Obama vs Rush

Subject: Obama vs Rush Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:10 pm

Rush lives in Florida right?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that."

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting.

Republicans say the $825 billion price tag is too big a burden for a nation crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said.

"How does that stimulate the economy?"

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

"The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said.

"He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas."

Guest

This is just the start of the battle. Some of you think I am the wacky one time will tell who is the wacky one.

Guest

WASHINGTON – Another Democratic U.S. senator has gone on record as supporting the reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," adding, "I feel like that's gonna happen."

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told radio host and WND columnist Bill Press yesterday when asked about whether it was time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine": "I think it's absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it's called the Fairness Standard, whether it's called something else – I absolutely think it's time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place."

Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, was executive vice president of the left-leaning talk radio network Air America. He left the network in 2006, when it filed for bankruptcy, and co-founded the TalkUSA Radio Network.

Asked by Press if she could be counted on to push for hearings in the Senate this year "to bring these (radio station) owners in and hold them accountable," Stabenow replied: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that's gonna happen. Yep."

Meanwhile, as WND has previously reported, other Democratic legislators have tried to claim talk about a reintroduction of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is merely conspiracy-mongering by right-wing talk radio and its partisan cheerleaders.

But other Democrats in the Senate and House – and even a few Republicans – have made no secret of their support for such legislation.

"For many, many years, we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country," Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."

Tell your government no to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Sign WND's Petition to Block Congressional Attacks on Freedom of Speech and Press now!

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back."

In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which he asked her if she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine."

"Yes," Pelosi answered.

And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back.

"It should and will affect everyone," Eshoo pledged.

(Story continues below)

Meanwhile, President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told Broadcasting & Cable during the presidential election campaign, "Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters. He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible."

But the debate heated up again recently when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

As WND reported, the Democratic National Congressional Committee also launched a petition to reprimand Limbaugh directly for his criticism of Obama.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Bush appointee whose term runs through June, however, warned that Democrats may be adopting a stealthier approach to shutting down conservatives on talk radio.

In a speech to the Media Institute in Washington last week, Multichannel News reports, McDowell suggested there are efforts to implement the controversial policy without using the red-flagged "Fairness Doctrine" label.

"That's just Marketing 101," McDowell explained. "If your brand is controversial, make it a new brand."

Instead, McDowell alleged, Democrats will try to disguise their efforts in the name of localism, diversity or network neutrality.

McDowell further suggested that the FCC may already be gearing up to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" through community advisory boards that help determine local programming. While radio stations use the boards on a voluntary basis now, McDowell warned if the advisory panels become mandatory, "Would not such a policy be akin to a re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"

And while Republicans' prediction of "Fairness Doctrine" legislation remains unfulfilled and highly speculative, a WND investigation has revealed that McDowell and Walden aren't just fear-mongering, as some have suggested. A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.

In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."

The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."

To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.

And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."

In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."

Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.

Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word.

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:06 pm

Rush limbaugh is one of the worst people on the planet IMO.

he wants to complain about the "elites" and the blacks and the liberal and the democrats, i have never heard anything but bitter hate towards ANYONE who does not share the same love as he does towards politics, cigars and abusing perscription medicine.

i had to listen to rush limbaugh for 3 years straight when i was working for my fathers company, i never got a chance to listen to anyone else, i hate the crap thats spews out of his mouth and his attitude towards the rest of the country

i dont care what side i follow...RUSH IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

he is just as bad as mike moore.

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:13 am

I disagree...

I think Rush limbaugh is right on ...on a lot of topics he touches...this nation needs more people to support his voice. Maybe you should try listening to him again give him another chance.

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:32 am

everyone haves different opinions, thank you for not bashing me though, not used to that...

Guest

I was a Rush fan until Clinton left office,after that it was nonstop Clinton this and Clinton that it got old after about 6 months of that. I listen to him again now but he isnt my favorite to listen to.
My favorite is Glenn Beck the wacky guy he thinks just like I do. Its ok to disagree with someone as long as you understand that others will and do disagree with you. Your word is not the only one out there. Think about that one. monkey

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:11 pm

Yeah everyone has an opinion and are all entitled to give it here without being tore up!!

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:53 pm

Plumber wrote:: Yeah everyone has an opinion and are all entitled to give it here without being tore up!!

Yep even good ole Bob can give his opinion here.
Sorry I have been gone for so long. I was traveling drunken

Did anybody miss me?

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:14 am

Im sorry who are you?!

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:25 am

Plumber wrote:: Im sorry who are you?!

Im am Bob I use to work with you many many years ago, back when we worked at McDonalds.
Unless I have the wrong person. I once worked with someone at McDonalds and they quit to become a plumber. I thought this might be you. Surprised

Is your name Steve?

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:39 am

Bob please give me a call. I have some great news for you.

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:08 am

Eddie Haskell wrote:: Bob please give me a call. I have some great news for you.

Eddie pay your phone bill. confused

The number I called is no longer in service. scratch

Nice one Eddie Suspect

Subject: Re: Obama vs Rush Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:43 am

Bob Bixley wrote:

Eddie Haskell wrote:: Bob please give me a call. I have some great news for you.

Eddie pay your phone bill. confused

The number I called is no longer in service. scratch

Nice one Eddie Suspect

hhhhmmmm OK Bob you have me thinking now. I might have the wrong Bob. The strange thing is you look so familiar to me.
Bob Bixley from Kansas City? Right? Worked with Plumber at Mickey D's