While I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh’s EIB Network program I recently saw and heard part of his remarks to Sean Hannity expressing his feelings about our new president to which I partially agree. We both are Americans and want president Obama to be successful. However, that is not a blank check of support of future policies and actions where we may differ. As I did not hear part two of the FOX program I will take issue with any statement made by Rush that he want’s president Obama to fail.
For Democrat’s in Congress to threaten his use of the airwaves, based on his promoting a conservative viewpoint, or suggesting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to force equal time for liberal positions, is no longer a valid argument. We have numerous options as to which radio or network TV host we select to obtain news and commentary. The same applies to cable TV where there are more channels than hours in the day. In the early days of network TV we had very limited options. However that’s the early 1950’s not the 21st century. We must retain our free and adequate access without fear of government retaliation based solely on our words, “just words.”
If you peel the onion to it’s core, and look to other outspoken Americans you surely will find Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” Thomas Paine was a 1776 activisit promoting our Independence from the King of England. “Published in 1776, Common Sense challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy. The plain language that Paine used spoke to the common people of America and was the first work to openly ask for independence from Great Britain.” Here’s a text sample:
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”
Bottom line: If you don’t like Rush’s message, simply tune him out. We have a recession/depression at our doorstep. Focus on the big issues, not the big announcer. The following report, which triggered this post, is from CNS News.
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
CNS News ^
Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:50:34 PM by Sub-Driver
Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh Tuesday, January 27, 2009 By Melanie Hunter-Omar
(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.’”
Meanwhile, Obama advised Republicans last Friday 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.
The Republican National Committee did not return calls requesting comment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2172995/posts
“However that’s the early 1950’s not the 21st century.”
Funny, when I stated the same thing recently in the discussion about Roe v. Wade, you didn’t see it this way…
You would be way more convincing if you were consistent.
Rush is the master of spin and attack. Entertaining … but its scary how many seem to hold him up as the authority since outside of a popular radio show and drug problem he hasn’t really done very much in his life.
Rush has stated quite clearly that he supports the President, but does not support his policies. Compare that to the Dems saying they support the troops, but do not support the IRAQ war.
Joe. Ask Art. I am consistent.
I supported and voted for Prop 8. As Obama said “I won” Yet there are many who are simply not willing to accept defeat.
Before you do your Google or Yahoo search on Larry Gilbert’s writings I must admit that there have been initiatives where our side lost. And by that I refer to my heavy involvement in defending property rights. In that illustration we accepted our defeats and did not go to court.
As to Roe V Wade please remind me of my statements which are referenced in your comment
With the mounting job casualties, here’s hoping SCOTUS either finds someone, somewhere, has standing to require BHO’s birth certificate or fixes attention on a criminal indictment before he wins his War on Prosperity.
Anonyms.
As I am not a listener of Rush I will accept your opinion of him regarding his skill in entertaining his huge audience. However, the same can be said about many of the current talking heads on radio and TV. Newscasters have engaged in opinion rather than fair and balanced reporting.
i.e. Simply listen to Keith O. I know that will get reader attention.
You’re absolutely right…Rush has every right to be America’s biggest buffoon.
Hey Rush, we’re still in a time of war! Your desire that this President fail, after questioning the patriotism of Dems in the run-up to the war, simply for asking legitimate questions, also makes you America’s biggest hypocrite!
What happened to his statements throughout 2003 and 2004 expressing: “No matter what, we need to support our President. If not, the man then the office”
I guess that was before he bankrupted Clear Channel with his 100 Million dollar contract.
Larry –
First, you have an obvious misunderstanding of the Fairness Doctrine. It may help to understand what you talk about:
The Fairness Doctrine is predicated upon, and limited to, the use of the public airwaves, which are the property of the people of the United States, and which are regulated by the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine does not apply to cable, however it applies to radio and television broadcasts using the public airwaves, which requires licensure by the FCC. The policy behind the fairness doctrine is that since you are using the public airwaves, which are accessible for free by public, reasonable restrictions can be placed upon what you broadcast. The Fairness Doctrine itself required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced.
It is not to be confused with the Equal Time doctrine, which required stations to provide equal to time to opposing candidates when free air time was offered to political candidates.
It is a policy that was held to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court time and again. It is not based upon political affiliation or viewpoint, and functioned without any real controversy for years. It was designed not to discourage viewpoints or speech, but rather to enhance them by providing some level of balance to the viewpoints broadcast on the public airwaves.
It began to be dismantled by the Reagan Administration, who tried to argue that it violated 1st amendment free speech. It does not. Under appointees of Reagan, the FCC Board voted to abolish the Doctrine. Congress responded by passing laws codifying the doctrine, which were vetoed by Reagan.
