue, it's fine to argue- It's fine to argue you think the President's policies are going to fail. It's a different matter when you say you hope the President fails. In any case, Ari, always great sparring with you.
Alter: GOP 'Party of Jell-O' for Not Standing Up to Limbaugh
During the 3:00PM EST hour on MSNBC on Thursday, anchor Norah O'Donnell teased an upcoming segment on Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party: "Coming up, is the party of Lincoln in danger of becoming the party of jell-o? Why conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh could be a liability for the Grand Old Party."
O'Donnell was referring to an Newsweek article by columnist Jonathan Alter and later spoke to him about it: "I want to read from your piece. You write, 'everyone knows he has jumped the shark culturally, becoming a black-shirted joke even as he dominates the headlines. But it's worse than that for Republicans, Limbaugh has taken the great GOP calling card -- toughness -- and shredded it. The party of Lincoln is in danger of becoming the party jell-o.' Explain further."
Alter elaborated: "The great strength of the Republican Party for the last 75 years has been strength. The fact that they are a tough party and their rhetoric has been tough. They were tough against the New Deal. They were tough in a Cold War. They were tough on Monica Lewinsky. If you can't even stand-up to Rush Limbaugh, if the dittoheads come after you and you wilt and then apologize for perfectly legitimate criticism of a radio talk show broadcaster, how tough is that. You look wimpy, you look weak, you look whiney."
Alter's March 4 Newsweek "Web exclusive" article: www.newsweek.com
[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Later, O'Donnell brought up an appearance by Newt Gingrich on Thursday's Today: "And he essentially turned his fire on Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, essentially comparing him to Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. What is with this demonizing of Rahm?" Alter defended Emanuel: "I -- you know, I think it was a perfectly fine thing for Rahm Emanuel to do...So I don't have any problem with Emanuel using that lever. It was -- it was a big fat one over the plate, so to speak, a real winner for the Democrats to go after Rush Limbaugh and obviously, the Republicans are stung." Alter added: "...to compare him to H.R. Haldeman, which is -- it's kind of lame, you know, to compare a guy who was convicted of crimes to the chief of staff at this juncture in an administration." Apparently it's still early to call Rahm Emanuel a criminal, but maybe in a few years.
Here is the full transcript of the March 5 segment:
3:38PM EST TEASE:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Coming up, is the party of Lincoln in danger of becoming the party of jell-o? Why conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh could be a liability for the Grand Old Party.
3:43PM SEGMENT:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Back to politics now, because it has been a busy day here in Washington. The chairman of the Republican Party says the GOP needs to go into rehab. That's right. As conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh continue their verbal jabs at the White House, Michael Steele says he's trying to put his party in a position to offer positive solutions.
MICHAEL STEELE: I'm putting the party on a 12-step program of recovery. And this is going to take some time. It's going to take some effort. But we're prepared to move forward and to state the case, make the case to the American people that we've got something to offer. We're not the party that's just here to say no. We're not the party to be, you know, in opposition just for the sake of being in opposition.
O'DONNELL: Jonathan Alter is a senior editor and columnist for Newsweek as well as an NBC News analyst, he writes about this in Newsweek this week. Jonathan, good to see you.
JONATHAN ALTER: Hi, Norah.
O'DONNELL: I want to get to your article in just a minute and show of the -- what you wrote, because it's great stuff. But what about that latest sound bite from an interview that Steele did with WBAL radio, where he says he's going to put the party in a 12-step program, it's going to rehab?
ALTER: Sounds good to me. You know, the whole country's in recovery now, right. That 12-step idea, that could be the Obama plan for economic recovery. We're a nation of therapeutic thinkers and clearly the Republican Party is at a nadir and they need to kind of start over again and come up with some new ideas. So it's good that their chairman is thinking that way. I certainly believe in a strong two-party system.
O'DONNELL: I want to read from your piece. You write, 'everyone knows he has jumped the shark culturally, becoming a black-shirted joke even as he dominates the headlines. But it's worse than that for Republicans, Limbaugh has taken the great GOP calling card -- toughness -- and shredded it. The party of Lincoln is in danger of becoming the party jell-o.' Explain further.
ALTER: Okay. Norah, the great strength of the Republican Party for the last 75 years has been strength. The fact that they are a tough party and their rhetoric has been tough. They were tough against the New Deal. They were tough in a Cold War. They were tough on Monica Lewinsky. If you can't even stand-up to Rush Limbaugh, if the dittoheads come after you and you wilt and then apologize for perfectly legitimate criticism of a radio talk show broadcaster, how tough is that. You look wimpy, you look weak, you look whiney, you look all the things that they used to say about Democrats. So this has been the great strength of Republicans and they are squandering it by not being able to stand up to Rush Limbaugh.
O'DONNELL: I want to get your take on another thing, Jonathan, because I don't know if you got the chance to see Newt Gingrich on the Today show this morning, and he was asked about the state of the Republican Party. And he essentially turned his fire on Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, essentially comparing him to Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. What is with this demonizing of Rahm? And was it a wise idea for the chief of staff to play the role of political operative and first sort of launch that salvo about Rush Limbaugh being the head of the Republican Party?
ALTER: I -- you know, I think it was a perfectly fine thing for Rahm Emanuel to do. The chief of staff is a very political position. Even for all the talk of bipartisanship, staying above the fray, that's something the President needs to do. But forever, Norah, it doesn't matter who's president, his chief of staff, his people, will be political. So I don't have any problem with Emanuel using that lever. It was -- it was a big fat one over the plate, so to speak, a real winner for the Democrats to go after Rush Limbaugh and obviously, the Republicans are stung. So Newt Gingrich is trying to compare him to H.R. Haldeman, which is -- it's kind of lame, you know, to compare a guy who was convicted of crimes to the chief of staff at this juncture in an administration.
O'DONNELL: Jonathan Alter with Newsweek, there for the health care summit. Jonathan, good to talk to you, thanks so much.
ALTER: Thanks, Norah.
www.mediaresearch.org
O'Donnell was referring to an Newsweek article by columnist Jonathan Alter and later spoke to him about it: "I want to read from your piece. You write, 'everyone knows he has jumped the shark culturally, becoming a black-shirted joke even as he dominates the headlines. But it's worse than that for Republicans, Limbaugh has taken the great GOP calling card -- toughness -- and shredded it. The party of Lincoln is in danger of becoming the party jell-o.' Explain further."
Alter elaborated: "The great strength of the Republican Party for the last 75 years has been strength. The fact that they are a tough party and their rhetoric has been tough. They were tough against the New Deal. They were tough in a Cold War. They were tough on Monica Lewinsky. If you can't even stand-up to Rush Limbaugh, if the dittoheads come after you and you wilt and then apologize for perfectly legitimate criticism of a radio talk show broadcaster, how tough is that. You look wimpy, you look weak, you look whiney."
Alter's March 4 Newsweek "Web exclusive" article: www.newsweek.com
[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Thursday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Later, O'Donnell brought up an appearance by Newt Gingrich on Thursday's Today: "And he essentially turned his fire on Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, essentially comparing him to Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. What is with this demonizing of Rahm?" Alter defended Emanuel: "I -- you know, I think it was a perfectly fine thing for Rahm Emanuel to do...So I don't have any problem with Emanuel using that lever. It was -- it was a big fat one over the plate, so to speak, a real winner for the Democrats to go after Rush Limbaugh and obviously, the Republicans are stung." Alter added: "...to compare him to H.R. Haldeman, which is -- it's kind of lame, you know, to compare a guy who was convicted of crimes to the chief of staff at this juncture in an administration." Apparently it's still early to call Rahm Emanuel a criminal, but maybe in a few years.
Here is the full transcript of the March 5 segment:
3:38PM EST TEASE:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Coming up, is the party of Lincoln in danger of becoming the party of jell-o? Why conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh could be a liability for the Grand Old Party.
3:43PM SEGMENT:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Back to politics now, because it has been a busy day here in Washington. The chairman of the Republican Party says the GOP needs to go into rehab. That's right. As conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh continue their verbal jabs at the White House, Michael Steele says he's trying to put his party in a position to offer positive solutions.
MICHAEL STEELE: I'm putting the party on a 12-step program of recovery. And this is going to take some time. It's going to take some effort. But we're prepared to move forward and to state the case, make the case to the American people that we've got something to offer. We're not the party that's just here to say no. We're not the party to be, you know, in opposition just for the sake of being in opposition.
O'DONNELL: Jonathan Alter is a senior editor and columnist for Newsweek as well as an NBC News analyst, he writes about this in Newsweek this week. Jonathan, good to see you.
JONATHAN ALTER: Hi, Norah.
O'DONNELL: I want to get to your article in just a minute and show of the -- what you wrote, because it's great stuff. But what about that latest sound bite from an interview that Steele did with WBAL radio, where he says he's going to put the party in a 12-step program, it's going to rehab?
ALTER: Sounds good to me. You know, the whole country's in recovery now, right. That 12-step idea, that could be the Obama plan for economic recovery. We're a nation of therapeutic thinkers and clearly the Republican Party is at a nadir and they need to kind of start over again and come up with some new ideas. So it's good that their chairman is thinking that way. I certainly believe in a strong two-party system.
O'DONNELL: I want to read from your piece. You write, 'everyone knows he has jumped the shark culturally, becoming a black-shirted joke even as he dominates the headlines. But it's worse than that for Republicans, Limbaugh has taken the great GOP calling card -- toughness -- and shredded it. The party of Lincoln is in danger of becoming the party jell-o.' Explain further.
ALTER: Okay. Norah, the great strength of the Republican Party for the last 75 years has been strength. The fact that they are a tough party and their rhetoric has been tough. They were tough against the New Deal. They were tough in a Cold War. They were tough on Monica Lewinsky. If you can't even stand-up to Rush Limbaugh, if the dittoheads come after you and you wilt and then apologize for perfectly legitimate criticism of a radio talk show broadcaster, how tough is that. You look wimpy, you look weak, you look whiney, you look all the things that they used to say about Democrats. So this has been the great strength of Republicans and they are squandering it by not being able to stand up to Rush Limbaugh.
O'DONNELL: I want to get your take on another thing, Jonathan, because I don't know if you got the chance to see Newt Gingrich on the Today show this morning, and he was asked about the state of the Republican Party. And he essentially turned his fire on Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, essentially comparing him to Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. What is with this demonizing of Rahm? And was it a wise idea for the chief of staff to play the role of political operative and first sort of launch that salvo about Rush Limbaugh being the head of the Republican Party?
ALTER: I -- you know, I think it was a perfectly fine thing for Rahm Emanuel to do. The chief of staff is a very political position. Even for all the talk of bipartisanship, staying above the fray, that's something the President needs to do. But forever, Norah, it doesn't matter who's president, his chief of staff, his people, will be political. So I don't have any problem with Emanuel using that lever. It was -- it was a big fat one over the plate, so to speak, a real winner for the Democrats to go after Rush Limbaugh and obviously, the Republicans are stung. So Newt Gingrich is trying to compare him to H.R. Haldeman, which is -- it's kind of lame, you know, to compare a guy who was convicted of crimes to the chief of staff at this juncture in an administration.
O'DONNELL: Jonathan Alter with Newsweek, there for the health care summit. Jonathan, good to talk to you, thanks so much.
ALTER: Thanks, Norah.
www.mediaresearch.org
Speaker Pelosi Backs Senate Amendment to Regulate Talk Radio
(CNSNews.com) – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (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.”
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588
This isn't socialism, this is the outright communistic shutting down of free speech. Americans should watch this carefully and do everything in their power to hound those who will be voting on any version of the "fairness" doctrine. They're chipping away at our freedoms and many are sleeping through the process. How do we reach the mind-numb dummies out there who will one day shriek when Nancy Pelosi and friends have their full way?
The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Sean Hannity Show, among many others.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44588
This isn't socialism, this is the outright communistic shutting down of free speech. Americans should watch this carefully and do everything in their power to hound those who will be voting on any version of the "fairness" doctrine. They're chipping away at our freedoms and many are sleeping through the process. How do we reach the mind-numb dummies out there who will one day shriek when Nancy Pelosi and friends have their full way?
Goldberg: The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh
Here we go again. Rush Limbaugh is public enemy No. 1.
Liberal bloggers and media chin-strokers are aghast at Limbaugh's statement that he hopes Barack Obama fails.
Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end -- who doesn't? But Obama's agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state. And yet people are shocked that conservatives, Limbaugh included, want Obama to fail in this effort?
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/03/04/the_tired_war_on_rush_limbaugh
Liberal bloggers and media chin-strokers are aghast at Limbaugh's statement that he hopes Barack Obama fails.
Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too. Of course I want the financial crisis to end -- who doesn't? But Obama's agenda is much more audacious. Pretty much every major news outlet in the country has said as a matter of objective analysis that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan and remake the country as a European welfare state. And yet people are shocked that conservatives, Limbaugh included, want Obama to fail in this effort?
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2009/03/04/the_tired_war_on_rush_limbaugh
Emmett Tyrrell: Rush to Rush
"Rush is the bloated face and drug-addled voice of the Republican Party," Paul Begala is quoted as saying by The Washington Post. Begala is asseverating on Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio commentator in the country, but alas, one who disagrees with Begala. I think it speaks volumes about Begala's obliviousness that he would bring up physical traits in attempting to make some political point. Has he beheld himself in a mirror lately? Even friends know him as "The Skull," owing to his cadaverous countenance.
http://townhall.com/columnists/EmmettTyrrell/2009/03/05/rush_to_rush
http://townhall.com/columnists/EmmettTyrrell/2009/03/05/rush_to_rush
Elder: It's Not the Economy, Stupid -- It's Limbaugh
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," the newly installed President Obama told Capitol Hill Republicans.
Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, just days ago, called the popular conservative radio talk show host "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Then Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on a CNN show hosted by comedian-turned-pundit D.L. Hughley. When Hughley called Limbaugh "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele stepped right on top of the trap. "No," said Steele, "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party," and called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose show can be "incendiary" and "ugly." Steele later apologized to Limbaugh. Game, set and match.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/03/05/its_not_the_economy,_stupid_--_its_limbaugh
Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, just days ago, called the popular conservative radio talk show host "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Then Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on a CNN show hosted by comedian-turned-pundit D.L. Hughley. When Hughley called Limbaugh "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," Steele stepped right on top of the trap. "No," said Steele, "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party," and called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose show can be "incendiary" and "ugly." Steele later apologized to Limbaugh. Game, set and match.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/03/05/its_not_the_economy,_stupid_--_its_limbaugh
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
WashPost Reporter on MSNBC: GOP Nominee Must 'Stand Up to Rush'
At the top of the 12PM EST hour of MSNBC news coverage on Tuesday, anchor David Shuster spoke with Washington Post reporter Keith Richburg about the recent divide between Rush Limbaugh and RNC Chair Michael Steele. Richburg observed: "You know, it's fascinating. It's like the circular firing squad. I mean, maybe this is what Rush had in mind when he was talking about 'Operation Chaos.'" Shuster later asked Richburg: "I mean, when Rush Limbaugh says that all Republicans want President Obama to fail. What's so difficult with somebody saying, 'no, no, we think that his policies may fail, but we don't want them to fail.' What's so difficult about that?" Richburg replied: "...it almost seems like the Republican Party needs a 'Sister Solja' moment...It seems like the Republicans need somebody who's willing to stand up and say Rush doesn't represent all of the views of the Republican Party and then not rush and apologize to him...I'll bet you whoever does that could end up as the, you know, the nominee of the party or at least the major party."
[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Richburg went on to describe the problem with the Republican Party: "One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there."
Here is the full transcript of the March 3 segment:
12:00PM TEASE:
DAVID SHUSTER: Following the latest Republican Party civil war. A complete about-face by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, after calling Rush Limbaugh's show 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Steele's now apologized in the face of a withering attack from the radio host.
12:04PM SEGMENT:
CONTESSA BREWER: Rush Limbaugh isn't happy with his party's new chairman. He's not keeping quiet about it. David Shuster has that story from the politics desk. Hey, David.
DAVID SHUSTER: Contessa, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is having second thoughts about taking on conservative power house Rush Limbaugh. Steele is apologizing for calling the radio host a mere 'entertainer,' who's show is sometimes 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Limbaugh did not take to kindly to Steele's criticism, he lashed out at Steele on his radio show yesterday.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I'm not in charge of the Republican Party and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party given the state that it's in, I would quit.
SHUSTER: Keith Richburg is New York bureau chief for The Washington Post. Keith, what do you make of all of this?
KEITH RICHBURG: You know, it's fascinating. It's like the circular firing squad. I mean, maybe this is what Rush had in mind when he was talking about 'Operation Chaos.' What you're seeing is a fight, really, for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. On the one hand, you've got Michael Steele, who's trying to re-brand it, if you will, make it more palatable to minorities, make it more diverse, make it more appealing to moderates, and on the other hand, you have Rush Limbaugh, who gave that fiery, incendiary speech to the conservative wing of the party, basically saying 'no, we don't want to change. We want to be, you know, true to our beliefs.' And that -- and whoever wins that fight is going to determine, kind of, which direction the party goes.
SHUSTER: I'm a little bit surprised. I mean, you can -- you can criticize narrowly, I would think, some of what Rush says, right?
RICHBURG: Absolutely.
SHUSTER: I mean, when Rush Limbaugh says that all Republicans want President Obama to fail. What's so difficult with somebody saying, 'no, no, we think that his policies may fail, but we don't want them to fail.' What's so difficult about that?
