This story makes my blood boil. This is the real story, the real scandal. If Republicans want to go after Obama, they should give up on Libya, a pointless exercise in Lindsey Graham and John McCain staying in from of the camera, and hitch their wagons to this. The 1st amendment is perhaps the greatest law written in modern history. Holder and Obama seem to be disinterested in protecting it. Holder needs to be impeached (or whatever parallel process is used for cabinet members), and Obama has to answer for this. Wasn't transparency one of his platforms back in '08. Who knew he could make Bush/Cheney look like an open source project?
the conservatives don't jump on this because they agree with this sort of thing. the liberals don't because they have heard so many fake scandals they filter out the real ones.
I would think Rand Paul, but he wants to run for President, and I'm sure internal polling will guide him on this. Hey cliffelam, are there any elephants riled up over this? He was a Fox reporter, after all. I don't have cable. Is it getting any play? It seems to have gotten the 'blog' treatment here so far.
Did some sleuthing ( I too have no cable ) but it looks like it is getting coverage on Fox. Can you imagine how upset the left would be if this were GWB? Let's see if there is outrage on the left?
His show is classified as an entertainment show, meaning he doesn't do journalism. He's Howard Stern with a political bent. He doesn't break stories, or have sources; he doesn't fact check, or pretend to give equal time. In short, nothing he does resembles journalism; that's what makes him not a journalist.
I don't know that I agree. Even though Rush is a blowhard hypocrite shockjock, if he were to disclose information from a source on air, I think that would be Rush practicing journalism, and he should be protected as such. Regardless of whether or not he was doped up at the time. It's the action that is protected, not the profession.
It's good that people can make fun of Rush's drug problem. People rarely mention Hilary's pathological lying, or Bill's Duchovney-esque sexual addiction every single time the name comes up. But you are right on about the protected action. I say that everyone has the same free speech rights and same 4th amendement protections as the "special" ones "given" to the press. Fark that, everyone should be able to protest email and phone record searches. -XC
Not only is it good, it's proper that they do since Rush not only does the same, he uses the disease of addiction to shame and discredit his political rivals, and uses it as one would a slur. The best remedy for that sort of thing is reminding people that the messenger is guilty of behavior he is attacking others for engaging in.It's good that people can make fun of Rush's drug problem.
They may not mention it regarding Bill, but somewhere in their heads they are thinking about it. If you were of age during it, the epic impeachment process and the media frenzy that surrounded it means you cannot disassociate him from it. For example: OJ Simpson What did you just think of? Kudos to you if the answer was either, football, the Naked Gun movies or Hertz rental car.
I think mk's "glass house" comment is spot on. When you live by the sword...
So when Hilary finger-wags and they don't mention her serial pathological lying and a 25+ year investment in a sham marriage, that's not a glass house double standard? When Bill gets on the campaign trail as a surrogate for Obama and accuses Romney of lying or Rand of saying kooky stuff, nobody mentions his gigantic history of sexual harassment (proven), financial scandals, etc, etc? Nope, no double standard here, move right along..... Did you hear Leno last night? Fox is changing their tagline from "Fair and Balanced" to "I told you so!" -XC
Only because he throws so many stones from that glass house. But, yes, I am aware of Hillary's truth issues. Everyone is aware of Bill's issue. Absolutely agree on the second point. Both parties failing us there. It seems a systemic problem.It's good that people can make fun of Rush's drug problem.
You don't agree that he's not a journalist?!?! You or I could get a source and blog about it, and then we'd be journalists. For now, however, we're not, so it's hypothetical. Same applies to him. He has to right to practice journalism if he chooses, but he doesn't so he has nothing to worry about from the administration.
the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media
-According to Merriam Webster, he would fall under the journalism definition. -It's pretty broad.
I think you and mk don't have any idea what I was saying, so I'll restate it. Rush doesn't need to worry about the gov't coming down on him, because he doesn't, as far as I know, practice journalism in the way the word is usually used--that is, investigative journalism. I never said that he doesn't have a right to say what he wants, when he wants, to whomever he wants.
There is no excuse for this. If we don't have freedom of the press, we don't have freedom. The government has limited power when interacting with the press to ensure this freedom. Obama and the DOJ seem only to be concerned with physical security, not our civil security. What's worse, they also seem to be vindictive when it comes to chasing down journalists they don't appreciate. Please GOP, pick up the ball.
Regarding this particular case, on the surface it looks like a cut and dried assault on the press, but I don't think the public knows enough of the details enough to make a sound judgement. The DOJ will have to make its case in court, and I seriously doubt any Federal court will want to give even the appearance that they are willing to basically repeal freedom of the press. If only the press felt the responsibility to do its job better instead of sell airtime to advertisers and turn a profit for its stockholders...but that's another issue.
What will be interesting to see is whether the right gives the Obama DOJ a pass on this because they're not opposed to such tactics and welcome the opportunity to employ them. Let's face it, when it comes to civil liberties and the like, the Obama admin is cut straight from Bush's cloth. If there is one thing that history shows is true, once the executive has a power, it does not relinquish it. Obama has been no different.If only the press felt the responsibility to do its job better instead of sell airtime to advertisers and turn a profit for its stockholders...but that's another issue.
Not only is this another issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information.
However, if you refuse to give up your source when brought before a federal judge you are committing a crime. Not all that relevant; just wanted to note the extreme prescience of The West Wing.
After doing more research, I think the article is misleading. The reporter has not been "formally accused." That would mean indictment, and as far as I can tell he hasn't been indicted. I don't think the DOJ has the legal teeth to actually prosecute him. They're probably pissed off at him, but that's about all they can be, I think. This is regarding a 2010 search warrant for Rosen's emails in their prosecution of Stephen Kim for espionage.
Pissed off at Rosen? For doing what, his job? If anyone should be pissed off it's Rosen and us, the citizenry. If journalists have to be worried that their emails will be monitored or that they can be subject to this type of investigation, we all lose. A free press is essential to our democracy. Court documents in the Kim case reveal how deeply investigators explored the private communications of a working journalist — and raise the question of how often journalists have been investigated as closely as Rosen was in 2010. The case also raises new concerns among critics of government secrecy about the possible stifling effect of these investigations on a critical element of press freedom: the exchange of information between reporters and their sources.
How is that "transparent" government working out? I can almost hear the "I told you so's" from down the street at cliffelam's house.
Look, the stupid Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland security were a joint failure by Bush and the R's and D's in both houses. But what you are seeing is a machine politician unfettered by a critical press. My personal hope is that this takes down his presidency and cripples him for the next three years. And provides a boost to libertarian and small gov't candidates on both sides of the fence. -XC
I'm not going far enough to say that I regret voting for Obama, but I'm definitely leaning that way. If Romney would've campaigned in such a way that I would have believed he would run the Presidency like he ran his governorship, I likely would've voted for him. But unfortunately "severely conservative" became his motto, and none of us disillusioned 08 Obama voters felt like we had much choice. American politics are a shame.My personal hope is that this takes down his presidency and cripples him for the next three years.
And Obama was the unexamined blank canvas. Maybe this means that HRH really can't be president. OTOH, if we had a female president that is another LARGE group of people I never have to listen complain about "lack of access to power" again. And it might be the final nail in the affirmative action coffin lid. I can dream. _XC
Apparently, none of them thinks it was a failure, because they reauthorized it (Obama signed the reauth in 2011). That law has always bothered me for the reason that there's no possible way it was written in response to 9/11, as it it something like a 350 page bill with all sorts of complex clauses; it couldn't have been written in a month. They (both parties, as you suggest) were looking to pass this for a long time. Somethings I've read said that most of the law was written as far back as '99, but that nobody had the stones to bring such an assault on liberty to the floor, given the fact that they would be thrown out of office under normal circumstances. The reauthorization, without much protest from the public and with little reason to keep most of the provision in place anyway, proves the old adage that the gov't doesn't give back any power it's granted.Look, the stupid Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland security were a joint failure by Bush and the R's and D's in both houses.
We shall see. Like I said the other day, I'm willing to hold judgement (against my better judgement) for a few years. On a side note, two of the things in the health law that I foresee being the biggest disasters are 1) basing Medicare/caid reimbursements on patient satisfaction surveys, as everyone in healthcare knows that the malcontents are waaaay louder than the rest of us, and usually sicker, too; and 2) basing Medicare/caid reimbursements on readmission rates, as there is no way to control patient behavior once they leave the hospital. How do they envision this conversation going? Doctor: "Sir, you're severely diabetic, don't eat large amounts of sugar while continuing to get 0 exercise." Patient: "Oh wow, I never thought of it that way, thanks!" And everyone lives happily ever after.