Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Show US Presidents -- Then and Now -- Don't Want You to Hear
The Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | February 13, 2009 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 02/14/2009 7:13:10 PM PST by Delacon

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yesterday on a progressive talk station in Los Angeles a Hispanic host, guy name Mario, is talking to Bill Clinton on the phone, and the host says, "Is it time for some type of enforced media accountability?"

CLINTON:  We either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows, and let's face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining, even when he's saying things that I think are ridiculous.  I never minded having somebody be heard who disagreed with me.  But if you only have one side like this blatant drumbeat against the stimulus program, this doesn't reflect the economic reality we're facing.

RUSH:  All right, now, this is not accidental.  This appears to be coincidental.  Go on a leftist host show and here comes the question do we need some type of enforced media accountability.  Has this nerd never heard of the First Amendment?  That's constitutionally not permitted!  Enforced media accountability is not permitted by the US Constitution.  But it's not just coincidental that Clinton shows up and has this question asked, and has this answer.  Here's a former president now in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.  We've had members of Congress, from Dick Durbin, to Tom Harkin, Maurice Hinchey, they're getting ready to do something.  They won't call it Fairness Doctrine, they'll go at it in a much more stealth way, but they're only going to go after a certain element of media, and that's conservatives on talk radio.  They will not go after any other media platform.  They won't go after blogs -- well, they may, but that's going to be more problematic for them.  But they're not going to go after television, they won't go after newspapers 'cause they are considered "the press," and "the press" is mentioned in the First Amendment.  We of course are not considered to be part of media.  But it's dead serious.  They want to wipe out all dissent.  They want to clear the playing field.  They don't want any dissent on the stimulus. (doing Clinton impression) "We gotta get rid of this guy, Limbaugh, he's entertaining, yeah, but to line up against the stimulus package like this, I mean we can't have that."  We can't have that, huh?  Let's go back and listen to his wife April 28th, 2003.

HILLARY:  I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, we are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!

RUSH:  Okay, aside from the first and maybe second wife similarities there in speech pattern, here is Mrs. Clinton defining patriotism as dissent against a sitting administration, in this case the Bush administration.  Now her husband and no doubt Mrs. Clinton want to silence all dissent.  They want to shut everybody up and they're making it look like it's just some coincidence. (doing Clinton impression) "That's right, Limbaugh was asked that question, what am I gonna say, I gotta be honest about it, but you're sitting out there and thinking it's some sort of conspiracy.  Well, I think you ought to have your head examined."  Mr. President we know full well what's happened, you guys have telegraphed it, you've made it plain what your intentions are.  I have a plan on this, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, but I, El Rushbo, am not prepared today to divulge the plan other than to say I'm going to confront President Obama directly on this and I'm going to ask him for an answer up or down on what his intentions are regarding enforced media accountability. 
He's got every one of his big minion supporters out there advocating for it.  He publicly has said during last year's campaign that he's not focused on it, doesn't really care about it, he's not that interested.  But of course he provides the leadership here, and I'm not going to ask it on my behalf.  I'm going to ask it on behalf of my industry.  When I started my program in August of 1988, there were 125 radio stations doing talk radio.  Today there are 2,010, 2,020 radio stations doing talk radio.  It's not our fault we have succeeded.  It's to our credit.  We've done so in the free market.  Clinton talks about the big money that accrues, and that's not fair.  Big money accrues to the Super Bowl, Mr. President, big money accrues to American Idol, big money accrued to The West Wing, programs with large audiences that succeed are going to attract, quote, unquote, big money.  It's called business.  It's the whole point.  This is a business.  There are a lot of radio stations.  There are a lot of employees at these radio stations.  Radio is a business that is highly regulated by the federal government.  

I think it's time for those of us in radio to be told flat-out what the intentions of this administration are.  There are a lot of jobs that will hinge on this.  There is a lot of revenue that will hinge on this.  These radio stations are owned by people, they have employees, they have made investments in any number of things in order to have these radio stations on the air, and I don't think the radio business is going to sit back and let this happen.  But there's a lot of fear out there.  JP Morgan Chase and Citibank announced today they're going to suspend temporarily all home foreclosures until Obama and Geithner come up with their plan.  Now, what that means is that they are scared to death, they are literally scared to death of this administration and what they might do and how much they need more federal money.  So they go up and they get grilled on Capitol Hill about having to show more compassion to people, so they have suspended temporarily all home foreclosures in lieu of Obama coming up with a plan.  I have to think this is what it was like living in the Soviet Union.  Remember in the Soviet Union we heard stories of people in their homes that go to their bathrooms and whisper when they wanted to tell each other what they really thought and warn them of what was coming?  They were afraid they would be bugged if they were in public rooms in their house?  

