Romney Has Run 10,000 TV Ads | Home | Yepsen: Residual Force Debate Gives Second Tier Candidates An Opening »
Wes Clark Launches Campaign To Get Rush Dumped From Armed Forces Radio
Retired general Wes Clark has joined the campaign against Rush "phony soldiers" Limbaugh, with a specific goal in mind: Getting Congress to dump the talk show host from Armed Forces Radio.
WesPac, Clark's political organization, is appealing to supporters to add their names to a Clark-authored email pressing their members of Congress to get Limbaugh off the station, a course of action that some Limbaugh critics, such as Jane Hamsher, are pushing as an alternative to a Congressional measure condemning him.
"It's time to put real pressure on Rush Limbaugh," Clark writes. "His show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, and this time we are going to go straight to the lifeblood of Rush's show -- Congress. Congress has the power to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio, and it won't be as easy for elected officials to ignore our call. Tax dollars are used to fund Armed Forces Radio, and that money is not intended for radio show hosts to spout insults at our soldiers."
House Dem sources were unable to say at this early juncture whether the idea would gain traction with the Dem Congressional leadership. Seems like an interesting approach -- stay tuned.
I like this. I'm sure if Rutgers had been funding Imus then withdrawing that funding would have been a no-brainer.
October 2, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, seems like a good idea, no?
October 2, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes was always my first choice for President. He's one of the few tough Dems with enough credibility on issues like this. He also seems to know where and when to hit the other side. Oh well, I like my second and third choices plenty.
October 2, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent idea, as I thought when Jane Hamsher began to push it. The problem, of course, is summed up in this line:
"House Dem sources were unable to say at this early juncture whether the idea would gain traction with the Dem Congressional leadership."
My reluctant guess is that it will find no traction with the Dems, particularly the leadership, who seem to spook at any idea that threatens a real confrontation with their ideological opposition.
October 2, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary gets the nod, my money is on Wes Clark for VP.
October 2, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wes Clark ran a campaign last year to get Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio and succeeded. Compared to Rush, Ed is some kind of shining liberal light for the troops.
I would have voted for Clark in the primaries. Too bad.
October 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is much too sensible and effective idea for the current congressional Democratic leadership to embrace.
I always wondered just who allowed such a lard-headed, biased, blow-hard chickenhawk as Limbaugh to have a tax-payer funded outlet like Armed Forces Radio for his venomous hog-wash in the first place.
October 2, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry to be a wet blanket, but this is bad policy. good politics; bad policy. the government deciding who can appear on the radio -- even armed services radio -- based on their political views? even the political view of being anti-troops -- which is rush's position -- deserves constitutional protection.
October 2, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with miggsathon. Why do we want to stoop to the level of admitting we can't compete with "Lush" and ask someone (the Congress) to do our dirty work? This is the problem our Democratic colleagues in Congress have. Let's find more Ed Schultz's and take back the airwaves.
October 2, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Pete. You can't compete with conservative radio. Just look at Air America. Without Soros money to keep the station up and running it doesn't last. How many liberal talk show hosts have had the long run and Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity.
October 2, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a sample of the content on Armed Forces Radio Network website...
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
(http://www.armedforcesradionetwork.org/briefings3.html)
October 2, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I detest Limbaugh and all that he pretends to stand for, his right to freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution. Armed forces radio, as it is funded by taxpayers (as I understand it), should be open to all opinions, even those of an idiot.
October 2, 2007 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
miggsathon, if the government shouldn't decide who appears on government-sponsored radio, then who should?
The content of Armed Forces Radio is already determined by politics--they only broadcast right-wingers. A policy change to mix that up 50/50 with left-leaning radio programming would be welcome. But that's going a lot further than what Clark wants to do.
It isn't even so much a question of politics--clearly Rush's politics are the sort that are approved of by AFR. It's about a direct, devastating insult to the AFR audience.
October 2, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freedom of speech is NOT SERVED by enabling only one side of a political issue to utilize facilities paid for by ALL tax-payers, while opposing views are given less than equal time on the same facilities.
I do NOT advocate infringement of 'free speech'...I'm all for no restrictions.
I do object strongly for tax-payers to be forced to fund views opposed to their own, by allowing anyone, Right or Left, to expound political 'garbage' over facilities financed (forcefully) by all.
October 2, 2007 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I supported Clark in his 1st run.
Damned, I wish he'd run again.
October 2, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Propaganda & lies are not "freedom of Speech".
And I really hope a vet shows up at Rush's broadcast and demands that Rush calls him "phony" to his face.
October 2, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a near-absolutist on the matter of free speech, and I don't see any problem with booting Rush off of AFN. First, there's a big difference between having a contrary view on the merits, and being an insulting boor. If Rush had said that he thinks that soliders opposing the war are wrong, and ought to come around to his position, that's fine. But phony? That's just a lame assed attack. Second, AFN is a limited resource - that is, by its very nature you have to pick and choose who can be heard on it. I'm pretty comfortable with "May not personally insult half of the listening audience" as a criteria. Finally, I was a captive audience to AFN as a kid (well, until my German improved), and really, even with Rush gone, there will be no shortage of rightwing voices on the channel . . .
October 2, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often live overseas and have access to armed forces radio and televsion. They broadcast a mix of stuff based on what is popular back home, and what is popular with the demographic of the military population and I think they the try very hard to have a good balance. They show O'Reilly ad the Daily Show/Colbert Report and on radio have Limbaugh and Ed Schultz. Overall it does skew to the right, but then so does a lot of that audience. The mission is to give the military access to much of what they would see and hear at home. I detest Limbaugh, but so long as he is widely listened to in the U.S., then Americans serving overseas should have access to his programs if they want it, and I suspect a good number of them do.
October 2, 2007 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Limbugh with the white hot passion of a hundred thousand burning suns. My mother has been an acolyte of the inbred anal-cysted fascist plutocratic chicken-hawk for a decade and a half. The time he spends in hell after he dies needs to be marked with a level of suffering unimagined by any being.
That being said . . . Censorship is wrong, heinious and evil. What is needed is to open Armed Forces to Ed Shultz or Thomm Hartmann or Stephanie Miller or Rachel Maddow or . . . Let competition lay the loud-mouthed fuck to waste.
Additionally, there are a shitload of actual important things like bringing the troops home, universal healthcare and a gazillion of other stuff.
We need to get off the radical right's meme. It is time for we the people to demand that our needs and conversations be addressed.
October 2, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for that, I think Rush is a pompous ass, I used to hear him at work, and he'd
sit there for 3 hours at a time taking
verbal pot-shots at Bill Clinton unopposed. Where's his 'america held
hostage' routine NOW? Hmmm....maybe
he could sing duets with Ann Coulter, Propaganda For Two? LOL
October 3, 2007 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any of you morons ever heard of Free speech and the Free Market of ideas?
This is so typical of whiny ass liberals. If you don't want to listen to someone, turn the the damn dial. Tolerance is a one-way street when it comes to liberals.. err Communists. Be careful leftie loons, this proclamation from Scarie Reid may come back to bite you on the ass much like the MO Betrayus ad has.
October 3, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Lens
Awwww. Archconservatives are so cute when they totally miss the point of the argument and reveal no grasp of irony!
October 3, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe some of the living soldier who wrote the NYTimes OP Ed should sue Flush for slander.
If it is government funded it should give equal time and not endorse slander.
So when are they airing Al Franken or Michael Moore?
Aint going to happen? So when are they dumping Flush?
October 3, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the FAQ on the Armed Forces Network web site:
Q: Why does AFN air political-talk radio programs?
A: AFN has an obligation, backed by Congressional mandate, to provide our audience access to the same variety and diversity of programming that they would enjoy if they were back in the States. Because political talk radio is among the most popular stateside radio formats, AFN currently offers four political radio talk shows on our AFN radio schedule: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity represent the conservative viewpoint and Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes represent the liberal viewpoint. We make our choices based on popularity with the American audience. We don't censor programs. We strive to provide our overseas audience with a choice and let them decide for themselves what they want to see and hear. There is no requirement for our audience to listen to anything they personally disagree with. To review the balance we strive to achieve via the totality of our radio and TV schedules, please visit http://www.myafn.net.
I don't know what to add to that, other than to say this has been blown so far out of proportion -- many people, Gen. Clark included, should be embarrassed. Also, let's all remember that if someone had self-censored themselves and not used two words ("betray us"), NO ONE on this blog would be discussing Limbaugh's use of two words ("phony soldiers"), or calling for gov't authorized censorship now.
October 3, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gopher Interloper: In case you hadn't noticed, the Moveon.org ad was NOT paid for with taxpayer funding.
The AFN which has become a vehicle for parroting the neocon/rightwing ideology to troops and, as a tax-payer funded entity (to any extent) should present a neutral (Strictly) format from a political viewpoint.
You are engaging in typical Right-wingnut obfuscation by implying that 'freedom of speech' is the issue...It is not.
The Issue is that absolutely equal time and rebuttal should be provided to respond to Rush's (or any other rightwing nut-job's) slander of uniformed troops...particularly when it is carried on publicly financed facilities.
October 5, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, you are taking my words out of context. I never said the Moveon.org ad was paid for by taxpayer dollars. I never mentioned Moveon at all. I said liberal talk shows on the radio don't seem to have the advertisers and sponsors to run a successful and competing entity against conservative talk shows. Liberals have all the equal time they need every night. Have you forgotten ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC just to nave a few. They support left wing and liberal news every night. You surely cannot deny they are anti anything Republican. I can criticize my Republican party for spending like Democrats and not being fiscally restraint. So not all of us are cool aid drinkers as you would suggest. When was the last time any of you had the gumption to criticize your party for personal attacks against anyone not Democratic. To Gopher Interloper!
October 5, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink