Yesterday CNN's Rick Sanchez was set to go on air and issue an apology for running an unverified quote attributed to Rush Limbaugh. Breaking news of the now-infamous "balloon boy" intervened, and Sanchez was unable to deliver his apology.
It came to the attention of the NewsBusters staff that Sanchez plans on issuing a correction today on-air, reading the following statement:
Earlier this week we provided quotes attributed to Limbaugh to illustrate why some people and players felt that Rush Limbaugh was too divisive to be an NFL owner. One of these quotes, which was in a column in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and in a book largely about conservatives, was refuted by Limbaugh. We have been unable to independently confirm that quote. We should not have reported it and for that I apologize. I feel it is important to hold folks accountable when they make mistakes, and that should include myself and my team.
[Update, 10:55 am Eastern: Sanchez also put an apology of sorts on his Twitter account (per National Review Online)
i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No personal apology to Rush!
October 16, 2009 - 09:20 ET by motherbeltNotice how there is no personal apology to Rush for the character assassination?
Just a general apology for using an unverified quote.
Despicable.
I'm sure Rush is crushed...
October 16, 2009 - 09:40 ET by JerWhat would you have preferred...that Sanchez blow his brains out on national TV? It was a far more comprehensive, pointed and well-stated apology than I've ever heard made by Limbaugh, who could spend the next ten shows expressing regrets for his multiple misstatements over the years.
But, once again, Rush gets to lament how much he hates to make it all about himself, and then spend hours doing precisely that. And, of course, he manages to inject the standard dosage of martyrdom while taking the obligatory shot at Obama--somehow it's all "the angry black man's" fault--and then laugh all the way to the bank.
Jer
What would you have preferred...that Sanchez blow his brains out
October 16, 2009 - 09:52 ET by CO2MakerWell, he could use Chris Tingleman's CO2 pellet pistol. But that would add to AGW gases, not to mention spraying tissue pathogens all around.
Disingenuous argument based
October 16, 2009 - 10:00 ET by BKeyserDisingenuous argument based on assertions that once said, seem real to people like you and Sanchez. Let it go, Jer. Sanchez was wrong and he got called on it. Let it go.
No I would like to see him
October 16, 2009 - 10:19 ET by buddycNo I would like to see him have a CO2 cartridge shoved in his mouth and then watch him fill up with co2 and explode on TV just like "Mr. Big" in the James Bond movie "Live and Let Die". Wouldn't that be cute. Chris Mathews thinks it would be.
Really in answer to your question I would like to see the police arrest him, watch him do the perp walk in his orange jump suiit and have him serve the 15 years that most criminals who kill someone while driving drunk and leave the scene of the accident. 15 years in the normal minimum. What did he have to do to avoid that? Is he above the law?
You owe me the courtesy of an explanation, BKeyser...
October 16, 2009 - 10:22 ET by JerWhat assertions BKeyser? I've listened to Rush enough to know those alleged statements attributed to him were very unlikely to have ever been uttered by Limbaugh.
I hammered those who peddled the "bogus quotes" in my very first comment on the subject when they were first blogged about at NB.
So please explain exactly what "seems real to people like me". You owe me that courtesy if you intend maintain the charge.
Jer
Jer~~
October 16, 2009 - 11:23 ET by BKeyser"who could spend the next ten shows expressing regrets for his multiple misstatements over the years."
And, of
course, he manages to inject the standard dosage of martyrdom while
taking the obligatory shot at Obama--somehow it's all "the angry black
man's" fault--and then laugh all the way to the bank.
The assertions I'm talking about are the typical labels assigned to the "enemy" that are not necessarily earned but nevertheless become synonymous with their name. It happens on both sides and it's an unfair judgment placed on anyone to have to defend the indefensible. You shouldn't be playing the same game lest you begin to believe your own false assertions.
BKeyser...
