Your White House Admits They Have A Campaign Against Rush

[The Big Ear]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200903 ... tico/19596

Yep. And whether or not you agree with him, this goes a LITTLE beyond just a political game. Here we have the White Huse and it's closest advisers admitting a smear campaign.

Could you IMAGINE if Karl Rove had said some of this or was running a plan FROM the White House to smear Keith Olbermann on such a scale? And then admitting it?

Now look, Rush is a big boy (in more ways than one) and he can take it - but what amazes me is that SO FAR this hasn't raised the hair on the neck of the free-speech radio crowd. Is nobody else a little bewildered that the power brokers GLEEFULLY admit spending time (and thus your tax dollars) trying to figure out ways to "defeat" a RADIO personality???

Where is Howard Stern on all of this? You'd think he'd stand up for the right to program radio the way you want. Maybe he did and I haven't seen it yet.

While I'm 100% SURE Rove and others put out talking points against the Olbermans and Chris Matthews, I don't think there was ever an AD CAMPAIGN against them planned, coordinated, and approved by the WHITE HOUSE designed not so much to shut the radio person up, but to shut up anyone who listens. Sure this is about "politics" and slamming the GOP...BUT... in the process they are swinging a large hammer saying: you should not side with them and you should not listen. Hell, they did it against CNBC the other day when the stock guys were complaining that nothing was being done to fix the economy. This White House has very thin skin and they will go after anyone who speaks against them on the air.

If they can clam up the political talkers, the Howard Sterns are next... (you don't think the new FCC wouldn't change the rules to cover satellite radio? Think again) ... then who knows what level they'll take it to. I DON'T think it's crazy to think that if they taste a little success in shutting down free speech that they will expand it. We got Rush, let's get the Hannity and Becks... and then let's go after the "potty mouths" ...why not Stern... and Lex & Terry ... and Bob & Tom.... etc. I'm not comfortable thinking my elected leaders and their non-elected "advisers" are ADMITTING to spending this much time, effort and money to keep a RADIO GUY in the crosshairs. WTF? Isn't there an economy to fix or something?

The net effect is the so called "chilling effect" on radio. I don't think I'm over-reacting. I just love listening to free over-the-air radio in America that much. It should remain wide open left and right. I'd hate to see it become Radio Havana.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

Fascinating how the corporate controlled media has been able to keep this whole Rush issue on the front burner in the news cycle in order to deflect attention away from the release of the secret memos detailing the rediculous actions of the Bush Administration after 911...

The Rightwing extremists that destroyed the Republican party pray that the Rush issue stays at the forefront...

Sadly for them, this strategy has already backfired with Steele wussing out...

[Lee]

The thing I don't understand is this:

Why is Rush speaking for the Republicans?? He may be one of them...but he's just a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!!

Nothing more.

[Lester]

Why is Rush speaking for the Republicans?? He may be one of them...but he's just a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!!

Nothing more.

That's the point... he's not. The Dems are trying to say he is.

I haven't heard his radio show since it was playing on the AM monitor outside the KEE air studio. He most definitely doesn't speak for me.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

Why is Rush speaking for the Republicans?? He may be one of them...but he's just a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!!

Nothing more.

That's the point... he's not. The Dems are trying to say he is.

I haven't heard his radio show since it was playing on the AM monitor outside the KEE air studio. He most definitely doesn't speak for me.

Wrong. The Dems don't just say that he is, the Republicans by virtue of their refusal to distance themselves from him, as well as their rediculous apologies after they have denounced him, have anointed him as a spokesman for the Republicans.

He may not speak for you, but there is no question that he is one of the biggest voices of a party that self destructed as the result of their blind support of the Rightwing extremists that have attempted to destroy many aspects of what America stands for.

A strong Republican party is necessary to keep the wussiest elements of the Democratic Party in check. In order to redeem themselves however, a thorough house cleaning is in necessary. Time will tell how long that will take.. Thus far they have continued their downward spiral... The Republican Party has never been as pathetic as it is now...

[Ace Purple]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200903 ... tico/19596
Where is Howard Stern on all of this? You'd think he'd stand up for the right to program radio the way you want. Maybe he did and I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't heard Stern address the controversy this week, save for goofing on Rush for his political views.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200903 ... tico/19596
Where is Howard Stern on all of this? You'd think he'd stand up for the right to program radio the way you want. Maybe he did and I haven't seen it yet.

I haven't heard Stern address the controversy this week, save for goofing on Rush for his political views.

Me neither...

The thing with Stern though is that since he took the huge money gig to go exclusively with Sat Radio, and who wouldn't, he has virtually disappeared from the mainstream..

[AmpedNow]

This is nothing more than a "straw man" political strategy, for now. Rush is the easiest target.

In a weird way, it's almost like the Obama administration has singled him out just to mess with him, to rile him up enough to run his mouth so they can get more sound bites.

Am I nervous about the head of the executive branch of government singling out certain broadcasters? Sure, on the surface. But flip this situation around...

Deliberately or not, Obama has created a situation where it will be extremely hard to remove Rush or other conservative talkers from the airwaves by force, because so many people are witnessing this play out through continuous press coverage. They also need a boogie man, and for whatever reason has chosen Rush to fill that role presently. He can no longer be a boogie man, or at least as big as one, if he is removed from the air. Nor would most people tolerate free speech being silenced.

Therefore, Obama and the dems need him on the air everyday ranting about them. And you can bet they are recording and carefully listening to every word he says combing for new sound bites.

So, in a perverse way, the more the administration eagerly trades these verbal shots across the bow with Rush, the less worried I am about a FD-type bill being signed into law. It seems more plausible that Obama has wisely chosen a direct engagement strategy with conservative talkers rather than silencing them by force.

Then again, it's becoming clear with time that I lost my gamble back in November, so, what do I know...



All I know is it's a good time to be a Rush affiliate.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

This is nothing more than a "straw man" political strategy, for now. Rush is the easiest target.

In a weird way, it's almost like the Obama administration has singled him out just to mess with him, to rile him up enough to run his mouth so they can get more sound bites.

Am I nervous about the head of the executive branch of government singling out certain broadcasters? Sure, on the surface. But flip this situation around...

Deliberately or not, Obama has created a situation where it will be extremely hard to remove Rush or other conservative talkers from the airwaves by force, because so many people are witnessing this play out through continuous press coverage. They also need a boogie man, and for whatever reason has chosen Rush to fill that role presently. He can no longer be a boogie man, or at least as big as one, if he is removed from the air. Nor would most people tolerate free speech being silenced.

Therefore, Obama and the dems need him on the air everyday ranting about them. And you can bet they are recording and carefully listening to every word he says combing for new sound bites.

So, in a perverse way, the more the administration eagerly trades these verbal shots across the bow with Rush, the less worried I am about a FD-type bill being signed into law. It seems more plausible that Obama has wisely chosen a direct engagement strategy with conservative talkers rather than silencing them by force.

Then again, it's becoming clear with time that I lost my gamble back in November, so, what do I know...



All I know is it's a good time to be a Rush affiliate.

Nah.... The Republicans simply do not have any real leaders anymore and they have to lean on their wack jobs like Rush and Ann Caulter because they are done as a party..

The Obama Administration isn't signaling anyone out...

If the Obama Adminstration really gave a damn about throwing dirt on the GOP then they would have been playing up the recent exposure of the Bush Era docs which shows what a mockery the Bush Administration made out of the Constitution...'

Now that the Rightwingers have destroyed the Republican party, they are working overtime trying to play the victim... They really have nothing left..

Thanks to the blind servitude of the Republican Party towards the extremism of the Bush Administration, the Republican Party has now been reduced to a sad regional party without any leaders..

Which in the end is the final proof of what a disaster the Republican Party has now become...

The question begging to be answered is this: Who are the leaders of the Republican Party???

Palin??? The Republicans tried to make a rose outta that turd, but they dont even buy that crap in Alaska anymore!! She's Done!!

Jindal??? Ther Republicans tried to install him as a defacto leader and the whole world saw him commit political suicide by simply opening his mouth last week on world wide TV.. He's Done!!

Romney??? Take a guy who has voted for the war in Iraq, Baptised dead people, wears Holy Underwear and has dedicated his life to a religion that was invented by a guy who thought that blacks and Native Americans were of a cursed race and thought that having 20-30 wives was just swell and try to call him a Conservative??? Good luck with that!!

[AmpedNow]

This looks all too familiar...

[jag]

Romney??? Take a guy who has voted for the war in Iraq, Baptised dead people, wears Holy Underwear and has dedicated his life to a religion that was invented by a guy who thought that blacks and Native Americans were of a cursed race and thought that having 20-30 wives was just swell and try to call him a Conservative??? Good luck with that!!

Funny! Not entirely true, but funny!

[Bob Campbell]

A prayer for America;

Oh God, please let Rush speak for the Republican Party. Let his views be the views of the Party of Lincoln. Let all Republican candidates espouse his philosophy and run their campaigns the way he says they should.
Amen.

Oh if only. By 2012 there wouldn't be 11 left in Congress.

The White House is playing a brilliant hand here. MAKE Rush the de facto Republican leader. Treat him as if he were. Only Harry Caray could say it better, "Dems win! Dems win!".

[AmpedNow]

Romney??? Take a guy who has voted for the war in Iraq, Baptised dead people, wears Holy Underwear and has dedicated his life to a religion that was invented by a guy who thought that blacks and Native Americans were of a cursed race and thought that having 20-30 wives was just swell and try to call him a Conservative??? Good luck with that!!

Funny! Not entirely true, but funny!

I didn't say that.

[DJSHOCKLEY]

Romney??? Take a guy who has voted for the war in Iraq, Baptised dead people, wears Holy Underwear and has dedicated his life to a religion that was invented by a guy who thought that blacks and Native Americans were of a cursed race and thought that having 20-30 wives was just swell and try to call him a Conservative??? Good luck with that!!

Funny! Not entirely true, but funny!

What part of it isn't true???

Sadly, It all is!!!

[jag]

Actually, DJSHOCKLEY (and I offer it with all due respect, my friend), it was Brigham Young (a later LDS leader) not Joseph Smith (LDS founder) who had the issues with Native Americans and blacks. When Smith was at the helm, there were, indeed, black priesthood holders. That was done away with later, and only reinstituted again in 1978.

[genlock]

Brigham Young had a personal protection firearm.
He called it the "Avenging Angel".

[DJSHOCKLEY]

Actually, DJSHOCKLEY (and I offer it with all due respect, my friend), it was Brigham Young (a later LDS leader) not Joseph Smith (LDS founder) who had the issues with Native Americans and blacks. When Smith was at the helm, there were, indeed, black priesthood holders. That was done away with later, and only reinstituted again in 1978.

While your point about the black priest holders is true, one must place this into the context of the times. This was done in order to better spred Smiths version of God to the blacks.

Also, Young based his racism upon the crap that Smith wrote in his version of the bible:

"Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon God is a racist who changed the skin pigmentation of a large group of people from “white and delightsome” to “dark and loathsome” for sin and then later changed it back to “white and delightsome” for righteousness." (2 Nephi 5:21-23, 3 Nephi 2:14-16) Also, dark skinned people will be in big trouble on judgment day. (Jacob 3:5-8)" http://keystonebooks.com/SERIOUS_BofM_TROUBLE.pdf

More info on Smiths opinions can be found here: http://www.realmormonhistory.com/

"Slavery - A Divine Institution

A letter written by Joseph Smith, the first Mormon prophet, to the Messenger and Advocate, an early Mormon newspaper, deriding those who would end slavery. Later, this letter was printed in "History of the Church":

“DEAR SIR: —This place (Kirtland) having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called ABOLITIONISTS, and his presence having created an interest in that subject, if you deem the following reflections of any service, or think they will have a tendency to correct the opinions of the Southern public,...you are at liberty to give them publicity... I FEAR that the sound might go out, that 'an Abolitionist' had held forth several times to this community,...all, except a very few, attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls. I am aware that many, who PROFESS to preach the Gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the South, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship, because they will not renounce the principle of slavery, and raise their voice against every thing of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men, and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, OVERRUN OUR COUNTRY, AND VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN SOCIETY, CHASTITY AND VIRTUE.... I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. “How any community can ever be excited with the CHATTER of such persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a DECLARATION OF HOSTILITIES, against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union? “After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ....the first mention we have of SLAVERY is found in the Holy Bible,... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the DECREE OF JEHOVAH, to the shame and confusion of all who HAVE CRIED OUT against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in SERVITUDE.... I can say, the CURSE IS NOT YET TAKEN OFF FROM THE SONS OF CANAAN, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who INTERFERE THE LEAST WITH THE PURPOSES OF GOD in this matter, will come under the LEAST CONDEMNATION BEFORE HIM; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the DECREES OF THE LORD, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.”
(History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, pages 436-438)"

[Mike]

I'd love to testify before the arrogant asses that are the Senate on this issue.

I'd answer every single stupid question with:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'd probably be cited for contempt of congress. A charge I'd answer with, yes, it's fair, I hold congress completely in my contempt.