It’s not just Rush: Talk show hosts around the country under attack
posted at 8:41 am on October 4, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
And all of them are on one side of the political dial. Radio Equalizer has the low-down on which talkers are under siege and why.
Now, the question is whether this is an organized campaign or a series of unrelated events. One case, the San Francisco assault on Michael Savage, has been going on for a couple of months now. Another involves CAIR and its long-time drive to muzzle critics of Islamic violence or of CAIR itself. And another involves illegal alien advocates. The two most famous cases so far, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, both grew out of Media Matters smears.
And let’s be clear: They are smears. In Rush’s case, the time separation between the allegedly offensive remark about “phony soldiers” and his explanation for what he meant was a mere 1:50. Less than two minutes. It’s also of interest that, given Hillary Clinton’s deep connection to Media Matters, that Rush had launched a broadside against her on his show right around the time Media Matters unleashed its dishonest attack on him. Was the Media Matters attack a payback? Or just part of an ongoing and more systematic effort to muzzle conservative talkers ahead of the ‘08 elections.
Whatever is going on and whatever connections there might be between all of these cases, it’s pretty clear that freedom of speech actually is under sustained attack, and the targets aren’t just the right’s top tier talkers. If you’ve ever publicly criticized illegal aliens or Islamic violence or a Democrat, you might find yourself targeted by one or more of the groups that are now on the offensive against Rush and Bill Cunningham and Michael Savage and the others.
And if the left can’t with through intimidation, there’s always the Wesley Clark method or the Fairness Doctrine to fall back on. Since Howard Dean’s call to “do something” about Fox News back in 2004, it’s been clear that the Democrats and several of their constituency groups don’t like your freedom to criticize them.
(thanks to Chris R.)
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
Pay attention, all. Hard to imagine bloggers will escape this insanity for too much longer.
BillLalor on October 4, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Oh it is a campaign. Setting up the country for the take over of both houses and the presidency. By March of 09 Michelle will have to have Ariana as the HA editor.
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 8:56 AM
I see no real threat to freedom of speech in any of this, just mostly others exercising their freedom of speech.
Now the so called “fairness doctrine”, nothing could be more misnamed, is another matter.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Not sure, I haven’t figured out the left’s strateeeegery yet. Mostly I think it is a smokescreen/distraction so they don’t have to talk about the real issues but it could be a path to the Fairness Doctrine.
Everytime I hear a lib college student say “Well, uh, you know, I can’t make a decision or voice an opinion on that because I don’t know both sides” I cringe. They don’t even want to hear or seek out both (or the conservative) sides and then use the brain cells to construct an informed opinion.
Brat on October 4, 2007 at 8:59 AM
Am almost 50 and remember the tension in the Nation in the early 60’s but I am fearful of the real tension now. Getting it from all sides, leftisits, muslims, illegals, you name it
jed58 on October 4, 2007 at 9:01 AM
So freedom of speech in your book is freedom to smear. Freedom to libel. Freedom to silence. Brilliant.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 9:06 AM
yes, as BOTH sides have shown, freedom is speach IS the freedom to smear, and libel. don’t give me cr*p you know dems AND the GOP have stooped damn low for a good cheap shot. your little freedom to silence at the end was just typical online overdramatics…honestly who gives a rats ass if people run michael savage out of town??? he’s a juvenile hack
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 9:13 AM
So freedom of speech in your book is freedom to smear. Freedom to libel. Freedom to silence. Brilliant.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 9:06 AM
The difference between truth and smear, these days, seems to be largely in the eyes of the beholder. If someone, particularly a rich person with plenty of money for lawyers, thinks that he has been libeled, let him take it to court. Who is being silence? The debate, if you can call this stuff, most of which is childish, debate, is deafening.
Paranoid.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:17 AM
There’s probably no doubt that intellectual giants like Wes Clark and his counterparts at Media Matters, etc. think they have some grand “strategery” in place.
And I’m sure their ultimate goal is to silence anyone who disagrees with them through Government fiat.
The fact of the matter though, is that ship has sailed.
There is no freakin way that incrementally or otherwise that the Fairness Doctrine is coming back.
If you are looking for a bell weather, look no further than Rush’s show on Armed Forces Radio.
It’s laughable that these pansy’s think that they have the power to yank Rush off this network.
there it is on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
I give a rat’s ass.
Michael Savage is crude, obnoxious and I stopped listening to him years ago.
But the assault on his freedom of speech by the San Francisco stalinists is an attack against the rights of all Americans.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Here’s another question: With Hillary’s known connections with Media Matters, at what point does it become campaign finance violations? And even if it is, will anyone bring it up? I won’t hold my breath.
I doubt the current attacks by Med.Mat amount to campaign problems, as they are only “exposing the media.” Maybe a quibble, but probably technically legal, regardless of her connection. But if they cross into critiquing phrases and speeches of other candidates, I wonder if that would be?
JamesLee on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Ah, the “they all do it” defense. That certainly makes it right and who cares if people you don;t like get taken down? Brilliant. The Left is so deliciously hypocritical.
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 9:20 AM
I agree about Savage. Can’t listen to him. Should he be silenced? Nope. To tell you the truth I don’t listen to Rush much either, because I choose not to. Tell me I can’t or tell me that if I do I also have to listen to Henry Waxman, well then we got a fight on our hands.
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 9:24 AM
It is quite widespread . . . I’ve noticed that the left has infiltrated this blog.
rplat on October 4, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Ah, “there is no truth.” Spoken like a true “progressive.”
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Yeah, it’s old news, but I really want people to remember how CAIR drove Michael Graham off the air.
True story: I wasn’t a Graham fan. I didn’t know anything about him. The very first day I ever listened to him was the day he made his “incendiary” comments. And much like when I heard Rush’s show, I never even blinked. That was hate speech? Are you serious?
Burning American troops in effigy? Making a movie about Bush’s assassination? Lamenting that the VP wasn’t killed in an attack? Those all would have been OK.
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 9:32 AM
What year was it that Hillary and other Dems started talking about the right’s “infrastructure” for talk radio? It was supposed to look like off the cuff comments each time, but all the Dems were using the word “infrastructure”. I want to say it was in 2003. It seems to me that was when the idea for an organized campaign got planted in their brains.
MayBee on October 4, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Michael Savage is crude, obnoxious and I stopped listening to him years ago.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
He can be crude and obnoxious at times, but he can also be brilliant at times, which neither Rush nor Bill are. No one is going to silence him. I’m not worried. What is there to worry about. Bar the Orwellian named “fairness doctrine” anyway.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:42 AM
oh last time i checked, being a big idiot (like savage) in the public eye makes you liable to face scrutiny. now depending on the area, the comments/deeds/nipple slip…people will react differently. those whiny babies in san fran are doing things their way, and they’ll be worse off for it. has my life been impacted in any meaningful way by that nonsense?? not in the least.
at the end of the day, this is the dems playing hardball, in their own freakish little way. i say, to hell with the “THEY’RE LYING ABOUT ME!!! THEY’RE TRYING TO SMEAR ME!!! THEY HATE US AND AMERICA!!” defense that all the embattled talk radio hosts have used…and lets play some damned hardball.
dems want fairness doctrine?? dems want incindiary comments punished?? good, so next time you call bush a fascist nazi pig we’re gonna fine your ass, or lock you up. because no matter how hard we hold onto the constitutional notion of free speech, they’ll fight us and smear us and all that jazz.
i say, lets fight back
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Around this time last year, there was a very similar blowup about comments Bill Bennett made on his radio show. What he said when taken out of context looks horribly racist:
What actually happened was that he was responding to a caller trying to argue that the pro-life position could be advanced by looking at the negative economic impact abortion has. Bennett disagreed, saying the stronger moral argument should be used to argue abortion. To explain why, Bennett used an absurd example of how the pro-life side could use an economic argument to show that abortion has a positive economic impact on society. Hence this quote taken out of context. Bennett’s view is that we should debate abortion on morality not economics. He was not advocating the abortion of every black baby.
This was another Media Matters contrived controversy … same MO.
gash on October 4, 2007 at 9:42 AM
oh, and michael savage wouldnt know brilliant if he walked in on it screwing his grandmother
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 9:43 AM
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Ah, “there is no truth.” Spoken like a true “progressive.”
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 9:25 AM
That is not what I said.
You see but you do not observe.
- Holmes
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I listen to Savage regularly - have been for many years. Yes, he has his occasional rants and I turn him down. And yes, he has his brilliant moments. One of his rants got him fired from MSNBC (all for the better I say).
“Borders, Language, Culture” has been his mantra. Who here is against that?
Brat on October 4, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Hillary, et al, were blaming Timothy McVeigh’s bombing in OKC on right wing talk radio before the Murrah Building even finished collapsing.
Vic on October 4, 2007 at 9:50 AM
The left that harps on ‘tolerance’ is out to shut us down. A few years ago, ACT-Soros put conservative talk radio in its sights, and now bullets are coming from everywhere. I worry we won’t take this assault seriously enough, soon enough to effectively preserve our spokespeople and what few media we have.
Who here thinks for one minute that a Hillary president, coupled with a Reid-Pelosi Congress, wouldn’t re-institute the ‘fairness doctrine’, given half a chance. Get serious,folks. This is no tea party.
petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 9:51 AM
oh, and michael savage wouldnt know brilliant if he walked in on it screwing his grandmother
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 9:43 AM
If you think that then, with him anyway, you must hear but not listen.
And he does come up with a lot better lines than that too!!!
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:57 AM
“Borders, Language, Culture” has been his mantra. Who here is against that?
Brat on October 4, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Rudy is against that. Bush is against that.
They are probably not here though, so never mind.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Beholder A: Republicans condemn a full page ad taken out by Moveon.org questioning the credibility and patriotism of General Petraeus by calling him and outright liar even before he has issued his report. Nothing the ad said was, or could have been, taken out of context. The ad said our general Betrayed Us.
Beholder B: Democrats who nitpick two words taken totally out of context, and question the patriotism of a talk show host who has done nothing but openly support our troops for years on end. Their condemnation occurs after phony soldiers have been proven to be phony soldiers, making up stories and falsefying their actions in the field of battle.
I report, you decide.
Choose a side.
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM
So, we “see but do not observe” and we “hear but not listen.” How does it feel to be the only person here who is smart enough to understand things the rest of us mere mortals miss?
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 10:04 AM
And Savage will be the first one to tell you that too. It’s one of the reasons I can’t stand listening to him. He’s better and smarter than the rest of us because he has a doctorate in nutrition. Um, if I want a really tasty blueberry smoothie, I’ll give him call; his political analysis is overwrought, kneejerk, and for the most part immature. But no, he shouldn’t be silenced.
austinnelly on October 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Go away, ugly little troll.
infidel4life on October 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
im against the culture part!
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 10:16 AM
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM
A Moveon.org has freedom of speech too. Funny how that works. I don’t listen to Moveon.orq anyway, I don’t care what they say. They are probably their, and maybe the democrats, own worst enemy anyway.
B Rush has maligned those who do not support Bush’s Islamic “nation building” in Iraq for years. This time he appears to have “stuck his foot in it just a bit” (see Rick Moran). I do not see anything so patriotic about Limbaugh. I don’t see the opposite either. I do not equate being for or against the Iraq “war” with patriotism.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:16 AM
And Savage will be the first one to tell you that too. It’s one of the reasons I can’t stand listening to him. He’s better and smarter than the rest of us … … …
austinnelly on October 4, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers.
- Holmes
BTW, Rush and Bill sure seem to think that they are smarter than everyone else to.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:21 AM
So, we “see but do not observe” and we “hear but not listen.” How does it feel to be the only person here who is smart enough to understand things the rest of us mere mortals miss?
TheBigOldDog on October 4, 2007 at 10:04 AM
lol.
I’ll let you know if I am ever ascended by the ancients.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:26 AM
The bottom line is the coordinated attack is on. EVERY conservative or libertarian talk show host is being targeted. All of the them.
Get ready for the political rumble of a lifetime, folks. This is all about silencing critics and reclaiming power…
eanax on October 4, 2007 at 10:26 AM
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Where did I mention freedom of speech in my post? I didn’t mention it because both sides DO HAVE a right to say anything they want. Funny how you missed that.
I bet you support the troops, don’t ya?
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I bet you support the troops, don’t ya?
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I sure do.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Thought so.
fogw on October 4, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Watching the bickering in these comments is pretty hilarious to me at times. Everyone seems to be mis-interpreting what others say. I saw someone get called a progressive for being everything but, and saw people putting words in others mouths. I really think everyone should read a little more carefully, and if you can’t be certain of what someone is saying, then you should ask them what they meant. None of our local Trolls have even commented here yet, and you’re all acting like you’re fighting them. It’s quite amusing.
j_ehman on October 4, 2007 at 11:22 AM
It’s quite amusing.
j_ehman on October 4, 2007 at 11:22 AM
It is amusing. Truth be told, don’t tell anybody now, that is the main reason I come here.
And you sir do appear to observe what you see.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Looks like a concerted attack. From Neal Boortz website:
Brat on October 4, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You mean like that certain Fillipino XXXXX that does XXXXX?
It already started years ago, and Michelle Malkin took care of that…even when the great Geraldo wanted to “spit” on her.
When you are leading the charge, you take the hits first. But the reason why they are leading is because they can take the hits. It’s us soldiers behind them that have to carry our weight…let the enemy (yes enemy) know they are in a fight.
Besides posting here, which is not that effective, we get support from each other as to whom to call, the correct names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses to put pressure. As our “point” men take the hits, we should be firing back with greater force. If you hate Savage, put it aside and attack who is attacking the free speech. This is much greater than any one individual. Although no one is more important than Michelle.
right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 11:40 AM
To answer Bryan’s question, I believe it is more a campaign than spontaneous. Both Moveon.org and MediaMaters are Clinton organizations, Mrs Clinton has admitted to starting the latter. Regardless of whether the smear on Rush was a retaliation, though I wouldn’t doubt it, there seems to be an underlying strategy at work here. Perhaps it is in regards to the fairness doctrine, but I think it is something more sinister.
As Rush pointed out either yesterday or Tuesday, these liberals who are part of this smear stuff, et al, are behaving Stalinist-like. Government coercion on what is “acceptable” speech, or as Weseley Clark has proposed, a “rating system” for speech is Stalinist-like. (I prefer Stalinist-lite.)
It is good that Rush and talk radio have a new media to allow their views to get out to the public and counteract the action line by the MSM.
Weebork on October 4, 2007 at 11:47 AM
But the evangelicals will stay home in protest of Rudy so Mrs. Clinton will win easily. *rolls eyes*
SouthernGent on October 4, 2007 at 12:22 PM
fixed it.
oldleprechaun on October 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Rush had a good point this AM. Media Matters is using him to raise money only to have it returned when they buy time on his affiliates. If this keeps up this country is headed for all out rebellion centering around ideologies. Move.On is in NH this AM prancing around the cities over SCHIP. How I wish they’d move on!!!!!
jeanie on October 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM
MrC_5150 on October 4, 2007 at 1:03 PM
If this keeps up, rebellion will be the only option left.
petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Oooops.
Using free speech to threaten the silencing of others isn’t a threat. Makes perfect sense. On Mars.
MrC_5150 on October 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM
They’re softening up the beach with a little assault on free speech.
Hey, that rhymed!
John on October 4, 2007 at 1:30 PM
The left’s Stalinist intent? Check this quote from Byron York’s “The Real Media Matters: David Brock’s political operation” at the NRO site today.
petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 1:43 PM
No honest, intelligent individual who listened to the whole Rush segment about the phony soldier could have misinterpreted. What’s going on in congress (including today from some slime rep from NY named Israel) is a concerted effort to destroy free speach through talk radio. They are being told to go out there and condemn Rush and being told what to say. What alarms me most is not that it is happening or what they are saying but conservatives muted and careful, politically correct response to the lies. It appears most conservatives actually believe this is just a tide in their political fortunes and at some point things will just shift back the other way without radical and significant damage to our country. The left throws the word “fascist” around constantly and all the conservatives do is say “that’s not treu and that’s not nice”. What they should be doing is pointing out that the lefts tactics and proposed policies are in fact, by definition , fascist.
It is 1932 Germany here in the United States and everyone is playing their roles perfectly.
peacenprosperity on October 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM
i can’t for the life of me why some here defending Michael Savage. To be honest i’m surprised this guy is still on the radio with some of the comments he makes. I would say in trying to defend conservative take show host, we should not lump all of them together, Savage is really the bottom of the barrell. I think the silly attack on Rush(and other conservatives) by the left can be defended on its own merits, without seaming Savage in
mainmann on October 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Savage is brilliant, incisive, wise, sarcastic, caustic and a nut job all at the same time. Sometimes he’s on the mark, sometimes he’s off the meter.
I would bet anyone who doesn’t see that thinks Ann Coulter is mean.
peacenprosperity on October 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
It seems people move to shut others up only when they expect their interests to be better secured by their making the attempt, while if they doubt their safety in playing the oppressor, they continue to hold that it’s better to let others freely exercise their right to speak. On such grounds, a fine slogan in support of freedom of speech seems to be, “We’ll speak freely or act freely.” And it seems good to prudently choose occasions and means to show the meaning and the truth of that slogan. Freedom of speech is better than free-speech vigilantism. That comparison seems so plainly true that fresh examples would be superfluous, and to merely speak of it would lead everyone to understand and agree.
