Limbaugh wrongly claimed that gasoline "was $1.29 ... [s]even months ago"
On the November 4 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that the price of gasoline was $1.29 per gallon in April 2005. During a segment in which he lamented the current popular discontent over high gasoline prices, Limbaugh stated, "Gasoline price goes up, it comes down. ... It was $1.29. When was it $1.29? Seven months ago." But according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the national average price of regular conventional-formulation gasoline was $2.20 per gallon on April 4. The last time the national average gasoline price was $1.29 or below was March 18, 2002.
According to DOE, the average price of gasoline in the lower Atlantic region was $2.21 on April 4. The last time the average gasoline price was $1.29 or below in the lower Atlantic region was December 16, 2002. DOE also keeps statistics on average gasoline prices in Miami, approximately 70 miles south of West Palm Beach, Florida, where Limbaugh lives. The average price of gasoline in Miami was $2.30 on April 4. DOE statistics on gasoline prices in Miami are not available from before May 26, 2003, when gasoline cost $1.52 per gallon, on average. The lowest recorded average price of gasoline in Miami from May 26, 2003, to November 7, 2005, was $1.50 per gallon, on July 7, 2003.
From the November 4 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: So, I mean, I, I'm, I'm not in anybody's back pocket. I'm not making excuses. I'm just telling you -- just as the price for things go up and the price for things go down -- the same thing happens in oil. Oil price goes up, it comes down. Gasoline price goes up, it comes down. It's coming down right now. I could have understood, I could have more understood this level of outrage if the price were still averaging $2.85 or 3 bucks a gallon, but it's down to -- it, it's, -- what is it $2.25 now for unleaded regular? It's coming down. It's coming -- doesn't make any sense to get mad now. The -- OK, It was $1.29. When was it $1.29? Seven months ago. OK. Before that it was $1.09, and before that it was 89 [cents], and before that it was 59 [cents]. At what point are you gonna say, "Wait a minute." Before that it was 29 [cents]. I can -- yeah, I can tell you when gas was 25 cents. You can tell me when it was $1.09. OK. So it's $2.50 today, but it was over three bucks just three weeks ago or four weeks ago.
Gas was at $1.47 when Bush took office (3rd week of Jan. 2001), and rose to a peak of $3.06. Again, more talk by right-wing pundits to minimize the problems of George W. Bush. Is Bush entirely responsible? No, but if he hadn't diverted so much time and energy to Iraq, he could have been providing leadership on energy policy, and perhaps we wouldn't have seen this problem.
It's official, this man is an idiot. I've been paying over $2 a gallon where I live. Is he just trying to win over seniors who no longer drive? I don't see any other motivation to spewing out such nonsense. He's certainly not going to convince anyone who drives and has a measurable IQ.
Way to go MMFA! I knew he was "lying" when I heard that on his radio program. I have noticed that when there is legitimate criticizm of this administration, even from his own party, he will not spend very much time on the topic and claim that he isn't so quick to criticize. Realize that in Rush's own pre-fabricated world, it doesn't matter what the price of gasoline is. He can afford to pay $5 a gallon or whatever the price may be. As long as this administration is in power he will support ANYTHING they do or cause whether it's good or bad for the country.
This audio sounds like it has been altered.
Listen right before you hear $1.29, you can hear the audio cut ... and then when you hear Rush say 7 months ... the words "7 months" are muffled.
Altered at 35-37 seconds of audio and at 42 second of audio.
Listen for yourself.
It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
Who altered the audio?
It's a conspiracy I tell you to malign a much beloved patriotic American hero, curses to MMFA!
"It's very clear that the audio has been altered"
============
Maybe you could check the transcript on your heart's desire's web site, Mr. Zapruder, and let us know your findings.
...OR we could reach waaaayyy back into the recesses of our short American memories and recall that commercial broadcasters started using digital software to remove pauses and breaks between words and phrases in an effort to shave a few more seconds for advertising time.
Furthermore, if you'll recall, Limbaugh himself made a big whoopty-doo about the whole thing. He was hopping mad that the "dramatic pauses" in his speech patterns were being hacked off. Personally, I laughed all the way home when I heard this. I could think of no greater irony than the idea that Limbaugh was being affected by the very "anything for a buck" corporate policies that he so steadfastly advocates.
In short: there is no conspiracy. Even if the audio WAS deliberately edited, the transcript supports MMFA's assertions.
And, oh yeah, Limbaugh is a rich idiot dope-fiend who probably doesn't know what a gallon of milk costs. So much for speaking for the American people...
by stopliberalism - Wednesday November 9, 2005 12:23:11 PM EST
Stop the conspiracy theories.
It's the ghost of Rose Mary Woods I tell you!!
This audio sounds like it has been altered.
by stopliberalism -
Listen right before you hear $1.29, you can hear the audio cut ... and then when you hear Rush say 7 months ... the words "7 months" are muffled.
Altered at 35-37 seconds of audio and at 42 second of audio.
Listen for yourself.
It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
Who altered the audio?
------------------------------------------
Nice catch ... I just listened to it, and it has been altered. They did a bad job at slicing the audio ...
Most people on this board probally never even listen to the clips, they just believe everything.
You have to wonder if this audio has been altered ... what else has been altered on this site.
Have you morons never listened to a webcast before? There is nothing on that clip that indicates that it has been altered. And if it has been altered, you wouldn't be able to tell from listening to it.
This is absolutely absurd.
I listened to the clip over and over again and didn't hear anything amiss. I even brought in co-workers from other offices to listen and nobody hears anything.
The words "7 months" are NOT muffled. The only thing that even comes close is the word "ago", and then only because Limbaugh stutters at that point.
Nice job stirring up trouble stopliberalism. Congratulations liar.
You have to wonder if this audio has been altered ... what else has been altered on this site.-by surfcity
***
No you don’t. Do what the majority on this site do when faced with a topic they have questions about—RESEARCH IT.
If you question the veracity of the transcripts or recordings linked to on this site then go to a different source and read the transcript or listen to the recording yourself. Do what the rest of us do—google the heck out of a topic and educate yourself—don’t expect others to do it for you.
lostlogic,
I tend to agree with you for the most part, people need to check sources and determine the validity of items here. But that does not negate the appearance of something "fishy". If an item's headline is meant to be deceptive but the truth only lies in the details within, that is intentional.
