Disagree (0.00 / 0)

As much as I believe in engaging in some political brawling and counterpunching, I think this is bad messaging:  Rush spews hatred, Leftists engage in "censorship".  Even if the request were to be fulfilled, it's hard to see that it does anything to really hurt Rush Limbaugh, it looks like we want to propagandize the military and punish those soldiers who enjoy Rush, and we give Rush and other right-wingers another talking point.  We can dicker over whether it should be called censorship, but that's what it sounds like, and it will be screamed loudly by our opponents.

Better, I'd say, is to use the same grounds to call for the inclusion of progressive voices over AFR, as balance to the right wing, and as a way of supporting all our military members, including those who disagree with Rush and the president's policies.

Since this is mostly a battle of symbolism, we shouldn't add fodder to right-wing criticism of progressives as intolerant, for no tangible gain on the ground.  Insisting on diversity in viewpoints on AFR is consistent with our larger messaging and ideals, and has at least as much chance of helping our cause as kicking Rush off of the military radio. 

Ump.

---

by: Umpteenth @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 16:14:18 PM CDT

Good point (which I missed) (0.00 / 0)

In my post below, I missed the point Umpteenth is making.  After reading his/her post, I'm inclined to agree that more inclusion vs. excluding Rush might be a better approach.

---

by: mitchipd @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 16:17:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The right action at the right time (4.00 / 1)

Well put Matt, and thanks to Wes Clark for recognizing and acting on this opportunity in what seems to be an effective and appropriate way.  I was a Clark supporter in 04 and though I don't agree with him on everything, he continues to strike me as strategically smart, with more than the average dose of courage, integrity and vision for creating a better future.

As Matt notes, this is a good and appropriate approach to push this issue (and the broader issues it raises).  If DC Dems can't get behind it, they will lose even more of my respect. 

While, in many respects, Clark is closely tied to the DC establishment, I've always felt that he has a genuine appreciation and respect for the netroots, real democracy and truly progressive change.  I also thought his comments on the MoveOn ad were sensible and constructive--especially coming from a guy who once sat in Petraeus' seat before a Republican-controlled Senate when the Commander in Chief was a Democrat-- regardless of whether you agree with him or not. 

We need more, not less, honest disagreements and debates within the progressive community.  I agree with Clark and others that this is part of what makes us strong, not weak.  The mythical strength of a "united" Republican right wing is, to a large extent, the false strength of a group of bullies abusing the weak.  It only looks like strength when those being pushed remain weak and afraid.

To segue back to Matt's earlier post, there's a parallel to this last point in terms of what we have in common with the emerging entrepreneurial left.  They face REAL and OPEN competition every day, and must learn to adapt to it through  innovation and satisfying customers who have plenty of options to choose from (just like we need to adapt to REAL and OPEN dialog, debate and democratic processes).  Like Republican (and some Dem) operatives, entrenched oligopolists that rely heavily on combinations of government favors, subsidies, entrenched market power and lobbying clout--rather than real innovation and customer service--also manifest much of the same "bully" characteristics.  Wall Street views them as strong as long as there's not too much real competition in their markets, so much of their focus is on using political, market and legal muscle to insure this remains the case. And, as Matt's prior post noted, there's a fair amount of overlap between these two groups of power abusers.

Which leads me back to recent posts by Paul R and others on the central role of "dignity" in the consciousness of political (and economic) realignment.  I'm coming to agree with Paul and Robert Fuller that a slogan like "dignity for all" can provide a unifying theme for progressive political policy and movement building.
http://www.huffingto...
http://breakingranks...

Dignity stands in direct opposition to abuse of power and "rank."  The Democratic party needs to be the power that supports universal dignity, and all that this entails (e.g., a healthy, functioning democracy, access to basic healthcare, education, rights to organize, choose, etc.)

---

by: mitchipd @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 16:15:13 PM CDT

More Diversity (0.00 / 0)

I'm for more diversity, not for kicking Rush off the air. The latter will only feed his ego and his shtick. Armed Forces Radio certainly ought to reflect the political diversity of the United States, even if 75 percent of soldiers are Republicans (no surprise there). Maybe this is something that can happen with the new administration and Congress in 2009. 

When I was in college in the early 1980s, a CIA agent was invited to give a series of lectures, which prompted some students to demand that he not be invited because of the CIA's crimes. I thought the thing to do, rather than that, was to also invite a former CIA agent who was critical of the Agency's crimes, and hold debates between them. That would have been much more educational, and it would have reached students whose minds weren't already made up. (The invitation to the CIA agent fell through, for whatever reason.)

Why not a congressional resolution urging that some of the "phony" veterans of Iraq who are critical of the war be invited to present their views over Armed Forces Radio? If it happened, I suspect it would get quite an audience. That might not be something we win, now, in terms of it happening ("undermining the morale of the troops" and all that), but it sets a tone that can reach people as a valid position.

Also, a smart campaign during the elections would be to sponsor ads with some of the "phony" antiwar soldiers talking about their experiences in Iraq, how dissenting views here were condemned, and how that's not what they were fighting for--for Rush to say something that would, in effect, discount their service so that their message would not be heard. What I'm suggesting is something like what happened when Joe McCarthy was finally taken down after he was called out on national television for his un-American way of operating, with the words "Have you no shame, Senator?" Public support for him collapsed after that. Recall that the controversy was about McCarthy questioning the patriotism of some Army officers by accusing them of being Communists. Put the two instances together for an effective ad. 

It doesn't do the left any good to call for censorship, and that's how calling for kicking Rush off the air would be taken. We need a longer term view, one that builds a public culture where statements by "public" figures such as Rush Limbaugh are called to account publicly, not censored. Such calls also make the left look weak, afraid to let a diversity of views be heard.

We need to fight the right more forcefully--I'm all for that, and in the wake of the MoveOn condemnation the impetus to fight back is very strong--but we also need to build a public culture where all views can be heard and debated. Admittedly, that's sometimes a hard balance to strike.

---

by: johnraymond @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 18:51:58 PM CDT

Geez, I agree with Stoller, Clark, and Reid (0.00 / 0)

I don't wish for my investments to pay for radio talk show hosts who disses the uniform over a taxpayer-sponsored radio show to our troops.

Stoller-- when are you running for Congress? It's time you considered it.  A blog is great, but why not go for the gusto? I think going for it (or move somewhere that can help you go for it) in the near future would move our causes forward.  You are at the right age for the House, not far at all from the Senate in terms of being eligible.

---

by: Benny @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 22:47:04 PM CDT

Geez, I agree with Stoller, Clark, and Reid (0.00 / 0)

I don't wish for my investments to pay for radio talk show hosts who diss the uniform over a taxpayer-sponsored radio show to our troops.

Stoller-- when are you running for Congress? It's time you considered it.  A blog is great, but why not go for the gusto? I think going for it (or move somewhere that can help you go for it) in the near future would move our causes forward.  You are at the right age for the House, not far at all from the Senate in terms of being eligible.

---

by: Benny @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 22:48:38 PM CDT

Sorry for the double post (0.00 / 0)

Puter on the uprise today.

---

by: Benny @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 22:49:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A better solution would be to take... (0.00 / 0)

...ALL talk radio of AFR. Why is any of it there?

---

by: Chris Andersen @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 23:00:13 PM CDT