Video: Crazed by Rush, Wes Clark calls for political discourse to be rated
posted at 7:54 pm on October 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Thanks for your service Gen. Clark.
But you’re a douchbag, so STFU and STFD.
omnipotent on October 3, 2007 at 7:56 PM
I’ll bet Dems really regret reaching out to this guy and helping to lend his assinine opinions legitimacy. I’m a strident Rethug and I cringe for them every time he opens his mouth.
At some point they’re going to take a hard look at this guy and ask “Has he ever helped more than he’s hurt?”
The Apologist on October 3, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I’m all for it, but only if they also agree to put a limit on the amount of a$$hattery their side is allowed to engage in.
/sarc off
Kowboy on October 3, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Question: How can a former General be a Liberal??
Answer: When he is financed by Soros and promised a cabinet position in Hillary’s administration.
ANY BETTER ANSWERS OUT THERE?
Golfer_75093 on October 3, 2007 at 8:02 PM
And this idiot is (was) a General??? With Spanish as his
language, he could give Hugo a run for his money in
Venezuela.
gary on October 3, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Peter Pace, I’ve listened to Clark enough. I’m so sorry, Sir, you had to deal with this douchbag. Gen Pace, you are a hero. Clarke, turn in your stars and stand next to Murtha.
MNDavenotPC on October 3, 2007 at 8:06 PM
If the political rating system included censoring profanity, “discourse” on the left would cease to exist – at least on the internet, which Hillary Clinton is already on record for wanting to censor.
Laura on October 3, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Go ahead Clark. This will just drive more pissed off white males to the polls in November.
wryteacher on October 3, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Time to sign the petition posted in click and pick.
allrsn on October 3, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Quite.
This whole thing is so contrived, it’s irritating. Rush unpatriotic? Get outta town.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I am so not looking forward to 2008…
The Ugly American on October 3, 2007 at 8:09 PM
The “video activists” that created the Jesse MacBeth video issued a “retraction” over the video
AndrewsDad on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Now that’s the second dumbest thing I’ve heard today!
Pam on October 3, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Wow, they just keep beating the same false path about what was said by Rush. I guess it is just more revisionist history by the left.
Wasn’t listening and reading comprehension taught in all elementary schools in the US? I know it was in mine…30+ years ago.
ej_pez on October 3, 2007 at 8:14 PM
The man is a douche bag. Notice how he talks over his opposite…be it, in this case, Tucker or be it Mark Davis in Dallas.
Again I say, he has been bought and paid for by Soros and Clinton.
Golfer_75093 on October 3, 2007 at 8:14 PM
And so, for how long has it been allowed for the Government, through Congress, to restrict the speech of a private citizen (Rush) through intimidation and threats of loss of business?
reine.de.tout on October 3, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Well at least 2012 will be 5 star entertainment…..if it will be possible to correct all the damage they will do between 09 and 12.
Limerick on October 3, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Ashley Wilkes obviously isn’t listening to Rush, as after the beatdown he took today, he should be ashamed for being stupid enough to show his face in public.
JammieWearingFool on October 3, 2007 at 8:19 PM
They just can’t help themselves, can they?
Is it congenital or a learned behavior? Or possibly the big combo platter of craziness?
TUA, i think this is going to be quite entertaining watching them go down the tubes big time. They have gotten so cocky thinking thwy have it in the bag , the MSM tells them so, that it is theirs to lose and so they plan on losing in oh so grand a style.
bbz123 on October 3, 2007 at 8:20 PM
The answer is very simple. Most Generals (heck, LTC and higher) have egos. Clark wanted something more (ie, Benedict Arnold – and no I am not implying Clark is a traitor selling out his country – with Arnold it was ego). He was denied and that created a chip on his shoulder. As a downtroddened retired General, well he went to the party of the downtrodden, the Dems.
Claimsratt on October 3, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Some people are definitely more weaselly than others. Clark is for sure in the former category.
Entelechy on October 3, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Copperhead. McClellan lives!
Limerick on October 3, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Wesley Clark, is a joke! But, he very clearly defines how the Left understands freedom of speech!
To them, it should give them license to say anything, lie, slander, slur, make things up, whatever! Ah, but those who do not toe the Leftist line? For them no freedom to speak.
Gatordoug on October 3, 2007 at 8:27 PM
I’ve known several. Every one was using military service as a stepping stone for social status and political power. Of course, I’ve known several who are republicans and motivated for the same reasons.
And as Golfer points out, Wes Clark fits the mold to a tee.
Lawrence on October 3, 2007 at 8:40 PM
No. They don’t get how he is wrong. Most people don’t analyze arguments well enough to see what Clark says is slightly loony. It would have helped some if Tucker had mentioned that Clark was utterly mischaracterizing what Rush said.
Yes, there is a better answer. People believe all sorts of nutty things simply because they believe them. It does political dialogue no good to accuse everyone you disagree with to only disagree with you because they are paid off. Besides being indulging too much in the fantasy of one’s own personal correctness about everything, it begs the question of why the buyers are paying them.
thuja on October 3, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Leave it to a liberal to believe enraging conservatives just before an election is a good idea. As more Americans discover that the liberal media again delivered another big lie with the willing assistance of the lowest rated congress ever they will become more involved in the political process, and that is always bad news for the Democrat Party.
Note to liberals: Stop acting shocked on the fact that your candidates failed to deliver on the [very] few promises they made to you. History shows that they never fight to keep their campaign promises sans raising taxes.
DannoJyd on October 3, 2007 at 8:45 PM
This whole farce demonstrates how much the leftists fear El Rushbo. All these schemes to silence him: Fairness Doctrine, censoring Armed Forces radio, congressional resolutions… all of it is based in fear that the unwashed masses might learn some nuggets of truth they would prefer to suppress.
A private citizen exercising his right to free speech and making a wildly successful business out of it: what could be more patriotic than that?
Keep spinning you crazy leftists, you’re only making yourselves dizzy.
kooly on October 3, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Can you believe this man ran for POTUS?
d1carter on October 3, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Let me get this straight rush bad, censor him.
John Murtha, Harry Reed, Ted Kennedy good freedom of speech.
Is that it??
I just want to understand the rules again
Liberal douche bags anything they say is ok
Conservatives everything they say {if you can cherry pick it} no freedom of speech.
Why was this guy forced out of the military again????
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 8:50 PM
OMG, did you hear that, and I use the word loosely, interview on WBAP? He is the most arrogant a$$hat I have ever listened to.
Sue on October 3, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Censorship for thee, but not for me – Wus Clark
Kini on October 3, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Clark is like a wind-up Doll – Pull the string and Democratic talking points come driveling out!
iam7545 on October 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM
A few questions:
1) Does anyone believe the Dems will succeed in shutting down all opposition media a la Chavez?
2) If the Dems do succeed in shutting down opposition media, will Americans take it to the streets or are we too far gone?
3) Do you all still feel like sitting out the 08 election is a good strategy because the GOP might nominate someone who — gasp — isn’t anti-abortion enough?
Rational Thought on October 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM
I rate Gen. Clark’s speechifying unfit for dispersal in any media form anywhere. Two Thumbs Down.
BKennedy on October 3, 2007 at 8:58 PM
My answer to all 3 of your questions is:
Ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudy!!!!!
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 3, 2007 at 8:59 PM
I’ll be there. I may not have bells on, but by golly I’ll be there.
Sue on October 3, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Oops ran off screen:
Short Version “Rudy!”
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 3, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Tucker ran circles around this blatant attempt by the liberals to censor someone they don’t like because of a lie
Defector01 on October 3, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Rush Exchanges Email with the C-130 Pilot who flew him around Afghanistan
If you haven’t joined 24/7 yet, this would be a great time. Nothing like expanding his membership numbers to show your support and thumb all of our noses at Senator GReid.
RushBaby on October 3, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Sorry, couldn’t stick it out, had to shut him off. I started to laugh when clark said Rush was attacking our Troops. He’s a disgrace to our military and deserves a special one finger salute!
ChrisIansNana on October 3, 2007 at 9:01 PM
I question Clarks patriotism…..
doriangrey on October 3, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Sorry, I will vote for Rudy ONLY if I have to!!!!!
ChrisIansNana on October 3, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Wes Clark is a disgrace.
eanax on October 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM
I was thinking more of a hand puppet then a doll, but that only begs the question “who has there hand shoved up wes a$$ and is really doing the talking.”
a. Hillary clintoon
b. Georie boy sorros
c. Howard scream Dean
d. All of the above
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM
No desire to listen to this loser. He falls directly into
JFing Kerry camp.
Texyank on October 3, 2007 at 9:09 PM
What a fool this man is, bought and paid for with George Soros’s money, hoping that Hillary will throw him a table scrap once she’s back in the WH. I agree w/the statement that he deserves the one-finger salute. (Lord knows, the second he fails to be useful to her, that’s what Hill’ will give him!)
Lurking Vet on October 3, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Sign the petition:
http://www.standwithrush.com/
bnelson44 on October 3, 2007 at 9:11 PM
After wrapping up the interview, Clark strolled over to the national archives to inquire about the possibility of actually pissing on the bill of rights.
marc@hubsandspokes on October 3, 2007 at 9:17 PM
If they’ll stoop to this, they’ll stoop to ANYTHING.
God, help us. Please.
JimC on October 3, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I’m with Sue on this one.
Holding my nose all the way.
