From Spinsanity.com... I think a reasonable approach to the controversy. _____________________________ Limbaugh gets a pass (11/21) By Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan When Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) suggested Wednesday that Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts incite threats of violence, pundits immediately went into overdrive to downplay the vitriolic attacks Limbaugh has leveled at Daschle for months now. There's no question that much of Daschle's criticism was flawed and unfair, but too few in the media have recognized just how outrageous much of Limbaugh's rhetoric is. During a press conference Wednesday, Daschle said, "What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen. They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, on our families and on us, in a way that's very disconcerting." Mentioning charges of obstructionism leveled against him last year, Daschle suggested that "there was a corresponding, a very significant increase in the number of issues that my family and I had to deal with." Daschle continued by offering an unfair and exaggerated comparison of talk radio and religious fundamentalism: "You know, we see it in foreign countries and we think, 'Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?' Well, it's that same shrill rhetoric, it's that same shrill power that motivates. Somebody says something and then it becomes a little more shrill the next time. And then more shrill the next time. And pretty soon it's a foment that becomes physical in addition to just verbal." While Daschle may feel there is a correlation between criticism by talk radio hosts and the number of threats he receives, there is no evidence suggesting that the hosts are the cause of the threats. Moreover, it is unreasonable to suggest that talking heads are responsible for the actions of a deranged few without specific proof that they have actively incited their actions. Yet Limbaugh, especially, is guilty of extremely vicious rhetoric. Consider just a few examples from his frequent diatribes against Daschle over the last two years. On Nov. 15, he asserted that Daschle's criticism of the conduct of the war on terrorism amounted to "an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism," called him "Hanoi Tom" and suggested that he is " a disgrace to patriotism." On other occasions, Limbaugh has suggested that "In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil" and has drawn an extended analogy between Daschle and Satan. Many pundits downplayed Limbaugh's statements or were simply unaware of them. In his online Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asks, "Has the Senator listened to Rush lately? Sure, he aggressively pokes fun at Democrats and lionizes Republicans, but mainly about policy." Kurtz then cites a few generic quotes from Limbaugh as though they discredit the thesis that Limbaugh uses vitriolic rhetoric, writing, "Golly gee. We've heard worse on "Crossfire." On the Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume," Fred Barnes also denied the obvious: I doubt if he's listened a lot to Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh a pretty conventional conservative, you know. He talks up -- he was a big supporter of Bush One and now he's a supporter of George W. Bush as president and the Bush agenda. He's not an extremist. He's a conventional conservative, as are so many talk radio people... Now what information do they get from Rush Limbaugh? For heaven's sakes, he does such radical things as read editorials from "The Wall Street Journal." Boy, that will really drive people to an emotional frenzy. Perhaps the most egregious spin, however, came from Sean Hannity, the co-host of Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," who didn't even bother to address the substance of Limbaugh's attacks on Daschle, instead blaming him for tactics Hannity says Democrats use to attack Republicans. On Wednesday's show, Hannity said, "You want to talk about shrill rhetoric ... the attacks by Daschle and the likes of him saying Republicans want to poison the air, water, and kill children, that Republicans every year we have the ads, grandma thrown down the stairs. If you elect a Republican, another black church is going to burn, a Democratic party ad ran that in a recent election. They are the ones with the shrill, mean- spirited hateful rhetoric." While Daschle's comments were certainly unfair, it's absurd to deny that Limbaugh is consistently more mean-spirited and nasty than virtually anyone else in the mainstream discourse.
Earth to Democrats- you lost. Whining about talk show hosts won't win you any new votes. Neither will lying to senior citizens about social security disappearing, lying to blacks that civil rights will be rolled back, or lying to taxpayers that tax cuts don't increase tax revenues. The DNC needs new leadership.
WTF??? How is this related to death threats? And if you are gonna say it, prove it. How do dems lie about social security and how do they lie to african americans about civil rights? Just like I thought, you are just spewing mindless rhetoric. I found a Ditto-head. Here's my thought on this whole situation. There's no question in my mind that things that Rush says causes some people to make death threats, but it's not his fault. It's the fault of the idiot listeners who are already screwed up. I don't think many if any of those threats are serious, they are just hard core, militia member, gun toting, conservatives who want to scare Daschle. Instead of calling Rush out, he should have just had the FBI bust these guys and then it could possibly come out that they were crazy mofo's who thought they were carrying out the word of Rush.
Politicians of all stripes get death threats, but no threat can be directly tied to comments made by Limbaugh or any other pundit. The only political death threat I have ever heard was Alec Baldwin's joke about killing Henry Hyde and his "entire family", although I only consider that to be untasteful bombast. How do dems lie about social security and how do they lie to african americans about civil rights? Just like I thought, you are just spewing mindless rhetoric. Go ahead with your insults, but your case is not improved. In the last presidential elections, the DNC ran ads on black radio and television saying that if George Bush is elected, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was in danger of being repealed. This scare tactic was despicable, and of course, a blatent lie. Despite the fact that JFK and Ronald Reagan both cut taxes, and both increase tax revenue, the Democrats continue to lie to the American public by saying that tax cuts are ineffective and only benefit the rich. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, said, "They don't say 'Sp*c' or 'Ni**er' anymore, they just say 'let's cut taxes.'" Republicans want to scrap the Social Security system, because EVERYBODY knows it will go bankrupt. SSS is failing, and we need a better alternative, because the baby boomers will clean out the money. Despite these facts, Democrats fight for the status quo, and use scare tactics on elderly people. These examples are far more inflammatory than anything Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity has ever said. There's no question in my mind that things that Rush says causes some people to make death threats Cite some examples please. (I'll bet you can't) Daschle is basically vilifying conservative talk shows hosts for one simple reason- they are effective in rallying Republicans to action. Daschle and other Democrats can't stand the fact that conservative talk show hosts are so popular, and liberal talk show hosts can't attract an audience or advertisers. If this is the best Daschle can do, he deserves to lose his job.
Where were you when the "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers hit stores two weeks after he won his first term in office? How about when right-wingers spend his entire two terms complaining about political correctness? I'm guessing that wasn't whining, just constructive discourse.
One thing that is being missed here in my opinion. Rush is a talking head. He has never been in office on any level and doesn't represent the Republican party in any official capacity. Daschle was majority leader (well I guess he still is for a couple weeks). As everyone knows he does have a very official, very high profile job for the Democrats. He was elected to office and should watch his rhetoric a little more closely than a radio personality...
Honey, can you go get me the pacifier? Tom's crying again. Honestly, this is what the Democrats have been reduced to. No longer do they play a meaningful role in our legislative process with their obstructionist powers greatly reduced. They are left only with exaggerated whining and placing blame on others. Hey Tom, wake up -- maybe the reason your family life is so difficult is because you have done your best to derail much needed legislation in the Congress over the past 2 years. Quit blaming your problems on Rush Limbaugh. Rush is an entertainer. He says outlandish things to get listeners. Tom Dashchle says outrageous things in futile hopes of people actually listening to him.
I have yet to see any concrete evidence that Reagen's tax cuts helped this country. Didn't we have a recession in the 80's? Didn't the Govt explode in size exponentially? Didn't he plunge us into debt? Didn't he cost Bush 1 a chance at reelection because he had to raise taxes to clean up his mess? Why do recessions and depressions in this country always happen under republican presidents? Why do Democratic presidents always help the country climb out of those messes (FDR and Clinton). See how easy it is for me to say things that make the Dems look good and the Repubs look bad? I can do it too.
Jeff, you are veering off course. Get back to the topic please. Limbaugh is not responsible for death threats to Daschle or any other Democrats, and to suggest this is silly. Likewise, despite the fact that Democrat attacks have been MUCH more vitriolic, Democrats aren't responsible for death threats to Republicans. We must be able to criticize politicians truthfully without regard for wackos on either side. Limbaugh attacks in a truthful, effective fashion. That is his sin in the eyes of Democrats. Oski says I have yet to see any concrete evidence that Reagen's tax cuts helped this country. Well Oski, the purpose of the tax cuts was to increase overall tax revenue, and that occurred. That means that Reagan was successful. By the way, I knew you couldn't provide evidence of anything Limbaugh has said that is an inflammatory lie, because Limbaugh doesn't operate that way.
lol, I just started perusing the book "The way things aren't", and quickly ran through pages of Rush's lies and inflammatory comments. t234982374982374, you should grab the book. Then again, since you are a Rush zealot, of course you'll insist that "none of these things are true", yadda yadda yadda. But, for those of you that see Rush as the idiot that he is, I recommend the book: To a black caller: Take that bone out of your nose and call me back. (Newsday, 10/8/90; p49, <u>The Way Things Aren't</u>).
LOL, good one. I won't pretend that you are so dense to really mean that. Achebe, I am still waiting for somebody to post a comment from Limbaugh that would cause one of his listeners to threaten a Democrat candidate. You aren't there yet, but good luck.
There are many people who like Rush and many who don't. I am neither. I don't really think about him. I agree with much of his politics, but he is a SHOWMAN. He would say damned near anything to attract a larger audience (and subsequently bigger checks). What Daschle said was arrogant, simple-minded and dangerous. Reading through all the BS he really said: If you oppose me on the radio you are just like the Taliban. When I heard that my first thought was WTF???!!! Calling him an idiot and a moron because you disagree with him doesn't do any good...but at least it isn't villifying him as something as heinous as the Taliban. Daschle's commentary was out of line and extremely disappointing coming from a leader in the Senate.
I didn't get that out of it Refman. I thought he was simply criticizing all of the sassy simpleminded media. The same morons that get their 3 second blurb about how Yao sucks b/c he fell over when Marbury crossed him, are the same people that listen to this sort of radio. Thoughtful? No. It's just hype that is nine times out of ten based on untrue statements. There are volumes of literature about how Rush is wrong. He's been generally discredited. So it is not the mainstream simple minded folk that listen to him (even for prurient interests). It seems to be the even less educated ilk that get all pumped up about Daschle being 'unpatriotic' and wanting to kick Daschle's ass, for "holding up Homeland Security". Since he's encountering these buffoons. I imagine, that he has an opinion about it. Since these idiots are relaying to him the same idiotic arguments that people of Rush's caliber pass along, I think that Daschle is just blaming it on the source (ie people are generally concerned about the effects of violent tv/violent rap music, etc). Since the people that are threatening Daschle and his family are acting mindless and violent, I think the analogy to the Taliban is fair.
He made it very clear that he was villifying those who dared to question his motives publicly. Not true. Some of Rush's biggest demographics are amongst professionals. Doctors, lawyers, executives, etc. Great...now tell me ONE instance when Rush (or ANYBODY else) has advocated the use of violence against any politician. People are concerned about VIOLENT music/TV...there has been no such thing as VIOLENT conservative radio. Bad example. So because a few jackasses get uppity and make threatening calls/letters to politicians and they listen to talk radio it's "fair" to liken the radio host to a brutal, oppressive government that supports terrorism? You need to rethink that.
t-- The question is not whether a rational person like yourself would think that way (and I know you are rational because you are on this board and thus must like the Rockets), but whether an irrational person might be goaded by inflammatory rhetoric. I don't know for sure, but there are probably some folks who are not wired correctly that listen to Rush. Still, in the absence of direct causality, Daschle was wrong saying what he said, but he could have decried the lowering of political discourse in this country and been right on. I offer the following transcripts of Rush that relate to Daschle not as an excuse, but to see if you and others who share your political philosophy believe it goes too far. The first, from this summer, compares Daschle to the Devil, a very powerful image for some in our country. ______________________________ "How many different versions of Satan, the devil, have you seen in your life? I mean, the comic book devil with the red face and the horns, seen that one. We've seen the Satanic devil of the horror films. We've seen the devil portrayed as just an average man, a human being, in the movie "Rosemary's Baby". We've seen the comic devil of TV shows. We've even seen the smooth, tempting devil in Hollywood moves. Is Tom Daschle simply another way to portray a devil?... Folks, look: Is he so laid back? Is he so soft-spoken? Is Daschle so friendly? You tell me. Remember what Daschle said when he became the Senate Majority Leader? He blathered on about bipartisanship and working with the President and how he came to the job with humility and how he realized now that as Majority Leader his responsibilities were different - that he had to work to bring competing sides together for the good of the American people. And from that day forward he's been on TV just about every day doing everything he can to keep the people of this country divided. There is no desire on Daschle's part to bring people together. There certainly is no bipartisanship flowing through his veins, nor is he leading any bipartisan effort. There is no working with the President of any of this. He's criticizing Bush, he's attempting to further the notion that Bush is illegitimate, incompetent, unintelligent. He tries to block the President every day, he downgrades the President every day and he devalues the - he tries to - every day, folks. It's his job - every day. His job is not about doing good things for the country. His job is in his mind is simply about destroying George W. Bush for pure political purpose. It's totally personal. It is the politics of personal destruction with Tom Daschle, hidden behind this laid-back, soft-spoken, so friendly demeanor. Let me ask you this: He says he wants to work with the President - what would he be doing if he didn't want to work with the President? Can you imagine if his objective - stated objective - was to oppose the President? How would it be any different from his current behavior? Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century, with Europe's flagging economy, talking about mutual defense in the 21st century, realistic environmental solutions, solutions for world poverty, not ths stupid Kyoto stuff and not allowing the United States to be robbed blind by the UN and the poor nations of the world, up pops "El Diablo", Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent, criticizing Bush at the very moment he is engaging in these efforts to improve our relationship with these world leaders. He's, um, no, I went through the routine. Let me stretch this so-called devil analogy a little bit further. I have to take a break here because it goes on a little while, but stick with me because I want to analogize this a little bit more when we come back - because this guy is getting away with a public media persona that is totally 180 degrees out of phase of who he really is and what he's really doing. [goes to break] [coming out of the break - Limbaugh sings along to "Devil in a Blue Dress"] Mitch Rider, the Detroit Wheels, Devil in a Blue Dress, as we continue our devil analogy with Tom Daschle. Hang in there folks. Now don't go bonkers - the devil comes in many disguises as we all know. Let me stretch this analogy just a little bit farther. What would your reaction be if I were to say that I think Daschle has cast a spell on the media? [complaining voice] "Oh no, Rush, not that". Why? Let me ask you this: Why would the media decide that Tom Daschle is Co-President? They pretty much have made Daschle Co-President. Every day we get Tom Daschle and what he thinks of what's going on in the country, what he thinks ought to happen. His criticisms - personal, mostly, substantive, rarely, but all personal. So what? He's the Senate Majority Leader? Yip yip yip yip yahoo. Is he as important as the Speaker of the House? Why does he get face time every day and Denny Hastert doesn't? Who's more important?" ______________________ Earlier this year: "Daschle's allies in this situation include the barbarians who run North Korea, the Islamic extremists who run Iran and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein who controls Iraq. That's the company Tom Daschle has joined. Now he's decided to roll the dice and align himself with Iran, North Korea and Hussein. In essence, Daschle has chosen to align himself with the axis of evil." ____________________ This was the most recent Rush Rant on Daschle before Daschle's comments: "There's a very high likelihood we're going to even face additional terrorist attacks ... No country is safe from this threat, not even us, no country is going to be perfect in its efforts to fight it. And Senator Daschle, you know this. Just as you know that you are hoping to benefit politically when our economy stagnates and people lose jobs, you are hoping to politically benefit with the next terrorist attack. And that's what this comment of yours was about yesterday, Senator, and that's what make it so despicable. This is almost the Wellstone memorial all over again. You know another attack is going to happen and you're setting it up so that you can say, "See I told you so and this President [did] nothing to stop it." You are seeking political advantage in the war on terrorism just exactly as you sought political advantage after the war on terrorism started on September 11. Just as you sought political advantage with the economy plundering [sic], just as you sought political advantage with the stock market collapse, just as you sought political advantage with the corporate scandals. You seek political advantage with the nation at war. There is no greater testament to the depths to which the Democratic Party and liberalism have fallen. You now position yourself, Senator Daschle, to exploit future terrorist attacks for political gain. You are worse, sir, than the ambulance-chasing tort lawyers that make up your chief contributors. You, sir, are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to patriotism, you are a disgrace to this country, you are a disgrace to the Senate, and you ought to be a disgrace to the Democratic Party but sadly you're probably a hero among some of them today... Way to demoralize the troops, Senator! What more do you want to do to destroy this country than what you've already tried? [pounding table] It is unconscionable what this man has done! This stuff gets broadcast around the world, Senator. What do you want your nickname to be? Hanoi Tom? Tokyo Tom? You name it, you can have it apparently. You sit there and pontificate on the fact that we're not winning the war on terrorism when you and your party have done nothing but try to sabotage it, which you are continuing to do. This little speech of yours yesterday, and this appearance of yours on television last night, let's call it what it is. It's nothing more than an attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism for your own personal and your party's political gain. This is cheap. And it's beneath even you. And that's pretty low." _____________ This is just Rush and doesn't take into account the concerted GOP effort since Jeffords' switch.
The fact that I could pick up a silly book like Al Franken's and even he could easily disprove many of Rush's facts and even got Rush's assistant to tell him about how they were using false data and incorrect facts, show me that he is basically a liar and people who listen and believe him are only fans because they want to believe the things he says. When I was a little kid, and I'd go anywhere with my dad in his car, he usually had Rush on the radio all the time. As a youngster, It was pretty easy for me to just believe everything he said and not think twice. After I got a little older, beyond 11, and I started paying attention to politics and the news, I could easily tell that Rush lied at least 90% of the time. I don't know why it was easy for me at twelve, even though my dad was a Republican and I had no other political influence on me, to figure out Rush is a fraud, yet Dittiots in their 30's and 40's march along like mindless drones. Anyways, here are some nuggets for Dittiots to choke on that I found particularly funny: LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94) REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual." LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135) REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93). LIMBAUGH: "Anytime the illegitimacy rate in black America is raised, Rev. Jackson and other black 'leaders' immediately change the subject." (Ought to Be, p. 225) REALITY: Jesse Jackson has been talking about and against "children having children" in speeches and interviews for decades. So have many other black leaders, especially in the clergy. LIMBAUGH: Praising Strom Thurmond for calling a gay soldier "not normal": "He's not encumbered by being politically correct.... If you want to know what America used to be--and a lot of people wish it still were--then you listen to Strom Thurmond." (TV show, 9/1/93) REALITY: In the America that "used to be," Strom Thurmond was one of the country's strongest voices for racism, running for president in 1948 on the slogan, "Segregation Forever." LIMBAUGH: "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93) REALITY: Before feminism, women couldn't even vote. LIMBAUGH: "Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94) REALITY: Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the '60s and '70s, had "absolutely no recollection" of such a study, according to Tufts' communications office. "I surely would have remembered that!" he exclaimed. Limbaugh's staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database--while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study--did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males. MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old. Molly Ivins is the best, I'm glad I got to meet her once. After I get back from Thanksgiving, I'll be more than happy to put up some passages from "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." My favorite involves the time when Rush was living alone off unemployment checks. It shouldn't be funny, but because he calls people in similar situations lazy, I can't help but laugh at the irony.
Big news here: I like Rush Limbaugh. I'm listening to Rush now again because the rest of talk radio in my community has gone by the wayside. However, <b>refman</b> hit it on the head, Rush is first and foremost an entertainer. He is the first to admit that; he eschews the notion that he is a journalist. I think that Rush has a very intelligent audience. I'm not saying that only his listeners are intelligent but he does have intelligent listerners. This characterization of his listeners as drones and dittiots is absurd. I loved Al Franken's book. I didn't believe a lot of it but it was absolutely hilarious to read.
t4651965, We are all waiting for you to set the record straight about Rush's truthfulness. After that, we can move on the next topic, the effect of tax cuts on tax revenues.
What kind of a loser spends time trying to discredit a 'moron'? Are they hoping that the 'morons' who listen to Limbaugh will read their work and change their mind about him? Furthermore, what kind of moron spends time reading about how another moron is wrong? A tad ironic. Also, rap music causes violence.
