Limbaugh defended racially charged Grossman comment: "[T]he whole point was to tweak the media"
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh claimed that he made his comments that Chicago Bears
quarterback Rex Grossman was being criticized for his Super Bowl performance
solely "because he's a white quarterback" in order "to tweak the
media," and that he informed his audience "[l]ater in the
program" about the "gag." In fact, it wasn't until the
day after the statement that Limbaugh told listeners that he was trying to
"tweak the media." Limbaugh also criticized "the sports media" for relying on "these liberal
so-called watchdog media -- media watchdog websites."
On the February 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, in the face of criticism by Sports Illustrated columnist Peter King for his February 5 comment that, as Media Matters for America noted, "[t]hey're [the media] dumping on this guy, [Chicago Bears quarterback] Rex Grossman, for one reason, folks, and that's because he's a white quarterback," Rush Limbaugh said of his claim: "And the whole point was to tweak the media, and another point was to demonstrate that these people in the sports media that comment on me don't listen to this program. They get what I said selectively and out of context from these liberal so-called watchdog media -- media watchdog websites," an apparent reference to Media Matters. Limbaugh claimed that, after making the racially charged comment, "Later in the program, I let the audience in on the gag, which was to tweak the media." He later said: "I'm the last person to see black or white, or sex. It's liberals that do this."
In fact, despite claiming to have "let the audience in on the gag" "[l]ater in the program," it wasn't until the next day, on the February 6 edition of his program, that he said the following about his Grossman comment: "I did that because I was trying to tweak the same media who went bonkers when I said the same thing about them and the way they treat [Philadelphia Eagles quarterback] Donovan McNabb" -- referring to his 2003 statement that "[t]he NFL is very desirous that a black quarterback do well," which led to his subsequent resignation from his position on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown. Limbaugh also said his statement was "[j]ust a new technique here to try to get people aroused and get them attentive to something that I do consider to be, you know, something that's pretty bad."
Also, during the February 13 edition of the program, Limbaugh said: "And then he [King] quoted me verbatim what I had said, but did not quote anything I had said about this being a tweak of the media, an illustration of the absurd by being absurd or any of that, which means King didn't hear what I said. He's simply relying on the left-wing media watchdog site, which is what they all do." He was addressing King's criticism in the February 11 edition of his weekly "Monday Morning QB" column on Sports Illustrated's website, in which King called Limbaugh a "race-aholic" and said: "He injects race where it has no business being injected." King rejected Limbaugh's assertion that the media "was dumping on [Grossman] ... because he's a white quarterback" and responded in part: "Rush, we're dumping on him because, in a five-point game in the fourth quarter, with the Bears in possession of the ball and still with a very good chance to win, he threw two ridiculous passes in the biggest game of his life. Two interceptions. Buried his own team."
From the February 13 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Let me get some personal things out of the way here, folks. Can we go back -- audio sound byte number four, Mr. Broadcast Engineer. Monday, February 5th, the day after the Super Bowl, this is what I, El Rushbo, had to say.
LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: I can't handle anymore press criticism of Rex Grossman. They're writing his name W-R-E-C-K-S. They're just -- worst quarterback ever to play in the Super Bowl. And it's been like this since the Green Bay game -- actually since the Arizona game, a little crescendo of it in the Green Bay game, the last game of the season for the Bears. And it's just unrelenting! It's just -- they're focusing on this guy like they don't focus on anybody! And I tell you, I know what it is. The media, the sports media's got social concerns that they are first and foremost interested in, and they're dumping on this guy, Rex Grossman, for one reason, folks, and that's because he is a white quarterback.
LIMBAUGH: And then later in the program -- of course, we're all laughing ourselves silly here. I went into the break with that. That's the last thing I said before going into a break, and we were laughing in the break. Later in the program I let the audience in on the gag, which was to tweak the media. It's a takeoff on the old Donovan McNabb comments about the media -- having social concerns, and wanting a black quarterback to do -- again, I'm sorry for this persistent cough. And if I take cough medicine here, I'm going to be loopy and I can't do that, so it's -- it's just -- I apologize. It's very unprofessional.
So anyway, I thought that it might maybe -- oh, a day or two -- and all hell would break loose over this, but it took longer than that. And finally, by last Friday, as I'm perusing the Internet during some downtime out at the AT&T National Pro Am, I'm starting to see on some blogs, "Limbaugh has lost his mind. Limbaugh has gone insane." And do you remember, Mr. Snerdley, before I made this comment, I said, let's have a little fun today. Let's tweak the media. And there was a vote in there -- don't do it. Do do it. Don't do it. And the votes to do it were 2-to-1 in favor of doing it.
And the whole point was to tweak the media, and another point was to demonstrate that these people in the sports media that comment on me don't listen to this program. They get what I said selectively and out of context from these liberal so-called watchdog media -- media watchdog websites. And lo and behold, it took four or five days, and then the dam broke. It wasn't quite as bad obviously as the McNabb situation, because I think some people out there actually got the joke, but there were those who didn't. And when I had the time, I jotted off a quick email note to some of these bloggers and sports writers saying, you know, you guys missed the whole point. If you'd just listen to my show now and then rather than get what I say that's selectively cherry-picked from these websites, you might get in on it. And they said well, you know, if you're going to crack jokes like this -- if you're going to be humorous like this, don't you think it would be well worth it for you and your sense of humor to be well known to people even outside your audience?
How can I do that?! How can I make my sense of humor well known to people outside my audience?! That -- isn't that up to you -- you guys are reporters! Are you going to -- how come I am the last place anybody would go to find out what I said?!
The fact of the matter is that on two or three subsequent programs I mentioned this to callers -- that it was a joke, that it was a tweak of the media. And Peter -- I think Peter King, is that his name, from Sports Illustrated in his "Monday Morning Quarterback" piece yesterday just got very agitated about this, and started off by saying "You know, for those of us who felt pity for Rush Limbaugh over his McNabb comments, I think we can forget it now." And then he quoted verbatim what I had said, but did not quote anything that I had about this being a tweak of the media, an illustration of the absurd by being absurd or any of that. Which means that King didn't hear what I said. He's simply relying on a left-wing media watchdog site, which is what they all do.
But then he added this. "I think I'd like to say one more thing to Limbaugh. There's a fairly significant decision coming in this country in 2008. We in New Jersey and New Mexico and New London and New Wherever have one simple request as you mull over the candidacies of a black man, a white woman, and many white men in the coming presidential debate: Please treat them as candidates, not black candidates or female candidates or white candidates."
Now, this is from the arrogant and condescending lofty platitudes of liberalism. Mr. King, I resent the assumption that you make. How about if -- I'll make you a deal, Mr. King. I will continue to do what I do -- I'm the last person that sees black or white, or sex. It's liberals that do this. It's liberals that have put everybody into groups -- usually making them victims -- but I'll make you a deal, Peter. If you'll stop telling me which coaches in the NFL are black, and if you'll stop whining and moaning about how socially behind the times the NFL is because it doesn't have enough minority coaches or assistant coaches or general managers -- if you'll stop pointing out to me every time a player comes up, what his race is, and what his background was, and what his obstacles to overcome were, then I will keep doing what I do.
And that is -- all I do, Peter, is analyze people on the issues. That's why I have never gone along with feminism as something oriented toward women. We know that it's not -- Gloria Steinem has a piece recently, by the way, in which she -- the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Why, that's no -- just -- either one is fine! Either one is fine! She starts lamenting this race and group pol -- well, who started all of this? People like Gloria Steinem.
This proves to me what I've known all along. Feminism was never about women's issues and women's this -- it's just another way to advance liberalism, as is so much of the liberal groupthink that happens out there.
But, Mr. King, you and I can make a deal here. You stop telling me about all the social problems that exist in the NFL based on race and so forth, and I will keep doing what I do by not noticing those things, and I'll stop making fun of you guys for doing it.
From the February 6 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: And for almost 19 years here, I've been dealing with stories like this, and being righteously indignant and apocalyptic. This is, we're going to hell in a handbasket. How can this stuff be happening and so forth. I think rather to make the point of just how absurd it is, is to agree with it.