Lawrence on October 3, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I know standards are lower now than they used to be, but how did this total airheaded buttclown ever become a General in This Man’s Army?
Always Right on October 3, 2007 at 9:29 PM
I’m proud to say I just signed. There were 2,017 recorded signees when I finished.
Lets spread the word and get more endorsements.
Always Right on October 3, 2007 at 9:32 PM
2082 NOW
Texyank on October 3, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Tucker is an idiot. He conceded the critical point — Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth, not real soldiers who happen to disagree with him politically.
Liberals put on Tucker on TV because they know he’s harmless, when he’s not actually helping their cause. People like Rush or O’Reilly scare them by controlling the debate, and need to be driven off the air to prepare the ground for Madame Hillary.
TallDave on October 3, 2007 at 9:38 PM
If Rudy becomes the Republican candidate, then you have to support him. Realize, please, that Wes Clark is saying these things because he believes it will make him a viable candidate for Hillary’s No. 2 spot. This is today’s Democrat party. THEY WANT TO USE THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION — TO SILENCE ANY AND ALL WHO CRITICIZE THEIR AGENDA, and they have the support of most of the main stream media to do so.
If Rudy is the candidate, you should support him — and not with hesitancy, but with extreme urgency, as if the future of your nation depends on it. You should show up at the voting booth with ALL of your bells on, and you should bring 10 friends with you.
Rational Thought on October 3, 2007 at 9:41 PM
You took me too literally. I haven’t decided which republican candidate to support, but if the one I decide to support isn’t the nominee, the winner will get my full support. I was thinking more along the lines of McCain when I said I might not have bells on.
Sue on October 3, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Yeah I would rate anything Wes Clark says as “DC”
Dumb ***T
TheSitRep on October 3, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Is there any honest Democrats left?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 3, 2007 at 9:51 PM
My $0.02 on the whole mess:
Apophenia is the word used to describe the tendency to see connections where none exist. So what would you call the tendency to see controversy where there is none? Because that’s precisely what Reid, Clark, et al are engaging in.
ZK on October 3, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Wes Clark – Protecting America’s precious fluids since 1944.
Jeffersonian on October 3, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
eanax on October 3, 2007 at 9:57 PM
99.999% of our soldiers are honorable people.
Kerry, Murtha, Clark, et al. are the exception to the rule.
infidel4life on October 3, 2007 at 9:57 PM
My God,, what are we witnessing??!! Just keep repeating that you are trying to be fair and just as you lie, cheat and steal! Just keep stating that you are a patriotic American and love your country as you destroy it’s foundations, attack it’s liberties and attempt to silence and intimidate it’s people! “I’m not a Fascist! I merely want to imprison all who appose me!”
Again I ask,, WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS!!!
JellyToast on October 3, 2007 at 10:11 PM
I totally disagree. He tends to go the ‘lets assume that is true’ route in order to zone in on the actually hypocracy. There are plenty of other people that just yell at each other – you’re wrong, no you’re wrong – if you prefer that but for those arguments the viewer must have the context. Tucker shows, usually without needing additional context (like playing Rush’s clip here) that the liberal position is hypocritical. As AP cited above, a crushing right hand at the end.
Spirit of 1776 on October 3, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Scumbag.
peacenprosperity on October 3, 2007 at 10:14 PM
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
And weenie boys.
bosteed on October 3, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Rational Thought on October 3, 2007 at 9:41 PM
IF Rudy becomes the Republician Candidate, of course I will support him.
ChrisIansNana on October 3, 2007 at 10:25 PM
All he wants, is to be sec. of defence in hillary administration … so he is prostituting himself. what a low life !!!
aniladesai on October 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM
So how do you debate with somebiody that does not want to listen to you or give uou a change to make a point ????
SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 10:57 PM
A couple more acquittals, dropping of charges, etc. and SkunkSpray Productions will be issuing another retraction….
91Veteran on October 3, 2007 at 10:57 PM
greggish on October 3, 2007 at 10:59 PM
AndrewsDad on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Even if it is a genuine distraction, why did it take so long ?
SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 11:06 PM
The USSR had plenty of Generals and Wes has had some association with them.
I would have liked for Tucker to ask Clark to specifically explain the context that Rush used to impugn the integrity of American Soldiers.
Then call him a lier to his face when he twists the truth to suit Soros.
Speakup on October 3, 2007 at 11:10 PM
distraction = retraction, but actually both apply.
The more they repeat their lies the more likely the uninformed will believe them. Repeat a lie often enough …..
SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Did it yesterday, solely because of this smear.
91Veteran on October 3, 2007 at 11:16 PM
) Do you all still feel like sitting out the 08 election is a good strategy because the GOP might nominate someone who — gasp — isn’t anti-abortion enough?
Rational Thought on October 3, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Reluctantly, I’ll be there but I cannot understand why we cannot get together and support a good candidate and not just a “popular” one that we think can get selected.
SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 11:20 PM
2760 as of now
Mojack420 on October 3, 2007 at 11:22 PM
I think that Wes has a great idea. Perhaps after the Republicans regain Congress in 2008 they can look into this “ratings system”. I wonder what kind of rating Keith Olbermann’s show would earn. Obviously, political discourse of that type should be strictly regulated. And maybe they’ll expand it to include the internet. People shouldn’t be able to access sites like MoveOn and Daily Kos unless they’re able to prove they’re over 18 years old and consent to view such material. I’m sure that Wes Clark would agree.
TBDave on October 3, 2007 at 11:24 PM
bnelson44 on October 3, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Just signed it, 2769 !
SIJ6141 on October 3, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Out.Of.Control.
SouthernDem on October 3, 2007 at 11:28 PM
A guy who thinks politicians should regulate political speech? Sounds like a good VP pick for McCain.
JM Hanes on October 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM
He tends to go the ‘lets assume that is true’ route
That’s exactly the problem: when you concede The Big Lie so you can say “But you do it too!” you’re putting your side in a much, much worse position. It’s a terrible way to argue.
That’s the kind of wrongheaded thinking that had the Bush White House practically conceding on the Rather memos. Leftists don’t make these kind of tactical errors. Remember how long Clinton pretended he hadn’t done anything with Lewinsky? He went on TV and wagged his finger at us! That’s audacity. He only gave up when the DNA tests were being floated (just imagine what THAT circus would have been like).
TallDave on October 3, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Been a fan of Rush’s for years, and I think it’s time to join 24/7. Good call.
I don’t have heroes and I don’t trust any of these scummy politicians, but it gets to me how these guys in the service act around Rush. They absolutely love him, and he gets the Rock Star treatment that the moonbats reserve for douchebags like Osama Obama.
Jaibones on October 3, 2007 at 11:42 PM
And all this time I thought he was a laxative salesman playing a former general.
Now I find out he’s a general laxative.
Thankfully, not taken seriously.
profitsbeard on October 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Perfect comparison. What a fruitcake this moonbat is. But I disagree with AllahPundit on this comment:
Ashley is too stupid to plan anything for next week, much less for a few years. He is just a tool who is milking his opportunity for every dollar and tv appearance that he can wrangle, like a white Al Sharpton in a green suit.
Douche.Bag.
Jaibones on October 3, 2007 at 11:47 PM
TallDave is right. It was Carlson who was the disgrace for not challenging Clark’s lie that Limbaugh slandered “soldiers who had served honorably.” If a “conservative” is going to give ground that easily, get off the air. David Brooks was just as lame when he did those NPR things with E.J. Dionne (IIRC).
rivlax on October 3, 2007 at 11:51 PM
That was surreal.
frankj on October 4, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Look, I understand your point, but comments about what the argument should have been are essentially about what you think the segment should have been about.
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.
I understand it’s irritating that Rush gets dragged through the mud, but Rush really isn’t the point. If they complimented Rush and Bill, etc, and then tried to implement Clark’s ideas, that doesn’t make it better. The issue is not the particulars of Rush’s statement – aside from the fact that they are lies, but in the fact that the ideas that Clark espouses are fundamentally against free speech.
Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Yeah, you convinced me. Give Shuster a show instead. Good call.
Spirit of 1776 on October 4, 2007 at 12:37 AM
3078 on the petition.
Didn’t Wesley Clark make a big enough fool of himself while running for Pres. in ‘04?
Apparently not.
Rush was right. This is about censoring him from Armed Forces Radio, and the no-fairness doctrine.
JannyMae on October 4, 2007 at 1:10 AM
He may have been a general, but everyone seems to forget he was fired and forced out for being so incompetent. Can you say, Don’t ask, don’t tell?
He just needs to go back to being the insignificant moron he is, and shut it. But someone ( I think it was Bill O’Reilly) made him believe he’ll be chosen the vice presidential running mate for the nutroots. As if Hillary alone isn’t enough to bankrupt all of us, and cause all the third world countries to bitch slap us because we’d be viewed as wimpy, incompetent boobs…
stacman on October 4, 2007 at 2:43 AM
Wes Clark was never really a soldier. He has always been the kind of guy that would have been ‘fragged’ in Viet Nam as a Lt. if he didn’t listen closey to his Platoon Sgt. or to his 1st. Sgt as a Company Commander.
Sure, he has a very high IQ…. But like the old myth about Einstein: He can’t even tie his shoes in the real world.
Clark embodies all the negative stereotypes ascribed to ‘Ring Knockers’ and none of the positive attributes.
LegendHasIt on October 4, 2007 at 3:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »