Nancy Pelosi is going after Rush Limbaugh & Company with The Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 15, 2007 - 2:10pm.
Media
Hello Everyone:
I am really thrilled to see that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress "get it" now about the media and are finally trying to do something serious to fight back against Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio by attempting to bring back The Fairness Doctrine!
Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio been the most powerful water carriers for Bush, his rubber stamp Members of Congress, the top advocates of Neocon foreign policy, and for the Neocon GOP activist base as I have previously documented:
http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx
The RNC is OFFICIALLY tied to Rush Limbaugh (who is right at the top of their list) and to extreme right wing talk radio on their website!
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7735
ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION: PEW stats on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly & the Media!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 1, 2006 - 3:29am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9122
DOCUMENTATION & ANALYSIS: Bush met with Sean Hannity & Media to Firm Up Support!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 19, 2006 - 7:59am.
Any serious talk of Democrats bringing back The Fairness Doctrine is just like Kryptonite to Rush Limbaugh and to his extreme right wing talk radio pals! It drives them absolutely crazy:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583
Limbaugh & Hannity react to Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 2:51pm.
As Democrats are talking about the Fairness Doctrine now, Rush Limbaugh and his pals in extreme right wing talk radio are very seriously reacting!
Right below is an article from Rush Limbaugh from May 14 titled "As Democrats Try to Hush Rush, Congress Invites Him to Speak," below that is another article from Limbaugh dated May 14 titled "Dumb Like Foxes: Dems Use Fairness Doctrine to Hide Immigration Bill," below that is the American Spectator article that Limbaugh quotes from about Nancy Pelosi from May 14 which is titled "Her Royal Fairness," and finally below that is an article from extreme right wing talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt from May 14 titled "Rebirth Of "The Fairness Doctrine?"
In the American Spectator article below, here is what they are very afraid of right now:
"According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.
"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."
In Hugh Hewitt's article below, he tried to get Nancy Pelosi on his show to talk to her about it (which was declined) and he is urgently calling on his listening audience to contact Nancy Pelosi's office to "express your disgust:"
"I invited Speaker Pelosi to appear on the program to discuss just this specific issue, an invitation that was declined. Her press secretary, Drew Hammill, wrote back to tell us that the story is "false" and that we could quote him on that subject. It would be very easy for the Speaker to put this one to bed quickly and with a short announcement or interview stating that she will not support the return of censorship to the airwaves. She hasn't. You can draw your own conclusions and watch for the introduction of the legislation attempting to outlaw criticisms of the Democrats.
You can contact the Speaker's office via 202-225-3121 to express your disgust with the idea of bringing the gag rule back to the airwaves."
I think that it would be a very good idea for us to contact Nancy Pelosi's office and Steny Hoyer's office to express our SUPPORT of their efforts to try and bring back The Fairness Doctrine!
Here is the link to contact Nancy Pelosi's office:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html
Congresswoman Pelosi wants to hear from you. You can email her at sf.nancy@mail.house.gov, or by using the form below. Please note that the rules of Congressional courtesy prevent Rep. Pelosi from replying to emails if she cannot determine that you are a constituent, so remember to include your full name, address, and zip code.
If you are not a constituent of the 8th district of California, and would like to e-mail Congresswoman Pelosi in her role as Speaker of the House, please email her at AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov or click here for a contact form...
Greenbelt Office
U.S. District Courthouse
6500 Cherrywood Lane, Suite 310
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Phone - (301) 474-0119
Fax - (301) 474-4697
The Fairness Doctrine is still an issue today on extreme right wing talk radio. Look at this link from extreme right wing talk radio host Bill Bennett:
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=1&ContentGuid=da9a5671-18c1-4b90-a696-10a37d796b73
Tuesday May 15, 2007
Fairness Doctrine
Bill Bennett
Bennett talks with Brian Anderson, Editor, City Journal, Author, South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias, about the possible resurrection of the fairness doctrine.
Length: 00:15:47
Right now, Democrats (and even moderate Republicans who they hate just as much) are losing the media war to Rush Limbaugh and to extreme right wing talk radio as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11479
ZOGBY: 83% of voters think that the media is biased; Democrats seem to be losing
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2007 - 1:25pm.
Democrats are losing the media war in my opinion because they have never seriously tried to fight back against the extreme right wing media in an organized way on a national level. That should hopefully be changing right now due to the national dialogue that the Imus controversy started:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762
Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.
Rush Limbaugh has issued this direct challenge to his political opponents that has largely gone unanswered which I think that Democrats and Non-Neoconservative Republicans have a clear opening to answer now with the Fairness Doctrine due to the Imus controversy and with the dialogue going on all over the country about what is offensive and what is over the line in the media:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184342,00.html
Transcript: Rush Limbaugh on 'Your World'
Thursday, February 09, 2006
LIMBAUGH: "Neil, there is a new media out there today that doesn't let the left get away with defining the news, defining the circumstances, defining personalities and so forth.
And they haven't learned how to deal with it. They haven't learned how to deal with people like me, the problems they think FOX News causes, and everybody else. They are still in their 30-year-old playbook, in which they think they still — all they have to do is, you know, portray somebody they want to portray them, and the American people will see it, swallow it, and like it..."
A Wes Clark Presidency in 2008 would definitely help to make the Fairness Doctrine happen:
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clarks_feeling_on_media_co.html
Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation
"We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."
If you want to help stop stupid attacks such as this on Gen. Clark, then please contact Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to show your SUPPORT of them trying to bring back The Fairness Doctrine:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11989
REFUTATION: Rush Limbaugh attacked Gen. Clark and lied about him on Wed., May 2!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 3, 2007 - 12:52am.
Gen. Clark has personally stepped up to the plate to answer this challenge head on and I have personally heard him encourage his supporters to do the same thing:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Wes Clark fight for Dems on Hannity
Submitted by larry on June 22, 2006 - 7:57pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191#comment-111351
Gen. Clark on media response from 2/11/05 when I saw him speak!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 23, 2006 - 5:35am.
This media war against the extreme right wing media is very important in my opinion because whoever controls the media will for the most part control a lot of the agenda and much of what is talked about in the news all the way up to 2008 and beyond!
Whoever is able to do that better in the media will influence more impressionable people and these are the main people who will be up for grabs in the 2008 election and beyond!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051407/content/01125106.guest.html
As Democrats Try to Hush Rush, Congress Invites Him to Speak
May 14, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I got a fascinating letter today. I was sitting here minding my own business, bothering no one -- which is usually the case when I'm here doing show prep. The letter is from the Congress of the United States, dated April 12th. This is how long it takes mail to get to me, folks. This is May 14th.
