Senate Dems go ballistic, misquote & attack Limbaugh on Senate floor

[Larkinn]

What part of "he was talking about ONE man that WAS a phony soldier" do you not understand?

The part where he said "the phony soldierS".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The part where he said "the phony soldierS".

Hence the idiocy of the Left...they are so easily confused.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I happen to perosnally know Bob McChesney. Media Matters is NOT anti conservative radio. Media matters is anti corporate conglomeration of radio. You say that the issue is ratings, but the ratings only reflect a lack of options for people. Media matters thinks that there should be multiple DISTRIBUTORS of radio and television programming, they could care less what that programming says.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton helped found Media Matters?

...on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York boasted of "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...rlykos-convention-she-helped-start-media-matt

You're not going to see me defending Congress wasting a single SECOND talking about Rush Limbaugh, I think it's a waste of all of our time to even be discussing him, he's fricking Rish Limbaugh. And I agree there seems to be a major attempt to misrepresent his views on the floor of the Senate. None of that, however, is illegal.

Well, that's nice, maybe you should pass on your feelings that it's a waste to your Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He and Democrats in Congress are seeking an official Congressional record Resolution against him even though Rush is a private citizen. This is apalling behavior. Not to mention they have twisted what he said totally out of context.
Dims probably feel they got to do something since the "BetrayUs" ad backfired on them.

Now the issue of black balling. Have you read the proposed fairness doctrine, are you familar with the points of the legislation? I think it'd be a really good debate and I can't rely on Little Acorn to do things like read. If you want to talk about this potential law let's do it. The goal isn't to blackball its to end media monopolies which is a good thing for EVERYONE who doesnt want their news determined by the purse strings of Tide detergent or corporations that make profit off of war.

I have not read any new proposed legislation. Do you have a link?
However, I've read about the new "alternative" approach in this article:

July 6, 2007
Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P.
by James L. Gattuso
Stay tuned for the real fight over media regulation.

Victory was fast and shockingly easy. The battle over the Fairness Doctrine ended last week when the House of Representatives voted 309-115 against allowing the Federal Communications Commission to re-impose the regulation on broadcasters. The vote almost certainly means that the long-dead rule will not be revived anytime soon. That's good news. But the celebrations should be tempered: the real battle over media regulation is still to come, and won't involve the words "Fairness Doctrine."

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view on controversial issues. It was repealed some 20 years ago, after the commission concluded that the rule was actually stifling, rather than fostering, coverage of disputatious issues.

And history proved the FCC right. The years following repeal saw the birth of modern talk radio, a phenomenon that brings brash public debate into the homes of America daily.

Not all have been pleased with this development. The greatest successes in talk radio have been unapologetically conservative voices. And that has made talk radio made a thorn in the side of the left.

Not surprising, then, that almost immediately after liberals regained power in Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) called for restoring the long-dead Fairness Doctrine. The "idea of uninhibited exchange of ideas in the marketplace" he said, "needs to be looked at in the era of media consolidation".

Kucinich's call attracted much media attention, and more than a little criticism, but little was actually done to advance the idea legislatively. It probably would still be on the back burner were it not for -- of all things -- illegal immigration. During the acrimonious debate over immigration reform, "AM armies" roused by conservative talk-show hosts proved to be a powerful -- and to many legislators, unwelcome -- force.

Angered by this, a number of amnesty opponents -- from both sides of the aisle lashed out against talk radio. Liberal leaders seized the moment to call for the Fairness Doctrine's return.

It was a political mistake of the first order. Conservative radio-talk-show hosts from Rush Limbaugh to the smallest local personality hit back hard against the idea. It seemed near impossible to turn on your car radio without hearing about the issue. But it wasn't just incensed conservative talkers who quashed the idea. No one seemed to like it. Even the normally liberal-leaning blogosphere produced few defenders of a Fairness Doctrine revival. It was just too obviously an attempt to stifle speech.

In the end, it was the rule's opponents -- not its supporters -- who took the offensive. Led by Rep. Mike Pence (R., Ind.), a former radio talker himself, regulation opponents proposed an amendment to the FCC's appropriations bill banning the agency from using any funds to adopt a fairness rule. The vote was decisive: a majority of Democrats joined with a unanimous Republican caucus to forestall efforts to revive the failed doctrine.

