Dems seek end of free speech?!?

[thegladhatter]

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...x?RsrcID=42616

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)

(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.

DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."

According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.

"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”

As CNSNews.com has reported, someDemocrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.

Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.

[VR43000GT]

Originally Posted by garthlaidher

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...x?RsrcID=42616

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(Updates with Limbaugh's response; more from DCCC.)

(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

The petition includes a 19-second sound byte of Limbaugh, saying, “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to this guy, say ‘okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.’”

On Tuesday, in a note at the top of his Web site , Limbaugh responded to the Democrats' petition: "I am greatly puzzled. Why would the Democrats petition against me if I am doing such terrible damage to the GOP? "
Last Friday, Obama advised Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they wanted to get along with Democrats and the administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama said to Republican leaders who met with the president to talk about the stimulus package. On his radio program, Limbaugh noted that just as he wants Obama to fail, Obama wants Limbaugh to fail.

DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff, blogging on the DCCC Web site, said Limbaugh has given Democrats "a preview of the outrageous Republican attacks that are on the way against President Obama and every Democrat working for change."

According to Wolff, "Limbaugh's cheap shot at President Obama might be the first by the Republican attack machine this year but we know that it won't be the last. We need every grassroots Democrat to show Rush Limbaugh and all of the Republicans what they're up against if they start attacking President Obama and Democrats who are working to end the failed GOP policies of the last eight years.

"Tell Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama. We'll send him your comments," Wolff wrote. “Creating real change requires every American stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's attacks -- and all of the other partisan attacks from desperate Republicans that are on the way. Let's start right here and now.”

As CNSNews.com has reported, someDemocrats are talking about reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves.

Critics of the move, including many Republicans, say Democrats want to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine to force an end to conservative talk radio.

If they are going to do that then have instate the same thing for television as the vast majority of television news is liberal.

[thegladhatter]

Originally Posted by SL3000gt

If they are going to do that then have instate the same thing for television as the vast majority of television news is liberal.

BUT.... the liberals run TV and radio. They will NOT hold themselves to the same level of scrutiny as Rush Limbaugh.

Granted, Rush is way too abrasive for most folks to stomach, but he DOES have the right to say what he wants. They (the libs) have wanted to shut down conservative talk radio for some time now. I much prefer Hannity and O'Reilly over Rush. But aside from his over-the-top abrasiveness I generally agree with Rush.

[ericn1300]

I liked Rush back in the early 90's when he was more of an entertainer but when he became a winey water boy for the radical right wing I stopped listening. He has the right to say what he wants and I have the right to change channels.

[BNaylor]

I don't particularly care for Limbaugh and I don't listen to him.

But he is a grown boy and can deal with this. This issue with the DCCC which is a Political Committee for the House Demos is nothing but a publicity campaign and a veiled effort to get contributions since they are millions of dollars in the red. Also, to appease their messiah, Obama who just happened to give them at least 3.5 million dollars of left over campaign money and doesn't appear to like Limbaugh.

Source: Politico.com

Obama boosts DCCC with extra funds

Link to Article

[jon@af]

As a journalist, I respect Limbaugh's right to an opinion and would be firmly against any action that might be taken to punish him for exercising that.

However, as a person, I will admit that I was a bit put off by the comments, if only because of the statement itself.

Still, I don't put too much stock in Rush or the results of his comments, mainly because he knows exactly what he's doing when he says things like that: Getting reactions from the opposition claiming that he's "way off base" or whatever. He's selling his opinion on his show, so he might as well make it worth his employer's while.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by J_Swigz

As a journalist, I respect Limbaugh's right to an opinion and would be firmly against any action that might be taken to punish him for exercising that.

However, as a person, I will admit that I was a bit put off by the comments, if only because of the statement itself.

Then as a journalist are you for or against the "Fairness Doctrine" which of course never made it into law but there is a high probability it could be revived.

It makes sense to use an attack dog surrogate organization like the DCCC because it is not an actionable "freedom of speech" issue since they are not a governmental entity.

It is all about money and I seriously doubt Limbaugh works for free either.

What did Limbaugh say that was so bad? You can't tell by a 9 second snippet on YouTube. Most likely taken out of context as usual. Obviously he is anti socialism.

[03cavPA]

This is the context of it, but he did say it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...113.guest.html

.........................
Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing. ...........

I'm not a dittohead, but I know where he's coming from on that comment at least.

The left is riding high on their recent victories and I think we'll see some heavy handedness from them toward opinions they don't like. It would not surprise me to see them enact curbs and restrictions on alternative points of view on the airwaves.

[thegladhatter]

We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."

Can't say I disagree with that.

[03cavPA]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/f...06/179067.html

Democrats Look to Muzzle Conservative Radio

Friday, February 6, 2009 10:36 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow says she wants hearings on “accountability” in radio, suggesting Democrats are eying a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

During an interview with Stabenow, syndicated radio host Bill Press said conservatives should not be the only voices heard on talk radio and asked the Michigan lawmaker: “So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?”

Stabenow responded: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.

“Our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Press — former chairman of the California Democratic Party — asked: “Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?”

.....................................

Hold them accountable for what? Airing popular radio shows and making money from advertising?

Why is it the station owner's responsibility to go out and find some liberal shills for counterpoint to conservative shills? If those shows weren't so popular, they'd be pulled for lack of advertiser sponsorship and they'd be off the air the old fashioned way, for lack of support.

People should be taking a good hard look at this issue and ask: Why are the Democrats so opposed to free speech on the airwaves? How is this hurting them, and what's to stop liberal commentators from hosting their own talk shows and espousing their points of view? Look to the underlying sentiment that drives such attitudes.

If the Democrats are so bothered by all of this, then they should host their own stinkin' radio talk shows.

If people don't like the message, they should turn off the program. I rarely listen to those shows, but I don't have a problem with somebody else listening to them.

If you think this won't extend to a ban on Sunday morning church service broadcasts, think again.

[thegladhatter]

I don’t know about anyone else, but it seems like we have a double standard here. It is okay to want Bush to fail, but a terrible sin to want socialism to fail. Liberals always get a free pass. Conservatives have to put up with crap.
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ted-bush-fail/

[drunken monkey]

What is the point of that article?
First case; crisis occurs and person shows support for the President because of the crisis despite his own personal beliefs.
Second case; crisis occurs and person continues to demonstrate his desire for the President to fail in spite of the crisis.
Am I missing something here?

As for the general topic of free speech/censorship I'm a firm believer that freedom of speech is one of the key principles of our respective nations, especially when it is regarding the politics of a country.

Regarding what he actually said though, I have one question; what if Obama's plans actually go a long way to helping the country pull out of the economic crisis? Why is it automatically and unequivically bad for the country as he is proclaiming?

[thegladhatter]

The gist is that Carville always wanted Bush to fail. LOTS of liberals wanted failure for Bush. Republicans said nothing about these anal pores. Then Rush gets skewered. Double standard? I think so.

[YogsVR4]

There is no double standard! Since so few liberals have any standards, they can't very well be held to them.

[drunken monkey]

I still don't get it.
As far as I can see, that article points to where Carville censored himself and made the media follow suit for what appears to be the good of the nation at a time of crisis whereas currently, Limbaugh doesn't.

Where's the double standard?