As Democrats Try to Hush Rush, Congress Invites Him to Speak
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/CongressInvite051407.pdf
"Mr. Rush Limbaugh
"Washington Speakers Bureau
"Alexandria, Virginia"
That's the first thing that caught my eye because I'm not registered with the Washington Speakers Bureau. I don't need an agent or a bureau to get me invitations to do speeches. I don't know why, but obviously my name's there. Here's the letter:
"Dear Rush:
"On behalf of the United States House of Representatives Committee on House Administration and the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, we would like to invite you to speak at the 2007 Summer Intern Lecture Series.
"The Summer Intern Lecture Series is held for college students and recent graduates who work as congressional interns in Capitol Hill offices during the summer months. It provides an educational opportunity for interns to hear prominent members of government speak about their personal experiences in public service, as well as important issues facing our nation and the world today. The series runs from June the 6th through August the 11th of this year. We look forward to including you in this summer's series. [They give me two names and numbers here] for more information, or to schedule a date and time for your participation. Thank you for your kind consideration of this invitation. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein."
I have the letter here, right here, ladies and gentlemen. I'm holding it up so people watching on the Dittocam can see it. I pdf'd a copy of it up to Koko, Jr., at RushLimbaugh.com. It's also signed by Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, who's chairman of the committee on House administration, Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration in the United States Senate. I got thinking, why would they...? I mean, they are trying to shut me down. We'll get to this story in just a second. The American Spectator today, The Prowler column, there are numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill quoted as saying they know they'll never shut me up, but they want to make it as hard as possible. Pelosi's going to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine in the next six months. Because Air America failed, liberals can't get a toehold on the radio, and so they want to shut us up. It's nothing new, but they're just very bold here when they're speaking for attribution. Well, they're being quoted but anonymously. We don't know who the Democrats are saying this.
So while they're trying to shut me up, while the effort is ongoing to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, I get this letter from Senator Feinstein asking me to come up as a prominent member of government to speak to some interns this summer on Capitol Hill. I was thinking about this. It might be fun to accept, but why? Why are they inviting me? Possibly because of my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. I could go up there and I could talk to these interns about what it's like to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. I could go up there and I could defend the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. My remarks to the interns could support the aggressive interrogation of detainees at Club Gitmo to ensure the protection of the Free World. I could tell the interns that we all must have a vested interest in human life because life is all we've got. You give them an anti-abortion mention. More abortions kill people, more humans are killed from abortion in this country than AK-47s, and I could mention my freedom agenda, talk about the problems of ethics in defense contracting. There was a number of things that I could speak to these interns about and warn them about what happens to them if they get transferred to White House duty with certain people in office. There are any number of things.
Do you realize what a golden opportunity this would be for me to have access to these young skulls full of mush and to go up there and just give them our agenda here, folks, of things that we talk about each and every day? What a hoot that that would be. After the speech, after my remarks are over, I'm going to anoint these interns. I'm going to call them Rushilantes. They'll be unleashed on Capitol Hill to go spread the word. Nobody else will tell 'em the things I will tell you them. So I'm going to ponder this invitation. I'm going to think about talking to the interns. I'm going to remind them that this may be one of the last chances they'll ever have to hear me because even though I've been invited to come up and talk, Democrats in this body are at this moment plotting to zip my lips.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let me grab Diane here in South San Francisco, because it will set up the Spectator story that Snerdley is so agitated about. Hi, Diane, nice to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: You just said it. The reason they'll never stop you is because you're having a good time telling the truth.
RUSH: Well, that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't go after the truth. Do you know how the Fairness Doctrine works?
CALLER: I remember the Fairness Doctrine, yes.
RUSH: Not to put you on the spot, but I'm going to just use your call as a teaching opportunity here. What, as you recall it, is the Fairness Doctrine? What does it do?
CALLER: Well, everyone would get equal time to respond.
RUSH: No. The equal time law is entirely different than the Fairness Doctrine.
CALLER: Uh, well --
RUSH: You're close.
CALLER: My recollection --
RUSH: You're warm, you're warm.
CALLER: Well, provided equal opportunity for airtime.
RUSH: Yeah, and here's how it works at the local level. Now, I'm on 612 radio stations, so what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine was ever enacted -- and the Congress, they may pass it, but Bush will never sign it. That's why it's really going to depend on whether they win the White House in November of '08. But let's say just for the sake of discussion here that the Fairness Doctrine is re-implemented. That will be a signal to the left to mobilize and demand that everything that's said on this program and others like it be "balanced" with an alternative point of view. I'm too conservative, so if I criticize liberals or criticize a piece of legislation or criticize a politician, representatives will call the local station and demand time on this program, my program, to respond. It's not equal time, but it's just a giant hassle. Have you ever wondered why there was no so-called controversial programming before 1987, other than between midnight and six when nobody's listening, on balance, why there was no controversial programming? Because it wasn't worth the hassle. Local management at radio stations will simply cancel programs like this because it's not worth the hassle to let every complainer have access to the airwaves. That's what would happen. It would happen by the millions. It would happen in droves because this is a coordinated plan. It's a coordinated stunt. At the same time they're doing that, if they grant all this time -- if I'm forced to grant time, or local stations are forced to cut portions of this program so that whoever's been offended can respond -- then this program ceases to be what it is. It is a pernicious thing and it is being done for one reason, and that is to silence conservatives.
CALLER: Of course.
RUSH: It's a pure Stalinist tactic. They're not interested in debate, because they can't win the debate in the arena of ideas. They want to discredit or silence or shut people like me up, and they have wanted to for the last 19 years.
CALLER: May I say one reason they want to shut you up? Because you have the most well researched source of retrospective news, as I call it. You tell us what they said last week, last month, last year, as far as their lies go back, in comparison to what they're saying today because what they say today is what they've always said for political gain, for --
RUSH: Exactly.
CALLER: -- however the wind blows.
RUSH: I'm glad you mentioned that, because one of the things that I'm most proud of on this program is the historical context in which we place most everything that's discussed. Historical context that puts things happening today in a more understandable light. They can't beat the show. They've tried I don't know how many people. I've lost count of the numbers. They've tried whole networks. They can't even put a dent in this show. It's been striking the failure after failure after failure. They're leftists, and it's just like political correctness: it's nothing more than censorship. These people don't want to hear what challenges their world view. They don't want to hear what they can't or won't argue with -- and they don't want you to, either.
Now, here's the American Spectator story. It's in their Prowler column. "According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will 'aggressively pursue' reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner. Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to 'personal attack' rule and the 'political editorial' rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone 'attacked' over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond."