Have you noticed as you travel around and congregate with people, have you noticed some people want to whisper more and more to you what they want you to know that they think?  They're afraid of being overheard by somebody, and maybe not it's an authority that's going to overhear 'em, they just don't want maybe their average citizen to overhear them and start browbeating and berating them.  I notice this wherever I go, more and more people are whispering or talking very quietly about what they want, and it's really tough for me because, you know, I have trouble hearing when people are speaking normally.  But when they start whispering it just frustrates me because I can't hear what they're saying.  But I've noticed it happening more and more, people are just more and more afraid to say what they really think in a number of places.  So we've got the bank CEOs scared to death.  We've got one CEO that's standing up, Jack Pelton at Cessna. 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay, Bill Clinton has said we gotta have enforced media accountability.  "All the big money has gone to support right-wing talk shows."  Mr. President, if I may, all the big money is not in talk radio. It's all your Library and Massage Parlor.  What I wouldn't give for the amount of money that's been donated to Bill Clinton and his Library and Massage Parlor!  That's where the big money is in this country.  Now, how unhappy can these Democrats be?  They've got 60 votes in the Senate.  They own the House of Representatives.  They occupy the White House.  They control the media.  Just what do they want?  Karl Marx said it.  You know what "peace" is in Karl Marx's definition?  The absence of opposition to socialism.  That is peace.  The absence of opposition to a leftist, to a socialist, and that's what they're aiming for this is a major transformation of the United States, as Obama promised.  Let's not forget Clinton in 1994, June. He was flying in to dedicate some train station in St. Louis, and he called the morning show in our blowtorch affiliate there, KMOX.

CLINTON:  After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants --

HOST:  Would you like to leave a message?

CLINTON: -- and I won't have any opportunity to respond. And there's no truth detector. You won't get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn't.

RUSH:  Isn't this amazing?  That sounds like exactly what I'm saying about the Drive-By Media today.  And he had the Drive-By Media totally in his tank, too.  That was 1994. They're writing stories about the power crackling in his tight-fitting jeans as he strolled Catalina Island.  We had Nina Burleigh promising a "Lewinsky," promising a BJ just to thank Clinton for keeping abortion legal.  I mean, the press was totally in the tank.  It's not really a new concept for them with Obama.  It's just total now.  It's 100%.  Gone is any curiosity. Gone is any attempt to keep people in power, honest.  They have aligned themselves with the Democrat Party and the leftist machinery of Obama.  Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals number 13: "Isolate the target, polarize it, paralyze it."  Make sure you pick an individual, not a group or a company.  It has to be an individual.  That's exactly what they did to Bush.  Bush didn't respond.  I do.  Nevertheless, this is their attempt going forward.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more thing.  Bill Clinton knows this.  "All the big money's in talk radio." What big money?  Where does this money come from?  All the money in talk radio comes... Do you know where the money in talk radio comes from, Snerdley?  Where does...? (interruption) Well, wait a second, wait a second, wait a second.  Well, you're getting closer as you keep taking these wild guesses.  I asked Snerdley, "Where does all this big money in talk radio come from, in any radio?"  He said, "From advertisers, from big business, from commerce."  Yeah.  Where does that come from?  Where does that money come from?  From the audience, exactly right, the people that buy.

Mr. President, the big money in radio or the big money in Super Bowl or the big money in American Idol or wherever you want to go that there's big money, in the private sector, the big money comes from our audiences. The big money comes from listeners.  Without them there wouldn't be any money.  We don't run around fundraising. We don't run around asking for donations.  Listeners! Loyal, lovable, totally appreciated listeners who purchase products and services advertised on radio.  There is no "big money." There's no George Soros here as there is in Air America. There's no party behind talk radio, as with Air America and the Democrat Party.  There's no big money here at all.  There's certainly not any big money like you got, Mr. President, from the ChiComs and your illegal campaign donations.  We in talk radio don't engage in crooked real estate deals.  

