Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Obama's censorship of Limbaugh is disturbing
Saturday, February 7, 2009 6:35 AM PST
As a former Rush Limbaugh "Dittohead," I was disheartened a while ago when, after months of denials regarding "prescription shopping" for painkillers, he entered into a plea agreement with a Florida court.
For a guy who espouses a fighting attitude, I thought he would have applied that to his private life. After that episode, I paid little attention to him.
Still, to have the President of the United States insist that members of Congress must cease listening to Limbaugh if they desire to work with him is rather disturbing.
Didn't the voters permit this new president to continue listening to his mentors (Alinsky, Ayers, Wright, Phleger), as evidenced by his new digs on Pennsylvania Avenue? At least it is apparent to me that the voters didn't care who "he" listened to.
Perhaps unfortunately for Obama, his comments regarding Limbaugh have only emboldened the popular talk-radio host. He might want to tune in to hear what's going on now. This "thug" attitude isn't flattering to a president in only his second week of office who ran on a platform of inclusion and "getting along," and whose first sentiment in his inaugural address was one of humility. Along with his staring down of a White House reporter who had the audacity to ask the president a question as he arrived unannounced in the Press Corps area of the White House to say "Howdy," his actions now belie his former persona of a humble nice guy.
Inheriting a dismal economy should have given him a clue that his honeymoon would be cut even shorter by such strong-arm tactics. Very few could argue that the press wasn't in love with him during his campaign — why would he desire to risk that affection with such a chancy move, so early on? Could it just be that he truly wants all to know that "he won" and there's a new (and bad) sheriff in town? Obama might want to remember that there were many others who assisted him on his path to victory, especially a slanted press.
As for his battle with Limbaugh, I wonder how long we will be waiting until the Fairness Doctrine becomes center stage for President Obama. Then we'll witness Limbaugh in high gear — for certain.
Jerome Kinderman
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
dyan wrote on Feb 14, 2009 8:46 AM:
Trackback wrote on Feb 12, 2009 9:18 PM:
Found this today and thought it was interesting. . . "
Robb wrote on Feb 10, 2009 11:57 AM:
This is yet another example "
jramagic wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:58 AM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 9, 2009 11:08 AM:
LOL! "
sven31 wrote on Feb 9, 2009 8:24 AM:
Brian: For several years now, I've had the suspicion that Limbaugh is not what he comes off as. As a successful radio talk show host (almost entirely his talk), when he makes outlandish claims, his listenership (is this a word?) increases. As his listenership(?) increases, he can negotiate a higher fee. I don't know how old you are, but there have been many "celebrities"in my lifetime who have "fallen from grace".
I'm not naming names, but Limbaugh appears to be following the same pattern. Just an odd feeling. Just let me say, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out he's just a showman. "
Brian wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:45 AM:
Those of you who dismiss Limbaugh (or any other purveyor of information) without gathering the necessary facts to support your dismissals exposes you as precisely what you accuse me of.
-Well said. I do find myself only able to take small doses of Rush at times. But I can always expect to learn something from him. Is it my imagination, or do those that crtiticize
just about everything you say, have trouble ascertaining what you are saying? And is it my imagination too,
but don't most of these people lean to the left. "
Brian wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:33 AM:
Brian wrote on Feb 9, 2009 6:26 AM:
As a thought, what would the ditto heads think if they found out Limbaugh was actually on the left, his whole persona just made up for entertainment
and away to increase the number of listeners and his contract? "
-Yes sven, you are right. But since he is on the right, it is clear that he
has a sincere interest in getting out information on the political landscape
and because of capitalism and free market economics he makes a good living.
The excuse that those on the left give us is that no one on the left listens to talk radio because they feel it's useless. Well, left wing talk radio is useless because they have no idea how to capture a market for it. "
loadeye wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:07 PM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:53 PM:
Leonard wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:17 PM:
I thought he had retired Girard74 when he took up his new moniker.
And yet he somehow thinks that he can preach to us about honesty? "
wtf wrote on Feb 8, 2009 2:37 PM:
What do you think of Ron Paul?
With 93% of Americans responding with:
Ron Who? "
Nextel wrote on Feb 8, 2009 2:00 PM:
Of course You don't Cog but we should except it as the Gospel.