October 16, 2009 - 11:42 ET by JerHaving read your post three times now, I find myself agreeing with much of it, yet still confused about a couple of your more salient charges.
a. What "typical labels" have I assigned to the "enemy"?
b. Please specify my own "false assertions" [if different from a.].
Thanks,
Jer
Jer~~
October 16, 2009 - 12:13 ET by BKeyserFirst, to be clear, the "enemy" as I put it means the opposition party.
The "typical labels" weren't necessarily the one's you "assigned" as much as the one's you seem to passively allow to go unchallenged. Not necessarily "agree with"- your original post did not indicate agreement, and I've read enough of your comments here to think that while you may not like Rush (though I wouldn't put myself through as much personal torture as you seem to do by listening to him as often as I seem to remember you claim to [phew, that last sentence was rambling]) you don't indicate that you believe him to be a racist. However, that is a typical label that is often applied to Rush- and many other conservatives- and is often empirically accepted as un-challenge-worthy by the liberal media and liberals in general.
As for your own false assertions- the "obligatory shot at Obama..." line infers that Rush does not have a solid political belief system and that he's in it all for the money. Now, that may be true of many personalities, though I think Rush is quite passionate about his beliefs- "the Excellence in Broadcasting" moniker seems to suggest that all by itself.
We all tend to set aside the simple fact that not everyone believes as the other, and that not everyone who believes something different from ourselves is patently wrong for doing so. Both sides have ideological merit in some of their roots and these are usually cross-pollinated with the other tree, so to speak. But what we continue to do- with the Left to a greater degree and success- is assign these ill-begotten labels that remain forever attached and re-connected whenever the opposition power is being effective. (I say the Left has greater success because of the length of time they've been organized to assert then attack these misnomers; they have the larger megaphone because of the MSM; and the simple fact that their more diverse makeup takes one huge but false argument away from conservatives and hands it to the Left.)
To be fair, I'm as guilty as anyone at using knee-jerk stereotypes in political argument that could be construed as disingenuous. I don't mind being called on it and if I'm wrong -as I frequently am- I will acknowledge so. What Sanchez did, and you seemingly excused by asserting that his johnny-come-lately apology was better than anything Rush has ever done, and which he should do for at least the next ten shows, is, IMO, what I've tried to describe above.
BKeyser...
October 16, 2009 - 12:26 ET by JerThank you for the extended and very thoughtful reply--one which deserves a reponse from me more extended and thoughtful than time now permits.
But I can't close--even temporarily--without this one brief but emphatic denial: I did not, and do not, excuse Sanchez' sloppy and shameful reporting. I commend his apology, but strongly condemn the conduct which led to it.
Jer
no problem Jer~~
October 16, 2009 - 13:26 ET by BKeyserDenials, btw, aren't necessary. Suffice it to say that I may have misread, or misinterpreted your position on that point. In reading some of your comments further along in this thread, you made that abundantly clear.
And a further reply is certainly not necessary if you chose that route. There's certainly no animosity here, and I understand your position much better now.
You know, Jer, you just
October 16, 2009 - 10:30 ET by motherbeltYou know, Jer, you just make yourself look foolish when you jump right to the most extreme, ridiculous alternative, as if that's the only one.
You don't think that in addition to apologizing for not fact-checking, that Rush deserved a personal apology from Sanchez for the lie? So he apologizes for the journalist error but not for the damage done to a person because of it?
What I would have liked to see was Sanchez say something like "and I apologize to Mr. Limbaugh for impugning his character."
Simple enough, no?
And we were talking about Sanchez, not Rush. Your too-clever-by-half switching of the discussion to criticism of Rush doesn't do any good either.
Save your lectures,
October 16, 2009 - 10:30 ET by JerSave your lectures, motherbelt...
Sanchez, as I've noted, along with others, was totally irresponsible. Everyone here [justifiably] demanded an apology. He gave one. A damn good one. You call it despicable. You make yourself look foolish.
