@Campbell34,
CAVEAT: I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I don't particularly care for him. I would be the last conservative to defend him. Having said that:
1. What Campbell told you is right. A comment of Limbaugh's was taken out of context, and legislators on the left then tried to beat him with it. They got caught, the truth came out, and yet they pressed on. Since it is obvious that Limbaugh never said that which was attributed to him, the resolution itself will never pass. So, the core legislators have now written a letter condemning Limbaugh for things he didn't say. The last I heard, they only got 41 senators to sign it. They can?t even get all the democrats in the Senate to sign it, because it is an obvious lie.
2. Some folks are upset that our national legislators would waste time and legislative effort on something so petty as what a talk show host says. I think they are right, they are not being paid for this.
3. Some folks are upset that these same legislators would take the wildly inflammatory comments of a poser like
Jesse MacBeth as gospel truth. They were stupid enough to take them as truth, and never check them out. They are right. Legislators have at least a minimal responsibility to check out statements made by one man before acting on them.
4. Some folks are upset that national legislators would so obviously lie to try to get at a viewpoint they disagree with. I think they are right. This was a hamhanded attempt based in the belief that the average American was so stupid they would not even bother to check out the accusation. What does this tell you about what these legislators think of you? Apparently, they think you are even more stupid than they are.
All these things are bad, but there is something in this incident that is far worse, far more insidious. Let us suppose for just one minute that what these senators are saying was true. Suppose that Limbaugh
did say that any soldier that did not agree with him and Bush were phony soldiers. So what? I would direct you to a little clause in the Constitution that allows him to do so:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These senators sought to pass a bill condemning a private citizen for merely exercising his first amendment right to free speech. Peach, doesn?t this even register on your radar? Doesn?t this even bother you a little bit? I can only assume it does not, because from the title of this thread, you strongly supported these legislators in their attempt.
By attacking Limbaugh, these senators tried to attack the first, most fundamental amendment of the Constitution. If Limbaugh had actually said what he was accused of, I would vilify him, and do so right here. At the same time, I would be horrified by the idea that we should take away his right to say it. Are attacks on the Constitution reprehensible, unless those attacks are carried out by liberals whose stance you agree with?