RICHBURG: Absolutely. And it shouldn't be. I'm really surprised about the Steele apology, because there's nothing he said in there that I found particularly outrageous. Rush Limbaugh's on the radio, he's an entertainer. Some of the things he said is ugly and incendiary. Exhibit A is 'Barack the magic Negro' that got air time on Limbaugh's radio station. And you know, it almost seems like the Republican Party needs a 'Sister Solja' moment, you know, when Bill Clinton was able to stand up and break with the far left of the Democratic Party by criticizing rap music on Sister Solja. It seems like the Republicans need somebody who's willing to stand up and say Rush doesn't represent all of the views of the Republican Party and then not rush and apologize to him.
SHUSTER: And who is that person? I mean, is it a Ron Paul, is it somebody who's perhaps a little more self-confident of themselves? I mean, who is it?
RICHBURG: That's a really good question. And you know the -- you know, we don't predict in this business, but I'll bet you whoever does that could end up as the, you know, the nominee of the party or at least the major party. You know, the problem -- they almost -- you know, we're talking about Gordon Brown. One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there. So that's what this is all about. Which way does the party go to recover? The same way the British conservative party took a dozen years to try to figure this out.
SHUSTER: Keith Richburg, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post. Keith, thanks for coming on.
RICHBURG: Thank you.
The above was in www.mediaresearch.org CyberAlert
[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Richburg went on to describe the problem with the Republican Party: "One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there."
Here is the full transcript of the March 3 segment:
12:00PM TEASE:
DAVID SHUSTER: Following the latest Republican Party civil war. A complete about-face by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, after calling Rush Limbaugh's show 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Steele's now apologized in the face of a withering attack from the radio host.
12:04PM SEGMENT:
CONTESSA BREWER: Rush Limbaugh isn't happy with his party's new chairman. He's not keeping quiet about it. David Shuster has that story from the politics desk. Hey, David.
DAVID SHUSTER: Contessa, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is having second thoughts about taking on conservative power house Rush Limbaugh. Steele is apologizing for calling the radio host a mere 'entertainer,' who's show is sometimes 'ugly' and 'incendiary.' Limbaugh did not take to kindly to Steele's criticism, he lashed out at Steele on his radio show yesterday.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I'm not in charge of the Republican Party and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party given the state that it's in, I would quit.
SHUSTER: Keith Richburg is New York bureau chief for The Washington Post. Keith, what do you make of all of this?
KEITH RICHBURG: You know, it's fascinating. It's like the circular firing squad. I mean, maybe this is what Rush had in mind when he was talking about 'Operation Chaos.' What you're seeing is a fight, really, for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. On the one hand, you've got Michael Steele, who's trying to re-brand it, if you will, make it more palatable to minorities, make it more diverse, make it more appealing to moderates, and on the other hand, you have Rush Limbaugh, who gave that fiery, incendiary speech to the conservative wing of the party, basically saying 'no, we don't want to change. We want to be, you know, true to our beliefs.' And that -- and whoever wins that fight is going to determine, kind of, which direction the party goes.
SHUSTER: I'm a little bit surprised. I mean, you can -- you can criticize narrowly, I would think, some of what Rush says, right?
RICHBURG: Absolutely.
SHUSTER: I mean, when Rush Limbaugh says that all Republicans want President Obama to fail. What's so difficult with somebody saying, 'no, no, we think that his policies may fail, but we don't want them to fail.' What's so difficult about that?
RICHBURG: Absolutely. And it shouldn't be. I'm really surprised about the Steele apology, because there's nothing he said in there that I found particularly outrageous. Rush Limbaugh's on the radio, he's an entertainer. Some of the things he said is ugly and incendiary. Exhibit A is 'Barack the magic Negro' that got air time on Limbaugh's radio station. And you know, it almost seems like the Republican Party needs a 'Sister Solja' moment, you know, when Bill Clinton was able to stand up and break with the far left of the Democratic Party by criticizing rap music on Sister Solja. It seems like the Republicans need somebody who's willing to stand up and say Rush doesn't represent all of the views of the Republican Party and then not rush and apologize to him.
SHUSTER: And who is that person? I mean, is it a Ron Paul, is it somebody who's perhaps a little more self-confident of themselves? I mean, who is it?
RICHBURG: That's a really good question. And you know the -- you know, we don't predict in this business, but I'll bet you whoever does that could end up as the, you know, the nominee of the party or at least the major party. You know, the problem -- they almost -- you know, we're talking about Gordon Brown. One of the main problems they have is they're almost like the British conservative party was after Tony Blair took over in 1997. They're looking out of touch. They're older. They're whiter. They're more regionally based in south than ever before. And they're in danger of irrelevance unless they can find some way to do really what Ronald Reagan did, which was appeal to moderates, appeal to Democrats, appeal to those Macomb County, Michigan suburbs. And, you know, if you just go for a straight base strategy, conservative strategy like Rush Limbaugh is saying, you're going to lose that, kind of, center ground there. So that's what this is all about. Which way does the party go to recover? The same way the British conservative party took a dozen years to try to figure this out.
SHUSTER: Keith Richburg, New York bureau chief of The Washington Post. Keith, thanks for coming on.
RICHBURG: Thank you.
The above was in www.mediaresearch.org CyberAlert
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This Is Way Bigger Than Rush
The Democrats, along with those on the right who seem more worried about incurring the disdain of the wrongheaded left than of their fellow patriots, are feverishly promoting their Saul Alinsky-inspired scheme to demonize and divide their most effective political opponents.
What would be amusing, were matters not so gravely serious today, is the utter juvenile transparency in the liberals' efforts to vilify Rush Limbaugh.
They've been doing it for 20 years, but this time, they're better-organized and have a broader purpose. So those who haven't had the courage to stand by him should understand that Rush is not the ultimate target here. We all are -- those, that is, who oppose their Marxist agenda and Stalinist tactics.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/03/03/this_is_way_bigger_than_rush?page=full
Hat tip: http://www.americac2c.org/ for this article.
What would be amusing, were matters not so gravely serious today, is the utter juvenile transparency in the liberals' efforts to vilify Rush Limbaugh.
They've been doing it for 20 years, but this time, they're better-organized and have a broader purpose. So those who haven't had the courage to stand by him should understand that Rush is not the ultimate target here. We all are -- those, that is, who oppose their Marxist agenda and Stalinist tactics.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/03/03/this_is_way_bigger_than_rush?page=full
Hat tip: http://www.americac2c.org/ for this article.
Tony Perkins: The Elephants in the Room
As if the Republican Party didn't have enough problems already, Americans are now being subjected to an uncomfortable public spat between the RNC chairman and the conservative movement's most recognizable radio personality.
In case you missed it, new RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked to comment on a Rush Limbaugh speech in which he wished failure on Obama's economic plan. Steele responded on CNN that Limbaugh is purely "entertainment," and his opinions can be "incendiary" and "ugly." When host D.L. Hughley implied that Limbaugh is the "de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele fired back, "No he's not. I'm the de factor leader of the Republican Party." On his radio show yesterday, Rush made an interesting distinction about Steele. "Michael ... you are head of the RNC; you are not head of the Republican Party." Steele has since apologized for his comments, even conceding that Limbaugh is a "national conservative leader."
As I told CNN's Anderson Cooper last night, this power struggle is emblematic of the broader rift between conservatives and the Republican Party. For the last few years, there has been an identity crisis in the GOP. Until the Republican leadership can find its voice on core values, there will continue to be a vacuum in leadership. If 20 million people are tuning in to Rush Limbaugh every day, then obviously he has something significant to say. Instead of attacking the voices that resonate most with grassroots America, Republican leaders would be wise to listen to them. Otherwise, a party on the verge of irrelevance will find itself on the brink of extinction.
The biggest example of this divide between conservatives and the GOP may be found in President Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). With the exception so far of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.)--arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the nation -- has been met by the Republican leadership with a collective yawn. Here is a woman who aligns herself against 80% of the country in suggesting that the government knows better than parents in children's health decisions, and yet the GOP can't muster the will to fight her nomination. As governor, she hosted a private reception for a notorious partial-birth abortionist, vetoed bills that would have made abortion clinics cleaner for women, and blocked court reforms that would have helped to prevent third-term abortions. Like President Obama, she even opposed protection for infants who are born alive during an abortion.
If Republicans won't take a stand now, when will they? Once Sebelius is confirmed, she will control the largest government agency in America with more power and resources to advance a radical social agenda that will drive a deeper wedge between parents and their children. Grassroots conservatives understand what's at stake here. Why doesn't the Republican leadership?
Additional Resources
FRC: Tony Perkins on CNN's AC360
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
In case you missed it, new RNC Chairman Michael Steele was asked to comment on a Rush Limbaugh speech in which he wished failure on Obama's economic plan. Steele responded on CNN that Limbaugh is purely "entertainment," and his opinions can be "incendiary" and "ugly." When host D.L. Hughley implied that Limbaugh is the "de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele fired back, "No he's not. I'm the de factor leader of the Republican Party." On his radio show yesterday, Rush made an interesting distinction about Steele. "Michael ... you are head of the RNC; you are not head of the Republican Party." Steele has since apologized for his comments, even conceding that Limbaugh is a "national conservative leader."
As I told CNN's Anderson Cooper last night, this power struggle is emblematic of the broader rift between conservatives and the Republican Party. For the last few years, there has been an identity crisis in the GOP. Until the Republican leadership can find its voice on core values, there will continue to be a vacuum in leadership. If 20 million people are tuning in to Rush Limbaugh every day, then obviously he has something significant to say. Instead of attacking the voices that resonate most with grassroots America, Republican leaders would be wise to listen to them. Otherwise, a party on the verge of irrelevance will find itself on the brink of extinction.
The biggest example of this divide between conservatives and the GOP may be found in President Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). With the exception so far of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.)--arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the nation -- has been met by the Republican leadership with a collective yawn. Here is a woman who aligns herself against 80% of the country in suggesting that the government knows better than parents in children's health decisions, and yet the GOP can't muster the will to fight her nomination. As governor, she hosted a private reception for a notorious partial-birth abortionist, vetoed bills that would have made abortion clinics cleaner for women, and blocked court reforms that would have helped to prevent third-term abortions. Like President Obama, she even opposed protection for infants who are born alive during an abortion.
If Republicans won't take a stand now, when will they? Once Sebelius is confirmed, she will control the largest government agency in America with more power and resources to advance a radical social agenda that will drive a deeper wedge between parents and their children. Grassroots conservatives understand what's at stake here. Why doesn't the Republican leadership?
Additional Resources
FRC: Tony Perkins on CNN's AC360
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
Monday, March 2, 2009
More Red State on Rush
ABC News Does Hit Job on House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Claims Cantor Rejects Rush Limbaugh.
Did George Stephanoupolos coordinate this attack with Rahm Emanuel ahead of time?
According to George Stephanopolous, Eric Cantor (R-VA) publicly rejected Rush LImbaugh's rhetoric.
It is an absolute lie.
Remember, folks, Stephanopolous has daily phone calls with Rahm Emanuel to plot Democrat strategy via ABC News. No doubt this is a coordinated effort to cause a rift in the party where there is none.
What Stephanopoulos wrote about his encounter with Eric Cantor reads like George Stephanopoulos asked Cantor the question, preceded by Rush's statement that he hoped Barack Obama failed if "his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundations."
But that's not actually what happened.
SOURCE
Sign up for your own updates at: http://www.redstate.com/
Did George Stephanoupolos coordinate this attack with Rahm Emanuel ahead of time?
According to George Stephanopolous, Eric Cantor (R-VA) publicly rejected Rush LImbaugh's rhetoric.
It is an absolute lie.
Remember, folks, Stephanopolous has daily phone calls with Rahm Emanuel to plot Democrat strategy via ABC News. No doubt this is a coordinated effort to cause a rift in the party where there is none.
What Stephanopoulos wrote about his encounter with Eric Cantor reads like George Stephanopoulos asked Cantor the question, preceded by Rush's statement that he hoped Barack Obama failed if "his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundations."
But that's not actually what happened.
SOURCE
Sign up for your own updates at: http://www.redstate.com/
RedState - Rush Limbaugh at CPAC: We Were There
He wowed the crowd. The inspired the base. The left immediately attacked him and lied about what he said.
The rumor is true. I got a bit of face time with Rush Limbaugh yesterday in the green room. He was as warm and gracious as you'd expect. It was a high honor.
It was absolutely amazing.
What's more amazing though is that this guy provides excellence on the radio day in and day out. He speaks without a script, from the heart processed through the head (a key step liberals miss). CPAC attendees recognize just how excellent he is - they named him the most popular conservative out there. He is with reason.
Many, many people would love to marginalize Rush. And a lot of those are people on our side. As Rush rightly pointed out, there are others out there who want to be the voice of the movement. These people's voices are filled with compromise and capitulation. Instead of standing for something, they want to be liked by the other side.
Rush said the other side will never like us because we are conservatives. To be liked, we must not be conservatives. He's absolutely right. Our ideas are about freedom and liberty. They do not grow stale. And they only grow as weary as we do.
We must fight on.
SOURCE
SNIPPETS OF RUSH'S SPEECH ARE HERE.
Sign up for your own updates at: http://www.redstate.com/
The rumor is true. I got a bit of face time with Rush Limbaugh yesterday in the green room. He was as warm and gracious as you'd expect. It was a high honor.
It was absolutely amazing.
What's more amazing though is that this guy provides excellence on the radio day in and day out. He speaks without a script, from the heart processed through the head (a key step liberals miss). CPAC attendees recognize just how excellent he is - they named him the most popular conservative out there. He is with reason.
Many, many people would love to marginalize Rush. And a lot of those are people on our side. As Rush rightly pointed out, there are others out there who want to be the voice of the movement. These people's voices are filled with compromise and capitulation. Instead of standing for something, they want to be liked by the other side.
Rush said the other side will never like us because we are conservatives. To be liked, we must not be conservatives. He's absolutely right. Our ideas are about freedom and liberty. They do not grow stale. And they only grow as weary as we do.
We must fight on.
SOURCE
SNIPPETS OF RUSH'S SPEECH ARE HERE.
Sign up for your own updates at: http://www.redstate.com/
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MRC's Free Speech Alliance Calls on Pres. Obama to Oppose All Forms of Government Censorship on the Radio
The President’s stated opposition to the Censorship Doctrine is not enough
The Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance (FSA) today called President Barack Obama’s stated opposition to a reinstatement of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine, just a first step towards ensuring that talk radio remain free from government censorship. The FSA calls on the President to publicly declare his opposition to all forms of regulatory assault on talk radio.
Conservative and Christian talk radio face the real threat of government censorship on several fronts. Besides the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, the nebulous FCC “diversity” in ownership and “localism” requirements may also be used to deny stations their broadcast licenses.
Liberal organizations and individuals like MoveOn.org, ACORN, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others have expressed their intention to silence talk radio by these alternative regulatory means so as to avoid the outcry from millions of Americans should they try to reinstate the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“We are glad that President Obama says that he ‘does not believe the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.’ But he should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves.
“The President should also insist that his nominee for FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, publicly pledge right away – before his confirmation hearing -- that he too vows not to use the regulatory powers of the FCC to silence talk radio. We need to know definitively that the man who will head up Obama’s FCC will in every way possible preserve free speech on the airwaves.
“Only then will the American public – conservatives and liberals alike -- who oppose government censorship know President Obama is serious about protecting free speech on the radio.”
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist:
“While I’m pleased to hear the President say he opposes revival of the ironically named “fairness doctrine,” I’d like to hear him come out with full-throated support for freedom of speech. Government censorship has many forms, and while President Obama now opposes this form, where does he stand on the more ominous issue of censorship by proxy under the friendly sounding ‘localism’ banner?
“Call me a skeptic, but while what a politician says worries me, what they explicitly don’t say worries me even more. If liberals want an equal voice on talk radio they simply need to produce a product the public wants to hear. It’s the public rejection of the products they’ve offered thus far that has made liberal talk radio a failure, not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ Bullying through the power government to force their shows on the air won’t grow them an audience. This isn’t Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come, you have to provide a good product. That’s where liberal talk radio fails, not in some mythical ‘smoke filled room’ somewhere.”
The Free Speech Alliance (www.FreeSpeechAlliance.us) is made up of fifty-nine (59) organizations representing millions of Americans...
The Media Research Center’s Free Speech Alliance (FSA) today called President Barack Obama’s stated opposition to a reinstatement of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine, just a first step towards ensuring that talk radio remain free from government censorship. The FSA calls on the President to publicly declare his opposition to all forms of regulatory assault on talk radio.
Conservative and Christian talk radio face the real threat of government censorship on several fronts. Besides the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, the nebulous FCC “diversity” in ownership and “localism” requirements may also be used to deny stations their broadcast licenses.
Liberal organizations and individuals like MoveOn.org, ACORN, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and others have expressed their intention to silence talk radio by these alternative regulatory means so as to avoid the outcry from millions of Americans should they try to reinstate the mis-named “Fairness” Doctrine.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“We are glad that President Obama says that he ‘does not believe the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.’ But he should state his opposition to the use of any FCC regulation with the intent of censoring talk radio. He should also guarantee a veto of any bill that will silence free speech on the airwaves.
“The President should also insist that his nominee for FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, publicly pledge right away – before his confirmation hearing -- that he too vows not to use the regulatory powers of the FCC to silence talk radio. We need to know definitively that the man who will head up Obama’s FCC will in every way possible preserve free speech on the airwaves.
