This, to my utter shock and surprise, is a very salient point, and I think touches close to the heart of the OWS movement. At the very least he sounds sincere–it’s hard to read this as, say, a sarcastic attempt to highlight hypocrisy in OWS for not calling out liberal elites.
But I put it to the board here: Is Limbaugh (1) being sarcastic, (2) just blinded by such partisan Clinton hate that he forgot that OWS is a bunch of “whining hippies”, or (3) does he truly believe this?
And if (3), do you agree with him, or perhaps see this as an initial attempt to capture some of the OWS fury for his side of the political game?
The OWSers* aren’t mad about people being rich. They are mad about the system changing to favor the rich. The outrage is based on a lot of things, but there are three main thrusts:
(1) Wall Street got bailed out, and is back to making a lot of money, while the middle class got little, and they haven’t been doing so hot lately.
(2) In a time when the income of the top 1% is rising faster than everyone else’s, their marginal tax rates are going down.
(3) Programs that benefit the middle class are being cut. Education funding is down, college loans are on the chopping block, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are as well.
People like Rush want to see the OWSers are spoiled brats whining about people getting rich. But they aren’t. They are people seeing their country changing drastically, and they don’t like it.
*Ok, the actual people occupying wall street are probably liberal douches. But they are merely the vanguard of a broader movement.
He’s pissing in the wind. The Occupiers aren’t complaining that the Networks only hire rich people.
Besides which, Chelsea Clinton’s experience and qualifications are … that she’s a name. That’s what networks do. They hire famous people to be commentators. Fox ‘News’ hired Sarah Palin. Clinton is just as qualified to be a talking head as Palin is. Hell, I would be just as qualified if my last name were Obama, or Biden, or Romney, or Gingrich.
Starting with 3) Limbaugh is an entertainer and nothing more. What he believes has nothing to do with what he says. His job is to deliver an audience to his sponsors. He is very good at thinking of things to say that will get a certain demographic to continue listening to his ads.
As to 1 and 2, my wag is that he was blindly trying to point out liberal hypocrisy, but accidentally found an acorn.
Personally I know nothing about Chelsea Clinton’s qualifications to work at NBC or lack there of (at first I thought it read Chelsea Handler). But a case could be made that she’s part of the 1% by virtue of her heritage, and was given a patronage position as a result. It’s hard to imagine that there isn’t someone just slightly more qualified for the job, even Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian have more media experience.
In the end though, he’s trying to point at a liberal one percenter, and claim that because the OWS aren’t pissed at her they’re hypocrites. He’s wrong.
Nothing on her wiki page mentions a journalism background. She has a BA in History, which isn’t exactly rare. Got a masters in international relations at the University College, Oxford, where her dad went, and is now working on a doctorate in something.
Most of her work experience seems to be fundraising type activities and has a lot of “worked for my parent’s something or other.”
And you think Fox pored over her resume and said, “See … Sportscaster! She’s perfect.” It wouldn’t have matter if she had been a fry cook. She got the job because McCain tapped her for Veep and she became a name.
The only imbalance in my example is that Clinton earned her name a lot earlier in life, and for just having the right genes.
You mean the Clinton Foundation? You may not care, but it is a major player and one of the most influential organizations on the planet.
I imagine most people with a college degree and some small amount of charisma are qualified to report human interest stories on the nightly news. It’s not exactly rocket science.
I wasn’t aware the Chelsea was wealthy. Her parents are wealthy, but she is an audlt who, as far as I know, has had a series of pretty good paying jobs, but I doubt shes a 1%er.
(Jenna Bush and Meghan McCain also work for NBC news)