On the eve of the Senate voting overwhelmingly to condemn MoveOn's recent "General Betray Us" ad, Michael Kinsley chose to defend the actions of this far-left group while poking fun at conservatives for being so outraged (h/t NB reader Lee Martin).
In an article published by Time Wednesday, the former "Crossfire" host stated that the ad could be interpreted "merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism," and that Republicans were suddenly practicing "political correctness" that could turn "discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette."
Here were some of the lowlights:
- Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times.
- All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful.
- You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away.
- The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted - more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text - merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.
- The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.
- All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette.
Yet, the last laugh will certainly be had by conservatives given the following observation by Kinsley (emphasis added):
The Republican front runner, Rudy Giuliani, is another tough guy who has seized the opportunity to reveal his easily bruised soft side. He is running TV commercials saying Hillary Clinton "stood by silently" while MoveOn.org ran its despicable ad. Another way of saying this would be that she had nothing to do with the ad. But Rudy accuses her of "joining with" MoveOn.org and "attacking" General Petraeus, although the only evidence he can muster for this accusation is a clip from Clinton telling the general at a hearing that his reports of progress in the war "really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
Actually, Michael, the conceivably more vital piece of evidence Rudy now has is that Hillary, the day after you wrote this piece of detritus, voted against showing support for the General and condemning the MoveOn ad.
If you need any help pulling that foot out of your mouth, please let me know, for I'm sure many of my readers would gladly assist you.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I remember this guy when he
September 20, 2007 - 17:31 ET by msh1973I remember this guy when he was on with Hannity...he is still a moron.
You would not have thought
September 20, 2007 - 17:38 ET by motherbeltYou would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they
all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away.
No, Mr. Kinsley, they didn't faint away from sensitivity. They became outraged. There's a big difference.
I see Kinsley still has a
September 20, 2007 - 17:48 ET by bigtimerI see Kinsley still has a brain that doesn't work.....
Man, he should really get that checked out....it has been at least 20 years now that I know of that he has had this major problem.
"Goodness gracious. oh, my
September 20, 2007 - 17:56 ET by MightyMouth"Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint..."
What a class act, yep, a real journalist there...nothing but patronizing jabs and attacks.
Of course if a conservative belittles a liberal or liberal cause then it's simply unforgivable and hateful. The double standard of the left never ceases to amaze me!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The way Kinsley describes
September 20, 2007 - 17:58 ET by hydrodynDMThe way Kinsley describes the reaction of conservative ...
reminds me of the way Ann Coulter described the reaction of liberal academics at Harvard to Larry Summers comments about women and math.
Way to be original, Kinsley.
Dinner with the Clumps
September 20, 2007 - 18:08 ET by Rihar"Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors."
"the vapors" is a polite way of saying someone has gas. Does he know that or does he simply pick his 1860's pop culture the same way he picks his facts?
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Rihar, Actually, I just
September 20, 2007 - 18:18 ET by hydrodynDMRihar,
Actually, I just did a search to see what it was about Kinsley's comments that sparked my memory and it turns out I was really thinking about this:
by none other than Warner Todd Huston. Kinsley wasn't ripping off Coulter, he was ripping off a contributor to NewsBusters!
Perfect
September 20, 2007 - 21:29 ET by general companyThis is a great place to rip off material
"The vapors" is an
September 21, 2007 - 00:42 ET by stratman"The vapors" is an antiquated term meaning hysterical depression or hypochondria and exclusively applied to females.
More recently, it refers to the one-hit wonder English band that performed the song "Turning Japanese", a song believed to be about male masturbation.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
strat,
September 21, 2007 - 00:51 ET by Dave RLOL-Talk about one-hit wonders.....
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
LOL! Yep. You can only
September 21, 2007 - 01:25 ET by stratmanLOL!
Yep. You can only listen to it two or three times a day and need at least one half hour between listenings. As you get older or after repeated listenings you may only listen to it once a day or go several days without listening to it at all.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
I don't need to question
September 20, 2007 - 18:00 ET by Free ThinkerI don't need to question anybody - the general is honest and Kinsley is unpatriotic. Rather ironic that an honest general is fighting to protect the freedom of Kinsey to hate his country.