“Only then will the American public – conservatives and liberals alike -- who oppose government censorship know President Obama is serious about protecting free speech on the radio.”
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist:
“While I’m pleased to hear the President say he opposes revival of the ironically named “fairness doctrine,” I’d like to hear him come out with full-throated support for freedom of speech. Government censorship has many forms, and while President Obama now opposes this form, where does he stand on the more ominous issue of censorship by proxy under the friendly sounding ‘localism’ banner?
“Call me a skeptic, but while what a politician says worries me, what they explicitly don’t say worries me even more. If liberals want an equal voice on talk radio they simply need to produce a product the public wants to hear. It’s the public rejection of the products they’ve offered thus far that has made liberal talk radio a failure, not some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy.’ Bullying through the power government to force their shows on the air won’t grow them an audience. This isn’t Field of Dreams, just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come, you have to provide a good product. That’s where liberal talk radio fails, not in some mythical ‘smoke filled room’ somewhere.”
The Free Speech Alliance (www.FreeSpeechAlliance.us) is made up of fifty-nine (59) organizations representing millions of Americans...
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Fairness Doctrine: Better Off Dead or Alien Resurrection?
Fairness Doctrine fever has now spread through Congress, with efforts to contain the malady only exacerbating the affliction. Looks like we'll just have to let nature take its course.
The Great Fairness Doctrine Panic (FDP) of 2009 continues, hurling gigabytes of fear, loathing, and speculation across the blogosphere like so much digital flotsam. Our recent story raised doubts about the likelihood that anyone on Capital Hill was serious about reviving the 22-years-dead policy. But it turns out that there are a number of people who think it's high time the Fairness Doctrine was resurrected after all.
And so, in penance, I don the personae of Andrews the prison warden, played by Brian Glover in Alien 3. "Rumor control," he soberly tells his off-world brood of sociopaths. "Here are the facts."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/eeek-fairness-doctrine.ars
Theres' some chatter on Twitter about the Fairness Doctrine so I decided to try and find the latest. Hence, story above and the stories below.
Legal Group Prepares to Battle Fairness Doctrine
The American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group which specializes in constitutional law, said Monday it is preparing a litigation strategy to combat the Fairness Doctrine should it return.
Support drops for Fairness Doctrine
In a new Rasmussen poll, only 38 percent of respondents supported the fairness doctrine.
Some Democrats hope to reinstate Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine, a vestige of an America that had radio and TV but no Internet, could be poised for a comeback. A regular parade of Democratic politicians has expressed interest in reviving the rule that - until it was abolished by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 - forced stations to toe an ideologically neutral line. And although some experts scoff at the suggestion that the rule could ...
(Warning: this is from the Huffington Post)
Dave Johnson: Revive The Fairness Doctrine
Let's start a discussion about reviving the Fairness Doctrine to re-introduce the commons and the idea that we tell the corporations what to do! A...
47% Oppose Fairness Doctrine, But 51% Think Congress Likely To Bring It Back
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.
AJOC Editorial: Conspiracy or coincidence with Fairness Doctrine
Now that the Democrats have risen to power again, they are wasting little time in efforts to control what you hear on the radio. The Fairness Doctrine is making a comeback. Could be coincidence; you decide.
The Great Fairness Doctrine Panic (FDP) of 2009 continues, hurling gigabytes of fear, loathing, and speculation across the blogosphere like so much digital flotsam. Our recent story raised doubts about the likelihood that anyone on Capital Hill was serious about reviving the 22-years-dead policy. But it turns out that there are a number of people who think it's high time the Fairness Doctrine was resurrected after all.
And so, in penance, I don the personae of Andrews the prison warden, played by Brian Glover in Alien 3. "Rumor control," he soberly tells his off-world brood of sociopaths. "Here are the facts."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/eeek-fairness-doctrine.ars
Theres' some chatter on Twitter about the Fairness Doctrine so I decided to try and find the latest. Hence, story above and the stories below.
Legal Group Prepares to Battle Fairness Doctrine
The American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group which specializes in constitutional law, said Monday it is preparing a litigation strategy to combat the Fairness Doctrine should it return.
Support drops for Fairness Doctrine
In a new Rasmussen poll, only 38 percent of respondents supported the fairness doctrine.
Some Democrats hope to reinstate Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine, a vestige of an America that had radio and TV but no Internet, could be poised for a comeback. A regular parade of Democratic politicians has expressed interest in reviving the rule that - until it was abolished by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 - forced stations to toe an ideologically neutral line. And although some experts scoff at the suggestion that the rule could ...
(Warning: this is from the Huffington Post)
Dave Johnson: Revive The Fairness Doctrine
Let's start a discussion about reviving the Fairness Doctrine to re-introduce the commons and the idea that we tell the corporations what to do! A...
47% Oppose Fairness Doctrine, But 51% Think Congress Likely To Bring It Back
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.
AJOC Editorial: Conspiracy or coincidence with Fairness Doctrine
Now that the Democrats have risen to power again, they are wasting little time in efforts to control what you hear on the radio. The Fairness Doctrine is making a comeback. Could be coincidence; you decide.
Rush Roundup
Despite facts to the contrary the "I hope he fails" bit continues to make the "news". The number of articles and stories (and these are just a very few) show they're still going after the talkmaster. The Fairness Doctrine looms. It's time to speak up if you're ever going to have a voice. I just saw a post on the Internet Infantry blog where a comment purported to Howard Dean talks about targeting conservative Internet sites. Be assured that if they're successful in taking down Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and others, they'll be coming for your favorite conservative hangout.
Partisan Politics in an Unsure Economy
Bi-College News - Haverford,PA,USA
Conservative radio announcer Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to pointedly say—referring to Obama’s plan to revive the economy—“I hope he fails. ...
Rush Limbaugh: Leader of the GOP
TPMCafé - New York,NY,USA
Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. Well, Is he right?!?!? I mean, there was this announcement he made, which was not news to me, that Rush Limbaugh was ...
The ‘Truth to Power’ Gap
National Review Online - New York,NY,USA
Various White House assaults on Rush Limbaugh have him laughing all the way to the bank. And yet, I’ve met innumerable writers and editors who are scared, ...
Limbaugh Falsely Claimed Homeless Woman at Obama Town Hall asked ...
eNews Park Forest - Park Forest,IL,USA
Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)-- Discussing President Obama's February 10 town hall event in Fort Myers, Florida, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that a homeless ...
Irony: Pat Robertson denounces Rush Limbaugh; Jeb Bush gets in on ...
By Robert_Santurri
Pat Robertson Denounces Rush Limbaugh For Hoping Obama Fails This was on the front page I guess and linked to me by a nonboard member friend who said I wouldn't believe it. It's the huff but And Jeb Bush gets on in the fun too!
US Message Board - Political... - http://www.usmessageboard.com/
Let Freedom Rain: When you know Rush Limbaugh has gone too far
By Jymn
When you know Rush Limbaugh has gone too far. When Pat Robertson criticizes a far right comedian, you know that comedian has lost credibility. "That was a terrible thing to say," Robertson responded. "I mean, he's the president of all ...
Let Freedom Rain - http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/
Limbaugh, unhappiest, most miserable person alive? Perhaps at Our ...
By Jeremy without comments.
According to a recent U.S. News & World Report story, conservative talk show commentator and Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson criticized Rush Limbaugh’s comments, heard here: ...
Our Daily Train A blog by Jeremy... - http://www.jeremystyron.com/
Pat Robertson denounces Rush Limbaugh, hell freezes over Crooks ...
By SilentPatriot
Rush Limbaugh revealed a whole lot about his brand of "patriotism" when he made those ridiculously bone-headed remarks. It really is quite amazing that the GOP has turned so enthusiastically to him as their savior. ...
Crooks & Liars Video Podcast - http://crooksandliars.com/
Bildungblog
By Fearguth
"Anybody, like Rush Limbaugh, who would pull against. our president is not exactly thinking rationally. All we. really need is a very small nuke dropped on Foggy Bottom. to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do." ...
Bildungblog - http://bildungblog.blogspot.com/
Partisan Politics in an Unsure Economy
Bi-College News - Haverford,PA,USA
Conservative radio announcer Rush Limbaugh has gone so far as to pointedly say—referring to Obama’s plan to revive the economy—“I hope he fails. ...
Rush Limbaugh: Leader of the GOP
TPMCafé - New York,NY,USA
Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP. Well, Is he right?!?!? I mean, there was this announcement he made, which was not news to me, that Rush Limbaugh was ...
The ‘Truth to Power’ Gap
National Review Online - New York,NY,USA
Various White House assaults on Rush Limbaugh have him laughing all the way to the bank. And yet, I’ve met innumerable writers and editors who are scared, ...
Limbaugh Falsely Claimed Homeless Woman at Obama Town Hall asked ...
eNews Park Forest - Park Forest,IL,USA
Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)-- Discussing President Obama's February 10 town hall event in Fort Myers, Florida, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that a homeless ...
