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First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed.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.
Yep we should expand our lexicon beyond “socialism.”
Soviets, central planning, comrade, pravda, purges will be useful terms.
One wonders what it is about Rush that distresses them so much. Does it upset them that listeners laugh at Rush's jokes and satire? Lack of a sense of humor? Are they that ignorant and uninformed that they don't know people laugh at liberals?
I think it's because Rush's ascendancy corresponded with the Clintons' political careers and their embarrassing record of sleaze and scandals. Liberals are ashamed and embarrassed at the airing of their dirty laundry. It's their shame and embarrassment and a desire to cover things up which is at issue. They hear Rush laughing at them and yucking it up about liberal follies and scandals and it drives them crazy. They want to cover up, silence, and repress the conservative humor and ridicule directed at them. It's an Adult Children of Alcoholics syndrome - the need to cover up the behavior of the crazy uncles and fathers, the Ted Kennedys and Bill Clintons. The crazy aunts like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Michelle Obama. It's the shame and embarrassment.
“Think they can’t do it? How many times have you heard “Bush lied, people died?” Or “The world hates America now?””
-
IMHO Rush Limbaugh in one amazing week, demonstrated why President Bush should have responded forcefully to all that!
Rush is already gaining listeners from all this.
He’s showing how to respond. Will Republicans pay attention to his demonstration of resolve?
“It is the Chicago way of doing business.”
Eggs Ackley (borrowing a FReeper screename)
Hey I grind my teeth when I hear Al Franken, Janine Garofalo ect pontificate but I wouldn’t try to silence them. In fact, you can check but I don’t think I have ever commented on what some liberal pundit has said here on FR. I save my energy for those that are actually in government or directly involved in making policy.
Hey I grind my teeth when I hear Al Franken, Janine Garofalo ect pontificate but I wouldn’t try to silence them. In fact, you can check but I don’t think I have ever commented on what some liberal pundit has said here on FR. I save my energy for those that are actually in government or directly involved in making policy.
He has more---the gov't has IOU's.
BO’s back-door attack on free speech:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2159649/posts?page=286#286
BO’s back-door Draft:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2159649/posts?page=285#285
Constitution is flawed - B.O. will fix it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2166819/posts?page=33#33
B.O.’s Commie/Marxism/Collectivism (Redistribution of wealth, etc.):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2166819/posts?page=34#34
B.O.’s Reparations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2049143/posts
B.O.’s Gay Marriage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165041/posts
B.O.’s Second Amendment threat
http://townhall.com/columnists/SandyFroman/2008/04/04/obama%e2%80%99s_smoking_gun
B.O. to end federal oversight of the Teamsters [& gets Hoffa endorsement]” ~ Robert Novak 2/23/08 [
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974928/posts
etc., etc., ad infinitum
This article lays it out.....
Rush is on 0’s case in a larger than life way
Rush want’s to make himself too big to fail
Too big to impose an unFairness doctrine
My prediction is Rush will fund court challenges to any fairness doctrine and the end runs (CAP) this article mentions
“Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest”
Rush speaks much more in the”public interest” that a large percentage of the public even suspects!
May be, but they can use the IOU's to outspend anyone else.
To some extent Limbaugh does serve as a negative stereotype for liberals, which energizes liberals in a fantasy that they primarily are struggling against Limbaugh. It has very little to do with the actual Limbaugh. Their fascination with and hatred of Rush is part of their disconnection and departure from reality. It's the liberal scandals and policy failures which keep Rush in business. His rise to prominence (to a great extent) was made possible by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Simply because they do not like the radio show is not a sufficient reason for imposing the Fairness Doctrine to silence it. There are any number of television and radio programs that annoy people. Suppose that Bush wanted to "silence" Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, or The New York Times? Wouldn't we hear howls from the ACLU and free speech advocates?
DemoSocialists..What we’ve always knew they were:
Enemies of Free Speech.
Luckily, their popularity has never come close to that of Rush.
It may be what really drives them crazy is facing up to the fact that Rush reflects a significant cultural segment of the country. Remember Hillary's right shift strategy in the primaries - toting her love of hunting and washing down shots with beer chasers. They don't just want to get rid of Rush but the conservative voters who listen to him, what they view as the "flyover country" of the red states. Obama's slur at Rush was not just directed at him.
Stealth my ass. They have declared all out war
How about Commissariat of Local Broadcasts?
Soviet is good, though.
Tribunal?
Here’s an appropriate re-play from over a year ago. There are a lot of hot links embedded in the commentary linked below.
Money quote:
“Perhaps Hillary will win some states and stay in the game a while longer, but I fear this knight with his adoring, fawning followers is just too slick for her and ole Bill, and he seems to know how to play Alinsky ends-and-means hardball without actually breaking the law.”
January 08, 2008
Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html
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.