Kinsley
September 20, 2007 - 18:03 ET by d1carterThe outrage must have hit a nerve if Michael is doing this dance. No problem getting his foot out of a mouth that size. Shame on Hillary and the rest of those so called patriots for voting against this amendment.
Swooning with vapors?
September 20, 2007 - 18:15 ET by SlicksterI think he swoons with vapors from Reid and Murtha's anus.
The picture is proof.
September 20, 2007 - 18:27 ET by CTMichael Kinsley is a smacked ass and he wants you to know it.
Communist-News-Network
September 20, 2007 - 18:29 ET by TheTruthOne of CNN’s (Communist-News-Network) finest. . . You really have to love it when these so called intellectual elites (LIBERALS) opens their mouth and exposes themselves. Michael how are your ratings compared to FOXNEWS? Ever get the ‘feeling’ that people would rather watch news then your LIBERAL agenda?
MSM: Arrogant intellectually dishonest LIBERALS teaching those stupid peasants how to vote by way of selective reporting, misinformation, propaganda, and out right lies.
Words don't mean anything?
September 20, 2007 - 18:32 ET by ThisnThatSo, this guy is really trying to tell us that words and printed material don't mean anything, and we're all just a bunch of over-reacting right wing nuts. Well, here's a few other documents that seemingly don't mean anything to people like him:
So, is he trying to tell us it's all a matter of "pick and choose" -- and go ahead and interpret any old document any old way we want? This is all part and parcel of Moveon's, the Dims, and the libs/socialists agenda -- do everything to try to confuse and obsfugate; destroy all forms of order within our society; and then replace it with government control, as defined by the loonies.
Well, I'm not buying it. And here's another document Mr. Kinsley, chose one: Your arrest papers (just for being a stupid human being), or your deportation papers (and one-way ticket to anywhere).
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I've been told numerous
September 20, 2007 - 18:34 ET by balboaI've been told numerous times on this site that words don't matter by conservatives.
What???
September 20, 2007 - 18:50 ET by ThisnThatWhat does that have to do with what I said? I don't get it. Is someone picking on you? You want me to do something about it? Ok. Tell me who. I'll roll up my sleeves, send them to bed early without desert, won't tell them a bedtime story .....
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
}}---> TNT
September 20, 2007 - 18:54 ET by Cool ArrowThose are just words. You don't really mean them.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Not hungry now
September 20, 2007 - 19:00 ET by ThisnThatCool -- yeah, you're right. I guess I'll have to eat them, or go to bed hungry myself. Just picking on Bal for no reason, no reason whatsoever.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Did they identify themselves as "conservatives"?
September 20, 2007 - 21:41 ET by general companyI've been told numerous times on this site that words don't matter by conservatives.
I am sure they ment your words. I am kidding of course.
Where is this guy from?
September 20, 2007 - 18:44 ET by WingletDriver"The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette."
OK Mike, of what substance is this MoveOn ad? Somehow calling a decorated 4-star (who was unanimously aproved by the Senate) a liar is a substantive argument? OK. Where's the proof he lied?
"The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material." Or maybe it's just getting sick and tired of idiots who think calling honorable men liars is a form of patriotism and a substantial argument.
"The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides
by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce
a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new
tic in American politics."
It's strange how he and Time demanded the heads of Delay, Lott, Gonzales, etc. Now that Clinton has her hand in the cookie jar, let's just admit that they deserve the bribe.
This guy is so stupid it's defies belief.
What's really strange, though. . .
September 20, 2007 - 19:00 ET by WingletDriverWhat's really strange, though, is the notion that nobody should criticize people who make controversial statements. But he criticizes those folks who are criticizing the folks making these statements. This is known as hypocrisy.
Of course, he's so smart there is no possible way he made such a stupid mistake.
I have been listening
September 20, 2007 - 21:51 ET by general companyI have been listening carfully to the folks that are defending the ad. They are down playing the wording without reading the ad.
