Reagan's Legacy Army

Among Reagan's list of accomplishments, one that goes relatively under the radar is his repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, was appointed by Reagan to head the FCC.^[10] The commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

While the Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine will play a minor role in Reagan's overall policy legacy, it will play a major role in shaping his legacy. That's because the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine ushered in Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh all but created the talk radio format now dominated by conservatives.

During the Fairness Doctrine, if you were to put on someone like Rush, you also had to put on someone with his opposite beliefs...to be FAIR. Little did anyone know that there were a lot more conservatives wanting to talk politics with the people at large for hours at a time than Democrats. During the Fairness Doctrine days conservative talk radio had no place because you also had to have liberal talk radio.

With the handcuffs taken off, Rush Limbaugh ushered in a new age. A lot of people are so called Reagan Conservatives. Talk show hosts have a special place in their hearts for Ronald Reagan. That's because he created them.

Winston Churchill once said, "I don't fear history for I intend to write it." Reagan didn't likely set out to write history but repealing the Fairness Doctrine has effectively done that. He created an army of history writers in talk radio that will until the end of time write history favorably to him. Now, my liberal readers will say that history won't only be written by talk radio. That's true. Nothing is as organized against Reagan's legacy, however, as talk radio is organized in favor of it. He's effectively insured that history will be written in his favor with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Limbaugh First to Politicize Goldman Sachs

I'll let Limbaugh speak for himself.

RUSH: There's a piece of news out there that's a very teachable moment and I want to start with this. The stock market is down about 148 points in the last hour. Now, the reason the market is down is because the Securities and Exchange Commission which is a part of the regime -- this is the teachable moment -- the SEC has filed civil charges against Goldman Sachs for essentially profiting on the subprime mortgage crisis knowing full well that the housing market was gonna bubble up and crunch and they were playing both sides, profiting on both sides of it. The suit from the SEC basically shows that Goldman Sachs and others knew that the housing market was gonna crash, they kept selling these mortgage-backed securities on the one hand and then they bet against them on the other hand. They were going short.

This was not the result of any unfettered capitalism, folks. This was not unfettered capitalism. This crash is the result of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and all these other liberals and their elitist buddies on Wall Street who knew what was going on in the subprime mortgage crisis, gaming the system to enrich themselves. From Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd on, they created an unsustainable mortgage situation and then other liberals enriched themselves by betting against it at Goldman Sachs, and that's what this suit is all about. Now, you might say why today? Because there's a story out there that Goldman Sachs is fully in support of the financial regulatory reform bill. My friends, here's the teachable moment. Obama wants this story out there.

Let's get a few things out of the way. First, Goldman Sachs is innocent until proven guilty. So far, they've only been accused of serious wrong doing. Second, there's no doubt that what Goldman Sachs is accused of went on and probably a lot. Third, trying to blame Chris Dodd for the wrongdoing of Goldman Sachs is simply propaganda.

Here's all anyone needs to know about anyone that analyzes the mortgage crisis. Do they have an agenda? If they do, you may as well stop listening because you'll hear propaganda. If you ask Karl Rove why the mortgage crisis happened, he'll tell you it's because Democrats blocked Republican attempts to reform Fannie/Freddie. If you ask Sean Hannity why the mortgage crisis happened, he'll tell you it's because liberals pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. If you ask Alan Colmes why, it's because of deregulation. Now, Rush has decided to step into the fray.

All of these folks have an agenda. Everyone of them just happens to blame the exact thing that fits their agenda. The mortgage crisis was incredibly complicated. It was a confluence of several things and can't be condensed into a simple soundbite. If Goldman did what they are accused of doing, it's because they were greedy and corrupt not because of a politician.

Here's my full analysis of the financial crisis.

Obama Asks to Tone Down Rhetoric

As the Church Lady used to say, "how convenient".

In an interview with Harry Smith on CBS' "Early Show" Friday morning, President Obama called out Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as purveyors of "vitriol" - creating a climate in which he's called a "socialist" and even a "Nazi."

Smith asked the president if he was "aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation about you." Obama replied, "When you've listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck it's pretty apparent." The rancor is "troublesome," he said, but he acknowledged it's also a recurring phenomenon.

There's really nothing new here. Both Beck and Limbaugh are frequent targets of the president. This is also the same president that accused his opponents of single handedly putting the country on the brink of total collapse. He continues to blame the previous administration for every problem, and yet he also wants us to tone down the partisan rancor.

People often see the faults of their opponents than their allies. That's the only reason that the president believes that Beck and Limbaugh are responsible for the amped up rhetoric and not someone like Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann.

The president also continues to want it both ways. He never misses an opportunity to zing his opponents and now he says he's concerned about the rhetoric. How convenient.

Massa the Conservative Radio Hero

I warned about this yesterday and already Massa is becoming a conservative hero in some circles.

Meet Eric Massa, conservative media hero.


The New York Democrat’s
weekend radio rant against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny
Hoyer and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has his star rising on the
right even as he resigns from Congress under an ethical cloud.


Rush Limbaugh vowed to make a “national story” out of Massa’s claims that Democrats orchestrated his downfall because he voted no on health care reform — adding that Massa is “going to have so much support from people.”


Matt Drudge led his site for much of the day Monday with all-caps links to POLITICO’s coverage of Massa’s statements: “RAHM ‘WOULD SELL HIS OWN MOTHER,’ ‘SON OF THE DEVIL’S SPAWN.’”

This is exactly what is wrong with partisans. They will show absolutely no judgment as long as something fits their ideological belief system. Congressman Massa has said all sorts of outlandish things. Many of them contradict other things that he himself has said. Yet, because he's made all sorts of explosive charges at Democrats, major conservative figures now treat him as some sort of Oracle. Are they serious?

I know that Beck will have him on. I hope there's some probing questions about Massa's multiple and contradictory statements as well as some of his charges. Simply put, Massa is a loose cannon. Getting into bed with him is not wise. I would be staying as far away from this story as possible.