If you have to research the life out of an item here because it may or may not be in context, that is sad. The item's headline should be clear of it's intent and without spin or misleading in any way.....that is the way this website retains it's credibility.
Not by leaving things out or putting things in that would change the entire impression of the item.
Not by leaving things out or putting things in that would change the entire impression of the item.-by tommy
***
Good afternoon Tommy
I wasn’t saying you should research it because MMFA is trying to perpetrate some fraud. I told that poster that if that is what he/she believed was the case they need not wonder any longer they could research it and find out for themselves.
It was me politely expressing my disdain for those who want to smear MMFA with some conspiracy theory they dreamed up when the veracity of the transcripts and recordings could easily be proved so their is no need to speculate.
The moron was full of it—perhaps I should have just said that and avoided any confusion.
lostlogic,
I don't think the person was a moron - he merely said the audio sounded altered.....he was asking a question, that's all.
Frankly, items like these are silly anyway - they are partisan rants from a radio personality, not anything of substance from some elected official.
But the relevancy to this website is important....my point is one should be able to read the headline only of an item and the intent and context should be very clear, there should be no doubt as to what it means. If you want to get details, then by all means google yourself into a stupor - but they should be necessary only as backup.
It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
That's not a question. That's a statement.
he merely said the audio sounded altered.....he was asking a question, that's all.
Do you still beat your wife?
What? I'm just asking a question...
stopliberalism was obviously trolling. It's indefensible.
tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 01:36:01 PM EST
I think its silly that Limbaugh tells so many lies. That he is just flat out wrong so often. There are many people out there that actually believe Limbaugh is a good source of information. Kudos to MMFA for holding his feet to the fire. This site is about MEDIA misinformation Limbaugh is media. This person may or may not be a moron but his post is completly without merit, IF he is making an accusation that MMFA is altering the clip for some nefarious reason he has an obligation to back that up and he didnt even try. Hey the video sounds funny I think MMFA is slandering Limbaugh (an overstatement for effect but not far from the implication) without even an attempt to do so is not just weak its ludicrous
solon,
The point being is that those who love Limbaugh will continue to do so no matter what evidence shows him to be the consumate liar you proclaim. And those that despise him will also continue to do so despite anything truthful he may say. Nothing on this site slamming him will change anyone's minds or alter anyone's opinion.....so what is the point?
More to the point is that Limbaugh and others love this stuff - they say outrageous things all the time and it is all self serving. Despite their public scoffing or "staged irritations" of sites like these, they would rather lose their microphone than have it any other way....
MMFA is feeding right into Rush's ego and pocketbook every time they post something of his here.....so red meat lovers, have at it. Just know that Rush is thanking all of you as he lays back in his lazyboy, puffing his cigar, counting his money and laughing hysterically.
tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 01:53:59 PM EST
The point is this is what MMFA DOES, expose conservative misinformation in the media exactly like this Limbaugh LIE. THAT is the purpose of the site. You seem to be saying they should lay off pointing out the lies of a HUGE player in the conservative misinformation gambit. No WAY. He gets skewered when he lies and misinforms.
This is hardly a "lie". The context of Rush's argument shows that gas prices (like everything else) go up and down in relation to supply and demand. They were higher a few months ago then they are now. And they were much lower months before that. His argument is a reaction to the hysteria about gas prices, not a literal recitation of average gas prices over the past 4 decades.
Limbaugh said that gas was $1.29 seven months ago. Limbaugh lied to try to make his point. Case closed.
He didn't lie. He was incorrect, but he didn't lie. His point was that gas prices rise and fall due to supply and demand, and that currently, the price of gas is falling. He chose to get specific about prices, though he didn't need to in order to make his point.
"He didn't lie. He was incorrect, but he didn't lie."
ROFL. Now I've seen it all.
"His point was..."
It doesn't matter what his point was. Those that care about his points can listen to his show. Those that want to know about his lies, can read this site. This was one of them.
It wasn't a lie. You know it wasn't a lie. Anyone with any sense at all knows it wasn't a lie. It was an error, but not a lie. His point was about the rise and fall of the price of gasoline, it was not an historical segement concerning the average price of gasoline over the past two years. It was simply stating the fact that gas prices rise and fall due to supply and demand.
wens - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:59:02 PM EST
It wasn't a lie. You know it wasn't a lie. Anyone with any sense at all knows it wasn't a lie<<
Bunk it was a lie, if I say the sky is lime green because of pollution, the fact there IS pollution doesnt mean the first part of that statement isnt a LIE, its very easy to check, I didnt do it the consequences of that is that I can reasonably be called a liar.
So what if he'd said it was $1.99 seven months ago? Would that still be a lie even though it is closer to the $2.20 number mmfa gives? What if he'd said $2.19 or $2.21? Would either of those numbers been a lie? The actual PRICE of gas was immaterial to the point he was making. He could have said the price of gas today is A, the price of gas two months ago was B, and the price of gas seven months ago was C. If the point was that C was less than B, and A was less than both C and B becuase of the natural change in gas prices due to supply and demand, it doesn't really matter what the LITERAL price was. The numbers, or letters in this case, are used to show that gas prices vary, and go up and down all the time. It wasn't an object lesson on the literal history of gas prices. It was a warning to those who get hysterical every time the price goes up, without realizing that the price will eventually come down.
If you state it categorically, as Limbaugh did, then you better be right on. If a person wants to make an estimate, there are ways to preface it as such.
And stop repeating Limbaugh's lame point, bolstered by a bald face lie. We don't care.
I know you don't care about supply and demand. But you should. Then you wouldn't hysterically blame Bush for the high price of gas.
"I know you don't care about supply and demand. But you should. Then you wouldn't hysterically blame Bush for the high price of gas." --wens
----------------------------------------------------
I agree. You can imagine my puzzlement when the Bush Campaign blamed Clinton/Gore in 2000 for high gas prices. It appears that it was Clinton's fault back then, but now it is "supply and demand". Partisan logic is so predictable and consistent.
Is this wens the same ditto head who called one of Rush's lies a "technical irregularity" a few weeks back?
"His point was..."