What I want to know from
September 20, 2007 - 21:56 ET by HypocriteHaterWhat I want to know from Mike is why did moveon.org post the ad in the first place? Answer: to get a reaction, of course. Well they got one alright, and I'm damn glad thing they did, because for too long Republicans have taken cheap shot after cheap shot without the benefit of a sympathetic media to give them an unfettered platform for a rebuttal. If Hillary's cleavage get's picked on, there's the media ready to stick up for her. But when Bush is called Hitler or libs wish for Cheney's death, well that's just good clean fun!
But the last straw is when they turned their sights on a non-politician such as General Petraeus, who worked damn hard to be where he is today. He didn't ask to be dragged into the cesspool that is Washington politics. He's simply doing a thankless job that no one at moveon, MSNBC, The NY Times, etc. would even come close to being qualified for.
Words DO matter. Words are
September 20, 2007 - 19:30 ET by rimskyWords DO matter. Words are connected to thoughts, and thoughts are a window on the heart and the soul. The people that run Moveon have vacumns for souls, that suck in all kinds of awful ideas and thoughts, and this disgusting ad is just a good example it. The democrats that voted NOT to condemn the ad are shameful.
Now I know why WFB never
September 20, 2007 - 20:45 ET by Conrad5Now I know why WFB never let him sit with the adults at
Firing Line debates.
I have previously denounced
September 20, 2007 - 21:07 ET by JerI have previously denounced the "General Betray Us" language employed by MoveOn and my disgust with its usage hasn't lessened. The Senate resolution introduced by the Republicans was inevitable but still smart politics by effectively cornering and trapping the Democrats.
Of course, I would now like to see the Dems introduce a similar resolution condemning Limbaugh's past attacks on the patriotism of Democratic U. S. Senators...and watch the Republicans squirm.
Jer
Jer
September 20, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Yes or no answer please without a long, rationalizing response: Do you see a difference between a full-page political advertisement placed in one of America's leading newspapers and comments made by a radio personality whose political leanings are well-known by all listeners who voluntarily opt to tune in?
Again, please, yes or no only. ns
I know you didn't ask me,
September 21, 2007 - 09:48 ET by JasonCI know you didn't ask me, but I see a difference only in the character of the person who was attacked; Limbaugh's attacks, however reductive, mean-spirited, unproductive, and unfair, tend to be on people who have voluntarily put themselves in the political arena. Other than that, the medium involved and the nature of the people making the statement doesn't make any difference to me. Why should a "radio personality whose political leanings are well-known by all listeners who voluntarily opt to tune in" be so different from a political lobbying group whose political leanings are well-known and who paid for an ad in a publication which routinely prints political ads?
I think Kinsley's article, while perhaps over-the-top in places, is a much-needed antidote to the hysteria of the Betray Us scandal; if people want to be angry at MoveOn, that's understandable, but in the past week that anger has been displaced onto Democrats in a way that, perhaps you will agree, is unfair and disingenuous. Giuliani has cemented his scumbag status in my mind with his reaction of trying to associate her comments, which she at least had the fortitude to make directly to the general, and a witless, immature attack ad. Between that and the hysteria over the resolution, over which I took quite a drubbing yesterday, as you know, I am not the least offended by Kinsley's response. I would guess it's what a lot of Americans are thinking.
Also Noel, thanks for your remarks on yesterdays thread.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Edit: In the second
September 21, 2007 - 09:49 ET by JasonCEdit: In the second paragraph, by "her" I mean Hillary.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JC
September 21, 2007 - 14:54 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
What always seems to be lost in the Rush equivalency debate is that he is the host of a radio program -- an admittedly conservative one! -- and not a newscaster. By contrast, the New York Times is indeed a NEWSpaper. Its goal, outside of the editorial and op-ed sections, is to disseminate NEWS.
Rush, on the other hand, is specifically designed to be entertainment which disseminates news information EXCLUSIVELY from HIS point of view. The listener knows this, because Rush REGULARLY tells him or her.
As such, when folks in the NY tri-state area opened up their newspapers last Monday, they were hit with a full-page op-ed in the form of an advertisement that had to be approved by NYT marketing. After all, they are INDEED in control of who they allow to advertise at their paper. As I reported last week, conservative organizations have in the past been barred from placing ads at the Times.
Therefore, as this was not placed in the op-ed section of the paper, this "ad," along with its disgraceful content, was forced upon many readers just interested in the news and not the opinion of MoveOn.
Therein lies the crucial difference between what's placed in a newspaper and what is said on liberal and conservative talk radio programs: newspapers outside of their editorial and op-ed sections are supposed to be impartial purveyors of news; radio talk show hosts aren't.
Make sense? ns
Noel, First, let me
September 21, 2007 - 17:47 ET by JasonCNoel,
First, let me clarify that I am not suggesting we actually have a senate hearing to condemn Rush's or Ann Coulter's years and years of outrageous, obscene, and at times libelous statements. The past week has seen pundits and politicians insisting that the entire Democrat party is in league with MoveOn, and I do think that yesterday's vote was something of a gambit to put the burden of proof that this is not the case on Democrats.
As much as Hillary irritates me, the suggestion that her comments, directly to Petraeus' face, were equivalent to the ad, is insane. But I digress....
Indeed, as you suggest, outside of the op-eds, The job of the NYT is to disseminate news; and they do, and they are, to my knowledge, more successful than any other paper in history. But, partisan politics aside, I do not buy your argument about unwitting tri-state area denizens stumbling willy-nilly upon this ad and being horrified and offended. Do you contend that politically partisan ads of any sort should be banned from newspapers and the airwaves? Would it not be different if Giuliani had placed his anti-Hillary ad?
Again, I'll agree that the target of MoveOn's ad was inappropriate and made the ad qua ad open to sharp criticism. But that is the most I can concede at this time.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JC
September 21, 2007 - 18:03 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
Well, in the case of NYT, how does one define success? The paper has been losing money for years, the stock price is at multi-year lows while the DJIA is close to an all-time high, and the paper has been shrinking in size. If you call that success, I hate to see your epitome of failure. :-)
As for unwitting tri-state denizens being shocked and offended by the Betray Us ad, I bet many were. Not everyone that subscribes to the Times is a Democrat and/or a liberal. There are many moderate to conservative tri-staters that get the Times either out of tradition or because they don't like the other papers in the region. As such, I wouldn't be at all surprised if as much as half of the readers found the ad inappropriate.
Understand that apart from the ten to fifteen percent of the population that is indeed far-left, most people don't have such a negative view of the military. In fact, if I was wrong, there wouldn't have been as many Democrats that supported yesterday's amendment by Cornyn. Think about it. ns
I'm not saying they weren't
September 21, 2007 - 18:40 ET by JasonCI'm not saying they weren't offended. I'm saying "too bad." As most conservatives are often quick to say, people don't have the right not to be offended if they choose to live in mainstream culture (ie read the Times or watch TV). With all due respect, I don't feel that you're addressing the particulars of my post.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JC
September 22, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
Which points did I gloss over that you wanted elaboration on? ns
Noel, I feel bad now for
September 22, 2007 - 12:36 ET by JasonCNoel,
I feel bad now for saying that, since you have already indulged me with some detailed responses. But I respect your input above most others, so here are the excerpts I'm curious about. Then I'll stop bugging you, I promise.
I do think that yesterday's vote was something of a gambit to put the burden of proof that this is not the case on Democrats.
partisan politics aside, I do not buy your argument about unwitting
tri-state area denizens stumbling willy-nilly upon this ad and being
horrified and offended. Do you contend that politically partisan ads of
any sort should be banned from newspapers and the airwaves? Would it
not be different if Giuliani had placed his anti-Hillary ad?
I'm not saying they weren't offended. I'm saying "too bad."
And to your comments about NYT losing money/readership, it's true, but I think that's symptomatic of larger trends, not the NYT per se. Bloggers, after all, may well make traditional journalism obsolete in the next generation. All I'm saying is that historically, in this perhaps-soon-to-be-antiquated industry, the Times has generally set the bar.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JC
September 22, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
Don't feel bad, and you're not bugging me. It's Saturday...chill. :-)
I think the give and take at a message board is interfering with us making our points understandable. Part of the problem for me is that I can't spend too much time at the boards for it gets in the way of writing and the rest of my life. So, I kind of come and go, and probably don't elaborate as well as I should. This will even likely happen now because I'm working on a rather extensive article at the moment.
That said, I don't think NYT or any newspaper should or can be prevented from publishing such an ad. That would clearly NOT be Constitutional. Media bias isn't a Constitutional concern. None of these outlets are violating the law by so obviously reporting in a fashion that helps Democrat candidates and causes while harming Republican ones. However, that doesn't prevent us from being outraged, and expressing it.
Yet, from NYT's perspective -- or any media outlet's -- shouldn't they be concerned about offending readers? I'm ALWAYS concerned about offending my clients in my real business, and walk a fine line with my writing to be similarly cautious. If NYT wants to stop the bleeding concerning losses, I'd think they'd want to do everything possible to be more sensitive to what they perceive is their market.
As a result, I don't ascribe all of NYT's problems to a shifting media marketplace. I think a lot of their problems can be tied to their political leanings and obviously biased reporting. You know, I seem to recall an article recently talking about how the New York Post's subscriptions are at an all-time high. This is the same market. Why is the Post expanding readership and the Times showing declines?
In fact, not all newspapers around the country are showing subscription decreases. As such, I don't think we can ascribe all of NYT's problems to the Internet. Make sense? ns
Noel, I hear you on the
September 22, 2007 - 13:19 ET by JasonCNoel,
I hear you on the "too busy to post regularly" angle. I definitely shouldn't spend as much time here as I do but, frankly, it's rewarding to get immediate feedback on a written piece, however glib or hurried.
On that note, I have to make this brief, as I need to devote my Saturday to one or two of five different projects that must be completed by Monday.
I think we're on the same page as far as NYTs' legal, financial and, perhaps, even moral footing. All of your points are excellent, but we are also drifting into a free market discussion...I'm sure if Sarcasmo reads this he will agree...to back up to the original discussion a bit, I wonder if you disagree with my remark that the senate vote to condemn MoveOn was essentially a tactic to put upon Democrats the burden of proof regading their fabled allegiance and obligation to MoveOn. We seem to be on similar ground regarding the overzealous language that has branded Hillary a traitor for making a statement which happened to vaguely evoke the ad.
I fear that I'm talking in circles now, and this pile of non-NB work that I should be attending to is almost literally calling my name, so I bid you good weekend and thank you for your thoughtful replies.
Best,
JC
P.S. I disagree that the Times and the Post necessarily compete for the same market. While there certainly may be some overlap in readership, that seems to me like comparing The Economist to US Weekly. Aesthetically, anyway...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Noel: "Yes." Jer
September 21, 2007 - 17:10 ET by JerNoel: "Yes." Jer
Jer
September 21, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Good. Then I don't understand your previous post that appears to equate statements made by Rush with ads published by the New York Times. Please advise. ns
Noel, please see my
September 21, 2007 - 18:30 ET by JerNoel, please see my response to fitzfong.
Thanks, Jer
To be honest, Jer, I don't
September 20, 2007 - 22:14 ET by fitzfongTo be honest, Jer, I don't think either Rush Limbaugh or MoveOn should be condemned by resolution (though I dare the Democrats to attempt such a resolution on Rush, there would be no squirming on the Republican side...even by Hagel, Lugar or Specter). And I don't believe MoveOn or Rush Limbaugh should apologize or retract what they've said. I think the statements of Rush Limbaugh and those of MoveOn should speak for themselves...so that the people can decide on their own which they find offensive and which they do not. I know which side I'd be more comfortable on.
Petraeus was honest, his
September 21, 2007 - 00:46 ET by wiwfPetraeus was honest, his report had not been given to any officials beforehand, he's the freakin' GENERAL of the army!!! What doesn't cry honesty here?!
