Limbaugh called "Barack Hussein Obama" a "half-minority"
On the January 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "half-minority" and said that "the media ... are in the midst of Obama-gasms" because "Barack Hussein Obama" has formed a presidential exploratory committee. Limbaugh called Obama "a half-minority" in the context of criticizing Obama for supporting his hometown Chicago Bears over the New Orleans Saints in the upcoming January 21 National Football Conference championship game.
Limbaugh presumably referred to Obama as a "half-minority" because of Obama's lineage: his father was black and born in Kenya, while his mother was white, born in Kansas. Similarly, conservative talk-radio host Brian Sussman previously characterized Obama as "Halfrican."
As Media Matters for America documented, on February 7, 2006, Limbaugh said he "kind of like[d]" a caller's statement that Obama "is the Donovan McNabb of the U.S. Senate." The statement was an apparent reference to Limbaugh's controversial comments in 2003 about McNabb, a quarterback for the National Football League's Philadelphia Eagles. Limbaugh, then an ESPN commentator, said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve." As a result of his comments, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN.
In addition, Limbaugh also claimed that "[Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] had a 2 p.m. press conference today, but she canceled it because Obama's making such big news today," despite multiple media accounts that, as Media Matters has noted, reported that Clinton postponed the scheduled press conference the day before Obama's announcement.
From the January 16 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Well, this is hilarious. The media, the drive-bys, are in the midst of Obama-gasms. Because Obama -- that would be Barack Hussein Obama -- has announced the perfunctory and predictable exploratory committee to go out there and ask people what they think he ought to do. And on February 10th, he will announce his intentions -- which we all know. Really gutsy of Obama to do this while Hillary's out of the country. Hillary had a 2 p.m. press conference today, but she canceled it because Obama's making such big news today. It's kind of like the "Breck girl" was in New York yesterday ripping into Hillary while she was out of the country. Shows that they still fear her.
Greetings. You are tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America. El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned -- pretty much all-everything -- Maha Rushie.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: We are ready. Talent on loan from God. Rush Limbaugh, making the complex understandable here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. One more thing about Barack Obama here. He says that New Orleans' football season is all but over. In a -- I don't know if he realizes how insensitive his comment here that the Saints are going nowhere in the playoffs against his Chicago Bears really is. This is a man who wants to be president. He's no longer an alderman, a state senator, or United States senator from Illinois. He's a citizen of the world. And as such, you have to understand in his position what the United States Saints mean.
They're not just the New Orleans Saints. As [ESPN columnist] Gregg Easterbrook calls them: They are the United States Saints. And they are playing not for championships, they are not playing for personal rewards -- they are playing to save and rebuild a city not only infrastructurally, but in terms of the self-esteem.
And for Barack Obama, a -- well, he's a half-minority -- to come out there and not identify with and bond with the suffering victims still scattered all over the fruited plain as a result of the unfair attack by Hurricane Katrina orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and FEMA -- for him to callously just discard the Saints knowing full well what they represent to the Democrat [sic] Party because of their ties to New Orleans and Katrina shows an unsophisticated lack of understanding of just what his responsibility is as a Democrat [sic] presidential candidate.
He said it. New Orleans' football season is all but over. He said the Bears are going to the Super Bowl, a gleeful Obama told reporters Monday outside a church in suburban Chicago. He said, "I'm happy for New Orleans. I think it's a wonderful story for their city, but this fairy tale ends when they come to Chicago." Ah-ha. It's a fairy tale as far as he's concerned. That means it's not even real. The Saints are not real. What they're playing for is not real. I am stunned.
This -- this is a -- if Barack were really Barack Obama, Barack -- do you know what Barack Obama would have done? I know you people think I'm kidding out there. Barack Obama would have come out for the Saints. I know you think it's just a football playoff game and he's got to show favoritism because he's got to be -- his home team's the Chicago Bears and so forth. But he's seeking the leadership of the free world. And Katrina and the Saints and New Orleans are a Democrat [sic] cause. But more than that, identifying with suffering and misery, starvation, thirst-ation, death -- that's what the Democratic Party is all about. And for him to just basically say to you people in New Orleans and your football team: pffft! And to gleefully predict your demise shows a parochialism on the part of this man that is somewhat curious to me given the lofty heights and the wide horizons that he seeks. A true liberal Democrat here, an understanding liberal Democrat, even though he's from Illinois, would pick the Saints while saying great things about the Bears, while hoping it's their turn next time, say it's really hard to pick a team here, but he understands how the country can come together. With the Saints winning the Super Bowl and pulling New Orleans out of the muck. And showing what can happen when people hang together and work together and put aside their differences. They can come together and win the Super Bowl. Out of the ruins of Hurricane Katrina.
... cuz we call Limbaugh a "half-wit."
I wouldn't even go that far.
Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity.
Dim....Nit...and...Half
If I'm not mistaken, hasn't that Morgan lady (of Spocko's Brain fame) already covered this ground with her stupid Obama is a "halfrican" comment?
Hey, Mr. Oxycontin, quit stealing other conservatives' insipid insults. Lame, man, really lame.
And, btw, Obama-gasms isn't funny. Geez, I hope it's not a preview of what we have waiting for us with the new FOX news "comedy" show that you're working on...
Rush Limbaugh: a full jackass.
So does that make Obama less of a minority, or more? I'd think "half-minorities" are even rarer than regular minorities.
...among Limbaugh's followers...they would hate him half as much?
No, it probably works the other... they'll probably hate Obama twice as much because his white mother had the audacity to sleep with an African. Being black is just race... mixing of the races, however, is pure liberalism in their minds, I'm sure.
I think twice as much. I foresee a lot of variations on Rove's viciously racist McCain-South Carolina strategy of 2000 as the election draws closer.
Why doesn't Rush simply come out and say what he means: "Barak Obama's mother slept with an African man. This is the kind of twisted things liberals do. Do you want a twisted liberal mongrel as your president?"
Rush is just helping his audience get used to the idea of a black president. I can see it now:
"Now c'mon, listener! Stop crying. After all, it's not like he's a REAL t-i-double guh-er!"
Now for your viewing enjoyment, another day in the life of a republican christian...
[link to www.stltoday.com]
snoopy thanks for the link that was umm.... special
of 2/3rds of a vote? They may have a plan to overcome the general "wising-up" of Americans.
All of a sudden you're concerned about the welfare of New Orleanians? A few months ago you were telling everyone that things were just dandy in New Orleans and it was just those people who wanted a free handout that were the problem. Ever been to New Orleans since Katrina to see for yourself?
But about Barak Obama... I guess the fun and games have already begun. The sophomoric "'humor" and snide remarks. Obama is going to require elephnat hide to deflect the kinds of attacks from the Rush Limbaugh crowd that will certainly and increasingly be directed his way. I just hope it backfires like hell on these people who wouldn't know decency if it bit them on their fat Republican behinds.
I Used To Be a RACIST...
*
And you remind me of myself when I was a Disgusting Racist in Texas. Your probably a Drive By Poster but if your still around, What is Your Point? Never mind ....I really don't care because I recognize the Hatred in you heart.
