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!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
