Posted on 10/02/2007 6:43:31 PM PDT by kristinn
Edited on 10/02/2007 7:29:10 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
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.
Take a look at the letter here.
Full text:
October 2, 2007
The Honorable Harry Reid
S-221 United States Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20501
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
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.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Mays
Chief Executive Officer
I'll be interested in hearing what Rush has to say on his show today.
This would have been my letter to Senator Reid:
Dear Senator Reid,
NUTS!
Signed,
dfwgator - CEO Clear Channel Communications
More to the point, he basically told Miss Reid to get over his vapors and STFU.
Although the principal is the same and for all practical purposes it is an attempt to have a chilling effect on free speech.
“I CANNOT believe the American people, some of them anyways, want 8 more years of the Klintons....its just to hard to understand, and my only question is WHY??????”
1) Class warfare/envy
2) Racism
3) Entitlements
4) The burgeoning “government-worker” sector which includes not only the usual criminally inefficient bureaucracy drones, but teachers,and often, police and “firefighters”, as well.
This is directed to the sheep, to allow a straw man put in place so all the sheep can say “bad Rush, tsk,tsk,tsk”. While making sure that no one is looking at the democraps and their shenanigans.
NO2
If the media suppress news on something these folks actually know about, or if they lie about something these folks actually know about; they'll remember what you said and make the connection. And they'll be angry at their deceivers.
Of course that presupposes that these folks actually know anything at all...
I agree. I mean no disrespect to my friend but I was surprised at her lack of attention to the news.
I guess in any equation, depending on the issue, there will be people on either side of a debate who seem to be able to cut to the quick (maybe they/we are the kool-aid drinkers). There will be people like my friend, who take news at face value (the complacent ill informed). And there will be the middle of the roaders who are either unable to recognize or dismiss falsehoods and thereby lend credence to idiotic notions.
For instance- on the way to work each morning I listen to 1210AM in Philadelphia. The host, michael smerconish, is well spoken, educated, extremely well read, etc. Yesterday smerconish covered all his bases when speaking briefly about the attack on Rush Limbaugh. I only caught a bit of what he said, but it amounted to the notion that Rush was wrong to say what he said about michael j fox (why bring that up?) BUT the senate was wrong for attacking Rush about what he said about the military, UNLESS Rush had actually said what the dems in the senate accused him of.
I took his comments to mean that he didn’t know what to think.
Today, smerconish laid out the chronology of the events surrounding Rush’s comments. He cited a date and time when Rush first spoke of a particular phony soldier and then went on to prove to his satisfaction that Rush was indeed referring to people who claim they are soldiers AND not the U.S. military in general. In other words, he agreed with Rush and the senate was wrong for what they were doing.
What bugged me about all of that was that it took brainy smerconish all this time to come to that conclusion. Rush’s show airs on the same station as smerconish’s. Both host radio shows that are aired on a primarily conservative radio station with a primarily conservative audience. That aside, it seemed plain as day to me- average joe- that the dems in the senate were taking Rush’s words out of context and using them to further their agenda- YET this well educated talking head had to go through all that analysis to reach the same conclusion. Even one of his on-air assistants noted that prior to smerconish’s explanation, he was leaning more toward what the dems were saying about Rush!!!
smerconish would say that of course I’d automatically take Rush’s side because I’m just eager to drink the conservative kool-aid and that the topic required time to digest before coming to a conclusion. I think the guy is too caught up in trying to avoid being seen as too conservative to his audience for fear he would lose the liberal listeners. Perhaps he doesn’t trust his instincts.
Running a business self-sufficiently and caring daily for one's family may be the last hope for this nation.
Yep. Pretty soon, Dingy Harry will be back in Searchlight, Nevada, selling real estate or used cars.
“this is all prep for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be put in place to silence the opposition”
Agreed. They want to see how far the right and the rest of the public will let them go with this. The right needs to remember that the left does things in steps, taking each step a little farther.
sbg: Thank you.
Could it be.....SATAN?!?!?!
:-)
Cite a case that rulse that a Senate resolution can be a bill of attainder, and I will look into it.
Jesus, that is an arrogant statement. Look into it it?
Well then:
Foretich, Doris vs. USA, decided December 16, 2003 US Courts of Appeal for the District of Columbia circuit striking down the Morgan law as unconstitutional as follows:
"We therefore find that Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out Dr. Foretich for legislative punishment."
Now are you still going to state that this established ruling and precedent is "silly, or are you going to play the word game that Reid himself is playing by arguing that this resolution is not the de facto equivalent because they did not get president Bush to sign it into law?"
I don't mean to discourage people from emailing. I think people should do whatever they can, and if an email is all you can do, great. Doing something is the point. I just think a phone call or letter packs a lot more punch.
Rush:”.....It has not gone unnoticed here that only a handful of Republicans and conservatives have dared to speak up about what has been taking place here. I see it. Most of them think I can handle these things on my own and so forth, but there’s a fear out there. The fear and the weakness that permeates the Republican Party, and even parts of the conservative movement is also on display now, as it has been for too long. “
This has to be said over and over again. What has happened to the Republican Party????!!!!!!!!
The Dem sharks think they smell blood in the water. Let’s vaporize it ASAP!
Leni
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.