Limbaugh's faulty memory: "I don't know who's accusing [Hillary Clinton] of murdering anybody"
On the July 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh read aloud the following passage from a Dallas Morning News op-ed by Melinda Henneberger: "The most appealing thing about Hillary Rodham Clinton has always been her enemies, who often seem not in their right mind, screaming that she is a murderer and calling her names like 'Her Thighness.' They make you want to like her." Limbaugh responded, "Have you ever heard of that? 'Her thighness'? I've never heard of that term for Hillary, and I don't know who's accusing her of murdering anybody." In fact, Limbaugh himself has suggested on several occasions that Sen. Clinton (D-NY) was responsible for the 1993 death of then-White House counsel Vincent Foster.
In 1994, Limbaugh reportedly cited a forthcoming "report" which he said claimed that Foster, who committed suicide in Northern Virginia's Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, "was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park." From a 1994 report by the national media watch group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):
On his March 10 radio broadcast, Limbaugh had announced the following in urgent tones:
OK, folks, I think I got enough information here to tell you about the contents of this fax that I got. Brace yourselves. This fax contains information that I have just been told will appear in a newsletter to Morgan Stanley sales personnel this afternoon. ... What it is is a bit of news which says ... there's a Washington consulting firm that has scheduled the release of a report that will appear, it will be published, that claims that Vince Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary Clinton, and the body was then taken to Fort Marcy Park.
After he returned from a commercial break, Limbaugh began referring to the story as a "rumor," but continued to claim that the story was that "the Vince Foster suicide was not a suicide."
Limbaugh was referring to an item in a newsletter put out by the Washington, D.C. firm of Johnson Smick International. The newsletter, relating a rumor that has no apparent basis in fact, reported that White House attorney Foster's suicide occurred in an apartment owned by White House associates, and that his body was moved to the park where it was found.
Limbaugh took this baseless rumor from a small insiders' newsletter and broadcast it to his radio audience of millions, adding his own new inaccuracies: The newsletter did not report -- as Limbaugh claimed -- that Foster was murdered, or that the apartment was owned by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
More recently, in September 2005, Limbaugh repeatedly suggested that if anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan continued to criticize Clinton, she would "end up in Fort Marcy Park." On the September 19, 2005, broadcast, Limbaugh said of Sheehan: "I will guarantee you she's already had the talking-to. Somebody has gotten to her and said, 'Do the words Fort Marcy Park mean anything to you?' I will guarantee you, my friends, that by the time all is said and done -- if she calls her [Clinton] out one more time -- that's it for Cindy Sheehan." On the following day's broadcast, Limbaugh said that Sheehan "will not mention her [Clinton] again, ladies and gentlemen, unless she wants to end up in Fort Marcy Park. Mark my words on it." Furthermore, on his January 22, 2007, broadcast, Limbaugh advised a caller to "go to Fort Marcy Park" on the caller's upcoming visit to Washington, D.C., and "[s]ee if you get out alive."
Media Matters has documented numerous other examples of media figures portraying Clinton as violent or ruthless.
From the July 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: The gals are conflicted out there about Hillary. They really don't like her, but it's just not right to say so or to think so. Let me read you some excerpts of this.
"The most appealing thing about Hillary Rodham Clinton has always been her enemies, who often seem not in their right mind, screaming that she is a murderer and calling her names like 'Her Thighness.' Her enemies make you want to like her. Yet in --"
Have you ever heard of that? "Her thighness?" I've never heard of that term for Hillary, and I don't know who's accusing her of murdering anybody. Anyway.
"Yet in interviews across the country with women of all ages, races, income brackets and points of view, one of the rare patches of common ground was skepticism about the first female presidential contender with a serious shot at [the White House]. Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women speak at length about what they care about and what drives them crazy as they look toward the presidential election in '08. I ought to like her, many of the strongest Democrats among them said. But on no other matter did left, right and center converge as on the view best summed up as 'Anybody but Hillary' -- to the point that I began to dread the mention of her name, because it meant we would probably not get around to talking about anything else that day.
"All of which runs contrary to the accepted narrative of this election cycle, which is that it is women who are leading the charge for Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. Polling, which at this point still mainly measures name ID, certainly shows a far more mixed picture for Mrs. Clinton where female voters are concerned."
This is no myst -- look at the female candidate in France, Segolene [Royal].