Nothing But Ugliness in the Rush Affair

Anyone that thought we've made progress on the issue of race was in for a rude awakening in the entire affair surrounding Rush Limbaugh's unsuccessful bid to buy the St. Louis Rams. In fact, all of the ugly undercurrents of race, racism, and race baiting were on full display in the affair. It's hard to choose the worst but in my opinion it was this comment by Warren Ballentine.


At the end of what wound up being a heated debate, Warren Ballentine told Juan Williams to "go back to the porch" indicating that Williams was selling out his race in standing up for Limbaugh.

If that was the worst, it had a lot of competition. One MSNBC commentator suggested that Limbaugh would use his ownership power to create a "plantation". MSNBC, CNN, and the Huffington Post all attributed quotes to Limbaugh that simply were never said by him. DeMaurice Smith, head of the Player's Union, suggested that Limbaugh's assention to an owner would create mutiny within the player ranks. Only after the whole fiasco fell apart was it revealed that Smith is a supporter of Obama. Notorious race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both suggested that Limbaugh was a racist and thus unfit to own a football team. Some football players suggested they wouldn't play for the Rams if Limbaugh owned the team. (a suggestion that commentator Stephen A. Smith scoffed at)

The NFL saw they were stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. They chose the path of least resistence, or at least the least resistence they perceived. They threw Limbaugh under the bus rather than getting in the middle of a cultural and race war. That didn't surprise me, and it shouldn't have surprised anyone. The NFL wants to avoid controversy at all costs. Furthermore, the folks that Sharpton and Jackson would fire up could do a lot more damage to the NFL than the folks that are sympathetic to Limbaugh. That doesn't make it just reality.

The only truly racist remark that can be attributed to Limbaugh happened back in 1970 when he told a caller to "take that bone out of your nose". While there's no excusing it, that statement was nearly forty years ago. Limbaugh is on the air for three hours each and everyday and all that can really be attributed to him happened nearly four decades ago. Limbaugh mocks, derides, and makes fun of his opponents. There's no question about that. His opponents saw an opportunity. Whether it was political, racial, or opportunistic, people saw an opportunity to get him. Get him they did. That said, fear not for Limbaugh. He still has his megaphone and his platform. For the most part, people now realize that most of the attacks were totally without legitimacy.

What's really troubling is the randomness of it all. Fergie of Black Eyed Peas is currently a part owner of the Miami Dolphins. She's said plenty in both song and in regular comments that are much more controversial than anything Rush ever said. Yet, it was Rush that was deemed "too divisive". Who was he deemed too divisive by? He was deemed too divisive by his opponents. Fergie is a singer. In that business, you don't get opponents and enemies the way you do in politics. So, you can say all sorts of loopy things and no one deems you divisive. Rush is in the middle of a cut throat business, and so he has enemies. Those enemies can stir the pot and remove him from the NFL. This isn't about right and wrong. It's not about who is and isn't divisive. It's about moment and opportunity. Rush's moment to own a team brought about an opportunity. His opponents took that opportunity and made the most of it. As they say, be careful what you wish for. One of these days, the shoe will be on the other foot and someone else will seize another opportunity. The only thing that suffers is race relations and our culture.

Rush, Perception and Reality

By now, most have probably heard this news.

Rush Limbaugh is expected to be dropped from a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams, according to three NFL sources.

Dave Checketts, chairman of the NHL's St. Louis Blues and the point man in the Limbaugh group attempting to buy the Rams, realizes he must remove the controversial conservative radio host from his potential role as a minority member in the group in order to get approval from other NFL owners, the sources said.

Conservatives are already calling Rush a sacrificial lamb. That maybe so. It's entirely without any rhyme or reason why a controversial guy like Mark Cuban can own a sports franchise while Rush Limbaugh cannot. It's entirely without rhyme or reason why a race baiter like Jay Z can be a part owner in a sports franchise whereas the racially charged comments by Rush Limbaugh are now deemed unforgiveable.

Still, in the world of the NFL, perception is reality. For reasons that are still unclear, it was Rush Limbaugh that drew the kind of controversy that was deemed unacceptable. It matters not that the most outrageous quotes attributed to him weren't actually said by him. It doesn't even matter that most of those now attacking Rush include race baiters themselves, and football players known for their off field antics as much as for their ability on the field.

None of this is fair, but fairness has nothing to do owning a sports franchise. The reality is that Rush attracts controversy. The National Football League is not a place for society's culture wars to play out. It's a place where the football games play out.

As soon as Rush's name came out, every political opponent and opportunist came out of the woodwork to attack him. Whether or not that's good for Rush, it's bad for the NFL. Ultimately, the best interest of the NFL trumps the best interest of Rush Limbaugh. The attacks on Rush may not be fair. Most that make them are hypocritical and selective in their attacks. Rush's controversial nature doesn't seem to be any different than several that own sports franchise. Yet, in this world perception is reality. Rush's attempt to buy a football has become divisive. The NFL doesn't need that and that's why he had to be pulled out.

Rush's Bid Opposed

The head of the Player's union in the NFL wrote Commissioner Roger Goodell in opposition to Rush Limbaugh's bid for the Rams.

NFL Players executive director DeMaurice Smith on Saturday made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

In an e-mail to the union's executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh's bid, Smith said, "I've spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.

The article goes on to say that seven players have publicly come out against Rush's bid to buy the Rams. Rush was always a controversial figure in and of itself. He became very controversial in the NFL following his racial comments regarding Donovan McNabb.

This is a tough call. I don't think that Rush is a racist though he certainly made several comments that are racial. Whether it's right or not, if this move divides the league, it's not a good idea. Rush has amassed many enemies in his life and many of them can stir the pot to derail his bid. The good of the NFL is more important than the good of Rush Limbaugh. It appears his bid is going to split the league. In that case, it's not good for the NFL, whether it's fair or not.

Cheney Vs. Powell: The Republican Political Civil War Continues

This weekend General Powell fired the latest salvo in the political civil war within the Republican Party.



Along with this, and on another show, for Governor Tom Ridge referred to Rush Limbaugh as "shrill". On that note, here is how pundit Bruce Bartlett described the situation.

