California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger dismissed Rush Limbaugh and other conservative critics on NBC’s “Today” show, saying: “All irrelevant. Rush Limbaugh is irrelevant. I am not his servant.”
Schwarzenegger called Limbaugh’s radio talk show Wednesday and explained that his comment wasn’t a personal criticism but was about what it takes to govern.
“What is important is that I bring both of the parties together and make things work to serve the people,” he said. “This is what I do, and this is why I pay very little attention if someone criticizes me or calls me, you know, that I’m turning left and that I’m selling out or whatever. I have to stay focused on results.”
Limbaugh said he understood, noting: “You’re going to do what you’re going to do regardless what anybody says.”
Posted by Ross Stewart
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- TomPaine on Too many exemptions
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
107 Comments
If Limbaugh was not relevant, Arnold would have ignored the frequent questions he is asked about Limbaugh, Arnold would not have called Limbaugh, and the Eagle would not open a Blog thread on this topic!
Sorry but Limbaugh is quite irrelevant! He is as best and kindest described as a humorist.At worst a divider who prays on human weaknesses, if someone takes Rush Limbaugh serious then they have more issues then any one person should have.
Sadly he is taken quite serious by too many and maybe their leading source of information that they use to form an opinion. That also makes him dangerous as threat to the welfare of this country. If you would say that Rush Limbaugh speaks for all the Conservatives/ Republican. You know the other day there was a talk about what would make President Reagan cry!
That also makes him dangerous as “a” threat to the welfare of this country.
sorry somehow I missed the A the first time.
RL admits to being in the entertainment business — his political credibility is right up there with Howard Stern, Will Ferrell and Martin Sheen etc …..
There are few things more dangerous to our freedoms and the American way of life than the AM radio band. It is filled with vicious right wing racist and neo facist. Some of them- like Michael Savage make Limbaugh look moderate! When the Democrats get power back, the FIRST thing they should do is to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine which governed radio and TV in this country for decades (until Reagan) and kept things in balance because it forced a variety of views on the airwaves. And the airwaves are PUBLIC property.
Rush Limbaugh is not irrelevant, as millions of conservative Americans listen to him. He got his start in Sacramento California (first talkshow), broadcasting to a Republican-dominant agrarian Central Valley audience.
Arnold meant that Rush’s views were irrelevant to governing the state of California.
California was a Republican state for its first century. But it became a Democratic-majority state a half-century ago. Ronald Reagan was elected governor during the tumultuous 60’s. He exuded confidence and composure. He had a great sense of humor. After his first election he was forced to temper his conservative agenda in order to get things done. He promised tax cuts, but had no choice but raise them, or else watch the state crumble, something that would scuttle a later presidential run.
Arnold, who will probably never see a Constitutional amendment to allow him to run for President, has decided that he wants to earn a legacy as one of California’s great governors. Rush cannot understand this. He’s never governed anything larger than a radio-show production staff, comprised of obsequious yes men and women who are loyal to him because he’s their meal ticket.
Rush can pontificate to his heart’s content, as long as he can maintain listenership ratings and generate sufficient ad revenues to satisfy his employer, the Walt Disney Company.
Arnold has to govern a state. He figured out, like Reagan, that a strong conservative vision was not implementable. Arnold has realized that working WITH Democratic-majority legislators is not just a grudging pain in the a**, but it offers positive, productive opportunities.
Arnold got 90% of the state’s Republican vote last election, but also a majority of Democrats’ votes. He can’t satisfy everyone on every issue, but he’s got great political instincts, and is showing himself to be a very competent statesman in getting some things he wants in return for supporting other people’s projects.
Rush may think that the Bush administration’s divisive hardball partisanship is good for America, but most Californians think that bipartisan collaboration is best for California, and Arnold agrees with them.
Rush has impressive political instincts, in cultivating a huge hyper-partisan radio audience, and a large book-readership as well, and in making tens of millions of dollars a year for himself, but he could never be a statesman.
Can anyone see him going back home to Missouri and winning the governorship there? And then governing effectively by trying to foist his vision of “The Way Things Ought to Be” on 6 million people, nearly half of whom are Democrats?
Rush Limbaugh is not irrelevant, as millions of conservative Americans listen to him. He got his “big break” in Sacramento California (first talkshow), broadcasting to a Republican-dominant agrarian and small-town Central Valley audience. Capital Cities/ABC execs realized that America had a huge “Central-Valley” demographic, so they whisked him to New York and syndicated him.
What Arnold is saying is that Rush’s views are irrelevant to governing the state of California.
California was a Republican state for its first century. But it became a Democratic-majority state a half-century ago. Ronald Reagan was elected governor during the tumultuous 60’s. He exuded confidence and composure. He had a great sense of humor. After his first election he was forced to temper his hoped-for conservative agenda in order to get things done. He promised tax cuts, but had no choice but raise them, or else watch the state crumble, something that was incompatible with his longer-view presidential aspirations.
Arnold, who will probably never see a Constitutional amendment to allow him to run for President, has decided that he wants to earn a legacy as one of California’s great governors.
Rush cannot understand this. He’s never governed anything larger than a radio-show production staff, comprised of obsequious yes men and women who are loyal to him because he’s their meal ticket.
Rush can pontificate to his heart’s content, as long as he can maintain listenership ratings and generate sufficient ad revenues to satisfy his employer, the Walt Disney Company.
Arnold has to govern a state. Arnold has realized that working WITH Democratic-majority legislators is not just a grudging pain in the a**, but it offers positive, productive opportunities.
Arnold got 90% of the state’s Republican vote last election, but also a majority of Democrats’ votes. He can’t satisfy everyone on every issue, but he’s got great political instincts, and is showing himself to be a very competent statesman in getting some things he wants in return for supporting other people’s projects.
Rush may think that the Bush administration’s divisive hardball partisanship is best for America, but most Californians think that bipartisan collaboration is best for California, and Arnold agrees with them.
Rush has impressive political instincts, in cultivating a huge hyper-partisan radio audience, and a large book-readership as well, and in making tens of millions of dollars a year for himself, but he could never be a statesman.
Can anyone see him going back home to Missouri and winning the governorship there? And then governing effectively by trying to foist his vision of “The Way Things Ought to Be” on 6 million people, nearly half of whom are Democrats?
Hey, how’s ‘ole Ditto head’ doing with that drug re-hab thing these days? Hummm…being critical of Arno …. perscription drug abuse history….it does make one wonder.
Sorry for the double post. I tried editing on preview, and typekey decided to publish both pre-and-post-edit versions.
Kev is absolutely correct. Rush’s start in Sacramento was the station’s pilot use of one-sided diatribe, shortly following the abolishment of the traditional Fairness Doctrine requirement of giving equal time to opposing views. Our airwaves, once considered public property, have been sold off by our government to private interests.
Judging by the fact that newspapers (especially) and media groups are hemorrhaging money and viewers and folks like Limbaugh are succeeding and gaining in both, I wonder who really is irrelevant.
Seems to me a governor who campaigned as a Conservative and governs like a Liberal will at the end of his term be both, irrelevant and unelectable. Of course this is California we’re talking about, the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, so in Opposite Land, who knows what will happen.
Kinda like the Democrats who pander to the far left with speeches, then ignore them when it comes time for legislation or election (when they run for the middle).
“Sorry but Limbaugh is quite irrelevant!”
“That also makes him dangerous as threat to the welfare of this country.”
So, which is it? It can’t be both. These call for the “Fairness Doctrine”, because the airwaves are public, make no sense. The public can chose not to listen (no advertisers, see Air America), or listen (lots of ad revenue). If the “air” was private (goverment), then you might have something.This is another example of the Libs being unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, so they call for forced “fairness”.I’ll be right back. I’m going to the plaque store.
Anyone with 20 million listeners ishardly irrelevant. Limbaugh is an opinion maker on a national scale. Not surprising that the Governater and he would disagree on issues, since Arnold must be pragmatic as governor of Caleefornya. Limbaugh just let Arnold know where he thought he had strayed from conservative principles, so he knows where he is in relation to true north.
ya, Anold is fighting for the verkers of caleefornya. Believe him now and hear him later.
Limbaugh is simply a result of supply and demand. If a lot of people weren’t listening to him, he wouldn’t last long. I used to listen to him on and off, but since the Oxycontin thing, I don’t have much use for him. I don’t care if he uses painkillers. But after some of the statements he made before he got caught, I really have trouble listening to the hypocrite.That said, Why do you suppose the Liberals don’t produce a left wing version of Rush?Oh yeah, there was that Air America thing.
Give me a shovel, Rush Limbaugh, and one hour.
I’ll have 15 minutes of fun, clean up the mess, and make America a better place in that hour.
It’s time to bring back the Fairness doctrine. People need protection from their own stupidity in listening to that troglodyte.
“People need protection from their own stupidity in listening to that troglodyte.”
From your lips to God’s ears. The perfect definition of what you people are all about.
Pleased to be asking, jr, why would someone build a power plant that wan’t needed? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Get somebody I regard as remotely relevant to ask me your question fleetbug. I don’t entertain ankle biting, dull, guitar pickers.
Limbaugh is irrelevant because he is not a Political expert he is not trying to better this country but praying on the weaker side of human nature.
The danger comes from as I said many take what he said as gospel and the total truth. And ignoring anything that is counter to what he will say. Though much of what he will say is half truths and narrow in vision. We have become to depended on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and two second sound bites for information on many important issues. Both the left and right are guilty of this, when the truth is often somewhere in the middle.
You can be a Republican and still see the truth when a Democrat tells it as much as you can be a Democrat and see the truth when a Republican tells it. Neither side is totally right all the time. But to take a mindset that ignore the other views leave you with half truths. If Rush was attacking what the left does on the merits and faults I could agree with him. But to simply engage in criticism solely on the fact that those that are doing it is from the left is blind hatred. It feeds a already too extreme partisanship that can cause this country to lose sight of important matters.
That is dangerous…
The fairness doctrine would do nothing except drive most of talk radio off of the air. It is the biggest load of politically correct crap.
Oh I am offended by what so and so said. I need 30 minutes of air time to respond.
