When the purpose of "dialoging" with the WGN show is to overwhelm the phone and e-mail lines (everyone reading off the same script, by the way) and stop other listeners from participating, that is not "free speech." It's thuggish silencing of everyone else.

The Obama campaign's response to Kurtz, by the way, is telling. What do they have to hide by using such tactics?

Thanks for your response.

Here's a web site with links to a lot of attempts to squelch debate by threatening TV station broadcast licenses.

http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/obama-uses-thuggish-lawyer-tactics-to-try-to-squelch-nras-criticism/

Here are just three links to the gestapo tactics the Obama campaign is using against WGN for daring to have Stanley Kurtz on it show -- a show that Obama reps were invited to, by the way, but declined.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304729375940845

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/obama-wgn.html

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html

There's way more if you dig a little.

By the way, I find the "just respond" or "just refute or rebut" argument a little weak. If it was just Joe Citizen, Obama supporter, perhaps. But a sheriff, and county attorney, and other law enforcement types doing so is automatic intimidation -- the sort of bullying that causes kids to hand over their lunch money even though the bully never explicitly threatens them.

Meant to mention also the mobs that the Obama campaign encourages through e-mail blasts to harrass and try to shut down radio shows that interview guests that might say something Obama doesn't like, as they've twice done to WGN in Chicago.

Again, where's Glenn's outrage?

Glenn Greenwald is always the first to jump on a story of government abusing its power and threats to citizens rights.

Just wondering why we've see nothing about the Obama "truth squads" that are getting law enforcement officials (!) to threaten to arrest anyone publishing or broadcasting what they deem to be a "lie" or "misleading" ad.

For example, the St. Louis County Circuit Attorney in Missouri is part of this effort and threatens anyone who disagrees with Obama.

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Talk about threats to democracy! Glenn, your silence is deafening.

Or maybe it's because its not your ox being gored?

Strong accusations for sure, but there's proof. Here is Sandra Cano's affidavit that Doe v. Bolton is based on a lie:

http://www.eadshome.com/DoeAffidavit.htm

This is sworn in a court of law under penalty of perjury.

In Roe v. Wade McCorvey is on record many times saying she lied about being raped.

Yeah, right. Does that account for your name-calling of McCain, too? And your past usage of "Repugs" and variations thereof?

Doesn't sound like you ever served in the military. Sounds like you're in, oh, about 7th grade to me.

Still waiting for your response to the deluge of facts about Obama's skeleton in the closet -- you know, the one he's using fascist tactics to try to keep out of the press.

But if you look at the county-by-country map of the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'll see that outside of LA, Santa Barbara, Monterey and the Bay Area (especially Berserkely), California (including the agricultural areas) is mostly red.

As I said, you can have your cities, since that's where most Dems seem to prefer to live.

I provided plenty of links, including the most credible of them all in my response to Retired Military Patriot.

These links include pdf copies of the Annenberg Challenge files. Can't get more authentic than that.

Read 'em and weep.

Should have nominated Hillary while you had the chance.

But the primary source for the information about Obama and Ayers comes from Steve Diamond, a self-professed leftist and labor organizer.

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/authoritarian-radicals-barack-obama.html

But yours is the usual response: change the subject, resort to ad hominem attacks, and call people names.

Should have nominated Hillary when you had the chance.

Obama is exposed as (a) the liar he is and (b) the exremist radical he is.

That after Ayers and Obama spent all those millions somewhere, supposedly to improve education in the Windy City, Chicago school performance actually declined.

Hey, I have a better idea. Rather than an imperfect line through the continent, just let all the Democrats live in your very blue cities.

But you can't have any of the food or other agricultural products we produce in the red states. Gotta produce your own. And we can't have anything you "produce."

We can keep our vehicles running and do without all the Starbucks, bad plays, and froufrou restaurants your produce longer than you can do without the food we produce.

Sounds fair to me.