Jer
Jer, my answer had NOTHING
October 16, 2009 - 12:00 ET by motherbeltJer, my answer had NOTHING to do with whether you or anyone else ever demanded that Sanchez apologize.
And who did he apologize to, Jer, his viewers? Yeah, I'm sure they were the ones hurt by his malice. It was a typical non-apology apology. What he said was Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
I make myself look foolish? How? By answering your question?
You did ask me one, you know, about whether I preferred Sanchez blow his brains out. Are you saying that your question was rational but my answer was foolish?
As you like to challenge others, you owe me an explanation. Please point out which part of my answer to you about what I wanted Sanchez to do was foolish.
A Kevin Kline style Apology
October 16, 2009 - 12:34 ET by upcountrywaterI'm soo very f*****g sorrieYoutube warning fword.
State controlled health care is Tort Reform.
motherbelt...
October 16, 2009 - 13:26 ET by JerSimple.
I've noticed your history of decrying liberal non-apologies with mischaracterizations and erroneous predictions. And then when a clear apology is forthcoming, it is never acceptable to you.
For example, I believe you forecast that Letterman--after the Palin joke--would, if at all, make one of those wobbly...if anyone was offended. etc. type of parsing equivocations, and when he instead shouldered responsibility and directly apologized, it still wasn't enough to satisfy you.
Now, you're playing the same tune with Sanchez. He steps up and says he was wrong, yet you manage to find his acknowledgement of fault "despicable".
Show me Rush's apology for his mockery of Michael Fox, and I'll show you a prime example of the 'not-really-sorry' squirming you attribute to liberals.
Jer
You really should have some
October 16, 2009 - 13:48 ET by motherbeltYou really should have some examples if you are going to accuse me of
having a "history" of anything, but I'm not going to insist on one;
it's not that important to me.
Yes, I was wrong about Letterman's apology, and I don't recall what I said after he indeed apologized. If I was dissatisfied, so what? My point here, which is unrelated, is that I think Sanchez never apologized for impugning Limbaugh's character, and he should have; he only apologized for using the quote without confirming it. We can differ on whether that was an important omission.
I can assure you that had he said that, I would have felt that he did the right thing.
That said, you still have not answered my question.
I said you looked foolish for asking if I wanted Sanchez to blow his brains out on the air.
In my response, I told you exactly what I would have liked, which was: to see Sanchez say something like "and I apologize to Mr. Limbaugh for impugning his character."
You said that I made myself look foolish.
Which part of that reply made me look foolish?
I gave you one past
October 16, 2009 - 14:10 ET by JerI gave you one past example [Lettterman/Palin], which is one more than you provided me when you claimed I had a history of dissembling.
There are no instances which come to mind where you have ever expressed satisfaction with any statement of regret made by someone you find politically distasteful, regardless of the nature of the apology. But, I could have easily overlooked one or more, so if you can show me I am wrong, then I'll apologize [and let you word the apology].
In any event, that is the basis for my current skepticism and the reason for my, admittedly hyperbolic, "blow his brains out" figure of speech regarding Sanchez. (Likewise for the "making yourself look foolish " remark--although I would have probably chosen my words differently if you hadn't first used the term to describe me.)
Jer
When did I accuse you of
October 16, 2009 - 15:21 ET by motherbeltWhen did I accuse you of dissembling?
Long ago, motherbelt... I
October 16, 2009 - 15:29 ET by JerLong ago, motherbelt...
I only thought about it recently because of the resusitation of the Limbaugh/McNabb controversy. No big deal. I'm sorry for even bringing it up again. Sometimes when you're in the middle of verbal sparring, you reach for whatever is handy.
Truce?
Jer
So jer,
October 16, 2009 - 17:18 ET by general companyYou dont think the apology is just a little disingenuous, considering he had over 24 hours after Rush denied it, to correct himself?
I also think, the only reason he apologized at all, was because the desired effect had been reached
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general company...