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Heck, you should see some of the garbage put out about Hillary by "conservatives."
There's this one small-town Georgia newspaper editor/owner, who refers to Hillary as a "stump-thighed whore."
Limbaugh's memory losses though show me he's back on his "happy pills."
just a joke, just a joke, just a joke, just a.....
Rush is a lying sack of crap
He's full of bilious puss and pap
He has lied about Hillary
Gossip and slurs, his artillary
But now doesn't want to take the rap
Do you know the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg?
One is a flaming Nazi gasbag.
And the other is a dirigible....
:-)
hahaha... Thanks for the laugh.
He gave himself just enough wiggle room to truthfully say that he never called Hillary a murderess. He said Foster was murdered in an apartment owned by Hillary. What an unbelievably sissified little imp this Limbaugh. Doesn't have the guts, or the facts, to back-up a story he would so love to be true. So he has to, in full smear thug character, attempt despearately to some way, in any way, paint her as an accomplice to murder.
Republicans must be so proud to have a man of such callous ignobility speak for their movement.
Hell, he's the leader of their movement. If not for his decade and a half of lying, we might not be bogged down in Iraq right now...we might actually have some kind of national health care plan...and we probably wouldn't have a moron in the White House.
while getting gas this p.m , i turned to the lying liar and heard his most outrageous claim ever. while discussing statesmanship in washibgtom or lack therof, i assumed he would mention prominant republicans , nope not ole anal cyst man he stated that the only statesman left were radio talk show hosts. j had to go home and change my pants
'Do the words Fort Marcy Park mean anything to you?' I will guarantee you, my friends, that by the time all is said and done -- if she calls her [Clinton] out one more time -- that's it for Cindy Sheehan." - Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh said that Sheehan "will not mention her [Clinton] again, ladies and gentlemen, unless she wants to end up in Fort Marcy Park. "
Limbaugh advised a caller to "go to Fort Marcy Park" on the caller's upcoming visit to Washington, D.C., and "[s]ee if you get out alive."
What's with this obsession Rush has with Fort Marchy Park?
Of course this is only rumor, but I have it on good authority that it's the gospel truth.
It is because he has his maid pick up male prostitutes near the restrooms and hook up with his drug dealers on the benches for him at Marcy Park.
Again, that Rush has hot, stinky sex with men while ingesting fistfulls of viagra and oxycontin is only rumor. But some people say it may indeed be the God's honest truth.
Don't quote me or cross check my story, just trust in me and believe only me. I am the all knowing, all seeing, Maja Roundbo, with talent on loan from Beelzebub.
It has also been rumored that when he sits on the toilet seat he gives out this grunt that will frighten anyone and out comes the Rush bomb which has been rumored to have broken many toilets and a smell that can never be gotten rid of.
I heard the same thing from someone who I trust and who is in a position to know, so I'm sure it's true. Limbaugh has never even implicitly accused Clinton of being involved in Foster's death -- he was just referring to his escapades in Fort Marcy Park.
I just can't believe he talks about his Fort Marcy Park shenanigans so often and so openly with his listeners! When he said "Do the words Fort Marcy Park mean anything to you?" in reference to Cindy Sheehan, he was clearly suggesting that Sheehan would be hooking up with random strangers and buying prescription medication. MMFA is way off base by suggesting otherwise.
And come on, MMFA -- when Limbaugh told that other caller to go to Fort Marcy park and "[s]ee if you get out alive", he was using a figure of speech! He was advising the caller, from his own personal experience, that if you're going to go to Fort Marcy Park for a night of debauchery, you'd better be ready for a real work out because all the multi-partner orgies and drug abuse will darn near kill you. Obviously.
MMFA, I don't know where you got the idea that he was talking about Clinton. Please stop smearing Mr. Limbaugh's good name with these ridiculous accusations and stick to the facts.
Perfect commentary on limpbags. keep poppin those pills rusho.
It's the best place for him to score without getting hassled by the DEA? It's a good place for him to hang out in because nobody notices his ankle bracelet? It's the only place he can wander around singing "Do you know the Viagra Man?"
I suppose because thats where Vince Foster was found dead. The inferrence being thats where you end up after you've been murderred by the Clinton gang. As far as humor goes, and I guess its supposed to be humorous, this joke is gasping for breath.
his dittoheads dismiss all this as a joke. but he is totally serious in trying to plant it in their minds. i used to listen to franken's dittohead pal when he was on the show. al would show where rush would lie about something and then the dittohead would say "well yeah, but rush's point was....". does he have a point if he's lying?
Actually, Limbaugh has claimed in interviews that he never seriously believed or claimed that Vince Foster was murdered. He stated that there was a rumor going around that Foster was murdered, and he just went along with it and played it up for laughs. He was never serious about it.
Yeah, cuz he's just a "comedian", right? So, I guess all his listeners tune in "just for giggles", huh?
And he's never "serious" about it, but brings it up REPEATEDLY over a large period of time. Thanks for clearing THAT up.
Ah, yes. And Limbaugh's entire SHOWS were about supporting the Republicans prior to 2006, but when the LOST he revealed that he wasn't serious about THAT either. It was all for slaps and giggles, because those losers didn't deserve a premier "water carrier" like Limbaugh.
All that GOP support? A JOKE. All that Bush cheerleading? It was PLAY-ACTING, for laughs.
In fact, a listener can believe NOTHING EVER SAID by Limbaugh, because with no warning, presented in all seriousness, Limbaugh could just be having you on, faking his principles, falsifying his opinions, basically LYING to you nonstop.
Limbaugh's time has come and gone, he is just too revealed now as a hack, a fake, a poser, a phony, and a hypocrite. If there is one person who takes Limbaugh seriously today, that is the world's biggest fool.
We all know that if he though there was money to be made as a liberal, Rush Limbaugh would have positioned himself to the left of Ted Kennedy.
There is money to be made as a liberal talker. You just have to find a host with as much talent as Limbaugh and that won't be easy.
Talent? Guess that's subjective. Before I knew much about him, I tried listening (my car at that time only could get several am stations) Even when he occasionally made a good point, he spent so much time sighing, making long pauses and obsessing about himself that I found it boring.
Give me Thom Hartmann any day!
I listen to Thom Hartmann every day on my way home from work. He's a very soft-spoken decent guy who's every bit as capable of spinning an issue just like everybody else. I respect the fact that he doesn't name call.
Bill Press in the morning last week was talking to a guest about Limbaugh and they both agreed that he is a highly talented radio personality. They just disagree with the message.
Bruce,
Love him or hate him, I think most open-minded folks would agree that Limbaugh is both talented & entertaining.
Some of the posts here are a tad brutal...downright *Savage* like ;-)
Google Vince Foster & you'll find the conspiracy goes on. Rush certainly added his 2 cents to it years ago, still eludes to it to this day, but I don't find it anymore offensive than reading/hearing all the Left-wing mumblings about a 9/11 conspiracy that claimed the Bush administration actually orchestrated it.
In fact Liberal talk radio host Mike Malloy said this:
“9/11, 9/11, 9/11. God these people got what they wanted, right?…..I am really really really concerned too, by the way, that the Bush administration is planning another attack on the United States that is going to be much more severe than the attack that they engineered on September 11, 2001” -Mike Malloy, Save Mike Malloy Video Part II
Now the argument will be that Malloy does not have the enormous audience that Rush has...
Malloy's fault. Can't blame that on Limbaugh.
J,
Very apt analogy for sure.......selective partisan outrage is alive and well, apparently.
Jeter, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say to learn that Malloy doesn't have an audience with that kind of program content. Now if we just had the fairness doctrine he might get a fair shake to spread his "wisdom" amongst the uninformed masses.
;-)
does molloy get a pass if he was just joking or not serious ?
Not only that, can he claim he was joking years after the joke AND continue to make the "joke" without telling his listeners of his attempt at humor?
Is Malloy joking? I have no idea, & quite frankly couldn't care less.
Does Limbaugh honestly think the Clintons were involved in Foster's death? Or some kind of cover-up? Who knows?
I'm not playing judge & jury here like some do. Kidding or serious...Pass or no pass...it's not my call.
As far as I'm concerned Limbaugh & Malloy are free to repeat whatever conspiracy theories they wish.
Just pointing out [once again] that BOTH sides do it....
Selective Outrage=Double Standards.
well for the record im not saying he should get a pass joking or not none of them should they should all be responsible for what they say
I think that is a very fair and accurate assessment, jeter.
