Video: Crazed by Rush, Wes Clark calls for political discourse to be rated

posted at 7:54 pm on October 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

He doesn’t say who’ll be doing the rating but he digs the idea of Congress yanking Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio so presumably they’d be okay to head that up, too. The point he’s ostensibly trying to make is a simple one — that the U.S. government shouldn’t be broadcasting anything that harms its own military’s morale — but a standard that narrow wouldn’t let you regulate very much speech. So he broadens it with a magnificently Orwellian invocation of “propriety” that has no discernible definition except his own arbitrary judgment about what does and doesn’t “cross the line.” Just laying a little groundwork for the Fairness Doctrine, planting a few 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 a willful distortion of Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment aimed at Jesse Macbeth. Both sides realize that. Clark’s simply trying to leverage a trumped-up controversy for political gain — which adds a special poignancy to the part where he scolds Congress for trying to leverage a trumped-up controversy for political gain.

Stick with it or else you’ll miss him walking into the debate equivalent of a straight right hand to the jaw when he claims no liberal commentator would accuse someone on the other side of being unpatriotic. Wes Clark, Rhodes Scholar.

Exit question: They’re having a good week, huh?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The point he’s ostensibly trying to make is a simple one — that the U.S. government shouldn’t be broadcasting anything that harms its own military’s morale

Does that mean they shouldn’t carry the Democrat response to the President’s weekly radio address on AFRTS?

coondawg on October 4, 2007 at 7:11 AM

Clark is a political hack trying to get an extra mile from his uniform. No wonder he and Soltz are buddies.

BadBrad on October 4, 2007 at 7:37 AM

But Jesse MacBeth DIDN’T serve in uniform. Thats the part you can’t pound into these nuts heads. JESSE NEVER SERVED–HE IS A PHONY SOLDIER!!!

Bicyea on October 4, 2007 at 7:43 AM

Did anyone happen to grab Weaseley’s turn on the Today Show yesterday? The conversation came around to Rush blasting Tom Harkin and the Generalissimo said:

Tom Harkin is a big man. He can take care of himself. Our troops can’t.

As long as we’re lifting little snippets of speech to beat people over the head with, that’s a doozy right there.

Pablo on October 4, 2007 at 7:47 AM

Now let’s compare and contrast Generals.
Here’s General Peter Pace, the epitome of class, honor, duty and valor, giving his ‘farewell’ speech. It’s an outrageous shame that he was not re-nominated as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because of the gay mafia attack against him.

Watch it all. You’ll be glad you did.

Brat on October 4, 2007 at 8:28 AM

MoveOn.Org; KOS; Hillary Clinton; Wes Clarke . . . the Democrats are a party that would have given Marx and Lenin a feeling of great pride.

rplat on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM

I think Clark needs to talk to his make-up guy. They always use too much eye make-up. The term douche bag may be more appropriate than we think.

Ernest on October 4, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Ernest on October 4, 2007 at 8:56 AM

Nah, the guy is just made entirely of plastic.

James on October 4, 2007 at 9:05 AM

I think Clark needs to talk to his make-up guy. They always use too much eye make-up.

The guy has eyes like a pair of black holes. I can’t exactly put a finger on it, but it’s like there’s no life whatsoever in them. Could he be an android?

Pablo on October 4, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Wes who? Sorry, should I know you from somewhere?

the U.S. government shouldn’t be broadcasting anything that harms its own military’s morale

So they black out C-SPAN whenever a Democrat approaches the mic? And CNN? And all the network newscasts?

Tempting, but hardly fair or necessary. Or Constitutional.

saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 9:11 AM

Could he be an android?

Gorebot Mark II.

Slightly more realistic, but still creepy and off-putting.

saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Pablo on October 4, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Empty and unthinking. It is the greatest testament to our soldiers that this pos lived through a career spent exposed to them. Surely, they are the most disciplined force in military history?

Jaibones on October 4, 2007 at 9:21 AM

The point he’s ostensibly trying to make is a simple one — that the U.S. government shouldn’t be broadcasting anything that harms its own military’s morale

Which would mean, to any logical person, that the US Government wouldn’t be able to broadcast anyone from the left. It’s nothing from our side of the aisle that’s harming the morale of the troops, it’s Dingy Harry and his ilk that are declaring the war lost while troops are in harm’s way last time I checked. It’s Fake Soldiers propped up by left-wing groups talking about killing babies that’s damaging the morale of the troops. It’s leftist organizations taking quotes from the most patriotic people in the country out of context and delibreatly distorting them that’s damaging the morale of the troops.

Gee, now that I think of it, things would be a lot better if the Government didn’t broadcast anything that harmed the troops’ morale.

crazy_legs on October 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Didn’t MoveOn.org endorse Wesley Clark’s candidacy last time around? And wasn’t there a link to collect foreign contributions, from Canadians? Is that even legal?

While we’re on the MoveOn topic, every ad they run (whether it be for VoteVets.org, or whatever shadow organization they finance)should have this disclaimer at the end:

I’m George Soros and I approved this message.

He promotes an “open society” after all.

Buy Danish on October 4, 2007 at 9:35 AM

I could care less if that spinless Clark served in the Military he is a punk BITCH.

americaslaststand on October 4, 2007 at 11:59 AM

MoveOn.Org; KOS; Hillary Clinton; Wes Clarke . . . the Democrats are a party that would have given Marx and Lenin a feeling of great pride.

rplat on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM

They’re just proving (over and over again) the old–and completely valid–saying, “Scratch a liberal, and you find a totalitarian underneath.”

ReubenJCogburn on October 4, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Granting that the Limbaugh “phony soldier” controversy is shallow and unconvincingly contrived crap from the left, and that Limbaugh is unrelentingly pro-military, I’m actually not comfortable with any political content being broadcast by the government. The notion that it’s OK if it doesn’t “harm moral” is absurd in principle–whether it makes people feel good or bad, if it can impact elections or even popular political opinion the government has no business peddling it, period.

Of course, considering the government freely broadcasts leftist propaganda via PBS and NPR, I wouldn’t want to call for Limbaugh’s removal from Armed Forces Radio unless all other propaganda venues were also shut down. And that simply won’t happen. So I suppose this is a case where pragmatism trumps principle, and all one can do is hope that two or more wrongs somehow achieve some kind of balance (though not likely a right). So long as Bill Moyers gets to spout his crap to the taxpayers via their own dime, there’s no consistent rationale for arguing that Rush shouldn’t be allowed to pontificate to the military.

Meanwhile, what is it about the left that attracts glassy-eyed sociopaths? I honestly try to spot them on the right, and while there’s certainly plenty of run-of-the-mill slimey there, it’s hard to spot the particularly creepy, “Dexter”-esque pathology of folks like Clark, Schumer and Hillary. Can anyone think of some conservatives who would genuinely rather be Stalin, replete with purges, if only they could get away with it?

Blacklake on October 4, 2007 at 12:04 PM

TRAITORS THREE

Kerry, John Murtha and Clark
Their bite is far worse than their bark
Their methods obscene
When they lynch a Marine
But they don’t give a fark.

Murtha, John Kerry and Wes
Time for you to confess
But they won’t listen to reason
Which is why they’re wanted for treason
And we’re in such a farkin’ mess

MaiDee on October 4, 2007 at 12:14 PM

I think Clark is really a confused, little closet case.

http://www.glennbeck.com/page2/A907x300.jpg

D2Boston on October 4, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Tucker didn’t have Clark on to argue over Rush’s reputation. He was arguing about the Orwellian nature of Clark’s position and the surreal hypocracy of it.

Again, that’s the point. You don’t choose to fight from the low ground with the sun in your eyes and your feet in the mud.

Even leaving aside the choice of what to debate, he did not have to say “I grant you that” when Clark said Rush was attacking our troops. He could have disputed it without making that dispute his central topic. Conceding that Rush was attacking our troops is idiotic.

TallDave on October 4, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Stalinism lives between Wes Clark’s ears.

From the sounds of him, he’s never read the Constitution.

petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Weasley Clark, still weasley after all these years! The real “General Betray Us”. Tucker Carlson needs to grow a pair.

srhoades on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM

WTF is wrong with this man? What an empty-suited-hack. A rating system for political discourse?! Rush is right. These people are Stalinists. This country is in real trouble of they get in the WH and continue to control Congress.

CP on October 4, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Liberals are the enemy within.

jdawg on October 4, 2007 at 7:49 PM

I’ve already written Congresscritters about this, and I have written some scathing stuff to Clark. I used his OWN site to send messages to Congress as well. I suggest you all do the same. Clark needs to stfu.

Rick Donaldson on October 4, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Hmmmm… If we applied the RATING standards used for the movies, Wes and his buddies at Media Matters, Daily KOS, and the Soros spin machine would get nothing but “R’s” with a few daggers, while Rush, Michelle, and even Ann Coulter would consistently rate “G” with just a few “PG”‘s. But the Hollywood ratings are for the method of presentation, not “content”, so a good or bad rating says nothing about the quality of the show.

But what Wes is really ticked about is CONTENT: Rush’s comments hit home! Rush always remembers that it is the duty of a radio show to entertain (a concept completely foreign to leftist hosts and the departed Air America). And, as Rush has pointed out many times, satire isn’t funny unless there is a grain of TRUTH in it!

Consequently, nobody laughs at Media Matters or the other smear merchant subsidiaries of Soros and Clinton, Inc…not even the Dems!!

landlines on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Consequently, nobody laughs at Media Matters or the other smear merchant subsidiaries of Soros and Clinton, Inc…not even the Dems!!

landlines on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Actually, I laugh at them all the time.

Just never with them.

BKennedy on October 5, 2007 at 4:43 AM

While I haven’t yet taken up gambling, perhaps senility is beginning to surface because I have no idea whatsoever who Wes Clark is? Is it important that I should know?

jeanie on October 5, 2007 at 8:31 AM

Is he by any chance Wes Clark the general or whatever he was? If so, he’s as over the hill as I am and is not to be taken seriously because senility might have set in.

jeanie on October 5, 2007 at 8:36 AM

Yes, jeanie, that’s the same General Wesley Clark, former CO of NATO. I doubt it’s senility (that’s likely Jimmy Carter’s problem) but it is clear he is proof positive that the Peter Prinicple applies to the Military structure as well.

Spiny Norman on October 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM

One of the Lords of the Wide Stance.

pc on October 6, 2007 at 8:03 PM

acronym down LOWS

pc on October 6, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2