What Rush Limbaugh actually said and did (Part 2)

One group which had a quick response to Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" line was VoteVets.org. Here's some info on the group:

The mission of VoteVets.org Political Action Committee is to elect Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to public office; hold public officials accountable for their words and actions that impact America’s 21st century servicemembers; and fully support our men and women in uniform.

A political action committee (PAC), VoteVets.org was founded in January 2006 by Iraq war Veterans Jon Soltz and Jeremy Broussard. Since its inception, VoteVets.org PAC has endorsed eight candidates for office – both Democratic and Republican. Additionally, VoteVets.org PAC held 11 Members of Congress accountable in 2006 for failing to provide body armor and healthcare to active servicemembers.

One of the founding members of VoteVets.org is Jon Soltz. On September 27, 2007--the day after Limbaugh said "phony soldiers"--Soltz posted a column at The Huffington Post about Limbaugh's remarks. Here are some excerpts:

First, in what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life -- not even one at Mickey D's -- and somehow he's got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves?

Second, maybe Rush doesn't much care, but the majority of troops on the ground in Iraq, and those who have returned, do not back the President's failed policy. If you go to our "Did You Get the Memo" page at VoteVets.org, there's a good collection of stories, polls, and surveys, which all show American's troops believe we are on the wrong track, not the right one, in Iraq.

Does Rush believe, then, that the majority of the US Armed Forces are "phony?"

Third, the polls and stories don't even take into account the former brass who commanded in Iraq, who are incredibly critical of the Bush administration, and it's steadfast refusal to listen to those commanders on the ground who have sent up warning after warning. Major Generals John Batiste and Paul Eaton left the military and joined VoteVets.org for that very reason.

Does Rush believe that highly decorated Major Generals are "phony soldiers?"

*******

My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I'll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security.

Ball's in your court.

Other members of VoteVets.org made the same challenge to Limbaugh, and I will detail some of their actions in another post. This post will focus on the fact that that simple challenge has gone unanswered.

VoteVets.org made a television commercial featuring Brian McGough, an Iraq war veteran who suffered a traumatic brain injury from shrapnel from a car bomb. The next post will discuss Limbaugh's disgusting response to the ad in which he 1) described McGough as a suicide bomber and 2) then denied that he made such a comparison. This post will examine something else Limbaugh did after making the suicide bomber comparison.

To put the remainder of this post in context, I will quote from an October 2, 2007, letter from the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, Mark P. Mays, to Sen. Harry Reid. Clear Channel is the corporate giant that syndicates Limbaugh's show nationwide. Reid had written Clear Channel protesting Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" statement, and the October 2 letter was in response to Reid. I will say now that the letter is generally well written and contains many things with which I agree. Here are the first two paragraphs from Mays's letter:

I want to thank you and your Senate Democratic colleagues for sharing your concern over recent comments by Rush Limbaugh on his daily radio program. First, let me say that the men and women who wear the uniform in defense of our country deserve the utmost respect and gratitude from each and every one of us whom they serve to protect. I assure you that I fully agree with your statement that “not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors, and friends serving overseas is a phony soldier.” As a grateful American citizen, I would reject anyone’s contention to the contrary.

Mr. Limbaugh’s comments last week have stirred a lot of emotion, and I have carefully read the transcript from the episode in question. I hope you will appreciate that I cannot speak with authity as to whom exactly Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were directed, or what was his intent. Only Mr. Limbaugh can speak to those issues, which he has done.

(emphasis added). But had Limbaugh really spoken to those issues? As I noted in the two previous posts Limbaugh could conclusively put an end to the controversy by simply saying that he does not consider anyone who has served or is serving in Iraq to be a "phony soldier," regardless of their views on the war, and although he came close to doing so, he waited until October 4 to do so.

Mays stated a rather obvious point about the possible meaning of Limbaugh's comments:

However, if Mr. Limbaugh’s intention was to classify any soldier opposed to the war in Iraq as a “phony soldier,” which he denies, then I, along with most Americans, would be deeply offended by such a statement.

Mays then wrote about free speech.

While I do not agree with everything Mr. Limbaugh says on every topic, I do believe that he, along with every American, has the right to voice his or her opinion in the manner they choose. The First Amendment gives every American the right to voice his or her opinion, no matter how unpopular. That right is one that I am sure you agree must be cherished and protected.

As the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, I support each of our on-air talent’s right to express himself or herself freely, as long as they do it within the confines of the laws set forth by Congress. For this reason, I have not and will not impose my own views upon any of our on-air talent. Doing so would, quite frankly, undermine the integrity of the broadcast, undercut the trust with our listeners that they are receiving the true and honest opinions of the radio host, and more importantly fly directly in the face the right to free speech that we hold so dear.

I agree with the principles expressed by Mays, but I do need to correct something he said. It is not just the laws of Congress that define the scope of free speech. Given that our right to free speech is born of the First Amendment, it is law established by the Constitution, not the Congress, and thus, a great deal of the scope and limitations of that right are determined by the courts. Also, each state has laws regarding free speech. Given the rest of Mays's letter, I am guessing that he would also take into account these other sources of laws.

Take a look at May's statements and then compare them to what Rush said on October 4 (see my previous post). Mays took far fewer words than Rush and was more direct and unequivocal. Mays also made those statements a day before Limbaugh. In any event, Mays promoted the First Amendment. It's just too bad that neither his company nor Limbaugh have done the same.

You see, Limbaugh has refused to have any member of VoteVets.org make an appearance on his show. To me, that shows cowardice. It also shows that Limbaugh is not interested in something that is considered by many to be a principle of the First Amendment, the marketplace of ideas. Julie Hilden succinctly defined the marketplace of ideas as "a virtual marketplace in which ideas compete against each other and where, in theory, truth, and the best ideas, will prevail." I am not going to discuss or analyze the principle in detail, but I will say that it has been a long-recognized--if not fully accepted or validated--concept in First Amendment law and theory. I will also say that the marketplace cannot function if ideas are excluded from the discussion. In other words, if one side of an issue is presented but all opposing views are excluded, there can be no marketplace, no competition, and no testing to reach the truth. I bring up the marketplace of ideas for two reasons: 1) since he styles himself as a conservative, I figure that Rush professes to believe in free markets rather than tight control and regulation, and 2) Rush his ownself constantly maintains that he and he alone speaks "the truth."

Now I know what some of you are thinking...Limbaugh didn't need to have any of the VoteVets people on his show because he didn't call any of them "phony soldiers." Well, even if that is true--and I don't think that it is--why not have Jon Soltz, Brian McGough, or anyone else from VoteVets.org on his show? That would promote the marketplace of ideas and the First Amendment. And if Rush is so convinced he and he alone proclaims the truth, then surely such an occasion would only serve to prove once and for all his superiority. So why won't Limbaugh have someone from VoteVets.org in the studio as a guest during his show?

As it turns out, it seems that Rush does indeed believe in the marketplace, just not of ideas. See, instead of actually bringing a person from VoteVets.org on his show as a guest, Limbaugh made the following proposal on October 4, 2007:

Now, there's something I can do, and I'm in the process of doing it. It's the least I can do. Your organization is choosing to raise money, using my name, and I'm happy about that. It's the least I can do for you guys. If you need to raise money, and my name raises money for a lot of people, you go right ahead because, Brian, it's going to come back to me. Here's how it works. You keep using your money that I raise for you to run ads on radio. If you buy time on my affiliates -- and it's smart to do, that's going to reach you the largest audience -- we use your money to make money for my station. So it's a win-win here, Brian. I'm happy to raise money for you, and I'm happy when you give it back to me.

Well, he is right about one thing--that is absolutely the least he could do. This "offer" is evidence of the conclusion to my previous post, which opined that making more money is what really motivates Limbaugh and that he is a self-centered, greedy whore. Of course, I also said he is a lying, hypocritical, cowardly jackass, and what transpired the day before Limbaugh made his "offer" provides evidence for that opinion.

It turns out that even before Limbaugh made his "offer," VoteVets.org sought to purchase three spots of advertising time to run a radio version of the McGough TV commercial. Now for the good part...The home station for Limbaugh's show is WJNO in Palm Beach, Florida. WJNO is a Clear Channel station. Clear Channel's Vice President/Marketing Manager for Clear Channel's 12 stations in the Palm Beach area refused to sell VoteVets.org ad time on Limbaugh's show via a letter dated October 3, 2007--the day before Limbaugh made his "offer." Here's the letter:

In light of the audience composition and the tone of the commercial presented by the “Vote for Vets”, we can not air the three spots requested for broadcast on WJNO AM during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Airing anti-Rush Limbaugh commercials during the Rush Limbaugh Show on WJNO AM would only conflict with the listeners who have chosen to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

As an alternative, we would propose airing the commercials during other dayparts on WJNO or on some of our other appropriate stations in the market, and would be happy to make advertising recommendations based on format and demographics to aid you in your station selection.

(spelling and punctuation errors in original). Un-freaking-believable. As Keith Olbermann said, "Making it official now, Limbaugh's fans must be actively protected from any opposing views." I'll add another layer to that theme. The person who wants protection from opposing views is Limbaugh. Rush's SOP is to deride and eventually dismiss anyone who dares to question or disagree with him. Recall how he treated the caller on September 26 who was a veteran and a Republican. Because the caller dared to question Bush's Iraq policy, Rush concluded that there was no way that the man was really a Republican and then he just called him names. Limbaugh did not engage in a substantive discussion in any way. Limbaugh never wants someone in front of him who disagrees with him because then he might actually have to engage in a substantive discussion. And then it might be more difficult for him to convince his all of his listeners that he and he alone speaks "the truth." In other words, Rush must be protected from having to address opposing views because otherwise his listeners might actually get more information and maybe think for themselves. And that could potentially lose Rush some listeners, which in turn could cost Rush and Clear Channel money. Rush is pro-First Amendment to the extent he is not necessarily concerned about what people say, but he is very concerned about what people hear. Allowing opposing views to be expressed and actually discussed would mean that Rush would not have total control over what his listeners hear, and Rush will never allow such a loss of control.

What really makes Limbaugh's "offer" appalling is that it happened after VoteVets.org attempted to buy time on his show and after Clear Channel had already denied that attempt. Stated differently, Rush already knew these facts when he boldly announced on October 4 that VoteVets.org should try to buy air time. If he had really been sincere about his "offer" he could have said that he was aware that VoteVets.org had tried unsuccessfully to buy time, but that he would see to it that they would get that time. Instead, he made it seem like they had been sitting on their hands doing nothing but whining and that he--the mighty instrument of truth--would make sure they had the chance to get on the air.

What a jackass.