Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards, Media Consultant Part Ways

Former Sen. John Edwards has parted ways with his chief media consultant Marius Penczner.

Penczner left the campaign roughly one month ago, but his departure was not immediately reported. The Edwards campaign confirmed Penzner's departure but offered no further comment. Senior strategists Joe Trippi (himself a media consultant by training) and Jonathan Prince will take over the development and production of Edwards's ad campaign.

The news that Edwards is taking his media team in house comes on the same day that the North Carolina Senator announced he had raised roughly $7 million over the past three months, ending September with $12 million on hand. And it comes just days after Edwards announced he would accept public financing in the presidential primaries -- handing him a short term windfall of roughly $10 million, but potentially tying his hands later in the race with limits on how much he can spend in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Edwards's fundraising was dwarfed by the $20 million Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) reported raising from July 1 to September 30, bringing his total raised in the race to a whopping $75 million.

"With over 350,000 donors and more than a half a million donations, Americans hungry for change know that Barack Obama is the candidate with the right experience to make that change happen," said Penny Pritzker, the national finance chair for Obama. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has not yet released her third quarter fundraising figures.

Penczner joined the Edwards team in the final stages of the 2004 primary fight, replacing David Axelrod (yes, the same David Axelrod who is now Obama's lead media consultant) and stayed on with Edwards through to this campaign.

Penczner did not return an email seeking comment on his departure.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 1, 2007; 4:11 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Trippi Defends Edwards' Funding Decision
Next: Alabama's 2nd: A Longshot For Democrats


I think two things turned me away from Obama. First, as a Senator from Illinois, he voted for sugar price supports, and by doing so, caved into the corn lobby (ADM).

(Americans pay 2-3 times as much as the rest of the world for cane sugar, in order to promote the inefficient growing of corn for high fructose corn syrup sweetner, which may turn out to be a greater health risk than cigarettes. Corn is also used create inefficient corn-based ethanol and for feed for the livestock industry, both of which are hardly "green".)

So Obama is just another politician, kow-towing to special interests (corn) in his own state versus the good of the country. So much for the wunderkind.

Second, Obama used to be well-spoken and articulate, and took a lot of grief for "not being black enough" (!!). So lately, he has taken on (especially in front of black audiences) a faux urban cadence in his speaking, sounding at times like the Reverand Al Sharpton. Talk about pandering. It is pretty pathetic. I think this turned off a lot of white voters, although most would be loath to admit it. (American is not ready for a "real" black President?).

While both Clinton and Obama have only one term in the Senate, it is clear that Clinton has more "experience" to be President. And hey, who doesn't want Bill back in the Whitehouse?

The only mystery in the polls is why Obama did so well for so long. And as for Edwards, why anyone would support a blood-sucking scumbag ambulancing chasing trial lawyer for President is beyond me.

Posted by: robertplattbell | October 3, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

VoteVets puts it to America's softest celebrity sex tourist:

And by the way, VoteVets' Jon Soltz challenges Rush to "say it to my face,"

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

How is the NYT's image faring these days? TPM's Greg Sargent finds a "fascinating number buried in the new Fox News poll:

"I'm going to read you the names of several institutions or organizations. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. . . .

"The U.S. Military: Favorable 86%; Unfavorable 10%

"The Democratic Party: Favorable 50%; Unfavorable 40%

"The New York Times: Favorable 47%; Unfavorable 22%

"The Republican Party: Favorable 44%; Unfavorable 47%

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

This is interesting: A Democratic group in California has filed complaints with the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Rudy campaign has engaged in money laundering and violating campaign finance laws surrounding the now-dead California ballot initiative.

The complaint alleges that Rudy established a "front" group through billionaire friend Paul Singer, a Rudy friend and campaign adviser who was also the sole donor to a group devoted to overturning California election laws in a way that would help the Republican nominee.

The group filing the complaints, called Californians for Fair Election Reform, appears real: It's got well-known political consultant Chris Lehane as its chief spokesman.

Because Singer ended up being the only donor to the ballot cause, the ballot initiative raises questions about whether the Rudy campaign illegally coordinated with Singer's independent committee, according to the complaints. The complaints also charge that Singer took steps to conceal his identity as backer of the original effort to change California election law.

"As an agent of Giuliani's, Singer would be prohibited from soliciting or directing a contribution in excess of $2,300," said the lawyer working with the group that filed the complaints. "We'd like the FEC to determine what Giuliani knew, when he knew it, what conversations he and Singer had about the contribution and how TIA was created. Whose idea was it? How did it come about?"

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

If there were a threat level on the possibility of war with Iran, it might have just gone up to orange. Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, has written an account of a conversation with a friend who has connections to a neoconservative institution in Washington:

They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Prince testifies before Congress today....

Erik Prince is 37 years old. He founded Blackwater in 1997 with money he inherited from his father, Edgar Prince, the head of Prince Automative. The elder Prince and his wife were major Republican and conservative activists and funders. And Prince himself co-founded The Family Research Council with Gary Bauer and apparently provided the key early funding for the group.

According to Bauer, "I can say without hesitation that, without Ed and Elsa and their wonderful children, there simply would not be a Family Research Council."

Prince's sister, Betsy DeVos, is married is the former Chair of the Michigan Republican Party and her husband is Dick DeVos, failed candidate for governor of Michigan and scion of the DeVos family, founders of Amway and major funders of Republican and conservative causes.

Amway is privately owned by the DeVos and van Andel families. And to give some sense of the scale of their political giving, according to a 2005 Center for Public Integrity study, Dick & Betsy DeVos were the fifth largest political givers in the country during the 2004 election cycle. Richard DeVos Sr. & his wife were ranked third. And Jay Van Andel was ranked second.

Let's just say they give some real money to the Republican party and its candidates. And of course there are the DeVos Family Foundations which give money to conservative causes.

The then-22 year old Prince told the Grand Rapids Press, "I interned with the Bush administration for six months. I saw a lot of things I didn't agree with -- homosexual groups being invited in, the budget agreement, the Clean Air Act, those kind of bills. I think the administration has been indifferent to a lot of conservative concerns."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

It was her tone when they met her on September 11 that shocked them most.

The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."

Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP.
Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."

Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

Ms Cagan, whose job involves keeping the coalition in Iraq together, also criticised Britain for pulling out troops.

"She said if we leave the south of Iraq, the Iranians will take it over," said one MP.

Another said: "She is very forceful and some of my colleagues were intimidated by her muscular style."

check out what a terrifying dragon this woman is... really the ugliest I have ever seen, in every way.

Posted by: how the brits see it | October 2, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Two-thirds of independents want Congress to reduce the funds allocated for the war effort, as do 83 percent of Democrats; 45 percent of Republicans agree.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Blackwater fired the guard responsible and promptly whisked him out of Iraq, a move that was approved by the State Department, which also helped negotiate a financial settlement for the victim's family. At first, an Embassy official suggested paying the family $250,000 but a diplomatic security official balked and said such a large payment could lead Iraqis to "try to get killed so as to set up their family financially." In the end, Blackwater paid $15,000, and the State Department helped deliver the money.

The WP fronts a new poll that reveals most Americans don't want Congress to fully fund the administration's request for $190 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although a majority think Congress hasn't done enough to pressure Bush to change his Iraq policy, "there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The report placed much of the blame for the trigger-happy attitude of Blackwater guards on the State Department, which never seemed interested in looking into the shootings. Even when Iraqis died, "it appears that the State Department's primary response was to ask Blackwater to make monetary payments to 'put the matter behind us,'" the report said.
The NYT devotes a separate story inside to, and everyone spends time detailing, the case of the drunk Blackwater employee who killed a security guard to one of Iraq's vice presidents on Christmas Eve, which a different security company described as a "murder" in an incident report.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The report on Blackwater ultimately paints a picture of a "security enterprise that routinely opens fire in Iraq's streets, attempts to cover up its transgressions, and is protected from censure and prosecution by U.S. State Department overseers," the LAT summarizes. The Blackwater guards seem to care little about Iraqi civilians as they infrequently stopped to help those who may have been wounded by their actions. The NYT and LAT note that Blackwater guards fired first in 163 of the 195 shooting incidents, even though the company's contract states force should be used only defensively.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post and New York Times highlight the revelation that there have been 195 shootings involving Blackwater guards in Iraq since 2005. USA Today goes highest with the report's contention that State Department officials ignored and failed to investigate the frequent shootings involving Blackwater guards. The Los Angeles Times leads with the 122 armed guards in Iraq whom Blackwater has fired over the past three years, which amounts to more than one-seventh of the company's current employees in Iraq. Most of the firings were for weapons-related incidents, drug or alcohol abuse, lewd conduct, or aggressive behavior.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

HOST: There's a report you probably saw that Iran might try to launch terror attacks against US civilians on American soil if we were to take any military action.

KRISTOL: No, Greg. We should not be deterred by the threat of terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

This morning on Fox News, Bill Kristol slammed Seymour Hersh's article about plans being developed by the Bush administration to bomb Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. Kristol called the article "bad reporting" that was intended to "scare people away from a much more limited and credible military option against Iran." Kristol also suggested that the only alternative to a nuclear Iran was "military strikes.'

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that former U.N. ambassador John Bolton advised Tory delegates in Britain this weekend that they should press for "pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities" in Iran.

"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force," Bolton said. He added that any strike "should be followed by an attempt to remove" the "source of the problem," Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Fleshing out his hawkish dreams on British television, Bolton suggested that the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was a model for the "policy of regime change" he would like to see done in Iran:

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

In February, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned against setting any kind of deadline for Iraq. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, he said, "I cannot guarantee you success, but I can promise you this: The day you set timelines and deadlines, it's lost in Iraq."

Nine months later, Graham is setting a timetable for Iraq:

Graham told Time Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. "If they can't do it in 90 days," he said, "it means the major players don't want to." [...]

Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. "If they can't pull it together in the next 90 days," he said, "I don't think they are ever gonna do it." He followed that prediction with a promise: "If they don't deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote." [...]

"If they can't do it by the end of the year," he said, "how do you justify a continued presence?"

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The report is also critical of the State Department. In cases where Iraqis have been killed, "the State Department's primary response was to ask Blackwater to make monetary payments to 'put the matter behind us,' rather than to insist upon accountability or to investigate Blackwater personnel for potential criminal liability."

"The most serious consequence faced by Blackwater personnel for misconduct appears to be termination of their employment," the report states.

In one case cited in Monday's report, a Blackwater guard who was visibly drunk shot and killed a bodyguard of Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdel Mahdi during a confrontation in the Green Zone on Christmas Eve in 2006.

Blackwater hustled the guard out of the country within 36 hours, with State Department approval, and the company later paid the Iraqi's family $15,000, the report states.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told a Senate committee last week that the incident is under investigation by the Justice Department, but no charges have been filed against the man.

The report also questions whether the government is saving money by hiring out its security work. It found the government pays the company about $1,200 a day for each contractor on the job in Iraq -- between six and nine times the pay and allowances of an Army sergeant.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 7:58 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: RAS1142 | October 2, 2007 5:51 AM | Report abuse

Hi, lyle -

download this:

The colorful article is a little easier to read than the score of DOE items on the web.

Canada has a related product - oil from sand - and Alberta may have more reserves than Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 1, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Whoops... s/b "oil out of shale," although "oil out of coal" - or at least liquefied coal - is an equally questionable idea IMO.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 1, 2007 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, what I have heard about the shale is that extracting it would be extremely expensive and damaging to the environment. In my own humble opinion, things like making oil out of coal only put off the day when we will have to face facts and develop - and use - real alternatives to fossil fuels.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 1, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Bok, Mark, TH: Agreed, worth waiting for useful info. Sometime back we talked about oil and oil shale in the Co, Utah, Wyo. area, and I heard from my friends traveling around and I ask about this subject, they think the article was in the Denver Post around May or June of 2005, where the reserve was in the Trillions of barrels, on Govt. property, when the oil shale was processed, along with the oil at about 1,000 feet down. Hope someone in the Denver area can confirm this.

Posted by: lylepink | October 1, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

D'oh! NOT 20K - 20 mill.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 1, 2007 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Tis' late, but Truth and Bokonon and spartan
were worth scrolling thru the mess.