The people that gripe about the conservatives controlling talk radio need to remember that the liberals tried to do it as well. It was called Air America. It’s now defunct if I remember correctly. And besides the liberals control ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and most of the bigger newspapers in the country. I am pretty sure they are getting their point across.
“fleetbug.”
Help, gmc, help!
“But to simply engage in criticism solely on the fact that those that are doing it is from the left is blind hatred. It feeds a already too extreme partisanship that can cause this country to lose sight of important matters.” — Writerdog
I can agree with you about partisanship making us lose sight of what is really important, Writerdog.
But I gotta disagree with you if you are just referring Limbaugh, unless you want to also include cable news/opinion shows and internet blog sites, and even the MSM at times, which are absolutely divisive. We have turned media into what it is. You can’t un-ring the bell. The only thing we can do is to let them know when they go too far.
JR & KEV
you guys should be pissed off to high heaven about the Fairness Doctraine, but your not.. It is the biggest hit to our freedoms as Americans that I have seen in Years..
BG
I can turn on my radio and hear clear, unabashed right wing propoganda all day long.
Could you please tell me where I might find an alternative medium that is even CLOSE to comparison in voicing progressive views?Do not tell me the “mainstream media” or the “drive by media”. They are NOT liberal. They are just not conservative.
Well JR, since there’s not enough people out there that want to listen to lefty-radio then there’s no market for it. So, there you go. Simple supply & demand man.
that does not matter,
this is an AMERICAN FREEDOM that will be taken away..
—–
Of course I am including the other medias outlets too Outlander, as I said:
“We have become to depended on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and (two second sound bites for information on many important issue). Both the left and right are guilty of this, when the truth is often somewhere in the middle“.
They as someone has already point out, are pandering to the demand. The Iraq war is a perfect example of that, the majority do not favor this action and as such the news medias pander to this. The building of Schools is often over shadowed by the blood thrown over the screen. I noticed the difference with the protests in D.C. on the anniversary of the invasion. Fox news played up the lack of Protesters against and played up the numbers of those in favor of the invasion. While turning to another MSM channel the opposite was true. Often they play the old analogy of the car race between a America car and a Soviet car. In the U.S. the report said “America car wins… The soviet car comes in last!”.While in the Soviet Union the report said “Soviet car comes in second… While American car comes in next to last!”. Now both are true but the news can be used to support a certain P.O.V.
I watch both Fox and mainly ABC, to try and get some balance along with reading different articles and books. LoL My co-workers since the invasion have decided I am being stand offish and anti social. Because rather then talking at break I read my book.
In order to try and have a honest and informed opinion I do not limit myself to one source when ever it is possible. HONESTLY I DO WORK A FULL TIME JOB! I wish I did not have to though… Still waiting for that tax cut to kick in… and paying my stupid tax… and showing you do not have to be rich to be a Republican. If Webster ever need a picture of a poor Republican I have some head shots made up!
Rush Limbaugh bleh. I rarely listen to him, cause I don’t use AM Radio much.
Sometimes I’ll switch over to hear traffic reports, weather and news, but that’s about it.
Talk radio in general no matter the host is better than most of the tripe that is on the radio these days.
KevOnly a lib could ignore how ridiculous you sound.
The “cure” for bad speech is MORE speech.
You libs want to silence speech you don’t like.
The ACLU will defend the speech of Fred Phelps because he makes anti-gay postions look bad, politically.Same with the ACLU defense of neo-nazis and the Clan.
You libs on this Blog defend speech that (you think) makes the right look bad.
You hate speech that makes the right look pretty good.
So, you get the twisted logic that “freedom” would be advanced through censorship, you think freedom is advanced by silencing speech YOU don’t like!
Hey Raul Rossell (Econ101), isn’t this statement (you posted) slightly oxymoronic?
“You hate speech that makes the right look pretty good.
ApophisMy point stands.
If you are a true 1st Amendment advocate, would truly support speech that you hate.
Even further, you can’t go out and defend the KKK (irrelevant) and Fred Phelps (Democrat and politically irrelevant) and then attack Limbaugh’s 1st Amendment rights and look credible!
“May your enemies always underestimate you.”From “The Art of War” I think.
“Pride commeth before the fall.”The Bible.—–
By the way, excellent point, up thread:How can Limbaugh be IRRELEVANT and a THREAT at the same time???
Who is calling for censorship? I just demand equal time.
YOU know, to address the tyranny of the monopolies like Clear channel. Yes I think we will be need the fairness doctrine to clean that up. We’re gonna get it too!
It won’t be so bad. Rush can use the time the other side is talking to pop pills and refine his lies.
The difference I see in Conservative Talk Radio and Liberal Talk Radio is the differences in what they try to appeal to.
Conservative Talk Radio appeals to reason (ideologies, philosophies and beliefs.)
Liberal Talk Radio appeals to emotion (Beliefs, conspiracies and anti-ideology.)
The reason Talk Radio fails for the Left is it barely addresses the intellectual aspect of issues. It tries to go for the throat first, then they “may” try to intellectually discuss.
yeah.. there is a true American that wants his freedom.. they complain that Big Brother is in their life to much.. but doesn’t care when they take away a constitutional right..
“We’re gonna get it too!”
Yep, just as soon as we get the minimum wage increase payoff to the unions passed….
Then we’ll go after free speach!
“People need protection from their own stupidity in listening to that troglodyte.”
How ironic, coming from the self-proclaimed party of freedom. Just who is to decide that we must be saved from ourselves? Who is to decide what we must be programmed for our own good?
JR, either you can compete in the marketplace, or you can’t. Gov’t need not bail out failing businesses, gov’t need not bail out failed talk shows. Get listeners, or die.
It’s just that simple.
And thanks, I don’t need you or anyone else to save me from myself.
The “fairness doctrine” is, in effect, a tax.
“Equal time” will be “dead air time” as far as advertisers are concerned.
Nobody wants to hear a humorless, emotional liberal try to refute a conservative on talk radio — therefore, no advertising revenue will be produced by “Air America” type garbage.
By forcing the air waves to carry non-productive, unprofitable speech you are taxing conservative speech.
I am guessing that the Supreme Court would toss out any return of the fairness doctrine, anyway.
By the way, any return of the “fairness doctrine” would require that someone determine content, as far as bias is concerned.ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN will have a harder time meeting requirements than will FOX.Hannity AND Combs?What “balance” does the liberal media give us?
This is a very bad idea, but if the “fairness doctrine” is enacted, and the Supreme Court does not toss it out, it will hurt you libs more than it will hurt conservatives.
All Limbaugh has to do is allow more liberal calls. Limbaugh ALREADY puts liberal callers on frequently.
It is telling that the right is afraid of a balanced voice. It is a shame some must have a monopoly on media in order to get people to buy their lies. Downright un American if you ask me.
No, what is a shame is when the left can’t have something, it will steal from the right.. instead of earning something for itself..
that is un American, more like socialism
No one is stopping Liberals from hosting their own radio shows J R.
The Liberal Talk Shows have failed because people can only take so much shrill hysterical shrieking without intellectual discourse.
People are not stupid, they want adult, intelligent discussion. They don’t want blathering.
Now if your talking Sean Hannity, I have to agree. I can listen to him for about 10 seconds before I have to change the channel.
If they want balanced voices.. what is their problem with Fox News..
Is it just me, or did we lose the ‘good’ liberals? I mean the ones that could occasionally come up with an original thought.
No, my friends, I think I’m finally starting to feel the damning effects of the boycott! As silly as it is, the boycott has left us with the predominately stupid libs.
“It’s time to bring back the Fairness doctrine. People need protection from their own stupidity in listening to that troglodyte.”
Is there a more egotistical, innane, statement concerning Rush? I don’t think so. I need protection from Rush? And who should I trust to determine fairness?
Ben Huie, come back Ben. I miss ya. Ben is active in the communitie and volunteers time to causes he believes in. He donates money to charities that make Wichita a better place to live.
The farm girl, Come back darling! All you have to do with the farm girl is just ignore her when she is going after her ‘homophobe’ of the day. She’s an entrepenuer. She’s active in politics, ie., she participates in all levels of the process other than just whining. She brings a knowlegeble viewpoint to the discussion.
Steven Davis, come back Darwin’s Desciple! Good man. Wrong most of the time on evolution, but brings more than the party line and cliches to the discussion.
XXX, if you want to pick a fight in a biker bar, I suggest you have XXX on your side! Hasn’t been posting much lately (he’s in love!) but still he ussually brought more to the discussion than childish name calling.
RD, a delightful lady! Brought a little class to any discussion. Every now and then, unlike the libs that are left, I think she even understood a point I was trying to make! Come back darling, we all miss you!
Mary Caruso? Don’t miss her! She’s my neighbor and she’ll let me make my own bubbles in her hot tub any time!
mrcontroversy? Very knowlegeble and well spoken on local politics. A very real loss to the BLOG. Never participated in personnal attacks. Wrong a lot, but good man, good character.
Tracy? OK, I miss ya a little. Don’t understand why you get so involved in a Wichita BLOG, but all-in-all a plus.
lindainks, pretty enough to be a republican! Definitly miss her and Political Mom! Good to get the Salina input now and then. Come back girls, we’ll be good! Promise.
Julie, she’s been busy with her new addition but I miss her too. Hopefully she and Mountain Man will come to the boy’s welcome home party in a month or two. The boy likes and respects them a lot!
Clark? I don’t miss you that much! But its hard to have any animous toward a fellow food and dog lover! (I’ll email you privately when I find out when they are showing Goldens next month).
Now if I didn’t mention your name, it either was or wasn’t intentional! I’m suppose to be cleaning the ‘dog room’ and I’m running out of time. But, just as a general statement, because of the libs you boycotters left us with, I think the boycott has increased the IQ of both BLOGS!
Hank
Sorry, I forgot this was ‘Rush thread’.
Love him!
Hank
I really really love Rush he tells me what to think so my day is easier.And I tried that oxy stuff and it’s really fun.I watch Hannity and Combs too.Combs is the old guy they don’t let him talk right? I just don’t think Fox is that fair and balanced which is ok by me since I don’t want to think about all that stuff like global warming and high debt and Iraq and no jobs and all that future generations stuff. My five kids are on their own after they drop out of school and I’ll be dead by then so I don’t give a hoot what happens after I’m dead. Thanks Rush for helping me see the way.
I’ll take THAT as a compliment. Coming from who it comes from.
Darn, Hank, you know everything about everything. And everything about everybody. Since you are all knowing, there is no need to think anymore. So I will just sit here and read all about what you think I should think so then I don’t have to think about thinking about things. Right?I just love you and Rush!!
Actually, Hannities style gets on my nerves a little too.
He should say, “Don’t you agree” after his statements, more often, so it would look like an interview.
But that is personal taste, something the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect!
My point was that most conservative hosts try to balance their program with the opposing view, already.
Most liberal shows do NOT!
OMG, there’s the “fairness” doctrine again. It was drawn up to placate morons who don’t know that channels are changable, and make losers feel good about themselves. What next: political rallies have to be “balanced” with opponents views? Give me a beak: get a backbone.
Hank,My man! If you forgot my name whilst cleaning out the dog house, I really don’t have a problem with that:-)
What would the “Fairness” doctrine do to PBS and NPR?
Life is wonderful, never hearing a thing besides sound bites that outrage people and the pant load’s need for narcotic ’scripts making headlines, what Rush says is meaningless to every individual who has never listened to him.
The evidence of his drugged desires are a shambles with elections in Congress and Bush with really low historical ratings as President.
Cheney with low ratings as a person, his politics thought as corrupt, talks to Hannity on the phone. I only know that because it was reported.
What Hannity says is silence to me. Life again is great.
Those guys make millions, so what. They write books, so what. Their influence is debatable.
The evidence of what they talk about does it actually take place in life? Their politics of hatred, suspicions and separations are good for some bad people.
They foster the separation of politics in Washington, when America needs a balanced Congress to make good laws. Less party line voting, no matter who is the Majority party.
I can’t support Arnold ever being President, his recall first election in California under dubious reasons (ENRON), now in his second term, does have to govern properly. He must help the political parties get along in that very diverse and problematic state.
The saying, “The media can’t tell you what to think, but, they can tell you what to think about” is true. Pre-Rush, the media told us what to think about, now others can join in.
Let’s put it this way, JR.
Imagine the classic political soap-box, the street corner. I invest several hundred dollars of my money, print up flyers, buy a sound address system, and set up my soapbox on the street corner to advocate my particular political or social viewpoint. Would you requre me to make that PA available to someone in the crowd who disagrees with me and give him “equal time?” Must I print up flyers for his side too?
That is what bringing back the so-called fairness doctrine, in a nutshell, would require. You argue that the airwaves are public airwaves; so they are. So is the street corner.
But the resources to broadcast over those airwaves are not public. And while the SCOTUS has said that time/place/manner restrictions are acceptable, viewpoint requirements are not.
You seek, however, to appropriate private resources (airtime, broadcast equipment, and personnel come immediately to mind ) to advocate a particular viewpoint, using the heavy hand of the state to enforce same.
Just who will decide which alternative viewpoints must be broadcast? You? Me? The gov’t? You do remember the 1st amendment, don’t you?
And this is most telling: you seek to do so because, in your own words, “People need protection from their own stupidity in listening to that troglodyte.” Who are you to tell me that the “people,” who you claim to advocate for so much, need protection from themselves? Don’t you think they are entitled to think for themselves, or is that only acceptable when they agree with your point of view?
No; the doctrine was bad law when it was in force, would be bad law now. It would be bad law no matter which ideology permeated the spectrum. The State is not entitled to appropriate private resources to broadcast it’s ideological preferences to its citizens. The price of a 1st amendment, the price of a free press is that you may not agree with it.
I can’t support Arnold ever being President, his recall first election in California under dubious reasons (ENRON), now in his second term, does have to govern properly. He must help the political parties get along in that very diverse and problematic state.
Posted by: Mrage | March 22, 2007 at 02:53 PM
Born in Austria. Can’t ever be President.
Sorry Mr. Walker!
I didn’t forget you, just didn’t think you were ‘boycotting’ us!
I thought you were ignoring us.
I finally got the dog room clean, just in time for the rain to come and allow them to track it up again with mud.
Hank
That is easy for you to say but in fact all the radio stations in virtually every city are owned by the same conservative right wing media interest like Clear Channel, Fox and ABC and they all kow tow to the extreme right. When was the last time, for instance, you heard a Dixie Chicks song on the radio?
“OMG, there’s the “fairness” doctrine again. It was drawn up to placate morons who don’t know that channels are changable, and make losers feel good about themselves. What next: political rallies have to be “balanced” with opponents views? Give me a beak: get a backbone.”‘
More like *****HANNITY***** and combs
ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN will have a harder time meeting requirements than will FOX.Hannity AND Combs?
There are many liberal talk show host that are quite good. Randi Rhodes is among them. Bob Lassiter, when he was alive, was among the best. The problem with Air America is that it was set up to fail. It was only on a few low power weak signal AM stations and I didn’t think Al Franken or Jerry Springer were that good.
Hank,How can I ignore someone who at least hits the target:-)
Mike needs the dog whisperer. His dog is weird, but cute.
GMC “Imagine the classic political soap-box, the street corner. I invest several hundred dollars of my money, print up flyers, buy a sound address system, and set up my soapbox on the street corner to advocate my particular political or social viewpoint. Would you requre me to make that PA available to someone in the crowd who disagrees with me and give him “equal time?” Must I print up flyers for his side too?” Thanks for making my point for me. Street corners belong to everyone. You can spend all your money like you say but I can still stand next to you and tell everyone it is all bs. I can even stand close and negate the advantage of your sound system if I shout loud enough. I like your example. Let’s keep using it. Now the street corner is free ground. OH but there are STORES on that street corner. And they like your message better than mine. They hand out free stuff to the listeners gathered round. They buy you an even bigger sound system. Me? They say I’m bad for business. Hell they won’t even let me use the bathroom in their store! Why pretty soon, they’ve got a security guard who roughs me up if I happen to close to their property. SO in the end? ONLY your voice gets heard. Now that is very good for you. But what has happened to MY free speech in the equation? You have been artificially made more free to speak than I. That’s radio in an analogy. Is this REALLY what you fight for? I think it would be different for you were it the other way around.
KevThere is no audience for liberal talk radio.That is why your liberal hosts get bad time slots in bad markets.
My structure is better than that. Damn bot.
Plays violin for J R.
So, what, there should be a mandate to air talk that nobody listens to? Air America tried it, millions of private dollars were spent on that failure. Nobody listened, no market man.
I got an idea. Let’s have an “airtime credit” system! Rush and company can buy airtime credits. Yeah! They can buy them from failure companies like Air America since clearly they aint using them. There, problem solved….just like carbon credits.
Libs think that their right to free speech includes a right to be heard!
Your right to free speech shouldn’t allow the government to force me to hear you.
Talk radio is capitalism in action. Rush is on radio to sell commercial time. He is there because he can get an audience to listen to him.
Liberals see his audience and say “It’s not fair!” And what, I ask you, is fair? What ever a liberal thinks is fair? Life is not ‘fair’. The pretty girl gets the job. The tallest presidential candidate get elected. The man with more hair gets the girl.
The EIB network has found an audience. If you want to get your idea accross on talk radio, work for and develope your audience. Compete in the arena of ideas. If you are informative, entertaining and revelent, I’ll listen, maybe. That’s fair.
Hank
Yep, and as usual the libs don’t really want equal rights; they want special rights. They want a special right to have a forced audience.
All I want is accountablity. There are entire websites devoted to the lies spread by right wing talk radio.
And NO Rush is NOT capitalism in action. Michael Savage IS capitalism in action. He’s insane but I have that little respect for him. No stations are forced by their corporate ownership to carry Savage. This is not true of Rush and Hannity.
“There are entire websites devoted to the lies spread by right wing talk radio.”
Show me. Show me the lies. Show me how radio stations are forced to carry Rush. Show me that too.
Dumbass SOB. You are the only one asking because the other posters here KNOW I’m right.
You are worth about 1 minute of my time. That’s all it took me to find this.
Re “radio stations forced to carry Rush” from Wikipedia entry “Clear Channe”
“Other controversies have included changing many syndicated shows, most notably Rush Limbaugh, from syndication to “network” status by flipping from well-known stronger news-talk stations to much weaker stations which are owned by Clear Channel, thereby making the show a “network” show instead of being syndicated”
Let’s see Bill Maher is on Prime time Television, now he’s on HBO.Let’s see what Bill Maher said:
“We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”ABC Politically Correct
Now, if you want to see a debate between Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, check this link out. Both Bills did okay for themselves. This was before Bush got elected for his second term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JRG
Another minute wasted.
One minute search reveals a website called “landoftheblue.com” Debunking Sean Hannity.
And that was a one minute search!
Sheesh you guys can’t even beat the B team.
Shortly after 1240 got Rush several years ago one of their account executives (add salesmen) came to my office and was very excited about the fact they “had Rush!”
Stations are not ‘forced to carry Rush’. If 1330 dropped him another local station would pick him up so fast that we wouldn’t miss a program!
The demographics of the Rush audience is one of educated, successful middle class. It is an audience that can afford to buy what ever it is you choose to advertise.
No, if 1330 gave up Rush there would be a bidding war to get him is this market.
Hank
Wikipedia seems to be a favorite source of “information” from the lefties. Dude, that stuff’s made up by anyone…even the likes of you. If Clear Channel owns the station, they own it. They can do what they want. Don’t like that? Think they should be forced to air lefty-talk? Sorry, free market and all you know.
So, you’re the “B team”? You give yourself too much credit.
How’s that website debunk Hannity? Hannity has a large audience. It isn’t forced. Maybe if lefty radio had a personality and a message that someone gave a damn about then someone, perhaps you, would listen.
RepublicanKhanJM
And what happened to Maher and his show after he made the cruise missile comment?
Oh I don’t think you want to go here Hank. My source that stations are forced to carry Rush is……Savage!
But I bet I can find more if I look. I only looked a minute.
Your office? I’ll let that alone.
I gave you a minute “SOB” and I busted you.
“And what happened to Maher and his show after he made the cruise missile comment?”
You really don’t have any idea how talk radio works do you? Maher hosted “Politically Incorrect”. He worked for a boss. He was fired. You don’t even know which comment he was fired over!
How do you fire the host of the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’? It’s a syndicated show.
Office? What do you think I do for a living? You obviously have some misconceptions based on previous comments of yours. Hint. Find my website and you’ll understand better how I earn a living!
Hank
JR -
Quit while you’re behind.
I don’t know where you got to the stores and security guards part. It appears to me that if you can’t challange the analogy, you simply made one up you like.
Take the analogy up on it’s own terms, and tell me how I’m wrong. Or tell me how my analogy doesn’t fit the circumstances here.
I think it’s quite apt. And I’ll take your analogy apart easily enough:The stores are entitled to “buy me a bigger sound system” if they like; they are not entitled to “rough you up.” Sue them, file charges, whatever. I’ll even testify in your behalf. You are entitled to go buy your own sound system, or find a store that likes you to get you a big one, and set yourself up beside me, or across the street, etc., and talk away. You are not entitled to approriate my investment for your purposes.
There ya go. I’ve destroyed your analogy. You haven’t laid a glove on mine.
Sorry. The 1st amendment does not guarantee that a free press (or privately-operated radio) broadcast any particular point of view, much less than one you agree with. You seem to want the State to force-feed a point of view. But it is anthema to a free society for the State to do so. Your advocacy of same avoids (purposely) the hard questions: Who will decide what views are to be broadcast?
It’s really not that hard, JR. Shows with listeners succeed, shows without listeners fail.
Why is that so hard to grasp? Why do you continue to deny that reality?
Sorry GMC, I gotta call hypocrisy.
I suspect that, were it a liberal dominated format, you would be absolutely HOWLING how unfair it was.
We ALREADY have you people bitching about the “liberal media” when it CLEARLY is NOT liberal. It just isn’t conservative….enough.
At the bottom of what you are advocating is that he who has the most money gets the biggest voice or the ONLY voice. Why I’ll bet if you were honest you would say right here that there should be no limits on campaign contributions by individuals!
We are close enough to being a feudal state now. It is about time to reverse that course.
Hey it doesn’t have to even be equal time. Just have a disclaimer on talk radio every 10 minutes. It would only need to be a few seconds long.
Something like..
“Rush Limbaugh is NOT a journalist. Rush Limbaugh is a political operative. The views he expresses should not be interpreted as fact or near fact. Be an informed American.”
“…were it a liberal dominated format, you would be absolutely HOWLING how unfair it was.”
If your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
“”liberal media” when it CLEARLY is NOT liberal.”
Yeah, right.
“Why I’ll bet if you were honest you would say right here that there should be no limits on campaign contributions by individuals!”
That would be correct. Free speech and all.
“We are close enough to being a feudal state now.”
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!
We should go easy on jr. The Fisting With Fury bunch won’t let him in on the secret emails they send to each other.
JR -
As to the campaign contributions, you’d be right. It’s my money, I should be able to spend it as I choose, or give to who I choose. Since that is in a public campaign, all such contributions should be immediately publicly reported, of course. McCain-Fiengold is a stain on the 1st amendment.
The hypocracy here is that, in the “name” of free speech, you seek to require brodcasting of YOUR views on someone else’s dime. You can wrap that turd of an idea up in the nicest clothes you like, but it’s still a turd.
And “close to a feudal state.” What was that you wrote earlier about your not being shrill . . . ?
Wanna rethink that just about now?
Not shrill at all GMC.
Pulic opinion is easily manipulated do you not agree?
TOO MANY Americans are not informed or are badly informed. I mean in general here. More people can tell you who is winning American Idol then can tell you who their own Representative in Congress is.
YOU are advocating that whoever has the most money gets to make public opinion for such folks. The voice they hear the most is the voice they will follow. Money=bigger voice.
You’re right, it isn’t feudalism. It’s plutocracy.
I agree with GMC on this, with the following caveat: any natural person may contribute as much as s/he desires to any campaign, and in so doing, consents to immediate disclosure of the amount contributed and the identity of the contributor. Immediate disclosure, as I have used the term, shall be deemed (by me) to mean within 24 hours of receipt of the funds, and entered into a publicly accessible data base.
You’ve still not dealt with my analogy – you must agree it is quite apt.
“Pulic (sic) opinion is easily manipulated do you not agree?
TOO MANY Americans are not informed or are badly informed . . .”
Both, sadly, true. But your solution is worse than the “disease;” it puts the State in the ideology business. and I don’t want the State there, no matter which ideology they must balance.
It has certainly always been true that a free press only exists for those who have the press. You solution, however, is for the State to steal that press to promote its ideology. Worse than the disease.
Ultimately, “voters” decide what will be heard, in a democracy far less easily manipulated than the political one. Competing ideologies will battle it out in the marketplace, with listeners voting with their radio dials.
So far, the left has lost that battle. That does not mean that they then get to steal the other side’s equipment to demand “equal time.”
Ah, VT, you put it in the appropriate legal language, and I agree; especially the “natural person” part.
I’d specify just what publically accessible database must be informed; presumably, it would be with the FEC or some other agency.
I didn’t try to poke holes in your analogy GMC. I used it myself. I’ll do so some more.
First? There are LOTS of streetcorners. Regardless the size of your sound system, your message will not go far.TOO, if you are slanderous in what you have to say, it can be actioned. What is more, if your message is too loud there are ordinances that you will have to answer to. In short, your forum of a box on a street corner is subject to very simple built in restrictions to keep you from being too big a problem.
This is not the case with the right wing monopolization of talk radio. As Bill Clinton said, there is no truth detector.
“As Bill Clinton said, there is no truth detector.”
Actually, that is a mis-quote. What he said was, “I have no truth detector”.It’s a common mistake.
My source for that quote is the greasy one Rush himself you dolt. If it is incorrect it is just more proof that Limbaugh plays it loose with facts.
JR listens to Rush? Damn JR, you’re just part of the problem of Rush having too much airtime. It’s because of loyal listeners like you.
Who’s the dolt, oh one without humor?
Actually, JR, you modified it to make your somewhat different point. In doing so, you underscored the validity of the scenario as originally postulated.
Thanks.
jr listened to Rush on the street corner before the store owners told him to leave. Something about wanting to use their bathroom all the time.
GMC
You have acknowledged yourself that Rush lies.
There are lots of radios out there. You acknowledge also that there are lots of under infomed Americans.
Who or what is to protect the innocent uninformed person that flips on a radio and starts listening to Rush’s lies? Or, is it ok with you because that innocent uninformed person might be fooled by those lies to think in a way that favors YOUR politics?
GMC I think you are admitting that for you ends justify any means. That’s sad.
Innocent uninformed person…
I wonder who past the age of 18 that would be?
“fooled by “those” lies”
ponders the definition of “those”
Ends won’t justify the mean if the absolute value of trinary logarithmic function is not solved for zero.
“Who or what is to protect the innocent uninformed person that flips on a radio and starts listening to Rush’s lies?”
That would be you. You’re hired.
“Who or what is to protect the innocent uninformed person that flips on a radio and starts listening to Rush’s lies?”
What a load. Cradle to the grave govt care for all.
Grownups can handle it. Don’t need “protection”.
Womb to the Tomb, baby!
Simple, JR. And other posters have said it, though differently than I would have.
Gov’t is not a big brother “fact checker.” Gov’t does not exist to protect us from ourselves, “innocent uninformed” or not. You think Rush has lied – OK. So what? Get your own radio show, and prove it up.
The solution to bad speech is more speech, not gov’t enforced “acceptable” speech.
You don’t find something more than slightly Orwellian in the thought of the State intervening to “correct” what it believes to be “incorrect” speech by private persons? ESPECIALLY political speech, the speech given the highest protection by the 1st Am?
Remember something, JR. The greatest threat to liberties, in the long run, is always the State. And no State is more a threat to liberties than a paternalistic one.
The three great lies: 1) I love you, 2) the check’s in the mail, 3) I’m with the government, and I’m here to help.
BTW, JR – and I’m not being snarky, I promise.
You wrote:
“Who or what is to protect the innocent uninformed person that flips on a radio and starts listening to Rush’s lies? Or, is it ok with you because that innocent uninformed person might be fooled by those lies to think in a way that favors YOUR politics?
GMC I think you are admitting that for you ends justify any means. That’s sad.”
You assume that I oppose the reimposition of the “fairness doctrine” because “my side” benefits.
Is it not equally possible – in fact more so – that basic free speech principles govern here? In fact, have I not written so, repeatedly?
More broadly, can a person not speak out of principle no matter how their bread is buttered, so to speak? Or do we automatically dismiss any speach from those who’s motives may be suspect without dealing with the merits of the argument?
Isn’t it more important to deal with the merits?
Too bad Team Bush is not so free market oriented when it comes to thought.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/16/business/npr.php
NPR gets relatively little of its $52 million operating budget from the government (a $1 million National Endowment for the Arts grant).
http://www.npr.org/about/statements/fy06/fy06consolidatedreport.pdf
Just in anticipation of “counter”arguments…
I am guessing that Haliburton gets a lot more (percentage wise) of its yearly revenue from the U.S. government.
Hank! Thanks for the kind words. Don’t really have the energy or mood to enter the frey right now but on to something more important:
WELCOME HOME NATHAN! I HOPE YOU DRINK ALL OF YOUR OLD MAN’S BEER!
;^)
Later guys!
Ben
Glad to see ya back!!! Come on in, the water’s fine.
Hi gmc – good to see ya. Had to jump back in to ‘zing’ Hank a bit. ;^)
Logging off shortly – have to work all day tomorrow – AGAIN! These crazy hours are gonna kill me yet!
gm – if ya see Hank make sure he knows I said HI! and welcome home to the “boy” ;^)
“I am guessing that Haliburton gets a lot more (percentage wise) of its yearly revenue from the U.S. government.”
This source says Halliburton got 37% of their money from government contracts in 2001:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15
This source charts the growth of Halliburton growth from U.S. government dollars over the last few years:
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?&parent_id=123930&sortby=u&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&detail=0&printnav=0
Corporate welfare is pretty sickening, is it not? Where are you small gov’tment advoacates. Going fap, fap, fap, fap, along with fleetwoodhead, I suspect…
Fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, fap, and fap…