Irony: Pat Robertson denounces Rush Limbaugh; Jeb Bush gets in on ...
By Robert_Santurri
Pat Robertson Denounces Rush Limbaugh For Hoping Obama Fails This was on the front page I guess and linked to me by a nonboard member friend who said I wouldn't believe it. It's the huff but And Jeb Bush gets on in the fun too!
US Message Board - Political... - http://www.usmessageboard.com/
Let Freedom Rain: When you know Rush Limbaugh has gone too far
By Jymn
When you know Rush Limbaugh has gone too far. When Pat Robertson criticizes a far right comedian, you know that comedian has lost credibility. "That was a terrible thing to say," Robertson responded. "I mean, he's the president of all ...
Let Freedom Rain - http://letfreedomrain.blogspot.com/
Limbaugh, unhappiest, most miserable person alive? Perhaps at Our ...
By Jeremy without comments.
According to a recent U.S. News & World Report story, conservative talk show commentator and Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson criticized Rush Limbaugh’s comments, heard here: ...
Our Daily Train A blog by Jeremy... - http://www.jeremystyron.com/
Pat Robertson denounces Rush Limbaugh, hell freezes over Crooks ...
By SilentPatriot
Rush Limbaugh revealed a whole lot about his brand of "patriotism" when he made those ridiculously bone-headed remarks. It really is quite amazing that the GOP has turned so enthusiastically to him as their savior. ...
Crooks & Liars Video Podcast - http://crooksandliars.com/
Bildungblog
By Fearguth
"Anybody, like Rush Limbaugh, who would pull against. our president is not exactly thinking rationally. All we. really need is a very small nuke dropped on Foggy Bottom. to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do." ...
Bildungblog - http://bildungblog.blogspot.com/
Friday, February 13, 2009
Alinsky-ites at the Gates of Talk Radio
You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. - President Barack Obama to Republican Lawmakers
Fellow citizens, if you like what ACORN did to the home mortgage industry, then you're going to just plum love what the Democrats have in mind for talk radio. For the past few years, hardly a week goes without some Democratic Party Senator or Representative throwing out the term, "Fairness Doctrine." Hardly a month passes without a Democrat spurning the so-called "dangers" of conservative talk radio, often invoking Rush Limbaugh by name.
Why, if I didn't know better, I might think there's a vast left-wing conspiracy afoot, an evil conspiracy to storm the gates of talk radio.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/alinskyites_at_the_gates_of_ta_1.html
Fellow citizens, if you like what ACORN did to the home mortgage industry, then you're going to just plum love what the Democrats have in mind for talk radio. For the past few years, hardly a week goes without some Democratic Party Senator or Representative throwing out the term, "Fairness Doctrine." Hardly a month passes without a Democrat spurning the so-called "dangers" of conservative talk radio, often invoking Rush Limbaugh by name.
Why, if I didn't know better, I might think there's a vast left-wing conspiracy afoot, an evil conspiracy to storm the gates of talk radio.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/alinskyites_at_the_gates_of_ta_1.html
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Democrats Want to Resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."
An article by Air America Radio founder that might surprise you... Received via the National Federation of Republican Women no less!
Members of the Democratic congressional party are attempting to silence talk radio by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine." Although Democrats would tell you otherwise, the regulation would limit free speech.
Freedom of speech, one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, now Democrats want to silence a select few. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the responsibility to modify that right and thus regulate content of speech.
Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete
By JON SINTON
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Want to Learn More?
http://www.protectfairness.com/
Members of the Democratic congressional party are attempting to silence talk radio by resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine." Although Democrats would tell you otherwise, the regulation would limit free speech.
Freedom of speech, one of the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. However, now Democrats want to silence a select few. Our government does not, nor should it ever, have the responsibility to modify that right and thus regulate content of speech.
Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete
By JON SINTON
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Want to Learn More?
http://www.protectfairness.com/
Sunday, February 8, 2009
They are SO coming after Rush and talk radio
All you need to do is scan the headlines to see that they're continuing to go after Rush with the ultimate goal of shutting down talk radio and any opposition viewpoints.
On the radio: Barack Obama - George Rush feud adds heat, not light
New York Daily News - New York,NY,USA
By David Hinckley Bob Slade of WRKSÂ was asking the other day, rhetorically, why President Obama had taken on Rush Limbaugh by name - knowing he was pouring ...
Judge a president in three weeks? Breathe....
Kansas City Star - MO,USA... in the Senate—and their inclusion of too many pet projects handed choice weapons to Rush Limbaugh and company, and embarrassed their own president. ...
The Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh
National Ledger - Apache Junction,AZ,USA
An ongoing battle with President Barack Obama and radio host Rush Limbaugh continues. Obama recently scolded Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush ...
Understanding Limbaugh
Northwest Herald - Crystal Lake,IL,USA
I heard the interview with Rush Limbaugh by Sean Hannity and saw it on TV. The “hope President Obama fails” remark is taken out of the whole sentence which ...
President calls on Republicans to be patriots not dittoheads
Examiner.com - USA
Let’s show that we are and let’s do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time.” Will Republicans serve Rush Limbaugh or the ...
Don’t be like Limbaugh
Kansas City Star - MO,USA
Or would you rather join Rush Limbaugh’s bandwagon and hope President Obama fails, therefore putting party politics before the welfare of country? ...
GOP Leaders Embrace Rush Limbaugh As Their ‘Unofficial Leader’
Think Progress - Washington,DC,USA
By Faiz Shakir at 1:30 pm The Los Angeles Times’ Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak observe that “Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone,” having ...
Rush Limbaugh's GOP Role In Question
Post Chronicle - USA
by Staff US conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has a place in the Republican Party, but may not as a self-proclaimed party leader, party officials say. ...
Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone
Los Angeles Times - CA,USARob Carr / AP Rob Carr / AP LOUD AND CLEAR: After President Obama called out the radio host by name, he went on the air and said: "I am Rush Limbaugh, ...
Ruben Navarrette Jr: Extremists turned Hispanics against the GOP
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
That's pretty much what radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said during a recent interview with fellow talker Sean Hannity. I like listening to Limbaugh, ...
On the radio: Barack Obama - George Rush feud adds heat, not light
New York Daily News - New York,NY,USA
By David Hinckley Bob Slade of WRKSÂ was asking the other day, rhetorically, why President Obama had taken on Rush Limbaugh by name - knowing he was pouring ...
Judge a president in three weeks? Breathe....
Kansas City Star - MO,USA... in the Senate—and their inclusion of too many pet projects handed choice weapons to Rush Limbaugh and company, and embarrassed their own president. ...
The Fairness Doctrine and Rush Limbaugh
National Ledger - Apache Junction,AZ,USA
An ongoing battle with President Barack Obama and radio host Rush Limbaugh continues. Obama recently scolded Republicans, "You can't just listen to Rush ...
Understanding Limbaugh
Northwest Herald - Crystal Lake,IL,USA
I heard the interview with Rush Limbaugh by Sean Hannity and saw it on TV. The “hope President Obama fails” remark is taken out of the whole sentence which ...
President calls on Republicans to be patriots not dittoheads
Examiner.com - USA
Let’s show that we are and let’s do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time.” Will Republicans serve Rush Limbaugh or the ...
Don’t be like Limbaugh
Kansas City Star - MO,USA
Or would you rather join Rush Limbaugh’s bandwagon and hope President Obama fails, therefore putting party politics before the welfare of country? ...
GOP Leaders Embrace Rush Limbaugh As Their ‘Unofficial Leader’
Think Progress - Washington,DC,USA
By Faiz Shakir at 1:30 pm The Los Angeles Times’ Faye Fiore and Mark Z. Barabak observe that “Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone,” having ...
Rush Limbaugh's GOP Role In Question
Post Chronicle - USA
by Staff US conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has a place in the Republican Party, but may not as a self-proclaimed party leader, party officials say. ...
Rush Limbaugh has his grip on the GOP microphone
Los Angeles Times - CA,USARob Carr / AP Rob Carr / AP LOUD AND CLEAR: After President Obama called out the radio host by name, he went on the air and said: "I am Rush Limbaugh, ...
Ruben Navarrette Jr: Extremists turned Hispanics against the GOP
San Jose Mercury News - CA, USA
That's pretty much what radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said during a recent interview with fellow talker Sean Hannity. I like listening to Limbaugh, ...
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
ABC's Sawyer to McCain: 'Are You Offended' by Rush Limbaugh?
Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer on Monday repeatedly pressed Senator John McCain to attack Rush Limbaugh's assertion that he hopes Barack Obama's liberal policies fail. After playing a selectively edited clip that implied racial overtones and left out all context of what the radio host meant, Sawyer challenged: "Are you offended by what he said?"
A few seconds earlier, editing together two separate clips of Limbaugh, the GMA host played a misleading, racially-suggestive soundbite of the conservative star: "[From January 16 on radio] I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails. [From Fox News January 21 interview.] We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds. Because his father was black. Because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this." (More on the selective editing in a CNSNews.com post, "Rush Limbaugh Wants Obama to 'Fail' for Racial Reasons, ABC's Diane Sawyer Suggests," at: www.cnsnews.com )
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Sawyer then challenged the former GOP presidential nominee. "So, he says he hopes the Obama presidency fails. What do you say to Rush Limbaugh," she wondered. McCain refused to take the bait and simply asserted that all Americans hope the President can get the economy moving. Not getting the answer Sawyer was looking for, the journalist followed up: "One more try here. But, do you hope the President succeeds?" The GMA host closed out the line of questioning by pressing McCain as to whether he was "offended" by Limbaugh. The Arizona Senator also appeared on CBS's The Early Show and was asked no such question.
In contrast to the conservative radio host, Sawyer offered McCain just one question on Tom Daschle, Obama's Health and Human Services nominee. Daschle is under fire for owing three years and $140,000 of back taxes. (He's since paid them.) The ABC host simply queried: "The Senate is getting ready to consider in earnest the tax problems of former Senator Daschle who is going to be nominated for the vital issues of health care. Have his apologies satisfied you? Would you vote for him?" She certainly didn't wonder if McCain was offended by Daschle's failure to pay taxes. (Reporter Jake Tapper did cover this story in another segment, but this was the only question Sawyer offered on the subject.)
A transcript of the February 2 segment, which aired at 7:10am:
DIANE SAWYER: Just a few moments ago we were joined by a major Republican player in the stimulus package and, of course, in the loyal opposition, as he says, Senator John McCain of Arizona. And good morning, Senator McCain. Great to have you with us again. And, oh, it was close last night. It was so close.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: They came- yeah, I was very proud of them and very proud of the way they came back and you've got to hand it to a Pittsburgh team who pulled a rabbit out of the hat. But it was a great game and everything that everybody wanted except for victory for us Cardinals fans.
SAWYER: There's always another year. There will be another year. Well, I want to turn to the news of the day as we know. The Senate is getting ready to consider in earnest the tax problems of former Senator Daschle who is going to be nominated for the vital issues of health care. Have his apologies satisfied you? Would you vote for him?
MCCAIN: It hasn't, quote, satisfied me. I just think we need to find out more information, his relationship with Mr. Henry, what he did for the millions of dollars and why it is that he didn't report a great deal of income in taxes. But I'd like to wait and see for all the facts to come out before I make a decision. I think we'll know that in the next couple of days.
SAWYER: Turning on to the stimulus package, you have come out against the current form of the package and also have said you don't think the administration has been collaborative enough with the Republicans. Have you called the President to express to him what you think should be in that bill?
MCCAIN: Well, the President met with both House and Senate and that was- House and Senate Republicans and I think that was a very important gesture and very helpful in establishing the climate. But in the House and in the Senate, the Democrats really didn't negotiate at all with the Republicans. We have got to have a truly bipartisan approach. I think the President can and will lead in negotiations to eliminate so many billion, tens of billions of unnecessary and non-stimulative projects. They are- this is a spending bill. This is the spending projects that frankly the more liberal members of Congress who have wanted to spend for a long time. It doesn't cut payroll taxes. It doesn't cut business taxes. It doesn't have a provision for when we start reducing this deficit.
SAWYER: Another big issue in the news and out there on the internet, of course, is Rush Limbaugh who basically says that Republicans have got to take sides and here was the question that he posed. Here is the challenge he posed.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: [From radio] I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails. [From Fox News interview.] We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds. Because his father was black. Because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this.
SAWYER: So he says he hopes the Obama presidency fails. What do you say to Rush Limbaugh?
MCCAIN: I hope that all of us as Americans can succeed in getting a package that will get this economy going, put millions of people back into jobs again and that we can all work together to do so without betraying our fundamental principles of our Republican Party, which is lower taxes, spending under control, fiscal responsibility and a high regard for the taxpayers' dollars.
SAWYER: One more try here. But, do you hope the president succeeds?
MCCAIN: I hope we all succeed working together. That's what the American people want us to do and if the President gets the credit for it, fine. I'll give it to him. What I want to do is work to get this country back on its feet again. This is terrible, Diane. I don't have to tell you or anybody watching how tough this situation is. That's when we have to act together.
SAWYER: Are you offended by what he said?
MCCAIN: Oh, listen, I think the important thing for us to do right now is to sit down and work together. Mr. Limbaugh is entitled to his opinion. I respect it as I do many other commentators on the issues of the day.
SAWYER: And before we let you go, can't help but note it is great to have you back with us. I just wonder now looking back at the campaign, what's the last thought you had about the race for the presidency?
MCCAIN: That I was proud of the campaign we ran. I lost to a very good candidate and I wish him every success because we need leadership now that the American people can get behind and two wars, tough economy And I'm proud of the campaign we ran and I'm sure we made many mistakes, Diane. But I'm proud of the people that supported us and the way we conducted the campaign and I'm honored and humbled to have had the opportunity to compete for the presidency of the greatest nation in the world.
SAWYER: Thank you, Senator McCain. Come often.
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.
A few seconds earlier, editing together two separate clips of Limbaugh, the GMA host played a misleading, racially-suggestive soundbite of the conservative star: "[From January 16 on radio] I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails. [From Fox News January 21 interview.] We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds. Because his father was black. Because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this." (More on the selective editing in a CNSNews.com post, "Rush Limbaugh Wants Obama to 'Fail' for Racial Reasons, ABC's Diane Sawyer Suggests," at: www.cnsnews.com )
[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Sawyer then challenged the former GOP presidential nominee. "So, he says he hopes the Obama presidency fails. What do you say to Rush Limbaugh," she wondered. McCain refused to take the bait and simply asserted that all Americans hope the President can get the economy moving. Not getting the answer Sawyer was looking for, the journalist followed up: "One more try here. But, do you hope the President succeeds?" The GMA host closed out the line of questioning by pressing McCain as to whether he was "offended" by Limbaugh. The Arizona Senator also appeared on CBS's The Early Show and was asked no such question.
In contrast to the conservative radio host, Sawyer offered McCain just one question on Tom Daschle, Obama's Health and Human Services nominee. Daschle is under fire for owing three years and $140,000 of back taxes. (He's since paid them.) The ABC host simply queried: "The Senate is getting ready to consider in earnest the tax problems of former Senator Daschle who is going to be nominated for the vital issues of health care. Have his apologies satisfied you? Would you vote for him?" She certainly didn't wonder if McCain was offended by Daschle's failure to pay taxes. (Reporter Jake Tapper did cover this story in another segment, but this was the only question Sawyer offered on the subject.)
A transcript of the February 2 segment, which aired at 7:10am:
DIANE SAWYER: Just a few moments ago we were joined by a major Republican player in the stimulus package and, of course, in the loyal opposition, as he says, Senator John McCain of Arizona. And good morning, Senator McCain. Great to have you with us again. And, oh, it was close last night. It was so close.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: They came- yeah, I was very proud of them and very proud of the way they came back and you've got to hand it to a Pittsburgh team who pulled a rabbit out of the hat. But it was a great game and everything that everybody wanted except for victory for us Cardinals fans.
SAWYER: There's always another year. There will be another year. Well, I want to turn to the news of the day as we know. The Senate is getting ready to consider in earnest the tax problems of former Senator Daschle who is going to be nominated for the vital issues of health care. Have his apologies satisfied you? Would you vote for him?
MCCAIN: It hasn't, quote, satisfied me. I just think we need to find out more information, his relationship with Mr. Henry, what he did for the millions of dollars and why it is that he didn't report a great deal of income in taxes. But I'd like to wait and see for all the facts to come out before I make a decision. I think we'll know that in the next couple of days.
SAWYER: Turning on to the stimulus package, you have come out against the current form of the package and also have said you don't think the administration has been collaborative enough with the Republicans. Have you called the President to express to him what you think should be in that bill?
MCCAIN: Well, the President met with both House and Senate and that was- House and Senate Republicans and I think that was a very important gesture and very helpful in establishing the climate. But in the House and in the Senate, the Democrats really didn't negotiate at all with the Republicans. We have got to have a truly bipartisan approach. I think the President can and will lead in negotiations to eliminate so many billion, tens of billions of unnecessary and non-stimulative projects. They are- this is a spending bill. This is the spending projects that frankly the more liberal members of Congress who have wanted to spend for a long time. It doesn't cut payroll taxes. It doesn't cut business taxes. It doesn't have a provision for when we start reducing this deficit.
SAWYER: Another big issue in the news and out there on the internet, of course, is Rush Limbaugh who basically says that Republicans have got to take sides and here was the question that he posed. Here is the challenge he posed.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: [From radio] I don't need 400 words. I need four. I hope he fails. [From Fox News interview.] We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds. Because his father was black. Because this is the first black president. We've got to accept this.
SAWYER: So he says he hopes the Obama presidency fails. What do you say to Rush Limbaugh?
MCCAIN: I hope that all of us as Americans can succeed in getting a package that will get this economy going, put millions of people back into jobs again and that we can all work together to do so without betraying our fundamental principles of our Republican Party, which is lower taxes, spending under control, fiscal responsibility and a high regard for the taxpayers' dollars.
SAWYER: One more try here. But, do you hope the president succeeds?
MCCAIN: I hope we all succeed working together. That's what the American people want us to do and if the President gets the credit for it, fine. I'll give it to him. What I want to do is work to get this country back on its feet again. This is terrible, Diane. I don't have to tell you or anybody watching how tough this situation is. That's when we have to act together.
SAWYER: Are you offended by what he said?
MCCAIN: Oh, listen, I think the important thing for us to do right now is to sit down and work together. Mr. Limbaugh is entitled to his opinion. I respect it as I do many other commentators on the issues of the day.
SAWYER: And before we let you go, can't help but note it is great to have you back with us. I just wonder now looking back at the campaign, what's the last thought you had about the race for the presidency?
MCCAIN: That I was proud of the campaign we ran. I lost to a very good candidate and I wish him every success because we need leadership now that the American people can get behind and two wars, tough economy And I'm proud of the campaign we ran and I'm sure we made many mistakes, Diane. But I'm proud of the people that supported us and the way we conducted the campaign and I'm honored and humbled to have had the opportunity to compete for the presidency of the greatest nation in the world.
SAWYER: Thank you, Senator McCain. Come often.
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.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Rush News for the day
You have to laugh when you see liberals telling the Republican Party how they should think and what they should think about Rush Limbaugh...
Teepen: Taking on Limbaugh the bully
Seattle Post Intelligencer - USA
There's worry among Democrats that President Barack may have unwisely stirred a hornets' nest when he lightly gigged Rush Limbaugh, the radio gasbag who ...
A blunt Newt Gingrich on Blago, Palin, and Limbaugh
Christian Science Monitor - Boston,MA,USA
Rod Blagojevich, conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and past and present US Treasury secretaries. ...
Obama: Be President, Not Legislator in Chief
NewsMax.com - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
And why is Obama dumping on Rush Limbaugh, thereby elevating Limbaugh to equal status to the presidency? How can resuscitating the dispirited right possibly ...
Obama and Democrats Launch Stimulus Ad Blitz Against GOP
NewsMax.com - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
The strategy: Threaten to link vulnerable senators to talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh, thereby driving away moderate supporters and portray the senators as badly ...
Rush Limbaugh Dooms the Republican Party, but Michael Steele Could ...
U.S. News & World Report - Washington,DC,USA
On the other side of the road stands Rush Limbaugh, a crude and mean-spirited individual who gets rich by playing to base fears and likes to joke about ...
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Bloviating Gas Bag
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
by Tom Degan Page 1 of 2 page(s) In a healthy country populated with an intelligent, enlightened citizenry, Rush Limbaugh would be standing on the bread ...
Teepen: Taking on Limbaugh the bully
Seattle Post Intelligencer - USA
There's worry among Democrats that President Barack may have unwisely stirred a hornets' nest when he lightly gigged Rush Limbaugh, the radio gasbag who ...
A blunt Newt Gingrich on Blago, Palin, and Limbaugh
Christian Science Monitor - Boston,MA,USA
Rod Blagojevich, conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and past and present US Treasury secretaries. ...
Obama: Be President, Not Legislator in Chief
NewsMax.com - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
And why is Obama dumping on Rush Limbaugh, thereby elevating Limbaugh to equal status to the presidency? How can resuscitating the dispirited right possibly ...
Obama and Democrats Launch Stimulus Ad Blitz Against GOP
NewsMax.com - West Palm Beach,FL,USA
The strategy: Threaten to link vulnerable senators to talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh, thereby driving away moderate supporters and portray the senators as badly ...
Rush Limbaugh Dooms the Republican Party, but Michael Steele Could ...
U.S. News & World Report - Washington,DC,USA
On the other side of the road stands Rush Limbaugh, a crude and mean-spirited individual who gets rich by playing to base fears and likes to joke about ...
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Bloviating Gas Bag
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
by Tom Degan Page 1 of 2 page(s) In a healthy country populated with an intelligent, enlightened citizenry, Rush Limbaugh would be standing on the bread ...
Rush Limbaugh Wants Obama to ‘Fail’ for Racial Reasons, Diane Sawyer Suggests
Rush Limbaugh Wants Obama to ‘Fail’ for Racial Reasons, Diane Sawyer Suggests(CNSNews.com) – On Monday morning, ABC’s “Good Morning America” gave Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope he (Obama) fails” comment a racial slant by editing it in a deliberately misleading way.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
This one will have your blood boiling...
I caught this rotten fish in my "Rush Limbaugh" roundup of news stories. Frank Rich, New York Times (surprised?), twists info to make it fit his premise (surprised?). Along with his ridiculous gyrating opinions disguised as fact, he again repeats the "Rush said he wanted Obama to fail" line.
These guys get their talking points and marching orders and off they go.
This op-ed looks really, really impressive though. He has a lot of links so it looks like he actually did some real research on the piece... I called his bluff and actually clicked on some of his links. Gee, surprise, surprise, they go to other articles written by fellow journalists. Politico, Washington Post, AP stories and such. I guess if I clicked all the links I might have found something other than another journalist or press release. Doubtful.
Turn up the air conditioner if you decide to attempt this article:
Herbert Hoover Lives
By FRANK RICH
Published: January 31, 2009
HERE’S a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=1
These guys get their talking points and marching orders and off they go.
This op-ed looks really, really impressive though. He has a lot of links so it looks like he actually did some real research on the piece... I called his bluff and actually clicked on some of his links. Gee, surprise, surprise, they go to other articles written by fellow journalists. Politico, Washington Post, AP stories and such. I guess if I clicked all the links I might have found something other than another journalist or press release. Doubtful.
Turn up the air conditioner if you decide to attempt this article:
Herbert Hoover Lives
By FRANK RICH
Published: January 31, 2009
HERE’S a bottom line to keep you up at night: The economy is falling faster than Washington can get moving. President Obama says his stimulus plan will save or create four million jobs in two years. In the last four months of 2008 alone, employment fell by 1.9 million. Do the math.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=1
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
Does President Barack Obama believe that the greatest threat to progress resides in Rush Limbaugh? Earlier this week while trying to sell his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan to Republican leaders, Obama said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Thankfully House Republicans listened to the hundreds of constituents calling their offices asking them to vote against the bill and not the guy who thinks he can buy their votes with a couple of cocktail and Super Bowl parties. Now we find out that Obama’s far left allies are upping the ante. The leftist umbrella organization American Untied for Change is pouring money into radio ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The ads ask listeners, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?” ... More
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
Heritage Morning Bell: The Stealth Plan to Silence Rush
We're ready to rumble for Rush!
Mr. Obama threw down the gauntlet regarding Rush Limbaugh recently. The President told GOP leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
This may be the first time a sitting President has elevated a talk show host to this level of power!
We believe Mr. Obama's ultimate goal is to shut down talk radio and the voice of opposition. Free speech will be on the chopping block.
In a separate move, the mainstream media took some of Rush Limbaugh's comments out of context (again) and piled it on a bit more saying Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail.
Now there is an ad pitting Rush and Obama against each other, and the Democrats have a petition to express outrage at the out-of-context, incorrectly portrayed comment.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh as a rallying point to continue their assault on any speech that voices opposition to their policies and agenda. The implementation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" is the next step in this war. Once we start down the path of curtailing freedom of speech on the radio there will be more. It will be the Internet, the television and other media. We invite you to help fight this battle.
Whether you are a ditto-head or just someone who believe in free speech, you can't afford to sit on the sidelines in the current skirmish.
This may be the first time a sitting President has elevated a talk show host to this level of power!
We believe Mr. Obama's ultimate goal is to shut down talk radio and the voice of opposition. Free speech will be on the chopping block.
In a separate move, the mainstream media took some of Rush Limbaugh's comments out of context (again) and piled it on a bit more saying Limbaugh wanted Obama to fail.
Now there is an ad pitting Rush and Obama against each other, and the Democrats have a petition to express outrage at the out-of-context, incorrectly portrayed comment.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats are using Rush Limbaugh as a rallying point to continue their assault on any speech that voices opposition to their policies and agenda. The implementation of the un-"Fairness Doctrine" is the next step in this war. Once we start down the path of curtailing freedom of speech on the radio there will be more. It will be the Internet, the television and other media. We invite you to help fight this battle.
Whether you are a ditto-head or just someone who believe in free speech, you can't afford to sit on the sidelines in the current skirmish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