Powell has to accept that he is in a unique position to command attention and lead the Republican Party—or at least that part of it that isn’t consumed with defending the indefensible on torture or living in a fantasy world where the economy would be booming today if it just wasn’t for Obama’s budget deficits. It’s a pretty small constituency these days—most of those, like me, who share Powell’s views have left his party to become independents—but it may be enough to build a foundation on that can offer a meaningful challenge to the dominant Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing of the Republican Party that views all efforts to expand its membership as a sell-out to be resisted at all cost, even if it means further political losses.

But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections and to win elections it must be inclusive, not exclusive. Thus the ultimate message Powell has to offer Republicans is the most persuasive one of all—follow him and win or follow Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin and lose. Personally, I would like to see Powell follow in the steps of Dwight D. Eisenhower and run for president—I’ll sign up for his campaign today even if it means having to rejoin the Republican Party. But if he is serious about not wishing to do that, then Powell has a responsibility to help those who share
his vision by lending his enormous credibility, popularity and fund-raising ability to their efforts. If he fails to do so he risks being seen by history as someone who walked away when the times demanded that those who share his beliefs stand and fight for what they believe.

This follows weeks in which such figures mocked the likes of Colin Powell as folks no longer invited to be in the Republican Party.

All of this leads me to ask, why can't there be room in the party for both. I feel like Rodney King, "can't we all just get along". The party maybe going through some soul searching however it would be patently false to conclude that the party has been holding to strict conservative principles and they lost because of this. That's simply not accurate. The party lost its way on its conservative principles and that's why it lost.

That said, just because someone is pro choice, for comprehensive immigration reform, or doesn't mind a few government entitlement programs, doesn't mean they aren't, and shouldn't be welcome in the party. The party must stand for something and that something needs to be strict adherence to conservative principles. That said, it shouldn't be a mandate that strict adherence to every principle is a prerequisite for entry into the party. Rudy Giuliania is moderate to liberal on several issues, but I consider him a very solid Republican. He governed as a fiscal conservative (even though he worked with a liberal legislature), he was tough on crime, and he believes in an aggressive GWOT policy. Should we dismiss him because he's pro choice?

Moderates shouldn't try and move the party more toward their ideology. That's a battle they will lose. The base is now, and always will be, a solid conservative base. Tom Ridge shouldn't demand that the party adopt a pro choice platform. John McCain shouldn't demand the party adopt a moderate border policy platform. Ron Paul shouldn't demand that the party adopt a dovish GWOT policy. Yet, they are all welcome in the party even though on these issues they disagree with the platform.

In fact, the whole thing is so obvious to me that I wonder why so many politically astute individuals are going on like this. Does Colin Powell really think that the Republican Party will embrace the position that people want more government and are willing to pay for it? Does Rush Limbaugh really think that daring Powell to leave will help the party? Do all of them really think that sniping back and forth helps anyone but the Democrats?

I understand that there is a natural progression of soul searching following a big loss in politics. I just don't understand why it needs to turn into the food fight it has so far. All of this appears to be egos rather than principle. I, for one, would hope that all of these pols begin to act with some maturity because this political civil war is getting really immature and ugly.

President Obama Vs. Rush Limbaugh and All His Critics

By now, everyone has heard that President Obama and the Democrats are orchestrating a campaign to make Rush Limbaugh the face of the party.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were
showering him with praise.

Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

As far as political stories go, this one is pretty easy to read. For the Democrats, if they can make the Rush the face of the Republican party it will turn off many moderates because Limbaugh is a polarizing figure. For the first time since the 1970's, the Republicans are without a clear leader. As such, the Democrats are using the vacuum to make a polarizing figure the face of the party.

On the other hand, such a strategy could backfire because it means the president has to get into the mud. By involving himself in such a petty squabble the president risks looking as though he is sidetracked by issues that most people don't care about. Such a risk is only exacerbated by the fact that the White House has recently also gone after critics Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer by name as well.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter and here is why. Here are two scenarios and each, in my opinion, is right. If the economy is humming along or even if it looks as though it has turned a corner immediate proceeding the next elections November 2010, here is what the Democrats will do. They will claim that while the president was busy making difficult decisions on the economy, the Republicans were obstructing because they were being lead by their true leader, Rush Limbaugh. It will work also because the economy will have recovered. In other words, this strategy entirely depends on the economy recovering.

On the other, if come November of 2010 the economy still looks weak, here is what the Republicans will say. Instead of concentrating on managing the economy, the president was orchestrating frivilous arguments with a talk radio host (Limbaugh). It will work also and that's because the economy will look weak.

So, either way, what really matter is what happens to the economy. Not only is this dispute a sideshow, but it is irrelevant. All of this strategy depends entirely on the fate of the economy. In that way, it is a foolish thing for the president to get involved in. That's because it does take his concentration away from the economy. Why bother with this frivilous argument when what's important is making sure that the stimulus is executed properly? Why bother when what's really important is implementing a way out of this banking crisis? All of this is really a sideshow but worse than that, it is a sideshow that is irrelevant. The election in 2010 depends entirely on the fate of the economy, and that's where the president's attention should be. This sideshow takes that concentration away and on that level, it isn't the right move.

President Obama Vs. Rush Limbaugh

As many know by now, there is a little bit of a spat going on between the President and the talk show giant. It all started when the President said this about Rush Limbaugh

You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,

Limbaugh responded to the President when he spoke to Byron York of the National Review.

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Now, what's interesting about Rush's analysis of the stimulus is how eerily similar it is to Dick Morris' analysis.

The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to “refund” taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits.

Both Morris and Limbaugh believe that Obama is using the so called tax cuts as a means of creating a Democratic majority. Both point out that these so called tax cuts, really tax credits, are in fact no more than a pernicious way of making sure that more than 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. By doing so, more than half the nation becomes dependent on the very larger government that President Obama is proposing. This would create the very electoral majority that both Limbaugh and Morris allude to.

Here is what Limbaugh sees as the strategy for going after him.