Rush is indeed talented. That said, I don't think liberals can really get away with what Rush does either. The Left is supposed to be tolerant, thoughtful, logical and reasonable -- Rush isn't any of those very often. Rush's asset is largely his self-efacing humor, which tends to make him sound almost human to his listeners. When combined with a good amount of inventive/imaginative speculation, generalizations, faulty logic, bullying, mockery and ridicule it can be quite entertaining to myself and other more aware listeners and very convincing to people who aren't really able or not paying attention enough to separate Rush's facts (which are few) from his opinions, generalizations, faulty logic and rabid speculation.
I don't want a liberal blowhard who operates largely the same way like Malloy tries to do. I would even go so far as to say Malloy comes off to me as even more hateful than Limbaugh, who is often laughing and joking as he spews.
As for the 9-11 conspiracy freaks, I find them largely an embarrassment. I don't think there is anything wrong with entertaining such notions or investigating the ideas, but many of these conspiracy theorists go well beyond that to overstate the amount of evidence and/or overemphasize evidence that is quite obviously purely circumstantial to create conclusions that are specious at best - cruelly malicious at worst. I suppose the same could be said for wacko Clinton-haters with regards to Vincent Foster and the "People who once knew Bill Clinton and are now dead" crazies.
Open_mind,
I've never actually heard Malloy's show, but I have heard about him. I picture him as being a cross between a Limbaugh/Savage...am I close?
Many here get bent out of shape because Rush makes cracks about Clinton Inc, yet Malloy has The Bush Crime Family.
I don't personally buy into the Vince Foster-Clinton or the 9/11-Bush conspiracy theories, I think they are both bunk... but it doesn't send me into a frenzy when I hear anyone talking about either of them.
Just a guess, Jeter, but I am guessing he calls the Bushes the "Bush Crime Family" because of Prescott's troubles during WWII.
or the fact that they don't seem to care a damn thing about the law. just enriching their pals even more.
I haven't heard much of Malloy either to be honest. I caught him a couple of times. A little bit goes a long way.
"I think most open-minded folks would agree that Limbaugh is both talented & entertaining."
I disagree. I think many genuinely open-minded folks find Limbaugh's act neither entertaining nor evidence of any form of talent. I'll include myself in that category, actually.
You don't get to throw out a statement like that and tack on "open-minded" to make it automatically valid, by the way. Yes, you can counter, "You must not be open-minded, then!" but it doesn't make the statement any less false, and this is coming from a liberal who DOES think that Savage shows glimmers of talent and is occasionally very entertaining - but generally when he keeps his nose out of politics.
No, I gave the man a shot, I dont know what his talent was supposed to be, to me he came of like a marginally bright Jr High school bully. I certainly didnt find him to be the least bit entertaining. Then again I never understood Rayguns charm either, or Andrew Dice Clay. Maybe my sense of humor is slightly askew.
Wait a minute, There are people who think Dice is funny?
Yeah, I have talked to several of them. Amazing isnt it?
I am not sure whether to agree or disagree with you, Bruce. I am more curious than anything about this, but when does Rush come on the radio in various markets. Here in Colorado he is on from 12-2 (or 3, not sure) which, I guess, allows people to listen during lunch.
My main question with all of this is who are the people who are able to listen to radio talk shows during work hours? What types of jobs do they have? I know I could not listen to Hartman if I wanted to (unless I brought a portable radio) unless it was a little bit during lunch time. What is the demographic that is able to devote the time during working hours to these talk shows? I would love to see a survey on this some time.
"My main question with all of this is who are the people who are able to listen to radio talk shows during work hours"
Farmers, stay at home moms, truck drivers, taxi drivers, store owners, other people who's jobs require traveling, etc.
RH,
I think that is a fairly good list. Would you say there is a political trend amongst those groups one way or the other (conservative or liberal) as far as their predispositions go?
I would say that most of the groups that I listed lean conservative.
So, when the potential audience is made up of groups who "lean conservative," perhaps that is why liberal talk radio struggles during the work day?
The fact is that whenever Limbaugh opens his mouth and slurs Hillary or another Democratic candidate through inuendo and rumor, he probably does them more good than harm........the more scurrilous and outlandish they are, the more vitriolic he looks.
He was always more relevant and successful when a Democrat was in the White House, and considering he always looks out for #1 - we all know what his secret wish is.........Hillary in the WH!
You know, I have always wondered how Rush truly votes. I think there is some credence to that theory, Tommy.
Half his arsenal has been shelved since a Republican has inhabited the presidency - he finds it much more fruitful to jab at the top dog than some generic members of Congress.
If Hillary wins, he'll have a field day with her, everyday......more material than he can fit in three hours a day. Anyone who doesn't think he salivates at that idea is naive.
I am sure that is true. We need to look at this from the point of view of a partisan like Rush, but the same argument could be made for any partisan view from the left or right. It is simply much easier to be on offense (trying to regain office) than it is to be on defense (trying to stay in office or defend your policy).
When you are on offense, you can be super flexible and really not tied down from expressing your own beliefs. You also can easily disguise your beliefs and true motives when you argue. This is essentially what Rush and some Republicans did to Clinton and what some Democrats do now to Bush.
When you are on defense, you have less manouverability. You are given a piece of ground/policy to defend at all costs without much room to state your own personal objections if you may have them. Remember that Rush personally objected to much of what the Republican Congress was doing, but he felt compelled as a partisan to defend it. He was actually relieved to be back on offense after the Democrats won in the last election. It is quite understandable when considered from a partisan point of view.
Mary, go back to your brilliant post at http://mediamatters.org/items/200707090003?made_comment=1 and see the tag.
thanks....wish I COULD take all the credit, but thinkprogress did all the work! :)
It's simply not a comparable market. There is ample demand among republicans for intemperate bloviating and for barely masked sexist and racist statements. They will suck it up and make lots of money for advertizers.
Democrats and liberals lean toward more friendly, inclusive, multicultural mushy stuff. We are not so intertained by personal attacks and name calling. Rush's "kind of talent" will never make money with the "lefty" audience.
Very slick way to rationalize why conservative talk radio/TV trounces liberal wannabes in nearly every market. While the cons take the low road, the libs stand on principle and fairness up on the high road. How magnanimous.
Got it....
Tommy,
Apparently Middleleft doesn't read the posts here. ;-)
Compared to the posters at freerepublic and newsbusters, I'd say we have it pretty good here. If your not careful on these boards, reasoned dialogue actually has been known to break-out.
If you were complaining about Huffpo moonbats, then you would have a better point. Those guys are real wackos.
If you were complaining about Huffpo moonbats, then you would have a better point. Those guys are real wackos.
Tell me about it! Not only Moonbats but vicious foul mouthed Moonbats with fangs & claws ;-)
I do not go to those sites. I prefer the open arms and loving reception I get here by all my friends.
:-)
I think in a very, very general way that is mostly true. Although there are certainly examples of liberals taking the low road like Malloy, many conservatives view shows that appeal more to a partisan point of view. To be fair maybe you do not necessarily associate partisanship with the "low road" as I do.
Conservatives are more likely to watch/listen to FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly than they are to listen/view shows that have a more balanced audience. The opposite is true for liberals who listen/watch shows that appeal to a more balanced audience:
From the Washington Post.
Rush Limbaugh has 14.5 million weekly listeners. According to Pew, 77 percent are conservative, 16 percent moderate and 7 percent liberal. Or take Fox's 1.3 million prime-time viewers: 52 percent are conservative, 30 percent are moderate and 13 percent liberal. By contrast, 36 percent of Americans are conservative, 38 percent moderate and 18 percent liberal. The liberals' media favorites are slightly less lopsided. The audience for "The NewsHour" is 22 percent conservative, 44 percent moderate and 27 percent liberal. NPR's audience is 31 percent conservative, 33 percent moderate and 30 percent liberal. Of course, many news outlets still have broad audiences. Daily newspapers are collectively close to national averages; so is CNN.
Tommy,
RH gave me a pretty good answer, but who do you think is able to watch/listen to these day-time hosts? I know that I am not able to, but what do you think the demographics are for those who do?
As a follow-up, do you think the potential audiences for these shows is a good cross-section of America politically or do you think that many of the people able to listen/watch are predisposed one way or another? I am curious to see what you think.
I don't know the demographics of these show's listeners, but I am sure the data is available somewhere.
I would assume that most people who do listen to Limbaugh or Malloy or the others are fairly entrenched in their ideology. Most people know that the info given out by admitted partisan talk show hosts is skewed in their favor, or at least they should know that........whenever I listen to any of them, I leave room next to me for a huge chunk of salt.