Un-American: - I'm delighted that you made your ugly comments because it does great damage to your own Republican cause.
I'm independent and of my many friends from Both Parties the majority of the racist tend to be my Republican friends.
Rush hurts our Country when he plays his Racial Name Games. He derived that name from "Halfrican," a term used by other hateful Republican Pundits.
Go! NEW ORLEANS SAINTS:
My favorite Team. NAWLINS is my favorite City. I have no problems if Obama supports his home team. Bush likes the Texas Longhorns. SO WHAT!
Rush LimpBrain has never supported My Team or New Orleans until now, with his ugly attack on Obama. I'll be rooting for the Saints to beat the Chicago Bears and I expect Obama to support his Bears.
I'm hoping for a Saints vs. Patriots Super Bowl on Feb. 4th. My Birthday!
I'm really not sure of your reference "I used to be a racisit" but really, I can NEVER SUPPORT NEW ENGLAND. I'm still pissed that Brady switched his vote to Bush so he could be in the audince during the stat of the union speech back in 2004. May they fad into the sunset.
Is the team that loses the Super Bowl Game!
I hope that loser is Tom Brady and his Patriots. I'm even OK if Indy Colts knock Brady out of the trip to the Super Bowl. Brady's team displayed unsportsmanlike conduct by getting in L.T.'s face and taunting him after they defeated the San Diego Chargers.
Mostly I just hope the Saints can do the impossible dream and win against all the odds they have endured. I hope Tom Brady's Patriots lose the biggest game of the year.
I'm concerned about Obama's Chicago Bears. They are a very good team.
So what is it that exactly is so outrageous about refering to Obama as a 'half minority'?
I see MMFA drudges up a different person, Brian Sussman, who has nothing to do with Limbaugh to fill out this non issue.
Ho hum... MMFA once again uses bait-and-switch tactics to try to imply that Limbaugh, and by extension, conservatives are racists and you kool aid sippers lap it up.
Enjoy.
Incredible... just incredible that you would even have to ask.
That's the true irony of it, they don't get it.
Address the context of the article.
"for him to callously just discard the Saints knowing full well what they represent to the Democrat [sic] Party because of their ties to New Orleans and Katrina shows an unsophisticated lack of understanding of just what his responsibility is as a Democrat [sic] presidential candidate."
-Fussy Bimbo...
and what the hell is a half minority? Your are a minority or you are not.
Can you explain how calling someone half-minority is racist?
If he had said half-black, would that be racist?
What if he had said half-white?
This is one person who doesn't care if the next Prez is black or a woman. As a matter of fact I think Rice would be a great Prez.
So if I want Rice to be President, does that make me racist? Sexist? Hmmmmm???? Sorry to make hard for you enlightened liberals to put a label on me. Guess you'll have to dig deep to show your moral superiority. Oh that's right, some weenie yesterday said I was a "Christofacist" when I called him out for whining about his party being called Democrat.
Some of you you guys are so silly, (as do most of MMFA's threads,) you make me laugh.
Why didn't Rush say what he really meant and call Obama a mongrel product of a liberal lifestyle. That's what he meant, isn't it?
I called you "Christofascist" to illustrate that you probably wouldn't like it if people called you an insulting name just to be annoying (like your people do with "Democrat party"). I never suspected you would fail to get such an obvious point, but conservatives' lack of cognitive abilities never ceases to amaze me.
I knew he didn't get it. It was subtle, yet obvious. But I wouldn't have gone so far as to call him a whiney little pussy.
Yeah, that was mean and I shouldn't have done it. But he pissed me off.
those sentiments were totally accurate, and I'm glad you said it. I wouldn't have gone that far, but I'm glad you did!
And besides, he's probably not little.
>>>"If he had said half-black, would that be racist?"
But it wasn't Obama who said this. It was the Republican water-carrying, previously-fired-for-racist-remarks Rush Limbaugh. Context matters.
This was another of Limbaugh's patented snide remarks meant as a pre-emptive political attack. Limbaugh is trying to lay some groundwork here, to disparage Obama, to cast Obama early-on as some kind of phony or fake. "He's not really what people say he is." Limbaugh wants to cast suspicion on Obama's credentials, to lay some doubt and apprehension on Obama's image.
This is probably only the beginning of Limbaugh & Co.'s attempts to knock Obama down as many pegs as they possibly can. It's unfortunate, but very typical, that Limbaugh would come up with something like this, rather than arguing an actual ISSUE.
Oh, it wasn't a problem at all. I've already updated Webster's under "idiot" to say "see AA".
At what point did I say anything about Rush's racism?
What is a "half-minority"?
How do you address the context of the article? If you are in fact indifferent, STFU. You are cherry picking and projecting instead of engaging in a conversation.
If he had said half-black, would that be racist? no.
then picks them until they bleed.
I'm not entirely sure you aren't pulling my leg by pretending to be naive, but for the sake of argument, here's why I would call this kind of remark racist:
Calling Obama a "half minority" is offensive on several levels, but the most obvious is that Limbaugh basically used a euphemism for "half breed". Even when watered down to "half minority," the expression is an explicit attack against the authenticity of a person's racial identity. According to Limbaugh, Obama isn't a "real minority" -- just half, and therefore, inauthentic, at least by 50%.
The second, and more complicated reason why this is so offensive involves an understanding of how racial ideology works. Racial categories are social constructs. They have specific historical, economic and cultural origins. Ask any biologist: there is no such thing as a clearly delineated racial group in strictly biological terms. Human beings are a single species, and we share common ancestors. And therefore there are no "pure breeds" in the human race. So to call someone a "half minority" or "half breed" is to imply that there are in fact "pure breeds" or people who are purely of one race... which is racism par excellence. (To be sure, there are plenty of people who identify themselves as "mixed race", but this is why it is so important to distinguish between the notion of race as a social category of identification and race as something biological.)
I could go on, but perhaps the easiest way for me to make my point would be to pose the opposite question to you: how could Limbaugh's remark possibly be construed as NOT racist? No matter how you spin it, Limbaugh is claiming that Obama cannot claim full and legitimate identification as a member of a minority group.
I wonder if you would have had any objections if Limbaugh had referred to Obama as "half white"...
The irony of this is that is was people like Rush who made the one drop and you're Black rule. It seems to me when mixed race people willingly identified with the group that was considered inferior, the Rush's of the world became angry about it. The reality is that Obama is of mixed ethnic ancestry. Nevertheless in the US regardless of how Obama chooses to identify himself and even though I am sure his position shields him from some of the day to day annoyances that Black men have to deal with you can't tell me he hasn't been pulled over on a DWB or mistaken for the parking valet.
"Sorry to make [it] hard for you enlightened liberals to put a label on me" (anotheramerican)
It would be hard to put A single label on you; Bigot, crybaby,Neocon, sheep, crybaby, hothouse flower, propagandist, crybaby... they all fit so nicely.
And in return for all of the "silly" people here making you laugh, you give us the proof of your lack of racism & sexism- you'd vote for Condi Rice. Hoo-Ha!
I like women and other races too. In fact, I'm going to a brothel and a minstrel show tonight, just to prove it.