One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Now, it's important to also examine how ambitiously President Obama views the Presidency.

Eking out a bare Democratic majority isn't good enough," he writes in The Audacity of Hope. "What's needed is a broad majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and independents of good will...." After the New Hampshire primary, he told his supporters "you can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness." A month later, after winning the Wisconsin primary, he explained what he called "my central premise," that "the only way we will bring about real change in America is if we can bring new people into the process, if we can attract young people, if we can attract independents, if we can stop fighting with Republicans and try to bring some over to our side. I want to form a working majority for change." That's easier said than done, of course, and likely would require several elections. Speaking to the AFL-CIO in 2003, he laid out the long march that would be necessary:

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.... [a] single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

So, it would be foolish to believe that President Obama has goals that merely amount to governance. President Obama also believes in grander ideas like creating a sustained new Democratic majority much like the New Deal created a sustained Democratic legislative majority for about half a century.

If all of this is in fact the case, then Rush would be dead on. President Obama would like nothing more than to create a bi partisan stimulus bill. That would insulate him if in fact the bill fails. It would also signal to the country that government spending is a bi partisan goal. By putting the debate centered on the issue of bi partisanship, he also moves it away from the specifics of the bill.

In fact, he has tried since the beginning to bum rush this bill and turn it into law. This will insulate the bill from any serious examination by the public. Yet, his so called tax cuts speak for themselves. They are in fact not tax cuts. No marginal tax rate is cut. Rather, everyone gets a check back from the government and that check is the same whether you make $25,000 or $125,000. (it only goes up for married couples) As such, this tax rebate will in fact mean that an extra 20% of the population will wind up paying no federal income taxes. It will in fact mean that more than half the population will be the beneficiary of the entitlement government culture that is the hallmark of the Obama administration. It will mean that more than half the population will be natural Democratic voters.

If this is what President Obama meant to misdirect the public from, then he way overstepped. The last thing he should have done is got into a food fight with someone with as big a megaphone as Rush Limbaugh. Rush will now be preaching what he has asserted from his microphone three hours daily five days a week. Sure, Rush preaches to the converted, but Rush is also a media figure. By starting this, he has also created a media story. The media can't simply ignore Rush's thesis in covering this story. So, at some point, what Rush is hypothesizing will at least become a part of the media story.

This stimulus package continues to be less and less popular with each passing day. That's because no matter how skilled and charismatic you are, you can't dress up a pork filled spending spree to be anything but that. By throwing a shot at Rush Limbaugh, what President Obama has done is added a layer to this story that only political junkies would be interested in, and allowed that the mainstream might be exposed to this. If, in fact, the MSM is soon debating whether or not this stimulus bill is in fact a means by which President Obama is attempting to create a sustained electoral majority, then the bill is dead. With it will go his extraordinary approval ratings.

The Brave New World After the Fairness Doctrine

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend that Barack Obama wins the Presidency and the Democrats not only control the legislature but they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Let's also assume that they go ahead and impose again the Fairness Doctrine. First, let's review what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the FCC's view) honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.[2]

Now, let's further assume that Conservative suspicions are right and that Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein et al want to impose the Fairness Doctrine in order to silence talk radio. They want to do this because talk radio is dominated by Conservatives. So, for the most part, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to talk radio. So, what would happen?

The most immediate effect is that AM radio would get crippled. The Fairness Doctrine forces media outlets to provide equal time for both sides of a "controversial issue". The problem is that liberals like Air America have been an abject failure on talk radio. As such, station managers would struggle to find appropriate voices in order to comply with the Doctrine. Most talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham would be force off the air. Without them on their airwaves, the format would get crushed in the ratings and ultimately get marginalized.

The more interesting question is what would happen to the personalities themselves. On this issue, I believe the Fairness Doctrine would only speed up a process that I believe will occur soon enough on its own. The personalities would likely eventually move over to the internet en masse. Currently, the internet is the place where the amateurs of talk radio go to. Yet, it is the place that is absolutely perfectly suited for a mass exodus from talk radio.

The internet substitutes for syndication. Once you are on the internet, you are immediately in syndication. Furthermore, the internet allows for the personalities to combine the format of call ins with such technology as message boards, comments, and chat rooms. Most importantly, with the internet, listeners will no longer be forced to arrange their schedule to listen to their favorite personality. Internet broadcasts will also allow for income opportunities in new technologies like MP3 downloads as well.

The best part for the personalities is that almost all already have a website and most already broadcast their shows via streaming sound on the internet. The only reason that the internet hasn't taken off as mass vehicle for talk radio is perception. The internet, as a means of audio broadcast, has only been available for a few years. AM radio has been around for generations. All it would take is one personality who would see this as an opportunity to dominate a new media and the rest would immediately follow.

The ultimate irony of all of this is this. The Fairness Doctrine is the most extreme example of the government attempting to replace the free market. Yet, it would be the free market itself that would guide the players after it is imposed. The ultimate irony is that all the Fairness Doctrine would do is more quickly kill off the technology of the AM frequency. The personalities currently on it would merely adapt and follow where the free market would lead them, the internet. The Fairness Doctrine is one of those laws that the public would only really despise after its effects are felt. As such, if the Democrats then attempted to control the internet, they would roundly be rejected by the public after they had seen what it did to AM. As such, don't fear for the Rush Limbaugh's of the world. They will adapt to anything the politicians throw at them.

Bridget Hughes: The Addicted Nurse

According to this order from the Texas Nursing Board (link download attachment) this is a damning indictment of Bridget Hughes, a nurse practioner in Texas. Between July of 2004 and September of 2005, Hughes was employed at the office of Dr. Craig McMullen in Center, Texas. Dr. McMullen confirmed to me that everything in this order is in his judgment exactly 100% accurate.

According to this order, beginning in July of 2004 through September of 2005 (when McMullen finally removed Hughes and reported her to the TNB) Hughes began forging at least 50 triplicate prescriptions of Level II drugs. According to the DEA, here is how Schedule II drugs are described.

