Banner ad

Friday, February 20, 2009

Rush Limbaugh supplies the questions for Obama's next press conference

Now that President Obama's spokesman has said that the President opposes any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, it's time to pin him down on any of the other guises that Democrats will cloak their desire to decrease the amount of conservative talk radio out there. Rush Limbaugh has a column in today's Wall Street Journal with questions for the President as well as the argument of why we should not be imposing any sort of disguised government limits on the content of talk radio. First, let's find out if the President will oppose not only the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in its old form, but in the new form of "local control."
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
Today, we have access to more opinions than we could possibly read in a lifetime of listening to AM radio, cable TV, satellite radio, internet radio, blogs, you name it.
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
We are not living in a universe where access to political speech is scarce. Let's be sure that the government doesn't attempt to impose its own limitations on the very type of speech whose protection our Founding Fathers thought was the most essential to a free society.

UPDATE: Senators will get a chance to show how they come down on free speech when Senator DeMint, fast becoming one of my favorite senators, tries to attach an amendment opposing any reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, to the D.C. Voting Rights Act. I think we know how that vote will come out in the Democrat-dominated Senate. Still, it will be good to get them all on record, especially in light of President Obama's supposed opposition. And Allahpundit is exactly right that DeMint should include language on local control since when they come for talk radio, they'll have some other Orwellian name than Fairness Doctrine.

26 comments:

mark said...

Obama has no obligation to address any questions put forth by Rush. Limbaugh is someone who has disgraced himself so often that repubs should be ashamed that he is in any way a spokesman for the party. The same applies to Al Shartpon and Ann Coulter. Let real jounalists ask the questions (yes, even from Fox News).

hillbilly said...

BHO is the one who seems obsessed with Rush. Why shouldn't he answer a few questions from him?

The real journalists would like to ask some questions.
Unfortunately Obama only allows those who are pre-approved to ask them.

Levans said...

"Obama has no obligation to address any questions put forth by Rush."

As soon as I saw that, I started laughing. Classic misdirection.

But I suspect "mark" fails to recognize how pathetically knee-jerk, not to mention illogical, his response is: "Ignore the questions; let's not think about trifling issues like freedom of speech and the Democrats' goal of squelching the speech rights of those who disagree with them, especially those who do so effectively. No, the really important issue raised by our host's post is that I don't like Rush Limbaugh, and so no one should pay any attention to his questions."

And I suspect that "mark" is incapable of seeing the irony of his call to ignore the real issue of free speech when the speech is that of someone with whom he disagrees. He's a perfect encapsulation of the bullying, increasingly fascistic, attempts of Democrats to silence their opponents.

The Mighty Quinn said...

Real Journalists?

What makes a real journalist? Membership in the Democrat party? Voting for Democrats? Having an abortion?

mark said...

Levans,
Classic manipulation of my post. The issue is certainly legit, and it should be addressed. As I said, let journalists ask them. Rush does not have anyone's best interests at heart but his own. His words: I hope Obama fails. That means more misery for millions in our country (and even around the world). Rush, with his millions, is recession-proof. Good for him. But he typifies the worst stereotype of conservatives. He would sacrifice the health and prosperity of our nation in exchange for the chance to redeem himself for supporting the last administration.

b.goldstein05 said...

Rush Limbaugh is simply in it for himself. He is a self-prmoting entertainer. Anything he can do to create attention or stir up trouble is fair game. Let's take him for what he is and let's not take him to seriously. Here is a good start, a hilarious video of a call into the Rush Limbaugh program. Priceless....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb82jM9zTmQ

hillbilly said...

I don't care if Rush is in it for himself. Good for him. I hope he makes even more.
I'm in it for myself too.
Rush Limbaugh's millions don't take one cent out of my pocket.

I hope BHO fails too, if failing means that people that can't pay their mortgages don't get federal dollars, if companies with lousy business plans go away and open the market to new companies, if the massive transfer of wealth from those who work to those who won't fails.
These kind of deadbeats add nothing to the health and prosperity of our nation. They're the takers, not the producers.
Yeah, I hope he fails.

Locomotive Breath said...

Well Obama is in it for himself too, now isn't he.

Rick said...

No Mark, your post was not being manipulated unless you are going to argue that Obama is less Limbaugh's President than he is your favorite "journalist's" President. Obama owes everyone who is going to be affected by his decisions an explanation.

Now, if you want to talk about "disgraced", maybe we can talk about the expiration dates on Obama's statements, Geithner, who failed to pay his taxes, Daschle, who failed even worse to pay his taxes, etc. Or, how about Burris whose lies the Democrats accepted as long as they got his vote for the stimulus.

In the end, disgrace seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. Finally, please back of this new meme that Rush speaks for the Republican party. You have been reading too much Kos, DU, and Huffington, It is nice you do expand your horizons by stopping by here, though.

