The Limbaugh crisis

[Zoe]

I didn’t know that any thinking conservatives/Republicans take Rush seriously! Come on. He is for entertainment purposes only.

jayjay, I loved your line about The Scottish Phoney Soldier. Wish I’d thought of it first!

[Little_Nemo]

I’m glad you questioned that. Now that I’m looking at it, I think he is being facetious.

Oh sure, I suspected that would end up being the case. Like when Jesse MacBath said all that stuff about atrocities in Iraq - he was just joshing with his pals. You didn’t take him seriously did you? He’s just an entertainer.

[What_the]

Rush mentioned the Phony Soldier on the air the day before the broadcast that caused the dust up.

At least acoording to this article. Granted it’s not as trustworthy as Media Matters.

[Scylla]

@tomndebb

You can’t know what it seems to have “meant” to do unless you can read the mind of the person who made the edit. An equally reasonable interpretation is that it simply saved time and space and brought clarity.

I didn’t say what it “was meant to do.” I said what it actually does. I expect more than juvenile parrotting of previous posts from you.

[tomndebb]

@Scylla

I didn’t say what it “was meant to do.” I said what it actually does. I expect more than juvenile parrotting of previous posts from you.

Unfortunately, I no longer expect serious topics in this Forum from you.

[Ignatz]

I’m in favor of ANY efforts to get spokesman for God, person who runs the country, El Rushbo, off any radio, tv, and oxycontin, even by Arianna H.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

However, I will say that in my unprovable opinion, many of the people approving of this move as it applies to Limbaugh would be up in arms if the target were a liberal commentator.

Would those be the same people who were up in arms over MoveOn’s similar exercise of First Amendment rights in their Petraeus ad? :dubious:

You do recall some mention of that, I trust. You can even connect the contextual dots.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Scylla

Well no. If you are only reading carefully selected outtakes you’re not really qualified to judge his intent. You don’t get to construe an opinion and attribute it to another party based an this kind of selection.

I linked to the unedited transcript. Limbaugh is the one who tried to tamper with the tape, not MM. I think you need to familiarize yourself with the facts here and actually read my link because you don’t appear to know what you’re talking about.

You seem to be arguing that Rush Limbaugh’s opinion is other than what he states it is.

I’m saying that FACTS are other than what he claimed them to be. He played a cut and paste version of the tape which squashed together the “phony soldiers” comment with the Macbeth comment a couple of minutes and a couple of subject changes later and then he claimed that was the entire, unedited tape. That was a lie. MM did not edit anything. They provided both the audio and the full transcript, including the material that Limbaugh cut out of his revised clip.

This one particular, carefully selected outtake presents the possibility of multiple interpretations. Almost his complete record on the subject is diametrically opposed to one possible interpretation. Rush Limbaugh has himself denied that interpretation.

MM did not edit the transcript, Limbaugh did. Why is that fact having so much diufficulty penetrating your skull?

You however seem to be arguing that if you take this one outtake, assign it a meaning that the man himself denies and ignore everything else the man has said that this then proves he holds this view.

1. It’s not an outtake. It’s the recording and transcript of the actual broadcast (an outtake is something which is left OUT).

2. It is unediited in my MM link. Limbaugh chopped it up to create a false implication of a “context” for his remarks which did not exist in the original broadcast.

3. He is a known pathological liar.

4. His remarks, in their original, untampered context (which you may view and hear by clicking my link), did not make any reference to this Macbeth character (who I’d never even heard of before this incident). That was a subject which came up later in the broadcast. When he aid “phony soldiers,” the converstaion was about soldiers hwo oppose the war.

He simply does not hold this view

Obviously he does, because he said it.

Attributing it to him is dishonest.

What’s dishonest about simply reporting what he said? You know what’s dishonest? Playing back an edited tape and then claiming it was the whole thing. Do you admit that it was dishonest for Limbaugh to do that?

It’s amazing how you can tell me about what he says without even listening.

What makes you think I didn’t listen?

Please read the transcript at my link (there are a couple of different transcripts at MM, one is more complete than the other) and tell me what they left out that would clear things up.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@What the .... ?!?!

Rush mentioned the Phony Soldier on the air the day before the broadcast that caused the dust up.

So what?

[MaxTheVool]

Has Rush, in the midst of backpedalling and clarifying and maybe apologizing, said something clear and unambiguous like “I firmly believe that soldiers who are bravely fighting and risking their lives for our country, but who disagree with the decision to be at war in the first place, or who have political disagreements with the current administration, or, for that matter, with me, and who pubically express those sentiments and disagreements in reasonable and appropriate ways; are still patriotic heroes who are deserving of our respect and appreciation”?
Because he darn well SHOULD have, if he hasn’t.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I doubt it; the gasbag would burst into flames if he ever managed to force those words out.