As to Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee saying – “if you want to object to Limbaugh’s (sick) statement that he wants President Obama to fail” – meaning the U.S. economy to continue to spiral into A DEPRESSION, PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR JOBS AT A RATE NOT SEEN SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, LOSE THEIR HOMES, NOT IMPROVE THE HEALTHCARE MESS WE ARE IN – then go ahead and sign a petition we can send to Limbaugh, well, what exactly is wrong with that, and How exactly is that “Congress . . . threaten(ing) his use of the airwaves”, Larry? I mean, you did know it was the DCC, right? Not Congress?
You have a disconcerting tendency NOT to care to understand what you are writing about, and of totally misrepresenting facts, Larry. What is with you?
#4: Larry, granted, Gator and junior were the main ones posting 19th century views on the Roe v. Wade thread. But you supported them.
And the proposition you pushed last year (I forgot what the number actually was) was not about eminent domain, although you claimed that right up to election night. You really sounded like a sleazy politician at that time.
Larry, while I find Keith an easier listen than Rush (because of my left leanings) I agree that he is sort of the left’s answer to Rush the way MSNBC is the answer to Fox. I don’t go out of my way to listen to either although I’ve listened to them and have some appreciation for the talent of both. I’ve recently started listening to Rachael Maddow (also MSNBC) and like her format (and her left leanings).
I think that there is value in the media investigating and regurgitating our public officials and holding them up for examination and sometimes ridicule. The Emperor has no clothes in America and the American Press, now collectively the media, has always done an excellent job of pointing that out to the populace on a daily basis.
Its served us well so far and may be the key to all our freedoms.
#9 Thank you. Now who is right, you or Larry?
OCMARTINMAN – nice cut and paste from wikipedia. thrill us with more of your acumen.
In fact, the “Fairness Doctrine” grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate. Thus, the “Mayflower Doctrine” was born, which prohibited editorializing.
Now, I wonder how that would work today?
You can pretend like the Fairness Doctrine isnt meant to stifle debate, but the concerns that there are limited frequencies upon which to make your voice heard, is simply ludicrous. The doctrine disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories, instead of allowing Government to decide what is balance.
Is that the freedom loving country you envision?
You have a right to your voice, but you do not have the right to impose it on others. If they dont want to listen to you, they will turn you off, the station will lose money, and you will go away.
Reasons to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine as it was originally envisioned simply do not exist anymore. Technology and society has moved on. So should the left.
OCMARTINIMAN said: “The Fairness Doctrine is predicated upon, and limited to, the use of the public airwaves, which are the property of the people of the United States, and which are regulated by the FCC.
Aren’t public streets owned by the “people”? So, using your logic, shouldn’t newspapers be similarly regulated and required to provide “fair and balanced” news coverage? Try this on for size:
The policy behind the fairness doctrine is that since you are using the public STREETS, which are accessible for free by public, reasonable restrictions can be placed upon what you PRINT.
The Fairness Doctrine requires the holders of DRIVERS LICENSES and VEHICLE REGISTRATION to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that is (in the FCC’s view) honest, equitable, and balanced.
OCMARTINIMAN.
Yes, I am fully aware of the FCC ruling the public airwaves. My point is that there are numerous sources for broadcast information much of which comes to us via cable transmission.
As you raise the issue of public access perhaps you can explain to our readers howthat access is now being restricted in some markets such as in the city of LA (so I have bene told)
And are you expecting us to bleieve that the Democratic controlled Congress has no ties to the DCCC?
As to Obama’s solution to our loss of jobs, homes and savings. I have not been immune to this recession but will still hold his feet to the fire if I do not agree with his proposed solutions.
The last time I looked at the voter registration database I am still listed as a Republican. The fact that Obama won is not a mandate for the current Republican minority in America to switch our political parties.
#10 Joe.
“Sleazy politician?” Are you serious? The Initiative I served as Orange County Chairman last spring was Prop 98.Prop 98 related to property rights protection. While that election is long over, and our side lost, I will still point out that the government should not begin telling us how much we should charge to sell our property and, in the same manner, not control what we charge to rent same.
As to Roe V Wade I think you better do your homework prior to making allegations that simply did not happen. I do not recall participating in that blog debate.
#11 ANONYMOUS.
Prior to their 1990-91 revolt the only newspaper in the USSR(Russia) was the party’s mouthpiece called Pravda. When we visited Moscow and St. Petersburg a few years ago we read several domestic and international newspapers at our hotels that were not controlled by their government. We do need both a free press and independent radio and TV news media in America.
As I have listened to Sean Hannity and sometimes find Keith, I would opine that, while they are each extremists, that spinning by itself is no justification for controlling their speech.
#12 Anonymous. Asking either of us to decide for you who is right and who is wrong, should not be you question. It is up to you to research rather than have us go back and forth making our points.