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
No question, wiwf. All I'm
September 21, 2007 - 12:58 ET by fitzfongNo question, wiwf. All I'm saying is that in the cold light of day, Rush Limbaugh's statements are totally defensible (not only are they defensible, they're accurate). MoveOn's are totally indefensible. The MoveOn kooks have a much more difficult task defending the indefensible than I would have defending Rush Limbaugh.
fitz...since Noel's
September 21, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Jerfitz...since Noel's cross-examination limited my response to a one-word "yes" or "no", I hope you won't object to my taking this opportunity to amplify my earlier comment and also address the issues you raised.
I tend to agree with your unfavorable view of Congressional resolutions of this sort. Statements do speak for themselves, and the expression of Senatorial umbrage smacks of political stuntery. That's not to suggest I'm backing off from my previous assessment that it was "smart politics" by the Senate Republicans to go ahead and knock a home run with the ball MoveOn stupidly and naively teed up for them. [I commented on a "progressive" site that apparently in an effort to flex it's muscle and prove it could play hardball too, MoveOn unbelievably implied a four-star United States Army General of impeccable character is a traitor. Somewhere, Karl Rove was watching and laughing his ass off.]
It just pushes my buttons when honorable men who love this country have their patriotism questioned, and I sometimes tend to react viscerally instead of intellectually...thus prompting my remark recommending a tit-for-tat legislative counterplay by the Senate Dems.
If I can find the link, I want you to listen to the audio of Limbaugh going on a ten-minute, venom-spewing, table pounding tirade against Air Force veteran Tom Daschle two or three years ago after Daschle dared to voice some very mild criticism of Bush's foreign policy. This wasn't an "ad" by a political action group. It was character assassination by a conservative icon with an audience of millions who tune into his show for the "news" and the "truth", who practically has his own key to the White House, and has been made an honorary member of the Republican Congress. That's why I answered "yes" to Noel's question.
Jer
Jer, if you find that clip,
September 21, 2007 - 21:19 ET by fitzfongJer, if you find that clip, I'll be happy to listen to it. I would, however, slightly disagree with you regarding your characterization of the Rush show. As a regular listener, I do not tune into the program to get a rundown of the news...that's what the cable news channels are for. In a way, I see his show as something of a social engagement (I better be careful the way I phrase that lest I give the impression that I don't have a social life...2-1/2 years married, no complaints). I find Limbaugh very entertaining and funny...and he doesn't take himself too seriously. Most of all, I tune into Rush Limbaugh because it's good to hear someone in the media who has a similar point-of-view...and who can articulate those views clearly and with great humor. I don't really care for Hannity, Laura Ingraham or Michael Savage...none of them are as entertaining as Rush. But I must admit that I do enjoy Mark Levin.
fitz: just got back home
September 22, 2007 - 04:54 ET by Jerfitz: just got back home and will look for the audio link to Limbaugh. Must concede one has to respect what the man has accomplished over the past 15 yrs. or so, but I do have friends who are Limbaugh devotees who rely on him for their primary news source. In fact, I read years ago that Clarence Thomas, in lieu of watching network news, regularly tapes Limbaugh and listens later on.
I like Laura Ingraham, believe Savage should be exiled to some 500 watt radio shed near the Arctic circle, and Levin...just can't deal with that whiny voice. Hannity gets on my nerves. Wish Tony Snow's health would allow his return. I've developed a lot of respect for him.
Married 2-1/2 years? fitz, that still qualifies as 'newlywed' status in my book. But glad to hear it's going well. Good luck to you both.
Jer
fitz...try this link:
September 22, 2007 - 04:47 ET by Jerfitz...try this link: http://mfile.akamai.... It should open a page on the spinsanity website; then scroll down a few paragraphs and click on the Windows Media Player link. The audio clip is about 11 1/2 minutes. If you want to shorten it, jump to around the 6 minute mark. Let me know if you have a problem opening file. I did, but I think it may have been due to my already having it saved in my WMP library.
Jer
Apparently that link goes directly to download menu, but I'm still having a problem opening it. Let me know if you have better luck. Thanks, Jer
Jer, I got some strange
September 22, 2007 - 16:10 ET by fitzfongJer, I got some strange Windows Media Player error message on my computer. Not being too technologically savvy, I'm not sure what it meant. I may try it on my wife's computer later on. Please understand, I'm not attempting to duck the question, I'd honestly like to hear this clip to hear what you're referring to.
Cheer,
-fitz
fitz, I kept getting what
September 22, 2007 - 21:07 ET by Jerfitz, I kept getting what most probably is the same error message you're seeing. Must have downloaded from some other link...will keep looking.
I suppose I could transcribe the clip, but it would be difficult, and lengthy. [Plus, it just wouldn't convey the same sense of snarling bluster as Limbaugh's audio.]
Jer
fitz, now I'm really
September 22, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Jerfitz, now I'm really confused. As indicated, I had previously downloaded the audio and saved it in WMP Library. So I opened it, clicked on "Properties" in the Now Playing menu and eureka! it gave me what surely must be the correct web address (which was almost but not quite the same as the other link). But, before posting the updated reply to you, I tried opening the new link just to verify it, and I got the same blasted error message that you and I had been getting before. I don't know what's going on. Here's the new one. Try it, but I'm not optimistic.
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akmai.com/5020/clips/02/11/111502_4_daschleIII.asx
Jer
Jer, no luck here,
September 23, 2007 - 00:31 ET by fitzfongJer, no luck here, either. I guess we'll keep plugging away...
-Fitz
O.K. fitz, I think I've got
September 23, 2007 - 03:20 ET by JerO.K. fitz, I think I've got it. Click on
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021120.html/
scroll about half way down the page and click on the words "extended rant". [That opened my WMP and automatically launched the audio.] Hope it works for you.
Jer
Thanks, Jer. I finally got
September 23, 2007 - 14:28 ET by fitzfongThanks, Jer. I finally got a chance to hear the entire 11+ minute clip. You may, however, be disappointed to discover that I don't find anything in Rush Limbaugh's statement to disagree with. Let me start by saying that I was unaware of former Senator Daschle's military service until you brought it up. That said, his military service does not give him a lifetime excuse for his conduct while in the Senate. Rush Limbaugh was right, under the Clinton Administration, the Democrats failed to deal with the threat of Bin Laden and eagerly stripped the military. They made us more vulnerable to attack and made conditions more difficult for the military to conduct an immediate response...all in an effort to placate their anti-military base. Besides failing to respond to the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers, the Clinton Administration with support from Daschle and friends allowed Bin Laden to be released. They also tied the hands of Intelligence and the Bush Administration by erecting the Gorelick Wall. Then, having effectively laid the foundation for the 9-11 attacks during the Clinton Administration, Daschle appealed to the people who felt Florida 2000 was a bigger tragedy than 9-11-2001. He started playing politics with the war for the sole purpose of adding further Democrat seats to both houses of Congress. The preservation of party power became more important than the security of this nation...and the only way for Daschle to capitalize was to blame the Bush Administration for Clinton Administration failures. The Wellstone Memorial, which should have paid respects to a fallen colleague, turned into a disingenuous, mean-spirited, farcical pep rally...all under Daschle's watch. If you don't think Daschle and company were more interested in the fortunes of the Democrat Party than in the safety and security of this country, why do you suppose Jamie Gorelick was put on the 9-11 committee as a panelist rather than as a witness? Why did Daschle and crew come to the most pathetic of defenses for that thief Sandy Berger? Oh, Berger wasn't a treasonous thief trying to cover up for the Clinton Administration, he was just sloppy. Puhleeze! I'm sorry, Jer, but Rush Limbaugh says nothing out-of-line in this clip. Tom Daschle may have had an honorable military career, but he had a highly dubious and dishonorable political career...and the distinction needs to be made.
This is the same clown who
September 21, 2007 - 08:22 ET by danybhoyThis is the same clown who used to get his butt kicked every night on CNN's Crossfire years ago. He still comes across as the same little puke as he always was, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
BTW, I remember O'Reilly just slapped him around during an open on air fight they were having. He still has'nt learned anything from it.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin