I’m particularly interested in his “unless” utterance. What exactly did he not say there?

Worse still, is Wesley Clark the kind of person we want determining what is acceptable and what is not? Rhetorical, I know, but I digress.

By Curt on 10.05.07 4:13 pm

First, let me say that I honestly appreciate any one else who has served this great country, so do not think that I am belittling Clark’s motivations. But let us look at this statement critically. What experience or training does this man have that would cause anyone to even turn his direction while speaking about this? How stupid would anyone have to be to agree with this man? The first amendment is exactly what he is trying to wipe his backside with here. Clark talks too much and about things that he should not. This is a man that liked having power and to have his ego stroked. He was used, kissed and taken advantage of like a drunken prom date by the Dems in the past and he still does not even know it yet. Someone please go out and but this man a clue so that he will know what most people think of his verbal diarrhea.

By BCB on 10.05.07 5:49 pm

Clark says that Congress pays for the airwaves and therefore should control them.
Congress pays for nothing! It’s the taxpayers of this country who finance Congress. If more taxpayers prefer listening to conservative talk radio than liberal mush, then LEAVE IT ALONE!

By John Stuart on 10.05.07 11:24 pm

The biggest problem with so-called conservative talk radio is the near absolute refusal of most of its representatives to quote the opposition accurately and in context, to extrapolate isolated outrageous incidents to the other side as a whole, and the excoriation of so-called liberals as unpatriotic and intolerant when they are in fact almost always fighting for an America that includes everyone.

So-called conservative talk radio has in general raised to a high art the dissemination of information that has been edited, massaged, and formed in ways that appeal to the basest emotional mob instincts of those who prefer to outsource their critical thinking skills.

By SemiPundit on 10.06.07 12:15 am

One further thought.

I listen to Thom Hartmann on Air America when I can. He is also available via web streaming. One thing that always impresses me is the number of so-called conservative guests he has on for serious and civil debate of the issues. They have included people from organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Ayn Rand Institute, among numerous others.

Compare that to hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, and the angry, apoplectic Mark Levin, who is particularly nasty and ill-mannered. They are rude, combative, constantly interrupting, and bent on derailing any possibility of intellectual analysis of any issue at hand.

Then there is Ann Coulter, who is perhaps one accidentally open mike away from taking a serious career turn.

By SemiPundit on 10.06.07 12:26 am

So talk radio should be fair? Who in the world said ANYTHING is supposed to be fair? Is MoveOn.org fair? The “Old Gray Lady” that has apparently fallen down and cannot get up fair? Congress isn’t even fair and they are aware of it. Just look at how much deliberation has gone on for a FAIR hate crimes bill that makes some people more FAIR than others. I am sure that the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran says that he is FAIR too in his twisted mind.

No sir, in this country the market is a driving force. If liberals would listen to liberal talk radio, we wouldn’t be able to get them to shut up about it, but they don’t. Liberal talk radio just does not sell. And once again, I believe that the libs will turn first to the legislative branch to try to “fix” this more in their favor and ultimately they will appeal to that last bastion of hope for liberals everywhere: the Ninth Circus. Sorry, I think it is really called the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so that they can have that legislation from the bench. They turn to the courts because they are attempting to circumvent going to the people and being beaten down.

If you want FAIR, go to Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela or somewhere else that claims to be FAIR. America gives equal opportunity to conservatives and liberals to put forth what ever they want on the radio. Equal opportunity does not always give equal results. I think as a nation, we need to learn to live with that. Or maybe I should sue to be a professional basketball player……..

By BCB on 10.06.07 7:54 am

I must continue. In the interest of radio ratings and FAIRNESS I must ask who was screaming fairness and rating when John Kerry (you remember that whiz bang presidential candidate and liberal savior) call the troops of the US military terrorists? Who was screaming for fairness and rating when Reid and Obama were making similar statements? Who: and think carefully before you answer: screamed for fairness and ratings while Jesse Macbeth told his lies? No one because liberals thought it was serving their cause and not the cause of this great nation. No one because they thought that it helped to illustrate just how America should and would lose in Iraq and elsewhere. Now that Macbeth has been found to be nothing more than a liar, who is screaming now? I mean for fairness and ratings. THE LIBS!! Who don’t want people to point out these and other issues! I think it is incredible that even in politics like our criminal justice system, the offender claims more rights that the victim!! And NO WHERE, and I mean NO WHERE in the liberal media are they attempting to find out how the actual boots on the ground feel about this. Barbara Boxer will worry about an American casualty but she doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about how they feel themselves during this. Oh and I need to be FAIR and point out that the hero PHONY SOLDIER of the left is really named JESSE ADAM AL ZAID. Yet another connection between the libs and anyone that might have an anti-American agenda.