#7 anon.
Are we now taking a poll? Where is Howard Stern on your list? You need to distinguish between news reporters and entertainers who just happen to cover news stories.
Rush has a huge listening audience that happens to enjoy his program. The fact that our new president even mentioned his name gave Rush a huge bump in credibility that was priceless.
#3 Brian.
Missed you as I multi-tasked. Good illustration. Thanks.
email response
I believe Rush does not agree with the policies of Obama, therefore does not
want his POLICIES to be implemented. That is why he has been quoted
incorrectly that he wants Obama to fail.
Jeez this blog is inflated with self postings- is Larry really all these other characters? It don’t matter- Hussein is our president. The youth is behind him- Rust and all the Geez will fade away… and Mickey weeps. Go Hussein- you RULE!
Rintrah.
As one of the Juice bloggers I have an obligation to respond to your comments as well as posting replies received from my email distribution. As the expression goes “you can’t please all the people all the time.”
Would readers prefer me simply throwing out a controversial story and hiding rather than responding to your challenges?
No, Larry is not the author of these postings except in responding. We simply can’t please you. While we allow you to sign on without providing your real name, and take all your mud slinging, we will continue to stand tall. Thanks
Terry-
Get educated. Read Red Lion 395 U.S. 367 (check out page 369, o blusterous one) For that matter, read any of Supreme Court opinions on the matter. Or a legal treatise on the subject. Stop reading the inside of your colon. Only there would the Mayflower Doctrine, which preceded the Fairness Doctrine, arise from the Fairness Doctrine. Try doing some real research, and actually have some knowledge in the area you seek to expound upon. Don’t get your information just from Rush L and his sycophants.
Also, try to understand the concept of free airwaves vs pay-for play (and listen) and the comparative access issues. While pornography can be transmitted via cable, it can’t be shown on CBS. Get the difference? It is because FCC restrictions on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. Cable is not public airwaves.
There are still limited airwaves. The FCC still restricts and licenses the usage of them for that reason. Sure, you can thrown in cable and satellite and say there is no reason to regulate the Public Airwaves, but then again, then you would have to allow kids to watch porn on CBS.
While you seek to dazzle us with your acumen on this subject, perhaps you should not cut and paste from another webpage (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm) in a message where you accuse me of doing so. Perhaps you can also explain how you could have misunderstood the contents of the page itself, when you misrepresented the timing of teh Mayflower Doctrine and the Fairness Doctrine?
I am so impressed with the variances in your writing style in your posts – I imagine I could probably find the rest of your post on Rush Limbaugh related sites. If you want to debate, try to get educated on the subject and stop simply tossing out platitudes. (Look up the word – it will help you understand my point)
Larry – appreciate the response – I respectfully disagree with your points however. As to issue of LA, I am as unfamiliar as you – perhaps it is not a good way to make a point based upon unconfirmed hearsay? That is the root of misinformation.
As to the right to disagree, sure, you have the right to do so. So does Rush. The point that is being made is people have the right to put together a protest as to what you say, as well. That is free speech also. So does the DCCC. Rush lives and makes money by saying stupid, offensive over the top things – red meat for idiots. he is a fat ugly Anne Coulter. While he can make points, he seesk to do it im the most offensive manner possible. He does not seek debate – he is the equivalent of a radio Molotov Cocktail. There are just some people who endorse that.
Larry,
You know as well as I do that millions of people tune in to Rush in order to form their opinions on political issues. Rush tells them what to say. For many of these people, Rush and Fox News are the sum total of their serious opinion-making sources. That’s just a plain fact.
That is not why people tune in to Howard Stern. Your effort to equate the two is ridiculous.
Larry-
By the way, can you point me to your post complaining about the Senate passing a resolution condemning MoveOn.org’s General Petraeus ad (the “Betrayus” ad)? I mean, just for consistency sake? What about the sick politicization of the Terry Schiavo tragedy by the Republican Party for sheer political purposes? The Mel Martinez talking points memo for the senate floor?
Junior –
Re: Post #14. Funniest thing I have ever seen. I mean, really. That was truly comical.
OCMARTINIMAN
Your point? “can you point me to your post complaining about the Senate passing a resolution condemning MoveOn.org’s General Petraeus ad (the “Betrayus” ad)? I mean, just for consistency sake?”
Sorry to disappoint you but having written over 500 posts on this blog I may have missed a few stories over the past 18 months. It may surprise you but I do have another life outside of writing for the Orange Juice.
As such I do not recall providing any comment on MoveOn.org
anon.
Are you serious? Rush provides talking points for millions of Americans?
OCMARTINIMAN.