Kralizec on October 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
The outright and complete projection in that quoted statement is stunning.
They are terrified of, literally, a handful of outspoken people who would oppose their stalinist ambitions and actions.
And they are defintely doing their best to completely silence any dissent or disagreement at all. All on the way to establishing authorized and approved thoughts and actions.
The left regularly accuses the right of marching in lockstep. I’m surprised they can hear anything over the cadence of their own goose-stepping.
techno_barbarian on October 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
The problem is that those few conservatives on the radio truly speak for the masses that are busy working and paying taxes. For most to take the time to protest they would have to neglect their responsibilities (job, family, and numerous others). Silence those few and the voice of the normal folks will be gone. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong.
Claimsratt on October 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM
There is a coordinated plan of attack on rightwing talk radio. Just as there will be a similar attack on this and other conservative blogs next.
They will do it using outright lies the way the left ALWAYS does. The Big Lie tactic was invented by Lenin an entire Decade before Hitler described its use in Mein Kampf.
Is what their doing “freedom of speech?” No. There is NO PROTECTION in the First Amendment for defamation. None. Zip. The reason that Rush, O’Reilly, Savage, et. al., cannot sue is because of the decision in NY Times v. Sullivan. This gives free rein to the Soros-funded front organizations to lie, smear, and attack without worry from defamation lawsuits. They know this and they are deliberately using this.
If they succeed in getting Limbaugh and O’Reilly, et. al., off the air, they will turn their sights on this blog and every other conservative one. They have already started by referning to Michelle as a filipino whore (wonkette) and a neo-Nazi (American Politics Journal) on the web. Michelle runs two of the most read conservative blogs on the web. Therefore, she, and those of us who post here and at MM’s blog, are in their gun-sights.
Legally, they cannot impose a “fairness doctrine” upon the blogosphere. The First Amendment forbids it. However they can and will attack the infrastructure: pressuring the ISP hosting the servers, boycotting and pressuring the advertisers, and going after the ISPs of us posters (if they can identify us). I have no doubt that there have already been denial of service attacks against H/A and MM. I have no doubt that there have been (or will be) attempts to hack into both blogs. And of course, they will lie, slander, defame, insult, and threaten all of us.
It’s what BROWNSHIRTS do!
This is why it is essential to (1) denounce the attacks on all conservative talk show hosts, (2) denounce the leftwing sources of these attacks, and (3) use the IRS code to expose their violations and remove their tax exempt status. This fight isn’t over, not by a long shot. And our cause is just: the preservation of plurality of opinion in America.
georgej on October 4, 2007 at 5:00 PM
No, you’re not wrong at all. The left simply can not stand up and refute the truth.
And that’s exactly why the stalinist opposition on the left have made silencing the voices of truth and reason a priority. It’s the only way they can win.
techno_barbarian on October 4, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Supreme Allied Commander Wesley is a Soros stooge. He is a man with no honor and no chance.
Captain America on October 4, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Clever.
Dare I ask, is this Soros-funded too?
petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Oops, last post was intended for the Fred thread and the HeadAState cartoon.
petefrt on October 4, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Funny how the closer they get to power, how their “real” stripes start showing.
I may not be a Savage Fan… but he calls a spade a spade. I don’t really like Rush or Hannity much either.
I listen to Beck… who, in the last year, has been attacked by media-matters more than Hannity and just a tad less than O’Riley.
Beck has been right a lot lately… it’s so over for the Republicans. Our government is NOT serving the people. The people know it.
The Dems are organized this time… only it’s the wackjob code-pinko’s and D.Kos “Progressives” and Soro’s “open boards” crowd that are organizing. Somone is pulling the strings and there seems to be too many connections here.
Move-on has daily conference calls with Reid/Pelosi to talk “strategy”, Media-matters is funded by the same groups as move-on… and they always seem to coordinate their attacks to the Dems advantage… but were supposed to believe there is NO political connection? Throw the ACLU in there and CAIR and we are being assaulted by special interest groups pushing a social agenda that a significant enough amount of Americans DO NOT WANT. I’d love to see a lawsuit requiring full disclosure of memo’s, communiations, etc.
what we need is to vote out enough incumbant Republicans in the primaries and “reset” the party (i’d prefer the entire gov’t, but lets start here). It is the only way. People are going to vote for democrats (because they are NOT republican) and only realize what they have done AFTER they start us down the road to national suicide (why can’t I afford to drive, where is all my money going?”, “what is)
BadBrad on October 5, 2007 at 8:28 AM