RUSH: Well, now, give him the benefit of the doubt. If the person that you talked to in his office denied that this is going on, then a possible explanation is that Senator Lott is unaware that there are other elements in the legislation besides restriction of ownership. That could be the only explanation.
CALLER: I don’t understand how they could not be aware of that.
RUSH: Well, I don’t either because it’s been proposed.
RUSH: There’s a Congressman’s name attached to it. Which guy is it this time? His name is Maurice Hinchey from New York has proposed it this time. He’s in the House. And everybody’s aware of it. The Journal editorial makes it appear that, in the case of Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison, that they’re angry at coverage they’re getting from local TV and radio stations in their states, that this is a way of getting back at the ownership of those stations and whatever else is in the bill is of secondary import to them.
CALLER: Sort of like cutting your nose off to spite your face?
RUSH: Look, as I said at the very beginning of this, I’m under no illusion that the Republicans all like me. I’ve never have been under that illusion. In fact, I’ll tell you something, if you want to know the truth, there are certain quarters where this program and its success are highly resented within conservative and Republican circles. Make no mistake about it; there are a lot of people who wouldn’t mind if this program were infringed upon or harmed.
CALLER: Well, we love you and we want you to stay on here.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that, and I don’t mean people like you. I’m talking about within the confines of the political elites.
CALLER: Oh, I did call Kay Bailey Hutchison also, and it took me a little while to get through to her, and I did pass along my feelings on the whole subject, and she said she’d pass them along. But she didn’t say anything more than that. She wasn’t as rude as the one at Trent Lott’s office.
RUSH: Well, the rudeness, maybe they’re inundated with phone calls. And you can imagine what some of these people are saying. I mean that’s one of the reasons I don’t urge people to call.
CALLER: Well, I was polite.
RUSH: I’m sure you were. Oh, oh, oh, I’m not saying you weren’t. Absolutely. But not everybody probably is and passions get aroused and all this, and I appreciate everybody calling. Don’t misunderstand, but this will get shaken out one way or the other. Now, hang on here just a second, Nancy. Mr. Snerdley, let me ask you, did you say that you had seen somewhere that Lott had promised to get this through and make it veto proof if he had to? Okay. Lott has said we’re going to wrap it up in a ribbon and send it to him in a form that can’t be vetoed – meaning the president, if he vetoes this.
CALLER: Oh, brother!
RUSH: Where did you see that?
CALLER: I didn’t see anything.
RUSH: We’re going to get the source of that for you in just a second here. But look, Nancy, thanks for the call. I appreciate it. I really do.
CALLER: We love you.
RUSH: Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Here’s Mike in Cleveland. Thank you, sir. Thank you for waiting. Hi.
CALLER: Yeah, Rush, megadittos. I’ve been listening for a few years and it’s just really an honor to get to talk to you.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that.
CALLER: I think you’re just great. Okay. I wanted to make a comment about this Fairness Doctrine and bring up something that I think needs to be mentioned. The NPR or the liberal counter-message to you and other big conservative hosts like Hannity is available. In fact, right now I can find a station here in Cleveland that is a NPR station. After your show is over with, later in the evening, on the AM side, there are other stations that do have liberal or even moderate hosts.
RUSH: Oh, exactly.
CALLER: But I think the big thing that has these people so upset is that you and other big conservative hosts are on the large stations. You know, the big 50,000-watt AM stations. But that does not mean that another idea or the liberal message isn’t available. It’s just people are choosing to listen to you, where people that don’t want to hear you can find any station they want. The AM broadcast band’s rather large. There’s a lot available.
RUSH: I know. And it has been the case of that since the Fairness Doctrine was deactivated in 1987. When we first discussed this whole concept of the FCC changing the restrictions on ownership, I want to repeat to you to now what I said you to then. What this is about, my friends, is not complicated at all. The people who disagree with what is said on this program and others like it are upset at the choices you are making. They’re upset at the programs you choose to listen to. And so the objective is to take the choice away from you. Since you’re not listening to the right programs, you’re listening to these things too much.
I mean everybody wants to say that deregulation has led to all these problems in television and radio, that the wrong programs are being listened to and that deregulation has led to mass ownership and that the consolidation of many stations under one ownership hat has caused a reduction in the diversity of programming. It’s quite the opposite. But regardless, this is the free market. There are more views expressed, more places, than ever before. People are choosing to listen to this program more than any other in great numbers. That’s what upsets them. And the only way to stop that is to take the choice away and that’s what the implementation of Fairness Doctrine is ultimately aimed at. Without their fingerprints being on it, by the way. The implementation of the Fairness Doctrine is designed to force local management to not carry programs like this because they don’t want to put up with the hassles of people demanding equal access, or plain access, because of the doctrine itself. That’s the theory. And then their fingerprints aren’t on it at all. They’re just trying to deny you the choice. They don’t like what you’re choosing to listen to. They’re arrogant, elitist snobs and they can’t beat us and want to silence us.
Here’s the backup on the Trent Lott quote. This is a Reuters story from yesterday: “The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a Senate proposal that would strike down recently relaxed media ownership rules.” [and it’s those rules that contain the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine.]
“The Office of Management and Budget said that it strongly opposed the disapproval resolution, which is due for debate later on Thursday, ahead of a vote expected on Monday, saying that it would negate almost two years of careful study. Bipartisan supporters of the measure suggested that they had the two-thirds majority needed to overturn any veto by President Bush.”
And here’s the Trent Lott quote. He said this to reporters. “The next time the President gets it, it’s going to be wrapped in a great big package with a bow on it. It would be very hard to veto.”
So this is where people are assuming that Lott is insistent that these regulations be rolled back and that the other elements of the legislation be vetoed. So that’s plenty of backup for me, as far as what Trent Lott’s position on this is.
Read More of Rush’s Coverage…
(eStack: They’re Trying To Silence Me, Again)
Read the Article…
<a target=new href=”http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110004005″>(The Wall Street Journal: Why do Republicans want to muzzle Rush Limbaugh?)</a>
Rush’s Brilliance Continues…
<a href=”/home/eibessential.guest.html”>(…in the Essential Stack of Stuff)</a>