Limbaugh falsely accused Media Matters of taking Bennett out of context
On the September 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely accused Media Matters for America of quoting radio host Bill Bennett out of context, describing us as a "Democrat [sic] hack website."
According to Limbaugh, Media Matters reproduced only the following segment of Bennett's September 28 comments:
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
Limbaugh's charge is false. In exposing Bennett's comments, Media Matters reproduced the entire quote, including the segments that Limbaugh claimed had been omitted.
During the program, Limbaugh played a segment of Bennett's September 28 radio show, stopping immediately after the statement that has provoked controversy: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Limbaugh then falsely claimed that "[t]hat last sentence is what appeared. From this whole call, that last sentence is what appeared. ... But what he says after this is even better, and it also wasn't reported." In fact, Bennett's subsequent statement that it "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," was faithfully reproduced in Media Matters' post.
Limbaugh later exclaimed that Bennett "should have been applauded," then claimed that his statement would be taken out of context and challenged Media Matters to post his comments. Limbaugh's comments, with their full context, follow.
From the September 30 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: This Democrat hack website, which has become a source authority for the liberal media, puts an out-of-context, incomplete version of what Bennett said. And of course, this place is required reading of the staff of Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] and Ted Kennedy [D-MA] and the mainstream press. Oh, look! Look what Bennett said the other day! Bam, here come their statements. And then, of course, the media said, "Ohhh, what do you think about what Bennett --" Blah, blah, blah.
[...]
[clip of Bennett's September 28 statement]
BENNETT: One of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either. I don't think it is either, because first of all, I think there's just too much that you don't know. But I do know it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.
LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape! That last sentence is what appeared. From this whole call, that last sentence is what appeared. Have you heard to this point Bill Clint -- Bill advocating this? He's been disputing this whole theory, set forth in a book called Freakonomics. He's been disputing it, he's been saying it's tricky, you don't go there. Yeah, you could do this, but this is not the way we're gonna deal with abortion. But what he says after this is even better, and it also wasn't reported.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: But the way that this hack little website works is to take a comment like this, take it out of context, put it up there. The mainstream media, rather than listen to Bill Bennett, or me, or any of us. I mean, you don't need a secret password to listen to this program. It's radio, you can turn it on, turn to the station in your town that carries it, and bammo, there it is. That's all you have to do. They don't do that. They go to this wacko, hack, George Soros-funded website to get the version of what was said on the Bennett show or this show or anything else and then they go to town with it. And it's an operation set up to do just this because they're paranoid and scared to death of the triumph of the new media over the old media and the destruction of their monopoly. And rather than get in the pit here and have it out with us issue by issue, story by story, they try to discredit and destroy the reputations of those who happen to be kicking their ass from one end of this country to the other. And that's where they are continuing to work, and that's where they to fail, because we're not going to let each other hang out to dry on something like this.
[ ..]
LIMBAUGH: This is the bite. He's trying to make a point to this caller. If you want to talk about it this way, here's a point you could make. And this is what was stated. Now, Mike, I want you to stop it once again right after he says "your crime rate would go down." We just have a couple quick lines, and this is what this firestorm is all about:
BENNETT: But I do know it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.
LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape. Bam. Now, if you just hear that, whoa, gee, what in the world got in -- what's he saying here? What in the world? Doesn't he know that this is gonna -- doesn't he know people aren't gonna -- doesn't he know that he's setting himself up here? Listen to what he said next. That was not reported:
BENNETT: That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down. So, these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
LIMBAUGH: He's just saying, let's not get sidetracked on debating abortion on whether it will do this for the economy or that for the crime rate or -- it's silly. It's a matter of morality and life. Folks, what he said should have been applauded. What he said should reverberate.
We just had a story. I mentioned it yesterday. An abortion doctor is Little Rock is urging evacuees from Hurricane Katrina to come get their abortions now. He will do it free. Who are the evacuees from Hurricane Katrina? Well, according to the media and the pictures we've seen, they're all poor blacks. So we've got an abortion doctor in Little Rock advocating, asking, promoting, suggesting, inviting Katrina evacuees to come have their abortions now, free. Be easier to than to wait for the third trimester.
I told you about this story yesterday, and I said, you know what? There's a word to describe this, it's called racism. It's racism. This guy, this abortion doctor in Arkansas is the man who actually said what the left wants you to think Bill Bennett said. This abortion doctor is actually doing it. This guy put out a call. You black ladies, you black women who are pregnant, who evacuated Katrina, come to my office in Arkansas, and I will abort your baby. That, my friends, is racism.* That is somebody actually doing what these guys are claiming that Bill Bennett advocated.