Politically, this seems to end any short-term possibility that Congress might reimpose a Fairness Doctrine. With so many members now on record opposing the rule, it would take a political Frankenstein to raise the doctrine from the regulatory grave in this Congress.

To forestall future reimposition, Pence -- along with over 100 cosponsors -- has introduced legislation to permanently eliminate the FCC's authority to impose the regulation. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.

So is it time for conservatives to celebrate? Not quite yet. The real battle over American media has hardly begun.

The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week's win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle "reforms" meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.

These approaches were detailed in report jointly released last month by the liberal advocacy groups Free Press and the Center for American Progress. Entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio," many conservative commentators mistakenly assumed the report endorsed the Fairness Doctrine. Far from it: The authors dismiss the doctrine as "ineffective."

Instead, they propose an alternative agenda, including:

• 
  Strengthened limits on how many radio stations one firm can own, locally and nationally;

• Shortening broadcast license terms;

• Requiring radio broadcasters to regularly show they are operating in the "public interest;"

• Imposing a fee on broadcasters who fail to meet these "public interest obligations" with the funding to go to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The goal of the reforms is the same as the Fairness Doctrine: to reduce the influence of conservative talk radio. Limiting ownership, the authors believe, will eliminate many of the owners who favor conservative causes. Public interest requirements can be defined almost any way a regulator wants -- up to and perhaps even beyond that required by the old Fairness Doctrine. And the proposed fee provides regulators with a quite effective stick to compel compliance -- as well as to direct funds to more ideologically compatible public broadcasters.

Free speech and free markets enjoyed a great victory last week in the defeat of the Fairness Doctrine. But the real fight to protect the media from government interference is just beginning.

James L. Gattuso is senior research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070607a.cfm

 

[Stephanie]

I find it interesting that you all can accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy on this issue with a straight face, especially after the MoveOn thing.

Moveon is a tax exempt GROUP..

Not a CITIZEN radio host...

How scary you all don't find anything wrong with your own government gunning for you...
But I guess it's OK because Rush is a Conservative

 

[Gem]

Like Rush or hate him...I can't believe that anyone is going to stand here and say that what Rush said, especially in light of the ABC report he was referencing on "phony soliders" - that is men who have lied about either their service or their experiences in war or both in order to put forth an anti-war message, was worthy of Harry Reid's tirade about him on the senate floor or the comments tossed around about Rush's drug use after the Democrats ran on a campaign of changing the tone and the discourse in Washington.

Rush is a private citizen who makes his living saying shocking things about politics. The fact that Harry Reid would need to stoop to raving about him rather than dealing with issues that actually matter is, in a word, embarrassing.

The vast majority of Americans have never listened to Rush Limbaugh and have no care to...Harry Reid bringing it up just looks silly and sad. I dislike Rush Limbaugh but I found myself sitting there thinking..."This is the most important thing you people could be doing right now?"

Why don't we just throw any hope of our elected officials doing anything of value right out the window and just do another senate investigation of what private citizens like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, and the rest are saying that might be shocking.

 

[Larkinn]

Hence the idiocy of the Left...they are so easily confused.

Lmao...if you are unable to distinguish the difference between plural and singular, I see why your opinions are so godawful stupid.

 

[Larkinn]

Moveon is a tax exempt GROUP..

Not a CITIZEN radio host...

How scary you all don't find anything wrong with your own government gunning for you...
But I guess it's OK because Rush is a Conservative

And this distinction matters why exactly?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Lmao...if you are unable to distinguish the difference between plural and singular, I see why your opinions are so godawful stupid.

And the Donkeys attacking Limbaugh on the Senate floor based on his using a plural instead of a singular is NOT godawful stupid? (not to mention leaving out pertinent info)

Or is it that you libs are just completely consumed with your special little word games? That and obfuscation are about the only way libs can argue about anything….LOL....sad really.

 

[Larkinn]

And the Donkeys attacking Limbaugh on the Senate floor based on his using a plural instead of a singular is NOT godawful stupid? (not to mention leaving out pertinent info)

Or is it that you libs are just completely consumed with your special little word games? That and obfuscation are about the only way libs can argue about anything….LOL....sad really.