A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Some examples of Schedule II drugs are morphine, cocaine, oxycodone (Percodan®), methylphenidate (Ritalin®), and dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine®). In fact, Schedule II drugs are the most potent and addictive drugs that can be prescribed. The only thing more potent is Schedule I which includes such drugs as heroin, marijuana, LSD, PCP, and crack cocaine.

While her motives for this mass forgery was never revealed in the report, the sheer quantity of the drugs leads to all sorts of speculations including chronic personal use and/or selling.

Furthermore, according to this order, on December 11, 2006, Hughes admitted that shea an addiction to Hydrocodone and she had that addiction since December of 2003.

While what Hughes was found to have done was indeed shocking, what is really shocking is the punishment (or lack thereof) that the TNB handed down. Keep in mind that everything I just listed was stipulated as fact by the TNB and Hughes herself. For forging 50 Schedule prescriptions and maintaining a near three year addiction to Hydrocodone Hughes "Voluntarily surrendered her license to prescribe medicine" for one year. Hughes voluntarily surrendered her license to prescribe medicine for one year as part of a sort of probation that could have meant the end of her license to practice nursing entirely with further violations.

This rather light punishment is shocking and peculiar. It is even more peculiar in light of the draconian punishment the TNB handed down to Tim Goosby. Goosby had not reported an earlier DUI to the TNB when he first came to work in the state of Texas. For this violation, Goosby had his nursing license removed for one year, and he could only apply, though was not guaranteed, to have it reinstated. Hughes forged at least 50 prescriptions for the most addictive drugs that can be prescribed and admitted to a near three year drug addiction. For this, she "voluntarily surrendered her license to prescribe drugs". Keep in mind that during this year, she still maintained gainful employment as a nurse.

How did all of this come about? Another piece of this puzzle is the doctor that employed Hughes when the TNB rendered its findings, Dr. Keith Miller. Dr. Miller was also then a doctor in Center, Texas, however he was also concurrently head of the Texas Medical Board's Disciplinary Committee. ( I have written multiple pieces about Dr. Miller's involvement in corruption within the Texas medical community) While there is no direct evidence that Dr. Miller played any role in Hughes rather light sentence, there are several things we can conclude. First, Dr. Miller hired Bridget Hughes despite knowing full well that her previous employer, Dr. McMullen, had caught her forging at least fifty prescriptions for extremely addictive drugs. She admitted to continuing to being addicted to Hydrocodone even while she was employed by Miller himself. Yet, despite all of this, she continued to be in his employment and in fact continues in his employment today.

Finally, the story took another bizarre turn in April of 2008, less than a month before her one year "voluntary surrender of her license to prescribe drugs" expired. A source tells me that an undercover agent was sent into see Bridget Hughes posing as a patient. This undercover agent witnessed Hughes not only prescribe drugs to them but Hughes called the prescription into the local CVS herself. All of this was in direct violation of Hughes order.

Hughes was reported to the TNB but she faced no further punishment. In fact, she is now allowed to prescribe drugs and faces no more sanctions from the TNB. In fact, not only has she faced no more sanctions from the TNB, no other investigative agency in Shelby County or the state of Texas has ever brought charges against her. After all, forging prescriptions is illegal and just compare how she was treated by law enforcement to say Rush Limbaugh. Furthermore, to understand how truly corrupt her case was handled by the TNB just compare her situation again to Tim Goosby. Given that she worked at the time for Dr. Keith Miller, then head of the Texas Medical Board Disciplinary Committee, this presents strong evidence that the corruption in medicine in Texas is widespread and systemic.

Rush's New Contract and Free Markets: My Contrarian Argument

I want to congratulate Rush Limbaugh on his new contract. The deal is for an extraordinary amount of money. It includes a signing bonus that is nine figures, or something more than $100,000,000. Now, I suspect that someone like Barack Obama would bemoan...

the U.S. becoming what he called a "winner-take-all" economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.

I believe this contract shows the power of our markets and many lessons of capitalism are learned by it. Rush Limbaugh grew out of the after math of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1984, Limbaugh returned to radio as a talk show host at KFBK in Sacramento,
California, where he replaced Morton Downey, Jr.[5]

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987...and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." [10]

On August 1, 1988, after achieving success in Sacramento and drawing the attention of a former president of ABC Radio, Edward F. McLaughlin, Limbaugh moved to New York City and began his national radio show. His show debuted just weeks after the Democratic National Convention, and just weeks before the Republican National Convention. Rush Limbaugh's radio home in New York City was the talk-format station WABC-AM, 770 AM, and continues to this day as his flagship station.[

Rush rushed used the vacuum of the repeal of that law to lead a revolution of Conservatives on talk radio. Everyone from Sean Hannity, to Laura Ingraham, to others like Mike Gallagher all followed in the footsteps In other words, he created a niche in media.

A niche market is a focused targetable portion (subset) of a market.

By definition, then, a business that focuses on a niche market is addressing a need for a product or service that is not being addressed by mainstream providers. A niche market may be thought of as a narrowly defined group of potential customers.

A distinct niche market usually evolves when a potential demand for a product or service is not met by any supply, or when a new demand arises due to changes in society, technology, or the general environment.

Niche market ventures may become profitable even though they are by nature small in comparison to the mainstream marketplace, due to the benefits of specialization and focus on small identifiable market segments; even without the benefit of economy of scale. Niche markets may be ignored or discounted by large businesses due to what they consider to be small potential; this in turn is part of the process that makes the niche market available to smaller businesses. The key to capitalizing on a
niche market is to find or develop a market niche that has customers who are
accessible, that is growing fast enough, and that is not owned by one established vendor already.

That is the sort of entrepreneurial spirit we want to be rewarding in our society. A couple days ago, it was rewarded in a way that will motivate other innovators and entrepeneurs. Entrepeneurs and innovators are the key to our economy.

What Rush's contract showed is that if you take the right sort of risk in our economy there is an enormous amount of reward. That's the best thing our markets could have happen in them.

Senator Obama Responds Vis a Vis Rush Limbaugh

I recently wrote Senator Obama an email urging him not to be a part of the mob in the cooked up controversy of Rush Limbaugh and the phoney soldiers. Here is his response...Dear Michael:
Thank you for writing to me regarding Rush Limbaugh's recent comment about “phony soldiers.” I believe that remark was in poor taste and is a disservice to our servicemen and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I registered that belief in my correspondence with the CEO of Clear Channel. I understand that Mr. Limbaugh has claimed he was only referring to one soldier, Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran. However, after reviewing the full written transcript it is clear that he was referring generally to soldiers critical of the war in Iraq.Our troops have done everything that has been asked of them, and they have performed valiantly under exceedingly challenging circumstances. For this reason alone, our troops deserve better than partisan squabbling over an outrageous comment. I am focused on addressing the serious challenge we face in Iraq. Today, nearly four thousand brave young Americans are dead, and tens of thousands more have been wounded as our troops have become targets of the exploding sectarian violence in Iraq. Our military has been strained to the limits, and the cost to American taxpayers has already reached hundreds of billions of dollars.In the coming months, I will continue to push for a new course in Iraq thatimmediately begins a safe and orderly withdrawal of our combat troops, that changes our military mission to focus on training and counter-terrorism, that puts real pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their grievances, and that focuses our military efforts on the real threats facing our country.Further, the American servicemen and women I have met inside and outside Iraq are courageous people. I admire and have confidence in them. I know they want to keep America secure and bring democracy to Iraq, and that they care deeply about their honor and America's honor. They deserve our utmost respect and gratitude for fighting for our country, and we should not undermine their ability to do their jobs in Iraq or ignore their needs when they return home to the United States.The American people may have disagreements over the conduct of the war in Iraq. I would hope, however, that there would be total agreement that our troops need and deserve our full support.Thank you for writing, please stay in touch in the days ahead.Sincerely,Barack ObamaUnited States SenatorNow, I have a few problems with some of the things that the Senator said and I will use this forum to address them. First, I have no problem with the anti war diatrobe that he went on which frankly was only generally related to what I asked about. He is a politician and that is politics. I disagree with his position and I will use future pages here to demonstrate the fallacy of his arguement however that is for another time.First, the Senator said it is clear from the transcript that Rush was talking about all soldiers against the war. Well, it isn't clear to me and the Senator doesn't explain how it is clear to him, and thus I don't think that it is clear to him either. Second, and this is important, he refused to condemn the Betray Us ad. He refused to vote for a resolution condemning Moveon.org even though he voted for a previous resolution condemning all personal attacks, a resolution that tried to equivocate this attack on the General in war time to what the swift boat vets did to Kerry for instance. He referred to the matter as a political stunt. Well, he had no problems using his standing as a Senator and Presidential candidate to pressure the CEO of a public company in a similar matter, and thus, it seems the Senator picks and chooses his political stunts.Furthermore, the Senator is no stranger to his own controversy vis a vis belittling the troops. Here is what he said
We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.Now, there were plenty of people that took those comments as condemnation of the troops. I think someone should be given the benefit of the doubt. I give the Senator the benefit of the doubt and to be fair he should have done the same thing with Rush Limbaugh. He didn't. He did vis a vis a far left group, and so I can only conclude it is political. What say Senator?

Can Conservatives Turn Rush Fiasco into Referendum on the Fairness Doctrine?

That is an important question, and if they can, it will be a huge victory for the Republican Party. The Republicans find themselves on the wrong end of public opinion on most issues these days: whether it's health care, the new S CHIP, and of course Iraq, the Dems position is polling higher a lot, however the Fairness Doctrine is not one of them. There are very few issues, this side of partial birth abortion, that poll better for the Republicans than the Fairness Doctrine.Which brings me to the Rush Limbaugh fiasco which just doesn't want to die. Today, the Democrats want to censure him.
Sen. Ken Salazar dove further into the Rush Limbaugh brouhaha today, sayinghe’d support censuring the conservative radio talk-show host for his use of thewords “phony soldiers.” During a conference call with reporters, Salazar, aColorado Democrat, said he’d support censure if a vote were taken. None isplanned currently in the Senate.“Rush Limbaugh owes an apology,” Salazar said. “He owes an apology to themen and women in uniform who are doing the duty that the commander in chief hasasked them to do.”
While the Democrats continue to kow tow to the George Soros wing of their base, several politically astute Republicans have tried to turn this into a referendum on the Fairness Doctrine. the last time there was a vote it was voted against heavily. I choose my words very carefully because while there were more votes for than against, it didn't break the sixty threshold in the Senate. Thus, while the Fairness Doctrine continues to be suspended it could be brought back to life at anytime.As we enter the second week of this fiasco (as an aside if you haven't already please go here and sign the petition... and Stand With Rush), I have started to notice Republican politicians referencing the Fairness Doctrine more and more. I first noticed it with Congressman Mike Pence
Now, while many see this as more politics as usual in Washington, D.C., Isee something more. I believe these attacks on talk radio are a precursor forreturning censorship to the airwaves of America in the form of the FairnessDoctrine. I was actually on Fox & Friends this morning discussing this verytopic. Clickhere to read the transcript.Here is some of what he said on that program
Host: Congressman Pence, your view?Pence: Well, I want to agree with Congressman Sestak, that I think itis absolutely ridiculous that the Democratic leaders of Congress, particularlyin the Senate, but many in the House, are focusing on the American politicaldebate and the comments of an American commentator.Let me say with greatrespect, Joe, I read the transcript too and I think FOXNEWS yesterday, reportedthat a literal reading of the transcript shows that Rush Limbaugh did not callveterans who oppose the war “phony soldiers.”In fact, the term comes from an ABC News report that aired the Monday nightbefore the Wednesday that he used the term. He did a commentary on Tuesdayon the subject Joe you know, and this was all about the ABC News initial reportof this Jesse Macbeth, and frankly, several incidents of people who havepretended to be Iraq War veterans, in some cases a criminal behavior, who havethen been used by the anti-war left to make a case against Iraq.RushLimbaugh has clarified his statement but, quite frankly Steve, I see this all asa precursor to an effort by the Democrats in Congress to reintroduce theFairness Doctrine. What on earth business is it of the United StatesSenate to be policing the airwaves of America? I really do believe thiswhole incident, the circus on the Senate floor Monday, argues for thelegislation we’ve introduced in the House that would put the Fairness Doctrineout of reach of any future President or any future CongressI also found this from Congressman Tom Price
The First Amendment of the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redressof grievances.”More recognizable perhaps than any other provision of our Constitution, thefreedoms bestowed to the American people by the First Amendment have beentreasured for more than two centuries. Throughout our history, Americans havevigilantly fought to defend these freedoms.Shockingly, Americans today face a Democrat Congress seeking to deteriorateour freedom under the guise of “fairness.” Our First Amendment rights are beingthreatened by Congressional Democrats who seek the revival of the FairnessDoctrine, a law to drastically increase government regulation of free speech ontelevision and radio. The proposal requires Washington regulation of news anddebate in the media.Just so no one thinks we are all paranoid, General Wesley Clark actually proposed a cousin of the Fairness Doctrine just yesterday
presumably they’d be okay to head that up, too. The point he’s ostensiblytrying to make is a simple one — that the U.S. government shouldn’t bebroadcasting anything that harms its own military’s morale — but a standard thatnarrow wouldn’t let you regulate very much speech. So he broadens it with amagnificently Orwellian invocation of “propriety” that has no discernibledefinition except his own arbitrary judgment about what does and doesn’t “crossthe line.” Just laying a little groundwork for the Fairness Doctrine, planting afew seeds which he hopes will flower a few years from now.It’s not worth rehashing at this point that the whole thing is based on awillful distortion of Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment aimed at JesseMacbeth. Both sides realize that. Clark’s simply trying to leverage a trumped-upcontroversy for political gain — which adds a special poignancy to the partwhere he scolds Congress for trying to leverage a trumped-up controversy forpolitical gain.There is no question that Media Matters looks to do what the Dems hoped with the Fairness Doctrine, marginalize Conservative voices, especially on the radio. The great irony is that while the Democrats scream about the lack of balance on the radio, there is absolutely no equivalent to Media Matters itself. Conservatives don't have attack dogs with the size, scope and financial backing of Media Matters. I doubt very much that these same Democrats would want to institute the Fairness Doctrine as it would apply to Media Matters.In politics, perception is reality. Right now the Democrats are mostly perceived as trying to turn the tables on Republicans vis a vis the Betray Us ad. They won't get any traction there and every light that shines on Media Matters is a light that shines brighter on its money man, George Soros. Still, if the Republicans really want this to work in their advantage, they must change the discussion into the back door attempt to try and institute the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, it must become a referendum on the Fairness Doctrine. Keep in mind that despite having the entire print, broadcast, and much of cable media, these same Democrats bemoan their lack of voice on talk radio. Not because they aren't allowed mind you (Alan Colmes is one of the few successful liberal talkers), but because they try and fail (see Air America). If the debate moves that way, the Reps can corner the Dems into standing up against the first and most important amendment, the freedom of speech, in their ridiculous pursuit of attempting to silence those voices with which they disagree.