Now, what's gonna happen, and I did this on purpose because I want you to all watch for this. What I just said -- Bill Bennett should be applauded -- that will be the quote from me on this site sometime later today or tomorrow or next week. And they will come after me. And I did this on purpose, to illustrate how this happens. You have heard everything I've said. There will be a full transcript of what I've just said on my website. They will not read my website. They will not listen to this program. They'll take whatever this little website that Soros funds, however they take what I just said out of context, put it on this website and the next thing you know, CNN's gonna be interviewing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the rest of these guys are gonna be demanding that I be canned, fired, whatever -- even though I can't be, they're gonna demand it somehow. And you watch. I said Bill Bennett should be applauded. Yep, he should be applauded for the whole context of his remarks. He is trying to tell people here that abortion is a moral thing and all these tricks that we're gonna come up with to beat the abortion battle on economics and numbers and crime miss the point. Now, you've all heard me say this, but you also heard me sneak in there Bill Bennett should be applauded. Let's see how this gets -- you think I'm right about this, Mr. Snerdley? Snerdley says he knows I'm right. So let's just see.
This happened to me once before. This site actually quoted me as saying that Cindy Sheehan lied about having a son.** And Cindy Sheehan lied -- they reported that I lied when I said Cindy Sheehan didn't have a son, and didn't have son that died in Iraq. And this ended up all over cable TV for a couple days. Does Limbaugh really believe this? Has something has happened to Limbaugh's mind? Well, I didn't say it. If you take it out of context -- you take it out of context and add a couple of twists to it, it can make some people who didn't hear it think that it was said. Same thing here with what's happening to Bennett.
A dittohead friend that I work with just came running in and basically repeated Rush's argument. The interesting thing is that he heard it on Sean Hannity's show. Of course, he believes every word and thinks Bennett is being unfairly smeared.
The Propaganda Machine works very well.
Former Secretary Benett's comments would be inoffensive to all if considered within the context of events in the global community: Benett said on his radio show that if virtually all black babies were aborted, as ridiculous as that may be, then the crime rate would decrease[signifigantly.] Compare this to real, landmark events at Abu Gharaib last year: Sure, the guards' behavior was ridiculous, but was it not a painful "happenstance" on the path of Iraqis towards assimilation in a rapidly changing global community(I cite Tony Blair's speech this week and Adam Eisenstat's article at Trump University dated september 13, 2005.) Benett's statements were merely a "thought experiment" derived from a "happenstance." Perhaps this happenstance was Abu Gharaib. Recursively, the deposition of Saddam Hussein, the justification of which is rooted in chronologically linked events, is a bold poltical experiment. Although now a radio host, Mr. Benett may have spoken in his capacity as a former Secretary of Education: Education cures society's ills, as Mr. Hannity recently stated on the air. People complained vehemently about Abu Gharaib, but isn't that incident proving to be much better in the long run? There have been popular elections and oil production in Iraq, and Iraqi security forces are standing up. Comparitively, isn't education which prevents the need for abortions promotional of reducing a disproportionately high conviction rate within the African American community? In conclusion, the radio show host was merely sticking his wet finger in the wind. Whether mandated abortion of black babies decreases the overall crime rate in a region of any scope is a fantastically moot issue, and as such is one towards which everyone, especially the former Secretary of Education, is averse. If he's averse to it, then how could anyone react to it whether he said it or not? He obviously said it to recall attention to education of at risk youth, an issue the First Lady addressed and became active in earlier this year. After all, she is a former school teacher.
Jonathan King New Rochelle, New York
starbucks830 - Saturday October 1, 2005 02:50:38 PM EST
Appologies for torture make my skin crawl, I dont think it was just a happenstance to those MURDERED, probably not to those raped or who had their genitals subjected to electric shocks. I am sure YOU would be willing to be raped, have your genitals shocked and be murdered to take one for the team. I mean after all Iraq is in such good shape now.
Another "Good ole boy?".....First of all who cares what Limbaugh thinks or feels,and as for the comment Bennett made about aborting "Blacks" to lower the crime rate, I don't care how he "meant" it, he should not have said it. I also believe that he would not go to a predomiantly black area and make that same comment. No matter how it was said or meant it was disrespectful and he should have kept his personal opinion to himself. That was not meant in a good way at all, blacks are not a stupid people and understood exactly what he meant. It's even more offensive when people try to down play the rudeness of other people.
Nerzog,
I hope you were able to show him where his idol lied to him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
MMfA should be honored that Limbaugh is lying through his teeth about them. Clearly they're having an effect.
"MMfA should be honored that Limbaugh is lying through his teeth about them. Clearly they're having an effect."
__________
Just so that we don't forget the facts, how excatly was Limbaugh lying?
Just so that we don't forget the facts, how excatly was Limbaugh lying?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You really should read the MMFA items you are commenting on before you comment on them. MMFA was very specific about how Limbaugh lied. If you are having trouble understanding what they have written, perhaps you could be specific about what you don't understand...?
My mistake; sorry. There have been so many Bennett posts and threads I've had trouble discerning one from the next. It is very simple to understand.
"how excatly was Limbaugh lying?"
As Wander said, read the article. If you read the article I'm sure you will understand, because it's not complicated. To sum up;Rush said MMfA took it out of context, when in fact MMfA provided full context. If you have a question about a specific detail somewhere, that would be a better question to ask.
This is going to be a really tough one for you liberals. I have occasionally revealed the fact that liberals are intellectually challenged. Here is a chance for liberals to reclaim their status as “thinkers.” If you just can’t do it, get rid of this post.
We have seen how you people swarm like sharks to the scent of blood whenever Rush says anything either politically incorrect or academically incorrect such as using awkward grammar or whatever. The point here is that you guys on this website are desperately poised to attack Rush whenever the slightest opportunity presents itself.
Your extremely low threshold for criticism of Rush is therefore potentially a very good measure of the accuracy of his statements. That is, any statements he makes that you leave untouched are guaranteed to be unassailably accurate, because you are all over anything he says that's even remotely vulnerable.
But you won’t go anywhere near most of Rush’s substantive comments, because you don’t want people to be aware of them.
"This is going to be a really tough one for you liberals. I have occasionally revealed the fact that liberals are intellectually challenged. Here is a chance for liberals to reclaim their status as “thinkers.” If you just can’t do it, get rid of this post."
_______________
There are some "thinkers" on the right, but many more on the left, in my opinion. I resent your idea of liberals as "non-thinkers," though from the majority of so-called liberals' comments on this site I think I can see why.
"We have seen how you people swarm like sharks to the scent of blood whenever Rush says anything either politically incorrect or academically incorrect such as using awkward grammar or whatever. The point here is that you guys on this website are desperately poised to attack Rush whenever the slightest opportunity presents itself."
__________
The only example of a stupid Limbaugh post was the one criticizing his use of the word "Injun." Other than that, do you have any proof at all of your claims?
"Your extremely low threshold for criticism of Rush is therefore potentially a very good measure of the accuracy of his statements. That is, any statements he makes that you leave untouched are guaranteed to be unassailably accurate, because you are all over anything he says that's even remotely vulnerable."
___________
Again: got any proof? I believe anyone who has proof.
"But you won’t go anywhere near most of Rush’s substantive comments, because you don’t want people to be aware of them."
_________
What comments are we "not going anywhere near"? Hmm?
Rush depends on MMFA for publicity now? Wow, I didn't realize his ratings were that bad.
Rush has a lot of bad info and opinions based on bad info. MMFA publishes instances where his information is verifiably false. His opinions, though formed by a mind that's obtuse, ill-informed and hateful, are not verifiably false.
But you won’t go anywhere near most of Rush’s substantive comments, because you don’t want people to be aware of them.
Please direct me towards these mythic "substantive comments" capable of withstanding scrutiny. In case you are confused, you are probably referring to commercials or bumpers read by Rush. Those, technically, aren't lies, or his lies, so, yes, they are comparably substantive. What you must understand is that MMFA picks only the worst Rush comments, and only those that are recent or contemporary. MMFA doesn't have the resources to rehash ever Rushism repeated ad inifintum.
The thing is, does Limbaugh ever say how he came about his information? Let's just say that in his demented head he really does believe that this "Democrat hack" website took Bennett's comments out of context. Okay, but does he know this from having personally visited Media Matters for America and seeing for himself? I'd love to hear him explain.
It occurs, that of the wonderful (and positive) things MMFA does for the visitors of this site, perhaps the easiest (and most valuable) thing is to accurately reproduce a transcript of the things said by Limbaugh, et al.
And this is where MMFA does the job of that most-valued officer of the court, the stenographer (or court reporter; a better term).
Without an accurate record of what has been said in a court of law, the lawyers (and liars) are able to disavow anything and everything they say, after they've said it; and this would be the doorway through which lawyers (and liars) would Rush to and fro, in their attempts to confound the proceedings, win acquittal for their clients, and ultimately to evade JUSTICE and penalty: all were it not for the court reporter, who faithfully reports back, for all to hear, not only what the lawyers (and liars) said, but the context in which they said it.
Good job yet again, MMFA! A most-valued service you perform, to, and for, the court of public opinion.
(p.s.: while the many liars monitored here, do not their business in a court of law, but instead make it their business to keep those they speak for, out of such courts: that is where they share common ground with lawyers; but where they differ, the court's lawyers and the media's liars, is in that while lawyers may be jailed for corruption and contempt of court, the media's liars are rarely jailed; but are rabidly being held in the highest contempt, by The People; The People of the court of public opinion)
(another difference between lawyers and the media's liars, is in their educations)
Let me see if I've got this straight -- Rush Limbaugh is accusing Media Matters of taking words out of context, failing to report everything that was said, and twisting the facts...??
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!
"Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!"
Hypocrisy is one thing;criticizing people for doing what you do is bad enough. Now Limbaugh is accusing MMfA of doing something falsely, when he actually does it himself. I think that goes beyond hypocrisy. Has anyone coined a term for this increasingly common phenomenon? I would love to see the distinction made.
The psychoanalytic theory of Sigmund Freud refers to a defense mechanism called "projection" -- but even that isn't a perfect fit, since Freud believed that defense mechanisms were unconscious and instinctual whereas Rush seems to use this tactic deliberately.
That being said, I am most thoroughly convinced that if Freud were still alive today, he would absolutely have a field day with the likes of Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.!
Good insight, and one mentioned periodically in posts.
To my thinking, Rush's psychopathology or Michael Savage's or Sean Hannity's or Ann Coulter's or Neal Boortz' or Bill O'Reilly's is not as relevant as that of the men who select and pay them to act it out on air 24/7.
While less relevant it is more fascinating. So we tend to focus on it.
In doing so we move further from the heart of the matter. The deeper problem is the 'corporatocracy', the fusion of big govt and big bness. The consolidation of this process under Bush is his legacy. It makes the old days that author Perkins describes seem tame. [link to www.in-my-opinion.org] In those days, as in Europe now, the consolidation of special interests was not as advanced as it is now. There was enough truth coming through to the masses to create large scale protests. But no longer. Now, for example, a huge DOD contractor also owns shills like Matthews who just hosted Delay, etc.
But Matthews and Rush et al are but pawns in the overall scheme
The "mass" as Thomas Jefferson describes the public has lost it's positioning in the democracy because special interests now so expertly work both sides of the fence.
"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust." Thomas Jefferson
Then there's the General:
"Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." George Washington, letter 1779
Taking down a democracy is not so hard. Staying on message is easy when you and the messenger work from the same talking points.
I hate making comparisons to Nazi Germany, because the comparison is so fantastic it tends to overwhelm the point, but this quote fits well enough that it deserves an attempt. I believe there was a quote from Hitler that went something like, "Whatever you are doing accuse our opponents of doing it. This will prevent them from accusing you". I am not saying the conservatives are Nazi's only Limbaugh seems to be using their technique.
Also, Limbaugh does not mention MediaMatters in his tirade. This could be for a number of reasons. The first is that he tends to not want to call undue attention to his critics. A Great Example is the signed copy of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" that Al Franken sent Limbaugh with the note, "I think it might help sales if you mention my book on the air." Limbaugh never mentioned it. The second reason is that Rush's points are predicated on the confidence that his audience will not read or think for themselves, but will believe Limbaugh's distortions in their entirety. I hate when Rush gives his flawed accounts of news articles. He knows his audience will not read them. Then he calls himself America's Anchorman.
Today, for the first time, in a long time, I listened to much of Limbaugh's show, primarily for the laughs. First of all, I never heard him mention MMFA by name (but by implication). And in going back to MMFA's original post on Bennett, while things may or may not have been taken out of context is going to depend on one's point of view. However, like a good headline writer, the editor of the topic made his/her point in the headline and buried the "rest of the story" on the bottom of page 2, knowing full well that not all posters would read the whole article before venting. I know, because that happened to me.
I read the full text here and on other sites. I am also familiar with Mr. Bennett’s racially charged 'coded' rhetoric from the past. He's a race baiter; he throws out little plums that seem quite satisfying to the more bigoted element in the Republican Party. Is he a racist in the classical sense, probably not? The Republican Party has advanced an agenda that exploits the insecurities that have arisen from the new societal paradigms as it pertains to race. I think they have encouraged a belief that somehow political, economic, and societal advances of minorities, particularly African Americans have occurred to the detriment to the majority population. It hasn’t, as minorities moved into the ranks of the middle class it did not cause a shift in the economic well being of the majority White population. there still isn’t economic parity between the two races. I don’t know if there ever will be. The Republican Party has perpetrated that this happened or that it could happen if Whites didn’t support Republican policies. It’s been a very useful and successful tool in expanding party membership. Mehlman to the dismay of a lot of prominent Republicans finally confessed to this and implied that somehow the practice of exploiting divisiveness between the races had ended. It hasn't. I think this explains the escalating vocal hostility to minority sensitivities in the country. To the direct opposite of reality a belief that somehow we minorities have been favored over Whites exists. Its sad state of affairs America belongs to us all, and both Black and White participated in its growth and made this country what it is. Oh God that sounds corny.
With each spin by Bennett, Limbaugh, DeLay et al., it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. This morning on Fox & Friends, retiring General Myers stated that things have vastly improved in Iraq. What planet (correction, what galaxy)is he living in? It is so reflective of their hubris that they just can't say that a mistake was made. As Dylan said a long time ago (but not much has changed) "something's happening here and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones."
mmfa "actually quoted me as saying that cindy sheehan didn't have a son". no, rush, to quote you would mean they printed exactly that as your own words. mmfa didn't say that, or anything like that, and you cannot produce anything that has mmfa doing that. but thanks rush, this "little" web site certainly has you and mr. o'reilly in a dither.
"mmfa 'actually quoted me as saying that cindy sheehan didn't have a son'. no, rush, to quote you would mean they printed exactly that as your own words. mmfa didn't say that, or anything like that, and you cannot produce anything that has mmfa doing that."
___________
Actually, MMFA did do that, in one of their rare stupid posts. They said Limbaugh was misinforming people by saying that "Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents." MMFA interpreted that to mean that Sheehan was lying about everything she had said. Any clear-thinking, unbiased, intellectually honest person would realize that Limbaugh meant that Sheehan's story was drummed up by the media.
First of all, the link to the relevant MMfA article:
[link to mediamatters.org]
MMfA never accuses Rush of saying that Cindy Sheehan "never had a son." MMfA simply quotes Rush verbatim as he claims Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents," and then notes that Sheehan's story is verifiably true. MMfA portrayal of Rush is entirely accurate.
"MMfA never accuses Rush of saying that Cindy Sheehan "never had a son." MMfA simply quotes Rush verbatim as he claims Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents," and then notes that Sheehan's story is verifiably true. MMfA portrayal of Rush is entirely accurate."
_________________
The fact that they noted Sheehan's story was "verifiably true" implies beyond a reasonable doubt that Limbaugh's statement said her story was false. There is no need to clarify something as being true if you do not think others have called that truth into question.
rush: mmfa "actually quoted me as saying that cindy sheehan lied about having a son". since "quote" means exact words, please provide those words.
"rush: mmfa 'actually quoted me as saying that cindy sheehan lied about having a son'. since 'quote' means exact words, please provide those words."
_____________
I cannot since MMFA didn't do that. But you are blinding yourself to the bigger picture by getting hung up on irrelevant technicalities. It's pretty funny that you honestly believe Limbaugh was intentionally and nefariously decieving people by saying "quoted."
kenkong: "i cannot since mmfa didn't do that." which was exactly the point i made in all of my posts. mmfa did not "quote" rush saying sheehan didn't have a son. he was wrong, lied, whatever you want. glad we agree.
"'i cannot since mmfa didn't do that.' which was exactly the point i made in all of my posts. mmfa did not 'quote' rush saying sheehan didn't have a son. he was wrong, lied, whatever you want. glad we agree."
__________
I am glad, too. It's still a trivial point, though.
"it's still a trivial point." obviously not trivial enough for you to keep trying to rebut it.
Apparently not.
"getting hung up on irrelevant technicalities" kenkong77
So is this what ditto-heads are calling lies these days? irrelevant technicalities.
"So is this what ditto-heads are calling lies these days? irrelevant technicalities."
______________
I am not a "ditto-head". Seems pointless to deny it now, though. In your mind, is there anything that is an "irrelevant technicality" with regards to conservatives? Or are any and all falsehoods said by them intentional lies? Your point WAS trivial and a technicality; stop trying to avoid it by slandering me as an enemy. I know it makes it easier for you to demean me by doing it, but please.
kenkong77:
Calling all of this trivial is the kind of attitude Limbaugh relies on. Some will find it trivial, but some will hear the word "quote" and believe that MMfA actually said this. We argue the "trivial" because every inch given become a foot, a yard, a mile. Don't think Limbaugh doesn't use language like this to confuse his donors about what really happened.
limbaugh may have been trying to say her story was drummed up by the media, but mmfa did not state that limbaugh was trying to say she had no son or he didn't die in iraq. as i said, mmfa did not say that, or infer it, and you can't show me that they did.
kenkong77 - Saturday October 1, 2005 03:31:47 PM EST
You know the rightwing is desperate when they try the 'what he really meant...' defense. YOU are no more qualified than MMFA to say what Rush 'really meant'. IF he meant what you said it is a poor analogy to compare her story to one defined by probably forged documents. It would do your side good IF it were true but since you dont have amazing mind reading powers, you are no more qualified than anyone else to decide what Rush really meant.
"You know the rightwing is desperate when they try the 'what he really meant...' defense. YOU are no more qualified than MMFA to say what Rush 'really meant'. IF he meant what you said it is a poor analogy to compare her story to one defined by probably forged documents. It would do your side good IF it were true but since you dont have amazing mind reading powers, you are no more qualified than anyone else to decide what Rush really meant."
____________
First off, I am not "rightwing," but thanks for the compliment anyway. I am one of the rare (on this site) open-minded liberals who looks at both sides and tries to make a case for both. The case was already made for the "liberal" side, so I was making it for the "conservative" side. You automatically assume it's the liberal position, and yet you criticize me for assuming as well...except I assumed that Limbaugh's intentions were not maliciously nefarious, which is apparently the conservative position. I know it's tough to believe, but Limbaugh is probably not evil incarnate, as you clearly think he is. It is not black-and-white.
kenkong77 - Sunday October 2, 2005 12:35:27 PM EST
Ah but you did far more than ASSUME that Limbaugh's intentions were not malicious, you said something to the effect that obviously anyone can see they werent so MMFA was wrong. That is assuming facts not in evidence. You not only made that assumption you asserted it was the only reasonable assumption and since you dont have amazing mind reading powers I say MMFA's assumption, backed up by Limbuaghs track record for lying and smearing is more reasonable or at least AS reasonable. Now I subscribe to the notion that what can be ascribed to blatant stupidity should not be assumed to be maliciousness. That however is in the case of an isolated incident. Limbaugh has a long and distinguished track record that obviates the benifit of the doubt. Feel free to disagree but what you cannot reasonably do is pretend that your ASSUMPTION, about what Limbuagh meant is more reasonable than MMFAs.
"I know it's tough to believe, but Limbaugh is probably not evil incarnate, as you clearly think he is. It is not black-and-white."
Rush frequently uses incorrect information in order to back up his opinions. That's not a black-and-white issue?
"You know the rightwing is desperate when they try the 'what he really meant...' defense."
Solon, they're forever using the "what you REALLY meant..." excuse as a reason to attack progressives.
In the example kenkong uses, what MMFA's article REALLY meant was that Rush accused Cindy Sheehan of not having a son. Right wingers freely use hyperbole, but they always go on the attack when they're quoted. Saying "what MMFA REALLY meant..." just sounds a lot better to their audiences than "MMFA quoted me accurately when I said something hateful!"
The thing is, we all know Rush was simply trying to tell his audience to ignore Sheehan. He's just pissy that the right wing doesn't rule the media with an iron fist so far -- sometimes a story or two about dissent is allowed to worm its way in between the SUV commercials.
A dittohead friend that I work with just came running in and basically repeated Rush's argument. The interesting thing is that he heard it on Sean Hannity's show. Of course, he believes every word and thinks Bennett is being unfairly smeared.
by nerzog
________________________________________________
That's how it works: gullible viewers/listeners who are too lazy to think so they'll believe anything.
The facts point otherwise as we know; Media Matters told the truth. I though NPR was the Democratic Hack Media, I guess things have changed, and Media Matters has gotten some credibility for the better/or for the worse-Limbaugh et al, sees it as a threat.
I think Limbaugh is looking in his rear view mirror and seeing a large vehicle with MMFA emblazoned on it behind him. On the bottom of the mirror are the words 'CAUTION. OBJECTS IN THE MIRROR MAY BE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR.' And he's pedaling as fast as he can.
He of the golden phallis projectile vommits 360 degrees, reaching every corner of American not due to 'talent on loan from God' but thanks to Clear Channel.
Here are the 'real men' under Rush's skirt: [link to www.clearchannel.com]
They are the ones who through mindnumbing lies convinced vast numbers under the center of the bell curve that Saddam was linked to 911, etc.
They were very successful at their mission - sending the less than affluent off to their deaths much as Johnson and others who wrapped themselves in the flag did a few decades back. Mission accomplished.
In one corner may be George Soros. In the other is the Mays klan. Owners a 29 Billion dollar company that gave enabled the Swiftboaties to annihilate Kerry. Here's how you do it. Rinse & repeat, repeat, repeat. Don't allow the opposition a chance. Own the air waves. Over half the country would tune into a Democrat mirror radio network. But Powell's son in tandem with Big Media made sure that never developed.
The republican platform = Clear Channel programming. Clear Channel = 24/7 Bush infomercial. Powerful men are these Texans - the Mays, Delay, Rove, the Bush's.
LIMBAUGH: He's just saying, let's not get sidetracked on debating abortion on whether it will do this for the economy or that for the crime rate or -- it's silly.
Always, the sound machine is explaining what someone was trying to say. He really meant this, he really meant that. Since Katrina the right has been reeling from one public relations nightmare after another. Not only does the emperor have no clothes, each time he tries to spin some new ones they fly back in his face. They are so busy trying to dodge the bullet on this one that they don't even see what is a major problem for them. The alienation of an entire race of people in the United States by the Republican Party is at hand and all they can do is play He said, She said. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. It's been a great month to be a leftie.
Rush Limbaugh and the left are one in the same.
They both want the same things. They only disagree on how to do it.
Open borders. "Equality." Miscegination. Capitalism. Globalism....
You name it.
What we really want is correct spelling...
Strange post from MotorWolf (another Neo-Nazi troll?) Equality is something that Rush and his minions are definitely against as it would challenge the hegemony of the rich, white, republican oligarchy. They fight affirmative action at every turn. The issue of immigration is complex and various opinions are held by people on both sides. The left's view of capitalism is very different from the right. The right would seek to enhance the wealth of the corporation at the expense of the individual while the left would protect the worker and the environment. Same argument goes for globalism. And as far as miscegination - I can't beleive thay any normal, thinking, person would have a problem with race mixing unless they are members of some bizarre white supremacist group(I think the head of Regnery Press is one of these weirdo's) like the Council of Conservative Citizens. Miscegination - wow - that's right up there with Bennet's remarks!
miscegination...
by claudo
Until about three and a half years ago, such was the policy at Bob Jones University. No interracial dating.
AL FRANKEN: So much for the Tiger Woods joke.
(Strange post from MotorWolf (another Neo-Nazi troll?) )
Nope
(Equality is something that Rush and his minions are definitely against as it would challenge the hegemony of the rich, white, republican oligarchy.)
Really? Try facing a panel of Republicans and explain why free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.
(They fight affirmative action at every turn.)
They had a big hand in the Civil Rights Act, too. Did you forget? I haven't and I still curse their them for it.
(The issue of immigration is complex and various opinions are held by people on both sides.)
Mexican immigration is the darling of both sides, rhetoric notwithstanding. Left needs votes. Right needs cheap labor. I hate 'em both.
(The left's view of capitalism is very different from the right. The right would seek to enhance the wealth of the corporation at the expense of the individual while the left would protect the worker and the environment.)
And both sides are more than happy to tax everyone to death.
(Same argument goes for globalism.)
Hello...? Both sides, aka Republicrats, have said or implied more than once the importance of globalism with regards to economics especially. So much for protecting the worker. As under Bill Klingon, GW Bush has done nada for the peons who make Air Jordans in Chinese labor facilities built by their best contributor$.
(And as far as miscegination - I can't beleive thay any normal, thinking, person would have a problem with race mixing unless they are members of some bizarre white supremacist group(I think the head of Regnery Press is one of these weirdo's) like the Council of Conservative Citizens. Miscegination - wow - that's right up there with Bennet's remarks!)
Make sure you say that face to face with a member of the Nation of Islam.
The Nation of Islam is just the other side of your coin. They're just the darker face of you, and I have said that to the face of many individual members of the Nation of Islam. They just tell me I’m a fool and that I won’t be prepared for the inevitable “race war” My reply to that is that since we only make up 12% of the population I pretty much believe that we would be on the losing side of the "race war". A racist is a racist regardless of the color of their skin IMO. The Nation of Islam is actually a very conservative group. Like many of the White supremist groups, in addition to racism, they advocate personal responsibility, good moral behavior, entrepreneurship, and religious zealotry. Nevertheless, since the effects of an individual group's racism can be mitigated by the degree of control and power that group wields in society the effects of the Nation of Islam's racist philosophy on America is pretty limited; but it's still repugnant.
I can't believe someone with a brain could conceive such a thought in their mind! It totally discusses me that people are defending a person of such character! Especially after making comments about "aborting all black babies" lets forget color for a moment and cut the chase! Abortion is a strong term! And to think these are supposed to be important people. What ignorant person would even agree somewhat with comments like that. It's no wonder my people still struggle, we've been constantly dealing with idiots like these since our first days of existance. I'm just completely amazed people are still racist. As a black man myself, i've found it hard to review most comments here, and Mr Limbaugh may still be getting over his addiction so, it's probably a good idea to not be too concerned with a drug addicted person as such. And to close, whatever happened to "Law and Order" a criminal is to be caught and prosecuted, and i do believe that's why we have police,DA's, feds, atf... Aborting all blacks babies wouldn't solve anything. It's so sad to see and believe, racism is still in American,always have and will be!
Thank you. Keep hammering crap media. Rush = smelly crap. Please keep it up and sooner or later America will flush Rush down the toilet where he belongs.
Rush Limbaugh is using a familiar Right Wing tactic of smearing a news source by 'guilt by association'. They pound away on a news source (George Soros, Michael Moore, moveon.org) and when they think their goal of discrediting the source with the American people they then link other news sources to these 'names'.
As long as these talkheads for the far right can effectively accomplish this spin they will continue to offer cover for the Bush administration. Media Matters does a good job of exposing their lies and distortions, the important thing to remember is don't let them discredit your name so that the American public stops listening.
I listened to Rush lie about what MMFA posted yesterday. Its scary that this man has an audience that appears to believe almost everything he says. It seems to me that most people that enjoy this website listen to more than one point of view. Can you say the same thing about "Dittoheads"?
Does anyone think Rush would have David Brock on his show? Rush says Brocks' organization lies, that should be an easy thing to prove. MMFA wrote something, Rush lied about it. There is not a distinction for 'point of view' like Oscar the Grouch seems to think. Come on Rush, you pussy, if Brock lied, bring the man on and face him.
So much of what these right-wing blowhards have to say is a projection of themselves. As time passes it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish the content of their worldview from the incontinence drobing from their pieholes. Rush should get a real working job that keeps his whale carcass off the nagging boil scar on his butt which seems to restrain him from having any meaningful life experiences. He is an isolationist who has no vision aside from his own narrow point of view.
I just wanted to comment about Limbaugh's apparent error in referring to Media Matters as a "Democrat [sic] hack site." I read some time ago that the Republicans prefer to use that term to "Democratic" because they don't want to appear to be referring to the Democrats as being "Democratic." If that is so, then Limbaugh's use of "Democrat" was deliberate.
Not forgetting of course that O'Reilly has also used the Soros line to make left-leaning organizations look bad. A month or so ago, O'Reilly pulled the Soros line on moveon.org, because we all know that Soros is an evil twisted flip-flop *chuckle*. What O'Reilly - intentionally - ignored was how moveon.org can't accept more than $5,000 from any single source.
Is MMFA the same?
Good, if trivial, point.
I don't need to click on the link to MMFA's original story to know Rush is lying. I remember reading the original story. It's the only place where I've read Bennett's comments.
There's a radio station in Sacramento (a rock station, not newstalk, BTW) discussed those quotes, including the part Rush claims aren't being displayed. Even with those so-called omitted remarked, the station called Bennett a racist and a disgrace (or something to that effect). They referred to those "omitted" comments as a horribly failed attempt to backpedal (again, not exact words, but something to that effect... the horrors of trying to remember exact comments from a couple days ago).
limboob is going to have to accuse WGN (chicago) too ... on their friday morning news show, they repeatedly played the bennett clip, pretty much exactly what MMFA had included in its original report. >:-) i heard it 6 times while i was getting ready for work. WGN must have been playing it every 15-20 mins. heheeeee !
This drug addict racist big mouth Limbaugh have the audacity to defend Bennett, even though he say that taking prescription pain killers does not constitute being a drug addict... This is so absurb..
First of all who cares what KKK member Limbaugh thinks or feels,and as for the comment fellow KKK member Bennett made as far as aborting "Blacks" to lower the crime rate, I don't care how he "meant" it, he should not have said it. I think he's a "punk" and I also beleive that he would not go to a predomiantly black area and make that same comment. No matter how it was said or meant it was disrespectful and he should have kept his personal opinion to himself. What if someone said that his mother,is also his aunt ... how would it make him feel? Nor would that be very professional would it? But then again look who the comment came from "A nobody good ol boy".
First of all who cares what Limbaugh thinks or feels,and as for the comment fellow Bennett made as far as aborting "Blacks" to lower the crime rate, I don't care how he "meant" it, he should not have said it. I also believe that he would not go to a predomiantly black area and make that same comment. No matter how it was said or meant it was disrespectful and he should have kept his personal opinion to himself. That was not meant in a good way at all, blacks are not a stupid people and understood exactly what he meant. It's even more offensive when people try to down play the rudeness of other people.
I have tried to e-mail the network via their online form to complain but they would not accept my comment. The screen said that the form was 'missing some important information' - like what?
Does anyone have the network's e-mail address?
Here is the content of a letter I tried to fax to Limbaugh, and eventually had to email to him:
October 3, 2005
Rush Limbaugh EIB Network
Dear Mr. Limbaugh,
Last Friday, you made two outrageous assertions – outrageous in terms that not only were they false, but that they were easily checked. First, you asserted: “The point is that a George Soros-funded hack website has been established within the last year or two years. This website makes a practice of taking things said in the conservative media out of context. This website, from its inception, proved to be a source authority for the left-wing media and ranking Democrats.” You then said, “I have a friend, a man by the name of Brent Bozell. Brent Bozell has such a website himself, although his is legitimate. It's paid for by himself, not funded by some political hack. He raises money for it from average Americans. It's called the Media Research Center, and Brent has been around for over 12 years, 14 years -- and Brent has the best daily recitation of bias in the mainstream press that there is in this country.” The comment about Mr. Bozell’s source of funding is false. His major funding is not from “average Americans,” but from conservative foundations such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Second, you went on to say, “Every day he lists countless examples of outrageous, wrong, lying, spiteful, hateful, biased comments found in the mainstream press and echoed by Democrat officials. The mainstream media, never once in my life, has cited any work done by Brent Bozell.” Again, this is not true. A quick Lexis-Nexis search reveals that in the last two years alone, the MRC and its representatives have been quoted over 100 times. In the same period, Brent Bozell himself has been on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN 10 times, not too mention the numerous times he has been on MSNBC.
You claim that you have talent “on loan from God.” Apparently, that talent does not extend to doing your research. Then again, why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Sincerely,
Rod Carveth, Chair Department of Communication Arts Marywood University Scranton, PA 18509 570-348-6209 ext. 2551
nice job , rod.