They're after talk radio...This is just a warning shot

Nealz Nuz and The Neal Boortz Show ^ | 2002-11-21 | Neil Boortz

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

Al Gore-Sore Loser
Tom Daschle-Sore Loser

Does anyone in the "Donner Party" have any class?

God bless Mitch McConnell, he'll have that CFR declared unconstitutional in no time.

Remember New Jersey-VOTE REPUBLICAN!

[SBprone]

Legally and politically, the Dems can't lay a glove on talk radio unless they control all three branches of government. And remember, taking control of the judicial branch takes a generation or more, not just a couple of election cycles.

The only thing Daschle and his minions can do is draw attention to talk radio and maybe help it pull in a few million more listeners. Sometimes when you make a big enough fuss people want to find out for themselves what all the fuss is about.

[conservativemusician]

I thought Hannity showed enormous patience with that jerk. I wanted to punch my radio. Nothing aggravates me more than a telephone tough guy. Hannity did make me laugh when he said he was letting the guy go on for educational purposes.

Rush doesn't need to be patient, he' the king.LOL

[philetus]

To say that dems believe in big government ot repubs believe in big government is splitting hairs.

Politicians believe in big government.

Politics is their game and government is their forum.

The bigger the government, the more important they feel.

Don't expect any politician to seriously want to reduce the size of fovernment.

[ImpBill]

With statements like that it won't be long before the GOP Kookl Aide crowd will arrived. Beware!

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

I know! When they guy hung up and Sean just laughed, I thought, how can he do that, just laugh it off? I would have said, "okay, folks, we're going to take a break so I can cool off."

[SauronOfMordor]

Maybe I'm giving the American people too much credit, but I believe that if any political party tried to use CFR to shut down talk shows they don't like, it would be absolute political suicide.

They might not be able to use CFR to shut down Rush, but what about the same tactic used against FreeRepublic?

[dljordan]

Amen! My wife listens to NPR but I can't stand it. She really can't hear the bias in everything they do. Their orientation is quite evident in their sponsers, Carnegie, Pew, etc... These are barely concealed fronts for global collectivists. (Tin foil alert). That, of course is just my opinion.

[FreedomPoster]

WOO-HOO - I just got through to Boortz with the idea of using the sound bite in #29.

[Gritty]

I think Boortz has nailed what is really going on. Daschle's tirade was no accident or off-the-cuff remark.

[anoldafvet]

Get control of yourself. Just what are you trying to say?

[Media Insurgent]

"They might not be able to use CFR to shut down Rush, but what about the same tactic used against FreeRepublic?"

I don't see it happening. If they tried it, they would run into similar opposition. There are a lot of people out there who are not friendly to the conservative cause who are nonetheless absolutists when it comes to free speech on the internet. They'd get up in arms about almost any web site getting targeted by Big Brother. People who don't give a lick about politics would get energized about a government crackdown on the internet. After all, it might threaten their access to porn!

[Media Insurgent]

This issue would be a complete loser for the Democrats for one simple reason:

The only beneficiaries of the policy would be politicians- specifically Democrat politicians. What's in it for the average citizen? Nothing. Even the dem base isn't going to embrace this because they don't get any free handouts or special "rights" given to them.

I don't always trust the public to defend Constitutional liberties, but I trust them not to support an obvious breech of the first ammendment when it's so obviously an attempt by a small group of politicians to avoid criticism.

[Let's Roll]

From your lips etc. - but the public didn't stop CFR. A definite "attempt by a small group of politicians to avoid criticism".

[Media Insurgent]

I agree with you about what CFR was REALLY about, but the public supported it because it was presented as a way to fight corruption and influence peddling. I don't think most people understand the consequences and implications of CFR and how it limits free speech. To them it's just a money issue.

But attacking talk show hosts or web sites is a different matter. There's no way to sell that as just a money issue. It would be impossible to make it look like anything other than what it was- a bunch of politicians trying to shut people up. There's been a major erosion of Consitutional liberties over the last few decades, but I don't think we're so far gone that the public would tolerate that.

[Let's Roll]

I see your distinction and really hope you're right. Related issue - have you heard when the SCOTUS will rule on CFR?

[Caipirabob]

So, by the "Fairness Doctrine", PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC would have to have a conservative represent their views as well? I don't think they want to go there.

[StopGlobalWhining]

- have you heard when the SCOTUS will rule on CFR?

Is there a case pending at the SC? Who filed it, and have there been any lower court decisions?

[KansasGirl]

Can you provide some insight into this? Thanks.

[Let's Roll]

not a legal junkie - just know what's available on google - Mitch McConnell has filed a suit