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.
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
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
Labels:
barack obama,
conservative,
european,
obama,
president,
republican,
ronald reagan,
rush,
rush limbaugh,
socialism,
state,
welfare
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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
Labels:
abortion,
barack obama,
gop,
jim demint,
kathleen sebelius,
michael steele,
president,
republican,
rush,
rush limbaugh,
tom coburn
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...
Labels:
barack obama,
censorship,
fairness doctrine,
fcc,
free speech,
obama,
president
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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
Labels:
barack obama,
bill,
debt,
democrat,
free speech,
house,
package,
plan,
president,
republican,
rush limbaugh,
stimulus,
talk radio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)