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.

I asked you to cite a case because you stated as a fact that there were cases that supported your argument, and so it seemed a pretty easy thing for you to give me the names of such cases. I looked up the Foretich case you cited, and right away I realized that you are WAYYYYYYY wrong. The Foretich case involved a law passed by Congress that involved a dispute between two parents of a minor child. Congress made, as the court described it, a "feeble attempt" to couch the law in general terms, but the law clearly was aimed at the Foretich case.

It was passed as a legislative rider to a transportation act. It was a LAW.

A resolution of the senate has no status as a law. It can provide a "sense of the senate", or if jointly done with the house a "sense of the Congress", but it does not have a binding effect on anyone. It's the same as if a bunch of Senators joined together on the capitol steps and started shouting in the direction of the White House, or in this case, towards Florida. It has the same force and effect as when Chuckie Schumer grabs a mike and starts bloviating, and then several rats then join in behind him....i.e., none at all.

Since it is not a "law", it cannot be a "bill of attainder", failing the requirement that it be a "bill".

You are clearly not an attorney, and for that reason your confusion is natural, but your self confidence is misplaced. No doubt I am arrogant, but in this instance, in any event, I am also correct.

I was listening to Rush on the day of his conversation with the caller and took what he said exactly for what he meant..it’s called comprehension.

The agenda of the democrats, led by Hitlery no doubt, is to shut down conservative talk, be it on the radio or tv. They had control of the media so long that they can’t handle the truth being told, doesn’t fit with their plan of controlling people and what they want people to think.

As to the uninformed out there, like my sister-in-law (and my own sister), who said a couple of years ago about our military death toll, that more of our soldiers had died in Iraq than had died in WWII. I enlightened her with one example and said that in WWII there were 6,000 or more lost in ONE battle IN ONE MORNING. Her response was ‘oh, you know so much about that kind of stuff’ and she changed the subject. Unlike her, I did not have my head in my desk when in school. The extent of stupidity out there is scarey, scarey in that these people vote. I am of average intelligence, no college, but I am also blessed with common sense. My sister, through her sips of beer, just repeats that ‘our kids have to come home’ and she watches The View religiously. She was an anti-Vietnam teenager, older than me, but many years younger in her foggy brain. Her husband (a big know-it-all type, and women know nothing type) said to me a while back that we shouldn’t be in Iraq. I said to him that it’s better we fight the terrorists there than over here. He had no further responses or input. Well, I’ve knocked my relatives plenty now, lol. Good thing they don’t even know about Free Republic!

Geraldo was on Hannity & Colmes tonight saying that Rush should apologize andhe compared Rush to the Swiftboat ‘attack’ on poor little Jon Cary (misspelled deliberately there!). Sean tried to talk over the ranting Geraldo with the truth, he wasn’t too successful. Geraldo and his opinion in the big scheme of things means nothing to me, but to hear more stupidity is just so aggravating.

Geraldo and his opinion in the big scheme of things means nothing to me, but to hear more stupidity is just so aggravating.

It is aggravating. So much so, I could curse.

In fact, just a few days ago, I put forward the notion that the quickest and best way for conservatives to get their message heard above the din is to start and finish each address by telling the media/dems/libs/and other assorted idiots to f*** off.

I was told such a thing would be crude and a misrepresentation of conservatism.

I understand but disagree. I'm not arguing that it isn't crude. It is. But conservative politicians should crank it up a notch. Return fire.

I don't say this because I'm itching to see them use foul language, but because looking at the counteragent and telling them to f*** off (or something to that extent) is an efficient and effective way to get the attention of the dem/lib/idiot being addressed AND perhaps more importantly of those that tend to tune out (for whatever reason) matters regarding anything outside their normal scope of day to day life.

People are drawn to a scene like moths to a flame.

Case in point- Perhaps you're driving down a highway, making good time, and must suddenly slow to a crawl. Why? Two cars collided and the traffic in front of you wants to make sure they get a good look at what happened. I recall that George Carlin once mused that the job of the police is to protect, to serve, and bring the bodies a little closer.

Another example- June 17, 1994. It's game five between the NY Knicks and the Houston Rockets. Suddenly the game is interrupted because some former NFL player is engaged in a slow speed chase from the LAPD. Somone at tv central knew that, basketball be dammed, we'd want to see if the juice was going to make it to TJ. They even split the screen so we could still watch the game!

And probably the most fitting example- Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity.

Then again, telling someone to f*** off (or something to that extent) is also a good way to get your tail kicked. So I don't advise leaving it at that. Such language should be used sparingly, less it lose it's luster. Reserve it for the most foul among them. And there are ways it can be said that would seem less brutal or crude, for example: "kindly go f*** yourself" or "without putting too fine a point on it, f*** off", etc.

Even with the polite spin, the message is heard loud and clear.

The media will still stumble over each other to get the word out, sell more air time, and so on.

Katie or Matt will run an expose on the history of foul language, trying to make sense of it all between commercials for new cars at 0% finance and the next new ipod.

And Mr. and Mrs. Tune-it-all-out will finally raise their heads and ask "what did he just tell that scary looking woman from california to do?"

And more importantly, "Why?".

You are clearly not an attorney, and for that reason your confusion is natural, but your self confidence is misplaced. No doubt I am arrogant, but in this instance, in any event, I am also correct.

You are wrong on every count, except that you are falsely arrogant, and it was very easy to bait you into that simple debating trap.

Now its case closed on you. - Goodbye and good luck in your future endeavors.

There is no further point in debating you, so it is on to someone who actually might know what he is talking about rather than casting nets hoping to find a fish.

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.