CALLER: I should have thought this. I mean, us Brits are always talking on about irony, and so this actually-- [laughter]
LIMBAUGH: Well, but that's all about, that's about getting you up to speed here on this. I mean, this is, this is ridiculous. Calling, the thing is, in this country Christians are the one group, the one religious group, you can totally make fun of and bash, and destroy. Jewish people, there's a new wave of anti-Semitism all over Europe, and the United Nations I consider to be the repository for anti-Semitism today.
CALLER: Yeah.
LIMBAUGH: And so, I'll give you an example of how I do this. Yesterday, are you familiar, [caller], with my, how shall I say this? The controversy in which I became entwined over comments made about the media, the way they reported on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb?
CALLER: Yes, I am.
LIMBAUGH: All right. Well, we just finished our Super Bowl here, and the Chicago Bears' quarterback, Rex Grossman, for the last three weeks has just been slimed by the sports media in this country. They just said that he was -- he's the worst quarterback to ever play in the Super Bowl. They have been treating this guy with no mercy whatsoever. They have been predicting doom and gloom. They've been hoping that he would have a rotten Super Bowl. They're happily reporting that he did. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So yesterday I said that I think the only reason that the media is down on Rex Grossman is because they have this social desire for the NFL to become modernized and so forth. To get with it for the 21st century. And they just loved trashing this guy because he's a white quarterback and they don't want him to do well.
CALLER: Oh, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Now, I did that, I think it's safe to admit it now -- I did that because I was trying to tweak the same media who went bonkers when I said the same thing about them and the way they treat Donovan McNabb. And I was, 24 hours had gone by and they haven't picked up on it. So either they knew I was joking and got the point, or, obviously they haven't picked it up. So they knew that I was tweaking them. Same thing here. I was -- of course I don't think its OK to call Jews apes and Christians pigs. But to, to simply ask what's so hateful about that is my way of calling even more attention to how absurd it is.
CALLER: Sure.
LIMBAUGH: Just a new technique here to try to get people aroused and get them attentive to something that I do consider to be, you know, something that's pretty bad.
CALLER: Yeah. Oh, well you know, totally understand.
From King's February 11 "Monday Morning QB" column:
7. I think for any of you -- us -- feeling the least bit of pity for Rush Limbaugh after his silly remarks about black quarterbacks and the media, we can all now rest easy. The guy's a race-aholic. He injects race where it has no business being injected. The latest, you've probably heard, but here it is, from Limbaugh's radio show last Monday:
"And before we go to the break here, folks, I've got to get something off my chest. You know, the game was the game. And the game was what it was. But I - I can't handle any more press criticism of Rex Grossman. They're writing his name W-R-E-C-K-S. They're just ... worst quarterback ever to play in the Super Bowl. And it's been like this since the Green Bay game -- actually since the Arizona game, a little crescendo of it in the Green Bay game, the last game of the season for the Bears. And it's just unrelenting! It's just -- they're focusing on this guy like they don't focus on anybody!
"And I tell you, I know what it is. The media, the sports media, has got social concerns that they are first and foremost interested in, and they're dumping on this guy -- Rex Grossman -- for one reason, folks, and that's because he is a white quarterback.''
Rush, we're dumping on him because, in a five-point game in the fourth quarter, with the Bears in possession of the ball and still with a very good chance to win, he threw two ridiculous passes in the biggest game of his life. Two interceptions. Buried his own team. Had it been McNabb or [New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew] Brees or [Jacksonville Jaguars quarterback Byron] Leftwich or [Detroit Lions quarterback Jon] Kitna or [Boston Red Sox pitcher] Daisuke Matsuzaka, we'd have buried them too.
8. I think I'd like to say one more thing to Limbaugh: There's a fairly significant decision coming in this country in 2008. We in New Jersey and New Mexico and New London and New Wherever have one simple request as you mull over the candidacies of a black man, a white woman and many white men in the coming presidential debate: Treat them as candidates, not black candidates or female candidates or white candidates.
yeal, like Ann Coulter's so called " jokes " ?
"I'm the last person to see black or white, or sex. It's liberals that do this."
I don't even know where to start with this one. This perfectly illustrates the point that someone else made here the other day--that the Right has attempted to redefine a racist as anyone who attempts to discuss race. It was also pointed out in the same thread that Stephen Colbert has perfected his satiric riff on "colorblindness," and what's funny to me is that, taken out of context, you wouldn't be able to tell if the quote above was Limbaugh or Colbert.
Thank you Clams. This really bugs me as well.
The idea that there are grownups in this country who think our race problems are all in the past, that they would just go away if we just stopped talking about race, and that they haven't noticed that it's overwhelmingly whites who think this way... well, the phrase "there are none as blind as those who will not see" comes to mind.
Nice racist stereotype.
"Righteously indignant and apocolyptic????" Apoplectic, maybe? What a moronic, racist swine. And yesterday Limbaugh suggested that maybe Obama should just "be white." The fact that this neanderthal is still on the public airwaves is a disgrace.
Sorry for the typo -- "apocalyptic"!
It is ok, at least you type sentences correctly ;-).
Don't worry about it. WE ALL MAKE TYPOS from time to time and some of us more than others. (I’m guilty) In addition, sneaking in a few rushed lines on MMFA trough out a work day can lead to awkwardly constructed sentences, and again I am guilty of that. Thankfully there are few here who want to act like the grammar/spelling police. Although I guess some people take this stuff very seriously. I guess we all have our pet peeves.
Rush: "But, Mr. King, you and I can make a deal here. You stop telling me about all the social problems that exist in the NFL based on race and so forth, and I will keep doing what I do by not noticing those things"
Sounds fair and balanced to me.You quit pointing out that I'm an idiot and I'll continue being an idiot. everybody wins.
I heard this bit on the radio, and I believe at one point Rush said that he even mentioned before the comments that he was doing it to "tweak the media", but that might have been just to his in studio ditto heads.
I'm really looking forward to that Fox news comedy show. I'm assuming it will be a half hour of insults, and the following days show will be devoted to explaining how the previous show was intended to "tweak" the media.
I'm really looking forward to that Fox news comedy show. I'm assuming it will be a half hour of insults, and the following days show will be devoted to explaining how the previous show was intended to "tweak" the media.
If Comedy Central can do a fake news show, I guess Fox News can do a fake comedy show.
I'm serious, Rusty. Stephanie Miller has been playing some promos from this show. I've confessed my fascination with Republican "humor" here before, from Mallard Fillmore to Savage Weiner.This Fox show sounds like a astounding display of humor deficiency.
Oh, I'm with you HBL. I saw it referenced on Crooks & Liars this morning. It could be wildly successful; the people who think Rush and Coulter are "comedians" will clearly laugh at anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F49e64yq8lI&eurl=
this should fire up the board
Thanks Leather.It's everything I expected and more.That laugh track is about as convincing as a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and The Oxymoron making jokes about Howard Dean needing medication is surreal.
Even if nothing on this show is ever funny deliberately, there should be plenty laughs. Like Rush's Bram Stoker's Dracula hairdo parody.
The new Fox comedy news program is on Crooks and Liars.
"liberal so-called watchdog media -- media watchdog websites."
i happened to be driving with the radio on at the time and actually heard these Limbaugh comments. And when Limbaugh said: "as I'm perusing the Internet during some downtime out at the AT&T National Pro Am" and then began his complaints, it struck me... RUSH IS NOW ACTUALLY READING MEDIA MATTERS!... not just getting reports.
I got a big laugh out of that. Maybe Rush is getting a little "sensitive" about what we're saying here. But then sensitivity is such a sissy liberal concept. ;>)
He's probably most sensitive about how he's not being mentioned as much of late. Afraid of becoming irrelevant.
Limbaugh needs to be tweaked
Right out the door, this is one of the most insensitive indivduals in America today. I was trying to see anyone with his level of hate toward others and I could not find anyone even close , maybe Ann Coulter. Why is it that he has to bring race into every discussion.
Hey Rush, this is 2007 not 1963 in the South.
I don't understand what I'm supposed to be getting here.
I listen to Rush all the time. Everyone knew he was joking when he said it.
The Brit from the BBC who called, who actually told Rush that he loved his show, didn't get the joke.
Why are we reporting this??
Media Matters is incapable of understanding Rush's sarcasm.
I guess his IQ is too high for them. I posted and told them that Rush was joking and he just taunts them. MMFA response is that Rush didn't tell everyone it was a joke until a day later -- as if would be fun for Rush to explain the joke to his callers ahead of time. The best calls are when braindeads like MMFA call him and he just strings them along.
Wow, the sophistication of ignorant bigotted racists like Rush and leatherdude are beyond my comprehension. Yeah, like I cant recognize and excuse to make a racist foray into ignorance when I see one. The whole joke thing is an excuse not a reason. What was the joke again? Why was it funny? Thats right it wasnt funny it was abject stupidity. And now I am listening to two posters with the sophistication level of Elmer Fudd telling me how we arent smart enough to GET, the knock knock joke level inanity? You guys really need to rent a clue. Its bad enough that you are jokes, its sad you dont get how much you embarrass yourselves. Keep telling the Sambo jokes then tell us how WE arent smart enough to get them, yeah.
SOLON
Excellent post! Well said!
"When we hate our enemies, we are giving them power over us: power over our sleep, our appetites, our blood pressure, our health, and our happiness. Our enemies would dance with joy if only they knew how they were worrying us, lacerating us, and getting even with us! Our hate is not hurting them at all, but our hate is turning our own days and nights into a hellish turmoil" Dale Carnegie
"Neanderthal, Moronic, Racist Swine, Bigotted Racist, Lardball, Bobblehead, Whore, Whack Job, Idiot, Notorious Liar, Dumb, Whiner, Weasel" Media Matters ( just a small sampling of the love filled grown-up name calling on Media Matters posted comments)
Oh, and keep up the lovefest Solon, I'm sure the leatherhead guy is lovin it. (don't forget to tell me how Dale is wrong)
Dale isnt wrong. YOU however are assuming facts not in evidence. Do you really think I have any emotional investment here? I amuse myself. I read two not very bright posters disparaging our IQs and craft my own response reflective of what they are saying about us. Why would I hate either of them? I dont think anything about them at all. I just respond to the posts. You may THINK you are some kind of amature psychologist but if you ask me you suck at it.
No.
People who hear his show understand his sarcasm. Period.
They don't just listen to his clips on MMFA like you.
No people who listen to his show AGREE with him which is why they call themselves dittoheads. I used to watch his TV show, thinking I ought to know what the other side is saying, until I could no longer stand the nausea inducing racism, stupidity, and ignorance. Those who watch his show DEFEND him no matter how racist or stupid his comments are PERIOD. Thats not the same thing
I watched his show once. I thought it was an infomercial for his book, they were all over the set. Then I realized it was just some fat guy stroking his ego in front of an audience, and they were just there to bask in his celebrity. It was pathetic.
While you're on the topic of his TV show, just looking at the audience -- 99% overweight white males -- made me gag. That's the REAL America according to Linbaugh/Coulter. God help us if someone with a dittohead mentality became President...oh, wait.
what is the "sarcasm" here? and if this is sarcasm, then what is so different about this statement as compared to the one he made about donovan mcnabb? remember that one? he said mcnabb was a social engineering project, playing because the media wants a black quarterback. and he said that while supposedly offering his expertise as a football commentator.
Yeah, black jokes are hilarious. I don't see the problem either...unless maybe Rush has some history of making racially charged comments against minorities? Hard to imagine...
So what is the joke?
When Lardball says that the media and/or NFL wants black quarterbacks to succeed and white quarterbacks to fail, WHAT IS THE JOKE?
What is the element of irony that makes this so freakin' funny in the eyes of a purveyor of humor?
Where is the witticism?
Where is the anecdote?
Where is the humorous nuance?
Why Rush's Point is Moot
The point is moot, because people (outside of dittoeheads) rejected the racial argument about McNabb on its face the same as they reject the racial argument about Grossman on its face. Rush is the only one who appears to keep insanely arguing that race has anything to do with how quarterbacks are treated by the media.
It is pretty funny how Rush thinks he can redeem himself by using the same faulty premise that got him in trouble in the first place.
Rush is only arguing with himself here. His argument is not an argument from someone whose "IQ is too high", but rather a person who is just plain "too high".
Anyone whose "IQ is too high" for us stupid liberals should know when to "put down the shovel". Don't you think?
Oh, you're just criticizing a junkie, racist, viagra popping 3 time divorced fat guy because you're trying to keep the white man down!
So much lunacy comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth every day how is one supposed to tell when it's joking lunacy or serious lunacy? If you order a Rush Limbaugh coffee mug or a Club Gitmo T-shirt from Rush do you get a free decoder ring with it that lights up when he's joking?
Dear Leatherhelmet,
This isn't about Limbaugh's IQ. And here's why:
You're a moron.
Now, don't get upset with that: I might be joking. I'll let you know in 24 hours if I was just trying to tweak you. Or maybe 48 hours. Actually, why should I tell you at all? If you're smart enough, you'll be able to tell if I was being honest or sarcastic.
Either way, it would be horribly hypocritical of you or anyone else to flag this comment as a personal attack and defend Limbaugh. If jokes are harmless, and if the whole point of a joke is to deliver in such a way that outsiders can't tell it's a joke, then how can you criticize me for attacking you? After all, maybe I'm not attacking you, but you're just not fast enough to pick up on my hilarious sense of humor.
For the record, I don't think you're a moron. I totally respect your arguments. Maybe.
Leatherhelmet: "I posted and told them that Rush was joking...".
No, you didn't. You said Rush was being sarcastic. Go look it up.
My goodness, is it any wonder you have such a tenuous grip on reality when you can't even quote yourself correctly?
LeatherHelmet, Rush said that he said it was just a joke after he told it, or at least near the end of his program, when that wasn't true.
"I don't understand what I'm supposed to be getting here."
"I listen to Rush all the time."
coincidence?
"And if I take cough medicine here, I'm going to be loopy and I can't do that, so it's -- it's just -- I apologize."
He can't get his Oxycontin anymore so now he's doing Robitussin.
"I'm the last person to see black or white, or sex."
Then why does he talk about those things so much? Such as his comments, as reported in the news today, that Barak Obama "should renounce his race" and "become white"?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get Limbaugh's alleged jokes... and I thought I was a pretty funny guy. Maybe Rush and I are both delusional about our humor... except my attempts at humor don't offend millions of people. ;>)
At least he never mentions what sex those feminazis are.
Comedian Rush Limbaugh strikes again!
Hey, Rush, if you have to explain that you were joking, it was probably either:
Time to hang up the radio mic and become a prop comic but only after you rip down those abs like Carrot Top.
Exactly. There is no joke.
Anytime a righty bobblehead gets called out on something they say that's stupid, insensitive, racist, etc., it conveniently morphs into a knee-slapping zinger and all the lefties get demonized for lacking a sense of humor.
I would disagree slightly. I don't think the important point is whether or not Limbaugh was joking: the key here is that Limbaugh's show IS a joke. And a bad one. Which is fine, except that he demands to be taken seriously.
He's upset with other media for not responding to his "joke" fast enough, and then criticizes them when they do. His whole show is structured this way: provocation, recontextualization, protest, provocation, recontextualization, protest, repeat. It's a perpetual publicity stunt, and it's pathetic -- in the literal sense of evoking pathos. In order to keep up the stunt, he has to constantly reposition himself and his audience as outsiders who have been abandoned and misrepresented by "the elites" and liberals and the "mainstream media". His entire act is dependent upon his perpetual self-marginalization, so that he can claim to speak for the empowered majority as if they are an oppressed minority.
I know I'm responding to this like three years later, but I have to say, vytosky, that this is the most succinct and insightful analysis I have ever heard regarding what pigman and his ilk are all about. I particularly like how you describe the ongoing process of "victimization" that is afforded to the audience, which is mainly comprised of disaffected white males who feel they have been economically and socially marginalized, and who seek to blame every element of society but themselves to explain their "plight." I would also add that we must constantly be aware that the goal of this Orwellian propaganda process has always been to keep the power structure intact so that white Republican men are always on top.
Whenever Limbaugh says "out of context", what that really means is "exactly what was said."
"usually making them victims "
This is a classic deflection by these liars. This has been a common thread here of late...
What in the blue blazes is Rush blathering on about....?? And what was his reference to Gloria in reference to....?? He is a nut case...and so are his 'callers' that agree with his ramblings....
