The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger devotes his weekly column to Ms. Hillary’s rush to the center. He posits a test case involving another Rush:
I would like to put a question to the senator: Would you defend Rush Limbaugh’s speech rights against the pressure that was brought upon him on the floor of the Senate by your colleagues Harry Reid and Ken Salazar? Colorado’s Sen. Salazar went so far last week as to say he’d support a Senate vote to “censure” Mr. Limbaugh. Rhymes with censor.
When Sen. Reid attacked Mr. Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate, some felt that Mr. Limbaugh was a big boy and perfectly capable of defending himself. I’m not so sure. If Mr. Limbaugh and his critics at Media Matters want to have a street fight, that’s their business. But Sens. Reid and Salazar aren’t just a couple of opinionated guys; they are agents of state authority, and they were leaning hard on Mr. Limbaugh. If you are Media Matters, if you are a man or woman of the Left, does state pressure on someone’s political speech discomfort you? Or is it a welcome, even defensible, repression of harmful right-wing speech?
Henninger seems not to have noticed that Ms. Hillary provided evidence supporting an answer to his question earlier this month. On October 2, Ms. Hillary joined 40 of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate in signing Harry Reid’s letter to Clear Channel chief executive officer Mark Mays. The letter was part of the utterly dishonest Media Matters Crush Rush campaign, and Ms. Hillary was of course a member of the Crush Rush Democratic lynch mob. Here is the letter:
Dear Mr. Mays,
At the time we sign this letter, 3,801 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 27,936 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.
Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh