Posted on 01/30/2009 7:28:05 AM PST by Delacon
Does President Barack Obama believe that the greatest threat to progress resides in Rush Limbaugh? Earlier this week while trying to sell his Trillion Dollar Debt Plan to Republican leaders, Obama said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Thankfully House Republicans listened to the hundreds of constituents calling their offices asking them to vote against the bill and not the guy who thinks he can buy their votes with a couple of cocktail and Super Bowl parties. Now we find out that Obama’s far left allies are upping the ante. The leftist umbrella organization American Untied for Change is pouring money into radio ads in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada. The ads ask listeners, “Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?”
Clearly the left believe they can get Republicans to sacrifice their principles by demonizing and isolating Rush Limbaugh. So much for that new era of bipartisanship. But what if all of Obama’s old-school politics of division fails to win him any Republican votes? What is the next arrow in his political quiver?
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell previewed what may be the Left’s next line of attack at a speech to the Media Institute in Washington this Wednesday. McDowell warned that when the left comes to silence Rush and other Obama critics, they will not be dumb enough to try and do it under the label Fairness Doctrine: “That’s just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand.” Multichannel News reports that McDowell even suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of “Localism” rules which empower community advisory boards to help dictate local
No one should be surprised by this development. Last year the brain trust for the Obama Administration, the Center for American Progress released a report entitled: The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. Here is what they said about already existing legal authority to implement Fairness Doctrine/Localism-type rules:
First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. … the original Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.” … Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper.
So what new policy recommendations does CAP advise?
The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.
…
We recommend the following steps the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:
- Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
- Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
So under the old Fairness Doctrine, free speech on the radio was stifled by an FCC rule that required broadcasters to devote reasonable time to fairly presenting all sides of any controversial issue discussed on the air, with the government deciding the meaning of all the italicized words. Under the CAP Localism rule broadcasters must renew their licenses every three years instead of every eight and when they do so the must “show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest” with public interest being defined as whatever ACORN like community organizers the left can rustle up to help define “community needs.”
Whenever controversial issues come up that President Obama wants to avoid talking about, he calls them “distractions.” And the Fairness Doctrine/Localism Rule issue may be just that. Commissioner McDowell also said, through aides, Obama had signaled to him that he would not re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. If Obama wants to prove his desire to protect the First Amendment is deeper than his desire to silence Rush Limbaugh, then he should go on record and disavow both the Fairness Doctrine and its equally perniciousness cousin, Localism.
I’m thinking a “Listen to Rush Live Now” button on the FR banner...
Perhaps a partnership.
Rush Limbaugh memberships sponsored by FR, with a portal here, and a percentage of revenues paid to FR.
This is the 1995 demonize Newt strategy repeated using Rush because we have no current visible leader for them to demonize. Seems pretty lame since he's not elected, he's not in congress. We should ridicule them for this effort rather than take it seriously.
BTW: I love Rush's strategic ideas, he is a master at opposition.
“If there is one true Conservative with the ‘cash on hand’ to tie up the Liberals in charge in the courts FOREVER its Rush.”
And he won’t be alone, either. Look for Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingraham, Bruce and the rest to get involved, too. They could pool their resources and really things difficult for the ‘rats.
really things = really make things
Thanks for posting.
Some names of the enemy within...here...
http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/10/02/who-signed-the-limbaugh-letter-and-who-didnt/
They have gotten smarter and more insulated since then, and millions more will take up the “stealth” action.
The attack by government, up to the highest level, on an individual American is unprecedented.
“I love Rush’s strategic ideas, he is a master at opposition”
He has an incredibly uncanny ability to take situations and turn them decidedly to his benefit. He’s an amazing guy.
Limbaugh is the third rail of conservative free speech.
Liberals: You aren’t prepared for the fight your going to get.
Thanks for the heads up.
So, “localism” is the new “fairness doctrine.”
Whenever the libs want to put something over, they invent a new word to describe it, or rather an old word with a new, covert meaning.
Maybe someone should point out that there’s MORE THAN A SMALL CONTRADICTION in having the federal government lay down the law under the pretense that it is doing something “local.”
Myself, I prefer the idea of “subsidiarity.” Which means that things should actually be done as locally as possible. School boards and parents should run schools. States and towns should pay for highways. Whole segments of the federal government should be shut down as useless, wasteful, and sometimes destructive.
What we are seeing here, of course, is another move in replacing actual communities with “community organizers,” sent down from above. The only reason they’re not using that name for this stealth fairness doctrine is that “community organizer” is already starting to get a bad name.
A concerted effort to silence Rush would lead to a SCOTUS case that dwarfed any decision since Roe V. Wade.
“They played the “Limbaugh lackey” ad to Ann Coulter on Fox this morning. She said—what if President Bush came out and ordered we not listen to Keith Olberman?”
Damn straigt.
I think so.
Soviets. I like that. Or mayby Jacobin Clubs.
It is the Chicago way of doing business.
It's an instant word bomb.
IMO, they will begin to create a meme that what Rush delivers over the airwaves is “HATESPEECH.”
That way, when he is silenced, they will say they have done a GOOD thing.
Think they can’t do it? How many times have you heard “Bush lied, people died?” Or “The world hates America now?”
That steady incessant drumbeat has an effect on the sheeple. We really have to push back in a way the Bush administration often failed to do.
“So, “localism” is the new “fairness doctrine.”
Is what I am saying. Remember how we had to switch from global warming to climate change to find info on what the libs were up to on that subject? Same goes for localism.
There's two bad things about that. The AM market makes lots of money for the radio stations by having Rush on. That market will likely die. The 2nd bad thing is that XM/Sirius isn't doing well financially. They may not survive. Lots of people will have electronic paperweights if that happens.
As discretionary income drops from unemployment and higher taxes, the unnecessary "luxuries" get dumped. My wife and I just discussed our "unstimulus" plan. We "make too much" to get a "stimulus" check...again. The "unstimulus" check around our house includes dropping DishNet HD ($85/month), reducing Starbucks from daily to weekly ($200/month ->$32/month), eating mostly at home instead of going out ($600/month -> ???). I'm removing far more from the "economy" than I would have received in the "porkulus" check. The money saved will retire the remaining balance on the credit card, then the motorcycle loan.
I've been without a contract of any kind since late September. I hope to remedy that shortly.
...with humor. That is his best. He takes what we would on our own think is a terrible situation, and makes us laugh about it and enjoy the game.
This doesnt work as well when our president GWB or McCain cuts deals with dems on illegals, for example. But as opposition of democrats-in-charge, he is King.
Although I like FNC/Cavuto as much or more, you should see him interview these libs and get them to defend their positions. I love the look on his face when they are talking.
Daily KOS and all its members can’t compete on the RUSH Media Scale.
They’re out of their league.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.