It's like this, Tommy.
When it comes to radio, most progressives and liberals would rather listen to music than subject themselves to lies and propaganda. Which is all right-wing talk radio is. And you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Personally, I am really loving the new group The Lying Propoganda Dolls. Have you heard their latest CD? It's all over the radio and may satisfy your liberal friends who long for music and talk.
Check them out.
Off to find another hook to clamp onto.....going down...........
The Lying Propaganda Dolls? I didn't know Creed changed its name.
I figured the Lying Propaganda Dolls were Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Mona Charon, Maggie Gallagher, Phyllis Schaffley, Patricia Heaton, and Laura Schlessinger.
So now Creed is a conservative band?
I don't agree with you on that, having listened to AAR since its inception I hear a LOT of hate, against conservatives, conservative policies and this administration in particular.
AAR can misrepresent a conservative POV every bit as well as Limbaugh or Hannity can with the left point of view. Whether or not the liberal audience is interested in hearing that kind of stuff I really don't know. And one more thing....people assume that because Limbaugh has a big audience that that automatically means that everyone listening to his program agrees with him. I highly doubt that. I listen to AAR every day and disagree a LOT with the opinions of the hosts just like I do with MMFA and posters here, but I read and listen to alternative viewpoints to challenge my own views and either reinforce what I think or perhaps change my way of thinking if I see the need to do that.
I agree with you Bruce and considering AAR's low ratings, so do many liberals. Liberals don't really like partisanship on TV and Radio as much as Conservatives seem to like. That is really why AAR was and is doomed to failure.
I'm really confused. We are constantly being told here that liberal talk radio is alive and flourishing - now it's doomed to failure because liberals don't like to hear their talk show hosts being too mean?
If it doesn't make sense, then maybe your premise(s) is(are) false.
It seems to me that my acknowledgement of the likely failure of AAR has somehow conflicted with an apparently false premise of yours.
Perhaps you should simply re-evaluate your premise if the data doesn't seem to fit with it.
I will leave that to you.
Considering you said that liberals don't like partisanship on TV or radio as much as conservatives is indeed a head scratcher. But if you have data to support that inane assertion, then by all means show us. But if you want to use that as a reason for AAR's failure, who am I to dabble with your faulty premise.
I will leave that to you.
tommy,
I already posted it above. Here is the tag:
- open_mind / Tuesday July 10, 2007 01:54:36 PM EST
You extrapolate that because liberals listen to talk radio less, it's because they aren't as partisan as conservatives? Ok, and I have a beachhouse in Kansas that needs a tenant, interested?
"You extrapolate[sic] that because liberals listen to talk radio less, it's because they aren't as partisan as conservatives?"--tommy
No. I didn't. I just pointed out the facts according to the Pew study to back up Middleleft's points in a "very,very general way" and again to support my own remarks about AAR being doomed to failure. I don't think that data alone is sufficient to make generalities as to whether one group is more "partisan" than the other.
Personally I think conservatives are definitely observably more partisan, but I can admit that may very well be the result of my own biased observations. I wasn't trying to prove that with my posts either BTW.
"Ok, and I have a beachhouse in Kansas that needs a tenant, interested?"--tommy
No thanks. I prefer my home on the 9th tee.
I think his point is valid. It is probably true that the more partisan left isnt as enamored of the preaching to the choir format. That said such shows are paid for by advertisers and owned by corporations. So when a liberal like Jim Hightower was killing in the ratings Disney bought his network and he was fired shortly after being nationally syndicated. For all we know if HE had been given the chance Limbaugh was he might be just as big today. He is funny and an entertaining writer, I listened to his show once while travelling in the South and found it mildly entertaining even though I have little patience for the format. The bottom line is that ADVERTISERS and that is business pays for these shows not the listeners and the conservative message is more corporate friendly so its not reasonable to pretend the two are on an equal footing. They arent.
I heard someone say the other day that the conservatives have an advantage in talk radio because they lambast big government and defend private enterprise. It follows that they can ridicule those who support adding to government.
the liberals, who generally favor big government and they lambast private enterprise - which is much harder to do.
I don't know if that is really the case, but I found the comparison interesting.
Not necessarily true. No matter how much talent a radio guy has if his message isnt one that corporate America feels comfortable with they will go the way of Jim Hightower. So you cant say with any certainty that is true. Then again since I didnt see the slightest talent in Limbaugh when I forced myself to listen to him, maybe I am missing something.
Actually, Limbaugh has claimed in interviews that he never seriously believed or claimed that Vince Foster was murdered. ... [He] played it up for laughs. He was never serious about it.
Limbaugh has a huge audience every week day and in repeats on weekends. So why doesn't he say that on his show rather than in an interview? Why don't you as a follower demand it, and demand accuracy and not rumor from Limbaugh?
"...he just went along with it and played it up for laughs."
That's the same sort of typical, cowardly cop-out Limbaugh used with his "Barack, the Magic Negro" knee-slapper. After all, it was the LA Times that started it, and Limbaugh just 'played it up' to tickle his closet racists' funny bones.
He played up a suicide for laughs?
My, how classy can you get? But seriously, Rino, if you were one of Rush's listeners back then, and you heard what he said on his program, would you have:
(a) laughed, or
(b) believed him?
I'm guessing you would have believed him, because a quick look at the transcripts shows that he was not playing it up for laughs. That was a flat-out lie he concocted later to cover himself for his rumor-mongering.
And, sadly enough, you appear to believe him still.
That's false, Rino. Limbaugh did not say that he played up rumors of Clinton's involvement in Foster's death for laughs. He said:
I have no doubt that Limbaugh believes himself to be an entertainer, but I don't think that even Limbaugh himself would try to defend "playing up" rumors of Clinton's involvement in Foster's death as an act of comedy. It's a perverse kind of entertainment that traffics in "playing up" rumors accusing the President and First Lady of murder.
This is from the transcript of Limbaugh's TV show. Does this sound like he's playing anything for laughs to you, Rino?
Here's the link:
[link to www.newsmax.com]
I am sorry the Newsmax sewer is not fit for human consumption
Your newsmax link simply relies on Limbaugh's recollection of how the events unfolded. No primary sources are used. That doesn't really demonstrate anything useful.
uh, yeah, and...? it's a link to the same horse manure you already told us.
RH,
Whether he said he was joking or not during an interview is irrelevant to me. The folks who listen to him everyday probably have never seen this interview nor have they heard him claim this was a joke (as far as I know, if there is evidence contrary to this, please show me).
If he is joking, he should probably make that clearer and probably put in that disclaimer each time he brings this issue up.
About the time MMFA started, I listened to Rush, Hannity, Beck etc. for about 3 months. It drove me crazy, but I began to understand how much BS was being broadcast that I had previously been unaware.
Not long after I started listening to Rush, a caller to his show said there were rumors out there that Bill and Hillary Clinton had a hand in the downing of Kennedy's plane. He said this happened because he was her biggest threat to the presidency, and he needed to be taken out of her way.
Instead of Rush saying that this was outrageous and shouldn't be repeated, he started a deep chuckle that sounded like some old pervert salivating and rubbing his hands in anticipation of a dirty story.
While chuckling with glee, he began by saying something along the lines of he would never say such a thing, or it would never cross his mind, BUT since the caller brought it up, it is an interesting theory. So they discussed this theory that Rush would never bring up himself.
Keep in mind that I heard this years ago, so this is from memory, but it made me sick, and I have never forgotten it. When I heard this, my first thought was that Rush set this all up...using a caller to drop in the story, so he could comment on it.
Radio Theater of the Dead Hearts.
Yeah, Graydogs, one of the Oxymoron's favorite propaganda tactics, the caller's suggestion or speculation that Rush, after a quick disclaimer, plays off of for 10 minutes or so, long after the average dittohead has forgotten the false premise.
I'm not sure if the callers are set-ups, maybe I don't want to believe there are people that stoopid.
His other starting point is to play a sound bite (of any Democrat or other "enemy"), then immediately translate for his monkeys "what they're really saying", i.e., a ridiculous strawman .
If his callers are for real, his stuff works. I've heard at least one dittohead call in ,furious at some "liberal" about something that person had never said, but that Rush had convinced the caller was said.
That Rush is one funny guy!!!!
He says he didn't report it as a murder he "played it up."
Then somebody posts that link here like we're a bunch of idiots and are going to buy Rush's explanation.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
This is known as performance art or something right?
I'm still waiting for Limbaugh to remember to tell his listeners about his arrest in the company of a male prostitute in Pittsburgh back in the '70s when he was working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
The funny part is MMFA having to reach back to 1994 to dredge up this thread. To you liberals, that is 13 years ago. ;-)
Time to move.on.
I wasn't aware there was an expiration date stamped on the side of Limbaugh's profound utterances.
The quote is from '94 because (following so far?) Foster died in '93-not '99. Limbaugh implicated Hillary Clinton in a murder during 1994-not 1999. And that, you see, is why Limbaugh is quoted from 1994, and not from, say, 1999. 'Cuz he said it in 1994.
Btw, that "move.on"? Right-wing cleverness doesn't get any better than that.
Dave,
I'm not saying there is an expiration date, but going back 13 years on a little bit of nothing to try to make a case is a stretch even for MMFA. I'd think there is more relevant stuff for MMFA to misrepresent.
Please be my guest. Take it out of the refrig after all these years and lap it all up. :-)
Man you are desperate to carry rightwing water. Limbaugh said he didnt know of anyone making a charge HE made at least by implication. I dont care WHEN he did it. Its not misrepresenting anything to say he did when HE DID. What is really ironic is YOU, with what should be practiced expertise in misrepresenting things which you do ALL the time, calling MMFA on misrepresentation FALSELY. You spin so much you put a top to shame
You guys are amazing. It's OK for Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, and the rest of the haters to say things such as: "Robert KKK Byrd" or "Ted Chappiquidik Kennedy" among other things that happened 40+ years ago. But then you call us out because Limbaugh's lie started 13 years ago.
You fail to mention that he repeats it as one of his regular gigs, yet WE should get oveer it! When you use this type of spin, one word comes to mind--Hypocrite!
What are you talking about? This article is about what Rush said on July 9th, 2007. That was just a few days ago. This is 2007 right?
It seems your memory is just as shoddy as Rush's is.
; )
Open,
My memory may be shot as you suggested, but your analytical powers are in the same category.
The criticism is of Rush of what he didn't say in the recent thread. It was a throw away line and one that actually supported Hillary as Rush is saying nobody is accusing her. There is no monologue about Vince Foster's death, in fact, there is no further discussion. Obviously he is not trying doing anything mischievous except noting the obvious.
Yeah, MMFA can go back to 1994, 1984 or 1776 for all I care, but to try to make a case attacking Rush for comments back then are way off the lefty chart. ;-) It makes me laugh as I think MMFA is really desperate to get it's obligatory Rush thread online.
I guess my analytical skills are a bit off. I don't understand your objection.
Rush Limbaugh said he didn't know anybody who said such a thing and MMFA showed where he indeed said just such things himself. As far as I see it, MMFA is just providing Rush a little friendly service to help the poor guy out.
Tell that to Limbaugh, who still acts like Bill Clinton is in office and constantly calls Sen. Byrd "Sheets" - a reference to the brief time that Robery Byrd was a member of the KKK. It was over 60 years ago - several years before El Roshbo was even born.
I know! Going back to 1994 to establish precedent! Ha! That's like ancient history! I mean, going back a full 13 years? How desperate! I mean, that's ancient history! That would be like a a conservative comparing Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence behavior to President Clinton's pardons! Live in the now, man.
Regarding the earlier comparisons of progressive talk radio to Limbaugh: despite the fact that all radio talkers spin the story to a certain degree, I do not hear the lefties deliberately distorting the news or outright lying. I agree that some of the liberal hosts are abrasive.
In fact, as I was driving this a.m. listening to Hartmann, several callers advanced some "facts" that Hartmann had never heard. He said, "I won't discuss this because I haven't read anything about that" and said he would look up information to find out. He is a walking encyclopedia on the founding fathers and the constitution.
One other point: the lies and distortions of the right-wing talkers are misinforming the public, and this is harmful to democracy. And they do not correct themselves when they are called on their "mistakes."
EXACTLY!!!
If Limbaugh and Hannity had to announce retractions for every lie they've told over the years, each show would be nothing more than three hours daily of retractions.
The far right is so good at defining the discourse. Here we are back talking about Vince Foster and resurrecting the days of the right wing slander of the Clinton administration. Nobody talks about Laura Bush's conviction for manslaughter. Laura's conviction is not a rumor, not a joke--it's a little known fact. But somehow we are all talking about Hillary rumors because of a drug addict's comments--not about a fact about our present First Lady.