If I may pause? All you have to do is criticize a Democrat, and they think they've been "attacked." They can attack Bush all they want. They can lie about Bush, and say some of the most demeaning, outrageous things. They're just being patriotic. Why, they're just "practicing dissent." Any criticism of Democrats is considered "the politics of personal destruction," and vile, "personal attacks." They've set the language up this way. That was finally gotten rid of in 2000. Now, the decision to press for reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. Here's a quote from one of the two sources that the American Spectator has: "First, we're doing this because we failed on the radio airwaves with Air America. No one wanted to listen." This is a senior advisor to Pelosi speaking on the record, with anonymity, to the American Spectator. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008." What is this? "Access to media in ways our folks don't..." Oh, I guess that's like their candidates do not want to have their debates on Fox. That would be an example of that. "Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways..."
This is what's laughable about this. Look at the way Obama gets kid glove treatment in the big, Drive-By Media. Look at the way Hillary Rodham Clinton gets kid glove treatment. They all do. The idea that Drive-By Media doesn't count for them is ludicrous. They know it does. They don't want any opposition. They don't look at balance as fairness. No, no, that's not fair! When there is criticism of them, fairness has gone out the window. Fairness isn't allowed. Criticism isn't allowed. These people have been fed up with it -- and, of course, all this is the result of them blaming people like me for their defeats. They're not responsible. Of course not! The American people are too stupid to understand how dangerous liberals and socialists are. If it weren't for people like me, why, the American people would love Democrats. By 80 to 90%, they would love socialism, and they would love leftists. But people like me have come along and poisoned your mind and created among you a marching army of mind-numbed robots, getting orders from me each and every day before you go out and live your lives -- which is, frankly, the exact thing they're doing with their constituents. But this is a pernicious, pernicious threat.
Now, that last comment, by the way, "The Republicans are going to have somebody in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't," they're talking about Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson stars in Law & Order and has other acting roles, television and movies, and it looks like he's gearing up for a presidential run. Now, "According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country..." Bill Bennett's on Salem, and Michael Medved. A Government Reform Committee staffer said, "The Democrats are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving." They have some Christian hosts on the Salem network, too, and that's why they're being targeted because they're Christians, because they've got some evangelistic-type people on staff and on the air. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."
I'm a big kid. Don't worry about the effect on me on this, because this is not the first time they've been talking about it. I just want you, in this vast and great audience, to understand at the bottom what this is all about. This is elected officials of government attempting to silence a few citizens who have access to microphones. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech, this sort of thing. They'll do this under the guise, "Well, these are the public airwaves, the common public trust on the public airwaves, and balance, fairness, and all this." It's not about that. They don't care to get their side on. They own the traditional Drive-By Media. They just want to shut me and other people up. I do get kind of worn out talking about this. This movement has been called the "Flush Rush" movement, the "Hush Rush" movement. It's been around since -- well, actually the early nineties when this program took off. It's gone nowhere because the Democrats haven't been in a position of power to do anything about it. Clinton didn't touch it when he was president because he didn't have a Republican House of Representatives from 1995 on. Now they've got the House; now they've got the Senate -- by slim margins -- and if they get the White House, that's when they're going to try this. I don't ever think it's going to succeed. The American people -- you, and the audiences of the target, me -- are too sophisticated now. You understand and are well versed on what the attempt is, and you're not going to put up with it. It will be fascinating if they try, because it will be crystal clear to one and all just exactly what they fear and how they deal with it. They're afraid to come into the arena of ideas and debate these things. They just have to either try to destroy or discredit or silence the people who say things they would rather not hear.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I asked Snerdley, "With all of these attempts to hush me up since 1988, why is this one bothering you so much?"
"One of the reasons it bothers me is because I know it doesn't bother you. You just let this stuff roll off and this one ought to bother you because the House Democrats are waging war on Rush Limbaugh, and they're now doing it being quoted in the media. They are waging war on you. Meanwhile, they give Al-Qaeda a pass; they have tried to secure defeat in Iraq; they're doing everything they can to ignore genuine threats to the country, and now focusing full energy on you. It ought to make you livid."
I said, "I don't have time to get livid. They don't understand. Every time they do this they put their foot in a trap."
"Aren't you scared by big government coming?"
"Well, I'd rather it not be happening, but I don't plan to lose this. I'm not going to go sit in the corner and start (crying) 'Why don't they leave me alone?'"
Bring it on, guys! You've tried everything you can think of to take me out, and we're bigger and better than ever. You guys ought to just take it somewhere else. You won the last election, but that's not enough. No, no, no. I can't impress upon you enough, folks: as far as they're concerned, there is no other point of view. There is no need for fairness. There is no need to debate. What they are is it, and everybody else is just a freak. Here's Jack in Cape Coral, Florida. Nice to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush.
RUSH: Hey.
CALLER: Been listening to you for 20 years. It's an honor.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Thank you. My question is on the Fairness Act we've just been talking about.
RUSH: Yes?
CALLER: Would it be beneficial for the conservatives, by giving them a chance to air their side, on liberal TV programs?
RUSH: That won't happen.
CALLER: Face the Nation and such?
RUSH: Oh, no! Those are "news programs." They're exempt.
CALLER: Oh.
RUSH: Those are programs run by journalists. No, the news programs are exempt.
CALLER: Just radio.
RUSH: It's a radio doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine applies only to radio -- and especially as the Democrats re-implement it, I'm sure they'll tweak it and make that point. In addition, however, I should say something. In addition to the fact that they're trying to silence me here and it won't work, my theory is it won't work because the audience now, the American people, are too sophisticated. They're not going to put up with it. There are a few liberal talk shows out there. They don't have strikingly huge audiences, but they're still out there. They have some that say they're national on like 25 or 30 stations. Yip yip yip yip yahoo! There are some in local markets. If the Fairness Doctrine's implemented, conservative groups can harass those stations and demand every time those liberals say something that they get a fair shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if these liberals that have shows who think they're much bigger than they are (but still have shows), actually join forces against the Democrats, because they don't want themselves silenced, either. It will not just be a one-way street if this happens, but the liberal government guys, the Democrats, would be glad to sacrifice a little radio because it's so insignificant.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Remember last hour, I looked at Snerdley and he looked agitated, and I said, "Are you having trouble in there with the callers?"
He shook his head, "No."