Either he is incredibly stupid and doesn't know the difference between plural and singular, or he meant phony soldiers, and not one individual phony soldier.

As for word games...only someone as stupid as you would mock paying attention to words when trying to find out what someone meant. Of course you just assume, right? Assume bad if its a Democrat and good if its a Republican...now I see why you feel so confident in ignoring those pesky things called words and facts.

 

[RightWingSpirit]

And don't forget..the Democrats are again going after a Rush Limbaugh American Citizen...Just like they did with Ann Coulter American Citizen, Mike Savage American Citizen, anyone they don't like...Hell they even took down one of their own, Imus....he was a sacrificial lamb...

A vote for the Democrats, is a vote for Fascism..Just remember these episodes..

I am surprised they took time out to bash Rush. You'd think they would be busy defending pedophiles and serial rapists and giving free money to scum from Mexico.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Either he is incredibly stupid and doesn't know the difference between plural and singular, or he meant phony soldiers, and not one individual phony soldier.

As for word games...only someone as stupid as you would mock paying attention to words when trying to find out what someone meant. Of course you just assume, right? Assume bad if its a Democrat and good if its a Republican...now I see why you feel so confident in ignoring those pesky things called words and facts.

Well there ARE more than one "phoney" just like in Viet Nam. But do keep pretending otherwise. I don't remember you getting all hot and bothered when Kerry was busy lying about his service.... you remember " Christmas in Cambodia"? It was SEARED into his head, Ordered there by President Nixon 2 weeks before Nixon even became President. And of course that pesky little fact the RECORD shows he was no where NEAR Cambodia on Christmas.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Either he is incredibly stupid and doesn't know the difference between plural and singular, or he meant phony soldiers, and not one individual phony soldier.

As for word games...only someone as stupid as you would mock paying attention to words when trying to find out what someone meant. Of course you just assume, right? Assume bad if its a Democrat and good if its a Republican...now I see why you feel so confident in ignoring those pesky things called words and facts.

Who is really ignoring the pesky facts here? Gee, I wonder if Dingy Harry is going to want a damning congressional resolution against ABC too?

ABC Reported on "Phony Heroes" 3 Days Before Rush

Where was Media Splatters and their ever-capable army of incompetent interns? Did they miss this? Brian Ross of ABC did a report on scam artists that scam the military and the public, and they mentioned Jesse Macbeth in particular. Media Splatters? Nowhere to be found:

Just days before Rush Limbaugh was attacked by a number of press outlets for discussing "phony soldiers" on the air, ABC's Brian Ross did a segment on "World News with Charles Gibson" dealing with "phony heroes...scam artists...posing as the war heroes they never were, claiming credit for acts of courage in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Marvelously, this story was aired on Monday, September 24, just three days before Limbaugh made his comments. And, as noted in a NewsBusters posting by the MRC's Brent Baker, the report even mentioned the same "phony soldier," Jesse Macbeth (pictured to the right), that Limbaugh did on his program Thursday.

SO WHERE WAS MEDIA SPLATTERS? Do they have a "full transcript" of the ABC report that they could snip-snip for maximum smear potential? Why didn't they take on Brian Ross with their trademark brand of "snip-snip-then-put-into-Keith-Olbermann's-teleprompter?"

More from Peter Wehner at NRO:

What’s obviously going on here is that antiwar advocates were deeply damaged by the MoveOn.org ad smearing General David Petraeus. They were desperate to try to climb their way out of the hole they were in — and so they decided this was their opportunity to find a way out. MoveOn.org attacks Petraeus, they say, but Rush Limbaugh attacks members of the military who want to withdraw as “phony soldiers.” So if Republicans are going to criticize us for what we said about General Petraeus, they should criticize Limbaugh for his slander.

The problem, of course, is that that the charge leveled against Limbaugh is obviously false; his phrase “phony soldiers” applied to Jesse Adam Macbeth — and the phrase itself was clearly based on the news headline.

This effort to manufacture outrage does not sustain even minimal scrutiny — which doesn’t mean this story won’t be picked up by some news outlets. But in the end, the truth will out.

The Left in America clearly wants to take Limbaugh out, and for obvious reasons: he is a deeply influential conservative voice and during the last 20 years he has changed American politics and the American media in profound ways. The Left hates him — but they have found no way to stop him. Like the Mississippi, he just keeps rolling along. And one gets the feeling that (as Churchill said in another context) he will continue to roll on full flood, to broad lands and bright days.

Stay tuned for the next lying Media Splatters smear - sure to come at any time within the next year!

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189576.php

 

[red states rule]

Libs have to try and have to change the sublect form the Gen Betray Us ad and attack Rush

I would like to see a poll of the troops who they would rather have on their side. Rush or Dems like Reid, Murtha, Kerry, or Kennedy who HAVE smeared them on TV and on the Senate floor

 

[Larkinn]

Well there ARE more than one "phoney" just like in Viet Nam. But do keep pretending otherwise. I don't remember you getting all hot and bothered when Kerry was busy lying about his service.... you remember " Christmas in Cambodia"? It was SEARED into his head, Ordered there by President Nixon 2 weeks before Nixon even became President. And of course that pesky little fact the RECORD shows he was no where NEAR Cambodia on Christmas.

I'm not "hot and bothered". However people here are claiming that the Democrats who are annoyed by Limbaugh trashing soldiers, where its ok for him to do it and a "misinterpretation", but if Oakland Airport doesn't let people into the terminal who they believe haven't been screened its a liberal conspiracy and its because its Oakland, etc, etc. Limbaugh is a moronic asshole, like most polemicists out there, but I really don't care what he says.

As for you not remembering me objecting to Kerry...you are aware that I've only been on this board for a few months, correct? Kerry was a fool who ran a terrible campaign. Democrats nominated him, stupidly, because they thought he could get elected.

And I'm sure there are more than one "phony soldiers". But the claim that he said "phony soldiers" to refer to one individual soldier is ludicrous. Its pretty obvious he was referring to soldiers who were anti-war. Look at the transcript for fucks sake.

 

[Larkinn]

Who is really ignoring the pesky facts here? Gee, I wonder if Dingy Harry is going to want a damning congressional resolution against ABC too?

Context is king.

You can generally tell that an article is so unbiased as to be unworthy and untrustworthy when it makes fun of the name of its opponents. Really...try and read something that at least tries...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not "hot and bothered". However people here are claiming that the Democrats who are annoyed by Limbaugh trashing soldiers, where its ok for him to do it and a "misinterpretation", but if Oakland Airport doesn't let people into the terminal who they believe haven't been screened its a liberal conspiracy and its because its Oakland, etc, etc. Limbaugh is a moronic asshole, like most polemicists out there, but I really don't care what he says.

As for you not remembering me objecting to Kerry...you are aware that I've only been on this board for a few months, correct? Kerry was a fool who ran a terrible campaign. Democrats nominated him, stupidly, because they thought he could get elected.

And I'm sure there are more than one "phony soldiers". But the claim that he said "phony soldiers" to refer to one individual soldier is ludicrous. Its pretty obvious he was referring to soldiers who were anti-war. Look at the transcript for fucks sake.

I have a better idea, YOU provide the quotes that support YOUR position.

 

[Larkinn]

I have a better idea, YOU provide the quotes that support YOUR position.

I would think with how you are so unbiased and objective that rather than believe what conservatives say over liberals, you would go to the source and look at it yourself. Hence you should have already read the transcript, right RGS?

 

[red states rule]

Context is king.

You can generally tell that an article is so unbiased as to be unworthy and untrustworthy when it makes fun of the name of its opponents. Really...try and read something that at least tries...

Then why are libs running with the BS from Media Matters? It have been proven to be a lie yet they keep pushing it as a factual story

 

[Larkinn]

Then why are libs running with the BS from Media Matters? It have been proven to be a lie yet they keep pushing it as a factual story

Please quote where I've ever posted an article from MM, or referenced them.

And it has been proven to be a lie because your far-right news agency says so? Ah of course...you believe things because conservatives say them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would think with how you are so unbiased and objective that rather than believe what conservatives say over liberals, you would go to the source and look at it yourself. Hence you should have already read the transcript, right RGS?

In other words you can NOT support your claim, thought so.