[Cervaise]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I doubt it; the gasbag would burst into flames if he ever managed to force those words out.

Hey, now, it’s not the gas, it’s the fact that his skin is made of rocket fuel.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@MaxTheVool

Has Rush, in the midst of backpedalling and clarifying and maybe apologizing, said something clear and unambiguous like “I firmly believe that soldiers who are bravely fighting and risking their lives for our country, but who disagree with the decision to be at war in the first place, or who have political disagreements with the current administration, or, for that matter, with me, and who pubically express those sentiments and disagreements in reasonable and appropriate ways; are still patriotic heroes who are deserving of our respect and appreciation”?

Yes he has.

@Rush Limbaugh

Brian, let me – let me try this again. Mr. McGough, I admire you for your service. I admire anyone and everyone who volunteers to serve in the United States military in this country, always have. I’m grateful to you for your service, and that, Brian, is an unqualified thank you, whether or not you support the war, or the surge, President Bush, or not.

That’s from Media Matters for America, who also provide this Q&A. It’s good that Limbaugh backpeddles and that deserves a nod. It would be even better if he didn’t talk out of both sides of his mouth of course, but he has an audience with expansive emotional needs that must be catered to.

[MsRobyn]

@Malodorous

I don’t think there’s a first amendment problem if Congress wants to kick, say, Prairie Home Companion off NPR (though its more complicated in that case, since I think NPR just produces programming for state public radio stations broadcast, so I’m not sure that Congress actually funds those stations, while I assume they directly pay for AFN).

This is a nitpick, and at this point, probably not even germane to the discussion at hand.

Your example of A Prairie Home Companion is a false equivalence. APHC is not produced by National Public Radio. It is produced by Garrison Keillor’s production company in association with American Public Media, a separate entity owned by Minnesota Public Radio. It is true that the show is aired on NPR member stations, but it is not produced or distributed by NPR.

A better example might be something like Thistle and Shamrock or Car Talk, both of which are nonpolitical entertainment programs produced and distributed by NPR.

Robin

[Scylla]

@MsRobyn

This is a nitpick, and at this point, probably not even germane to the discussion at hand.

Your example of A Prairie Home Companion is a false equivalence. APHC is not produced by National Public Radio. It is produced by Garrison Keillor’s production company in association with American Public Media, a separate entity owned by Minnesota Public Radio. It is true that the show is aired on NPR member stations, but it is not produced or distributed by NPR.

A better example might be something like Thistle and Shamrock or Car Talk, both of which are nonpolitical entertainment programs produced and distributed by NPR.

Robin

Thank God we got that cleared up!

[MsRobyn]

@Scylla

Thank God we got that cleared up!

I know, it’s an irrelevant, pedantic nitpick. But it’s near and dear and all that.

Oh, and Limbaugh is a boil on the ass of broadcasting.

Robin

[Mr.Moto]

I always appreciate politics as theater, so it interests me that Rush Limbaugh is auctioning the letter signed by Harry Reid and the other Democratic senators on ebay.

As of now, the bidding is up to more than $130,000, with proceeds to benefit The Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation, which helps the families of fallen Marines and cops. I have not been able to find charity data on this organization, but it seems Rush has been helping them for a while now.

[elucidator]

From the E-bay description cited above:

…having a security operative carry it on stage, with the letter itself safely encased in a Halliburton Attache case handcuffed to the agent’s right wrist. Included in this auction is that same Halliburton briefcase…

Offered without comment.

[RTFirefly]

I read the OP, but I still don’t understand the meaning of the thread title. What on earth could possibly constitute a “Limbaugh crisis”? Is there a chance he might explode, with enough force to take out a good part of whatever city his broadcast studio is in?

No?

Then no crisis.

[Scylla]

That letter kind of proves my point.

Harry Reid and those forty senators are attributing a viewpoint to Rush Limbaugh that he has specifically disavowed and is inconsistent with his track record.

Here now we have a US governing body censuring a private individual based on a knowingly false interpretation of his statements.

Mr. Limbaugh has the right to free speech. Even if what they were accusing him of was an accurate reflection of his views, it is none of the government’s business or concern what his views are or how he chooses to reflect them.

This is nothing more than an attempt at censorship, writing a letter to Rush’s boss to influence his behavior or threaten his positon.

This disrespect to the basic constitutional right of free speech is being perpetrated for the most base and transparent of reasons, take the heat off them for “General Betrayus.”

Scumbags.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation is a charity that Rush has already given millions of dollars to. It provides scholarships for the children of law enforcement and armed service members who die in the line of duty.

Rush has promised to match the winning bid.