We didn't bring in people to our studios for coffee and shake 'em down, promising not to criticize them on the radio if they will just pay us off.  We don't bring in interns here and start using cigars in nefarious ways.  We don't have massage parties here in our broadcast studios. Well, I can't speak for some of the long-haired, maggot-infested FM types and what they're doing in their studios. (laughing) But I haven't had one visit from a ChiCom advertiser. I haven't had a guy that owns a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock walk in to some office with $200 million in unsigned money orders for me for big money.  I haven't people from Dubai, from the United Arab Emirates, from Saudi Arabia pay me 150 to $400,000 for a speech ripping my own country while I'm in theirs!  I don't do things like this, Mr. President.  My money, our money comes (just as government's does) from the American people -- and our money is puny compared to yours.  Clinton Global Initiative?  We don't have anything like that.  What big money, Mr. President?  
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
Politico: Clinton Wants 'More Balance' on Air
NewsBusters: Bill Clinton Advocates Bringing Back Fairness Doctrine
HotAir: Bill Clinton: Hey, You Know What We Need? The Fairness Doctrine
Radio Equalizer: Libtalk in Disarray: How the "Fairness Doctrine" Provides an Instant Bailout


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fairnessdoctrine; rush; rushlimbaugh; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
 
PETITION TO BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL
ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS
To: U.S. Congress, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States

Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

 

                                SIGN THE PETITION at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882

 
Freepmail me if you want to join my fairness doctrine ping list.

1 posted on 02/14/2009 7:13:10 PM PST by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xcamel; steelyourfaith; neverdem; free_life; LibertyRocks; MNReaganite; ...

ping


2 posted on 02/14/2009 7:13:41 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

I wonder if it’s time for the GOP to draft a “fairness doctrine” for our schools, colleges and universities. That would work for me.


3 posted on 02/14/2009 7:16:05 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Have You Punched A Democrat Today? - Do it for the children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
...because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows,

And what would he call the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ?

4 posted on 02/14/2009 7:21:03 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
And what would he call the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ?

The fair, open, unbiased press.

Bill Clinton is an utter ass. He is a complete fool who looks silly now that his wife is in a position in power and he is reduced to reminding everyone he was president, you know, and everyone loved him back then.

5 posted on 02/14/2009 7:25:26 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Pro-Life Capitalist American Atheist and Free-Speech Junkie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants --

A lot of would be despots have had this same reaction to public criticism. Successful tyrants have followed the models of Mao and Stalin. Putin is happily going on his merry way assassinating his verbal opponents and the respectable, honest press. We have precious little of that kind of press here. However if things are done the "Chicago Way". Rush could end up like Putin's opponents.

No, I don't think I am being hysterical or engaged in fear mongering. I wasn't at all optimistic about this administration but it is turning out much worse than even my gloomy expectations.

6 posted on 02/14/2009 7:27:16 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Bttt


7 posted on 02/14/2009 7:28:46 PM PST by feedback doctor (The first female president will be a Conservative Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

GOOD idea!


8 posted on 02/14/2009 7:32:45 PM PST by goodnesswins (Tell the truth - GOEBBELIZATION (propaganda) is what many voters suffer from.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups: 1. Radio talk show hosts (to boost their ratings); 2. Democrats to send radio talk show hosts and their listeners off on a different tangent so that they’ll have less time to devote to the other failings of the Obama Administration.


9 posted on 02/14/2009 7:33:50 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

“The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups: 1. Radio talk show hosts (to boost their ratings); 2. Democrats to send radio talk show hosts and their listeners off on a different tangent so that they’ll have less time to devote to the other failings of the Obama Administration.”

Nonsense. 1. Talk radio hosts don’t need a red herring to boost their ratings. They have the failings Obama. Hey cart, get back in front of the horse. 2. Assuming that we listeners and the talk radio hosts we elevate in the market place of ideas are so easily distracted, is quite an insult. Dont you worry yourself about us biting off more than we can chew. We can fight the attack on the freedom of speech by the lefies AND all their other power grabs at the same time. Just watch us.


10 posted on 02/14/2009 7:44:50 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
The Fairness Doctrine is a red herring being used by two different groups

It is, but not in the way you mean. The Dems are pushing the FD knowing full well it won't be implemented. Obama and the FCC are saying they're not interested in reviving it--a statement Obama made throughout his candidacy. The plan is to let it go down in defeat so everyone relaxes, and then Obama and the FCC will implement localism rules that will be de facto implementation of the FD without the stigma attached.
11 posted on 02/14/2009 7:48:27 PM PST by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

You may be right in the sense that the attack may not come in the guise of the Fairness Doctrine but instead from “local control” rules with community organizers sitting as super-regulators of local radio station programming. Most commentary I have seen give nlittle credence to the idea of the Fairness Doctrine as it originally existed being enacted but the same effect may be achieved via other means like local control.

One of the problems I think we have is people have gotten turned around in their ideas of rights in this country. Instead of believing that God-given inalienable rights are ceded to the government for purposes of common defense and good, people now seem to believe that government is the source of all rights: “Government giveth and Government taketh away. Blessed be the name of Government.” This is the result of pushing all kinds of affirmative rights never contemplated by the limiting language of the Constitution and its amendments, like abortion, welfare, amnesty, gun control, and so on. So a lot of people believe that our rights exist by the beneficence of Government and Government ought to have the right to limit those rights. It is no longer seen as an encroachment but rather like parents withdrawing privileges the kids have abused.

Which makes it really difficult to argue Government needs to justify its incursion rather than the other way around. It is typical, for example, for politicians to argue that Government “can’t afford” tax breaks, that religions ought to earn their exemptions, that limited airwaves means Government gets to call the shots, and that citizens (and states) ought to have only those rights that Government deigns to give them.


12 posted on 02/14/2009 7:58:57 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

watch out Rush - the last time Clinton declared someone the ‘most dangerous broadcaster in america’ that person and his dog were erased.


13 posted on 02/14/2009 8:15:06 PM PST by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rastus

“It is, but not in the way you mean. The Dems are pushing the FD knowing full well it won’t be implemented. Obama and the FCC are saying they’re not interested in reviving it—a statement Obama made throughout his candidacy. The plan is to let it go down in defeat so everyone relaxes, and then Obama and the FCC will implement localism rules that will be de facto implementation of the FD without the stigma attached.”

Well said. But you should have added that by threatening to try and reimpose the negatively viewed fairness doctrine, dems are hoping that people will happily accept the warm and fuzzy “compromise” of “localism in broadcasting” and “diversity in broadcasting” initiatives. All the while achieving the same end which is a shutdown of any political talk on radio. Its not so much a red herring but a trojan horse.


14 posted on 02/14/2009 8:35:24 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint
One of the problems I think we have is people have gotten turned around in their ideas of rights in this country.

True, but I don't think it has as much to do with the perceived source of a given "right", as it has to do with a misunderstanding of the term "inalienable right", and how much harm our political class has done by defining everything from a grant for soldiers to attend college "the G.I. Bill of Rights" to the "right" of airline passengers not to sit on the tarmac for more than thirty minutes without disembarking. We have totally conflated the concepts of rights, privileges, charity, tolerance and license, to the detriment of all rights, and the elevation of fad and fancy to "inalienability".

But that wasn't quite my point; I was reading the article and imagining Emmanuel, Carville, Begala and Stephanopoulos at their morning tete a tete laughing about the fact that they had once again managed to divert the attention of the very people who might be opposing them on more weighty matters with a few well-placed comments about the "Fairness Doctrine".

15 posted on 02/14/2009 8:41:54 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

I agree.


16 posted on 02/14/2009 8:45:31 PM PST by Seven plus One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

Bush was in office when that happened.


17 posted on 02/14/2009 8:57:51 PM PST by Seven plus One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

Quite right. Rights have been devalued into common currency where they used to be priceless. And you might be right about the Administration quite happy to see people distracted by the Fairness Doctrine while nefarious deeds are afoot. Sometimes I believe the Administration is terribly inept; other times I marvel at their tactics and hubris. I don’t know which impression is more frightening to me.


18 posted on 02/14/2009 8:58:04 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Nonsense. 1. Talk radio hosts don’t need a red herring to boost their ratings. They have the failings Obama. Hey cart, get back in front of the horse. 2. Assuming that we listeners and the talk radio hosts we elevate in the market place of ideas are so easily distracted, is quite an insult. Dont you worry yourself about us biting off more than we can chew.

Actually, the Left should have realized a long time ago what a blessing talk radio is for them. If there were no talk radio, there'd be a lot more P.O.ed Howard Jarvis type revolts in the streets. If there were no talk radio, there would most likely be a terrestrial channel with morally uplifiting programming and conservative news and views (e.g. a product-improved version of both Fox TV and FNC melded together), and "the folks" respond better to both words and pictures than to words alone (no matter how eloquently spoken). If there were no talk radio, there might actually be more pressure (via sponsors threatened by consumer boycotts of their products) on the MSM networks to reform their news operations (both nationally and locally). Talk radio is a great place to vent, but when none of the hosts wants to leave the studio long enough to rally the troops and lead the battle, it can be like the "echo chamber" its Left-Wing opponents have (for different reasons) called it.

19 posted on 02/14/2009 9:05:28 PM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie

place


20 posted on 02/15/2009 12:14:27 AM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson