Clear Channel CEO Responds to Reid (Letter Hand Delivered to Senate)

Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays responded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a letter hand-delivered to his office this evening.

I want to thank you and your Senate Democratic colleagues for sharing your concern over recent comments made by Rush Limbaugh on his daily radio program. First, let me say that the men and women who wear the uniform in defense of our country deserve the utmost respect and gratitude from each and every one of us whom they serve to protect. I assure you that I fully agree with your statement that “not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a phony soldier.” As a grateful American citizen, I would reject anyone’s contention to the contrary.

Mr. Limbaugh’s comments last week have stirred a lot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript from the episode in question. I hope you will appreciate that I cannot speak with authority as to whom exactly Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were directed, or what was his intent. Only Mr. Limbaugh can speak to those issues, which he has done.

I can say, however, that over the years Mr. Limbaugh has repeatedly praised the dedication and valor of our brave men and women in uniform. Given Mr. Limbaugh’s history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn’t share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq. However, if Mr. Limbaugh’s intention was to classify any soldier opposed to the war in Iraq as a “phony soldier,” which he denies, then I, along with most Americans, would be deeply offended by such a statement.

While I do not agree with everything Mr. Limbaugh says on every topic, I do believe that he, along with every American, has the right to voice his or her opinion in the manner they choose. The First Amendment gives every American the right to voice his or her opinion, no matter how unpopular. That right is one that I am sure you agree must be cherished and protected.

As the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, I support each of our on-air talent’s right to express his or herself freely, as long as they do it within the confines of the laws set forth by Congress. For this reason, I have not and will not impose my own views upon any of our on-air talent. Doing so would, quite frankly, undermine the integrity of the broadcast, undercut the trust with our listeners that they are receiving the true and honest opinions of the radio host, and more importantly fly directly in the face the right to free speech that we hold so dear.

Each and every day, Clear Channel airs a broad diversity of viewpoints from Rush Limbaugh on the right to Air America on the left of the political spectrum. It is inevitable, with so many different perspectives, than an on-air personality will challenge or even offend another segment of the public. I too am sometimes offended by words that are directed at me or a particular belief I hold. However, as a broadcaster and leader of this company, I will always defend the right of our employees and contracted talent to voice their opinions under the protections provided by the First Amendment.

I want to thank you and your colleagues for writing me regarding this matter. Again, I regret that you were offended by Mr. Limbaugh’s statement, regardless of what its intended meaning may have been. I hope that you understand and support my position that while I certainly do not agree with all views that are voiced on our stations, I will not condemn our talent for exercising their right to voice them.

You do realize Fred was running for the Senate in 1994 and not The House of Representatives, correct?

From Wikipedia:

Contract with America
The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by a team of representatives including Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, and relying on polling from Frank Luntz, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Many of the Contract's policy ideas originated at The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank.
The Contract with America was introduced six weeks before the 1994 Congressional election, the first mid-term election of President Bill Clinton's Administration, and was signed by all but two of the Republican members of the House and all of the Party's non-incumbent Republican Congressional candidates.

From The Heritage Foundation:

The Contract with America: Implementing New Ideas in the U.S.
---snip---
The revolutionary character of the change represented by the Contract went beyond the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only did the 367 Republican candidates for the House of Representatives who signed the document run election campaigns based on its provisions, but many of the campaigns for the U.S. Senate, as well as state and local government races, also pivoted around the fundamental questions concerning the role of government in society as reflected in the Contract. In short, the Contract may come to symbolize the most profound change in the American political landscape in the last half century and, in many respects, determine the character of American government well into the 21st century.

Fred campaigned on the issues in The Contract With America. He didn't sign it because he wasn't running for the House.

How is the Reid letter not a de facto Bill of Attainder?

It may very well be -- I'm not a lawyer -- but when such things happen, the proponents are going for the quick PR hit that will serve its purpose long before it is retroactively recognized as such.

This is a sensitive topic with me because it was a Bill of Attainder case that, in its infancy, provided the epiphany that there was an overwhelming media bias in favor of women, minorities (let me interject at this point that I am a black man), and Democrats.

In the mid-eighties, America learned that Dr. Eric Foretich, a Virginia oral surgeon, was accused by plastic surgeon Dr. Elizabeth Morgan -- his third ex-wife -- of ritually molesting his young daughter, Hilary. A court-appointed medical expert found no evidence of molestation, and Morgan's challenge of his parental rights was denied.

Then, Morgan's parents disappeared with Hilary, Morgan refused to divulge their whereabouts, and was jailed for contempt by a D.C. judge. When Morgan's family gave a video of Hilary tearfully refusing to go with Foretich for a scheduled visit (Foretich claimed it was staged), it created a media firestorm in which Morgan was portrayed as a wronged heroine and Foretich as an unindicted child abusing scumbag. I still have on an old videotape the Donahue show on which Foretich forcefully denied the charges against him. Donahue was doubtful that a child would lie about being molested, accepting Morgan's premise. The audience was even more disdainful.

On the other hand, Dr. Morgan was on the cover of People magazine ("A MOTHER'S COURAGE," read the headline) and did a weepy interview with Connie Chung. It greased the wheels for a federal statute that only applied to her jail term for contempt. When she was freed, it made headlines and led off all the nightly newscasts. Meanwhile, Hilary was still missing, and Morgan was no longer legally compelled to tell where she and her own parents had gone.

Subsequently, when Hilary was found in New Zealand (by way of Great Britain) with Morgan's parents, Morgan left to fight for Hilary in the family court there, where she prevailed. Foretich returned home to the U.S. There was a TV-movie based on the case in which he was the heavy, and Morgan (played by Bonnie Bedelia) is an angel with pure intent.

When Morgan needed medical specialists in America to care for a serious illness, Foretich wanted his parental rights to rule the day if Morgan and Hilary -- now renamed Ellen Morgan -- returned to the United States. Once again, Congress passed an act that would prevent that from happening after he declined "negotiation" in which pols asked him to voluntarily abandon his rights. From Time magazine, September 30, 1996;

ELLEN MORGAN, the subject of one of the ugliest and most controversial custody battles ever to pass through American courts, not to mention several books and a movie, may be able to return to the U.S. with her mother under unusual legislation passed in Congress last week. ELIZABETH MORGAN went to prison for two years rather than allow her daughter, then called Hilary Foretich, to visit her father Eric Foretich, who Elizabeth claims molested Ellen. He denies the claim. For the past seven years mother and daughter have been living in New Zealand. The tailor-made legislation will mean that Foretich won't be allowed to see Ellen without her consent. His lawyer says the new law is unconstitutional and he will challenge it in federal court.

From the suit filed by Foretich's parents successfully striking down the Morgan Law, argued by Jonathan Turley:

Dr. Foretich’s third and final claim rests on his contention that he suffered extraordinary injuries to his personal and professional reputations as a result of the Act. In particular, he asserts that the Elizabeth Morgan Act embodies a congressional determination that he engaged in criminal acts of child abuse from which his daughter needed protection. As Dr. Foretich detailed in the unrefuted affidavit submitted to the District Court, passage of the Act led to harassment by the media, estrangement from his neighbors, and loss of business and professional opportunities...According to Dr. Foretich, these reputational harms resulted directly from the congressional determination that he had abused his daughter...
Dr. Foretich contends that the cited government action, here the Elizabeth Morgan Act, directly damages his reputation and standing in the community by effectively branding him a child abuser and an unfit parent...

Even though he has had his day in court multiple times and has been found guilty of nothing whatsoever, absolutely EVERYBODY in Washington (short of the D.C. courts) joined together in bipartisan spirit to screw Dr. Eric Foretich. From liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans, from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton. And I believe that if the media didn't paint this case in black (Foretich) and white (Morgan) terms, he might have a relationship with his adult daughter today.

Yet, Foretich said this judgment has brought closure after twenty long years, and that he would like to bury the hatchet with Morgan. If he is innocent (I believe he is) and he really has no ill will, he is a better man than I.

I saw a commercial (had to be a "Soros-funded" group that sponsored it) with the expected ex-Iraq soldier saying he is not a Phony Soldier, and he's anti-war.

There is no question that this attack on those who can't stand these TRAITORS who have demoralized the military, emboldened the enemy, spewed anti-American venom, and want to patronize their moonbat/code pink/criminal alien voterbase is what this is about.

An attack right now, including clips of the statements made on the Senate floor such as "the war is lost", "murdered in cold blood", "boming civilians", etc., etc. by the Republicans would cement the agenda that Democrats are supporting and show what we are dealing with with these arrogant appeasers and wusses that are the Democrat/Liberal/Socialist "Leaders".

The Hildabeast machine is behind the Soros-backed assault on free speech and pointing out the true agenda of these Leftists, and this is all prep for the "Fairness Doctrine" to be put in place to silence the opposition.

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.