This is one person who doesn't care if the next Prez is black or a woman. As a matter of fact I think Rice would be a great Prez. So if I want Rice to be President, does that make me racist?
anotheramerican
----------------------------------------------------
That's mighty white of you. White racists never minded having a few useful Uncle Toms around to serve their interests. Your slavemaster ancestors were nursed at the breast of the black "mammy" they enslaved. Sick huh.
You UNenlightened conservatives make it very easy to label you, its just not worth our time. Sometimes you guys are so stupid.
Bait and switch? By extension conservatives are racists? MM simply posted what Limbaugh and Sussman said. They referred to the senator as half-minority and halfrican respectively. Where is the bait and switch, where is the post about all conservatives are racist. MM allows people to make their own judgements. I think it is clear that these two radio hosts are racists and make inflammatory statements routinely about race. If you believe it was complimentary, or merely harmless, to refer to the senator in this way please sign up for the most gullible award.
By the way the whole Limbaugh rant was pathetic. The senator was rooting for his team and said the right things about the saints. He was being honest, he wants his team to win. And you complain about MM highlighting pointless comments, weak arguments.
Because Rush's rant was simply that toward liberals.
Rush does not know sarcasm from a diatride, or common sense and tolerance from racism and bigotry...
It's not sarcasm. This quote is just another example of shock-jock type language that is increasingly acceptable on mainstream media channels. It's all part of a general trend in the media that MMFA is pointing out more and more, which of course draws ever more scorn from the trolletariat.
I do not want to see our public discourse further gutterized. It's not cute, it's not funny, and it's not clever or rebellious. It is hate speech and its pathetic half-witted cousin, race-baiting. It has no place in a civilised society. It has done far too much harm already.
It's not sarcasm -- it's an excuse for Limbaugh to slip in a comment about how Obama is a "half" minority.
This is Limbaugh's perpetual defense: "I was only joking! I was being sarcastic! You liberals don't have a sense of humor!"
I might actually buy this defense, if it weren't for the fact that Limbaugh spends as much time presenting himself as a news commentator as he does as a comedian. By standing with one foot in each performance genre, he's able to shield himself from criticism on both sides. If anyone criticizes him for distorting the truth or for being offensive, Limbaugh claims that he's just an entertainer and that the critic didn't get the joke. And then Limbaugh turns around and complains that major newsmedia don't pay any attention to the stories that he focuses on in his show, and that he is "America's real anchor man".
Of course you're right in one respect: Limbaugh clearly wasn't arguing seriously that Obama shouldn't express support for the Bears. The most generous interpretation of Limbaugh's monologue would be that Limbaugh was presenting what he believed to be "liberal reasoning" about Obama's statement in an attempt to demonstrate its absurdity.
Notice, though, that because Limbaugh uses so many levels of irony, sarcasm, and voicing, it's impossible to argue what Limbaugh actually thinks. It's all speculation from the perspective of the listener, because Limbaugh doesn't have the guts to actually say what he thinks. This gives him the liberty to throw around an insult like "half minority" and then backpedal and defend himself by claiming that he was only being sarcastic.
It's a cowardly rhetorical tactic, one that allows Limbaugh to say ANYTHING without fear of alienating any segment of his audience. Example: if you're a racist listener who thinks that Obama is only a "half minority", then you think Limbaugh agrees with you; if you're a listener who thinks that liberals are covert racists and play always play the race card, then you think Limbaugh was only acting like a liberal when he called Obama a "half minority". And if you criticize Limbaugh for using the term, Limbaugh claims that you "didn't get it".
Except that there's no joke to get. There's no "there" there. Limbaugh is a master of ambiguity, and it's the reason for his commercial success. He can now say nearly ANYTHING without fear of any consequences because his delivery is so ambiguously perched between comedy and seriousness. As proof, the only time he ever does face consequences for his remarks is when he's not on his show and he's forced to pick one speech genre or another. Which is why ESPN fired him: for once, he couldn't claim that he was just joking.
Excellent analysis. It's not so much that Limbaugh is clever (or devious) enough to play these word games... it's that his devout listeners are too stupid to figure out what his tricks are.
...but I would disagree with you about whether or not his audience is just too "stupid" to catch on. Maybe I'm just too quick to give people the benefit of the doubt, but my guess is that his listeners more desperate to hear what they want to hear than anything else. And in their defense, who doesn't want to believe that there's someone rich and famous and successful and powerful who shares your views? It's comforting. And all Limbaugh has to do to sustain his audience's support is continue to be ambiguous: to nest his serious attacks within jokes within criticism within parodies within commentary within satire.
Besides, I really do believe that what Limbaugh is doing is a relatively subtle thing. Unless you spend a lot of time thinking about language and discourse, there's no reason for anyone to pick up on how Limbaugh pulls off his trick. I'm not even convinced that Limbaugh himself knows what he's doing when he goes into one of these rants, or how they "work". He probably thinks he's just being funny and absurd. I think it's a lucky accident for him that his particular sense of "humor" has shielded him from criticism and has won him a loyal audience. So I'm not sure it's fair to say that his audience is just stupid -- they're people without any obvious reason to question what he's doing.
Yeah, I agree with that; and I have always said that Limbaugh's show was where people went for reinforcement of their beliefs, fears and prejudices... not for objective information as Rush and they might profess. However, after a point if people can't figure out that Rush is full of crap, regardless of the cleverness of his delivery package, then something is wrong with them. For lack of a better description I call it stupidity.
I'm not even convinced that Limbaugh himself knows what he's doing when he goes into one of these rants, or how they "work".(vysotsky)
I'd never(at least consciously) thought it out that way, but I think you've nailed it. Rush was probably that chubby soft rich kid , angry at everybody, but enough of a pussy that he hedged everything enough to bust out "just kidding" before the fist to the snot-locker.
Remeber that kid? Little passive aggressive punk, usually trying to start s**t between two other kids while remaining the "messenger"? Talking trash behind other kids backs, then when he got caught, he was "only joking".
I've always been a little impressed that someone with so little functioning logic could at least talk for a few hours straight, and really not sound un-intelligent. I think you opened my eyes, Vysotsky. The Oxymoron has developed a defense mechanism that gets all his rage out, while allowing him to avoid conflict or blame.(In the schoolyard, battlefield,or on the job)
I wouldn't be surprised if your description was accurate. Limbaugh strikes me, at least, as incredibly passive aggressive, with a ton of misdirected anger and resentment. (If I were to play armchair psychoanalyst for a moment, I might wonder if this has anything to do with Limbaugh's three divorces...)
hence he cannot resolutely respect the rights of others. That lack of self respect, in my humble and unqualified opinion is at the heart of the conservative anti-PC screeds. People have the unalienable right to be treated with respect. By applying to another person a term of suspect integrity that person's right is diminished as is the dignity of the speaker.
When moderation and decency is called for it is abundantly clear that progenitators of hate speech will claim that their right to free speech is diminished. So be it. But it is the right and moral duty of decent people to become openly hostile to racism no matter how mild the slur. If we tolerate intolerance soon enough the tolerant will be no more. That is self respect.
Peace.