Blarg certainly tried today, did he not?
An adult effort and he kept his side of it clean and straight.

Truth, like Bokonon, I want to know what your sense is of IA on the ground. Many of us are convinced that only IA, NH, and maybe SC actually have large numbers of persons paying attention.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | October 1, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter, do you see Romney picking up Thompson's votes if Thompson gets out? I think they would go back to McCain... and do you really think the Mormon thing has no legs? Also, as I'm sure you may have seen, Obama has a 4 or 5 point lead on Hillary in Iowa now according to today's poll... but you are actually IN Iowa, correct? What is your sense of how the Hillary/Obama thing is playing out? maybe relevant that Obama announced 20K in 3Q funds today... we'll see if Hillary can match it. She's been quiet so far, which could mean anything.

Posted by: Bokonon | October 1, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse


Thought you would also like to know that about a month ago, the Edwards' camp also lost and kept quiet their national field director, Daren Berringer. There might be other staff who have left. Who knows?

Posted by: Tracy | October 1, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

According to a report of September 30 by the American Research Group on their presidential preferences poll, broken out by Iowa, NH and SC.....

For the Dems, Clinton leading in all three states with 30%, 41% and 41%... second in all three states Obama with 24%, 22% and 30%.... Edwards was third in all three with 19%, 10% and a dismal 7% in SC.

For the GOP, Romney leads in all three states. In Iowa Romney 22%, Giuliani 21%, F. Thompson 16% and McCain 11%. In NH Romney 24%, McCain and Giuliani both 20%, Thompson 8%. In SC Romney 26%, Giuliani 23%, McCain 15% and F. Thompson 10%.

Observations.... Edwards seems not to be holding his own, especially in his native SC. McCain seems to be gathering steam. Romney's Mormon religion doesn't seem to be hurting him in SC, in fact he's picking up steam as Thompson is fading.

Just thought you would like to see the numbers.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 1, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards raises small change for BIG change! because he has no corporate bundlers and has never taken a dime from a DC lobbyists - who influence Congress to pass legi$lation that benefits corporations - courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
John Edwards is a candidate of the people.
Go Edwards!

Posted by: annefrank | October 1, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris, This is a little off-topic. Today on Hardball you discussed the RR's broaching the option of a 3rd party candidate and opined that they would ultimately support "any" Republican over Hillary Clinton.

Not so! The aim of the RR's leadership is to "purify" the GOP. To that end they WOULD rather see a Democrat take a seat than a pro-choice Republican. That is their agenda and they have not been without their successes. If a pro-choice Republican is the nominee, the fundamentalist types will stay home on election day.

Posted by: Maezeppa | October 1, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

boko-before i go im beginning to lean towards obama only because im willing to finally turn the page on the bush/clinton/bush years. honestly if the last few years of the bs was bad, another clinton in office might just exend it for no reason except for more partisan cheerleading and bad decisions. if that falls thru my back up canidate is biden and richardson. of course it seems like most of the indy or liberal posters on here are saying some interesting things about him and his partition plan for iraq.

ok getting late here, i got a early start in the morning. later

Posted by: spartan | October 1, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

let me break it down so even blarg can understand. O'Reilly and hannity are not on the ai rsoley because of Fox. They have advertisers. Sure they can replace advertisers if thet lose some (lose lowe's and home depot).

So the corporationn giving these propogandists a platform are a problem. Call me carzy, but most major corporations aren't in the business of giving lying propogandists a platform. So if I call them (only works if the calls/emails are in bulk) and say I will never use their product because of these reasons, they have a choice. BAd puplicity(including boycotts and picketing) or continue to support fox.

Major companies are mostly in A COMPETIve feild. The bad pub hurts them. I still don't know how fox is still on the air, after they have been shone for the lying propogandists that they are. How believes these people? They have zero credibility

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

boko-sorry not yet, september turned out to be a bad month to even start. i had a big thing at my job(yes a job, some of the all day posters never seem to have.) then auto problems, and then finally my computer craps out finally after years of loyal service. its going to have to wait a little bit until i buy a new laptop.

back on topic,boko its ironic that you say that about karl rove, considering it was the biggest fear of 2004 of a 3rd party canidate jumping in. after all those years of paying lip service to the christan conservatives,thowing a few judges here and a gay marrige ban there. but this time it may not be enough and they want to go further. it may complicate things if the neocons decide to attack iran in the near future, more gop corruption or a supreme court decision that may rally the left to no end, like overturning roe v wade. and of course if there is still at least 130k troops in iraq by next november, i guess the gop is now offically in hell.

Posted by: spartan | October 1, 2007 7:50 PM | Report abuse

your right blarg, that is f

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

your gith blarg. I'm done here and never coming back ;)

See ya tomorrow.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"Did you really need to make 4 posts in reply to mine?

I'm still not getting this

obviously I do

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Did you really need to make 4 posts in reply to mine?

I'm still not getting this. You say that public opinion will take these guys off the air. But they don't need to appeal to a majority. They need to appeal to a large enough market share to get good ratings and still make money. Which they do. Is your plan to get O'Reilly's audience to realize that he's a jerk and stop watching? Because that's not likely to happen. There's a market for what O'Reilly puts out, and that market isn't going away.

I'm still trying to figure out how your presence here, on this blog, making dozens of posts per day, hurts Limbaugh and O'Reilly. If any of their fans read this blog, they aren't going to listen to you, for too many reasons to list here. So how do any of your posts here hurt O'Reilly? If anything, you're helping him; you mention his name so much it's like free publicity.

Posted by: Blarg | October 1, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Spartan - I too heard the 3rd party noise from Dobson et al, but find it hard to believe that Karl Rove will allow the GOP to be outflanked on the right -? Of course, he might not have the mojo to stop it any more... even so, I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. I have to say, I am encouraged by what seems to be a growth in momentum for Obama, but then again, it's still only the first week in October.

have you gotten your blog going yet?

Posted by: Bokonon | October 1, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

'plus with the dems outrasing the gop hand over fist and recruiting stellar canidates for downticket races, its quite possible that the repubicans may be shut out of power for the forseeable future. possibly for a generation, maybe cc should step out of his beltway bubble and see whats going on.'

Abso, spartan. I think that's the big story. But it doesn't fit in with the CW DC narrative, so it isn't getting a lot of attention.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2007 7:18 PM | Report abuse

I got you blarg. How did imus get pulled. The advertisers were insulted by what he said. He was pulled.

Same stanards apply. I boycott fox advertisers. I let them know. I pray thousands of others do also. I a company doesn't want to be in business with war profitters and racist fascists they will not support fox. That is how to get them. The last two scandels do good to corrupt rush/oreilly's image. But make no mistake. I didn't do it to them. Mediamatters didn't do this to them. They like many other gop'ers who love to point the finger, need to look in the mirro rif they want to blame someone.

Oreilly and rush are racist fascists. This much is clear. They showed their face, that's all. They have no business polutting the airwaves anyway with their lies spin and discreditting.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Ok. Tell me more. I know knowing about fox."

I know nothing about fox. I only watch them hold court daily. Judge jury and executioner, literally

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

one more point on public opinon. Fox news is a court in america. they try cases everyday, instantly. No facts, nothing. yet they jump on a side and trumpet the gop line. Without knowing any of the facts. Not only do they not let the legal system work, but they attack all people involved if it is unfavorable for the gop. That is why no gop'ers are being held accountable. FEAR. Or should I say terror. Or should I say, terrorism

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

"Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist or a newsperson. He doesn't claim to be. Same with Hannity and O'Reilly. They're pundits. They don't pose as news, or as "fair and balanced". They're totally separate from Fox's news division, just as the op-ed columnists on this site are separate from the Washington Post news division."

Ok. Tell me more. I know knowing about fox.

" What entity is going to remove Limbaugh and O'Reilly from the air?"

The same crowd they play to everyday. the courts no longer have the law. the new law, according to hannity and oreilly is THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. The same people that got rid of Imus. The same peopel that got rid of rosie. The same people that silenced the professor(ward churchhill) at colorado because they disagreed with his personal beleifs. I really could go on with examples but why spoon feed. Research for yourself. See how many people on the left o'reilly has silecned. What rush and o'reilly are claiming to victims of, they do all day everyday. Sweet poetic justice.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

actually its bigger than that. its possible that they wont support romney(mormon)fred thompson(lazy and too much of a dc insider) or mccain(immigration) and the second tier isnt exciting the base.

makes you wonder, does anyone know what judge ray moore of alabama is doing now? or who's the big social conservative that they can rally around?

plus with the dems outrasing the gop hand over fist and recruiting stellar canidates for downticket races, its quite possible that the repubicans may be shut out of power for the forseeable future. possibly for a generation, maybe cc should step out of his beltway bubble and see whats going on.

Posted by: spartan | October 1, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist or a newsperson. He doesn't claim to be. Same with Hannity and O'Reilly. They're pundits. They don't pose as news, or as "fair and balanced". They're totally separate from Fox's news division, just as the op-ed columnists on this site are separate from the Washington Post news division.

I'm still trying to figure out your plan. What entity is going to remove Limbaugh and O'Reilly from the air? Either it's their parent corporations or the government. The corporations won't do it; they like what those guys say, since it makes them money. And the government won't, because they aren't doing anything illegal. So who's going to take them off the air? And how do you fit into all this? You seem to seriously think you're accomplishing something; please explain the details.

Posted by: Blarg | October 1, 2007 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey spartan -- yeah this christian right thing -- saying they won't support Guiliani -- is pretty big news. It demonstrates the fracture occurig between the Big biz faction and the 'social conservative' faction.

It may well be what costs the R's the 2008 election.It's a big political development, and yet CC is ignoring it. Guess it doesn't fit the DC CW.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

what they say blarg is. "You have free speeh, but I have the right to fire you if I don't like what you say."

I'm just trying to recipracate this. Rush said things that I strongly disagree with. He is tryign to start a new revolution. they are preaching violence against liberals/americans. To show the gop that this is not ok, to silence the left's free speech. The right is represented. The left only has the internet. I'm doing my part.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

again blarg. If a newsperson loses all credibility are they still a newsperson? Or have they crossed over to a propogandist for profit? How can we re-unite this nation when people get paid millions by outside influences to divide us? Treason? Look it up

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"I think censoring free speech in that way is one of the tenets of fascism. As the local expert on fascism, what do you think?

o'rEILLY MAKES A LIVING, AS DOES HANNITY AND RUSH, silencing free speech. Have you ever watched or listened to their shows. Every single "bad person" o'reilly goes against. Every one, I have seen has lost. He and hannity single handledly got rosie and ward churchhill fired for their jobs. I could go on to countless exapmles on how they silence free speech on the right, a la censuring moveon and media matters.

they pose as news. they pose as fair and balanced. Fox has been lying to the edlery daily for profit. they intentionally leave out news unfavorable for the gop. That is not news. that is propoganda.

Not to mention the right's sielcning and trying to eliminate rap music. I think the same rules should apply to all. no. I think rush hannity and o'reilly should be free to speak. They shoudl not be able to call wha tthey do is new. Sell a cd. I wouldn't have any problem with that. My problem comes when they lie daily to the elderly for profit. I love my grandpa. He has beeen milead by these people. He is my idol. Getting rush and o'reilly off the air free him. I can elaborate if you wish

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Religious right may blackball Giuliani
Christian conservative leaders privately consider supporting a third-party, antiabortion candidate should Rudy Giuliani win the GOP nomination.

Sept. 30, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination

The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party," said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. "Dobson came in just for this meeting," the person said.

Posted by: spartan | October 1, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

i would like to interupt all the ranting going on to change the subject.

cc-hey slick, here's a news item for you. obama has raised 19million and he's leading in the polls in iowa, and what are you talking about? john freaking edwards! thats two threads and counting, what do you have a man crush on him now? are you going to ask about his wide stance? this is getting worse than the hillary worship your always engaged in.

anyways heard a interesting interview with richard viguire(sp) on am radio earlier, the whole nuts and bolts of it is this. a group of social conserviative leaders(basically dobson, tony perkins, gary bauer and others) basically decided that if a liberal republican, became the gop nominee it would mean the death knell of the repubican party and launch a 3rd party challenge from the right.

thinking about it for a sec if a 3rd party nomination attacking the right flank of the republicans combined with a energized democratic party canidate(the right canidate mind you. if hillary is the nominee then this theory goes right out the window.) you could look at it in a few ways.

1. every potental swing state will go blue.
2. the democratic canidate will take 3 or more southen states.virgina,arkansas,and florida comes to mind.
3. the house stays in dems hands and the senate may easily be fillibuster proof or if the stars come together,veto proof.
4.if the dem canidate is a populist(edwards)a agent of change(obama) or experienced statesman(biden or richardson) you could look at a repeat of a 1964 or 1984 landslide.


Posted by: spartan | October 1, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

You think that O'Reilly is going off the air every week? Really? Maybe you should re-evaluate that assumption. Because I see absolutely no reason to believe that. You, on the other hand, periodically claim that this time you're leaving for good and you'll never be back. And then you always come back. It's not really the same situation.

Why should O'Reilly be taken off the air? There's no law against what he does. There's no law against being a bloviating, obnoxious, lying conservative hate-monger. It's all perfectly legal. And he makes plenty of money for his parent corporation. So who do you think is going to take O'Reilly off the air? And do you really want to live in a country where a broadcaster can be silenced because his political views are incorrect? I think censoring free speech in that way is one of the tenets of fascism. As the local expert on fascism, what do you think?

Posted by: Blarg | October 1, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"Give both sides free speech and I disapper"

I give you Olbermann, CNN, moveon, Bill Maher, rosie O"donnell, Streisand, Chris MAthews, Kruggmann, and even Alan colmes. Just because no one watches them or believes them doesn't mean they don't have the chance. your problem is not with the system, it is with the message of the morons you support. but clearly morons need representatives too and you have yours. too bad no one listens to them, but we don't listen to you either, for the exact same reason.

now disappear. why should anyone beleive anything you say or engage you in the least. all you print is lies and false promises, just like your avatars, the Lib congress.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Wouldn't be very pratical would it. I can't really speak me real feelings in the world can I? Only republcains have free speech in this nation. I am relegated to anonymous blogs for fear of fascist reprisals. And you wonder why I'm so angry. Give both sides free speech and I disapper. Until that day, I am trying to balance out the fascist machine"

The crazy lunatic right wing fringe is all about killing more and more innocent civilians. they're about gutting all our rights. But I'm the bad guy. for wantign accountability and doing somehing about it.

I have no ego. You can't stop me. The only one that can, here, is cc. I wish you people would have the same rightous indignation for the people destroying this coutnry for profit.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

to play the gop game.

"I know you are but what am I"

You have to attack me persaonally. You can never rebuke my posts. This is why you people are sop angry. You not made at me really. You mad at yourselves. contionue to attack me. That's all you can do. Destroy my words so independant thinkers question my motives. It's all you got gop. Lie spin and discredit

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Tell me how I'm wrong."

Three ways dufus:

1) You think that somebody cares about what you post,

2) You think that somebody cares about what you post, and

3) You think that somebody cares about what you post.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"Do you act like this in real life?"

Wouldn't be very pratical would it. I can't really speak me real feelings in the world can I? Only republcains have free speech in this nation. I am relegated to anonymous blogs for fear of fascist reprisals. And you wonder why I'm so angry. Give both sides free speech and I disapper. Until that day, I am trying to balance out the fascist machine

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

rufas, no one on this blog watches those shows. get a clue. you need to find some serious help.

those guys you detest are tops in their field, thay are not going anywhere. why not go tilt at windmills on some other site that is as mindless as you are. Or better yet, start your own site with a specific goal in mind, you can count the visits and when it gets to ten, you can begin to ask for advertisers. If you ever make one bit of sense and sell your message (as O"reilly, rush and Hannity are doing so well) you may actually acheive your goal. but your agenda is backfiring here because even someone who might be preconditioned to sympathize with you is getting turned off by your obnoxious repetative rants.


Posted by: rufas is a nut job | October 1, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

WELCOME TO MY WORLD BLARG. Every week I think is the last for o'reilly/hannity/rush. disappointed every week. Just like you with me. As I've said my goal is to get rush and fox off the air so the eldery can think for themselves. Stop corrupting the political dialougue. Welcome to my world blarg. I suggest you do something abou tit. start at the top. That's what I'm doing.

Posted by: RUFUS | October 1, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is headed for the second-tier. Might as well jump off ASAP, right?

Posted by: mpp | October 1, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

If you don't want to post for the people that read this blog, then why don't you go somewhere else? Bother other people for a change. You keep saying that you're done with this site, that you're leaving forever. How about you actually follow through for once?

Do you act like this in real life? Do you walk up to people and scream at them about how they're faccistts? Then say that you'll go away if they get Rush Limbaugh off the air? I doubt it. Because if you did that in real life, you'd be locked up. Why do you think it's okay to do it on the Internet?

Posted by: Blarg | October 1, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

He brouth up jesse macbeth 2 minutes after mentioning phony soldiers. He threw that in their. Nice try though. Dittohead means you beleive everything you ravatar tells you. I'll be back. Don't think I won;t post tough guy

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

You'll be shocked to learn that Media Matters does not include this portion of the transcript in their posting -- and Senator Kerry and the others failed to mention it as well. I wonder why?"

I'll read the rest of you rgarbage. But what does kerry have to do with this,. That's how all independant thinkers know he's off the air. Grasping at straws. Going after everyone . HAHAHAH Nice try. We'll see if it works for rather. Proably not.

I'm busying at work now. I'll respond to your lies one by one when I can

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

rufas, you seem to have the same effect on audiences as Olbermann, CNN and air america - they turn the channel.

If you ever say something intelligent and noteworthy, like O"Reilly or rush, you may experieince the thrill of having a listener. not so with your current Olbermann approach.

Posted by: Ratings | October 1, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

What's obviously going on here is that antiwar advocates were deeply damaged by the ad smearing General David Petraeus. They were desperate to try to climb their way out of the hole they were in -- and so they decided this was their opportunity to find a way out. attacks Petraeus, they say, but Rush Limbaugh attacks members of the military who want to withdraw as "phony soldiers." So if Republicans are going to criticize us for what we said about General Petraeus, they should criticize Limbaugh for his slander.

The problem, of course, is that that the charge leveled against Limbaugh is obviously false; his phrase "phony soldiers" applied to Jesse Adam Macbeth -- and the phrase itself was clearly based on the news headline.

This effort to manufacture outrage does not sustain even minimal scrutiny -- which doesn't mean this story won't be picked up by some news outlets. But in the end, the truth will out. The Left in America clearly wants to take Limbaugh out, and for obvious reasons: he is a deeply influential conservative voice and during the last 20 years he has changed American politics and the American media in profound ways. The Left hates him -- but they have found no way to stop him. Like the Mississippi, he just keeps rolling along. And one gets the feeling that (as Churchill said in another context) he will continue to roll on full flood, to broad lands and bright days.

Posted by: rush is right | October 1, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

This is what Limbaugh says:

I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- Here is a morning update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities. One of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now -- and he was a corporal. I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart, it wasn't his being affiliated with posttraumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences, he told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq. American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way. We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque. Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army, Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp, Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart. And he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. Probably haven't even heard about this. And if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who a genuine war hero; don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is, fiction is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

You'll be shocked to learn that Media Matters does not include this portion of the transcript in their posting -- and Senator Kerry and the others failed to mention it as well. I wonder why?

Perhaps -- and this is only a wild guess -- it's because it would demonstrate that when Rush Limbaugh mentioned "phony soldiers," he meant, literally, phony soldiers.

Posted by: kookoo lefty | October 1, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Let's do it then zouk, you coward. Tell me how I'm wrong. You have to post with out a post name. You have to attack. You got nothing. I would destroy you , verbally, if you ever engaged me. You know that. Peanut gallery. Your party is done.

I have been this way for years now, since watching o'reilly everyday in 2002. It's like this movement with is now the moveon of anti-war left, is rallying around me. It's like my will is being done. My thoughts are into action, if not by me. It's a great thing. Am I to turn on them now? No. I'm fighting for somthing. I, and those like me are fighting for this country. What are you fighting for peanut gallery. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. What else do you care about?

crickets crickets. Money is nothing but paper. You are wasting your lives if you live for money.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

"There are plenty of posts during the times of day when you aren't here. Once you show up, everyone goes away, because there's no point in even trying to have a conversation when you're around."

nOT MY PROBLEM. yOU ARE FREE to engage me. We all can talk about topics. But you people don't want that do you? So you are left with this. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. You cannot talk about free speech while silencing one side. You cannot peanut gallery my posts then expect me to pity you people. I can about your feelings like you care about mine. I longer post for teh 5 people that come here daily. I now post for the gop's that are pointed here by their fear of olberman, or those that are seeking truth due to olberman.

Either way I will post my news. Eitheer way I will point the propogandists and liars out for what they are.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, ignorant coward and drindl.

and then there were none.

the 11%ers won't go away, they love to hang out together and discusss how even the Dems have now slighted them. the kooky moonbats.

now that we are clearly winning the war, what will your next campaign be? what will you protest this weekend?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"RUSH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to, "

Is a newsman with zero credibility then a propogandist? A propogandist for profit. Who can we re-unite as a nation with these people controling the government?

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

another note. I told you people I was for three parties. Right left and center. But the result would be the left being shut out and the moderates sellin gout with the fascists. That was my only reservation abou tthree parties. Now you see it in action. The republicans are one party. THE MODERATES DEMOCRATS are selling out to the devil.

I don't know which is worse. Moderates or fascists. Is it worse to know evil and sell-out for profit or to be evil? I'm not sure. But I'll fight both if I must.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

to bad, so sad, blarg. I don't want to post for the same 5 people everyday anyway. Stop spyin gon me. Stop trying to set people up. Leave if you must. More people will come. You are not as valuble as you think. As you can see only 5 people come here daily. You people play your little games with yourselves. Doesn't effect me. I'll do what I do.

you want me gone like I want them gone. I can about gop feelings like rush and o'reilly care about mine. You want to do somethign about the level of political conversation in this country, you preaching to the choir. Start at the top. GEt rid of rush and fox and I'm gone. Until the next propogating gop fascist takes their reigns.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

sorry drindl. I'm on one over this hypocricy. Censure moveon enraged me, but this. I have been trying to get rush and o'reilly off the air for 5 years now. Am I supposed to be silent today? Um, nope.

Ignore, if you must. Go elsewhere. You can only control you. I can only control me. A christian can only do what he feels is God's will, unappolagetically.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Nobody else posts because of you. There's no point. Anything we try to say is going to be swallowed up by your constant flood of Rush Limbaugh updates and unwarranted insults. There are plenty of posts during the times of day when you aren't here. Once you show up, everyone goes away, because there's no point in even trying to have a conversation when you're around.

Posted by: Blarg | October 1, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"you already know you cannot control me"

We're not trying to. It's because you're so out of control, and we have ways of helping you get a life again.

Gives us a try. It's free, you already paid for it.


Posted by: Elias | October 1, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Let the village do it. I am busy

"I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information... even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God."

Posted by: lib parenting | October 1, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

If no one else posts. I will post mine. I can only control me. You people control yourselves. But you already know you cannot control me. try as you might.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm not having a conversation. I'm posting. I'm not stopping anyone else. go away then. This will be my blog now, if you wish.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"PALLONE: Yesterday, House Republicans offered a motion to recommit, condemning for its advertisement stating that General Petraeus had betrayed us. I'm wondering if they'll show similar outrage over statements made yesterday by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday Limbaugh called service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." Is Limbaugh serious? I wonder if Republicans who showed so much outrage towards MoveOn yesterday will hold Rush Limbaugh to the same standard -- and I wouldn't hold your breath.

RUSH: You shouldn't hold your breath because there's no standard to hold me to"

Well said rush. Well said. This is why the outrage is far less with rush and o'liely. This is what they do daily. It's their job. Attackning people propogating for profit dailt. Coulnd't have happened to a worse human being.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

rufsu, that's quite a conversation you're having with yourself on this thread.

Today more than ever is proof that you need help.

Get in touch with us at:

We're here for you!

Posted by: Elias | October 1, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

rufus, you know I am not your enemy. But i have to say -- you are driving people away. Your posts are too long, especially since you post so much. Give a paragraph or two, then a link. It's only fair to everybody else.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

So for all you rattacks on me. If I anger you and you want me silecned. Imagine how I feel when I read rush or watch o'reilly/hannity. I reach, what 10 people a day. These people reach millions. You want me gone. right your ship. Stop making these propogandists millions. You would have never heard of a "rufus" if you were not fascist hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"CNN REPORTERETTE: Apparently this week Rush Limbaugh used the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe American troops who opposed the Iraq war. Given that the president has commented, uh, last week, uh, on the MoveOn ad, uh, on General Petraeus, and called it "disgusting," is this something that the president would, you know, feel compelled to comment on?

PERINO: It's the first I've heard of that comment. Taking that it is accurate -- I have not heard it myself -- the president believes that if you are serving in the military, that you have the rights that every American has, which is that you're free to express yourself in any way that you want to, and there are some that oppose the war and that's okay.

CNN REPORTERETTE: The phrase "phony soldiers" to describe these --

PERINO: It's not a phrase the president would have used.

RUSH: "Not a phrase the president would have used." She wasn't aware. She had to assume that the reporter was relaying the story accurately to her, but this is how this stuff starts. This is an illustration. This is the way the Democrat playbook in '08 -- and actually it's been underway for a while. The illustration here, folks, is just how partisan supposed "objective" media people are. You know, I've got a website, and I've got a radio show, and I've got a phone, and I have people who answer the phone, and if they read something like this... I've been on the air 19 years, a little bit over 19. Just the blanket acceptance of this -- knowing full well that Media Matters takes things out of context all the time, the blanket acceptance of this -- and then running with it full speed, is an illustration of what I have been drumming into people's heads for years. The Drive-By Media is as partisan as any organization out there. They hide under this notion that they are objective, but they've got an agenda. They have their narratives. They have their templates. When anything fits the narrative, whether it's true or not -- i.e., the Duke rape case -- you go with it. You run with it! You make the mess! This is why they're called the "Drive-By" Media. You make the mess. They drive in. They shoot things up, create all kinds of mess, get in the convertible, head back down the road, and it's left to people like me to clean up the mess that they make -- and they make messes every day, over, and over, and over again. So the reason for spending this time on this is to illustrate that that is how this happens. This organization is a front group for Mrs. Clinton, as are so many other organizations out there that engage in these kinds of smears. One more sound bite here from the floor of the House. This is Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey. Here's a portion of what he said.


Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Many soldiers and Marines being discharged on this basis actually suffer from combat-related problems, experts say. But by classifying them as having a condition unrelated to the war, the Defense Department is able to quickly get rid of troops having trouble doing their work while also saving the expense of caring for them.

The result appears to be that many actually suffering from combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries don't get the help they need.

Working behind the scenes, Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., have written and inserted into the defense authorization bill a provision that would make it harder for the Pentagon to discharge thousands of troops. The Post-Dispatch has learned that the measure has been accepted into the Senate defense bill and will probably become part of the Senate-House bill to be voted on this week.

Posted by: obama! | October 1, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The more I read the angrier I get. How can we come togther as a nation with people like this tearing us apart, daily. For profit? Right your ship GOP. Right you rship so the left doesn't have to do it for you

"RUSH: So he's calling him a liar. So this is typical. This is what's commonplace every day in the halls of Congress inhabited by Democrats. It is the generals; it's the soldiers: they are the liars. They are the reprobates. They are the ones that need to be demoralized. They are the ones that need to lose so the Democrat Party can reap political power once again -- and they have failed. They have failed at every effort to end this war in the defeat that they have sought. They have failed to hang defeat around the neck of George W. Bush, whose presidency they have sought to destroy. These people, ladies and gentlemen, are beyond the pale. US national security is irrelevant to them at this point in time. Their acquisition of power is all that matters. I've been waiting for this to blossom, and it finally did. At the White House briefing today, this afternoon, with the spokesperson Dana Perino, a CNN reporterette asked this question"

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

1971? Trying to defract attention from his statements. Many news stations are lying in favor of rush, as they did for o'reilly. I'm glad the propogandists are being shone for what they are. Propogandists for profit. Sell-out traitors. Support the troops

"WEBB: I really regret Mr. Limbaugh saying things like that. You know, we have, uh, political diversity inside the military just like we do in the country. If you look at the -- I believe it was the six [sic--seven] soldiers, uh, who wrote with honor the piece for the New York Times not long ago, I think three [sic--two] of them, uh, now died. [truck accident] Uh, I think, uh, Mr. Limbaugh have to, uh, take a look at -- at that sort of reality. I really react strongly when people politicize the service of our military people.

RUSH: What an absolute lunatic joke to make, after the way General Petraeus was just treated! Politicize the military? Mr. Webb stepped in it. You put a bag of manure in front of a liberal Democrat and they are sure to step in it. He just assumed that what he was told was true, that I called anti-war troops "phony soldiers," when everybody involved in this knows full well I was talking about one genuine convicted, lying, fake soldier, who was undermining this mission, who was doing his best to demoralize the troops. I stand up for the troops! The Democrat Party has been trying to demoralize them. The Democrat Party has been trying to lose the Iraq war, the war on terror. They own defeat. They are invested in it. They have failed to hang defeat around the neck of this president, and the presidency that they've been trying to destroy. They have now really upset their fringe base by all of the top-tier candidates in Wednesday's debate saying, "There's no way I'm going to pull troops out of there before 2013." They are beside themselves now, and so they choose to come after me in an unprovoked and totally out-of-context fashion. It is I who am owed an apology here. Let's go to the floor of the House. A portion of remarks made by Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky.

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, Rush Limbaugh is at it again. Unable to defend an indefensible war in Iraq, he's once again resorted to sliming the messenger. In this case, unbelievably, the messenger he's going after are the brave men and women who have served their country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other wars. Men and women who serve in Iraq differ from Rush Limbaugh in two critical ways. First, unlike Mr. Limbaugh, they actually served in the military. Second, unlike Mr. Limbaugh, they understand that the war in Iraq is making our country less safe and destroying the military.

RUSH: Do these people understand what fools they sound like to anybody who knows the truth about all of this? They haven't the slightest idea how foolish they sound; they don't care. Folks, I do not need, nor do you, lectures from liberals, Democrats, Drive-By Media people on whether or not they served in the military about supporting our troops. It is they who are undermining the troops, smearing the troops, endangering them every damn day -- and they know it, and they have done it purposefully! They are undermining the war effort. They want to be called patriots for doing it. Same on selecting Jim Webb! Shame on John Kerry! Shame on them! They should be speaking out for our soldiers, not throwing in with the anti-war crowd. They cannot have it both ways, not on this program. There are 170,000 soldiers in Iraq. The least we can do here at home is support them, and on this program they have universal, total support. Here's more from Ms. Schakowsky from the floor of the House.

SCHAKOWSKY: How dare Rush Limbaugh label anyone who has served in the military as a quote "phony soldier," unquote? Could Rush Limbaugh actually face soldiers who have risked their lives and tell them that their beliefs don't matter? Let's pay attention to the 72% of American troops serving in Iraq who also think the US should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four who say the troops should leave immediately, according to the Zogby poll. I guess they're all a bunch of phonies, according to Rush Limbaugh. Apparently, however, Mr. Limbaugh thinks they deserve to be smeared and belittled unless they happen to agree with him. I understand why Rush Limbaugh cannot debate this war on the merits, but bashing soldiers and veterans who disagree with him is unpatriotic and un-American.

RUSH: Of course, none of what she said is true. She's just ignorant, and I don't need to be lectured to by these people. But, you see, they have taken the occasion of this comment... They don't care whether it's true or not; they just launch on their soapbox. Do you know how much I got under their skin, folks, for them to take this to the floor of the houses? Tom Harkin has done this. Let's go back in time, shall we? Let's go back to April 22nd, 1971, John Kerry testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Vietnam.

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY 1971: They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned off the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Jen-jiss Khan. Not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with a full awareness at all levels of command.

RUSH: Lies! Senator Kerry was insulting and smearing members of the armed forces back in 1971, people he didn't even serve with and things that he didn't even see. Does the name Jesse MacBeth rise up again here in this discussion of phony soldiers? Here is John Kerry from December 4th, 2005.


You people got more balls than brains, I'll give you that. Your time is up

Posted by: rufus | October 1, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Another example is Richard Perle. Richard Perle headed the Defense Policy Board. Just two months after 9/11 he launched a venture capital firm called Trireme Partners that exists to invest in the homeland security and defense sectors. One of his first investors was Boeing -- it sunk $20 million in Trireme. Meanwhile, Perle is using the Defense Policy Board to make the case for war. And of course Boeing was another one of the huge winners from the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Klein: If we look at who the real intellectual engines of this war are, we'd see a web of people who are not simply the statesmen they appear to me but card-carrying members of the disaster capitalism complex -- shareholders, board-members and directors of companies that profit directly and enormously from war and other disasters --

Cusack: Who would these people be..?

Klein: Well, for instance, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was a propaganda arm of the Bush administration, publicly making the case for the invasion of Iraq. And it was founded by Bruce Jackson, a vice president of Lockheed Martin who had been out of his job for just three months. Jackson stacked the committee with old colleagues from Lockheed -- Charles Kupperman, Lockheed Martin's vice president for space and strategic missiles was on it, and so was Douglas Graham, Lockheed's director of defense systems. And even though the committee was formed at the explicit request of the White House to make the case for war in the public mind, no one had to step down from Lockheed or sell his shares. Which was certainly good for committee members, since Lockheed's share price jumped 145 percent thanks to the war they helped engineer -- from $41 in March 2003 to $102 in February 2007.

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was chaired by George Shultz, who wrote op-eds and went on TV beating the drums, and was presented just as this respected statesman. But Shultz hasn't been in office for decades. And in the meantime, he'd been working for Bechtel -- at the time he was calling for the invasion, he was still on its board, and since Bechtel is a privately held company, we don't know anything about his holdings. We do know that Bechtel was one of the biggest winners of the reconstruction game in Iraq, landing $2.3-billion in contracts.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 1, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I have to mention I've met Joe Trippi, and he really is an egotistical tool -- as someone mentioned earlier, so expect John Edwaards campaign to spiral downwards.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

WOW. this is getting ugly now. Forgive us for not allowing you to break federal law and spy on americans. Like the gop, take no accountability. point the finger at the messanger. FASCISM. For those that no knowing, roo :)

"AT&T: Say bad things and we'll cancel your internets
By: Nicole Belle @ 1:03 PM - PDT Net neutrality, anyone? What an incredibly slippery slope we're now hurtling down...


Slashdot broke the news on Saturday that AT&T's updated terms of service for its high-speed Internet packages essentially forbid you from criticizing the company on pain of cancellation. The full terms of service are here, and here's the offending passage highlighted, courtesy of Ars Technica:

AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

This is the exact kind of overbroad legalese that gets companies in trouble in ways they probably never thought of. If I am an AT&T subscriber, for example, and I post derogatory comments about AT&T on a site they own, does this give them leave to terminate my service? What if I post or send a complaint about AT&T to a complaint site or consumer news site, like ConsumerAffairs.Com (whom I write for), and they publish said complaint? Am I liable if I was using my AT&T ISP while writing said complaint? What if I did so while using my laptop at a Wi-Fi hotspot? The mind boggles.

Martin at S&R continues on with other egregious acts that AT&T has committed in the last few years, from cooperating with the Bush Administration on domestic wiretapping to blocking NARAL's text messages. And while Verizon's Terms of Service are no better, this kind of corporate fascism is truly disturbing. Tim Karr has more. Thankfully, I don't use AT&T or Verizon for my service, so I feel comfortable quoting William O. Douglas to them:

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Remember that.


Posted by: RUFUS | October 1, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company