Wow. You don't get it. We don't care about his point. You just want to get his BS repeated more. It was a lie. He stated something as a fact that wasn't even close to being true. If he had been off by ten cents or so, then you'd have a point. Most smart people, if they make an estimate, will say, "Something like $1.29 seven months ago". It would still be way wrong, but it could be categorized as an error rather than a lie. That wasn't the case here.
"It wasn't a lie. You know it wasn't a lie. Anyone with any sense at all knows it wasn't a lie. It was an error, but not a lie."
Yeah, gee Scott, how can you be so stooopid. Only dems/libs/lefties/progressives lie. Rethugs only have errors they don't correct or admit to.
wens - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:49:32 PM EST -
He didn't lie. He was incorrect, but he didn't lie.<<
So then he has NO responsibility to check out the putrid nonsense he spews day after day to his millions of dittoheads? That excuse can be used for virtually ANYTHING ANYONE says. Did he come out and admit he was wrong and correct himself? Did he spend two minutes researching this claim? Does he have a responsibility to do that? No, its a lie in my book.
Limbaugh said that gas was $1.29 seven months ago. Limbaugh lied to try to make his point. Case closed.
by Scott Johnson -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a hicup in the middle of the audio, but why is everyone talking about this or exactly what Rush said.
Rush's point was that gas prices are dropping, that was the point that Rush was making. And Rush is completly correct, the prices at the pump have dropped.
I just payed $2.09 / and a month ago I was paying $3.19. Gas has dropped $1.10 in one month where I live.
So in 3 hours of Rush's show on Friday, this is all you have? Rush giving a wrong number. lol
You missed the whole point / GAS IS DROPPING, SO RUSH IS CORRECT.
This is unreal / pathetic.
"You missed the whole point / GAS IS DROPPING, SO RUSH IS CORRECT."
Our job here is not the evaluate Rush's points, it's to discuss his veracity. In this case, he lied to bolster his point. End of story.
"You missed the whole point / GAS IS DROPPING, SO RUSH IS CORRECT."
Our job here is not the evaluate Rush's points, it's to discuss his veracity. In this case, he lied to bolster his point. End of story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rush's point was that the gas prices were going down, which they are. Also, he making a point about the bias media, which when the gas prices went up to $3 it was all over the media. They wouldn't stop with all of the gloom and doom projections. Heck, the leftist commmie media was projecting gas prices to go up to $5, maybe $6 or $7. And what happened? They dropped back down to $2. Now where are left commie so-called reporters? They won't report the drop in prices.
This was Rush's point, and your bent out of shape because he was off on the numbers? Like always, you've missed the point, and you don't even realize it.
I just think that Rush just bugs the left so bad, they can't stand it. Rush is the king or radio. End of story.
wens - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:21:27 PM EST
Limbaugh " When was it $1.29? Seven months ago." <
wens - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:21:27 PM EST
Limbaugh " When was it $1.29? Seven months ago."
No it wasnt, thats a lie get over it
solon,
MMFA can do whatever it wants. The point is if they think this has any negative effect on Limbaugh or his ratings or his paycheck, think again.
If you want to encourage MMFA to keep up their Limbaugh 24/7 watch, go for it....just know the consequences of that are not what you hope for, they may in fact accomplish just the opposite.
You think he's getting skewered?, how about getting richer and louder and maybe even, sadly, more effective. Is that what you really want?
Remember, sometimes what tastes good to you isn't exactly what's good for you.
"The point is if they think this has any negative effect on Limbaugh or his ratings or his paycheck, think again."
It's been awhile since the cons have pulled out this old and silly argument. It's a sign of desperation that they are relying on it again.
MMFA simply catalogs the lies of the right. It's doesn't expect any monetary or other punishment to befall the pepetrators of right-wing deceit. The chips will fall, where they fall. Knowing the truth and calling out those that have no use for it has value all its own detached from the effect on the careers of the Limbaughs of the world.
We should call it the "They'll Cry All The Way To The Bank" fallacy.
It's about education. People like you, tommy, are beyond hope. But there is a majority out there of social conservatives who need a source of information to sort out the BS peptrated by the right-wing noise machine. This site provides that service.
tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:24:26 PM EST
Yes he is getting skewered, I dont care how much money he makes or how committed dittoheads are. He is caught out lying and it is publisized, that fits the definition of skewered to me. Besides its a false dichotomy to assume everyone falls into either the catagory that they will beleive anything Rush says or they already know the man is an bloviating screech monkey. Some might be on the fence and see this. It could happen neither of us knows if it has
I don't think the person was a moron - he merely said the audio sounded altered.....he was asking a question, that's all. -by tommy –
****
Nice catch ... I just listened to it, and it has been altered. They did a bad job at slicing the audio ... Most people on this board probally never even listen to the clips, they just believe everything. You have to wonder if this audio has been altered ... what else has been altered on this site.-by surfcity
***
Tommy
You are not accurately characterizing this poster's statement. The only thing you can consider a question this poster asked was “what else has been altered on this site”. And even that could be debated since it was not ended with a question mark. All else was written as fact.
Sorry, I stand by my opinion that this poster is a moron—I even have evidence to back up my opinion—the posters own words.
If you have to research the life out of an item here because it may or may not be in context, that is sad.
No, if you have to research an item to verify/refute its context, that SMART. To NOT do that is lazy. As often as statements are thrown out there for people to say 'prove it', you loose the ability to say that having to prove something you say is sad. If you can't stand by the veracity of something you say here, that's sad. If you can't be bothered to back up what you say with a little bit of research, that's sad.
The audio is as Limbaugh broadcast it. It has not been altered. When we stitch together audio we use an audible beep to indicate that. If you want to you can visit Limbaugh's website to hear the audio.
DEFLECT AND DIVERT.
"Nice catch ... I just listened to it, and it has been altered. They did a bad job at slicing the audio ..." --Surfcity
-----------------------------------------
And if you listen to it backwards you can clearly hear "Satan Rules!".
This audio sounds like it has been altered.
Listen right before you hear $1.29, you can hear the audio cut ... and then when you hear Rush say 7 months ... the words "7 months" are muffled.
Altered at 35-37 seconds of audio and at 42 second of audio.
Listen for yourself.
It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
Who altered the audio?
[by stopliberalism]
-----------------------------------
You may be on to something ... there are breaks in the audio at the 35 second time of the audio and the seven months is muffled.
As a Democrat who just signed up on this site, now I'm questioning the reliabilty of this site.
A co-worker in our office is a big Bill O'Reilly fan and he has been telling me about this site and all of the lies they say about O'Reilly and Fox. And, first time on the site, I see this.
Something is fishy....
"As a Democrat who just signed up on this site, now I'm questioning the reliabilty of this site.
A co-worker in our office is a big Bill O'Reilly fan and he has been telling me about this site and all of the lies they say about O'Reilly and Fox. And, first time on the site, I see this.
Something is fishy...."
You got that right. You are smelling the stench of this completely fishy and bogus post you wrote backed up with no facts.
Altered at 35-37 seconds of audio and at 42 second of audio.
Listen for yourself.
It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
Who altered the audio?
[by stopliberalism]
-----------------------------------
You may be on to something ... there are breaks in the audio at the 35 second time of the audio and the seven months is muffled.
As a Democrat who just signed up on this site, now I'm questioning the reliabilty of this site.
A co-worker in our office is a big Bill O'Reilly fan and he has been telling me about this site and all of the lies they say about O'Reilly and Fox. And, first time on the site, I see this.
Something is fishy....
by dems1ohio -
===============================
I showed this to the Repub in our office. He is some sort of a preferred member to Rush and can pull up archives.
He just pulled it up and you don't hear the cuts on the audio from Rush's website, so the audio has been altered.
He just emailed this info to Rush now and he's going to call Rush. His show is live right now.
This should be interesting.
So if he didn't say gas was $1.29 seven months ago, WHAT DID HE SAY?
Instead of just screaming conspiracy, give us the real deal.
"So if he didn't say gas was $1.29 seven months ago, WHAT DID HE SAY?
Instead of just screaming conspiracy, give us the real deal." --pete592
---------------------------------------------------
He is pulling your leg. To begin with, audio recorded from different sources are bound to have different pops and blips. If there was a difference in substance or context from what the MMFA clip contains as opposed to the Limbaugh site, he would have told us. He just said the pops and blips weren't there. Who cares? The important thing would be if MMFA edited the comments in a self-serving manner. He never claims that at all.
A comparisson of the transcripts by other posters shows nothing of substance is any different.
Just another conservative troll running interference.
1. This website could be sued if they altered what Limbaugh said.
2. Why would they make THIS up? Is this SO damaging to Rush? With all the right-wing pundits trying to say this website "lies", why would they risk altering Rush's webcast?
3. I listened to the audio, and heard no alterations.
4. Your friend will be able to access the transcripts of the show. What do the transcripts say? Can he do a screen capture with a simple screen capture program (available for free on websites like download.com)?
5. Posters on this board have stated they were listening to the broadcast when Rush made this statement. Are they also part of this grand conspiracy to make Rush look wrong on gas prices?
So if the quality of the audio is different on Rush's archives, what was cut? Was anything altered? Why do I think it hasn't and you're all jumping up and down about nothing? I'm sure it's a matter of audio quality and not editting. Anyone that knows anything about audio as data knows you can easily get this effect without it being editted.
Feeling a little tinfoil hattish, or are you countering evidence provided by Wonkette that the White House has been doctoring Press Briefing Transcripts? [link to www.wonkette.com]
You say the audio has been altered, but you don't say what Limbaugh actually said. It might help your claim's credibility if you'd provide something a little more solid than 'it sounded funny at 35 seconds'. I mean really, is this what you're going to allow yourself to sink to? Conspiracy theories and audio that sounds kinda funny? You conservatives are going to loose power faster than anything if you keep up with that kind of rhetoric.
"It's very clear that the audio has been altered.
Who altered the audio?"
If it is so clear that the audio has been altered in a way that distorts Limbaugh why don't you go get the proof for all to see?
The more likely thing here is that dittoheads altered it in their minds because Rush is a liar. Reality and dittoheads don't seem to mix very well.
by phreak - Wednesday November 9, 2005 12:30:05 PM -----------------------
I think Rush is jealous of all the attention O'Reilly is getting on this site and he's trying to catch up a little.
bruce1ace - Wednesday November 9, 2005 01:14:16 PM EST
You may be onto something there bruce
The conservative commuters from the suburbs are getting restless! Their budgets are getting squeezed and Congress is having hearings regarding oil prices. Send out the pundits to calm things down.
I don't know who dems1ohio is, but I am sensing agent provocateur, I believe they are anything but a Democrat. Nice screen name though, although most of the more liberal here don't have names like, oh I don't know, like "heyIamaliberalbeyondquestion". I expect he is "his Republican friend" as in I have this friend type of story. I work with audio a good deal -- as a hobby granted -- and if this is altered I am impressed by the level of expertise shown.
With all due respect, I work with audio too, and if it IS altered it's the shoddiest job I've ever heard. If you're going to splice people's words together out of context (like the 'Pubs did to Kaine in VA, a dirty trick which didn't work), you take great care to splice between words, not haphazardly chop up syllables.
Limbaugh was stuttering. Everyone needs to get over it.
(Sheesh, and the 'Pubs accuse liberals of being crazed conspiracy theorists...)
PS: I agree with your agent provocateur theory, especially your assessment of posters' names.
To paraphrase the Bard:
"Methinks the sneaky conservative doth protest too much."
Interesting point, maybe I was inserting my own views into my analysis. I always think of Limbaugh as a stuttering blowhard, so in this case it seemed very natural to me.
There's no edit at all. People shouldn't have indulged the idiots who've tried to hijack the thread with that nonsense. Whomever these sock-puppeters are, they've succeeded in making the thread about defending MMFA's article, instead about Limbaugh's obvious lie.
"There's no edit at all. People shouldn't have indulged the idiots who've tried to hijack the thread with that nonsense. Whomever these sock-puppeters are, they've succeeded in making the thread about defending MMFA's article, instead about Limbaugh's obvious lie."...by Scott Johnson
=====
Did hell freeze over? I AGREE with you Scott. Well, sort of ;-)
Let's be honest here, these kind of "throwaway" threads concerning Limbaugh (I mean-ok he lied about the price of gas--no one can defend that--not even a ditto head), ONLY lend themselves to stupid posts like the usual 'Rush is a druggie or Rush is a fatboy' drivel we usually get....SO today we got a reprieve from that banal blather. Instead we got a conspiracy...more interesting, though not much.
