The Stop Rush [Limbaugh] Campaign

Wall Street Journal ^ | Sept 12, 2003 | Editorial

[The Raven]

Republicans love to complain that they don't get a fair shake from the elites running the nation's airwaves and newspapers. Which has us wondering why they're helping their political opponents muzzle the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Ever since the Federal Communications Commission's June decision to allow broadcast TV owners to own a few more stations, liberals have been channeling George Orwell -- claiming Big Brother broadcasters are a "threat to democracy" that will stifle "diversity of view." With the aid of many Republicans, they've already blocked the new rules in the House and may pass a resolution on Monday to do the same in the Senate.

[Let's Roll]

Good advice, see if the AM will move it for you.

This whole movement is so lame. The best reason libs I know can come up with for why they are promoting this is because it's so dangerous to have the news controlled by just half a dozen big media outfits. This was not a problem when the news was controlled by just 3 - ABC, CBS and NBC though was it?

When you point out that ownership isn't the issue but content is and content is driven my market forces, i.e., ratings, they don't seem to get it or think that it's not important. So the only reason they can be having a cow about all this is because they plan on going after the fairness doctrine - that has to be their real target.

Time for Rush to explain this to the troops who can then pressure their out to lunch congress critters. Rush may think that's too self serving, but after the assault on the First Amendment by the so called campaign finance reform, he better do what he can to stop this attack on the First.

[aquila48]

bump

[Tamzee]

Yep, agreed. I'm so glad the WSJ has put a spotlight on it! It's so important to stop this... I can't believe it is even getting this far :-(

Socialism, delightful as always.

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[anniegetyourgun]

He will think it's too self-serving. I'm guessing he believes he can "outlast the bastards." And as boring as libs are, he would be right.....again.

[ovrtaxt]

Any info on specific bill numbers? It helps when writing letters to politicians.

[Erik Latranyi]

Rush has talked about this in great detail several times. While he does not urge specific actions (he hopes educating the public is enough), he knows the importance of this issue and may take action in the near future.

[onyx]

But House Republicans are said to be about 40 votes short of the 146 or so needed to sustain a veto.

It would help if the House GOP would publish a list of the renegade GOP members.

Ping to Tom DeLay!

[ImpBill]

" What's amazing is how oblivious Republicans are to this stop-Rush game."

Not really.

[snopercod]

Frankly, I don't think it matters very much who owns the TV networks, since I don't watch them anyway. Like many people in "flyover country", I have a satellite dish and don't get ABCNBCCBS anyway.

Fox News has fallen into the same gutter that drove me away from the networks - sensationalism over news. Example: When the US almost lost two astronauts several months ago (during re-entry in the Russian Soyuz), Fox didn't even cover it. They were in their all Laci Peterson all the time mode.

I get my news and information from the internet these days, unfiltered by some "bubble-headed blond" reading a script.

[maica]

I think the article is talking about the Republicans in Congress who seem to have taken a left turn on this issue. Apparently some large right-leaning groups, such as the NRA, fear the new FCC decisions and their lobbyists are vocal in their opposition.

I do not understand their thinking at all.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

At least the White House seems to understand the stakes, and President Bush has suggested he'll veto any bill that rolls back the FCC rules. But House Republicans are said to be about 40 votes short of the 146 or so needed to sustain a veto. If Republicans can't rally behind their President on something so clearly in their own interest, they deserve to suffer the bias of Dan Rather and Katie Couric.

Ping.

[Peach]

The Republicans are their own worst enemy sometimes.

[Tribune7]

bump

[stevem]

Don Imus?

I finally surrendered in listening to Imus...at least a couple of years ago. He was never my favorite, but I thought if I had to hear ONE MORE WORD about Wyatt or that ranch he was creating, I would surely need to kill myself so as to be put out of my misery.

I just could never consider him in the same category as Hannity or Limbaugh or several other folks with national appeal.

Oh, and the Republicans in Washington would be their own worst enemies if they could ever muster enough courage to be an enemy of anyone. I can't think of another way to describe it. The "leadership" of the Party in Washington shakes hands with a limp wrist.

[rface]

" What's amazing is how oblivious Republicans are to this stop-Rush game."

yep - the 'pubies often get pushed by Rush and his listeners to do things that they normally wouldn't do. Limbaugh is the "moderate" Republicans worst enemy

[skinkinthegrass]

ANY GOP Member of Congress, who votes in favor of these bills...IS AS EVIL AS SHRILLARY...who (Shrillary, a high order priestess of Stalinist/Marxist idealogy) is a foe to freedom and private property. These so-called bills have no merit, except to limit the freedom of speech and to expand the powers of the thought police...and therefore should be treated like "Turdcoat" Sen. Jeffords (Vt.-crap).

[prairiebreeze]

I'm curious too. This issue deserves public pressure to our elected officials.

Prairie