Zogby was commissioned by John Ziegler to do this misleading poll and admitted to being out of the loop on the details of it until after the fact. He also refused to do the same poll on McCain voters because of it's nature. There's a little known liberal rag called the Wall Street Journal that did an Op-Ed on this http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogbys-misleading-poll-of-obama-voters-459/ "
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:25 AM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:20 AM:
voter wrote on Feb 8, 2009 9:14 AM:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
Read the entire survey analysis--interesting stuff. "
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:58 AM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:55 AM:
Sven31 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:40 AM:
What is important about someone being able to pick out the state of Oklahoma, or the capitol of North Korea, or finding Kenya on a map? I can find the first two, but what difference does it make to me? I would like the guy/gal flying the plane to know where these places are if I'm going to one of them.
How will knowing who the former junior senator from the state of New York is influence whether or not I buy a rib-eye or a t-bone?
How does it effect my life if I know the difference between GDP or GNP and how that effects relations between Taiwan and China or if I should buy a product made in Thailand or Mexico.
These "measures of national knowledge"
are worthless in determining anything except how well you don't know any of the answers to the questions. "
Sven31 wrote on Feb 8, 2009 8:27 AM:
I had trouble finding the Zogby poll you cite in your posts regarding civics knowledge of those who listen to right wing talk radio/fox. I saw some interesting results on this: "512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points"
Just from the nature of the statements (and we don't know if these were the questions or just Zogby's interpretation/color he put on the response), when the statements use terms like "bankrupt", "kicked off", "weather underground", these don't sound like neutral questions designed to determine "civics" knowledge of 512 Obama voters.
These sound like the questions where you can't when like: "when did you stop beating your wife" which if you answer no, you aknowledge beating in the past, or if yes, you're still beating your wife.
I've put together legitimate polls, surveys, tests, etc. to measure knowledge of something. These questions look like a poll to measure how knowledgeable a respondent is to terms commonly used on right wing talk radio. Probably most on the left don't listen to talk radio, so the terms (in this context) are not valid in measuring the respondent's knowledge. "
WCPatty wrote on Feb 8, 2009 7:34 AM:
WTF & Trackback: great point: From either side of the issue, this MSM feeding frenzy is "much ado about nothing". "
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:48 AM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:38 AM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 8, 2009 12:20 AM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 7, 2009 11:37 PM:
Nextel wrote on Feb 7, 2009 10:47 PM:
Again, thanks for the laugh Cog. I checked your link the first time You posted it @ 8:31am. I expected nothing less than for You to pull out another creep from your right wing crawlspace. This is what You consider to be the facts?? A half baked push poll from a Fox news troll like John Ziegler that's been fired from radio for racism, sexism and pure stupidity. Stick to being a foot soldier for Walmart and making us laugh instead of insulting our intelligence with this dung. "
loadeye wrote on Feb 7, 2009 7:03 PM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 7, 2009 7:01 PM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 7, 2009 5:21 PM:
sam wrote on Feb 7, 2009 5:15 PM:
wtf wrote on Feb 7, 2009 4:50 PM:
Why?
To keep the taxpaying rubes 'n boobs (that's us, folks) arguing over non-issues such as this, and focusing on artificial and arbitrary divisions, rather than focus on the fact that ALL of these bozos are in bed together trying figure out the best way to fleece the sheep. "
girard74 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 4:36 PM:
However, since the point is obviously missed, it should be noted that regardless of how one interprets Obama's admonition to Republican Congress members regarding Rush Limbaugh, it is clear that this president fears him. By bringing Limbaugh into any conversation, Obama has elevated a 'talk radio entertainer' to that of a presidential adversary; an act that any president (other than this one) should avoid doing. If Limbaugh is nothing more than an 'entertainer,' why the concern? Why, during what is undoubtedly the most difficult problem to tackle (the economy), would Obama need to pick a fight with insignificant Rush Limbaugh? The answer is clearLimbaugh IS very powerful; and according to Obama, he must be stopped. But he made a very immature mistake by approaching it in this manner. "
Trackback wrote on Feb 7, 2009 4:32 PM:
That being said, as someone who used to listen to Rush regularly, it surprises me somewhat to see the constant vitriol and mischaracterization directed toward him and his listeners. Talk about stereotyping: "Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is very naive to say the least", "...tells us all we need to know about your willingness to think and reason for yourself" and so forth.