Rick

Skay said...

Obama's true idiology is beginning to peak through the MSM/Democrat propaganda.

Obama -as President- has personally attacked an American citizen.
That says more about Obama(Alinsky's Rules for Radicals") than Rush.

Obama's party is trying to supress political free speech.

Apparently Air America could not compete in the marketplace of ideas. Free thinking people do not flock to socialism. Lemmings do.
Of course --- there is always the wonderful NPR.

mark said...

Yes Quinn, having an abortion should be a requirment for all journalist. Brilliant!

hillbilly,
You're a good-dittohead. Lousy American, but good-dittohead.

mark said...

skay,
The move towards "socialism" started under Bush. Republicans like Graham (when he's not embarrasing himself by throwing a hissy fit on the floor of the Senate) are saying bank-nationalization might be necessary. Obama is trying to dig us out of this hole created during the Bush administration. In fact, everything that Obama is pushing - stimulus plan, housing plan (even Obama's presidency) has been made possible only because W was such a spectacular failure.
Strange that with millions of republicans proudly calling themselves dittoheads, you would use the term "lemming". A "dittohead" is just another term for a lemming.

hillbilly said...

I'm no Limbaugh fan. I think he's a self promoting blowhard.
I'm just sick of the anti-capitalist, hate the rich rhetoric spouted by socialists of your ilk.

The move towards "socialism" started under FDR.
And has gotten progressively worse with each session of Congress.

And lousy American?
I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps so punks like you could come to places like this and show your ignorance.

Skay said...

The subject is the attempt by Democrats to supress free political speech in the free market by controlling it through the government Mark.

The idiology that this type of suppression comes from is pretty clear.
I gather you agree with it.

Considering the Obamamania(worship)by all of the left and most of the MSM(journalists) and commentators(tingles up their legs) your twist on my lemmings comment is interesting.

Obama has a past.

tfhr said...

mark,

Have you ever heard of a guy named Barney Frank? What did he say about the solvency of Fannie Mae as late as this past summer? He has been the "patron saint" for Fannie and Freddie for many years.

Here is what the Boston Globe said of Frank: "Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Why do you think he said that?

Ever heard of another guy named Christopher Dodd? Do you know what it means to be a "Friend of Angelo"? The next time you approach a lender for a mortgage just tell them you're buds with Angelo and not to worry about regulators.

Do you know who the top three recipients of political donations from Fannie Mae were? Do you think those three men remained objective with regard to the conduct of Fannie Mae?

Do you know who Franklin Delano Raines is? Do you know who put him in the job at Fannie Mae that paid him over $90 million? Have you ever "cooked the books" for your employer so that you could take home a huge bonus?

You're a fool if you think the mortgage mess is a result of the actions of one party alone. Simply a fool.

Even if you cannot summon the objectivity needed to examine the problem, I would think even the most cursory level of common sense would help you see that Congress, having been Democrat controlled for more than two years, bears tremendous responsiblity for the US Government's involvement in the mortgage mess, yet you cannot see past your BDS goggles. Feeling Hopeless? Clueless? Useless? Try less partisanship and more objectivity or even some intellectual honesty, for once.

Towering Barbarian said...

Mark,
It's interesting that you feel that Mr. Obama is such a coward that he does not dare to answer Mr. Limbaugh's questions, (and given that Mr. Obama is a Chicago Democrat you are doubtless correct to assume that Mr. Obama is a coward who does not dare to answer questions!), but I think the time has come to give you a civics lesson. It does not require reporters to question politicians. American citizenshop by itself is all that one needs. Even *you* have the right to question Mr. Obama! ^_^

You might try doing so instead of writing as though you were nothing but a typical precinct worker for the Chicago Machine. It would be a nice variant from your current procedure. :P

BTW, with all due respect, did you ever stop and think that "Obama is trying to dig us out of this hole created during the Bush administration." in response to concerns that Mr. Obama and his fellow Lib wardheelers are trying to limit Freedom of Speech and of the Press isn't very different in quality from the "Mussolini made the trains run on time" chant that Mussolini's supporters used to address similar concerns? At this rate I wonder how long it will be before we see you begin every post with the words "Heil Obama!"? o_O

mark said...

hillbilly,
If you hope the president of our great country fails, especially during such trying times, you're a lousy American. Period.

tfhr,
I have clearly stated on several occasions that the "mortgage mess" and economic crisis are the result of stupidity and greed on both sides (and I've used those exact words). Yes, I do think the president gets more of the blame - you know, the whole "buck stops here" thing. Unfortunately, you've told so many lies here you don't even realize the difference anymore between a lie and the truth.

Towering Barbarian said...

Mark,
"If you hope the president of our great country fails, especially during such trying times, you're a lousy American. Period."

Then you wish to go on record as saying that those who hoped President Bush failed are lousy Americans? Duly noted, but in that case you are saying the members of MoveOn, the readers of the Huffington Post and Daily Kos and the Clintonites are all lousy Americans. Not that I disagree but that *is* what you are saying. ^o^

That said, if you honestly believe the President is the same thing as America as what you wrote implies then perhaps you should coin a new slogan to justify your new stance. How about "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!"? That does seem to describe the philosophy of Mr. Obama and his supporters quite nicely. Don't forget to give "the Obama Salute" when you do this! :P

tfhr said...

mark,

Now you've called me a liar.

Evidence, please?

My advice to you is not to say things here that you would not otherwise say to a person if you were given the opportunity to do so face to face.

You've called Limbaugh a pedophile. Where does it stop for you? Why is it that you cannot enter into any type of discourse without resorting to some sort of effort at character assassination? Maybe you should pick your positions better if you are unable to defend them without the use of unfounded personal attacks.

mark said...

tb,
Anyone who hopes the president fails (or has hoped the president would fail) is a lousy American. That's a lot different from criticizing a president for what he has done or plans to do. Criticizing the stimulus plan is legit. Hoping it fails (causing more misery for millions of Americans) is un-American. I have criticized the war in Iraq, and I doubted the success of the surge (as did even many conservatives). I never hoped it failed.

tfhr,
Too easy. You have repeatedly said I put all the blame on Bush, even though I have said (about 1/2 dozen times )the meltdown was caused by greed and stupidity on both side. That is one lie.

Several weeks ago you called Hillary a moron. A week later you denied it. Another lie.

I agree with you that it is good advice to not say things about people you wouln't say to their face. I can't think of one instance where I have done that. If you or anyone told me you hope Obama fails, I would tell you (to your face) that you're a lousy American. I never called Rush a pedophile. You connected the dots on that one. (But you're right, it was a cheap shot. And unnecessary, as Rush is a disgrace in so many well-known ways.
If you want to whine about telling lies, here's one for: you've accused me of using drugs, although I've told you I don't and you have no evidence to the contrary. Simply because I support the legalization of marijuana. Guess what? I'm (reluctantly) pro-choice, and I've never had an abortion. Amazing, isn't it?

tfhr said...

mark,

Again, some evidence please.

If I said Hillary was a moron, was it when I said that it was moronic for her to claim that she had been under fire at the Sarajevo airport? mark, if I called her a moron for that I apologize to all the morons out there because I should have called her a liar for fabricating that "sniper fire" scenario. If you believe I've denied calling her a moron, please accept this as a confirmation that I believe that she can be both a moron and liar. Sorry if there was some confusion for you there but since you brought the whole "liar" thing up, I thought Hillary would serve as a good example for you.

As for your proponency for drug use, mark, I think you "connected the dots" yourself on that one. My comments to you were to serve as a warning that you should not engage in illegal drug use. I don't support making them legal but you seem to have no objections to legalization on the grounds that taxation of drug sales would generate welcome revenue. I feel that more drugs generate more problems but you obviously have a different set of priorities.

mark said...

tfhr,
Congrats. You've completely baffled me. You accuse me of using drugs (your "evidence" being that I support legalization of marijuana), then accuse me of lying about it (again, absolutely no evidence) and then finish off with, "My comments to you were to serve as a warning that you should not engage in illegal drug use."
You have a good week.

Skay said...

Rush said that he did not want the SOCIALIST policies of Obama to succeed.

I believe suppression of free political speech by whatever means comes under that topic.


Nationalizing American businesses and the generational theft bill also comes under that topic.

Bill B. said...

"Evidence, please?"

One time that you lied tfhr was in your insistence that you had inside information that enabled you to state with certainty that the Reagan admin never shared satellite pictures with their buddy Saddam Hussein, when several reputable news sources reported that they did.

equitus said...

Obama wants to remove free-market incentives in this country and restrict political speech.

Yeah, I hope he fails. That makes me a bad American? Welcome to the brave new world.

Pat Patterson said...

Several reputable sources have all basically said an anonymous source from the DIA leaked this claim to them. Two of the books written(Teicher and Freedman) about this episode have not one quote or source, reputable or not, to back this up. As of yet no one has ever made the claim in public with any documentation whatsoever.

But what is interesting is that Sec Brezhinski admitted that in the last year of the Carter administration they made essentially the same offer to the Iraqis, plus weapons, advisors and credits, in hopes that an Iraq victory would cause Iran to release the hostages. But like most of the foreign policy initiatives that failed Pres Carter lost interest in that war when someone pointed out that the sign up sheet for the WH tennis courts was missing.