With everything that Limbaugh utters--THIS was the best MMFA could come up with?
This is WHY the posts get silly and go off topic.
Or is THIS just the appetizer for a more substantial Rush thread for later today???
With everything that Limbaugh utters--THIS was the best MMFA could come up with?
********************
Good point jeter,
If Limbaugh spews lie after lie all day long on his program, why isn't there anything of substance that MMFA can highlight today? It should be easy to wade through the three hours of his lies every day and come up with something that isn't as silly as this.
Oh...here comes the "It was nothing!" argument. How come it took you so long?
"Oh...here comes the "It was nothing!" argument. How come it took you so long?."..by Scott Johnson
=====
Well I don't know about anyone else--but I'm at work, and haven't got to play here all day ;-)
Seriously, THIS is a NOTHING argument.
Rush lied. Ok can anyone dispute that? No? Then what's to ARGUE about.
Like I said...a "throwaway thread"...the kind that attracts silly remarks cause there's NOTHING else to say.
"Like I said...a "throwaway thread"..."
You say this about just about every thread. It's defense by delution. You don't have a real defense for your heros, so you want everyone to believe that it's "no big deal". Limbaugh himself tried this exact same tactic when he said Abu Grahib was some kids "just blowing off steam". We're on to you.
"You say this about just about every thread. It's defense by delution. You don't have a real defense for your heros, so you want everyone to believe that it's "no big deal". Limbaugh himself tried this exact same tactic when he said Abu Grahib was some kids "just blowing off steam". We're on to you."...by Scott Johnson
=====
Well for starters I DON'T say THIS on about every thread...IN FACT I rarely say THIS unless it's warranted. But YOU know that...just MORE Scott Spin.
You have NO DEFENSE of this useless TRIVIAL thread so YOU try to turn it around by dragging Abu Grahib into it...disingenuous...and MORE Scott spin.
It is I, that am on to YOU.
You must be really dizzy Scott with all the spinning you do.
Now explain to me AGAIN why this thread is important?
"You have NO DEFENSE of this useless TRIVIAL thread"
It doesn't need a defense. MMFA is building a body of evidence against the right. Some lies are more vile than others. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be documented.
"so YOU try to turn it around by dragging Abu Grahib into it...disingenuous...and MORE Scott spin."
I compared your tactics to Limbaugh's when trying to dismiss Abu Ghraib. My point stands.
"It is I, that am on to YOU."
:) I love it when I get a fake centrist torqued off. It makes my day.
"You must be really dizzy Scott with all the spinning you do."
No spinning necessary.
"Now explain to me AGAIN why this thread is important?"
Every piece of documentation of the rampant lies of the right builds greater case against them and their undue influence on the modern body politic.
It's funny that you think we have to defend the importance of a thread that you've spent a considerable amount of time posting on. This always makes me laugh.
hey jeter, if this topic is so unimportant, why are you depositing posts ? wasn't it you who claimed that MMFA was "sinking fast" ? if this site is a lost cause, why do you spend any time here ?
don't bother to reply, i already know the answers. >:-) so does everyone else.
"hey jeter, if this topic is so unimportant, why are you depositing posts ? wasn't it you who claimed that MMFA was "sinking fast" ? if this site is a lost cause, why do you spend any time here ?
don't bother to reply, i already know the answers. >:-) so does everyone else."...by atheist
=====
NO it wasn't me that said MMFA is sinking fast. Nor have I EVER suggested it was a "lost cause"...now YOU on the other hand.
I post here...because I can. How's that? Since you rarely make any interesting points, let me ask WHY you post here?
"I post here...because I can. How's that? Since you rarely make any interesting points, let me ask WHY you post here?"
The Artful Dodger.
You post how many times to a thread you called "trivial" and then won't answer a direct question about why you bother? The answer is self-evident to everyone.
"You post how many times to a thread you called "trivial" and then won't answer a direct question about why you bother? The answer is self-evident to everyone."...by Scott Johnson
=====
You fall asleep Scott? I moved on. See ALL my other posts on OTHER more important threads.
HOWEVER, I do believe I made MY point about the thread being TRIVIAL. Go ahead read it...lots of off topic chit chat. Yup THIS thread was darn important.
WHY should I answer a question directly to a RUDE poster who I've little respect for...it's called giving someone the brush-off.
But alas I'm sure YOU know that.
Stop spinning Scott, you'll get dizzy and fall down...on second thought.
"You fall asleep Scott? I moved on. See ALL my other posts on OTHER more important threads."
Hah. This post is evidence otherwise. ROFL.
"HOWEVER, I do believe I made MY point about the thread being TRIVIAL."
Nope. It's spin. Bad spin. Think of it as an out-of-balance tire....but spin none the less.
"Go ahead read it...lots of off topic chit chat. Yup THIS thread was darn important."
Important enough for you to lend your CONSIDERABLE talents to.
"WHY should I answer a question directly to a RUDE poster who I've little respect for..."
You don't have to. It's an especially effective strategy when they have an airtight point.
"Stop spinning Scott, you'll get dizzy and fall down...on second thought."
I haven't spun anything. You on the other hand....projection...projection.
With everything that Limbaugh utters--THIS was the best MMFA could come up with? ********************
Good point jeter, If Limbaugh spews lie after lie all day long on his program, why isn't there anything of substance that MMFA can highlight today? It should be easy to wade through the three hours of his lies every day and come up with something that isn't as silly as this.-by tommy
***
You two have a tendency to say this about every one of these posts that highlight some idiocy these guys say. Perhaps instead of picking apart each one individually as unimportant you should try looking at the totality of all the comments MMFA has highlighted to show just how ridiculous and not worth listening to these guys are.
I have always listened to right wing radio and while I always recognized their slant I was never truly cognizant of the fact that it wasn’t slanting they were doing it many cases it was out and out lies. I believe MMFA purpose is to show that these guys are not to be believed period and they highlight comments that they spew out without blinking an eye to back up their claims. In my opinion they have succeeded quite well at their mission.
BTW as a side note of the value of these articles--thanks to the information provided in the one about Rush's claim about the 9th circuit I was able to recognize that the report Hannity and Colmes did last night on their show was based on a big fat lie that if not for MMFA I would not have know and may have bought into the outrage they were selling.
lostlogic,
Be fair - there are no more lies or misinformation on right wing radio than left wing - it's what they do to satisfy their kool aid drinkers/listeners.......spin, and out of context facts all day long....it's why I tune all of them out for the most part.
I realize this website is for conservative misinformation, fine....but don't think because they ignore liberal misinformation means there isn't any...big mistake.
"there are no more lies or misinformation on right wing radio than left wing"
Utter, crystalline, pure bull. If that were the case, then MRC would have real concrete lies instead of their interpretation and spin.
It also may be the sheer volume of right wing radio vs left wing radio........the slipping and nearly bankrupt Air America radio is all the left has.
Right wing radio is far more listened to in this country, despite some people's claim the country "skews heavy left"
tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 03:09:51 PM EST
Its more than just a claim, every poll I have ever seen shows that on the ISSUES, they do.
solon, You are saying that a majority of Americans have heavy, or far left positions?
On what?
tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 03:16:54 PM EST
I'm saying, and poll after poll shows, that on ISSUES, especially economic issues like health care and spending priorities, the majority of Americans fall to the left of what is usually considered the mainstream go to the PIPA website and see for yourself. They favor universal health care even if it means a tax increase they favor social spending over tax cuts and they favor less defense spending. Whatever YOU or I believe the polls show this clearly
I have read the same thing from PIPA based on polls and surveys they have done. It is quite obvious that the wedge issues of god, guns and gays have been used to paint people who don't take conservative positions as "elites" based on culture rather than economics. But when you ask people specific policy questions they are much more liberal. I personally don't think it is so much an ideological thing as it shouldn't be. But it is based on simple human values which most people with common sense realize are good for them and good for society.
And when I played the tape backward, I heard "Paul is dead". C'm trolls, you can do better than this!!!!
He must have his housekeeper score his gasoline for him. I guess if you have lots of money, a 100% increase in your vehicle fueling costs in insignificant. Does anybody think Rush remembers the price of oxycontin? I bet if oxy had gone from 2 dollars a pill to 5 dollars he'd remember when it was last at 2 dollars.
The gas company execs were in front of congress today, but not under oath. The dems wanted the truth and the republicans said, *heavy accent* "oaths, we don't need no stinking oaths."
WOW
It's amazing how easy the righties divert the discussion to other topic. And how lefties bite the hook.
MMFA catches Mr Dope blantanly lying and the argument goes to if the tapes have been manipulated.
Fitzgerald catches lying half White House and the argument goes to "who ordered Wilson to go to Niger"
Bush wants to change Social Security and Mr Falafel stwitches to "they want to steal Christmas".
This forum must keep the eye on the ball and be a little smarter. They know all the tricks.
These threads are merely entertainment. Thinking the commentors need to be more diligent in not following the silly arguments is...well silly. It makes no difference to anything. These threads are not going to influence the general public.
Come on. So he made a mistake about how much gas cost a few months ago. You can't expect Rush to know those kinds of things. His chauffeur is the one filling up the tank.
if he doesn't know, then why is he commenting on it ?
"If Limbaugh spews lie after lie all day long on his program, why isn't there anything of substance that MMFA can highlight today? It should be easy to wade through the three hours of his lies every day and come up with something that isn't as silly as this." by tommy - Wednesday November 9, 2005 02:28:55 PM EST -
LOL...this incessant whining about MMFA content is hysterical to me.
If you don't like what you're reading here, there is a simple solution for you.....
Just another distortion to soften the damage done by Bush and company. Does this goof think we're all suffering from Alzheimer's or we're all as drug addled as he is?
The sound link isn't working for me. It must be a liberal conspiracy!!!
I just want to know where Rush was able to get gas for $1.29 7 months ago. I wonder if its less than what I'm paying now.
I'm guessing he gets an employee discount. Or splits the cost with his carpool buddies.
it was the oxycontin for oil program.
There have been 376 new forum posts in the past 24 hours.
75 of them devoted to pointless and inane (insane) bickering about whether a drug-addicted liar knows exactly what the price of gasoline was seven months ago.
"75 of them devoted to pointless and inane (insane) bickering about whether a drug-addicted liar knows exactly what the price of gasoline was seven months ago."
Make that 76, with your post...oh and 77 with my response.
--he meant "price of oxycontin was $1.29 per mg", give the fat junkie a break, willya?
Bush used "high" gas prices against Gore in the 2000 election campaign. He said prices were high because the Clinton administration wasn't doing enough to lower them. He said if he was elected he would "jaw bone" the producers to get the prices lowered. Some of the trolls would like for us to forget that point.
I don't remember gas prices being that high in 2000. They seemed to go to $2.00/gallon when The Great Chimpunicator (Bush) stepped into office.
Then again, I am not going to be like Rush and just fake my way through this. Anybody have actual figures?
Prices weren't as high during that campaign as they are now. I'm not a very good writer. I was trying to point out the irony of Rush's rant.
No, actually, I kunderstood what you were saying. I was honestly just wondering what the prices at the end of the Clinton years were.
When you said that Bush claimed he was going to lower gas prices, I just about woke up half of the people in my office with a very loud, "HA". :)
I, myself, sometimes wonder if Bush would like to forget over half of what he says. If those websites which chronicle all of his stupid little sayings are any indication, that is. :)
have you heard of google.com. try it out.
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
"In 2000, President Bill Clinton found himself on the defensive when midsummer oil prices jumped up to about $1.68 per gallon. At the time, as candidate George W. Bush campaigned for the White House, he said his predecessor should simply put more pressure on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to release more oil."
Oh, how I long for the days of 2000 when gas was at $1.68. I still remember the great days of the summer of '98 when gas fell to .99 cents in San Luis Obispo County. I remember filling my tank up for nothing that day. :)
Limbaugh said.” Gasoline price goes up, it comes down. It’s coming down right now. I could have understood, I could have understood this level of outrage if the price were still averaging 2.85 or 3 bucks a gallon, but its down to.2.25”.
The most interesting thing about this comment is the head fake is implies. Yes the price of gasoline is coming down, because the driving season is ending. However the price of natural gas, home heating oil, and propane is high and going higher, just in time for the winter.
Unless we begin to develop alternative energy sources, and more fuel-efficient vehicles, we are going to be prey to the oil companies. They are all testifying before congress today. It reminds me of the tobacco company executives who swore that they believed smoking cigarettes was not bad for you.
The oilmen are in charge of the White House, for now, and the oil companies will push the limit as long as they can.
As far as altering the tape is concerned, its a lot of Garbage. I have been reading this site since its inception and they would not risk their credibility to falsify a tape. Regulars here would not stand for it regardless of there political leanings. Besides there is no need to, Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly etc. are so outrageous MMFA does not need to manufacture grist for this mill. They only need to wait. The situation is about to become desperate. To quote Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles, “ Gentlemen we have to save our phony baloney jobs.”
You are right. Once again, the tape wasn't altered. The transcript on Rush's website shows the exact same thing that MMFA posted. If anything, MMFA deleted pauses between sentences to make the sound file shorter for those downloading the clip.
The stupid Repugs can't possibly claim that something is edited when MMFA's audio matches Rush's transcript exactly. I would love to know if they realize that the White House's Press Conferences are edited BIG-TIME...especially when Bush attempts to "speak".
So Rush is 3 years off with his "data". At least this wasn't a complete fabrication like many of his assertions. Maybe he was so longing for 2002 (when Bush polls were high) that he forgot what year it is?
I belive that this is important because when you push the facts for a point of view those facts should be true, not false. If I am going to convince you of the correctedness of my point of view and my objective is to make you think, hey he's right I believe that too, now that I have new facts, then the reasoning, analogies or metaphors and facts I use should be reasonably true. If they aren't then a disclaimer should be said, now I'm not sure, or correct me if I'm wrong, something along those lines. Rush doesn't use honest discourse though, he will manipulate every analogy, every fact or not fact to bolster his argument in the hopes that someone will say oh! I hadn't realized that, maybe Rush has a point. To persude a person using exagerations, misstatements, lies and hyperbole is wrong and dishonest. The truth starts with the little things, if you start with a lie, how does it ever become the truth?
Wow! The wingnuts are agitated tonight. Mt. Pinatubo must be getting ready to erupt again.I guess Diebold didn't have enough "input" into last night's election.
Great link.
All that MMFA does is point out lies spread in the media and then come up with a rebuttal. That's it. They don't ONLY follow Rush Limbaugh, they follow newspapers like New york times, washington post and many other newspaper as well. Of course, they follow alot of conservative punidts because they are a source of alot of misinformation. When conservatives come on here laughing that MMFA points out such a small thing, they fail to realize that this small lie is just one out of a million or more lies that Rush has spread over his career. And it's not only just lies like this but it is the topics he chooses to cover to bash the left and the ones he avoids to avoid the negativity against the right.
You can bash this sight all you want because they prey on your favorite talk show hosts (who have spread their misinformation for so long untill the left started paying attention), but we can use this anology and say it is supply and demand. As long as they keep supplying the lies, then sites like this will be right here to pick up and reveal them to their audience who demands this kind of information.
Supply and demand baby, oh yea! If your not satasfied with the product, then don't come here! LOL. Just kidding, it's a good idea to have a healthy debate as well:)
Agreed.
The thing that bugs me about it is that Scott and Jeter2 were arguing over this article with Jeter2 saying the matter was "Trivial".
It's not really trivial as the gas debate is HUGE and, as small as this statement is, it makes Bush and CO. look great when they aren't.
Nobody is bashing this site, at least not me......they offer a service to counter misinformation from the right, and the right only. There is much this site ignores from the left and that is their perfect right, they don't claim to be down the middle.
However, to deny there are falsehoods stated on the left just because they aren't highlighted here is incredibly naive.
The word "lie and lies and liars" are tossed out here with such reckless abandon at nearly everything. Just because someone says something that is factually incorrect or takes a contrary position other than your own, does not automatically mean it's a lie.....It all goes to intent to mislead and context - something which is often lacking around here.
TOMMY SAID:
"However, to deny there are falsehoods stated on the left just because they aren't highlighted here is incredibly naive."
Yeah, I am a left-winger but I am nowhere NEAR distorting what I see on T.V. which is why I like this site, Tommy. MMFA, instead of reporting their own personal opinion, says, "here's what was said and we have A/V to back it up and here is what REALLY happened." The Left does have some moments where they call names and distort...but they don't do it with as much naivety as the Right. In fact, the entire Bush Administration is based on the simple fact that lies and distortions will go unchecked and nobody will remember what was said months ago. I do not, however, like the fact that the Left continues to refer to Schwarzenegger as a "Nazi". That's really uncalled for and highly disrespectful even though his family supposedly has Nazi ties. I will call my party on that.
TOMMY SAID:
"The words, 'lie' and 'lies' and 'liars' are tossed out here with such reckless abandon at nearly everything. Just because someone says something that is factually incorrect or takes a contrary position other than your own, does not automatically mean it's a lie.....It all goes to intent to mislead and context - something which is often lacking around here."
That's all well and good, Tommy, but you're incorrect. The reason for this is because O'Reilly will say something about that Latino lady like he did a few weeks ago...and it's inaccurate. You're right about that. I will give you that...but then Media Matters will call him on it. Instead of owning up to his mistakes, what does he do? O'Reilly starts calling MMFA names and claims that they're lying and that he didn't say what he said and blah, blah, blah...
Guess what? It then becomes a lie.
Instead of being a man and saying, "I have to make a correction tonight on a story aired yesterday,", O'Reilly becomes a blowhard and goes after the people who were good enough to call him on his mistakes. Instead of listening to those people who say, "Um, Bill, these people at MMFA are right because they have transcripts of you saying this", O'Reilly dismisses those people as kooks and "crazy people".
He KNOWS what he has said is untrue now. He just refuses to own up to it which not only makes him a liar but also a dishonest person.
And if you say inaccurate statements with as much frequency as O'Reilly does, then you don't deserve to be doing any kind of news or political commentary. Period.
Dan Rather did it once and look what happened to him. He's suddenly the Anti-Christ.
Personally, Tommy, O'Reilly will never get fired for the things he has said but people like him need to be held accountable for the totally inaccurate garbage they spew on a daily basis.
Just my two cents.
Take it easy on Rush. He's between marriages and doctors, which leaves ol' Rushbo a little strung out, I bet.
Wow,I think Limbaugh is getting exactly the response he would want. 154 posts in about 8 hours about a show that occurred 5 days ago, about a somewhat petty (in my view) argument over "he said, no he didn't" about something like the price of gasoline seven months (or seven years or seven what ago.)
haven't read all the posts, but it says in the story that rush lives in 'west palm beach'. sorta, he really lives in a 30 million dollar compound in palm beach, paid for by his masters in corporate america.
want some free "gas"? 12 to 3 weekdays on the eib network. from the biggest gasbag of the them all.
Ha Ha !
We don't even need Media Matters to know that one is a WOPPER of a lie.Even Fox viewers are busting a gut over that one.Nonetheless,I'm glad they are staying on top of it all and making it a little humerous as well.Thanks for the post Media Matters.Laughter is good medicine.
Ha Ha !
We don't even need Media Matters to know that one is a WOPPER of a lie.Even Fox viewers are busting a gut over that one.Nonetheless,I'm glad they are staying on top of it all and making it a little humerous as well.Thanks for the post Media Matters.Laughter is good medicine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deeanna, Don't laugh to hard. A couple of people earlier think the audio was altered. There is a break in the middle of it, but it really doesn't matter.
The point Rush was making is that gas prices are dropping, and he's right about that.
It wasn't that long ago, about 2 months ago, when gas was about $3 gal. Around here it went up to $3 buck which is very high for here. Remember the media, they went nuts, gloom and doom. That's all the media talked about, and then they said it would hit $5 gal and might even hit $7.
Well, gas prices dropped and fast. It went from $3.29 down to $2.19. It dropped over a buck here.
I guess you missed the point ... like most people on this site.
But I do find it amazing that during a 3 hour radio show last Friday from Rush, and this is all they come up with. Weak, very weak.
Hey Navyseal,
Sir...or Mam (let's be politically correct here)You say you find it amazing that from a three hour show, all media matters could come up with was this.Well,I would like to sum up the rest of Limbaughs show for you.To some who read my other posts, this may be a repeat.However,for Navyseals sake and gratification,it bears repeating.Are you ready? Here we go
" Whaa whaa, death to liberals oink oink whaa whaa (takes his pills) whaa oink I hate liberals whaa whaa yawns,whaa yawns death yawns to oink liberals oink......snores"
Limbaugh..out!
Are you not entertained!.....Are you NOT entertained? LOL
navyseals - Thursday November 10, 2005 02:15:00 AM EST
No WE got the point, that is the point of the TOPIC. Which MMFA which OWNS this site gets to decide. That point is RUSH LIED, he said gas prices were 1.29 seven months ago, they werent QED. YOU missed the aforementioned POINT. Whatever point Rush was trying to make on HIS SHOW, which is up to him, he LIED to make it
"But I do find it amazing that during a 3 hour radio show last Friday from Rush, and this is all they come up with. Weak, very weak."
Weak, yes. Amazing? No. A whole website would need to be dedicated to monitoring Rush's idiotic Republican Talking Points. The gas prices thing is an easy target because it reveals how very out of touch with reality Rush is.
Rush didn't so much "lie" as he spoke out of ignorance. He might have just forgotten what gas prices were 7 month ago. He didn't bother to think before he spoke. Which is funny, since he is a syndicated talk show host.
The tactic is Rovian to point it out and embarrass Rush. It's typically a Republican tactic used against liberals like when Kerry said "terrorism is just a nuisance". Kerry didn't exactly say that but, to Republicans, it didn't matter.
It's also the same tactic Republicans used against Al Gore when he said he "invented the internet". Again, he didn't say that but, to Republicans, it didn't matter.
And lastly, its the same tactic Republicans used against Joe Wilson to say he lied when he said the Vice President sent him to Niger. Joe Wilson never said that but, to Republicans, it didn't matter.
All amazing. And all of them, weak. Very, very weak.
I think the intresting point on this is more what happened during the period when gas was down, spiked, and is now going down again..
Why did that spike occur and what/who is behind it? Why hasn't the oil/gas industry invested any $$$ in refineries and why are we so vulnerable to price spikes like this to begin with?
Rush is just using his typical smoke and mirror tactics in an attempt to have people ignore the actual reasons the oil industry is making record profits in a period of time when everyone else in the US suffering from high fuel prices. Not to metion the fact that the US still has no sustainable energy plan..
Excuse my ignorance, but, who really gives a crap about all this? Big deal, if he did say the gas was $1.29. Maybe it was where he lives, maybe he forgot. Who knows, who cares. Gas where I live is not too expensive, or maybe it's just not to me. For crying out loud, I don't know what a gallon of milk costs either. Whatever it may be, if we need it, we buy it. We're not careless consumers, we just don't have to fret over what every little thing costs. Who does? Please, I doubt that anyone here is a poor person...
Pharmed wrote: "We're not careless consumers, we just don't have to fret over what every little thing costs. Who does? Please, I doubt that anyone here is a poor person..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of a little phrase called "working poor?" I would suggest you get down from that horse named "oblivious" and have a little more compassion than that.Sheeze man. Conservatives.
Hey, I'm a navy seal too! I think Limbaugh should just slow down and talk slower. Maybe he won't make so many honest mistakes. When I was a SEAL we didn't even have a democrat in our unit. Democrats don't join the military, period.
"democrats don't join the military" tom daschle, john kerry, bob kerrey, wes clark, max cleland...
"Democrats don't join the military, period"
==========
Happy Veterans Day to you, too.
"Hey, I'm a navy seal too! I think Limbaugh should just slow down and talk slower. Maybe he won't make so many honest mistakes. When I was a SEAL we didn't even have a democrat in our unit. Democrats don't join the military, period."
------------------------------------------
You're absolutely right.
Richard Gephardt, David Bonior, Tom Daschle, Al Gore, Bob Kerrey, Daniel Inouye, John Kerry, Charles Rangel, Max Cleland, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Fritz Hollings, Leonard Boswell, "Pete" Peterson, Mike Thompson, Bill McBride, Gray Davis, Pete Stark, Wesley Clark, Paul Hackett, Chuck Robb, Howell Heflin, George McGovern, Pete Stark, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and John Glenn.
Democrats don't join the Navy period. It appears they join all the branches of the military.
Full Disclosure: I used a partisan link to compile this data, but that website cites its sources unlike most partisan sites.