Graphic By Will Lloyd

Running Limbaugh off the air

Liberal attempts at removing Rush from Armed Forces Radio unreasonable

By: Clint Rainey

Posted: 6/28/04

There's a golden rule that governs the rules of engagement for the eternal American media battle: Do unto others so that they cannot get up and do it again.

As to which side is officially responsible for adding it to the rulebook, no one can conclusively say. But, if one is curious as to which side has taken it to new lows, the answer is found to the left.

Liberal outcries about talk radio bias have found a curious new home: U.S. senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa. He is trying to amend the 2005 Defense Appropriations Bill, which, among other things, determines military funding to the Armed Forces Radio and Television Services for the next fiscal year, to make the bill a low blow to conservative radio.

Sen. Harkin believes that since the Armed Forces Radio is "funded by taxpayers of all political persuasions," it should "make a greater effort to provide balanced representation of political viewpoints on its airwaves to American service members around the world." Right now it does not, he says, and he thinks this is a problem.

And he would be right if he had stopped there, but Sen. Harkin is a partisan man, therefore the issue quickly scored liberals a shot way below the belt.

Where did it turn? It turns with his "answer" to the problem he just created: Give Rush Limbaugh, a political commentator and ring-wing crusader featured on AFR, the boot.

It's difficult to follow the thought patterns of men like Sen. Harkin, Al Franken, David Brock and the other liberal supporters of this amendment; they seem contradictory and illogical, littered with half-truths and distortion. Hopefully, the average American sees through this and can put this simple two-piece puzzle together: It's been the lifelong fantasy of these men to see Rush Limbaugh off the radio. They're desperate and they see a chance to make it happen if they play by the new golden rule.

But - bad for them, good for the nation - there is a litany of logistical problems with this plan, not the least of which is that such an amendment would require a complete abrogation of First Amendment rights by the federal government. Fortunately, this issue is an impregnable barrier that isn't going to give way for such an amendment, but it is certainly noteworthy to anyone interested in freedom and rights that the liberals tried anyway. Their thoughts are frightening: "Hey guys, it's OK. We tried to play unfair. It's just free speech and those horribly unfair unalienable rights. Curse them!"

So take comfort in the fact that the plan will be foiled, but be concerned about the underlying foolishness of it, which, for the sake of this country, needs to be exposed.

The attempt to entice the federal government to censor its citizens poses a serious misunderstanding, or blatant disregard, for the laws and freedoms of America, but it's just the first bend in this labyrinth that maps these liberals' thought patterns. For it is likely Sen. Harkin knows the unconstitutionality of his amendment; the uneasiness should come in listening to the justifications offered by the liberals who support it.

It's not difficult to see where one could get off putting the moniker of "unbalanced" on Rush Limbaugh, but to then pass that branding iron right over individuals such as Diane Rehm and Dan Rather is rather disturbing. It's even more disturbing to see someone accuse the AFR as a whole of being biased.

There is no factuality to attest to this at all. Consulting the weekly master schedule for AFR, available on their Web site, one sees that the notoriously liberal National Public Radio alone occupies ten hours per week, which is five more hours than Rush Limbaugh. Now, throw in other liberal notables like Dave Ross, Diane Rehm, Bill Schneider and Dan Rather and the total grows horribly disproportionate. Even combining the short segments of conservatives like Paul Harvey or Dave Ramsey yields numbers that are immaterial; no matter how the hours are added, the liberals come out ahead.

This whole premise of counting time by ideological lean becomes ridiculous when one considers that AFR has over 1,100 different radio programs. This is why Sen. Harkin is not really serious about making AFR "balanced." If he were, he'd have to identify the political ideology of over 1,100 hosts and commentators! What about Jim Rome? He gets 54 minutes per day; maybe Sen. Harkin should ask him if he is pro-life or pro-choice so he can be added to the appropriate list.

When both the "liberal" and the "conservative" programming are combined, they are only a small fraction of the available programming, which features sports, cooking and car shows in the array. This is because the intention of AFR was never political in nature. It is meant to be a representation of what Americans are listening to - a broad swath of everything. The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most popular of its kind on the radio; for the AFR to have talk radio without it would be like having a sports show without covering the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl.

Honestly, this broad-swath nature of AFR probably explains what NPR and the rest of the liberal gamut are even doing on there in the first place, since the military shows a greater conservative lean collectively than the country as a whole.

One thing is clear: The liberals in the realm of radio feel threatened.

Why? Because people want to hear Rush Limbaugh. He supports the troops. He tells the soldiers overseas what the liberals want hidden in a dusty closet somewhere. Liberals don't do these things, and it's their tactics that put freedom in jeopardy. They say that it is fairness and balance that they really want, but inside they still yearn for a chance to play by the golden rule of the American media.