Sorry to take up the extra space Terry.

By BCB on 10.06.07 8:26 am

Isn’t it less about fairness than it is about station ownership? How can any point of view that challenges the objectives and philosophy of an owner or sponsor be allowed to air without some degree of censorship? For example, if a major defense contractor owns a network, can its broadcasters criticize the awarding of massive weapons contracts?

By SemiPundit on 10.06.07 11:55 am

When you talk about large defense company radio station owning war-mongering conglomerates, are you getting them confused with the other fictitious companies that manufactured toxic waste on Al Gore’s carton called Captain Planet? How many defense contractors own radio stations? Did they own Air America or did the American consumer speak with their listenership? And how would rating the content on any show then magically make things better on a station own by this mysterious defense company? No, I think that the market will take care of itself and when a show is on that people want to hear, it will do well. When a show only has bad things to say about America, tells the average American that they do not pay enough taxes and that they should not be part of a great nation or that the radio program openly advocates the defeat of American forces during a WAR, just what the heck kind of commercial success do you think it will have? And most importantly, how will “rating” the contents change anything?

By BCB on 10.06.07 8:43 pm

The biggest problem with so-called conservative talk radio is the near absolute refusal of most of its representatives to quote the opposition accurately and in context, to extrapolate isolated outrageous incidents to the other side as a whole

Sounds like Air America, the MSM and the evening news. So when liberals do it, it is okay?

By Number9 on 10.07.07 9:49 am

It is not acceptable when anyone does it, including the so-called liberal media.

Only a few days ago, I heard Sean Hannity remark on Mr. Kerry’s “accusing” his fellow soldiers of Vietnam atrocities in his now-famous Senate testimony. Reading of the Congressional Record and viewing of the filmed testimony reveals to any reasonable person that he was reporting what had been told to him by those soldiers. Mr. Hannity, and many of his colleagues, recognized how easy it is to frame such an occurrence in a way favorable to them and their aims and to serve it up to people who are both willing and anxious to suspend their critical evaluation faculties.

Regarding the same testimony, Wesley Pruden, Editor-in-Chief (no less) at the Washington Times wrote an article in which he replaced “They told us that they had cut off heads…” with “They…cut off heads… .” Note the difference the ellipses (…) indicating an omission of text makes in how the statement accurately quotes Mr. Kerry. It makes all the difference in the world.

Make an effort to spot when that is done. You may be surprised and rewarded for your diligence.

By SemiPundit on 10.07.07 1:41 pm

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,”

John Kerry 2006

How would Wesley Clark rate it and how would rating it help?

“And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs.”

John Kerry 2005

I just did not find any dots.

“We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.” (Look no dots!)

John Kerry 1971

Comparing, even back then, US troops to terrorists during the notorious “Winter Soldier” episode. He can hide behind the “they told me so” defense but if he did not believe it why would he say it? If he did not think it true, why would he say anything?

I do not know why the article of how rating political speech for content solving anything would somehow end up with someone defending liberals from themselves. But I guess guilty dogs do bark quickest, loudest and without provocation sometimes.

Or maybe the loudest voices from the left truly are anti-American after all and they want their content rated on a scale similar to our movies? G is good for America. PG is partially good for America. PG-13 is partially good for America but some person is going to feel unlucky. R is reprehensible in American eyes. And X marks the spot and the spot is an enemy to this great nation. Tell me how you would rate these quotes in light of the FACTS now that they are actually coming out and no longer supporting an anti-American agenda:

After the roadside bomb went off, “A taxi drives up,” Murtha told ABC.
“There’s four or five people in it. And they shoot those four or five people, unarmed. And then, they go on a rampage throughout the houses and kill people,” said Murtha, a retired Marine colonel who has become a vocal critic of the war in Iraq.
“One woman, as I understand it, in talking to the officials in the Marine Corps, was bending over a child, pleading for mercy, and they shot her in cold blood,” Murtha said.
“More disturbing” is that the Iraqi government knew about the killings, “because they made payments to the Iraqis for accidental deaths,” said Murtha, a Vietnam combat veteran.
The authorization of payments to families must have been made by a senior official, meaning that high-level authorities would have known about the attack, Murtha said.
“First of all, they tried to say the IED is what killed these people. The next day, there was a team out there investigating, as they always do. And then, nothing happened. Nobody hears about it. They don’t tell anybody — until March, when Time magazine broke the news, nobody realized or recognized what happened.”
Taken from CNN.com, Monday, May 29, 2006; Posted: 9:29 a.m. EDT (13:29 GMT)
Now this toothless dog, Murtha, with more bark than brains spoke out in anti-American language with made up facts that supported his “lose at any cost” stance. How should that bull be rated? Was it anti-American or merely partisan politics? Is one really any better than the other? After all, he did not merely take things out of context like conservative talk radio was alleged to have done, but he actually made up facts and reported accounts that were later attributed to the enemy! So what does that tell us about Mr. Murtha? That maybe rating his content would not change anything? Or maybe that he is in just a little too cozy with the rest of our nations enemies? I think the latter. And I tried to look past the dots, how did I do?

By BCB on 10.07.07 2:37 pm

A couple of minutes ago, at 12:10 PM, Rush Limbaugh reported, with great outrage, that the Clinton campaign has hired Sandy Berger.

As it happens, a couple of minutes before that, Fox News reported that Mr. Berger would be serving as an unpaid advisor to the campaign.

I rest my case.

By SemiPundit on 10.08.07 11:14 am

Semi – does being “hired” automatically mean you are being “paid”? It seems both stories are stating that Berger will be working for the campaign – what does it matter if he is paid or not?

By Jim on 10.08.07 6:09 pm

What matters is that a convicted secret stealer is now going to help the wife of an impeached president in an attempt to regain the oral office.

By BCB on 10.08.07 7:39 pm

Rush used the word “hired”. I think most of us know the customary use of the word. So does Rush, but then he has all those slackjaws out there to mesmerize.

Where can I find a list of the documents Berger stole and what their contents were? Also, if I went to the archives, looked at a document and memorized it, then used that information for some purpose long after leaving the building, would I have been guilty of a crime?

By SemiPundit on 10.08.07 11:36 pm

Semi–You’re going to quibble with BCB and Jim over the word hired but then you turn around and try to equate looking at a document as the moral equivalent of stealing it?

Berger took documents out of the archives–we don’t know what they were—they are now gone against all the rules. Now no one else may ever see what they held. He stuffed them in his socks!

He voluntarily submitted his law license before it could be taken. I’m shocked that you come on here an talk about fairness and then at the same time you don’t see a problem with his actions. And you’re accusing others of being slackjaws?

I think it would be pretty to fair to say that for you, the ends must justify the means. The same way you’re arguing above in favor of censorship. Your solutions are based on sheer subjectivity. I can’t tolerate Chris Matthews, shall we censor him?

I’d say you’d say hands off to him because he fits within the Semi-Pundit narrative.

By Terry on 10.09.07 4:20 am

And Semi, it is not illegal to memorize the contents of a document. That is assuming of course that you are not going to share it or allow it to be released in an unsecured location or circumstances. Is sticking the documents under a construction trailer outside the archives secure?

And I would think that a supporter of the English language: Kerry never said he “WITNESSED” but he did testify to the Senate, Berger was “HIRED”? And yet so many wanted to give a pas on someone’s BROAD interpretation of sex (penetration is sex and oral sex on a male was illegal according to the UCMJ when I was in the military) and had to defend themselves by trying to understand the definition of “IS.” It sounds like he went to public schools and should have been held back. I think that mincing words when it is convenient is great if we were lawyers writing law, but much of what we are discussing here are concepts that have broad interpretations and broader implications.

And for Clark to try to put a box around my First Amendment rights has BROAD implications.

By BCB on 10.09.07 6:32 am