I was not “winging it” with my comment about the city of LA where public access was being impacted. Cutting Edge-a tlak sow producer and fellow Juice Blogger Ron Winship gave me that heads up the other day. But, engaging in “trust, but verify” let me offer the following:
“Public access channels on Cable TV provide access to city council meetings and other official events, and to anyone else who can figure out how to produce a program. They were a quid pro quo in the days when cities had the power to grant monopoly franchises to cable operators. Now the state performs that function and, in the City of Los Angeles, Time Warner Cable has decided to eliminate all four public access channels. We get several perspectives from public policy analysts, telecommunications officials and current and former public access hosts, including City Councilman Bill Rosendahl.”
“Are you serious? Rush provides talking points for millions of Americans?”
Yes, I’m serious. Open your eyes and ears bro.
#16, Larry:
“As to Roe V Wade I think you better do your homework prior to making allegations that simply did not happen. I do not recall participating in that blog debate.”
I have done my homework… and I stand by my allegations…
Let’s see:
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/01/36-years-and-50-million-dead-babies-later-roe-v-wade-continues%e2%80%a6/#comments
18. Larry Gilbert Says:
26. Larry Gilbert Says:
37. Larry Gilbert Says:
47. Larry Gilbert Says:
So, is it old age, or sleazy not wanting to remember? Interestingly, you remember Prop. 98…
If Rush Limbaugh prefaced his programs as, “Folks, this is strictly entertainment, similar to The Simpsons, with only a small contact to reality, then you might permit his “show” to continue. However, his distortions, half-truths and derrogatory comments about Democrats and Liberals are preached by both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as “Fair and Balanced News.” I wonder if President Obama invited Rush Limbaugh to the White House for lunch as former President Bush did shortly before he left his presidency, would Rush temper his views?
#31: Rush may have done that, but his time is over.
Nobody except some losers still listen to the ramblings of that drug addict.
#32 Joe. I have looked at your referenced post which was by John Seiler. My comments, which you correctly have listed, focus on the war in Iraq rather than a debate on the pro and con debate of Roe V Wade.
Having over 500 of my own stories on this blog I do not have file cabinets containing every word that I have written, especially on other blogger stories. Those opinions can be found on Red County, Liberal OC and beyond. Score one for Joe.
#33 Carol.
Do you have cable? Does your TV set include access to MSNBC? If your answer is yes, I rest my case.
#35, Larry:
It is not about “scoring” anything. I just don’t like it if anybody accuses me of “not doing my homework.”
In fact, I don’t follow party lines. I form my own opinion by reading up on things.
That’s one of the reasons why I am convinced that Prop. 13 is one of the main reasons California has such a budget crisis. It was the reason for the budget crisis under Gray Davis, and his recall of course was nothing more than a political stunt and didn’t solve anything. It was only a question of time until Arnold would run into the same problems, and every governor will continue to run into these same budget problems until Prop. 13 is overturned.
And I am in good company with this opinion, with Warren Buffett expressing similar opinions early in the recall election. In fact, his comments inspired me to educate myself on this issue.
Sorry, this post ended up a bit off-topic for this thread.
#37 Joe, I’ve always felt that way too. It may be off topic but it should be central to the discussion of the failed policies of the past because they started back with Reagan and prop 13.
Joe.
Rush Limbaugh in FL to Prop 13 in CA.
Yes, you surely are off topic.
I’m a bit late to the party hear, but I read all these posts, and I couldn’t help chiming in.
Junior asks:
Aren’t public streets owned by the “people”? So, using your logic, shouldn’t newspapers be similarly regulated and required to provide “fair and balanced” news coverage?
Answer:
The fact that public streets are in fact public does not mean the paper being delivered on that street is. Newspapers are delivered by subscription…which means they are not only requested, but paid to be delivered. So, your argument about public streets is like most Republican arguments. Short sighted, and not well thought out.
As far as the Fairness doctrine goes…let me try another view that you guys have not hit on yet.
The fairness doctrine was not designed to limit free speech. It was designed to offer the listener an opposing point of view, so thatr the listener could better decide what makes sense to him or her. Not wanting that is not a democratic position, it is a Republican position…because Republicans can only convince people of their lies if they can repeat them, unchecked again and again. That is why the Fairness Doctrine is so important. If it had not been repealed…by of course a Republican, perhaps even you people would have different opinions than you currently hold. Perhaps not.
If you want to see the fairness doctrine in action…go to a courtroom. Can you imagine if the only person allowed to present the case were the prosecutor? I’ll bet we would have a really really really high conviction rate. How about if the only person the jury was allowed to hear was the defense attorney? Do you think the jury in either one of those scenarios could reach a truly informed decision? If you answer is no, then how can you believe that the public can reach a truly informed decision by listening to only Rush Limbaughs opinion on his show?
Good luck with that one.
Good comment Gray, but this was one and a half years ago – come join us in the present!
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com