As a sportswriter and editor for a small weekly I attacked Limbaugh's assertion at a different level: Rex Grossman really is the worse quarterback to start in the Super Bowl (on paper) in the last 11 seasons.
Grossman had a quarterback rating of 73.9 (in 16 games), only Trent Dilfer (Baltimore, 2000 season) came close with a 76.6 QB rating (in only 11 games) and Steve McNair (1999, Tennessee) had a QB rating of 78.
I would hate the facts to interfere with Rush's assumptions.
Monkeyboy: I do think that Grossman deserves criticism, too, but it has gone way too far. Some people are saying that he is the worst QB to ever play in a Superbowl, and that it was the worst performance in Super Bowl history. Those comments are way over the top.Grossman was 20 of 28 for 166 yds, with a TD and two bonehead interceptions. There have been many worse performances. In SB XXVII, Reich and Kelly combined for 4 INTs and zero TDs. In XXVI Kelly was 28 of 58 with a fumble and four INTs. In XXIV Elway was 10 of 26 for 108 yds, zero TDs and 2 INTs. In XXIII Essiason was 11 for 25, 144 yds, zero TDs and an INT. In SuperBowl XX (one of my favorites as a Bears fan) Eason was o for 6 with a fumble before he was pulled. I could go on and on. Grossman got to the SuperBowl in his first year as a full-time starter. He played poorly, but nowhere, nowhere near the worst of all time.
And in a terrible rainstorm. Watch Mannings first 4 passes of the game. 3 could have been picked.
Maybe Grossman should be applauded for coming back from injuries and leading his team to the super bowl. Let's face it, the Bears offense is not a powerhouse yet they had a great season.
Anyone who took Mr. Limbaugh's statement seriously is just looking for something to whine about. This was obviously a gag. How does Joe Biden say that Obama is the first "clean" african american candidate and not cause such an outcry? His comments were not absurd the way Rush's were. I am in no way a Rush fan...his apologetic support for the worst president in recent history (Bush) is ridiculous. However, to assume that he actually thought that Grossman was being ridiculed for being white proves he was correct in saying that sites like this would take him out of context.
How does Joe Biden say that Obama is the first "clean" african american candidate and not cause such an outcry?
Yeah, it's truly amazing Biden wasn't chastised in the media.
Yes, chastised but quickly forgiven. He has not been saddled with the "racist" title as he would have been if he was a con
Gee did Biden appologize? Did Rush? You have no point. There was NO JOKE, nothing was funny. It was an excuse for more racism and stupidity by Rush.
I never said it was funny, I don't even like Rush. My point is it is usch an absurd comment it's obvious he was tryong to make it a gag
Really? Was it absurd when he tried to make the same point about Donovan McNabb? So then that was a joke too? Actually Rush says absurd things all the time, if they support his ideology, he just spews them out. He has said things as absurd as Tufts university did a study on IQ an its relation to bra size and the bigger the bra the smaller the IQ, he said there is no such thing as in implied contract, that there are more Native Americans alive today than when Columbus arrived here. Basically he spews absurd assertions all the time, what is it a comedy show and he just isnt funny? There was no point, there was no joke. He was making an excuse to spew one of his favorite racist talking points. Its ludicrous but he just cant help himself. When he gets outed he retreats behind the it was just a joke even though one that no one would ever laugh at routine. You say you dont like Rush, good for you, why be a Rush enabler then. Just join us calling him on his racism and move on
Ha. Ha. You mean the claim that Limbaugh lied about the bra/IQ study came from FAIR which lied about violence against women on Super Bowl Sundays.
You do nothing but read far left propoganda.
and by the way, Limbaugh wasn't making a joke about McNabb. His point was sportwriters such as Mike Wilbon were rooting for McNabb because he is black and a quarterback the same way white people rooted for Larry Bird. It was a social commentary, not a joke.
So to mock the heat he took for it, he mocked that Grossman was being criticized because he was white. I'm sorry if you can't discuss race like an adult and that anyone who mentions race is a racist to you. It must be a pathetic existance to view the world in such a negative light.
9 and a half hours too late, my good friend....Rush was not offering 'social commentary'- he was saying racist, bigoted statements...period.
"the same way white people rooted for Larry Bird." --lh
You rooted for Larry Bird because he was white? What a racist thing to do! Bird was enormously talented. It doesn't matter what his skin color was. Don't pull an Isiah Thomas on me and try to belittle his talent because he was white.
Actually, Isiah's comments (for which he was blasted in the press at the time) about Larry Bird closely mirror Rush's comments about Donovan McNabb. Isiah once infamously proclaimed that were Larry Bird black, "he'd be just another good guy."
No your just damn wrong here.
I dont know or CARE about your assertion concerning FAIR. Are you claiming Limbaugh DIDNT make this and a few hundred OTHER ludicrous claims? If you are then you are delusional. He DID say this. If you arent then as usual you HAVE NO POINT. Whatever my sources are when I have been as spectacularly wrong as you are most of the time get back to me.
Rush insults big-breasted women? Is he gay? Does he hate women?
Ah, and how can one tell whether or not it's totally absurd? To illustrate my point:
You're a moron.
Now before you complain, remember that I might be joking. I might not be, though. So don't flag this comment: I mean, how can you possibly defend Limbaugh, who you don't even like, for making a joke which he intentionally tried to pass off as a serious statement so as to "tweak" other media, and not defend me for doing the same thing, you moron?
Just kidding. Maybe.
He has not been saddled with the "racist" title as he would have been if he was a con
So far Biden's only made a couple of racist comments. He's got a ways to go to catch up to Rush and truly earn the "racist" title.
"Okay, so it caused an outcry, but here, let me try another lie..."
Do you hear anyone talking about Biden's candidacy seriously? He's a punchline at this point: Shortest campaign in history.
Grow a clue.
"... the worst president in recent history (Bush)"- savagerocks
From a Savage Weiner fan, I'm going to assume, like Weiner, your low opinion of Bush is that he's TOO thoughtful and diplomatic.Just to put your judgement in perspective.
Yes, Bush is not conservative enough. He keeps the borders open and allows border agents to go to jail for doing their job while tying our soldiers hands and not allowing them to fight the way they could, and he is spending us into a deeper debt
Wow, where can I get a drug that would make me so delusional
Right here, Solon.
Oh, thanx but its too mind altering for me.
you don't need it.
Looks like LeatherHelmet is the one who is Bogarting all of the good stuff.
That was actually a pretty good shot leatherguy. I could follow with a good riposte of my own. My mind reels with sarcastic replies but I have to say that was a good one.
He keeps the borders open because his corporate donors want the cheap labor.
I know that, he's elling our country to the highest bidder
Wow!
Thanks Savage, you may have just encapsulated the entire jist of conservatism in one sentence more succinctly than I've ever heard.
Conservatism: Selling our country to the highest bidder. May I use that?
Wrong. Conservatism is about limited government and personal responsibility. We've gotten away from that a little in recent years, but that is the core of conservatism.
Personal responsiblity like, say, apologizing for racist comments? Rush must not be a conservative.
Why would Limbaugh want to apologize for a joke? Who apologizes for making jokes? Who apologizes for sarcasm?
Michael Richards did just that. John Kerry apologized to offended troops for a "botched joke". Rosie O'Donnel apologized for offending Asians with her bad joke. People do it all the time. I don't know why conservatives seemingly have such a hard time with the entire concept.
Because they won't take any personal responsibility...as they build the biggest government we've ever had.
"Why would Limbaugh want to apologize for a joke?"
Of course, no one ever said that Limbaugh would want to apologize; kindly sweep up that batch of straw.
The more important point is that when the original thread appeared on this issue, you wrote in, but had the good sense not to defend Limbaugh's tirade as a joke. In fact, I just re-read the lot and no one saw his comments as a joke, Savagerocks' "it was obviously a gag" comment notwithstanding.
I really have to wonder what goes through the minds of dittoheads. Rush says something outlandish, and they lap it up as pearls of wisdom. Then, when Rush "apologizes" for it by claiming it was a joke, the dittoheads are right there to say "Yup, it's obvious it was a joke all along" when even they didn't think so.
"The more important point is that when the original thread appeared on this issue, you wrote in, but had the good sense not to defend Limbaugh's tirade as a joke"
That's true. But I didn't actually listen to the show. I just read the transcript from Media Matters. I didn't realize that he was being sarcastic. That puts it in context a little bit. But you're right that I did disagree with his original comment. Grossman simply played terribly during the Super Bowl. His race had nothing to do with the criticism he received. But the fact that Rush said he was being sarcastic does put some context around it. I'll admit that when I read the transcript at first it seemed like a very dumb thing to say.
Why would anyone appologize for telling a joke that was racist and ignornant? Maybe because they had a sense of decency? Of course that would be relevant in the case of Limbaugh
Just like Savage said, selling our country to the highest bidder.
Limited government = privatization = selling our country to the highest bidder!
As a lefty, this is what I am about: Effective government and mutual responsibility.
"Limited government = privatization = selling our country to the highest bidder!"
Wrong. Limited government=Letting the hardest working and most creative workers reap the benefits of their hard work.
Actually that is called capitalism.
Limited government is a hinderance to capaitalism as it removes the social safety net, thereby producing a disincentive for working class people to take risks in the market.
I don't know of too many conservatives who want to get completely rid of the social safety net. Maybe a few libertarians, but that's about it. Bush definetely doesn't. Bush has spent more on entitlement programs than even Clinton did when he was President.
Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush. I've heard it said and I agree that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President this country has ever had.
Now as for entitlement spending, by the way I love the ring of the word of entitlement. Just as parties who agree to a contract are entitled to the mutual benefits of that contract we too are entitled to the mutual benefits of our contract between us and our government.
Anyway, what Bush entitlement spending are you referring to?
Well, for one thing, Bush started an entire new entitlement program. That would be the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. That bill greatly grew the size of government and increased entitlement spending. But I wouldn't say that Clinton was more conservative than Bush. That's kind of ridiculous. He may have spent less money than Bush, but on everything from taxes to national security to social issues to judges, Bush is much more conservative than Clinton was. Clinton was a liberal Democrat. It's just that gridlock in Congress kept his spending in check.
You forgot Bush's imperialistic adventures in the Middle East. That's turned out to be a tidy entitlement program for the private defense sector.
The medicare prescription drug bill is a very conservative piece of work as it is an intentionally dysfunctional program. It's another one of those poorly implemented plans that Republicans can point to as (faulty) proof that government is bad, mmkay.
Clinton was no liberal. NAFTA, DOMA, Welfare to Work, Pay-Go and unions continued to suffer under Clinton. He was a fiscal conservative a conservative Democrat. He did some good lefty things too. FEMA comes to mind. He did plenty of things to satisfy the left sure, but I'm not going to defend him any further. He's not my favorite Democrat.
Then we have Bush and he is...well, he's just a psycho cowboy surrounded by bootlickers.
You won't find a Conservative who supported the medicare prescription drug bill. Because, this would mean they are not a Conservative.
True. Conservatives would just let the useless old losers die.
That's why the hardest workers get paid starvation wages and the creative are insulted for being "artsy liberals", while those who cheat and bribe their way to the top get the mansions and servants and live in permanent luxury.
Conservatism is what it's always been...a desire for government power over people's social lives. It's the same conservatism that led to the Thirty Years War, that led to the autocracies of Russia and Prussia, the same conservatism that created the Taliban.
Limited how? Responsible how? The right has given us an endless stream of Patriot Acts, McCarthyism, etc. along with Watergate, Iran Contra, cooked intelligence, Plamegate etc.
The Patriot Act is necessary to keep you alive. It doesn't have anything to do with big or small government. Our society will cease to exist if we can't protect ourselves against attacks. That's just common sense.
"The Patriot Act is necessary to keep you alive. It doesn't have anything to do with big or small government. Our society will cease to exist if we can't protect ourselves against attacks. That's just common sense." --rinohunter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Strange. Common sense tells me we have stood as a nation just fine for over 200 years without the Patriot Act. You are simply speculating hyperbolically that "is necessary to keep you alive" and apparently taking that as the absolute truth. Typical wingnutery.
More neocon tough talk that all translates to " I'm terrified of everything".
"Common sense tells me we have stood as a nation just fine for over 200 years without the Patriot Act"
We also haven't faced the kind of threats that we face today. We're in the middle of WWIII, whether you want to admit it or not. There are people out there who will do anything to kill us. And it doesn't have anything to do with being scared. It has to do with being smart and staying alive. Your civil liberties won't do you any good if you're dead. The Patriot Act also hasn't affected me at all. It hasn't affected my life in any way. It hasn't affected over 99% of Americans as well. The only people it affects are terrorists and possibly a few high profile drug dealers. I don't think that either deserve any civil liberties.
Rino, that post is not only more dangerous to evrything that America stands for than any of the "evildoers" you're frightened of, it is embarrassing to all real Americans.
I hope you're an 8 year old girl. If not, you should be very ashamed of yourself.
Haven't faced the kind of threats we face today?
We had a foreign army on our soil and Tory loyalists in our midst. Our nation's capitol in Philadelphia was overtaken and conflagrated yet civil liberties were not curtailed. Civil liberties were exactly what we were fighting to preserve. Now 220 years later so many of these coddled candy-a** neocons lust to be dominated by their protectors.
Had the neocons of today been alive during the Revolution we all would be loyal subjects of the crown.
Grow a set, boy. Accept the awesome responsibility of being free.
We also need habeus corpus suspended.
I don't know why it is so hard for you lefties to accept the Patriot Act which has bothered virtually no human being yet kept people safe.
The IRS is more trouble than the Patriot Act.
I meant needED as in Lincoln's time. I wouldn't want Solon to have a heart attack when he read that.
The Patriot Act...has bothered virtually no human being...
You don't know this.
...yet kept people safe.
You don't know this either.
The Patriot Act does nothing for the average American.
It does wonders for the bedwetters among us though.
Oh King you mean you don't thank God for the Patriot Act before climbing into bed at night? I am sure there are some kids of conservatives somehwere saying ...and God bless Mommy and Daddy and the Patriot Act.
Yes Lynn, I do thank God for the Patriot Act every night, but I thought we were supposed to hide under our beds, not sleep on top.
They're all out to get us! Quick! Let's destroy the Bill of Rights to protect ourselves!!!
Amazing what stupid stuff terrified people will do.
Fight the way they could? Like the Cavalry fought at Sand Creek or the Marines fought at My Lai?
HEY, SAVAGECOCK!! We all THOUGHT it because we all HEARD and READ it....he retracted it A DAY LATER AS A JOKE!!! THE NEXT DAY!! It's like me saying 'Savagerocks molests little boys...but only on days ending in 'Y'...' and, then, the NEXT DAY saying 'I was just seeing if people were watching...'...
Wow, such anger...my point is simply that the statement is to absurd to be taken seriously. The fact it was postedproves rush's point. No reasosn to get so mad buddy
Rush is taken seriously by many despite his constant stream of absurdity. Rush needs to warn us when he is being especially absurd, I suppose.
Worse President in recent history? If you're a conservative, then how can you say that a conservative Republican like Bush is a worse President than a liberal Democrat like Bill Clinton?
That's the point: Biden WAS criticized, by conservative and liberal media alike, and Biden apologized for his remarks.
In 2003, Rush made a completely dumb statement about the media wanting McNabb to do well because he was a black quarterback, even though McNabb was a Pro-bowl player on merit. He was wrong and got ripped for it and resigned. Now, Rush turns the tables and says the media is savaging Grossman because he's a white quarterback even though he plyed poorly, the opposite take. He knows this is wrong, it's not difficult to figure out he was tweaking the media on this.
Exactly, and the fact that this site took him out of context only proved his point
First of all, he wasn't taken out of context. If you believe he was, then make your case.
Secondly, why does Rush insist on reminding us what an idiot he was in 2003?
Simply put the statement was so absurd that anyone who thinks he really believes it would have to be totally irrational.
Did he really believe it when he said it about Donovan in '03, or was that a joke too? And you still haven't explained how MMFA took him out of context, as you were claiming they did only one post ago.
OK, it was meant to be a joke. MMFA took it out of context to sound as if he actually meant it. Only someone with a pretty feeble mind would take his comment seriously....or someone LOOKING for something to complain about.
The entire context is reproduced here. What do you want them to do, post the entire 4 hour show? Would that be context enough for you? At this point, I'm not certain you know what "out of context" means.
propaganda parrots get so used to just regurgitating what they hear without thinking about it, that they often dont know what they are saying means. The talking point of the day is that the rightwing screechmonkeys get taken out of context. Rush is being criticised, ergo he must be being taken out of context
"MMFA took it out of context to sound as if he actually meant it." -SavageRocks
Actually, Limbaugh admitted that he intentionally wanted it to sound that way. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been "tweaking" the media.
Every act of reporting involves decontextualizing and recontextualizing things. The complaint that Limbaugh's 'joke' was taken out of context contradicts Limbaugh's entire argument: he complains that other media didn't take him seriously on the day that he make the Grossman remark, and then he accuses media who did report his comments of not understanding his joke. Which is it?
90% of what Rush says is so absurd that no thinking adult would believe it for a minute, yet millions lap it up without question...So what's your point?
I wouldn't say 90%, but a lot of it is.
And that translates into him being taken out of context HOW?
I dont get your point Bruce. As you said Rush was flat out wrong in 03 about Donovan. So why would it be tweaking the media to be wrong again about the exact same thing? Why wouldnt it be making fun of himself as someone who cannot contain his racism? Someone that cant help himself and continue to pimp the exact same stupidity that was factually and intellectually vacuous the first time? What is the logical progression here? Well I was spectacularly wrong the first time, I will be even MORE spectacularly wrong this time and this will somehow show something about the MEDIA? I dont get the logic here
He was tweaking the media by recreating the exact same scenario in reverse and seeing if they would cover it the same. Also, I agree with you that he was ripping himself at the same time by highlighting how blatantly dumb his previous comments were. Rush is capable of self-deprecation at times.
He was tweaking the media by recreating the exact same scenario in reverse and seeing if they would cover it the same.
But how is that "tweaking"? Of course they'll cover it the same.
Because he wasn't serious this time.
Seems like the actions of an attention wh0re. The way you describe it.
OK, I see what you are saying, that makes some sense. Of course with his history of bigotted statements he doesnt deserve the benifit of the doubt but I can accept that rationale as being somewhat logical.
"He was tweaking the media"
So how has Limbaugh's "tweaking" thing worked out so far? Not the way he planned it seems. Seems Limbaugh is a very poor judge of what constitutes a "joke". What the dittoheads deem hilarious, the non-dittohead world doesn't. Limbaugh's failed rationalization to excuse his remark as being "funny" appears to be nothing but a transparently insincere, lame, afterthought attempt at personal damage-control.
No doubt Rush has stuck his foot in his mouth a bunch of times over the years but he survives. The only people who need to "get" the joke are the listeners. If the media rip him for a "botched" joke then he can just claim the "liberal" media is out to get him, which is a talking point on his program anyway. So I don't see where it really hurts him that much. He gets 15 million listeners a week as documented by MMFA so he's still the top dog on radio.
"So I don't see where it really hurts him that much. "
Then why the big explanation and the attack on Media Matters? If it's only the listeners that need to get the "joke" then he wouldn't be going to these great lengths to try and explain his "tweaking" of the media.
As for the many millions who listen to this dishonest, disgraceful, hate-enabling, right-wing panderer and his "jokes" instead of doing something useful, that is cause for great lament in our country, not for bragging.
He sent a few emails and talked about it on his program for awhile. Is that going to "great lengths"? That was the whole point, to tweak the media to get a reaction so he could talk about it. That's the bit. He has 15 hours a week of airtime to fill.
Rush is a bigot, a racist and a sexist; anyone who has listened to him for any length of time will see the pattern. Some, like Leatherhelmnut, won't admit it, or just feel compelled to carry Pigman's water.
The "it's only a joke" crap is a smokescreen, and he throws it out there every time he says something reprehensible, as if that makes it okay. He's probably still stinging from getting booted off his NFL gig; I think he really wanted to do that...childhood fantasy, you know. His mistake was to insert his racist political commentary into a sports show, and he realized too late that he wasn't playing to his usual audience of mindless sycophants.
I expect to see Rush at all the Bear games cheering on his crappy Q.B. Grossman, wow, he knows football and racism real good... LOL
Here is why this is racist and Rush was not kidding. Rush made comments about McNabb being praised too much because he was black, and he was criticized for it. Now, Grossman is criticized, and he says it is only because he is white, which is just the flip-side of his comments about McNabb, and they make just as little sense. His story that he was "tweaking" the media makes no sense at all. The media criticized him for playing on race in referring to McNabb, so now he plays on race in referring to Grossman. What is the joke or "tweak", exactly? It was not the "media" who referred to race in either context--it was Rush. He is saying "blacks get undue praise simply for being black, whites get unfair criticism simply for being white." Where is the "tweak?" The media was consistent and so was Rush. In both cases the media made no mention of race, and in both cases Rush said that the media was actually reporting with a certain bias due to race, and that the media bias favors blacks to the detriment of whites. It is just another example of his playing to the "angry white male" by saying : "See, these minorities really are getting shoved down our white throats by the liberals."
I, too, heard him say this and he was not joking. He was serious. He only said he was joking when he was made the fool by others. this is his usual tactic: Say anything but only say you are joking when you are criticized. His regular listeners do not seem to be discerning enough to recognize this.
The best analysis about why Limbaugh is so successful was written more than a decade ago by one of his friends. http://www.reason.com/news/show/29630.html
"liberals that have put everybody into groups -- usually making them victims"
Exactly. It's the liberals who have divided us into groups through their affirmative action programs and hate crimes legislation and so forth. Have you ever wondered why white men vote so overwhelmingly conservative and Republican? It's because they're tired of being discriminated against by the Democrats. There's only so much of this reverse discrimination that they can take. The Dems try to divide us by race each chance they get. It's simply what they love to do. I can't really explain why, though.
Yeah, the poor white man is SOOO oppressed in the US. That may be the bilge Rush sells but you really have to be simple to take it seriously
That's hilarious. Conservatives wouldn't notice race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. if those damned liberals hadn't broken us all up into groups. Oh man, that is rich.
"It's the liberals who have divided us into groups through their affirmative action programs"
Then it must be the right-wingers who divided us into groups through "whites only" drinking fountains, "whites only" schools, and through restricted housing convenants. To name a few.
"Then it must be the right-wingers who divided us into groups through "whites only" drinking fountains, "whites only" schools, and through restricted housing convenants"
Wrong. The white racists in the South were actually Democrats in those days. Republicans have always stood for equality and justice. And also, two wrongs don't make a right. Discriminating against whites now won't make up for the discrimination that blacks received in previous years. It will simply divide us more.
Wrong. The white racists in the South were actually Democrats in those days. Republicans have always stood for equality and justice. - RINO Hunter
The first part of that statement is correct, but you can't explain how the Dixiecrats who voted against Civil Rights legislation left the Democratic Party in the 60's and were welcomed with open arms to the Republican Party, and the Southern Strategy has been employed by the Republican for the last 40 years. That makes the second part of that statement laughable.
I know ignoring context makes it easier to make a ridiculous argument, but it won't work here.
"The white racists in the South were actually Democrats in those days." -TTD
And they are Republicans today.
Show me, specifically, where white males are discriminated against as we live and breathe in 2007.
What rights does Barack Obama have that you do not?
Almost a good point. It is true. However it was largel DEMOCRATS and certainly liberals who fought the Jim Crow laws and the backlash of that happening caused the south to retreat WHERE? That is right the GOP. Which ADMITTED using the racist southern strategy and appologized for it. The idea Republicans have always stood for equality and justice is pure delusion.
I understand your rhetoric that two wrongs dont make a right, I understand your thinking that if it helps one grout it discriminates against another. However I disagree that Afirmative Action wont address the racial discrimination of the past. First it bites into the insitutional racist privelege that continues through a type of momentum and second it wasnt until the government became involved this way that things started to change. The railroad alwasy hired blacks, as porters, as laborers, but to get into MY department was impossible for them until the 70's why? THAT was when the government became serious about addressing the issue. There is an old saying that no system of justice can be maintained witout some small instances of injustice. This was actually talking about courts but its applicable here. When things are done they have consequences. No one can reasonably deny black people and minorities in general they were still denying hispanics jobs in my dept until the 70's too, got the short end of the stick, this stopped them from making the kinds of contacts that would get THEIR kids the on the same level as the white kids getting jobs or into colleges. If some individual white people had to suffer to get minorities that first step, so THEY could be on a level playing field in the future what is wrong with that? Is the maintenence of privelege so important to you that you are willing to perpetuate soft bigotry and discrimination rather than see any diminuation of it? That IS the argument you are making wheter you see it or not.
I see. Everything's the liberals' fault. No conservatives were -or are- racist. No conservatives had a part in segregation. That was ALL liberals. Liberals are the only ones who try to divide us. Thanks for setting me straight.
No. My point is that racists can be both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. I don't think that you can label one party as racist and the other not. My point before simply was that the Dems have tried to compensate too much for past discrimination. They seem to want to hold down one group of people in order to raise another. I don't think that they are trying to be racist when they do this. They have good intentions, but I believe that they have taken things too far, and the result has been a kind of reverse discrimination against whites.
"No. My point is that racists can be both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. I don't think that you can label one party as racist and the other not." --RinoHunter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While it is true that racists can be both Republican and Democrats, the Republican Party actively recruited southern racists to come to their side. Not that it is any loss for the Democrats. I don't know of any comparably organized Democratic strategy in recent years that is in any way similar to the Republican Southern Strategy.
Open Mind
Unfortunately the RNC will have to live with the stigma of having recruited un-reformed racists to their fold. Johnson was correct when he said passing the civil rights legislation would cost the Democrats the lost of White southern voters. The RNC jumped right in and pandered to their racist sentiments. That solidified Black support for the Democrats. My parents and grandparents were from the south and they were quite familiar with the conservative White racist Democrats that became conservative White racist Republicans. Blacks viewed the Republican Party as befriending their enemy. My parents didn't like Republicans and believed them all to be racist. , and for a while I adopted taht sentiment. That was very unfair and I don’t make such assumptions about Republicans anymore, but you have to admit some of the most racially insensitive remarks come from the right side of the political spectrum albeit the extreme right.
"My point is that racists can be both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals."
I thought you just said that "Republicans have always stood for equality and justice." Are you sure you've got your story straight?
The may have been Democrats, but they were still right wing CONSERVATIVES opposed to a liberal agenda of equality.
Rhino, white men vote Republican so that they can hold on to power.
Have you noticed how many Black Republicans speak their OWN mind and not follow the party talking points? Have you noticed how MANY GAY REPUBLICANS WHO ARE STILL IN THE CLOSET? Yeah Republicans should be proud.
For more years than anyone can count, white men have held all the power and wealth in this country. When minorities ask to share in their power and wealth (remember the Constitution) white men gave affirmation action (stared by a REPUBLICAN, RICHARD NIXON). Now that minorities have started to excel, you want to wine about the poor white man. When we have a woman or a black president, I'll listen when you whine. When we have an equal number of black or woman senators, I'll listen to you whine. When the CEO's of this country are equally black or woman, I'll listen to you whine. But until then, bite me!
PS: I got other bad news for you poor oppressed white men. Minority populations are out pacing white. You will still be whining until you realize that you do not own this country. The true American democracy is a blend of people who SHARE power and wealth.
"When we have an equal number of black or woman senators, I'll listen to you whine"
How is that possible? Blacks only make up about 12% of the population. How could they possibly take up 50 Senate seats? That would be a disproportionate number. You're argument doesn't make any sense.
Her argument makes sense if you understand that she probably meant proportionately equal numbers. Last I checked, the Senate comes nowhere near reflecting the racial or gender makeup of America.
Last time I checked, 12% of the Republican Congress was not black. In fact, there wasn't even one black Republican.
Are there as many women who run for political office as men? Seriously do you know? Because I don't. Women may not be as interested in it. Many choose to stay home and raise their kids. There's nothing wrong with that. It's usually more important for children to have their mothers around often than have their fathers around often. Politics is usually just harder for women to get into, in my opinion.
Nice dodge of the race issue.
..and strait into how women belong in the home.
Yes, now it's more important that the mother be there all the time, but not the father.
It's funny, an old friend who used to post here who used the name "The Truth Detector" used to argue just the opposite, that both a father and a mother were equally important.
Both a mother and a father are important, but given a choice between one or the other I would say that it is more important for the mother to be there. The ideal situation would be for both parents to play a big role in their child's upbringing, but we both know that that isn't always possible. In my opinion it's important for a child to have two parents to raise him or her, but if only one can be there full time, I think that it would be better if it was the mother. Just my opinion.
I NEVER said that their needed to be 50 black or woman senators, I said EQUAL. Do you think that the few we have now is equal?
The reason that the former southern democrat's became republicans was because republicans wanted to keep "states rights". The same "states rights" that allowed them to own another human being. But again, I forget, black people were not considered HUMAN.
It's not reverse discrimination because changing policies to allow minorities will be what the US Constitution requires, Equal Representation.
Hey pearlene,
Anyone can run for office. Is it that not enough African-Americans are choosing to to seek political office? Or that they are simply not winning elections?
There is no way to guarantee EQUAL representation unless you're suggesting we simply assign seats without elections.
How exactly would you suggest making representation more equal?
Jeter, when running for office you need MONEY. When the wealth of this country is disproportionately one sided where do you find equal representation? When you have many who still harbor myths about a race and sexuality of people they don't even know (Beck and Bill don't have black friends)
You can continue to go around in circles until you come back to the main point. When you start off at an disadvantage it takes YEARS to come to an equal point. In order for this democracy to work WE ALL HAVE TO HAVE A STAKE IN IT!
Ah yes MONEY.
You're absolutely correct Pearlene and I feel a tad stupid for forgetting that $$ is in fact the true equalizer. If one can't finance a campaign one can't run for office, let alone win elections.
I don't know how we get that back under control so that everyone qualified for office gets an equal piece of the pie to run a campaign.
As it is now only the wealthy can run for office.
Publicly financed elections would be good start. Free airtime for candidates, maybe.
Just suggestions.
"When the wealth of this country is disproportionately one sided where do you find equal representation"
Oh I see. So we should just redistribute income until everybody has the exact same amount of money. I'm sure that would work well. Also, a candidate's own money is usually only a small part of their campaign money. They get DONATIONS from other people to help finance their campaign. Anyone can run for public office. It's just that those most interested are usually white males.
Rino, even if my response is a day late I HAD to reply to your statement. If you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone you must approach it with at least trying to comprehend the other person's point of view.
I DID NOT SAY TO RE-DISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH. Your question was why more black people are not running for public office and I gave you one of many causes.
Again, white republican men run for office for the power and status it gives. They believe in a smaller government for those who need and a large government for themselves (can you say homeland security) They don't believe that there is a need for public services unless it's to their advantage (teaching abstinence only as opposed to abstinence and condoms) The only thing that the Republican platform has said in the last 12 years is lowers taxes, less government, no same sex marriage, no abortion (some even are willing the let the mother die). You do remember Foley.
If you are proud of your party, we live in a democracy and it's your right but people who live in a glass house can't afford to throw stones. I am equally proud to be an independent, who votes almost always for democratic party (have not found a decent republican since the Watergate) however I will acknowledge when they screw up.
"Anyone can run for public office. It's just that those most interested are usually white males." - Rino Hunter
Fascinating. Why do you think white males would happen to be more interested?
You don't think this might have something to do with the fact that white males just happen to be the group whose political rights and property rights have been protected for the longest time, while women and blacks were denied the right to vote and worse not so long ago?
It's not just that white males are more "interested" in the sense that they have a purely subjective inclination towards politics: it's that white males have had more material wealth at stake in politics, and have had the longest history of rights to fully engage in the political system. To say that white males just happen to be more interested in running for political office is to confuse the cause for the effect.
"Have you noticed how many Black Republicans speak their OWN mind and not follow the party talking points"
Well. Michael Steele is a very prominent black Republican, and he also ran a very independent race. He wouldn't even point out that he was a Republican in his advertisements. He definetely speaks his own mind.
He did that because being a Republican in the lest election was poison. He also badmouthed the Republican Party "off the record" to a group of reporters, and then got found out. That's not strong, that's cowardly.
Rhino,
That was a little political trickery on Michael Steele's part. Michael knows that MD is a solidly Democratic state and he was trying to distance himself from the Republicans because fair or not Republicans don't have an easy time here unless they are very moderate. In other words RHINO you would hate it here it's a very progressive state.
"Have you ever wondered why white men vote so overwhelmingly conservative and Republican? It's because they're tired of being discriminated against by the Democrats."
Poor, poor, oppressed white men. This has been conservatives' sales pitch since the 80s: that the demographic group with the greatest political power, wealth, access to education and health care, is in fact, a class of victims. This from the party of personal responsibility. It's a con, and you've fallen for it. As a great man said in very different circumstances, "You've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, run amok. You've been bamboozled."
If you're claiming that white men have suffered because they've been "discriminated against by the Democrats," then I say: "Prove it."
I'm sure you've got tons of anecdotes to illustrate how hard white men have it in this country, but back it up: if you really believe that white men have suffered damages because of the actions of Democrats, then give me statistical evidence of the harmful social effects of that discrimination.
Sorry Rhino, Steele was not speaking his own mind. Do you remember when he tried to speak his own mind to a group of reporters? He called a lunch meeting and complained about the war and how the republican officials were not helping him in his race. When they went on the air with what he said he shut up quickly. He never claimed his Republican party status because he new he could not get elected in Maryland. If he was proud of his party he would have put them in his political ads.
Rush is just doing us all a favor. You see, el-rush-bo, as I've written many time before is just misunderstood, often taken out of context and is just one of those evil conservatives that liberals like to misquote. (although one could argue Rush, that you have a pattern of racists comments...but those arguments are coming from liberals)
Did I miss anything or does that just about cover it.
No I missed something. Rush, you're still a comedian and still a bigot.
The joke is only funny to racists, that's why "we" don't get it. "We" being, intellectually curoius people. When I brought up this "joke" at the water cooler today, only the white guy from the sticks in Texas laughed, he was raised in such a racist frame of reference he assumes all his fellow whites are racist too. This is a high tech shop where to be successful you have to be so curious that it drives normal people crazy. Besides, how can us non Rush listeners know when his comments are supposed to be jokes and when to take him seriously? By the standard of his supporters here, that his comment is so absurd it has to be humour, then pretty much everything he says must be humour by that standard.
It shouldn't surprise us that Rush is a tweaker.
I personally like this line:
What's the difference between a crackhead and a tweaker?The crackhead will steal your sh*t and bounce--the tweaker will steal your sh*t and then help you look for it.
Rush will steal your sh*t and hotfoot it down to the Denny's parking lot to trade it to his maid for some Oxy.
Rhino Hunter,
This is way off topic so feel free to flag, but when I say this I couldn't help but thuibk of you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150019/
Correction This is way off topic so feel free to flag, but when I saw this I couldn't help but think of you. You're have ridded the Republican Party of all its moderates.
I listen to Rush for the humor - not the cowardly "I was joking" after-the-fact ass covering, but the frothing, nonsensical, illogical rants that come from his two-sizes-too-small heart. Now, I was listen the day he said this, and perhaps because I'm not a true-believer I couldn't tell it was joke, but if that's Rush's idea of irony or sarcasm he sucks at it. It's not as bad as one of his science lessons - "If there's consesus there's no science," or "If man can't fix it then man didn't cause it." Rushbo really needs to untie the other half of his brain once in awhile to let the blood flow back. And for all of you true-believers out there - Rush only jokes when he affects one of his funny voices. If he speaks in his "normal" tone then it's no joke, although he always is.
Maharushie is a typical passive agressive type. He attacks and then says he did not... or says he was only joking....still gets his point across though...f'n coward.
It's the same story with his entire act...he comes across as a political commentator...constantly raving and getting lathered up about political issues...but says he is just playing a character and not a real commentator. He makes my head hurt. Truth is ...he's just a pathetic LIAR!!!! Also a drug abuser...it's like the druggie down the block having a national radio show......You listen to THAT GUY????
PDRUM...ca
So many wingnut troll droppings, so little time . . .
Lots to cover here, but its late and I'm tired, so I'll just summarize here:
- According to Bruce1Ace, its a-ok for Limpballs to say what he said about Gross-Man; after all, he was just "tweaking" the media for their response to his similarly racially charged {and similarly STUPID a$$ed} comments about McNabb . . .
But Brucie, the question remains: Why can't Rush simply REFRAIN from making race-based attacks IN THE FIRST D*MN PLACE, then there'll be no comments for him to have to "tweak" the media in response to . . .
But I forget, that would be taking away his reason for being on the air . . .
- Somehow, this got into a discussion on the Patriot Act, and how it is necessary to keep us alive . . . despite the fact that Crocodile Hunter, Leatherhead, SavageWeinerRocks, and the other resident wingnuts said our civil liberites "weren't important", and the Patriot Act "didn't affect them or 90% of the population."
Hmm . . . the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeus Corpus are "necessary" for our survival, yet don't affect the majority of the people . . .
Only on rightwingnut bizarro world . . .
- As is customary whenever wingnuts discuss race matters, there's the obligatory statement of how Republicans have "always" been for racial equality, and how Democrats and progressives have harmed America by "trying to overcompensate" with such things as Affirmative Action, and that only Dems/progressives "divide us up through race" . . .
Funny . . . even though, when it comes to race, "two wrongs don't make [the racist past] a right," and how "racists can be found in both parties," its amazing how quickly RWers will seize on Affirmative Action to make the Republicans seem LESS WRONG . . .
Again, only on Planet Wingnut - interesting place to visit, but I'm glad I don't live there . . .
- Finally, back to Rush Limpballs: this entire thing was supposedly not just a "joke", but also, as Bruce pointed out, Rush's way of "tweaking" the media over the flap his McNabb comments made four years ago . . . basically, rush having fun at the media's expense . . . {Rush: "Ha ha, watch this - I'm gonna say something stupid about Rex Grossman and bring race into it; watch how quickly MMfA will jump on it . . . he he he . . .where's my pills?"}
Once again, if Rush had talked about anything else other than Donovan McNabb in 2003, he {probably} wouldn't have had a need to make a cover comment about Rex Grossman in 2007 . . .
Which begs the question I once asked, and I think bears repeating:
Why is that free speech, to a rightwinger, be it a member of the punditocracy {Rush Limpballs, Crazy Annie, Savage Weiner, Sheer Insanity, Glenn Speck}, or one of our friendly neighborhood trolls {Leather, Rino, Savagerocks, Ldoren}, ALWAYS means the freedom to make racist or race-baiting statements - not to mention the freedom to simply say "it was a joke" whenever called on such statements . . .
But it almost NEVER means the freedom to criticize those who make such statements - or the freedom to criticize the Iraq War or the pResident who started it??
Huh??
Please don't include Bruce on a list of trolls. He has never been one and it is simply inaccurate.
If you start calling intelligent and honest posters trolls, you are only serving to ignorantly discourage good behavior. Someone isn't a troll simply because you disagree with them.
MJH - In this entire thread, I never defended what Rush said about McNabb. That was wrong. My point was to try to show that in this case his comment about Grossman was not serious.
That doesn't mean you can't be offended by it or hammer him for it anyways, that's part of the deal. Just know on the front end what you are hammering him for.
One more thing: Don't feed the trolls.
A word about Peter King...
Peter King, the sportswriter Limbaugh refers to as an exmple of "liberalism", is a nice man. A few years ago my young son and I were the recipients of two free Super Bowl tickets courtesy of Peter King through a mutual friend. King had two Super Bowl tickets that were going to go unused and he expressly wanted to see that a dad and his son got to be able to enjoy the experience of the Suoer Bowl game together. Considering the insanely outrageous value of Super Bowl tickets I'm sure King could have found a way to make a few bucks on the tickets, but instead, a few days before the game, he quietly passed them on to us. It was indeed a memorable experience that my son and I still cherish today... and we still appreciate Peter King's kindness. If Peter King sometimes comments on social issues in sports (and contrary to what Limbaugh says, not many sportswriters do that) I wouls be inclined to believe that it's because Peter King has a heart... an organ that Rush Limbaugh is surely lacking.
Exactly, Steele knew that he would never win in Maryland by supporting the Republican party line. He even insinuated he was a Democrat on bumper stickers he distributed. At least he admits Black people will not vote Republican ever again in mass numbers unless they have a huge change in their policies.