Dems Get Deeper into Bed with Soros

As I pointed out last week, the important part of the Betray Us ad story is who is fronting the money for the group, Moveon.org. That person is George Soros. Well, another of his attack dog groups, Media Matters, stirred another pot with another adversary, Rush Limbaugh, later in the week. Here is how it went
So, word is that the Democrats will introduce a House resolutionMonday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his remarks about phony soldiers. Brian Maloney points out that ABC News aired a report on phony soldiers and Operation Stolen Valor two days before Rush made his remarks. Asks Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”Here is what this phony fiasco is really all about: It’s about the MoveOn.org Democrats trying to save face in the aftermath of the disastrous “General Betray Us” smear. They want their own moment of righteous (or rather, lefteous) indignation, their own empty proof that they really, really, really do support the troops. They want to shift attention away from MoveOn.org, its bully tactics, and its thug brethren at Media Matters. They are making a pathetic attempt to equate the “Betray Us” attack–which was deliberately timed for publication and maximum p.r. damage to our military command when the world was watching our top general in Iraq testifying in Congress–with a radio talk show host’s ruminations about anti-warsoldiers who have faked their military records/history.Here is a transcript of the important portion
BREWER: Some leading Democrats are attacking radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh because he called soldiers who opposed the Iraq war "phony." Limbaugh was criticizing the anti-war movement generally and made the comment to a caller.RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.RUSH: The phony soldiers.BREWER: Democratic Senator John Kerry is demanding an apology from Limbaugh, whose comments he calls "disgusting and an embarrassment."RUSH: That's really rich. John Kerry, whose own soldiers, his own personnel, fellow soldiers in those Swift Boats, at least many of them who said he was lying about his supposed heroics, this is the same John Kerry who went out and insulted the intelligence of the troops, thereby torpedoing his own 2008 presidential candidacy. His statement includes these words: "This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the chicken hawk wing of the far right is an insult to American troops." I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to play for you. It's Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript. But they selectively choose what they want to make their point. It runs about three minutes and 13 seconds, the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.RUSH ARCHIVE: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.RUSH: The phony soldiers.CALLER: The phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they'reproud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrificeand they're willing to sacrifice for the country.RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.RUSH: It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in theminority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much.Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebritiesand one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I sayin quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to theanti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated withpost-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What madeJesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view,off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world theabuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians,hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated intoArabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBethdescribes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang theirbodies from the rafters in the mosque."Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his dayin court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and threeyears probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and hisArmy discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks,briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn'tan Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won thePurple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed tohave seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, youhaven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template inthe Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don'tlook for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, theanti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth'slies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that servestheir purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't findany that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words,for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is thetruth.RUSH: That was the transcript from yesterday's program, talking about onephony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose,which is exactly the way the website, Media Matters, generated this story,fiction, out of context, did so knowingly. What is amazing is that after all ofthe examples of how this organization is simply a Democrat Party Hillary Clintonfront group; how they constantly do this; how they take things out of contextand embarrass themselves and get things wrong; they still have credibleso-called journalists and others, members of Congress, Democrat Party, who treatwhat they say as gospel. Not one member of the media, not one congressman,nobody has called our office to ask, "Did you really say this? And what did youmean by it?" The reason this does not work, ladies and gentlemen, is that I havea 19-and-a-half-year record on this program of being one of the most devotedsupporters of US military personnel in uniform that there is.Now, Rush is referring to the plethora of supposed soldiers and even real soldiers that have doctored up incidents to put a negative spin on the war effort. These soldiers include, Jesse MacBeth, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, Amorita Randall, and also Josh Lansdale just to name a few. Rush was not speaking of soldiers that then go on to protest the war. Maybe he wasn't clear, and maybe he was, however he made his intent very clear soon enough. Still, that wasn't enough and the Soros cohorts at MSNBC had a field day with this story. It turned into an absolute orgy
TAMRON HALL: Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh never servedin the armed forces, so when he made the following comments about Iraq Warveterans who return home to oppose the war, it set off a firestorm of outrage.Take a listen.RUSH LIMBAUGH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.CALLER: No, it's not, and what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.HALL: MSNBC wanted to hear Mr. Limbaugh's side of the story, but he declined our invitation. Instead, he offered this on the show today. Here's a quote: "If anybody owes anybody an apology, the entire Democrat party, from Hillary Clinton on down, owes the U.S. military an apology. They owe me an apology, and they owe the American people an apology -- and are they owed massive defeat in 2008! They are irresponsible, they are dishonest, they are incompetent, and they pose a great threat to this country -- as evidenced by this small little episode."HALL: To talk more about that episode, U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs, who's an MSNBC military analyst, is here with us to talk about this. So, Colonel Jacobs, it's interesting, of course, MoveOn.Org, heavy criticism, even taken up issue on the Congress floor about their "General Betray Us" ad. Is it different when you criticize a general as MoveOn.Org did as when you compare to Rush Limbaugh's comments about soldiers?
Retired Colonel JACK JACOBS, MSNBC military analyst:
Well, stupid talk is stupid talk no matter who it comes from and who it's talking about. You know, when I was in Vietnam, we looked back at the states and saw all the turmoil in the streets, the yelling and screaming in Congress, complaints and moaning and groaning on television, and we didn't pay any attention to any of that stuff. We had lots more important things to do like taking care of each other and completing the mission. Whether you're for the war or against the war, it's really quite irrelevant.HALL: So it does not affect the morale of troops because you often hear people say, oh, they can hear what's going on here, and it affects the way they feel out there.JACOBS: Well, they do hear what's going on, you know. With technology being the way it is, with all the information that's going out to the battlefield and coming back from the battlefield, there's a huge, so they can hear, everybody out there can hear everything that goes on back in the United States, including stuff like this and MoveOn.Org and so on. But they're not paying any attention to it.HALL: How are troops who come out and, lately have come out against the war, how are they treated and perceived by other personnel in the military?JACOBS: Well, it's interesting. You know, it's a free country. You can say anything you want to anytime you want to. And that includes soldiers, as well, but it's an interesting thing about war. Emotions that are forged in the crucible of combat are extremely tough indeed. And most of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they like to think about their comrades, about taking care of their comrades, and it's going to be very, very difficult to get them to say anything bad about their comrades and what they do. They can oppose the war and think that we've done a bad job, we didn't use enough resources, we should have gone in with more troops, should never have gone in in the first place. They can think and say all those things, but at the end of the day, they're going to keep faith with the troops who are back there fighting.HALL: But without some of their insight, we would not be able to know the other side. Of course, my father was in the Army for 35 years. He follows the line, I know. He's master sergeant. But without insight from the troops, you have all of these people on the outside who have never served chiming in giving their opinion.JACOBS: Well, you raise a very significant question. It's really a good thing that we, we ought to pay as much attention as we possibly can to people who have the experience, including the generals who have come out and said, look, we did this all wrong, and we the generals should have paid more attention to it and said more at the time, and pay no attention to people, for example, like Rush Limbaugh and the people at MoveOn.Org who have no military experience at all.HALL: So from the people who have the military experience, are you thinking that they want MoveOn.Org, Rush Limbaugh, both sides just to shut up at some point?
JACOBS: Yeah, I think if you were to distill it down to its irreducible minimum, I think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines would like people who don't know what they're talking about to just shut up.HALL: All right, thank you very much, Colonel Jacobs. Always good to talk to you. Love that frank talk that you give me.It continued on Countdown...
RUSH LIMBAUGH: I never said what you think I saidOLBERMANN: Not only did he, now he said something similar about the Congressman and Vietnam vet Jack Murtha.OLBERMANN SOON CONTENDED: Limbaugh now trying to claim that his tiradereferred to just one phony soldier, Jesse MacBeth who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq war. That re-write might have a better chance of passing the smell test had Mr. Limbaugh's original 'phony soldiers' comment -- still plural at that point -- not come nearly two minutes before he ever mentioned MacBeth on yesterday's radio show. Limbaugh making things worse for himself today by adding Congressman John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam vet, to his list of 'phony soldiers' -- now back to being plural.AUDIO OF LIMBAUGH: How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?I have already pointed out the sophisticated and complicated yet cozy relationship between the Democrats and George Soros. Now, the Democrats have joined the fun. Harry Reid is demanding an apology and Congressman Udall, also running for Senate, has even taken up a motion for a non binding resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh. Now, clearly, they are hoping to strike back at Conservatives and minimize the damage from the Betray Us ad, however this is going to back fire. What they have actually done is further brought out into the open their own cozy relationship with George Soros. Remember, everyone that Media Matters is the attack dog funded by Soros through his Tides foundation (which of course gets their money from OSI and yes it is supposed to be this complicated). Now that the Democrats of our legislature are treating the words of Media Matters as gospel, there is nowhere else to run. Their relationship with Soros and his attack dogs is there for everyone to see.
Posted by mike volpe at 3:19