I would disagree with you about whether or not his audience is just too "stupid" to catch on. Maybe I'm just too quick to give people the benefit of the doubt, but my guess is that his listeners more desperate to hear what they want to hear than anything else. And in their defense, who doesn't want to believe that there's someone rich and famous and successful and powerful who shares your views? It's comforting. And all Limbaugh has to do to sustain his audience's support is continue to be ambiguous: to nest his serious attacks within jokes within criticism within parodies within commentary within satire.
---------------------------------------------
Comforting to who? Why are his listeners all white? No, whoever said they are stupid got it right. Worse, their need to worship a powerful white racist is downright evil and reminiscent of plantation politics.
I hear you, but I don't think it serves anyone to reduce all of the people--there are a few million of them, right?--in Limbaugh's audience to a stereotype of a dumb white racist.
To do so would be to 'explain' Hitler's rise to power by saying that the German people were racist, stupid, and evil. Which is fine if you're looking for a reason to hate the Germans, but not such a good explanation if you actually want to understand how good people make bad decisions or how social and political power works with any degree of complexity. Even in the case that you raised of plantation politics, I'm not satisfied with "evil" or "stupidity" as an explanation. People are complicated, and I'm skeptical whenever anybody tries to describe their actions and motivations in one word.
I guess I just don't think that it helps anybody to talk about this sort of stuff in terms of smart and stupid. It would be like saying that drug addicts must be stupid, because no smart person would intentionally do something so self-destructive. But if you know anyone with an addiction, you know it has very little to do with intelligence. The reasons are usually much more complicated and, at least for me, interesting.
you are right...since Obama is a 'half minority', he must logically be a 'half majority'...hence, Rush is actually saying Obama is, well, one of ALL of us!! *Sigggggghhhhh* I love Rush and his all-inclusive comments...why can't people see him for what he REALLY is..?
Rush IS a racist. Not overtly, of course, but I've listened to him off and on (when I can stand it) for 15 years. It's fairly evident, if you don't have your head up his ass.
You say--"So what is it that exactly is so outrageous about refering to Obama as a 'half minority'? "
Only a true racist would find no offense in this statement, and the larger irony is that it fell from the lips of the biggest racist of them all.
We have several hundred thousand dead Iraqis to prove it.
That's the dummest defense of stupid Rush that I heard of
THE POINT SHOULD BE THAT THIS IS 2007 AND RACE SHOULD NOT MATTER. YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN FORGOT THE HOLIDAY THAT YOU HAD ON MONDAY ( JUDGE BY CHARTER NOT SKIN COLOR)
What should matter is does he have the right stuff for President. YES simply because my left foot is smarter than the current office holder. Skin color matters to you and Rush when defending Rice but it's ok to say anything that you want about the Senator from Ill. becuase he's not "one of them that I like" What you should have said was Condi's my ****** and Obama is not.
So what is it that exactly is so outrageous about refering to Obama as a 'half minority'? ....Ho hum... MMFA once again uses bait-and-switch tactics to try to imply that Limbaugh, and by extension, conservatives are racists and you kool aid sippers lap it up.
Enjoy.
- anotheramerican
------------------------------------------------
Limbaugh is a white racist pig and so are most conservatives, most of whom are too racist to even recognize a white racist comment as anything other than normal.
He must be holding back from the KSFO garbage that he has undoubtedly heard, "halfrican". I was surprised that Rush hadn't come up with that trashy word.
What it really come down to is the FEAR OF A BLACK PRESIDENT.
How are the Saints the favored team of the Democratic party? I didn't know the DNC chose favorites in fuggin sporting events.
According to Rush you mean the "Democrat Party". Forgive Rush; although he was born rich he didn't have the benefit of a college education and he still hasn't gotten that noun/adjective thing down yet.
NOW he likes New Orleans...
This is Rush at his most sarcastic poking fun at Liberals:
*And Katrina and the Saints and New Orleans are a Democrat [sic] cause. But more than that, identifying with suffering and misery, starvation, thirst-ation, death -- that's what the Democratic Party is all about. And for him to just basically say to you people in New Orleans and your football team: pffft! And to gleefully predict your demise shows a parochialism on the part of this man that is somewhat curious to me given the lofty heights and the wide horizons that he seeks. A true liberal Democrat here, an understanding liberal Democrat, even though he's from Illinois, would pick the Saints while saying great things about the Bears, while hoping it's their turn next time, say it's really hard to pick a team here, but he understands how the country can come together.*
Rush couldn't care less about New Orleans.
It would have shattered my world to find out Rush cared about anything that doesn't come in pill form.
my point was not that he likes the team, the saints, but that he is talking about New Orleans (and its people) in a non-condescending or rude manner, which he HAS done in the past...And his logic is still skewed, in my opinion, because to say only the democrats can rally behind the city is ridiculous...Republicans should be all over New Orlean' bandwagon, also, because, as Rush says, 'it's the American saints'...partisianship be damned...
I actually was referring to the city New Orleans [not the Saints] when I said Rush couldn't care less. The way I read Rush's remarks it's pure ridicule/sarcasm directed towards the Democratic Party. Rush is wondering how a Democrat like Obama isn't doing the expected Liberal/Democratic thing[in Rush's mind] by automatically getting behind the Saints simply because they represent the city of New Orleans.
I don't believe Rush has much [if any] REAL compassion for the people of New Orleans.
And I think it's pretty clear is attitude towards Barack Obama is pretty condescending as well.
Now I'm gonna go watch Chris Matthews...and see IF he utters anything MMFA will pounce on tomorrow ;-)
He must be back on the Oxy or something..
I read this post twice. Where is it written whether politician or not that can't root for your home team?
Listen, I feel for New Orleans just as much as anybody, but I'm from southern NJ and I am a Philly sports fan. I rooted for the Eagles to beat the Saints.. I'm a liberal (dare I say leftist, to be honest) I guess I just lost my lib-card for not rooting for the Saints??
What kind of drug-induced logic is that??
I hope he was being facetious...
Obama must abandon his personal favorite things and CHANGE them to the suppossed will of his party to become president...he..he should take over Rove's job with his keen insight to how americans might feel about guys who like football..
This whole thing is so unfortunate - and Limbaugh is just playing directly into the left's hand with these types of comments. He is an entertainer after all, and in my view, an albatross and a dinasour whose time has passed.........but in any event,
For him to mention Obama's race in any context is ridiculous. He is just inviting the racist label, deserved or otherwise, and ultimately deflects any substantive summarization of Obama based on things that matter like his record, qualifications and positions on issues. When Rush makes this type of comment, sarcastic or otherwise, he is fair game for Obama's supporters or anyone to dismiss talk of issues and towards irrelevant issues such as his race.
Further evidence that Rush could care less and has no interest in any substance or real political discourse of any kind - his only schtick is what he thinks is entertaining his followers and his own damn gargantuan ego.
Isn't it about time he is taken off the serious political stage and sent to the cartoon channel.
[Rush is]..an albatross and a dinasour...
An albasaur? A half-breed?????? No wonder he's so hung up on this subject.
He's half and half or half albatross or half extinct or half coherent.......take your pick.
Unfortunate? - Yes.
