Dems' letter that tried to censor Rush Limbaugh fetches 2.1 million on ebay

Well, it wasn't actually saying they should fire Rush or anything like that. It was saying that the CEO of Clear Channel should condemn his remarks when he called Iraq war vets who have criticized the war publicly "phony soldiers".

I'm pretty sure everyone and their mother condemned Don Imus and his remarks about the basketball team.

And the letter was in response to the uproar over the General Petraus General Betray Us thing.

Still silly perhaps, but not that huge of a deal, at least in my opinion. Others' thoughts?

Free speech is free speech, it is up to the employer to decide when his employee needs to tone it down. It's the listeners who should be putting the pressure on clear channel. The United States Senate, whether Republicans or Democrats should not be spending their time writing letters to media outlets, using their power and influence to censor what private citizens have a right to say. Let the free people of America who listen to Rush make that decision. Clear channel should not be pressured by the United States Government to censor their employees. Elected officials can give their opinion on the matter but they should not be signing documents and sending them to the media asking for censorship.

It's like the pot trying to censor the kettle. They all make way too much money for what they do.

This whole affair makes me sick frankly. It was idiotic for repubs to draft a bill condemning MoveOn for the Petreaus ad & even more astoundingly idiotic that a good amount of elected dems actually signed onto it!
It's also idiotic that the dems wasted time drawing legislation condemning Rush.
This is america. Our elected leaders need to stop wasting time & money witch hunting it's citizens about free speech issues.
MoveOn did nothing wrong and Rush is an ignorant dickhead, NEWSFLASH what a shocker! Guess what? Rush has a right to be a dickhead. Big deal, Congress needs to get back to real work like ending the biggest blunder in american history, for instance...duh!

1. If this woman really cared about the Marines she would have given this money to the charity without playing this retarded political game. Since when do you need an ebay auction to give money to charities?
There is nothing more ridiculous than an outraged ideologue. Left or right.

2. Whether that woman or anyone else was willing to pay for this piece of paper will not change the fact that Limbaugh's comments were unpatriotic according to his own definition of patriotism. After all if you say anything bad about the troops you are a traitor. Limbaugh told that to us so it must be so.

Wait just a minute, Scootmac! What you posted is the most BLATANT example of hypocrisy I've seen used by a thread-starter during the short time I've been visiting this site.

Wasn't the ORIGINAL hue and cry all about the "freedom of speech" that Radio Righties like Lush Rimbaugh and Neo-Conservative politicians condemned themselves in whining about the Petraeus ad?

Weren't they the FIRST to scream foul and ask for condemnation of the MoveOn ad that started this controversy? And aren't their efforts duly noted on talk radio transcripts and even in the Congressional Record? For Rice Cakes, Scootmac, they were wailing about MoveOn on the floors of both the House and Senate the very next day!

Didn't I see that stupid, speech-impaired Senator Cornyn from Texas displaying the MoveOn ad on an easel and bemoaning its "play on words" in front of his colleagues and piously pleading for a motion to condemn it on the floor of the Senate?

Furthermore, didn?t those same partisan hacks reject a condemnation that referred to the Swiftboaters also? It sure seems that you, Scootmac, have a peculiar deficiency in recognizing just what kind of one-sided political propaganda has been flooding AM radio channels in this country for the past 15 or so years.

I don't believe you had the audacity to actually start a threat here questioning a reply in kind about Lush Rimbaugh's opportunistic publicity stunt. Didn?t he practically INVENT ?Radio Rightyland? back when he was sober? Surely, most would agree that his fanning of the flames even AFTER the joint Congressional condemnation of the ad was particularly pompous considering he once said that drug offenders should be jailed and ?the keys thrown away?.

I will admit that the letter was as much of a windfall for Lush as 9/11 turned out to be for Bush and his contributors.

Here, Lush was able to obtain maximum mileage by taking hours of radio time to capitalize on the situation and to separate the letter from the supporting incidents that made up the whole picture.

Lush Rimbaugh?s handlers saw the opportunity to condemn the Senators? effort to put the matter to rest by using the Clear Channel/EIB auction to garner even more partisan support and help ratings at the same time. (I say his ?handlers? because Lush hasn't been THAT sharp in years.) I realize Lush is still sharp enough to fan the flames and he milked this situation for everything it had just as he does everything.

There are few idiots who can compete with Lush's over-bearing persona either physically or in terms of sheer irrational palaver.

When you stop to think about it, who else could theorize out loud that Mt. Pinatubo has been a bigger factor in climate change than fossil fuel emissions and still have enough listeners left to stay on the radio? (Notice he has strayed from his original declaration that climate change was not even happening? He used to say the melting of certain glaciers at different rates was proof positive that the global warming was not occurring.)

The success of this particularly fortuitous PR stunt may actually signal his return to semi-lucid thought. I?m sure it was hard for him to have to deal with his maid's refusal to fill enough extra Oxycontin prescriptions to make his hearing loss permanent.

Can you believe he STILL denies that he had a problem when one of the listed side-effects for Oxycontin, especially with regard to overdoses, is deafness? How smart can a guy like that actually be? Clever? Sure, but smart? Never.

Is attempting to defend the indefensible drivel of other Republicans just a symptom of Neo-Conservatism or do they just have less in the way of an Intelligence Quotient with which to evaluate the issues?

Either way, condemning the original condemner takes the cake. Abuse of power? LOL

Actually, I agree with Stardate when she said, "There is nothing more ridiculous than an outraged ideologue. Left or right."