I found the uproar over his statement in the media regarding hoping Obama "fails" to be quite supercilious as well, deliberately and unregrettably taken out of context in order to marginalize and dismiss his voice, which is just as valid as many of those whom argue their side on the left.
Regarding the Fairness Doctrine, I wouldn't worry to much about that. The development of the internet has pretty much destroyed radio's monopoly on broadcasting opinions. The Supreme Court would most likely find it unconstitutional anyways. "
Lodian wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:57 PM:
President Obama really said....
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
Now how does girard74/Lodisafeway/Jerome Kinderman get from this statement that Obama is demanding that congress cease listening to Limbaugh?
GLJK: You can't see straight unless you get your head out of your arse.
Oops, did I just "demand" something of you, GLJK?
LOL! "
Lodian wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:51 PM:
Lodian wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:45 PM:
Maybe...
Girwayman
Lodimanard
Jersafegard
GLJK
romeman
Walmartfan
Come on... give us an easy way to address you. LOL! "
Lodian wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:36 PM:
sam wrote on Feb 7, 2009 2:05 PM:
Kinderman says President Obama insists" that members of Congress must cease listening to Limbaugh if they desire to work with him."
President Obama really said "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
The two statements are not even close. "
Nextel wrote on Feb 7, 2009 12:09 PM:
Galtito @8:31am - "You'll also find out that groups who scored highest on the civics lesson given were those who listen to talk radio and Faux news."
Thanks for the one-two punch of laughter guy's. "
voter wrote on Feb 7, 2009 11:05 AM:
wtf wrote on Feb 7, 2009 10:43 AM:
Just like kids; they'll eagerly tune in to hear his bloviating BS. As for your "liberal" media...it hasn't been for a long time; it's been all neocons, all the time.
Incidentally, just before Obama's "disturbing" censorship of the Blob, Limburger was losing listeners. Can you say give him a boost?
I knew you could!
Rush limbaugh losing stations, ground, weight, girth, his girlfriend, his self-worth, his place in line at krispy kremes
http://blatherwatch.blogs.com/talk_radio/2006/03/rush_limbaugh_l.html
Congressional Republicans have turned to Rush Limbaugh to lead the battle against Obama. One problem: A poll says he's less popular than Jeremiah Wright.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-04/america-to-rush-drop-dead/full/ "
WCPatty wrote on Feb 7, 2009 9:04 AM:
How is this censorship?! How is this a demand or command to Congress?!
With the inclusion of "just" Obama likely meant by ONLY listening to Limbaugh (which is passive), is not going to ACTIVELY produce solutions. Also, "just" implies listening to ONLY Limbaugh, and ignoring other opinions (including those from people more qualified to offer solutions than a radio personality), again, is not going to actively solve the crisis. "
girard74 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 9:04 AM:
Clearly, your rebuke for what you believe to be my lack of thinking and reasoning for myself is based upon your complete refusal to determine just what a "dittohead" might be. As it pertains to anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh, it is not, as you seem to think "a person who accepts without question anything said by a radio entertainer." Those of you who dismiss Limbaugh (or any other purveyor of information) without gathering the necessary facts to support your dismissals exposes you as precisely what you accuse me of.
Nevertheless, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is not a fantasy. It has already been discussed amongst certain Congressional leaders as more than necessary to provide equal time to liberal thinking, in spite of there obviously being no sustainable market for such broadcasting. Regardless, what I write in my letters are simply my opinions. There is no requirement that you provide your drivel that is so obviously driven by your far-left talking points.
End of discussion (for me). "
sven31 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:34 AM:
This is what Limbaugh does and encourages his listeners to do the same.
The political division in this country is a direct result of Limbaugh and others like him. It's all about him.
He brought down Trent Lott, insisting that the left was in mass against his misspoken words and the ideas behind them. I listened throughout that period. The only one keeping that story alive was Rush Limbaugh. Same for Mark Folley. Even John McCain has been hounded by Limbaugh.
As a thought, what would the ditto heads think if they found out Limbaugh was actually on the left, his whole persona just made up for entertainment
and away to increase the number of listeners and his contract? "
Cogito wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:31 AM:
Cogito wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:12 AM:
voter wrote on Feb 7, 2009 8:04 AM:
Peppier2 wrote on Feb 7, 2009 7:37 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.