October 16, 2009 - 17:26 ET by JerI think they had every spare a$$ at CNN desperately trying to authenticate the quotes in the intervening 24 hours.
They were idiots. All of them. They could have busted Rush with the truth, instead of making him the tormented victim of lies.
Jer
ah but..
October 16, 2009 - 17:31 ET by katainkentbut truth requires context and context begets discussion and discussion sometimes creates enlightment and enlightenment can forward the case of understanding which can lead to agreement.
and we can't have that. :)
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
YES WE CAN!
October 16, 2009 - 17:35 ET by JerYES WE CAN!
Jer
Jer
October 16, 2009 - 18:23 ET by MrShyDon't you see that fabricating quotes -- especially "journalists" going on air/to print and putting a seal of approval on non-existant quotes -- is a whole other ball game from what an opinionated radio jockey might have thoughts/opinions about or theorize on?
What Rush has ever said should not enter into this conversation, but you can't help it due to your leftist bias.
motherbelt
October 16, 2009 - 15:27 ET by MrShyPJ needs lecturing for a lot of the nonsense he posts. He needs it from all of us. Let's not let up, I say.
By all means, round up the
October 16, 2009 - 15:32 ET by JerBy all means, round up the gang and pile on, Shy. You clearly aren't capable of carrying the fight alone.
Jer
PJ
October 16, 2009 - 16:10 ET by MrShyYou need and deserve a pile-on here.
Honestly, I don't know what I'm attempting to fight anyway. You are what you are, and a lot of us get it.
Your post on this topic was idiocy (not to mention, bizarre) of the highest order. There's a reason we all came at you.
You wanna know a secret, Shy?
October 16, 2009 - 16:19 ET by JerYou wanna know a secret, Shy? A lot of us get you, too. Not just libs or Dems either. So obsess about that, son.
Jer
PJ
October 16, 2009 - 16:28 ET by MrShyLook around on this thread. You have a lot of explaining to do to many head-scratchers here.
Multiple misstatements over the years.........
October 16, 2009 - 10:16 ET by Mike in AZName one, Jer.
Take Rush's name out of the equation and look at it again...
October 16, 2009 - 10:20 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"Earlier this week we provided quotes attributed to Mr. Smith to illustrate why some people and donators felt that Mr. Smith was too divisive to be an Acorn President. One of these quotes, which was in a column in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and in a book largely about liberals, was refuted by Mr. Smith. We have been unable to independently confirm that quote, which stated that Mr. Smith beats his children. We should not have reported it and for that I apologize. I feel it is important to hold folks accountable when they make mistakes, and that should include myself and my team."
Where is the apology to Mr. Smith directly? This does not unring the bell, now that the damage has been done, and where is the true journalistic work of now getting to the bottom of the slanderous quote? Instead, they just shrug off thier egregious eror in a manner that says nothing more than "we couldn't verify it, AFTER we reported it. But we all believe it anyway." I've listened to some of these news reports that try to backpedal on their initial reporting of these quotes, and they're all the same..."Rush denies the quote, but tht doesn't take away from the other divisive racial remarks that he has made." So they give lip service to his denial and then immediatelly backfill with the "he does this stuff anyway" crap without examples or real dissection of any of his comments and their meaning. But Chrissy McLegthrill can call for Rush to be exploded in a graphic manner without any such equal treatment that would be afforded a conservativewho made the same comment.
And of course you do the same...it's okay to slander Rush, because he'll just spend hours whining about it and make money, right? Or at the very least you seem to be saying that well, maybe it was wrong to attribute these things to Rush, but hey, it's Rush, so no real harm done, because he's wealthy.
If you ever really listened
October 16, 2009 - 10:37 ET by mattmIf you ever really listened to Rush you would not have made that post.
If you've never heard him apologize it's because he doesn't misquote people, and he doesn't smear them - he simply exposes the truth about them. No apologies necessary.
His "I don't want to talk about myself" shtick is just that. It's tongue-in-cheek...which you'd probably get, if you weren't viewing him with a jaundiced, bigoted and prejudiced eye.
Sanchez gave a non-apology apology. He is a phony hack who deliberately engaged in a smear campaign based on lies and he should be fired for it.
I've listened to Limbaugh
October 16, 2009 - 17:05 ET by JerI've listened to Limbaugh many, many times over the past couple of decades, although not as much recently as formerly.
If you have actually listened to him there is no way on God's earth you could post that with a straight face.
You think calling Tom Daschle a "traitor" and the "devil" isn't a smear?...or accusing Bill Clinton and Janet Reno of "deliberately murdering innocent women and children" is merely exposing the truth? What planet are you on?
Jer
I have to say that that
October 16, 2009 - 12:41 ET by Ruths husband BenI have to say that that would make good TV, although since he is a liberal and therefore unfamiliar with firearms and stuck with a teenie weenie brain, he would probably miss.
I find it funny that out of all the "multiple misstatements" Rush has made over the years, he had to have his character assassinated with made up ones, don't you?
Jer, no offense, but there are some times when even your heroes (i.e., our liberal indoctrinators) step over the line. Don't try and excuse the inexcusable, it just makes you look silly.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho
(edited for clarity :)
Ruths husband Ben....
October 16, 2009 - 16:54 ET by JerMay I ask a question? I'm guessing you'll grant me permission.
So...in exactly how many posts in how many threads do I need to explicitly condemn the conduct of these pseudo-journalists who recycled phony quotes about Limbaugh before you and others will stop claiming I'm trying to excuse their inexcusable behavior?
You're smarter than that. I know you are. We've both been here a long time. Now...stop it....PLEASE!
Jer
Leftist Trolls
October 16, 2009 - 11:19 ET by Thinking.ManJen
Are you ever going to say anything that makes sense, or are you just wasting time while waiting for your next unemployement check to arrive?
"What would you have
October 16, 2009 - 14:46 ET by MrShy"What would you have preferred...that Sanchez blow his brains out on national TV?"
What??? I'm late to this party. Now I'm thinking I never should have showed up.
You are a strange one. You're also an apologist for out-and-out wrong-doer hacks like Sanchez.
What a wildly out of left field, violent and provocative figurative scenerio that is. Naturally, you wanted to see if you could egg any of us on to even loosely advocate something like that.
Yeah, you're an attention-seeker alright.
And then color me shocked, the hate-Rush side of two-sided Jer is back to bashing him with the "ten shows" he'd need "expressing his regrets for his multiple misstatements (huh??? read on, PJ, and learn something) over the years". It's bad enough that you pull your usual good cop-bad cop stuff once again, but it's unreal and moronic that you give equal wrong-doing weight to Rush's views and opinions and Sanchez's lies and false quoting of people.
Do you know the difference between the two? There is one, Phony Jer.
Phony (and slightly unhinged) Jer. Same ---t, different day, around here.
Yep MrS... It gets
October 16, 2009 - 17:13 ET by bigtimerYep MrS...
It gets tedious, tiring, boring.
The Last Word Jer Show travels on.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
BT
October 16, 2009 - 18:27 ET by MrShyIt's laughable that Jer's softening up on the criminal (yeah, it is) and deliberate agenda-pushing of the likes of Sanchez, Shuster, et al, visa vie going live with lies and made-up quotes to dirty up the image of the GOP (propaganda, it's called) is defended with, "Well, but then Rush should apologize for...."
He knows it's two different things. Entirely.
Loser!
October 16, 2009 - 09:19 ET by jon_torlinHe's still a jerk and an unindicted killer. That's the truth.
-Jon
We're talking about Riiiiicky ...
October 16, 2009 - 09:23 ET by CO2MakerNot Tedddddddy.
No......we're talking about Ricky.
October 16, 2009 - 09:31 ET by BlondeFrom yesterday's Rush Limbaugh transcript:
I hope he fails, too.
B... the money quote in
October 16, 2009 - 10:09 ET by motherbeltB... the money quote in there is . 'It could have happened to anybody. ...
As if drinking and running over a pedestrian is an act of God...that happens to the driver!
"Gosh, I was just sitting there, drunk, and suddenly my car runs over this guy and speeds away....I don't know how that happened (to me!)"
It could have happened to anybody…
October 16, 2009 - 16:31 ET by needle… as in: I [intentionally] slandered this nationally-known personality [whom I dislike] with an untrue, unsubstantiated quote; but, hey, it could have happened to anybody.
That is right, Sanchez, and as long as you, sans conscience, are wandering around loose and with an open mike, it probably will happen to anybody.
- Relying upon the Liberal Media for your information is like relying upon an embezzler for your portfolio management.
- I didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left me.
mb & needle
October 16, 2009 - 16:37 ET by MrShyThis Sanchez creep is heinous.
He oozes insincerity, and that he eagerly goes public with false quotes is no shock at all. Same goes for the BS in his past.
apologize now
October 16, 2009 - 09:19 ET by RousseI'd love to read the memo that CNN's legal team must have hand delivered to the on-air talent: apologize NOW or you will be suspended.
Talent?
October 16, 2009 - 09:52 ET by CaringwhiteguyTalent?
Rick Sanchez, with talent ... on loan from ...
October 16, 2009 - 10:19 ET by CO2MakerTed Kennedy
I doubt he was threatened
October 16, 2009 - 10:05 ET by motherbeltI doubt he was threatened with suspension.
Look how long it took Shuster to get suspended...and his insult was to a big liberal!
I doubt it also MB
October 16, 2009 - 17:01 ET by general companyAll they have to do is put it on the teleprompter, thats how the lies got out there.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Followed by:
October 16, 2009 - 09:21 ET by BKeyser"However, that the quote was unverifiable does not, I repeat, does not mean that he didn't say it, or something like it. More importantly, I believe that he does believe it, and that alone makes it a story. Also, FoxNews has a bunch of wannabe Hispanics, and Glenn Beck is a buffoon. And finally, I wasn't drunk! I had an over-the-counter drug interaction and didn't see the guy crossing the street."
A little late
October 16, 2009 - 09:26 ET by CobraManIt's interesting that they "print" a retraction after Rush was, ahh, "removed from consideration."Why did they wait so long?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
It's the modus operandi of
October 16, 2009 - 09:38 ET by mattmIt's the modus operandi of the hit-and-run media.
They lambasted Quayle for his Murphy Brown comments, then after the election, they said "Quayle Was Right."
They do this all the time. The people of the left really are evil.
From what I understand about
October 16, 2009 - 10:13 ET by buddycFrom what I understand about Sanchez "hit and run" is a perfect description.
The damage has been
October 16, 2009 - 09:43 ET by 10ksnookerThe damage has been done
Lawsuits to follow.
He's not aplogizing to Rush.
October 16, 2009 - 09:45 ET by BruzillaHe's not aplogizing to Rush. His statement refers to the "St. Louis Post Dispatch and in a book largely about conservatives", and he says that they (CNN) "has been unable to independently confirm that quote." He never states that the quote is bogus, or was never made by Rush, only that they have been unable to independently confirm the quote, which implies that the St. Louis Post Dispatch and the author of the book were able to confirm it.
Now that
October 16, 2009 - 10:01 ET by jessieHNow that they have successfully stoped Rush from buying into the NFL, they put out retractions. They are trying to cover their asses from a lawsuit. I hope Rush takes everything they have. They went out of their way to destroy him, on orders from the whitehouse. Now, tell me the govt. & the media isn't lying to us.
Too Little Too Late...
October 16, 2009 - 10:07 ET by Edfromva...the damage has been done, Rush has been pushed back (if ever so slightly), so the desired effect of their character assassination campaign has been achieved.
I dont buy it.
October 16, 2009 - 10:15 ET by Mulligan22First of all the horse is out of the barn now. They got what they wanted.
Second if you couldn't "verify" the statements, IE produce them so we could hear them, then don't use it. Or at the very least run a disclaimer that they were not verifiable.
They couldn'r even do the very least in this case.
What are their journalistic standards if they just run with what is essentially taking the contents of an annoynmous phone call and broadcasting it to the world and getting talking heads to amplify it. How low can you go?
Sanchez would fit right in
October 16, 2009 - 10:19 ET by InfidelphiaSanchez would fit right in Obama's White House. Arrogant, unapologetic, condescending and fulla crap. He doesn't humm and haahh like Gibbs. Make him the Chief Community Organizer's spokeman.
Okay I'm not even the
October 16, 2009 - 10:43 ET by ConservativeMissourianOkay I'm not even the biggest fan of Limbaugh.. but come on. What is it to Sanchez if he is part owner of the Rams? He doesn't want it so bad that he feels it's necessary to air unconfirmed quotes that make Limbaugh look bad. That's a little ridiculous
Too bad, so sad. Rush has
October 16, 2009 - 10:55 ET by Ruths husband BenToo bad, so sad. Rush has suffered a real and demonstratable financial loss as a result of this slander and libel and he can prove intent. I hope he collects every penny of possible lost revenue in court, plus some.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho
Imagine That
October 16, 2009 - 11:06 ET by BourbeauSanchez ". . . . feels it is important to hold folks accoutnable when they make mistakes." Yet, he had no problem getting out from under his DUI incident back a few years ago. It's okay, I think he learned a rather direct lesson from Rush. You want to poke him in the eye with this unsubstantiated crap that you dug up on Wikipedia and the likes, then be prepared to get kicked in the crotch as he so astutely did on Tuesday. More importantly, never pick on someone with a better research group than you. Hope Rickie boy enjoyed the pushback.
Divisive
October 16, 2009 - 11:17 ET by Thinking.ManLeftist are the ultimate hypocrits.
Divisive means to divide or set one side against another, if that isnt what Dr. Loopy, aka Sanchez was attempting then it was a pretty good imitation!
These people must have servants to tie their shoes for them in the morning, combined they dont have enough brain power to accomplish it themselves.
It's amazing the effect that the threat of...
October 16, 2009 - 11:51 ET by PrairieSkylegal action can have...And, there is still no personal apology in Sanchez's statement.
Too little, too late.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Anyone
October 16, 2009 - 12:14 ET by chiefpaynewant to bet they'll be ANOTHER "breaking story" which will prevent him from issuing the public retraction on-air? Or that he will be "forced" to issue the public retraction on extremely late night TV?
I don't know Sanchez
October 16, 2009 - 13:36 ET by katainkentbut I know I don't like him. His rhetoric is inexcusably divisive. But if he posts this apology on the air that will be something, at least. His 'bad', is that it is business as usual for him.
Now if he changes his ways and works to make sure the mistake isn't repeated now that would be something indeed.
____________________________________________
The Emperor, he has no clothes
Sanchez is a white hispanic
October 16, 2009 - 15:27 ET by humanzeeSanchez is a white hispanic overplaying his brown side and bitching like he's black. That's the problem with him. He's freakin' Cuban, member of one of the most affluent ethnic groups in the USA. He sold out to the white liberals and now acts with the indignation of a chicano who grew up in East Los Angeles. He's a freakin' FAKE.
He had no remorse about what he says, just the threat of a lawsuit. He gives some halfassed apology on twitter and will probably end it at that.
Mission accomplished by the liberal media. The gave the slanders dozens of hours during for over a week but will give the retractions 10 seconds. Everyone will remember the slanders but not the retractions.