During the break he told me what was happening when I thought he was agitated. He got a call -- this guy was in New Jersey? The guy couldn't go on the air because his body is riddled with cancer. Throat, mouth, and the guy admitted -- did he give you his first name, do you remember what his first name was? His first name was Dennis. He admitted that he was a short-timer, doesn't have much to go because the cancer has just riddled his body. But he called here because he's still engaged with the future of his country. I've marveled at this, too, and I've mentioned this when I was young and as I've gotten older. We all know people that are older than we are, and many of us know people who are in the latter stages of their lives. One thing that's always amazed me, even as I have been a well-known radio raconteur and host, I'll meet people who are terminally ill who will point at me and say, "This country needs you," or, "The future of the country is threatened and it's crucial," and I've always marveled at that.
I've wondered if I ever had a circumstance like that, if I ever fell into a terminal illness and had a very finite period of time left, would I care? I'm not going to be around. Would I care as much as I cared when I was alive? Or would my attitude be, "Okay, I gave it my best shot. I've done my work. I've done the contributions." Not just as a radio person, as a citizen, human being, you, too. Yet that's what's fascinating and wonderful about this is because love of country is so great that people who are soon to be passing away and passing on, still care just as much about it, and this guy called, and he was just insistent that Mr. Snerdley pass on a message from him to me. He is livid at the Democrats. He is livid at the way they're tearing the country apart, particularly on foreign policy, and his idea was, "Just suggest that they go neutral, just have the Democrats become like Sweden." If they can't root for us to win, just have them be quiet. Don't root for us to lose. Don't invest in defeat, just go neutral. You know, be who they are, but stop all these incessant attacks. It was his opinion that their constant badgering of Bush and Republicans is tearing the country apart.
When Snerdley told me that, I remembered something -- and you'll remember this, too. Back when Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 and we began our America Held Hostage countdown, the number of days left until Clinton was gone so we'd all be released from bondage, the joke, do you remember how mad the liberals got at that? Do you remember how mad the Drive-Bys got at that? Then they started running stories how I, Rush Limbaugh, was destroying the respect for the office of the presidency that the American people had. I, Rush Limbaugh, was doing it. Then I, of course, was destroying the respect that common citizens had for government at large, so that when Timothy McVeigh and his cronies blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the administration goes out there and try to blame me and others on talk radio, 'til we called 'em on it. What we were doing back then, by the way, might have sounded harsh to them because they have never been accustomed to criticism. Hello, Fairness Doctrine and wanting to shut people like me up. They don't like criticism. Those are "personal attacks." But if they think what we were doing back then is in any way comparable to what they are doing now, then they have short memories.
Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. We were making fun of and laughing. We were not filled with a paralyzing rage and hatred for the guy. The most it manifested itself as was an absolute mystifyingly, inexplicable curiosity about why it is a majority of the American people bought hook, line and sinker Clintonism and his style and his lying and his this and that and the other thing. That's what we marveled at and we were frustrated at it, but filled with rage and hatred? These guys, they accuse me and others of destroying respect for the office of the president. They are trying, and probably have done it in many ways, far more violently, in a verbal sense, than anything the -- and of course they were called "Clinton-haters." We were called "Clinton-haters" back then. Nobody "hates" Bush! You can't say "Bush-haters," but they are. So this wonderful guy who called, who was just telling Snerdley how much he loves the program? I marvel at the compassion and the love and the caring that everybody has for this country, especially people like Dennis who called here from New Jersey, and I wanted to acknowledge him even though he couldn't go on the air because his voice is racked -- his mouth and his throat -- via and because of his cancer.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
AS: Her Royal Fairness. Nancy Pelosi moves to harass conservative radio
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427
Letter to Rush from the Congress of the United States
http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/CongressInvite051407.pdf
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051407/content/01125112.guest.html
Dumb Like Foxes: Dems Use Fairness Doctrine to Hide Immigration Bill
May 14, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Al in Bayside, out in Queens. It's nice to have you, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush.
RUSH: Hey.
CALLER: Rush, concerning the Fairness Doctrine.
RUSH: Yeah?
CALLER: Suppose the Democrats do capture the White House 2008, and this thing does go through. How long do we have talk radio?
RUSH: Well, it's not going to work. I'll answer your question, but it's not going to work. You have to understand that in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was gotten rid of, the total number of talk radio stations in this country was infinitesimal. I think there might have been a hundred. It was really, really tiny. Today, there are over 1500 of them. That means all kinds of people have jobs. The reason that it's grown by that much is because it's profitable. The radio industry is not going to sit around and just take this lying down. They're not going to stand for it. They will petition. They'll fight it. They'll lobby. They will go to the FCC and do whatever they have to, to see to it that it doesn't get that far. The genie is out of the bottle. It's a classic illustration that they're trying to put the genie back in the bottle, but let's say that it did pass. I don't know if there would be a period of time for it to take hold again. I don't think they would go from, "Okay, the president signs it and tomorrow it's law." It probably would be one of these six months things where it sort of evolves and has an experimental period to see how it's working and then how it needs to be tweaked, to be improved and so forth. If that ever happened, it would be so obvious what a mistake it was, that it would be exposed -- and they would be exposed -- for what it is.
I don't doubt their desire to do it. I know they would love to do it. They would have done it yesterday, folks. There was one thing about this that I'm going to take the occasion of your call to mention, Al. The Democrats are who they are. This story shows up in a conservative publication today. Do you know what else is going on in Washington today? There is rigorous debate on the new immigration bill going on in the Senate. The Democrats are as dumb like foxes, and they thought they would trick me. They thought they would get me spending this whole show talking about the Fairness Doctrine. This didn't show up in the New York Times. It's not in the Washington Post. It's these two Democrat staffers leaking to Bob Tyrrell's magazine, the American Spectator. Genuine disgust will result from that. Conservative talk show hosts will be talking about it, and guess what? Maybe not talking about the immigration bill. As I say, I do not doubt that they would love to get this done, but the idea that this hits today when the immigration bill is being debated? -- and it's a website, so it's not a magazine they had to target the story for a publication date. This is a website where this story appears.

The immigration debate is crucial because, as I told you last year, the only reason the immigration bill in the Senate was stalled is because the House, then under Republican leadership, refused to even go to conference. They refused. Denny Hastert and the boys refused to even appoint a conference committee to go talk to senators about reconciling the difference in the two immigration bills. So the Republicans in the House stopped it. I made that point prior to the November elections because so many people were so bent out of shape about the Republican position on immigration, from the president's. His idea was adopted pretty closely by McCain and Senator Kennedy, and if it hadn't been for the House Republicans, that might have seen the light of day. It might have passed. Well, now they're gone, folks. The Republicans in the House are powerless. They can't really stop much if the Democrats are united on something and want it passed. Now, again, it depends on what the bill is, but if this bill comes out of the Senate -- and it's pretty close to what the House Democrats want, and is close to what Bush wants -- then what's there to stop it now? Nothing, except you, raising hell on the phones and in e-mails to your elections officials. That's the only thing stopping it. Of course, the way the Democrats think is, "Well, if you don't know about it because conservatives have been distracted by talking about the Fairness Doctrine, then they won't hear from their constituents." They'll be able to get this done essentially under the cover of darkness. But as you just heard, ladies and gentlemen, I have not fallen prey to the trick because I know the Democrats. I know liberals -- you know how it goes -- like every glorious square inch of my glorious-yet-shrinking naked body.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
AS: Her Royal Fairness. Nancy Pelosi moves to harass conservative radio
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427
AP: Bush Pushes For Deal On Immigration
http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=39813&TM=58706.21
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427
Washington Prowler
Her Royal Fairness
By The Prowler
Published 5/14/2007 12:09:36 AM
SALEM'S WITCH TRIAL
According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.
Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone "attacked" over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond. A similar rule was followed for the political editorial, where a broadcaster endorsing one political candidate or issue had to give similar time for a response from those not endorsed or supported.
The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."
That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.
According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.
"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/60df1e98-f14f-4a1c-a1cc-8432da89b759
Monday, May 14, 2007
Rebirth Of "The Fairness Doctrine?"
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 6:19 PM
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427
I invited Speaker Pelosi to appear on the program to discuss just this specific issue, an invitation that was declined. Her press secretary, Drew Hammill, wrote back to tell us that the story is "false" and that we could quote him on that subject. It would be very easy for the Speaker to put this one to bed quickly and with a short announcement or interview stating that she will not support the return of censorship to the airwaves. She hasn't. You can draw your own conclusions and watch for the introduction of the legislation attempting to outlaw criticisms of the Democrats.
You can contact the Speaker's office via 202-225-3121 to express your disgust with the idea of bringing the gag rule back to the airwaves.
| Email It | Print It | Take Action | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (3)
NEED TO KNOW
HERE COMES THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: It's not just some empty threat from the left. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and friends are gunning for conservative talk radio.

Thank you.
To get more people to participate in contacting Pelosi and Hoyer, I will separate out that part of your post.
p.s. Your link that says contact the congressman under Hoyer is not a valid link.)
~~~~
This is what the wingnuts are putting out to their listeners:
In Hugh Hewitt's article below, he tried to get Nancy Pelosi on his show to talk to her about it (which was declined) and he is urgently calling on his listening audience to contact Nancy Pelosi's office to "express your disgust:"
"I invited Speaker Pelosi to appear on the program to discuss just this specific issue, an invitation that was declined. Her press secretary, Drew Hammill, wrote back to tell us that the story is "false" and that we could quote him on that subject. It would be very easy for the Speaker to put this one to bed quickly and with a short announcement or interview stating that she will not support the return of censorship to the airwaves. She hasn't. You can draw your own conclusions and watch for the introduction of the legislation attempting to outlaw criticisms of the Democrats.
You can contact the Speaker's office via 202-225-3121 to express your disgust with the idea of bringing the gag rule back to the airwaves."
[ Mitch sez ]
I think that it would be a very good idea for us to contact Nancy Pelosi's office and Steny Hoyer's office to express our SUPPORT of their efforts to try and bring back The Fairness Doctrine!
Here is the link to contact Nancy Pelosi's office:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html
Congresswoman Pelosi wants to hear from you. You can email her at
, or by using the form below.
Please note that the rules of Congressional courtesy prevent Rep. Pelosi from replying to emails if she cannot determine that you are a constituent, so remember to include your full name, address, and zip code.
If you are not a constituent of the 8th district of California, and would like to e-mail Congresswoman Pelosi in her role as Speaker of the House, please email her at
or click here for a contact form...
District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862
Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965
Here is the link to contact Steny Hoyer's office:
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/contact/index.asp
Email the Congressman <----link in OP doesn't work, so I left it out. --jen
Washington Office:
1705 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone - (202) 225-4131
Fax - (202) 225-4300
Greenbelt Office:
U.S. District Courthouse
6500 Cherrywood Lane, Suite 310
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Phone - (301) 474-0119
Fax - (301) 474-4697
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Steny Hoyer that I found when I clicked on the main contact link on his House website that is in the post above:
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/contact/email.asp
Email the Congressman
First Name:
Last Name:
Zip Code: +4

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/3815e723-453c-414e-a9f1-7895ebab2e13
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sen. McConnell On The "Fairness Doctrine"
Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 6:35 PM
FYI, from Senator McConnell's office:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement regarding attempts by Congressional Democrats to revive the misnamed “fairness doctrine”:“Our Founding Fathers understood free speech is fundamental to our nation and sought to protect it with the First Amendment. As a strong supporter of First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, I will continue to work to prevent government limitations on speech.
“The latest attempt by House Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘fairness doctrine’ will silence active political voices and limit the free flow of information. Government is not the speech police and I will not support these efforts to restrict free speech.
“Political debate is among the most important democratic traditions of our nation and a hallmark of free society. We must continue to preserve the right of all Americans to express their views.”
| Email It | Print It | Take Action | Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)
There are few people in broadcasting I find more despicable than Limbaugh, but I can´t say I agree with reinstating the Fairness Doctrine because it restricts free speech as well as seeming very difficult to enforce fairly. I am all in favor of truth in media but according to the little information I´ve read on the subject the definition of what "personal attack" is, is pretty broad.
As much as I would rather have blowhards like Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Bennett transmitting to an audience of zero I don´t think muscling them out via the fairness doctrine is the right way to go about it.
I´m not an expert on slander laws, but maybe instead of some arbitrary and difficult to enforce doctrine on "fairness" we could just put together some new legislation making it easier for someone (or cheaper) to sue someone else for a slanderous statement that has been broadcast publicly, shift the burden of proof closer to the accuser. Then again, that opinion is coming from someone with zero legal background whatsoever.
I did find it kind of ironic to hear Limbaugh hiding behind the first amendment and coming out as "anti-censorship". It really made me do a double take, how uncharacteristic of the right...
Also, did anyone ever listen to Air America while it was on? The only brush in with it besides the occasional "Young Turks" (who I generally like) podcast I have had was an hour period where I was lost in bad traffic down in LA and turned it on for kicks. I don´t remember the host of the show I listened to, but she spent the entire time attacking Rush Limbaugh´s character in a very superficial way and did little to bring intelligent discussion to the table. She was basically as biased and ignorant speaking as the man she was criticizing, only coming from the opposite direction. If the rest of Air America was like that maybe it died because liberals were just too smart do listen to drivel like that, even if they agreed with it on an ideological basis...
Then again, not a regular listener (well who would be, after that experience)
" We excel over our medieval forebears in many things, no doubt, but should try not to outdo them in credulity.- NY Times, Dec. 4 1981"
I appreciate your comments but I have to disagree with you!
Rush Limbaugh's trash and hate is the equivalent of political pornography in my opinion which should be regulated by law!
Pornography is legal and is protected under free speech BUT it is heavily restricted under the law due to being very inappropriate for certain audiences!
The same is also true about people like Howard Stern who are on pay television now because they cannot survive on regular television without getting heavily fined and getting into legal trouble!
I would also apply that same principle to the language and sex scenes that can be seen on certain pay cable channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime BUT cannot be shown on regular television channels due to that it is considered inappropriate for certain audiences!
Please look at this link to see what Keith Olbermann quoted about Rush Limbaugh:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762
Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.
Here is even more documentation in addition to what Keith Olbermann gave about Rush Limbaugh and the racist/insulting comments that he made to people which definitely parallels Imus, pornography, and inappropriate language in my opinion:
1) Rush Limbaugh has a parody song about Obama titled "Barack the Magic Negro" which has the same tune as Puff the Magic Dragon and is very insulting to Obama in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Illustrating Absurdity...
Rev. Sharpton Sings:
"Barack the Magic Negro (That's What the LA Times Called Him)"
2) Rush Limbaugh has audio parodies of Obama comparing him to Osama Bin Laden and mocking his ears:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Parody Song: Kennedy Sings Obama Osama
Obama Ear Parody:
• The Perot Big Ear Institute
3) Rush Limbaugh calls Obama "Barack Hussein Odumbo" and mocks his ears:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/content/truth_detector.guest.html
MoDo and Barack Hussein Odumbo
December 14, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

4) Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Sen. Mary Landrieu's appearance by calling her Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091406/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html
Dems Still Squealing Like Stuck Pigs
September 14, 2006
RUSH: "So here is Senator Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu, ranting on the Senate floor that she's tired of "boneheaded" Republicans. ![]()
LANDRIEU: America is tired of the wrong-headed and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent six-and-a-half-billion dollars a month to Iraq, where the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden..."
Rush Limbaugh is such a fool and he has made so many stupid comments at least as bad as if not worse than what Imus did (which he is NOT the least bit sorry about) that Democrats in my opinion should be able to capitalize on, nationalize, and use Limbaugh's comments against any Neocon GOP candidates who Limbaugh is carrying water for:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9373
How Democrats (especially Jim Webb) can use Rush Limbaugh to their advantage!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2006 - 9:12am.
Rush Limbaugh in my opinion should be as radioactive to GOP candidates who he is supporting as Imus was to MSNBC and CBS before he was fired!
Limbaugh is entitled to his views (just like how Howard Stern and Imus are) BUT things like this are NOT appropriate for ALL audiences just like how pornography, foul language, and racist comments are not appropriate for all audiences and are legally restricted!
That is how I personally view Rush Limbaugh and The Fairness Doctrine!
place who do not support Neocon foreign policy are views that he is personally entitled to BUT are NOT something that should be unconditionally protected under free speech in my opinion!
What you see right here from Rush Limbaugh is as inappropriate as pornography and foul language are on regular television as far as I am concerned, it does NOT constitute unrestricted "free speech," and it needs to be legally restricted in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021407/content/01125104.guest.html
Bush-Hater Takes Solace in Bush's Declaration
That He Can Support the Troops, But Not the Mission
February 14, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's go to the phones and see what's percolating there. Bruce in Alexandria, Virginia, welcome, sir. It's nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: My first question, sir, is, to my understanding there are 130 to 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, and with the president's surge of 21,000 additional, what difference does 21,000 more troops on the ground going to make? And my second question is, today on his speech, he specifically said that you can disagree with his policies -- notably his troop surge -- and still support the troops, when you all have adamantly been saying, how can you not -- how can you support the troops and not support the president's --

RUSH: Let me just say, I strongly disagree with the president on that.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: I think the president's just going out of his way to be nice to you people, for whatever reason I can't understand.
CALLER: On national TV to be nice to the public?
RUSH: The president is not a partisan guy. He is not going to tell you that you're threatening the success of the mission.
CALLER: So the president is going to tell the American people what they want to hear?
RUSH: No, he leaves it up to people like me to do it -- which, frankly, gets a little tiresome.
CALLER: But he's the president and he's supposed to be honest with the American people.
RUSH: The fact is, if you're going to go out there and rip the troops you can't at the same time support them.
CALLER: So you would say that the president is lying?
RUSH: Here you hate Bush and you're trying to take comfort and solace in what he says about you?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082106/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html
It's Time To Challenge Democrats' Patriotism
August 21, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's just get to the meat and potatoes of this press conference. This is about Iraq, and this is the president saying that he has no intention of leaving before the job is done. And we're not leaving Iraq while he is president. The answer comes from a question, an unidentified reporter. "You mentioned the campaigns earlier. Do you agree with those in your party, including vice president, who said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened Al-Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lament over Joe Lieberman and then it's a message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad?"
THE PRESIDENT: Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would be to send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster. And that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
RUSH: I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose. And I want ask you people a question. What is patriotic about losing? How come we can't question of patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism? We most certainly can, we most certainly should. Damn straight. I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism, we've said for all these years, I'm not challenging your patriotism, I'm just challenging your judgment. Well, hell's bells. It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan is actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter, actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should Ned Lament.
Why can't we simply say what is patriotic about seeking our defeat? Seems to me we should be saying that. Their judgment is skewed, their judgment is crazy. The president says, understanding the world in which we live, who knows whether they understand the world in which we live. We can't afford to take time to figure that out. We don't have the time to worry whether they understand -- just like we don't have time to figure out why they hate us. We don't have time to figure that out. That's irrelevant to the mission if you want to use that word or to the cause. So let it ring out from the mountaintops here at the EIB Limbaugh Institute. We do question their patriotism. If they want us to lose, what the hell is it about patriotism that makes us want to lose? What is patriotic about wanting to lose against this enemy? Somebody explain that to me, and if you can, then I might revise and extend my remarks. The president then continued with this answer -- (interruption) You're staring at me with wide open eyes and you're not blinking.
What does that mean, Mr. Snerdley? What does that mean? Well, Mr. Snerdley says I never crossed the line before. Well, we're crossing a lot of new lines here because the Democrats keep moving the line, and sometimes you gotta cross it. If they keep moving the line and we haven't moved anywhere, we gotta cross it to get to 'em. They keep backing up -- would you tell me where I'm wrong? Why can't we question the patriotism of people who actively seek a loss? They want to cut-and-run? What is that? It's a loss. They want to pull out. They don't want to continue the war on terror. They're running a whole presidential campaign in '08 based on it, a midterm campaign in '06 based on it. Why can't we question their patriotism as well as questioning their judgment? Here's the president continued with these remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: It's like the other day I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion. Those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people simply don't see the world the way we do.
RUSH: Stop the tape. Is that right? Do they not see the world the way we do or do they see the world the way we do but they see Bush as worse than those guys? Does their Bush hatred cause them to have descended into the first stages of literal, utter madness? Is Bush so much the enemy that they do not see the world the way we do, or do they see it the way we do but they'll fix it later on? I don't know the answer to this. All I know is, they're actively sabotaging our effort to defeat this enemy. And whether they see the world we do or not is irrelevant to me. It is the actions they take based on whatever their motivations are that need to be addressed, and they're clearly taking actions such as this judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, taking actions that hamper and harm the ability if these decisions are actually enshrined in law. Doubt that they will be, but they are still saying these things, making these judgments, rendering these decisions that are designed to hamper the effort in this war. Maybe they don't see it's a war. Could well be they don't think this is a war. "Ah, 9/11, ah, just one of these things that isn't going to happen again. It isn't going to happen again and so we don't need to go out and pretend that it will and do what we have to do to defend against it." But they're dangerous in the sense that they don't see it and want to construct a pre-9/11 world for whatever reason. Let's resume this bite.
THE PRESIDENT: They see these as kind of isolated incidents. These aren't isolated incidents. They're tied together. There is a global war going on. And, you know, somebody said, "Well, this is law enforcement." No, this isn't law enforcement, in my judgment. This is a global war on terror.
RUSH: That's a little swipe at Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter the most recent idiot to say that this is a law enforcement problem. And of course John Kerry has long said that it was a law enforcement problem, and many of the libs, the Clinton administration viewed it as a law enforcement problem. But he's right. These are not isolated, episodic events. They're tied together. There is a global war going on. I think the line of the speech was, "We are not getting out of Iraq as long as I'm president." Here's the next bite. The president added this to the previous remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: There are a lot of people in the Democrat Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done, period. And they're wrong. And the American people have got to understand the consequence of leaving Iraq before the job is done. We're not going to leave Iraq before the job is done and we'll complete the mission in Iraq. I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done but I do know that it's important for us to support the Iraqi people who have shown incredible courage and their desire to live in a free society. And if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned.
RUSH: He believes this democracy project stuff, and I do, too. There's no question, the only thing I'd like to see added to it is a incredible projection of our power. I would love to see a massive projection of our power because to defeat these people in Iraq once and for all, because it would be easier to establish this democratic regime that is our objective absent as many terrorist threats, insurgency actions and so forth and so on. But that's just me. In this one Bush boils the campaign down to two issues. Democrats want to cut-and-run in Iraq and raise your taxes. He was asked here a question, if you were campaigning, what would you campaign on?
THE PRESIDENT: There's a fundamental difference between many of the Democrats and my party, and that is they want to leave before the job is completed in Iraq. This is a global war on terror. I repeat what our major general said in the region. He said if we withdraw before the job is done the enemy will follow us here. I strongly agree with that. I'd be telling people that the Democrats will raise your taxes. I'd be reminding people there's a philosophical difference between those who want to raise taxes and have the government spend the money, and of those of us who say you get to spend the money the way you see fit. It's your money.
RUSH: There you go.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
The president also announced today that we're sending $230 million of aid to help rebuild damaged areas of Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, and I must confess when I heard him reading off this list at the beginning of the press conference, I thought I was getting a Katrina type laundry list of things and it was a little disturbing. I said Iranians are sending arms in via Syria, the Israelis are trying to stop that, and they have been successful on a couple of occasions. I said why are we doing this? Trying to prove to these people -- we can't buy their affection. They're militant Islamists. It isn't going to work. But the administration is being consistent.
I mentioned to you from the first days of the Israel-Hezbo war that the administration kept talking about the government of Lebanon, must step up, the government of Lebanon must remain whole and functioning. The administration has a desire that Lebanon remain a democracy, become a full-fledged functioning democracy, and that's why the aid. A lot of people look at all this, the democracy project in Iraq as a failure, it's going nowhere, gee -- now we're trying it in Lebanon, we're going to pay 'em -- and people have a negative attitude about it. But may as well get used to it, folks, the president is going to stick with this. This is an identifying characteristic of his own soul and his policy here at the same time.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(Reuters: Bush says peacekeepers needed urgently in Lebanon)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Fairness Doctrine. This short audio will show you how the other side is thinking about this issue right now!
They feel very threatened even by talk of The Fairness Doctrine because extreme right wing talk radio is a top political "lifeline" of the White House, The RNC, top Neocon foreign policy proponents, and the Neocon GOP activist base:
http://mikegallagher.townhall.com/talkradio/Show.aspx
http://mikegallagher.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=34703051-a502-45d8-8e7d-b4dc7f44d931 (08:45)
Recent Shows
1 . Tuesday May 15, 2007
Michael Harrson With Mike Gallagher
The Talkers Magazine publisher gives Mike his opinion of the proposed re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine.
http://mikegallagher.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=34703051-a502-45d8-8e7d-b4dc7f44d931 (08:45)

Someone I followed very closely in the 04 race mentioned the Fairness Doctrine & got promptly disappeared. And ignored.
They could never reinstate the Fairness Doctrine fast enough or comprehensively enough to satisfy me! Free speech my left foot- just like public financing of campaigns supposedly is a massive threat to... That's right, the status quo. These monstrous corporations need to be reporting news, not engineering it.
When soldiers & decorated Generals have to go begging hat in hand to raise money to get 30 second ads on the air in the land of Rupert Murdoch & the media monopoly (too many pigs at too many troughs, too many war profiteers with their hands in the cookie jar with a complicit media) it is WAY past time for FD!!!

I e-mailed Madame Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker.
Win with Wes in '08
Thanks, and I've written Pelosi!
I'm glad I can write her about this, and I've sent it out to others in my contact list.
It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.
--Joseph Goebbels
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times.
My reply:
Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway

railing about Rayguns repealing the Fairness Doctrine in the '80s. She was livid! She knoew what would happen, and she was right. Thanks mom.
Wes Clark: Soldier, Scholar, Statesman.
by Rush Limbaugh and other extreme right wing talk radio show hosts!
I do not know if this particular person was a real "Seminar Caller" or not but I do know that we need a lot more "Seminar Callers" to help fight back:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050506/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html
Is She a Seminar Caller?
May 5, 2006 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, Marie in Terre Haute, Indiana, you're next on the EIB Network. Hi. CALLER: Hi. I'm a long-time listener. It's an honor to talk to you. RUSH: Thank you very much. CALLER: Hey, I've been listening to a bunch of talk about this whole immigration thing, and I want your opinion on something, because I'm not as interested in other opinions as I am in yours. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: Let's fast forward, pretend the border is shut, penned up. Nobody is coming across except for a few. RUSH: Yes. CALLER: Now what do you think we should do with the illegals that are here, the ones that haven't, you know, gotten into horrible crimes? They obviously have broken the law by coming here, but that's it, that's the extent of it. What do you think we should do with them, and especially those that have American citizen children here? That's the big question I have in my circle of friends. RUSH: Okay. All right. Marie, I have to tell you something, I love you. I'm so happy you called, but I have little tiny red flags going up that you might be a seminar caller. CALLER: A what caller? RUSH: Seminar caller. CALLER: A seminar caller? RUSH: Seminar caller. A liberal who has gone to a seminar to learn how to call -- CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. Let me tell you, definitely I am not. RUSH: You praise the host when you start, and then basically -- CALLER: No, Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush. Really I'm not. I am so not. I have never voted for a liberal in my life. I am so Republican. RUSH: That's part of what seminar callers say. CALLER: No, seriously! Have mercy. I really am not. I really am a Republican. RUSH: Seminar callers say that. CALLER: Okay, so how do I prove to you that I'm not a seminar caller? RUSH: You can't, and I'm not accusing you. I'm just saying red flags are up. Let me answer the question, because that's the point. CALLER: Yes, that's the point and I am so not -- RUSH: See, the reason I also have little red flags up is because this is a pretty neat trick. You know, you are very -- if you are; if, if, if you are a seminar caller, you are very -- clever. CALLER: I'm just a mom! (Laughing.) I really am! RUSH: (Laughing.) That's what they say, too. CALLER: I've never been a liberal. I am so not liberal. RUSH: Okay. Okay. Okay. Time-out. Everything is cool. Everything is cool. Back off. CALLER: That's about the worst thing you could call me. RUSH: No, no, no. I tell you, when you finish this, you're going to have had one of the most pleasurable experiences you've ever had and you're going to want to do it more and more and more. CALLER: (Laughing.) Well, back to my question. RUSH: I'm going to answer the question. I just saw something on television, and you know, Snerdley and I have been discussing it. I'm not avoiding you here but I've got to say this before I forget it. Snerdley and I have been discussing this Porter Goss thing, and they just flashed a picture of Negroponte up there, and we've been discussing that there might be some sort of a power play going on. Negroponte is not a big fan. I'll talk more about this probably next week. But here's the answer to the question. You put things out of order. You put things 180 degrees out of phrase. CALLER: You don't think the border should be shut first? I think it should be. RUSH: Yes, I do, but we can't come to an agreement on that. I'm telling you that that needs to be the first thing that is discussed. CALLER: Let's pretend it is. RUSH: You put it out there. That's a simple answer. Nobody is talking about deporting these people. CALLER: Well, I know nobody is talking about it. Actually they are because I hear people all the time saying we need to get rid of them. RUSH: When I say nobody is talking about it. I mean "nobody" that is in a position to actually do it. I think it would be possible if we allotted enough money and years to it, but it's impractical, it's gotta stop here. We can't continue to address this every 20 years and say, "Okay, we'll legalize the ones that are here illegally and not do anything about the border because 20 years from now we're going to have 15 or 20 more million we've got to deal with." CALLER: Well, that's why the border needs to shut. But, seriously, without sounding -- RUSH: I agree totally. If anybody in Washington, any candidate for any office would come out and actually propose seriously doing something about the border, then he would have a lot more credibility when he announced what his intentions were for doing with the people here who are here illegally. CALLER: I heard your brother speaking the other day and I was impressed with what he said, and I was just wondering, you know-- RUSH: Why didn't you call him, then? CALLER: I don't have his number! (Laughing) Frankly, I'm more interested in what you have to say, no slam on your brother. RUSH: What did he say? CALLER: I was struck with how compassionate he was. Okay, yes, he wants the border shut, as does everybody I know. But he was more of the opinion -- I thought, it sounded to me -- like assimilating those here, unless of course they're criminals, get rid of them. Who wants criminals? We have plenty of those on our own. RUSH: Obviously. That's the whole point. We're not even talking about immigration here. We're talking about people that want jobs. There has to be a serious attempt with these twelve-- Using your hypothetical, we've got the border shut, and the number of illegals that succeed in getting past is a trickle and not enough to worry about. What do we do? We have to assimilate them. We have to require them to acculturate, and that's not hard to do, and we identify who they are and we let them stay and if they claim they're here because they want to become Americans we give them the chance to do that, but we don't put them at the head of the line, we don't run them ahead of people playing by the rules. But the key to it is closing the border. CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: It's going to be much easier to come up with a policy to deal with the 12 to 20, whatever, who are here now illegally, if that's it. CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: But if it's another 12 to 20 in 15 years, then we're not solving the problem. And that's what people instinctively know and that's what frustrates them. CALLER: Okay. Well, I appreciate your time, and please don't think I'm a liberal. RUSH: Okay. I just had to be honest with you. You were exhibiting some traits, but I think you have proven here that you're not a seminar caller. CALLER: Well, thank you. I can live a happy life now. (Laughing.) RUSH: All right. CALLER: Have a good one. RUSH: Thanks Marie. You, too. END TRANSCRIPT *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
![]()
Rush's Essential Stack of Stuff: The Immigration Section
Here is how Rush Limbaugh defines the "Seminar Caller" below in the last paragraph:
"Hey look folks, I know that last guy was a seminar caller. I know it before you know it. I know it when I hear "listen to your show all the time." "Voted for Bush." "Went to the naval academy, Vietnam vet." Then you hear a bunch of malarkey (such as uncomfortable topics that he does not like to deal with or ideas that he does not agree with)..."


opportunity to join up with Democrats to help oust the Neocons from control of the Republican Party which has been "hijacked" according to Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/13/ftn/main2795705.shtml
Hagel-Bloomberg In '08? You Never Know
Senator Says Today's GOP Is Not The Party He Joined; Considers An Independent Ticket In '08
(CBS) The Republican Party has been "hijacked" and led away from its core values, Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from Nebraska, said Sunday on Face The Nation.
Hagel, who is still considering his options for the 2008 race, left open the possibility of becoming an independent and sharing a ticket with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," Hagel said. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors."
Hagel said he will not decide if he is going to run for president until late this summer...