It's very Unfortunate for Good, Honest Conservative Republicans like yourself that you have this man as one of your most prominent commentators and supporters.
With the treasures in Republican Moola, he should be paid off to stop doing great harm to your GOP.
Cartoon Channel?
Maybe the Looney Toons Channel OR,.. Start up a new show that Exposes Hate Speakers for what, why, where and who they really are.
You're are my kind of conservative, not that you care I know.
On the contrary, your kind words are appreciated. Compassion is a wonderful gift, and from the posts I see from you, you are blessed with it.
if only this parody-of-himself commentator didn't have the largest audience in american radio...It's a shame, but some people buy into his crappy drivel just because he says it....and did he say he was on LOAN from God?!? Time to repo that one, lordy...
it's his talent that's on loan from God. Which could be evidence that God does not exist.
But I like to think that it's his talent that is nonexistant.
Good One !
His large audience is puzzling. Who can listen to him for more than 10 minutes and not totally get him? Dittoheads indeed. Which is why I find it incredibly hard to believe that people do take him seriously? How can that be? I don't think he's stupid, nor would I suggest his listeners are either...........but to actually listen to him without knowing he has to have his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek and he's just out to offend and shock and make fun of people - well, who knows why?
Maybe he gets off on seeing how far he can take his listeners without letting on he is a big fat joke......I just have to think he sits back after each show, puffing his cigar and says "Those idiot listeners, do they really take me seriously, what tools they are!!"
Rush sits back wondering what he can say or do next to make more money. I doubt whether he gives much thought anymore to whether he actually believes what he says. He may look like a charicature to us but he's a money making machine... and isn't that what being a fat-cat Republican is truly all about?
because Rush has just compared Obama to McNabb and he was all over McNabb like junkies on drugs...in the, uumm...bad way...
C'mon Rush, you can do better than that. Let's really get down and dirty.Can you handle it? I'm sorry, down is something that you have problems with...you can't come down from your lofty perch built on the almighty dollar for fear, yes, fear that you may have to speak to real people. You can't imagine coming down from drugs because they own you. And since no women will go down WITH(wasn't going to say something like on you) you to some exotic islands, you went to spend money on call girls. C"mon Rush, why don't we discuss you, not your show and your "funny" statements about other peoples family background, but you and your family. Bet you don't have the guts...What does your family tree look like..you want to broadcast Obama's background...Tell us Rush..please..be a man..for once in your life, please. P.S. You have some ghosts in the closet left behind during your less than illustrious stay in Pittsburgh..you know what I mean!!!!
to this show (was driving out of quality FM range).
Rush's basically said that Obama acts and talks like an educated person, but that he's "fooling" the American people, i.e. he's an empty suit.
Oh, the irony.
..That Rush LimpBrain was serious when he said he would not carry the water anymore for a bunch of Republicans who didn't deserve to have their water carried.
I thought he had finally seen the light. He’s back now.
I can imagine that one of these nights...Rush will awake in his bed from a deep sleep and in a cold sweat and say to himself:
OH MAN! WHAT AN UGLY JERK I AM!
I can imagine that one of these nights...Rush will awake in his bed from a deep sleep and in a cold sweat and say to himself:
OH MAN! WHAT AN UGLY JERK I AM!
- SamsComputer
--------------------------------------
Sure, just like the cowardly old devil slavemasters, it will happen on his deathbed; he'll beg for forgiveness when he is about to face Judgment but it will be too late.
I happened to hear this rant yesterday as I was driving through AM radio country, and I thought it did not make any sense then, but I thought it was because I was distracted by some phone calls and road noise. After reading, this I guess there was not that much road noise after all. It really did not make any sense at all.
I will give the guy credit his has a very authoritative delivery, but at some point his audience has to wise up to his foolishness.
1. He politicizes everything. He cannot even watch a sporting event without trying to make it about politics. Part of the problem probably stems from his rebuke by ABC when he attempted to intertwine the two during his two week stint on ESPN. Whatever the case Obama did not have any agenda in supporting his local team.
2. There is no response from liberals that won’t upset this guy. Here is an example. He started out using the William Jefferson scandal as a means of undercutting the Democrat’s assault on Republican’s culture of corruption stating that they were holding Delay to a standard, that they were not holding Jefferson. When Democratic defense of Jefferson was not vocal and he received only marginal support in his re election campaign, Rush accused democrats of throwing the African American under the bus for political gain. Another more appropriate example is his assault on Hillary Clinton for sporting a Yankees hat when she was running for governor after growing up in Chicago. If Obama had predicted a New Orleans victory he would have accused him of Political opportunism just like he accused Hillary of the same thing.
3. Isn’t it pretty lame for someone to give themselves nicknames like “El Rushbo” and the “MahaRushby”? It is not like these are terms of endearment from friends or a co-host. The only other voice you ever hear on his show is his imaginary friend, “Mr. Snerdly”. It reminds me of the episode of Cheers when Cliff Clavin admitted to trying to give him the nickname “Courteous Cliff”, when asked why when he was choosing a nickname he chose one so lame? Cliff responded that he did not want to arouse any suspicions.
4. Granted O’Reilly has the market pretty well cornered on self aggrandized paranoia, but Rush is pretty vocal about accusing everyone of twisting his words. But I have never seen anyone else try to squeeze as much outrage out of a completely innocuous statement as this “He said, "I'm happy for New Orleans. I think it's a wonderful story for their city, but this fairy tale ends when they come to Chicago." Ah-ha. It's a fairy tale as far as he's concerned. That means it's not even real. The Saints are not real. What they're playing for is not real. I am stunned.”
on the Cliff Clavin reference.
Wore white socks with black shoes to work today, and guess what my co-worker called me, and made my day with?
Back in the late 80's, that the role of the insecure know it all jerk, who makes up absurd falsehoods to make himself sound impressive could have been parlayed into more success than John Ratzenberger did on Cheers. Little did we see this coming on radio.
So now it's ok to be half black. I guess it's progress. It used to be if you had one drop of black you were black
There's no such thing as half-black
that it was always okay to be half-Black, or Mulatto, or any other name for having mixed-race ancestry, but of course it wasn't. We are progressing however. Nobody--with the possible exception of loonies like Rush--cares when such a person becomes a noted figure in society, whether it be Bob Marley or Halle Barry or Derek Jeter, or any others who aren't "pure."
I, for one, have some Pottawattomie Indian ancestry. About 1/128th, which with my substantive build comes to about two pounds. I wonder if this makes me a partial minority of some kind?
p.s. I live in the shadow of the Detroit Lions, which means I don't cheer for a professional football team.
clueless conservatism.
How can a liberal think not enough was done in NO after Katrina, yet root for some team other than the Saints?.
As others have pointed out, Rush and his monkeys have a tough time with any thinking more complex that this. It's sort of in line with pointing out Condi Rice and Colin Powell as arguments against any racism in the Republican party.
I learned to read, having older siblings, largely from comic books, mostly from Mad magazine. I remember one night lying on the floor with an issue of Mad,asking my old man ( I learned more than a few concepts from Mad) what "Tokenism" was. He explained it, I got it.
This was probably i n the late 60s, I was about 6 years old. My dad was an old square, depression-kid, WWII vet Irish-Catholic NYer, not the hippest guy in the room, and he got it 40 years ago, enough to explain it to a kid.
Hilarious now to hear people struggling with the concept; "Shaquille O'Neal is rich, doesn't that mean everythhing's OK? We found several black people to go along with our plans, how can we be racist? Democrats said they cared about people dying in New Orleans, yet they like a football team from ANOTHER CITY! I'm so confused."
was brilliant. The closest thing we have now is The Daily Show and Colbert, also brilliant.
Papa Bear (BilldO), and I can't wait to see if he actually understands Colbert's parody of his Royal Arse-Holiness.
I want to thank all of you who so not so politely responded to my question and labeled me racist and hateful.
I am of the opinion that those of you should look in the mirror. If you knew me, you'd know I have not racist nor sexist bone in my body. Never have been. I grew up, have always worked, and always lived in a mixed community. I suspect I've had more interaction with people who are minorities than most of you other "white" people. :-) I see all people as God's children. I am truly color blind when it comes to people.
Breezing through the pile of unintended but very funny replies that so far constitutes 80 comments on this thread, there might have been one or two with a serious reply to why describing someone as 'half minority' is seen as racist.
Hey, I actually like Obama. I think he's a great speaker and has great charisma. I don't know about his experience, but then experience isn't the only criterion for Prez. I also disagree with his liberal positions, but so what. I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if he ends up getting elected. I think he has a bit of the same mystique that JFK had.
Back to the subject at hand. I was particularly amused by those of you who couldn't/wouldn't put a reason as to why that comment by Rush is supposedly racist, but instead only opined that I was too hateful, stupid, etc. to understand. Not the most compelling arguments if you ask me. Most of you just used it as an excuse to once again lambaste Rush and conservatives.
It would be interesting if you would put aside this typical knee-jerk reaction that is so rampant here and actually think for a minute.
In my mind, Rush refering to the Obama's parent's race is not being racist. After all, I already know that. If I didn't, it is fairly obvious that Obama has some African ancestry. To me, refering to his mixed race is simply a fact regarding the man, similar, in my mind to GW being the son of 41 and Barbra.
I think people like me who have no racism in their makeup do not see any racism at all.
However most here are jumping at the chance to label me as one. It seems so many of you have prejudice and hate in your hearts against me just because I disagree with you. Don't you realize you are at the same level as racists by your comments? You seem to hate people like me just because I have a different outlook. Some of you folks write as if you are as prejudiced as the worst racist out there, only your venom is aimed at 'conservatives'. What is ironic is You don't get it. Let me clue you, It's still the same type of hate. I urge you to re-examine your prejudicial nature.
So take a look at all the hate-speak that goes on around here. I would think, if you truly were liberals, you'd be just as offended by the ill-will shown toward conservatives here as you are about the various threads MMFA tosses out regarding conservative commentators.
Thanks for listening.
Much of your post I agree with - the level of vitriol that some exhibit here towards those of differing opinions is no better than what they are actually commenting on.......that in and of itself hypocritical. And this incessant racist charge thrown out by some is, for me anyway, the crying wolf syndrome. I have been accused myself.
However, considering this particular thread on Limbaugh - I don't know if he is or isn't a racist, I don't toss that term out for it serves no purpose and none of us knows what is in his heart. I would say he is incredibly insensitive and inflammatory in his own right - and that is my problem with him. By him saying Obama is "half black" is just a silly, stupid senseless comment. It has nothing to do with anything and is only put out there by him to stir negative reaction.........and that is my issue with it and with Limbaugh.
We all appreciate the crocodile tears, but don't worry yourself too much. After all, we're just a bunch of silly, whining weenies who amuse you and need to get a life, right?
Yes.
:-)
Well you know the rest
I'm sorry if I got you wrong...But...
Those 80 Replies seem to have transformed you into an new sensitive, caring and compassionate Conservative.
I'm wondering if you came here with a plan in mind. Because you're first post was a name calling inditement of the Posters here.
You're first Post was a defense of a hateful man who is busy hurting your cherished GOP. Especially when he plays his Racial Name Games.
YOU SAID: - "Ho hum... MMFA once again uses bait-and-switch tactics to try to imply that Limbaugh, and by extension, conservatives are racists and you kool aid sippers lap it up. Enjoy."
How could you Post such an insensitive comment? Am I wrong? Looks to me that you're the one who "Baited & Switched?"
I think I did call some of you weenies. So I am guilty of that. My defense is not that I object to some good natured name calling, (Sorry, I can't think of anything less harmless than refering to one as a weenie.)
I like to needle and enjoy the give and take when it is tossed back. And I am by no means saying I'm perfect. Calling people kool-aid drinkers is a well used phrase for people who don't think for themselves. I don't consider that name calling.
That is the extent, (as I recall,) of my "name calling". It was written in the attempt to make some of you think and to show you that not everyone walks in lock-step (is that an insult?) to the MMFA mantra.
The latest observation I'm making, which I think you miss, is the obvious hatred expressed by people who say they are opposed to hatred. It amazes me. Also I see the obvious prejudice toward conservatives where so many of you take off your thinking caps and react. Coming from the small minority, these obvious inconsistencies are tossed at me daily. I'm suprised why so many intelligent people can have such prejudice and hatred and others who profess to be sensitive and caring, can let it go day after day.
Just my thoughts. I probably will join in some other thread and be bellicose and contrary as I usually am. I do enjoy these discussions.
Okay, calling people kool-aid drinkers is name calling... unless of course they are kool-aid drinkers.
:-)
I want to thank all of you who so not so politely responded to my question and labeled me racist and hateful.
We didn't do that. You did with your posting, which is seldom polite, either.
I am of the opinion that those of you should look in the mirror. If you knew me, you'd know I have not racist nor sexist bone in my body.
Then your fingers must not have bones, because nothing but bigotry came from them in this thread.
Never have been. I grew up, have always worked, and always lived in a mixed community. I suspect I've had more interaction with people who are minorities than most of you other "white" people. :-)
Why put "white" in quotes? If you have evidence that those who claim to be "white" aren't, then present it. Otherwise, it's just more ignorant baiting
I see all people as God's children. I am truly color blind when it comes to people.
Except when you want to call them "white." And if you were truly color blind, you wouldn't refer to your surroundings as a "mixed community." Everyone would look the same unless you were distinguishing them by color or ethnicity, and then you wouldn't be "color blind."
Breezing through the pile of unintended but very funny replies that so far constitutes 80 comments on this thread, there might have been one or two with a serious reply to why describing someone as 'half minority' is seen as racist.
It isn't just seen that way, it is that way.
Hey, I actually like Obama.
And some of your best friends are ******s, too, I'll bet.
I think he's a great speaker and has great charisma. I don't know about his experience, but then experience isn't the only criterion for Prez. I also disagree with his liberal positions, but so what. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he ends up getting elected. I think he has a bit of the same mystique that JFK had.
Ask any minority about the "He's so articulate!" type of damning with faint praise. You are saying they're not supposed to talk intelligently, so you must comment upon it as unique when someone does.
Back to the subject at hand.
We've never left it. Where were you?
I was particularly amused by those of you who couldn't/wouldn't put a reason as to why that comment by Rush is supposedly racist, but instead only opined that I was too hateful, stupid, etc. to understand.
Many reasons were given, the fact that you didn't understand them, well, proves your last sentence to be correct.
Not the most compelling arguments if you ask me. Most of you just used it as an excuse to once again lambaste Rush and conservatives.
No, it was done to answer your ignorance. The fact that it still persists means either you didn't read them or couldn't understand them. Both are your problem, not ours.
It would be interesting if you would put aside this typical knee-jerk reaction that is so rampant here and actually think for a minute.
You first. You're projecting harder than a thirty-screen multiplex here.
In my mind, Rush referring to the Obama's parent's race is not being racist. After all, I already know that. If I didn't, it is fairly obvious that Obama has some African ancestry. To me, referring to his mixed race is simply a fact regarding the man, similar, in my mind to GW being the son of 41 and Barbara.
He didn't just refer to it, he referred to it in a disgustingly derogatory manner, and if you were truly color blind you would see it for the insult it is rather than the "reference" you want to cover over.
I think people like me who have no racism in their makeup do not see any racism at all.
Assuming facts not in evidence, and in fact, contradicted by your own words. Don't tell us you aren't racist, let us figure it out for ourselves. You're doing a poor job so far.
However most here are jumping at the chance to label me as one. It seems so many of you have prejudice and hate in your hearts against me just because I disagree with you.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to correcting it. Look at that last sentence and apply it to your own posts.
Don't you realize you are at the same level as racists by your comments?
That isn't true in the slightest, but thanks for playing. Maybe someday you will make an argument more sophisticated than "I know you are, but what am I?"
You seem to hate people like me just because I have a different outlook.
Hate the outlook, love the outlooker.
Some of you folks write as if you are as prejudiced as the worst racist out there, only your venom is aimed at 'conservatives'. What is ironic is You don't get it.
Non-getter, heal thyself.
Let me clue you
Don't give away too many clues, you don't have one to spare.
It's still the same type of hate.
And you've been posting it here for months.
I urge you to re-examine your prejudicial nature.
After you.
So take a look at all the hate-speak that goes on around here.
We do, and by condemning it in you, we hope that you won't do it any more.
I would think, if you truly were liberals, you'd be just as offended by the ill-will shown toward conservatives here as you are about the various threads MMFA tosses out regarding conservative commentators.
You have no standing to state what a "true liberal" should think. You assign false motives to anything with a liberal or progressive bent, so you don't evince the kind of knowledge necessary to make such a suggestion.
Thanks for listening.
Those were printed words. They don't say anything. Maybe you should try listening for a change. You wouldn't post the kind of self-serving tripe and demeaning bigotry that you have so far.
Let me be absolutely clear: I could care less whether you're racist or not, although I'm amused that you're trotting out the tired "I know TONS of minorities" defense. Let's just say it's not the most convincing argument.
But okay, I believe you that you're not racist. Take it easy. I'm not accusing you of racism. I just strongly disagree with your interpretation of Limbaugh's remarks.
Maybe the key here is the context in which Limbaugh made the statement. He didn't randomly mention Obama's racial identity -- he did it in a mock-criticism of Obama's support of the Bears rather than the Saints, as if to suggest that had Obama been a 100% real "minority", he would have identified with New Orleans.
Again, Limbaugh couched this comment within about four levels of discursive insulation: he was pretending to voice an opinion in accord with how he thinks liberals think in order to illustrate the absurdity of the position which no real person actually holds, in order to make a non-satirical, serious point about American liberal ideology. So it's kind of futile to argue about whether Limbaugh "meant" it. But I think it's fair to say that calling someone a "half minority" without explaining what you mean by that is generally not a "good thing."
You asked in your previous post whether or not calling Obama "half white" would be racist. As always, context is critical in how one evaluates such an expression. But in this case, yeah, I'd say it would be a low blow to suggest that liberals think that Obama isn't properly sympathizing with New Orleans because he's half white. At the very best, Limbaugh is accusing liberals of being obsessed with racial identity... an interesting rhetorical move, considering that it is Limbaugh himself who brought up Obama's racial ancestry.
you're good, V.
I do what I can, Rusty. Thanks!
It is hard to express my credentials as a non prejudicial person except by sharing some of my history. People can take it or, just for arguments sake, like the person above, argue it.
I do like your argument. And I do agree that Limbaugh is derisive, but not toward Obama because he's black, but to what he feels is the "liberal" point of view. His whole rant is based on the fact that liberals love Obama because he's black.
You may or may not disagree, but that is my take. His reference to Obama as half minority seems to me to be referencing his mixed heritage as acceptable to liberals as opposed to someone who has two black parents. My take is Limbaugh feels that is a character flaw of the typical liberal mindset. He's saying liberals like a black man if that man isn't "too" black. He is also making fun of Obama for not being the typical liberal and siding with New Orleans. It is all parody aimed at liberals.
Heck, I would expect liberals to react to that, but it seems most here don't get it and instead fall into that groupthink of Rush is a racist.
If you look closely, his comments are not directed at Obama, just as they weren't directed at McNabb. They were directed at liberals (or sportswriters,) who Rush feels give too much credit to people because of their skin color.
You may believe him to be wrong, but to me he isn't being racist.
His whole rant is based on the fact that liberals love Obama because he's black.
Let me correct you here: his whole rant is based on his assumption that liberals love Obama because he's black. You and Rush make this assumption because of your preconceived notions (aka prejudices) about liberals, and Rush's tendency to see everything in the world as a manifestation of partisan politics and, to a lesser extent, race.
Yes, it is Rush's assumption.
Anyway, those are his words, not mine. Just what is it, from the liberal perspective, that sets Obama apart?
What makes a guy, two years in the Senate, a viable Democratic Party presidential candidate?
I'm all ears.
he's extremely intelligent and charismatic, and he appears to have appeal beyond the Democratic base. While he's only served two years in the U.S. Senate, he also has eight years in his state senate under his belt. That experience may be a little slim compared to that of, say, LBJ or Nixon or George H.W. Bush, but it's comparable to Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
I see an obvious dissimalarity in the example you gave between Obama and Reagan, Clinton and GW.
All three of the later were Govenors. They came to the table with administrative experience.
that being said, we'll have plenty of time to learn and discuss Obama's strength's and weaknesses.
Recent history has shown that governors (executive branch) tend to have a better shot at the presidency (executive branch) than senators or congressmen (legislative branch), perhaps related to the different political styles required in the different branches.
With absolutely no political experience, Bush became Governor of Texas in 1995.
Just Five years later he ran for President. Bush labeled himself a "compassionate conservative," and promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House.
Compassion? - Dignity? - Honor?
After The Supreme Court appointed Bush as our President where have Compassion & Dignity & Honor gone?
Obama - The "Half-Whatever" - Will You Please Run For President!? You'll be a huge improvement over the current resident at the White House.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think it clarifies and bolsters your position quite a bit.
I think we agree here that Limbaugh believes himself to be criticizing American liberal ideology when he makes these comments. But as Rusty has pointed out, I don't think Limbaugh makes a compelling case for the premise that "liberals" (as if that word described a coherent, unified, single-minded group) actually do think this way.
As for Limbaugh's comment about McNabb, I understand your position, but I think he was criticizing the media and McNabb in one stroke:
He simultaneously argues that McNabb isn't all that great a player, and that the media inflated their opinions of McNabb because they wanted a black quarterback to do well. Again, though, the problem is that Limbaugh doesn't support his assertion that the media overinflated McNabb's status just because he was black. Without that critical piece of the puzzle, Limbaugh looks like he's projecting his own racism onto a fictional opponent.
I'm not calling Limbaugh a racist. Honestly, I don't know what it would mean to call Limbaugh a racist since his show is so overtly performative: the voice that he broadcasts is a character, an act. Moreover, the character "Rush Limbaugh" performs other characters within his show. So I have no idea how to even begin to evaluate the 'real person' underneath it all. What I can examine is what Limbaugh says, how he says it, and his show's form and structure. The whole thing is very complicated, and I don't want to reduce it to a namecalling match in which each party accuses the other of being racist.
I'm especially cautious of that pitfall because I think that's the effect of Limbaugh's performance style: by calling Obama a "half minority" while presuming to speak for all liberals, he's nullifying the possibility for any meaningful engagement with what liberals really think. According to the terms of the Rush Limbaugh show, you don't need to listen to liberals to know what they think, since Rush will tell you explicitly what they think (whether they say it or not).
My main objection here is that Limbaugh does all this while claiming to be in the "arena of ideas" -- i.e. rational, public, political debate. When he's criticized for making outrageous statements or unfairly caricaturing his opponents, he claims he was just joking. When people confront him with jokes, he claims that they can't handle him in the "arena of ideas". His show plays both sides of the fence.
I'm sure that if confronted about it, Limbaugh would say that his comment about Obama being a "half minority" was taken out of context. But that's the way his entire show is structured: one layer of context within another within another within another. It's a joke within a serious monologue within a satire, all said with sarcasm and irony, except when he's absolutely serious... until he plays a song parody or a fake commercial.
If the end result of this infinitely recursive contextualization were comedy or absurdity, I wouldn't mind. But the show has real consequences. There's a reason why Cheney and Rumsfeld have given interviews on his show. It's a powerful medium for conveying political viewpoints, and it's very well insulated from criticism.
Anyway, that's a longwinded way for me to say that regardless of whether or not Limbaugh is a racist, I remain highly critical of his comments precisely because of the way he presents them and the "liberal racism" that they presuppose.
Best reply I've seen in a long time! Nice work.
Wonderfully stated, I agree. When Limbaugh sits behind his microphone it is very unclear whether he is promoting serious and thoughtful discussion, or whether his sarcastic and condescending tone is only put out to entertain, enflame and prop up his ego - manufactured or otherwise.
I prefer to think it's the latter.
That's the same frame of mind that NFL's MVP LaDainian Tomlinson displays when he gets complemented. He's from Texas.
Excellent Post "V"... Wish I would have said all that.
Well, you blew my cover. I am, in fact, LaDainian Tomlinson. I didn't think anyone would guess my true identity through the Russian pseudonym.
:)
You must be hopping mad at the way those New England players got in your face and taunted you after beating your Chargers?
Some of the Patriot players displayed very unsportsmanlike conduct. If they make it to the Super Bowl game, I hope the Saints will be there to pay them back.
Because the Saints QB is Drew Breez, a long time Texas Buddy of LaDainian Tomlinson.
"prejudice" several times in your post.
Prjudice means "to pre-judge". Nobody has shown prejudice towards you, only comments after you've posted your opinions.
Post-judice, maybe.
And if you think nobody responded to the issue (i.e., what is messed up about the "half-minority" thing), I'd suggest you re-read, more carefully.
If you don't understand, then the other posters are right, there's no use in trying to explain it to you, your complete lack of racism notwithstanding.
Parsing the word prejudice from my comments shows me you are just interested in arguing for argument sake.
You idea that nobody pre-judged is just plain silly. It is my opinion that you need to take a class in critical thinking. Either that or remedial reading.
I wrote: Breezing through the pile of unintended but very funny replies that so far constitutes 80 comments on this thread, there might have been one or two with a serious reply to why describing someone as 'half minority' is seen as racist.
So your reply:
And if you think nobody responded to the issue (i.e., what is messed up about the "half-minority" thing), I'd suggest you re-read, more carefully.
Is obviously wrong. (Sorry to point that out, You must be embarrased.)
:-)
About the weakest argument one make is to say the other person would not understand it.
Thanks for the chuckle
"just plain silly."
Now that is just plain silly but you wouldn't understand that if I explained it now would you.
;-)
but I think your comment followed all the rest over AA's head.
You must be embarrassed. ;0D
I have a new appreciation for those people who train chimps to do sign language. The patience.
What do YOU think the motive was for bringing up this half-minority characterization? To make Obama look GOOD? Perhaps he was pointing out something that isnt OBVIOUS to anyone that has EVER seen him? What was he doing? Is there ANY context to put this characterization that makes any real and pertinent point? Is there anything about it that says why Obama would be a good or poor President? Was he appealing to the higher angels in our nature? Was it appealing to the bitter racist in the part of his audience that HATES, hates miscegenation, hates minorities, just plain hates those not like them? You tell ME what the point was and who and what the characterization was intended to appeal to and if you are honest the answer to your question will quickly appear.
He solon,
Long time.
I think your characterization is way over the top. It is convenient and lazy to say that this reference to Obama race is racist and hateful, but it isn't.
Many of you liberals are so eager to cast your fellow Americans as evil that you lose any sense of perspective. I found it amusing that one person said my support of Rice for President was in effect racist.
As I was discussing with vysotsky, it looks like to me that Rush's reference was to lambast liberals who have latched on to this guy. Rush seems to think it is because of his minority status. I think that is why he brought it up.
In my mind, Rush isn't racist, but he'll reference race when he thinks it has a bearing on the attitude of the press and liberals toward individuals like Obama, McNabb, Jackson, Sharpton, Rice, Thomas, etc. Race doesn't have to be kept quiet. It is a factor in our national politics and our country. Heck, if you are going to be even handed about it, you'll have to condemn all those Democrats who ganged up on Thomas, Powell, and Rice.
Instead of always coloring every reference to race as hidden racist code, you need to just take these comments at face value.
Maybe some day this discussion of race will dissapear. I look forward to it. I think it will be great when we do elect a minority or woman to the Presidency. That day may be two years away. If we do, they have my full support.
AA: "Heck, if you are going to be even handed about it, you'll have to condemn all those Democrats who ganged up on Thomas, Powell, and Rice."
Where's the evidence that Democrats ganged up on Thomas, Powell, or Rice because of their race?
I could just as easily (if not more easily) argue that Republicans tried to discredit Anita Hill because of her race and gender. But without any sort of evidence, we're not having a real argument -- we're just name-calling. I'd still like some sort of proof that racism is inherent to American liberal ideology.